Obtaining soil and land quality indicators using research chains and geostatistical methods

被引:15
|
作者
Hoosbeek, MR [1 ]
Bouma, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Agr Univ Wageningen, Dept Soil Sci & Geol, Wageningen, Netherlands
关键词
geostatistics; land quality; research chain; scale; soil quality indicators; variability;
D O I
10.1023/A:1009722430454
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Soil and land quality indicators play an important role in the assessment and evaluation of soil and land quality. In contrast with the general definitions of soil and land quality, working with indicators demands a better awareness of at which scale level measurements were made, at which scale calculations and models were developed and validated, and at which scale answers are needed. We propose that soil and land quality indicators may be classified by three characteristics: 1) scale level, 2) complexity, and 3) transferability. Each characteristic is represented by an axis in the Soil and Land Quality Indicator Diagram. Indicators with a high complexity can not be measured directly, but need to be calculated with one or more models, eg. pedotransfer functions and hydrological simulation models. For the application of the indicator it is then important to know how the indicator value was obtained, i.e. which models were used. A specific sequence of models used for obtaining an indicator value is called a 'research chain' and is indicated in the Scale Hierarchy and Knowledge Type Diagram. The use of research chains allows the user to consider and evaluate alternative options for the assessment of a specific indicator. In this study values for three soil quality indicators were obtained through two alternative research chains. The research chains differed by the choice of used pedotransfer functions and soil hydrological models. The two research chains yielded for each of the three indicators two sets of thirty year averages for 166 locations in the study area. Per location the obtained indicator values were compared with a t-test. The research chains were found to yield significantly different values for all three indicators. The spatial and temporal variability of the data was analyzed for each step, i.e. per model, along both research chains. Alternative models yielded different spatial and temporal variability structures. Therefore, the choice of research chain not only affects the mean value of an indicator, but also the associated spatial and temporal variability structure. Knowledge of the spatial and temporal variability is important for upscaling purposes. Based on these results we conclude that the successful application of soil and land quality indicators depends on: 1) the definition of suitable indicators based on scale level, complexity, and transferability; 2) the careful selection and definition of research chains; and 3) the combined presentation of indicator values and used research chains.
引用
收藏
页码:35 / 50
页数:16
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [21] Use of Soil and Litter Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as Biological Indicators of Soil Quality Under Different Land Uses in Southern Rwanda
    Venuste, Nsengimana
    Beth, Kaplin A.
    Frederic, Francis
    Lombart, Kouakou M. Maurice
    Wouter, Dekoninck
    Donat, Nsabimana
    ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, 2018, 47 (06) : 1394 - 1401
  • [22] Determination of agricultural soil index using geostatistical analysis and GIS on land consolidation projects: A case study in Konya/Turkey
    Uyan, Mevlut
    COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTURE, 2016, 123 : 402 - 409
  • [23] Quality Evaluation of Groundwater Resources using Geostatistical Methods (Case Study: Central Lorestan Plain, Iran)
    Safarbeiranvnd, Maryam
    Amanipoor, Hakimeh
    Battaleb-Looie, Sedigheh
    Ghanemi, Kamal
    Ebrahimi, Behrouz
    WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 2018, 32 (11) : 3611 - 3628
  • [24] Quality Evaluation of Groundwater Resources using Geostatistical Methods (Case Study: Central Lorestan Plain, Iran)
    Maryam Safarbeiranvnd
    Hakimeh Amanipoor
    Sedigheh Battaleb-Looie
    Kamal Ghanemi
    Behrouz Ebrahimi
    Water Resources Management, 2018, 32 : 3611 - 3628
  • [25] Integrating no-tillage with agroforestry augments soil quality indicators in Kenya's dry-land agroecosystems
    Kisaka, M. Oscar
    Shisanya, Chris
    Cournac, Laurent
    Manlay, Raphael J.
    Gitari, Harun
    Muriuki, Jonathan
    SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2023, 227
  • [26] A methodology for estimating soil quality indicators in agricultural systems using UAV and machine learning
    Diaz-Gonzalez, Freddy A.
    Correa-Florez, Carlos A.
    Vuelvas, Jose
    Vallejo, Victoria E.
    Patino, D.
    2022 12TH WORKSHOP ON HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGING AND SIGNAL PROCESSING: EVOLUTION IN REMOTE SENSING (WHISPERS), 2022,
  • [27] Assessment of Soil Moisture in Vegetation Regions of Mu Us Sandy Land Using Several Aridity Indicators
    Ren, Jie
    Zheng, Hexiang
    Wang, Jun
    Tong, Changfu
    Tian, Delong
    Lu, Haiyuan
    Liang, Dong
    ATMOSPHERE, 2024, 15 (11)
  • [28] Biofunctool®: a new framework to assess the impact of land management on soil quality. Part A: concept and validation of the set of indicators
    Thoumazeau, Alexis
    Bessou, Cecile
    Renevier, Marie-Sophie
    Trap, Jean
    Marichal, Raphael
    Mareschal, Louis
    Decaens, Thibaud
    Bottinelli, Nicolas
    Jaillard, Benoit
    Chevallier, Tiphaine
    Suvannang, Nopmanee
    Sajjaphan, Kannika
    Thaler, Philippe
    Gay, Frederic
    Brauman, Alain
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2019, 97 : 100 - 110
  • [29] Using present and past climosequences to estimate soil organic carbon and related physical quality indicators under future climatic conditions
    Pellegrini, S.
    Agnelli, A. E.
    Andrenelli, M. C.
    Barbetti, R.
    Lo Papa, G.
    Priori, S.
    Costantini, E. A. C.
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 266 : 17 - 30
  • [30] Canadian agri-environmental indicators related to land quality: integrating census and biophysical data to estimate soil cover, wind erosion and soil salinity
    Huffman, E
    Eilers, RG
    Padbury, G
    Wall, G
    MacDonald, KB
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2000, 81 (02) : 113 - 123