Performance of geopedology approach in mapping of agricultural soils within Aidoghmoush dam downstream lands in Miyaneh, Iran

Subject Areas :

Naser Nazari ¹ (PhD of Soil Science Department College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Miyaneh Branch Islamic Azad University Miyaneh, Iran)
Shahla Mahmoodi ² (Professor of Soil Science Department Tehran University and Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University Tehran, Iran)
Mohammad Hasan Masihabadi ³ (Assistant Professor Soil and Water Research Institute and Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2014-10-04 Accepted : 2016-03-08 Published : 2016-05-21

Keywords: o generalization area, o geomorphic surfaces, o landform, o sample area, o soil diversity, o soil map,

Abstract :

ABSTRACT    The geopedological method is one of the systematic methods for analyzing geomorphic surfaces in soil mapping in which field work is mainly based on work in the sample area. This research intended to investigate the degree of validity generalization of results obtained in the geopedological method for similar landforms in the Miyaneh region of East Azarbaijan Province. For this purpose, soil diversity study was conducted through measuring it in a hierarchical sequence in USDA soil taxonomy levels and by comparing similar units in the geopedological method through employing diversity and similarity indices. After preparing the initial interpretative map (based on aerial photographs) at a scale of 1:20000, the HPu211 unit that covered the greatest delineation of study area was selected and 15 soil profiles, about 150 meters apart, were excavated, described, and sampled in this unit. The degree of validity generalization of geopedological results for the mentioned unit was determined by digging nine other soil profiles in a similar unit, called the generalization area, which was located outside of the sample area. Results indicated the value of Shannon’s diversity index increased from the level of soil order to soil family in both the sample and the generalization areas; however, only at the soil family level were there significant differences between soil diversity in the two areas at the confidence level of 95%. Even by changing the understanding level, and through concentrating on the sequence of genetic horizons in the excavated profiles in the sample and generalization areas, increased soil diversity in the soil taxonomic hierarchy was proved. Therefore, it is recommended that landform phases be used, and soil family phase and/or soil series phase be determined for each landform phase, to increase the accuracy of the geopedological method.

References:

References

1. Anonymous (1993) Soil Survey Manual, Soil Survey Staff, Handbook 18, Government printing Office Publishers, Washington DC.


2. Anonymous (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy (12^th edition) Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska.


3. Dent D, Young A (1981) Soil survey and land evaluation. Georg Allen and Unwin Publishers: London.


4. Esfandiarpoor Borujeni I, Toomanian N, Salehi M H Mohammadi J (2009) Assessing Geopedological Soil Mapping Using Diversity and Similarity Indices (A case study: Borujen area, Chaharmahal-Va-Bakhtiari Province). Journal of Water and Soil 23(4): 100-114. [in Persian with English abstract]


5. Guo Y, Gong P, Amundson R (2003) Pedodiversity in the United States of America. Geoderma 117: 99-115.


6. Hutcheson K (1970) a test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Journal of Theoritical Biology 29: 151-154.


7. Ibanez JJ, De Alba S, Bermudes FF, Garsia-Alvarez A (1995) Pedodiversity: concepts and measurements. Catena 24: 215-232.


8. Ibanez JJ, De Alba S, lobo A, Zucarello V (1998) Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarse scales (with discussion). Geoderma 83: 171-214.


9. Maguran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.

10. McBratney AB, Minasny B (2007) On measuring pedodiversity. Geoderma. 141: 149-154.

11. Rossiter, DG (2000) Lecture notes and reference methodology for soil resource inventories. Secondrevised version, Institute for aerospace survey and earth sciences (International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation), Enschede.

12. Rossiter DG, Girma A, Henneman R, Siderus W ( 2001) Summary of investigation, 1997-2000 by ITC. Technical report, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation.  Soil Science Division, Netherlands, 31pp.

13. Saldana A, Ibanez JJ (2004) Pdodiversity analysis at large scales: An example of there fluvial terrain of the Henares River (Central Spain)  Geoderma 62: 123-138.

14. Schoenberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Benham EC, Broderson WD (2012) Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (3^rd edition.)  Natural resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

15. Sharma VAk (2006) Mapping of the Soil. Science Publishers: New Hampshire.

16. Toomanian N, Jalalian A, Khademi H, Eghbal Mk, Papritz A (2006) Pedodiversity and pedogenesis in Zayandeh-rud valley, Central Iran. Geomorphology 81: 376-393.

17. Udomsri S (2006) Application of computer assisted geopedology to predictive soil mapping and its use in assessing soil erosion prone areas: a case study of Doi Ang Khang, Ang Khang Royal Agricultural Station, Thailand. Master Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.

18. Western S (1978) Soil survey contracts and quality control. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England.

19. Wolda H (1981) Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50: 296-302.

20. Zhu JX, Hudson B, Burt J, Lubich K, Simonson D (2001) Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge and fuzzy logic, Soil Science Society of American  Journal 65: 1463-1472.

21. Zinck JA (1989) Physiography and soils, Lecture notes for soil students. Soil Science Division, Soil survey courses subject matter, K6 ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.