Influence of sample area location on geopedology approach results in soil mapping: case study of Miyaneh area, Azarbayejan-e-Sharghi province
Subject Areas : Agroecology Journal
Naser Nazari
1
(. Ph.D. Student, Department of Soil Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.)
Shahla Mahmoodi
2
(Prof. and Assistant Prof., respectively, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.)
Mohammad Hasan Masihabadi
3
(Prof. and Assistant Prof., respectively, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.)
Keywords: geomorphic surfaces, field operations, generalization area, soil map, soil survey, landform,
Abstract :
Geopedology allows a systematic approach in geomorphic analysis for soil mapping that extrapolates the results obtained in sample areas up to similar units in the field operations. Due to the unknown accuracy of the maps created by geopedologiy approach in the large scales, this paper examines the location of sample area in order to determine the amount of credibility for generalization of geopedological approach results for similar landforms in Miyaneh region, Azarbayejan-e-Sharghi province. After the initial interpretation of the study area on aerial photos with scale of 1:20000, a geomorphic unit that encompassed the maximum surface of the sample area (and also the study area namely Pi122) was selected and was surveyed. The sample area was designed in three different locations and five soil profile intervals of approximately 150 m in this unit (a total of 15 profiles), were excavated, described and sampled. The credibility of generalization for geopedological approach results for the studied unit was tested by comparison with three profiles in a similar unit (a total of nine profiles) outside the sample area, named the validation area. This soil map completed in the framework of second-order soil surveys. The results showed that change of sample area location resulted in differences in taxonomic levels (order, subgroup, and soil family) and map unit types (complex and consociation) for HPu211 unit. Therefore, in order to increase the accuracy of the geopedological results, the use of landform phases and also phases of soil families and/or series for each landform phases is recommended.
Anonymous (2010) Keys to soil taxonomy (11th ed.). Soil Survey Staff NRCS, USDA, 338 pp.
Barbercheck ME, Neher DA, Anas O, El-Allaf SM, Weicht TR (2008) Response of invertebrates to disturbance across three resource regions in North Carolina. Environmental Monitiring and Assessment, Online publication. DOI 10. 1007/s 10661- 008-0315-5.
Dent D, Young A (1981) Soil survey and land evaluation. Georg Allen and Unwin Pub., London.
Eftekhari K, Moameni A, Esfandiari M, Pazira A (2011) Sensitivity of soil resources to degradation caused by human activities in Abhar-Khorramdarreh plain based on combining geopelogic and glasood approaches. Journal of Soil Researchers (Soil and Water Sciences) 25 (2): 27-39.
Esfandiarpoor Borujeni I, Salehi MH, Toomanian N, Mohammadi J (2009) The Effect of location of sample area and expert knowledge on the geopedological approach in soil mapping (A case study: Borujen area, Chaharmahal-Va-Bakhtiari Province). Water and Soil Science 49: 66-79.
Farshad A (1997) Analysis of integrated soil and water management practices within different agricultural systems under semi-arid conditions of Iran and evaluation of their sustainability. PhD. Thesis, Gent University, Belgium.
Farshad A, Udomsri S, Hansakdi E, Shrestha DP (2006) GIS-based geopedology: a way to predictive soil mapping: poster. Presented at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science WCSS: Frontiers of Soil Science, Technology and the Information Age, 9-15 July, Philadelphia, USA.
Moemeni A (1999) Soil quality changes under long term wheat cultivation in the Marvdasht plain, south-central Iran. Ph. D. dissertation, Gent University, Gent Belgium, 284 pp.
Nayanaka VGD, Vitharana WAU, Mapa RB (2010) Geostatical analysis of soil properties to support spatial sampling in a paddy growing alfisols. Tropical Agricultural Research 22 (1): 34-44.
Rossiter DG (2000) Lecture notes and reference methodology for soil resource inventories. 2 nd Revised Version. Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), Enschede, the Netherlands. 132 p.
Rossiter DG, Girma A, Henneman R, Siderus W (2001) Summary of investigation, 1997-2000 by ITC. Technical Report, ITC. Soil Science Division, the Netherlands, 31 pp.
Salehi J (1994) Application of remote sensing and geographic information systems for evaluation of soil and water resources for development planning in the Hamadan-Bahar plain, Hamadan Province, Iran. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands.
Sarma VAK (2006) Mapping of the Soil. Science Publishers, NH, USA, 411 pp.
Schoenberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Benham EC, Broderson WD (2012) Field book for describing and sampling soils (3nd ed.). Natural resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, 228 pp.
Shakeri S, Pashaei A, Moameni A (2008) Semi-detailed soil survey for boosting land suitability classification in Aq Qaleh area, using a geopedologic approach. Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences 14 (5): 23-37.
Shepande C (2002) Soil and land use types in the lake Neivasha basin, Kenya, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands, 106 pp.
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. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, the Netherlands.
Western S (1978) Soil survey contracts and quality control. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.
Zinck JA (1989) Physiography and soils. Lecture-notes for soil students. Soil Science Division. Soil survey courses subject matter, K6 ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.
_||_