Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Variability of Some Soil Physical Properties on Semi-Arid Cultivated Hillslopes in Hydropedological Perspective

  • SOIL CHEMISTRY
  • Published:
Eurasian Soil Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydropedology bridges hydrology to pedology, and hillslope hydropedology is central in understanding soil-topography-hydropedology interrelations. Many of soil physical properties have a deterministic control on hydropedological processes. This study aimed to evaluate spatial coupling between hydropedology and some soil physical variables on a sloping landscape, which has been under rainfed wheat cultivation for over 70 years. Twenty-nine soil profiles were open and described on topslope, shoulder, backslope, footslope, and toeslope positions on hillslopes oriented in different directions. In total, 486 soil samples were taken from A, B, and C horizons at 174 sampling points and analyzed for soil properties of wilting point, organic matter content, electrical conductivity, pH, and CaCO3 content. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and infiltration rate were measured in the field during the sampling. Spatial variability of soil physical properties was analyzed by semivariograms. Soil horizonation was the most important factor controlling spatial structure of soil attributes in the study area. Majority of the semivariograms were horizon-specific in shape, geostatistical range, and spatial continuity. Many of the soil properties were strongly spatially dependent in the B horizon with a far greater geostatistical range compared to those in the A and the C horizon, suggesting that processes controlling the coupling hydropedology with soil physics were more strongly spatially dependent and continues in the B horizon than either in the A or the C horizon. The results indicated complex soil physics-hydropedology spatial coupling, which vigorously mediated by soil horizonation in the study area. More research is needed to disentangle the multitude spatial interplay of hydropedology drivers of soil, hydrology, and topography across different soil and topographic settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. N. Baggaley, T. Mayr, and P. Bellamy, “Identification of key soil and terrain properties that influence the spatial variability of soil moisture throughout the growing season,” Soil Use Manage. 25, 262–273 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. E. Brooks, J. Boll, and P. McDaniel, “Hydropedology in seasonally dry landscapes: the Palouse region of the Pacific Northwest USA,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier B.V., Waltham, 2012), pp 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00002-2

  3. C. A. Cambardella, T. Moorman, J. Novak, T. Parkin, D. Karlen, R. Turco, et al., “Field-scale variability of central Iowa soils,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1501–1511 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800050033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. J. B. Campbell, “Spatial variation of sand content and pH within single contiguous delineations of two soil mapping units,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 460–464 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Cassel and D. Nielsen, “Field capacity and available water capacity,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Ed. by A. Klute (American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 1986), pp. 901–926.

  6. A. R. Dexter, “Soil physical quality part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth,” Geoderma 120, 201–214 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. S. Diek, A. Temme, and A. Teuling, “The effect of spatial soil variation on the hydrology of a semi-arid rocky mountains catchment,” Geoderma 235–236, 113–126 (2014).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.06.028

  8. S. Erşahin, “Comparing ordinary kriging and cokriging to estimate infiltration rate,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 1848–1855 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Ersahin and A. R. Brohi, “Spatial variation of soil water content in topsoil and subsoil of a Typic Ustifluvent,” Agric. Water Manage. 83, 79–86 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. G. Gee and J. Bauder, “Particle-size analysis,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Ed. by A. Klute (American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 1986), pp. 383–411.

  11. L. B. Gregory, S. Grunwald, T. Z. Osborne, K. R. Reddy, and S. Newman, “Spatial distribution of soil properties in Water Conservation Area 3 of the Everglades,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1662–1676 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Hallett, N. Nunan, J. Douglas, and I. Young, “Millimeter-scale spatial variability in soil water sorptivity: scale, surface elevation, and subcritical repellency effects,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 352–358 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.3520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Hillel, Environmental Soil Physics: Fundamentals, Applications, and Environmental Considerations (Academic Press, Waltham, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Iqbal, J. Thomasson, J. Jenkins, P. Owens, and F. Whisler, “Spatial variability analysis of soil physical properties of alluvial soils,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 1338–1350 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Isaaks and E. Srivastava, An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics (Oxfort University Press, New York, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Iyigun, M, Türkeş, I. Batmaz, C. Yozgatligil, V. Purutçuoǧlu, E. K. Koç, et al., “Clustering current climate regions of Turkey by using a multivariate statistical method,” Theor. Appl. Climatol. 114, 95–106 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0823-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. G. Karahan and S. Erşahin, “Relating macropore flow to soil parametric and morphological variables,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81, 1014–1024 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.10.0327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. P. Krasilnikov, “Variography of discrete soil properties,” in Soil Geography and Geostatistics, Ed. by P. Krasilnikov et al. (European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Luxemburg, 2008), pp. 12–25. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0177

  19. A. N. Kravchenko, “Influence of spatial structure on accuracy of interpolation methods,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 1564–1571 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. M. Kutílek and D. Nielsen, “Interdisciplinarity of hydropedology,” Geoderma 138, 252–260 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. H. Lin, “Hydropedology: towards new insights into interactive pedologic and hydrologic processes across scales,” J. Hydrol. 406, 141–145 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. H. Lin, “Understanding soil architecture and its functional manifestation across scales,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier B.V., Waltham, 2012), pp. 41–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00002-2

  23. H. Lin, “Hydropedology: addressing fundamentals and building bridges to understand complex pedologic and hydrologic interactions,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier B.V., Waltham, 2012), pp. 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00002-2.

  24. H. Lin, J. Bouma, Y. Pachepsky, A. Western, J. Thompson, and R. van Genuchten, “Hydropedology: synergistic integration of pedology and hydrology,” Water Resour. Res. 42, 1–13 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. H. Lin, W. Kogelmann, C. Walker, and M. Bruns, “Soil moisture patterns in a forested catchment: a hydropedological perspective,” Geoderma 131, 345–368 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. H. S. Lin, J. J. Mcdonnell, J. R. Nimmo, and Y. A. Pachepsky, “Preface hydropedology: synergistic integration of soil science and hydrology in the critical zone,” Hydrol Processes 29, 4559–4561 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. R. Log, “Guelph permeameter measurements of hydraulic conductivity,” Questa Rock Pile Stability Study SOP 71 (2), 1–6 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Y. Ma, X. Li, L. Guo, and H. Lin, “Hydropedology: interactions between pedologic and hydrologic processes across spatiotemporal scales,” Earth-Sci. Rev. 171, 181–195 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. E. McLean, “Soil pH and lime requirement,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties, 2nd ed., Ed. by A. L. Page et al. (American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 1982), pp. 199–224.

  30. H. Millán, A. M. Tarquís, L. D. Pérez, J. Mato, and M. González-Posada, “Spatial variability patterns of some vertisol properties at a field scale using standardized data,” Soil Tillage Res. 120, 76–84 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. D. J. Mulla and A. B. McBratney, “Soil spatial variability,” in Soil Physics Companion, Ed. by A. W. Warrick (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2002), pp. 343–373.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D. Nelson and L. Sommers, “Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2 Chemical and Microbial Properties, 2nd ed., Ed. By A.L. Page et al. (American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 1982), pp. 539–579.

  33. R. E. Nelson, “Carbonate and gypsum,” in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties, 2nd ed., Ed. by A. L. Page et al. (American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 1982), pp. 181–196.

  34. J. Nicolas, J. Moeys, J. Koestel, and J. Hollis. “Preferential flow in a pedological perspective,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier V.V., Waltham, 2012), pp. 75–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00002-2

  35. Y. Pachepsky, W. Rawls, and H. Lin, “Hydropedology and pedotransfer functions,” Geoderma 131, 308–316 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. K. Perroux and L. White, “Designs for disc permeameters,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 1205–1215 (1988). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1988.03615995005200050001x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. W. J. Rawls, Y. Pachepsky, and M. H. Shen, “Testing soil water retention estimation with the MUUF pedotransfer model using data from the southern United States,” J. Hydrol. 257 (3–4), 177–185 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00467-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. C. M. Regalado and A. Ritter, “Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of soil water repellency parameters in a laurel forest watershed,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1071–1081 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. W. Reynolds and D. Elrick, “Determination of hydraulic conductivity using a tension infiltrometer,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53, 633–639 (1991). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500030001x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. M. Rinderer and J. Seibert, “Soil information in hydrologic models: hard data, soft data, and the dialog between experimentalists and modelers,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier B.V., Waltham, 2012), pp. 515–536.

    Google Scholar 

  41. T. J. Sauer and D. W. Meek, “Spatial variation of plant-available phosphorus in pastures with contrasting management,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 826–836 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.8260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. P. Schoeneberger, D. Wysocki, and E. Benham, Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (Natl. Soil Surv. Ctr., Lincoln, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  43. S. S. Staff, Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. (USDA, Washington D.C, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. Thompson, S. Roecker, S. Grunwald, and R. Ovens, “Digital soil mapping: interactions with and applications for hydropedology,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. S. Lin (Elsevier B.V, Waltham, 2012), pp. 665–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00001-0

  45. J. Tol, P. Le Roux, and S. Lorentz, “The science of hydropedology. Linking soil morphology with hydrological processes,” Water Wheel 16 (3), 20–22 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. B. B. Trangmar, R. Yost, and G. Uehara, “Application of geostatistics to spatial studies of soil properties,” Adv. Agron. 38, 45–94 (1985). https://doi.org/org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60673-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. W. van der Meij, A. Temme, H. Lin, H. Gerke, and M. Sommer, “On the role of hydrologic processes in soil and landscape evolution modeling: concepts, complications and partial solutions,” Earth-Sci. Rev. 185, 1088–1106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. R. Webster, “Statistics to support soil research and their presentation,” Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52, 330–340 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2001.00383.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. J. Wu, W. Norvell, D. Hopkins, and R. Welch, “Spatial variability of grain cadmium and soil characteristics in a durum wheat field,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 268–275 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.2680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Y. Zhao, J. Tang, C. Graham, Q. Zhu, K. Takagi, and H. Lin, “Hydropedology in the ridge and valley: soil moisture patterns and preferential flow dynamics in two contrasting landscapes,” in Hydropedology, Ed. by H. Lin (Elsevier B.V., Waltham, 2012), pp. 381–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386941-8.00002-2

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. Ülkü Yılmaz for her help with soil sampling and analysis and Dr. Bayram C. Bilgili for his help with Fig. 1.

Funding

This study was financially supported by Çankırı Karatekin University with the project ID: ÇAKÜ BAP-090316D01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Engineering, School of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18200, Çankırı, Turkey

    S. S. Kavaklıgil

  2. Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Iğdır, 76000, Iğdır, Turkey

    S. Erşahin

Authors
  1. S. S. Kavaklıgil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Erşahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Erşahin.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kavaklıgil, S.S., Erşahin, S. Spatial Variability of Some Soil Physical Properties on Semi-Arid Cultivated Hillslopes in Hydropedological Perspective. Eurasian Soil Sc. 56, 715–726 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229323700151

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229323700151

Keywords:

Search

Navigation