Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 18, pp 18672–18683 | Cite as

Characterizing scale-specific environmental factors affecting soil organic carbon along two landscape transects

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is one of the most important soil properties affecting many other soil and environmental properties and processes. In order to understand and manage SOC effectively, it is important to identify the scale-specific main factors affecting SOC distributions, which in this study occurred in a watershed on the Loess Plateau. Two transects were selected that passed along the upper slopes on each side of the main gully of the Liudaogou watershed. Transect 1 (3411-m length) had 27 sampling sites at 131-m intervals; transect 2 (3597 m length) had 30 sampling sites at 124-m intervals. The two transects were chosen in order to compare landscape patterns of differing complexity that were in close proximity, which reduced the effects of factors that would be caused by different locations. The landscape of transect 1 was more complex due to the greater diversity in cultivation. Multivariate empirical mode decomposition (MEMD) decomposed the total variation in SOC and five selected environmental factors into four intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) and a residual according to the scale of occurrence. Scale-specific correlation analysis was used to identify significant relationships between SOC and the environmental factors. The dominant scales were those that were the largest contributors to the total SOC variance; for transect 1, this was the IMF 1 (scale of 403 m), whereas for transect 2, it was the medium scale of the IMF 2 (scale of 688 m). For both transects, vegetation properties (vegetation cover and aboveground biomass) were the main factors affecting SOC distributions at their respective dominant scales. At each scale, the main effective factors could be identified although at the larger scales, their contributions to the overall variance were almost negligible. The distributions of SOC and the factors affecting it were found to be scale dependent. The results of this study highlighted the suitability of the MEMD method in revealing the main scale-specific factors that affect SOC distributions, which is necessary in understanding and managing this important soil property.

Keywords

Multivariate empirical mode decomposition Scale Soil organic carbon Landscape pattern Vegetation cover Aboveground biomass Spatial variance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and are grateful for the financial support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China through grant no. 41471180, the Open Funding Project (no. JXSB201304) of Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Prevention (Jiangxi Institute of Soil and Water Conservation), the Excellent Creative Talents Support Program of Hohai University, by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2015B14814), and by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

References

  1. Cubera E, Moreno G (2007) Effect of land-use on soil water dynamic in dehesas of Central-Western Spain. Catena 71:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hu W, Si BC (2013) Soil water prediction based on its scale-specific control using multivariate empirical mode decomposition. Geoderma 193–194:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hu W, Biswas A, Si BC (2014) Application of multivariate empirical mode decomposition for revealing scale-and season-specific time stability of soil water storage. Catena 113:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Huang NE, Shen Z, Long SR, Wu MC, Shih HH, Zheng Q, Yen NC, Tung CC, Liu HH (1998) The empirical mode decomposition and Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proc Roy Soc London A – Math Phy 454:903–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Liu ZP, Shao MA, Wang YQ (2012) Estimating soil organic carbon across a large-scale region: a state-space modeling approach. Soil Sci 177:607–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu QJ, Shi ZH, Fang NF, Zhu HD, Ai L (2013) Modeling the daily suspended sediment concentration in a hyperconcentrated river on the Loess Plateau, China, using the Wavelet-ANN approach. Geomorphology 186:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marchetti A, Piccini C, Francaviglia R, Mabit L (2012) Spatial distribution of soil organic matter using geostatistics: a key indicator to assess soil degradation status in Central Italy. Pedosphere 22:230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meersmans J, De Ridder F, Canters F, De Baets S, Van Molle MA (2008) Multiple regression approach to assess the spatial distribution of soil organic carbon (SOC) at the regional scale (Flanders, Belgium). Geoderma 143:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) ‘Methods of soil analysis. Part 2’. Agronomy Monograph, Vol. 9. 2nd ed., ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, pp 534-580Google Scholar
  10. Nielsen DR, Bouma J (1985) Soil spatial variability. Pudoc Wageningen, 2-30Google Scholar
  11. Rehman N, Mandic DP (2009) http://www.commsp.ee.ic.ac.uk/mandic/research/emd.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. Rehman N, Mandic DP (2010) Multivariate empirical mode decomposition. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 466:1291–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rial M, Martínez Cortizas A, Rodríguez-Lado L (2015) A novel approach to map soil organic carbon content using spectroscopic and environmental data. Procedia Environmental Sciences 27:49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rose CW (1985) Developments in soil erosion and deposition models. Advances in Soil Science 2:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rossi J, Govaerts A, De VB, Verbist B, Vervoort A, Poesen J, Muys B, Deckers J (2009) Spatial structures of soil organic carbon in tropical forests—a case study of Southeastern Tanzania. Catena 77:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. She DL, Shao MA (2009) Spatial variability of soil organic C and total N in a small catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B- Soil and Plant Science 59:514–524Google Scholar
  17. She DL, Liu DD, Peng SZ, Shao MA (2013) Multi-scale influences of soil factors on soil water content distribution in a watershed on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Soil Sci 178(10):530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. She DL, Liu DD, Xia YQ, Shao MA (2014a) Modeling effects of land use and vegetation density on soil water dynamics: implications on water resource management. Water Resources Management 28:2063–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. She DL, Tang SQ, Shao MA, Yu SE, Xia YQ (2014b) Characterizing scale specific depth persistence of soil water content along two landscape transects. J Hydrol 519:1149–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. She D, Zheng J, Shao MA, Timm LC, Xia Y (2015) Multivariate empirical mode decomposition derived multi‐scale spatial relationships between saturated hydraulic conductivity and basic soil properties. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water 43:910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Si BC, Zeleke TB (2005) Wavelet coherency analysis to relate saturate hydraulic properties to soil physical properties. Water Resour Res 41:W11424. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soil Survey Staff (2010) Soil Taxonomy, 11th edn. USDA National Resources Conservation Services, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Stevens F, Bogaert P, van Wesemael B (2015a) Spatial filtering of a legacy dataset to characterize relationships between soil organic carbon and soil texture. Geoderma 237–238:224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevens F, Bogaert P, van Wesemael B (2015b) Detecting and quantifying field-related spatial variation of soil organic carbon using mixed-effect models and airborne imagery. Geoderma 259–260:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teufl B, Weigelhofer G, Fuchsberger J, Hein T (2013) Effects of hydromorphology and riparian vegetation on the sediment quality of agricultural low-order streams: consequences for stream restoration. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20:1781–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vasenev VI, Stoorvogel JJ, Vasenev II (2013) Urban soil organic carbon and its spatial heterogeneity in comparison with natural and agricultural areas in the Moscow region. Catena 107:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang D, Fu BJ, Zhao WW, Hu HF, Wang YF (2008) Multifractal characteristics of soil particle size distribution under different land-use types on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 72(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang YQ, Zhang XC, Zhang JL, Li SJ (2009) Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in a watershed on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere 19(4):486–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao Y, Yan Z, Qin J, Xiao Z (2014) Effects of long-term cattle manure application on soil properties and soil heavy metals in corn seed production in Northwest China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 21:7586–7595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhou L, Yang B, Xue N, Li F, Seip HM, Cong X, Yan Y, Liu B, Han B, Li H (2014) Ecological risks and potential sources of heavy metals in agricultural soils from Huanghuai Plain, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 21:1360–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dongli She
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yutong Cao
    • 1
  • Qian Chen
    • 1
  • Shuang’en Yu
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Efficient Irrigation-Drainage and Agricultural Soil-Water Environment in Southern China, Ministry of Education, College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and PreventionJiangxi Institute of Soil and Water ConservationNanchangChina
  3. 3.National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering SafetyHohai UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations