Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 471–485 | Cite as

Effect of the spatial resolution on landscape control of soil fertility in a semiarid area

  • Antonio Ruiz-Navarro
  • Gonzalo G. Barberá
  • Javier García-Haro
  • Juan Albaladejo
SOILS, SEC 1 • SOIL ORGANIC MATTER DYNAMICS AND NUTRIENT CYCLING • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

Most dryland ecosystems show high landscape heterogeneity that can influence soil fertility, although the underlying processes are still poorly understood. Furthermore, our understanding of the same could be affected by the scale dependency of the landscape representation. Here, we study the relationships between soil and landscape attributes at different spatial resolutions in a semiarid area, to better understand which landscape processes control soil fertility and whether such control is affected by the resolution of landscape representation.

Materials and methods

A stratified sampling plan based on topography, vegetation type and lithology was carried out in a semiarid catchment of south-east Spain to select the soil sampling sites. Furthermore, the landscape attributes were resampled at five different resolutions (5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 m) from digital elevation model and remote sensing data. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) for soil and landscape attributes were performed to ascertain the main trends of variation of each set. Then, correlations between the soil and landscape principal component scores at each resolution were calculated to determine the relationships between the two sets of variables.

Results and discussion

The first component of soil PCA (S-PC1) was related with a number of properties linked to soil fertility: soil organic carbon, nutrient availability, cation exchange capacity, pH and water-holding capacity. The S-PC1 was correlated positively with the first component of landscape PCA (L-PC1), which represents areas of dense vegetation cover associated with topographic convergence and/or low solar radiation. Besides, S-PC1 was also correlated negatively with L-PC2, which represents areas with intense channel formation on easily erodible lithologies and scarce vegetation cover. As the resolution of landscape representation decreased, the explained variance increased faster in L-PC2 than in L-PC1, showing that the representation of each underlying landscape process was more evident at a particular resolution. The relationship between soil fertility and landscape also seemed to change with spatial resolution, as S-PC1 was correlated best with L-PC1 at finer resolutions while the correlation with L-PC2 increased at coarser resolutions.

Conclusions

The relationship of S-PC1 with L-PC1 and L-PC2 suggests the presence of a soil fertility gradient mainly ‘driven’ by water availability derived from local topographic conditions against gully erosion processes arising from geomorphological features. Each landscape process ‘controlling’ soil fertility is better represented at different resolutions: conditions that improve water availability were more evident at finer resolutions (5–10 m), while erosion was more evident at medium-coarse resolutions (20–40 m).

Keywords

Erosion Landscape Local topography Semiarid Soil fertility Spatial resolution 

Supplementary material

11368_2012_470_MOESM1_ESM.doc (106 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 106 kb)

References

  1. Alías Pérez L (ed) (1986a) Proyecto LUCDEME. Mapa de Suelos. Calasparra-890. Servicio Publicaciones del Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, MadridGoogle Scholar
  2. Alías Pérez L (ed) (1986b) Proyecto LUCDEME. Mapa de Suelos. Cieza-891. Servicio Publicaciones del Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, MadridGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DW (1988) The effect of parent material and soil development on nutrient cycling in temperate ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 5:71–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthold FK, Stallard RF, Elsenbeer H (2008) Soil nutrient-landscape relationships in a lowland tropical rainforest in Panama. Forest Ecol Manag 255:1135–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastida F, Barberá GG, García C, Hernández T (2008) Influence of orientation, vegetation and season on soil microbial and biochemical characteristics under semiarid conditions. Appl Soil Ecol 38:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell JC, Cunningham RL, Havens MW (1992) Calibration and validation of a soil landscape model for predicting soil drainage class. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:1860–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beven KJ, Kirby MJ (1979) A physically based variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull 24:43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bochet E, García-Fayos P, Poesen J (2009) Topographic thresholds for plant colonization on semi-arid eroded slopes. Earth Surf Proc Land 34:1758–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boer M, Del Barrio G, Puigdefábregas J (1996) Mapping soil depth classes in dry Mediterranean areas using terrain attributes derived from a digital elevation model. Geoderma 72:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bou Kheir R, Wilson J, Deng Y (2007) Use of terrain variables for mapping gully erosion susceptibility in Lebanon. Earth Surf Proc Land 32:1770–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowker MA, Belnap J, Davidson DW, Phillips SL (2005) Evidence for micronutrient limitation of biological soil crusts: importance to arid-lands restoration. Ecol Appl 15:1941–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breen AN, Richards JH (2008) Irrigation and fertilization effects on seed number, size, germination and seedling growth: implications for desert shrub establishment. Oecologia 157:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantón Y, Del Barrio G, Solé-Benet A, Lázaro R (2004) Topographic controls on the spatial distribution of ground cover in the Tabernas badlands of SE Spain. Catena 55:341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castillo VM, Mosch WM, García CC, Barberá GG, Navarro-Cano JA, López-Bermúdez F (2007) Effectiveness and geomorphological impacts of check dams for soil erosion control in a semiarid Mediterranean catchment: El Cárcavo (Murcia, Spain). Catena 70:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang DH, Islam S (2000) Estimation of soil physical properties using remote sensing and artificial neural network. Remote Sens Environ 74:534–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapin FS, Matson PA, Vitousek PM (2011) Landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem dynamics, part 3. In: Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology, 2nd ed. Springer, New York, pp 369–397Google Scholar
  17. Chapman HD (1965) Cation exchange capacity. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, vol. 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 149–157Google Scholar
  18. Debella-Gilo M, Etzelmuller B (2009) Spatial prediction of soil classes using digital terrain analysis and multinomial logistic regression modelling integrated in GIS: examples from Vestfold County, Norway. Catena 77:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deng Y, Chen X, Chuvieco E, Warner T, Wilson JP (2007) Multi-scale linkages between topographic attributes and vegetation indices in a mountainous landscape. Remote Sens Environ 111:122–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Filmer D, Pritchett L (2011) Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or tears: an application to educational enrolments in states of India. Demography 38:115–132Google Scholar
  21. Florinsky IV, Eilers RG, Manning GR, Fuller LG (2002) Prediction of soil properties by digital terrain modelling. Environ Modell Softw 17:295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Florinsky IV, Kuryakova GA (2000) Determination of grid size for digital terrain modelling in landscape investigations—exemplified by soil moisture distribution at a micro-scale. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:815–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fu BJ, Liu SL, Ma KM, Zhu YG (2004) Relationships between soil characteristics, topography and plant diversity in a heterogeneous deciduous broad-leaved forest near Beijing, China. Plant Soil 261:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallardo A, Schlesinger WH (1992) Carbon and nitrogen limitations of soil microbial biomass in desert ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 18:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García-Haro FJ, Sommer S, Kemper T (2005) A new tool for variable multiple endmember spectral mixture analysis (VMESMA). Int J Remote Sens 26:2135–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gessler PE, Chadwichk OA, Chamran F, Althouse L, Holmes H (2000) Modelling soil-landscape and ecosystem properties using terrain attributes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:2046–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hengl T (2006) Finding the right pixel size. Comp Geosci 32:1283–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. IGME (1974) Mapa Geológico de España: Calasparra y Cieza. Servicio de Publicaciones Ministerio de Industria, MadridGoogle Scholar
  29. IGME (1982) Mapa Geológico de España: Calasparra y Cieza. Servicio de Publicaciones Ministerio de Industria, MadridGoogle Scholar
  30. Ivanov VY, Bras RL, Vivoni ER (2008) Vegetation-hydrology dynamics in complex terrain of semiarid areas, 2. Energy-water controls of vegetation spatiotemporal dynamics and topographic niches of favourability. Water Resour Res 44:W03430. doi:10.1029/2006WR005595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James JJ, Tiller RL, Richards JH (2005) Multiple resources limit plant growth and function in a saline-alkaline desert community. J Ecol 93:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenny H (1941) Factors of soil formation. McGraw-Hill, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson CE, Driscoll CT, Siccama TG, Likens GE (2000) Element fluxes and landscape position in a northern hardwood forest watershed ecosystem. Ecosystems 3:159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kienzle S (2004) The effect of DEM raster resolution on first order, second order and compound terrain derivatives. Trans GIS 8:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim D, Zheng Y (2011) Scale-dependent predictability of DEM-based landform attributes for soil spatial variability in a coastal dune system. Geoderma 164:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kolenikov S, Angeles G (2009) Socioeconomic status measurement with discrete proxy variables: is principal component a reliable answer? Rev Income Wealth 55:128–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lesschen JP, Kok K, Verburg PH, Cammeraat LH (2007) Identification of vulnerable areas for gully erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast Spain. Catena 71:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, vol. 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 323–334Google Scholar
  40. Liu SL, Guo XD, Fu BJ, Lian G, Wang J (2007) The effect of environmental variables on soil characteristics at different scales in the transition zone of the Loess Plateau in China. Soil Use Manag 23:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ludwig JA, Tongway DJ (1995) Spatial organisation of landscapes and its function in semi-arid woodlands, Australia. Landsc Ecol 10:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McBratney AB, Mendonça Santos ML, Minasny B (2003) On digital soil mapping. Geoderma 117:3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKenzie NJ, Ryan PJ (1999) Spatial prediction of soil properties using environmental correlation. Geoderma 89:67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mertens M, Nestler I, Huwe B (2002) GIS-based regionalization of soil profiles with Classification and Regression Trees (CART). J Plant Nutr Soil Sc 165:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986) Sediment transport capacity of sheet and rill flow: application of unit stream power theory. Water Resour Res 22:1350–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Petersen GA (1993) Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mulder VL, de Bruin S, Schaepman ME, Mayr TR (2011) The use of remote sensing in soil and terrain mapping—a review. Geoderma 162:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural water. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, vol. 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 403–427Google Scholar
  49. Odeh IOA, Chittleborough DJ, McBratney AB (1991) Elucidation of soil-landform interrelationships by canonical ordination analysis. Geoderma 49:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Odeh IOA, McBratney AB, Chittleborough DJ (1994) Spatial prediction of soil properties from landform attributes derived from a digital elevation model. Geoderma 63:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O'Halloran LR, Shugart HH, Wang L, Caylor KK, Ringrose S, Kgope B (2010) Nutrient limitations on aboveground grass production in four savanna types along the Kalahari Transect. J Arid Environ 74:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parker AJ (1982) The topographic relative moisture index: an approach to soil-moisture assessment in mountain terrain. Phys Geogr 3:160–168Google Scholar
  53. Rezaei SA, Gilkes RJ (2005) The effects of landscape attributes and plant community on soil chemical properties in rangelands. Geoderma 125:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruiz-Navarro A, Barberá GG, Navarro-Cano JA, Albaladejo J, Castillo VM (2009) Soil dynamics in Pinus halepensis reforestation: effect of microenvironments and previous land use. Geoderma 153:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ryan PJ, Mckenzie NJ, O’Connell D, Loughlead AN, Leppert PM, Jacquier D, Ashton L (2000) Integrating forest soils information across scales, spatial prediction of soil properties under Australian forests. Forest Ecol Manag 138:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schoorl JM, Sonneveld MPW, Veldkamp A (2000) Three-dimensional landscape process modelling: the effect of DEM resolution. Earth Surf Proc Land 25:1025–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scull P, Schaetzl RJ (2011) Using PCA to characterize and differentiate loess deposits in Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, USA. Geomorphology 127:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith MP, Zhu A-X, Burt JE, Stiles C (2006) The effects of DEM resolution and neighborhood size on digital soil survey. Geoderma 137:58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson JA, Bell JC, Butler CA (2001) Digital elevation model resolution, effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling. Geoderma 100:67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson JA, Moore RD (1996) Relations between topography and water table depth in a shallow forest soil. Hydrol Process 10:1513–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turrión MB, Schneider K, Gallardo JF (2009) Carbon accumulation in Umbrisols under Quercus pyrenaica forests: effects of bedrock and annual precipitation. Catena 79:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang J, Fu B, Qiu Y, Chen L (2001) Soil nutrients in relation to land use and landscape position in the semi-arid small catchment on the loess plateau in China. J Arid Environ 48:537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Webster R (1977) Canonical correlation in pedology: how useful? J Soil Sci 28:196–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu W, Fan Y, Wang Z, Liu H (2008) Assessing effects of digital elevation model resolutions on soil-landscape correlations in a hilly area. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu S, Li J, Huang G (2005) An evaluation of grid size uncertainty in empirical soil loss modeling with digital elevation models. Environ Model Assess 10:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zandbergen PA (2006) The effect of cell resolution on depressions in digital elevation models. Appl GIS 2:1–35Google Scholar
  67. Zhang WH, Montgomery DR (1994) Digital elevation grid size, landscape representation and hydrologic simulations. Water Resour Res 30:1019–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhu AX, Hudson B, Burt J, Lubich K, Simonson D (2001) Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge and fuzzy logic. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1463–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Ruiz-Navarro
    • 1
  • Gonzalo G. Barberá
    • 1
  • Javier García-Haro
    • 2
  • Juan Albaladejo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil and Water ConservationCEBAS-CSIC, Campus Universitario de EspinardoMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Physics of the Earth and ThermodynamicsUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain

Personalised recommendations