Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 937–948 | Cite as

A modified method for estimating fine and coarse fractal dimensions of soil particle size distributions based on laser diffraction analysis

  • Hongtao Peng
  • Robert Horton
  • Tingwu Lei
  • Zhenchao Dai
  • Xiangping Wang
Soils, Sec2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Particle size distribution (PSD) is one of the most commonly measured physical properties of soil. The fine fractal dimension, Df, and the coarse fractal dimension, Dc, are, respectively, based on the fine and coarse size fractions of soil particles. Laser diffraction effectively determines the volume PSD of soil. Original and modified methods for determining the Df and Dc of the volume PSD of soil are derived and presented in this work.

Materials and methods

The modified method is based on the assumption that the relationship between the number of particles and particle size is not linear. Df and Dc are determined using the original and modified methods to analyze volume PSD of 11 soil samples through laser diffraction based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and International Soil Science Society (ISSS) systems. Some soils have coarse fragments ranging from 2 to 1 mm (USDA system) or from 2 to 0.2 mm (ISSS system) in size, comprising 0 % of the total volume. As log 0 does not exist, the original and modified methods based on USDA or ISSS systems are unsuitable for estimating Dc. The arithmetic mean of the R2 values of the relevant log–log plots of all soil samples determined using the modified method to estimate Df is larger than that of the original method based on the USDA and ISSS systems. Using the modified method to estimate Df is therefore recommended.

Results and discussion

The overall trend of the values obtained indicates that the Df of coarse-textured soil approaches 2. If at least four decimal places are retained in estimations of Df, the probability of achieving identical Df values for any two soil samples with different size fractions is low. In this case, Df helps characterize soil texture. The arithmetic mean of the Df of all soil samples based on the USDA system is greater than that based on the ISSS system. Df is evidently dependent on selected fractions of separates present in a soil related to texture. The performance of the original and modified methods to estimate Df values based on the ISSS system is not good as indicated by F test at the significance level of 0.05.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the original and modified methods based on the ISSS system are both not useful in estimating Df. We recommend that future studies of fine fractal dimensions be made with USDA particle size fractions.

Keywords

Coarse fractal dimension Fine fractal dimension Particle size fraction Soil particle size distribution Soil texture 

Abbreviations

ISSS

International Soil Science Society

PSD

Particle size distribution

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

References

  1. Bittelli M, Campbell GS, Flury M (1999) Characterization of particle-size distribution in soils with a fragmentation model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:782–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botula YD, Cornelis WM, Baert G, Mafuka P, Ranst EV (2013) Particle size distribution models for soils of the humid tropics. J Soils Sediments 13:686–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown RB (1998) Fact Sheet SL-29: Soil Texture, Soil and Water Science Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  4. Clifton J, McDonald P, Plater A, Oldfield F (1999) An investigation into the efficiency of particle size separation using Stokes’ law. Earth Surf Proc Land 24:725–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eghball B, Mielke LN, Calvo GA, Wilhelm WW (1993) Fractal description of soil fragmentation for various tillage methods and crop sequences. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:1337–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle size analysis. p. 255–293. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghanbarian-Alavijeh B, Millán H (2009) The relationship between surface fractal dimension and soil water content at permanent wilting point. Geoderma 151:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gui DW, Lei JQ, Zeng FJ, Mu GJ, Zhu JT, Wang H (2010) Characterizing variations in soil particle size distribution in oasis farmlands—a case study of the Cele Oasis. Math Comput Model 51:1306–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang GH, Zhan WH (2002) Fractal property of soil particle size distribution and its application. Acta Pedol Sin 39:490–497 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Huang GH, Zhang RD, Huang QZ (2006) Modeling soil water retention curve with a fractal method. Pedosphere 16:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kozak E, Pachepsky YA, Sokołowska S, Sokolowski Z, Stępniewski W (1996) A modified number-based method for estimating fragmentation fractal dimensions of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:1291–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Martín MA, Rey JM, Taguas FJ (2001) An entropy-based parameterization of soil texture via fractal modelling of particle-size distribution. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 457:937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millán H, Gonzalez-Posada M, Aguilar M, Domınguez J, Céspedes L (2003) On the fractal scaling of soil data. Particle-size distributions. Geoderma 117:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Millán H, González-Posada M, Morilla AA, Pérez E (2007) Self-similar organization of Vertisol microstructure: a pore–solid fractal interpretation. Geoderma 138:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Minasny B, McBratney AB (2001) The Australian soil texture boomerang: a comparison of the Australian and USDA/FAO soil particle-size classification systems. Aust J Soil Res 39:1443–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nemes A, Rawls WJ (2004) Soil texture and particle-size distribution as input to estimate soil hydraulic properties. In: Pachepsky YA, Rawls WJ (eds) Development of pedotransfer functions. Elsevier, Amsterdam in Soil Hydrology 30:47–70Google Scholar
  18. Pachepsky Y, Radcliffe DE, Selim HM (2003) Scaling methods in soil physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  19. Peng G, Xiang N, Lv SQ, Zhang GC (2014) Fractal characterization of soil particle-size distribution under different land-use patterns in the yellow river delta wetland in China. J Soils Sediments 14:1116–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rieu M, Sposito G (1991a) Fractal fragmentation, soil porosity, and soil water properties. I. Theory. Soil Sci Soc Am J 55:1231–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rieu M, Sposito G (1991b) Fractal fragmentation, soil porosity, and soil water properties. II. Applications. Soil Sci Soc Am J 55:1239–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Su YZ, Zhao HL, Zhao WZ, Zhang TH (2004) Fractal features of soil particle size distribution and the implication for indicating desertification. Geoderma 122:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tang M, Pan J, Ba H (2005) The model of the cementing matrix powder group fractal geometry denseness effect. J Shenyang Archit Civ Eng Inst 21:515–518 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  24. Turcotte DL (1986) Fractals and fragmentation. J Geophys Res 91:1921–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Turcotte DL (1989) Fractals in geology and geophysics. Pure Appl Geophys 131:171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turcotte DL (1992) Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Tyler SW, Wheatcraft SW (1989) Application of fractal mathematics to soil water retention estimation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:987–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyler SW, Wheatcraft SW (1990) Fractal processes in soil water retention. Water Resour Res 26:1047–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyler SW, Wheatcraft SW (1992) Fractal scaling of soil particle-size distributions: analysis and limitations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:362–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang XD, Li MH, Liu SZ, Liu GC (2006) Fractal characteristics of soils under different land-use patterns in the arid and semiarid regions of the Tibetan Plateau, China. Geoderma 134:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang PL, Luo YP, Shi YC (1993) Fractal feature of soil expressed by mass distribution of particle size. Sci Bull 38:1896–1899 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Zhao SW, Su J, Yang YH, Liu NN, Wu JS, Shangguan ZP (2006) A fractal method of estimating soil structure changes under different vegetations on Ziwuling Mountains of the Loess Plateau, China. Agric Sci China 5:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongtao Peng
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert Horton
    • 4
  • Tingwu Lei
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zhenchao Dai
    • 5
  • Xiangping Wang
    • 6
  1. 1.College of Water Resources and Civil EngineeringChina Agricultural UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water ConservationChinese Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Water ResourcesYanglingPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of AgronomyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  5. 5.No. 2 Hydropower Force of Armed PoliceChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  6. 6.Institute of Soil ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations