Ranking of wetting–drying, plant, and fauna factors involved in the structure dynamics of a young constructed Technosol
Dynamical in situ observation of biological and climatic structuring factors involved in pedogenesis has not previously been possible in a way that would consider the early stages of pedogenesis. If studies have explored the effect of pedogenetic factors on soil structure, none have succeeded in ranking them in view of the intensity of their effects. We propose a novel approach for describing the aggregation process for a constructed Technosol obtained from a process of pedological engineering.
Materials and methods
We focus on agents including plants, macrofauna, and water, and we use (i) a dynamic in situ observation and (ii) the quantification of the evolution of selected descriptors of pores and aggregates. They are quantified from high-resolution images obtained with the Soilinsight® device. Associating those images with each other, movies of interactions between soil and organisms over a 14-month non-destructive soil evolution experiment are made.
Results and discussion
Agents influencing aggregation—plant roots, earthworms, and water—can be ranked according to their impact on soil structure. During the studied period of evolution, wetting–drying cycles are the first to operate. The intensity of their action on soil structure is dominant at the very first stages of pedogenesis. Despite this ranking of agents, over the long term, plants and earthworms have a more intense effect on soil structure than wetting–drying cycles.
The method applied to observe and quantify soil structure dynamics is thus proposed as a helpful approach to modeling other processes involved in soil functioning and evolution in relation to their ability to fulfill ecosystem services.
KeywordsDrilosphere Image analysis Pedological engineering Rhizosphere Soil function Soil structure modeling
This work was funded by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MENESR). The authors gratefully acknowledge Laboratoire Sols et Environnement technical staff, Alain Rakoto and Stéphane Colin, for their assistance in the realization of the Soilinsight® device. The authors also acknowledge “Films d’ICI” society for the movie production.
- Attou F, Bruand A (1998) Experimental study of “fragipans” formation in soils. Role of both clay dispersion and wetting-drying cycles. C R Acad Sci Ser IIA Earth Planet Sci 326:545–552Google Scholar
- Baize D (2000) Guide des analyses en pédologie: choix, expression, présentation, interprétation. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Bouché M (1975) Action de la faune sur les états de la matière organique dans les ecosystèmes. In: Kilbertus G, Reisinger O, Mourey A, Cancela da Fonseca JS (eds) Biodégradation et Humification. Pierron, Sarreguemines, France, pp 157–168Google Scholar
- Hawkes CV, DeAngelis KM, Firestone MK (2007) 1 - Root interactions with soil microbial communities and processes. In: Whitbeck ZGCL.(ed) The Rhizosphere. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 1–29Google Scholar
- Hinsinger P, Bengough AG, Vetterlein D, Young IM (2009) Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant and Soil 321(1-2):117–152Google Scholar
- Huhta V, Wright DH, Coleman DC (1989) Characteristics of defaunated soil. I: a comparison of three techniques applied to two different forest soils Pedobiologica 33(6):417–426Google Scholar
- IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for soil Resources (2006) A framework for international classification, correlation and communication: 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Reports, 132, p 145Google Scholar
- Mathieu C, Pieltain F, Asseline J, Chossat, JC, Valentin CH (1998) Analyse physique des sols: méthodes choisies. TEC & DOC, Lassay-les-ChateauxGoogle Scholar
- Pey B (2010) Diversité et rôle fonctionnel de la faune du sol dans un sol construit en milieu industriel: contribution à la modélisation de l’évolution d’un Technosol. Thèse de Doctorat de l’INPL, Nancy, FranceGoogle Scholar