Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 197–204 | Cite as

Micromorphology and quality attributes of the loess derived soils affected by land use change: A case study in Ghapan watershed, Northern Iran

  • Farhad KhormaliEmail author
  • Somaye Shamsi
Article

Abstract

In order to study the effects of different land vegetative covers on soil quality attributes, a loess hill slope was selected in eastern Golestan Province, Ghapan watershed, Iran. Four profiles in four land uses, including Quercus natural forest; Pinus artificial forest; Cupressus artificial forest and a cultivated land, were studied. Results showed that MWD was significantly different in the studied land uses, and it varied between 1.6 mm in Quercus natural forest and 0.31 mm in cultivated land use. The lowest CEC, microbial respiration rate and organic carbon were 28.4 cmol·kg−1, 177 μgCO2·g−1·day−1 and 1.32 % found in cultivated land use, respectively.

The organic matter content in the forest areas was considerably higher than that of cultivated land use. The studies on soil profile development revealed that the natural forest soils were highly developed. The soils of the Quercus natural forest were classified as Calcic Haploxeralfs with a well developed argillic horizon unlike the cultivated soils which showed the minimum development and classified as Typic Xerorthents. The soils of the artificial forests had both mollic epipedons and were classified as Typic Calcixerolls with moderate profile development. Micromorphological studies revealed that argillic horizons had speckled and partly crystallitic b-fabric in the natural forest indicating the high landscape stability. In contrast, the crystallitic b-fabric of other land uses shows the absence of enough leaching of carbonate and the subsequent migration of clay particles indicating the unstable conditions and high soil erosion. Intense erosion of the surface horizons of cultivated land use has resulted in the outcropping of the subsurface carbonate rich horizons preventing soil development.

Keywords

Soil micromorphology soil quality loess Iran 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angers, D.A., and Mehuys, G.R., 1993. Aggregate stability to water. In: Carter, M.R., (ed.), Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Lewis Pub. Boca Raton. Pp: 651–657.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, G.R., and Hartage, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1, Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy. 9. Pp. 363–382.Google Scholar
  3. Caravaca, F., A. Lax, and J. Albaladejo. 2004. Aggregate stability and carbon characteristics of particle-size fractions in cultivated and forested soils of semiarid Spain. Soil & Tillage Research 78: 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Celik, I. 2005. Land-use effects on organic matter and physical properties of soil in a southern Mediterranean highland of Turkey. Soil & Tillage Research 83: 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, H. D. 1965. Cation exchange capacity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Black, C. A. (ed.). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Evrendilek, F., I. Celik and S. Kilic. 2004. Changes in soil organic carbon and other physical soil properties along adjacent Mediterranean forest, grassland, and cropland ecosystems in Turkey. Journal of Arid Environments 59: 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nded. Agronomy. 9. Pp. 383–411.Google Scholar
  8. Hajabbasi, M. A., A. Jalalian and H. R. Karimzadeh. 1997. Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant and Soil 190: 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Islam, K. R. and R. R. Weil. 2000. Land use effects on soil quality in a tropical forest ecosystem of Bangladesh. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kemper, W.D., Rosenau, R.C., 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I: Physical Analysis. SSSA. Madison, WI, pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
  11. Khormali, F., A. Abtahi, S. Mahmoodi and G. Stoops. 2003. Argillic horizon development in calcareous soils of arid and semiarid regions of southern Iran. Catena 53: 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khormali, F., A. Abtahi and G. Stoops. 2006. Micromorphology of calcitic features in highly calcareous soils of Fars Province, Southern Iran. Geoderma 132: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murphy, C.P., 1986. Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments. A&B Academic Publ., Berkhamsted.Google Scholar
  14. Nardi, S., G. Cocheri and G. Dell’ Agnola. 1996. Biological activity of humus. In: Piccolo, A. (Ed.), Humic Substances in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pp. 361–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. 1996. Soil Quality Information Sheet. Indicators for Soil Quality Evaluation.Google Scholar
  16. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. 1998. Soil Quality Information Sheet. Soil Quality Indicators.Google Scholar
  17. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. 1999. Liming To Improve Soil Quality in Acid Soils. Soil Quality-Agronomy Technical Note, No. 8.Google Scholar
  18. Nelson, R. E. 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II. Page, A. L. (Ed.). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Pathak, P., K. L. Sahrawat, T. J. Rego and S. P. Wani. 2004. Measurable Biophysical Indicators for Impact Assessment: Changes in Soil Quality. In: Shiferaw, B., H. A. Freeman and S. M. Swinton (Eds.), Natural resource management in agriculture. Methods for assessing economic and environmental impacts. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
  20. Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble salts. In: Page, A.L. (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II, 2nd Edition, ASA, Monograph, No.9, Madison, WI. Pp. 167–179.Google Scholar
  21. Shepherd, T. G., R. H. Saggar Newman, C. W. Ross and J. L. Dando. 2001. Tillage induced changes in soil structure and soil organic matter fractions. Aust. J. Soil Res. 39: 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. SSSA. Inc. Madison, Winsconsin.Google Scholar
  23. Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. SSSA. Inc. Madison, Winsconsin.Google Scholar
  24. Stotzky, G. 1965. Microbial respiration. In: Black, C.A. (ed.). Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Am. Soc. of Agron: 1550–1572.Inc, Madison, Wis.Google Scholar
  25. Soil Survey Staff, 1993, Soil Survey Manual. USDA, Handbook No. 18. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Soil Survey Staff, 2003, Keys to Soil Taxonomy. USDA, NRCS.Google Scholar
  27. Vagen, T. G., M. A. A. Andrianorofanomezana, and S. Andrianorofanomezana. 2006. Deforestation and cultivation effects on characteristics of Oxisols in the highlands of Madagascar. Geoderma 131: 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wali, M. K., F. Evrendilek, T. West, S. Watts, D. Pant, H. Gibbs and B. McClead. 1999. Assessing terrestrial ecosystem sustainability usefulness of regional carbon and nitrogen models. Natur. Resour. 35: 20–33.Google Scholar
  29. Velayutham, M. 2000. Organic carbon stock in soil of India. Global climate change and tropical acosystem 28:71–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Soil Science, College of AgricultureGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran

Personalised recommendations