Literature DB >> 26410717

A standardized soil quality index for diverse field conditions.

Vincent de Paul Obade1, Rattan Lal2.   

Abstract

Understanding the nexus between soil quality and productivity is constrained by data artifacts, compounded by limitations of the existing models. Here, we explore the potential of 4 regression methods (i.e., Reduced Regression (RR), SIMPLS, Principal Component Regression (PCR), and Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR)), to synthesize 10 soil physical and chemical properties acquired from 3 major management practices and different soil layers, into an unbiased soil quality index (SQI) capable of evaluating soil functions (e.g., biomass production). The data was acquired from privately owned fields within the state of Ohio, USA, at the following land use and management sites: natural vegetation (NV) or woodlands, conventional till (CT), and no-till (NT). The soils were sampled at similar landscape positions (i.e., summit) at depth intervals of 0-10, 10-20, 20-40 and 40-60 cm, and analyzed for bulk density (ρb), carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio, soil organic C (SOC), total N (TN), available water capacity (AWC), pH and electrical conductivity (EC). Preliminary analyses revealed the PLSR method as the most robust. The PLSR Variable Importance of Projection (VIP) was calculated, transformed into the SQI score and compared with yield data. SOC, ρb, C/N and EC were identified as the major variables influencing soil quality status. The data shows that the quality of Pewamo silty clay loam (Pw) soil was higher than Crosby Celina loams (CtA), Kibbie fine sandy loam (kbA), Glynwood silt loam (GWA) and Crosby silt loam (CrA), respectively. In 2012, the mean SQI was 42.9%, with corn and soybean yields of 7 and 2Mg/ha. The R(2) of SQI versus yield was 0.74 for corn (Zea mays L.), and 0.89 for soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Future studies will investigate techniques for mapping this SQI.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Land management; Minimum dataset; Soil properties; Soil quality index

Year:  2015        PMID: 26410717     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  3 in total

Review 1.  Digital technology dilemma: on unlocking the soil quality index conundrum.

Authors:  Vincent de Paul Obade; Charles Gaya
Journal:  Bioresour Bioprocess       Date:  2021-01-10

2.  Are Iron Tailings Suitable for Constructing the Soil Profile Configuration of Reclaimed Farmland? A Soil Quality Evaluation Based on Chronosequences.

Authors:  Wenjuan Jin; Han Wu; Zhongyi Wei; Chunlan Han; Zhenxing Bian; Xufeng Zhang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Soil Quality Indexing Strategies for Evaluating Sugarcane Expansion in Brazil.

Authors:  Maurício R Cherubin; Douglas L Karlen; Carlos E P Cerri; André L C Franco; Cássio A Tormena; Christian A Davies; Carlos C Cerri
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.