| Literature DB >> 36078295 |
Jocenei A T de Oliveira1, Fábio A M Cássaro1, Adolfo N D Posadas2, Luiz F Pires1.
Abstract
Soils are dynamic and complex systems in their natural state, which are subjected to profound changes due to management. Additionally, agricultural soils are continuously exposed to wetting and drying (W-D) cycles, which can cause modifications in the complexity of their pores. Thus, we explore how successive W-D cycles can affect the pore network of an Oxisol under contrasting managements (conventional tillage-CT, minimum tillage-MT, no tillage-NT, and secondary forest-F). The complexity of the soil pore architecture was evaluated using a 3D multifractal approach combined with lacunarity, Shannon's entropy, and pore geometric parameters. Our results showed that the multifractal approach effectively identified and quantified the changes produced in the soil pore architecture by the W-D cycles. The lacunarity curves revealed important aspects of the modifications generated by these cycles. Samples under F, NT, and MT suffered the most significant changes. Pore connectivity and tortuosity were largely affected by the cycles in F and NT. Our findings demonstrated that the 3D geometric parameters and normalized Shannon's entropy are complementary types of analysis. According to the adopted management, they allowed us to separate the soil into two groups according to their similarities (F and NT; CT and MT).Entities:
Keywords: 3D geometric parameters; conservation agriculture; generalized fractal dimension; no-tillage system; soil structure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078295 PMCID: PMC9517813 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 13D lacunarities (Λ) of the samples submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles. (a) Secondary forest—F; (b) conventional tillage—CT; (c) minimum tillage—MT; (d) no tillage—NT. The divisions into two parts (first and second) were made based on the regions where the best linear adjustments occurred in the curves. ε is the box size.
Figure 2First derivative () of the 3D lacunarities of the samples submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles. (a) Secondary forest—F; (b) conventional tillage—CT; (c) minimum tillage—MT; (d) no tillage—NT. ε is the box size.
Values of the coefficient of determination (r2) of the linear adjustments for the two parts (first and second) of the 3D lacunarity (Λ) curves for the areas under secondary forest (F) and the three management practices (conventional tillage—CT, minimum tillage—MT, and no tillage—NT) submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles.
| Coefficient of Determination (r2) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Management | First Part | Second Part |
| F0 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| F12 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
| CT0 | 0.99 | 0.97 |
| CT12 | 0.99 | 0.97 |
| MT0 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
| MT12 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
| NT0 | 0.99 | 0.98 |
| NT12 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
Figure 3Multifractal spectra (f(α) versus α) of the samples subjected to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles. (a) Secondary forest—F; (b) conventional tillage—CT; (c) minimum tillage—MT; (d) no tillage—NT.
Multifractal parameters calculated from the multifractal spectra curves (f(α) versus α) for the secondary forest (F) and the three management practices (conventional tillage—CT, minimum tillage—MT, and no tillage—NT) submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles.
| Management | ∆ | A | αmaximum | f(αmaximum) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F0 | 1.07 ± 0.05 | 0.62 ± 0.05 α | 3.67 ± 0.04 α | 2.78 ± 0.01 α |
| F12 | 1.04 ± 0.02 | 0.72 ± 0.05 β | 3.55 ± 0.05 β | 2.68 ± 0.02 β |
| CT0 | 1.00 ± 0.06 | 0.49 ± 0.09 | 3.71 ± 0.08 | 2.84 ± 0.02 |
| CT12 | 0.97 ± 0.04 | 0.57 ± 0.10 | 3.66 ± 0.05 | 2.85 ± 0.02 |
| MT0 | 1.04 ± 0.05 α | 0.63 ± 0.08 α | 3.66 ± 0.06 | 2.80 ± 0.03 |
| MT12 | 0.95 ± 0.09 β | 0.45 ± 0.11 β | 3.66 ± 0.06 | 2.81 ± 0.02 |
| NT0 | 1.01 ± 0.05 | 1.03 ± 0.10 α | 3.43 ± 0.07 α | 2.66 ± 0.03 α |
| NT12 | 1.03 ± 0.06 | 0.83 ± 0.08 β | 3.55 ± 0.05 β | 2.73 ± 0.02 β |
|
|
|
|
| |
| F0 | 2.78 ± 0.01 α | 2.65 ± 0.02 α | 2.61 ± 0.03 α | |
| F12 | 2.68 ± 0.02 β | 2.54 ± 0.02 β | 2.50 ± 0.03 β | |
| CT0 | 2.84 ± 0.02 | 2.74 ± 0.04 | 2.71 ± 0.04 | |
| CT12 | 2.85 ± 0.02 | 2.73 ± 0.03 | 2.69 ± 0.04 | |
| MT0 | 2.80 ± 0.03 | 2.67 ± 0.03 α | 2.62 ± 0.04 α | |
| MT12 | 2.81 ± 0.02 | 2.72 ± 0.03 β | 2.71 ± 0.04 β | |
| NT0 | 2.66 ± 0.03 α | 2.48 ± 0.03 α | 2.41 ± 0.03 α | |
| NT12 | 2.73 ± 0.02 β | 2.57 ± 0.04 β | 2.52 ± 0.04 β | |
Δ—Degree of multifractality; A—Degree of asymmetry; D0—Box count dimension or capacity dimension; D1—Information dimension; D2—Correlation dimension; αmaximum—Related to internal system energy; f(αmaximum)—Related to the system global entropy (Boltzmann’s entropy). Results followed by different Greek letters differed statistically from each other by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Comparisons were made within each management considering W-D cycles.
Geometric parameters associated with the soil pore system of the secondary forest (F) and the three management practices (conventional tillage—CT, minimum tillage—MT, and no tillage—NT) submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles.
| Management | DA | C | τ |
|---|---|---|---|
| F0 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 2.78 ± 0.30 α | 1.46 ± 0.03 α |
| F12 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 1.48 ± 0.14 β | 1.62 ± 0.08 β |
| CT0 | 0.31 ± 0.09 | 4.20 ± 1.49 | 1.36 ± 0.06 |
| CT12 | 0.34 ± 0.10 | 4.36 ± 1.04 | 1.42 ± 0.09 |
| MT0 | 0.29 ± 0.10 | 2.72 ± 0.70 | 1.47 ± 0.07 |
| MT12 | 0.36 ± 0.07 | 2.36 ± 0.98 | 1.39 ± 0.09 |
| NT0 | 0.39 ± 0.13 | 1.18 ± 0.18 α | 1.84 ± 0.15 α |
| NT12 | 0.31 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.19 β | 1.59 ± 0.09 β |
DA—Degree of anisotropy; C—Pore connectivity; τ—Pore tortuosity. Results followed by different Greek letters differed statistically from each other by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Comparisons were made within each management considering W-D cycles.
Figure 4The 3D normalized Shannon’s entropy (H*(ε)) of the samples submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles. (a) Secondary forest—F; (b) conventional tillage—CT; (c) minimum tillage—MT; (d) no tillage—NT. The smaller graphs represent a zoomed-in region with the most significant variation (F and NT) between the curves. ε is the box size.
Figure 5Variation of the 3D normalized Shannon’s entropy (H*(ε)) of the samples submitted to 0 and 12 wetting and drying (W-D) cycles. Secondary forest—F; conventional tillage—CT; minimum tillage—MT; no tillage—NT. ε is the box size.