Advertisement

Soil characteristics in an exhumed cemetery land in Central Singapore

  • Subhadip GhoshEmail author
  • Shovik Deb
  • Lai Fern Ow
  • Dibyendu Deb
  • Mohamed Lokman Yusof
Article
  • 87 Downloads

Abstract

Soils in urban landscape act as a component for various ecological functions. For sustainable urban greenery and effective management of urban ecosystems, evaluation of soil quality is of paramount importance. A study was undertaken to assess the existing soil quality and determine spatial soil variability of an exhumed cemetery land in central Singapore, so that systematic and sustainable soil management practices could be implemented for its conversion into an urban park. A stratified sampling method was followed to collect the soil samples from three depths: 0–30, 30–50, and 50–100 cm. An integrated soil quality index (SQI) approach was undertaken to monitor the changes in soil properties. The visual assessment showed the uniformity of horizon distribution of the soil profiles across the park and the soils had acidic pH (\( \overline{x} \) 5.2) and moderately high bulk density (\( \overline{x} \) 1.6 g cm−3). Considering the soil depths, top layer had higher organic carbon content (\( \overline{x} \) 1.03%) and it was significantly lower in deeper layers (\( \overline{x} \) 0.71%). Detailed soil analysis results indicated that the soils of the proposed park area were in low fertility status, devoid of macro nutrients (available nitrogen: \( \overline{x} \) 486.1, phosphorus: \( \overline{x} \) 8.5 and potassium: \( \overline{x} \) 9.2 mg kg−1) and high in iron content (\( \overline{x} \) 114.8 mg kg−1), and can be classified as “Ferric Acrisol” (FAO WRB) or “Ultisol” (USDA). The SQI map of total soil (0–100 cm) was different from surface soil, indicating impact of human activities on overall changes in soil quality distribution.

Keywords

Urban soil Urban park Ecosystem services Soil quality index 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by National Parks Board, Singapore. The team gratefully acknowledges Mr. Yit Chuan Tan, Mr. David Morand, Dr. Amitava Rakshit, and Dr. Philip Varughese for their help in soil classification and soil analysis. We owe our profound thanks to Mr. Liang Jim for his encouragement and support for this project. We would also like to acknowledge Mr. Eric Ong, Mr. Vivek Govindasamy, Mr. David Kam, and the students from Republic Polytechnic for their technical assistance.

References

  1. Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Mitchell, J. P. (2002). A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 90, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrens, T., & Scholten, T. (2006). Digital soil mapping in Germany—a review. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 169, 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchart, A., Séré, G., Johan, C., Warot, G., Stas, M., Consalès, J. N., Morel, J. L., & Schwartz, C. (2018). Towards an operational methodology to optimize services provided by urban soils. Landscape and Urban Planning, 176, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner, J. M., & Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen-total. In A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, & D. R. Keeney (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties (2nd ed., pp. 595–624). Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  5. Brook, R. M. (1989). Review of literature on Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel with particular reference to South East Asia. Tropical Pest Management, 35, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brzezinski, W., Dulinicz, M., & Kobylinski, Z. (1983). The phosphorus content in the soil as an indicator of early human activity. Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Material_ nej, 31, 277–297.Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty, S., Weindorf, D. C., Deb, S., Li, B., Paul, S., Choudhury, A., & Ray, D. P. (2017). Rapid assessment of regional soil arsenic pollution risk via diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma, 289, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charzyński, P., Bednarek, R., & Zołnowska, B. (2010). Characteristics of the soils of Toruń cemeteries. In 19th World Congress of Soil Science, 1–6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
  9. Chia, Y. L. (1977). A study of the physico-chemical properties of Singapore soils and their implication to land use. (p. 148). Academic Exercise, Department of Geography, University of Singapore. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  10. Chiam, S. L., Wong, K. S., Tan, T. S., Ni, Q., Khoo, K. S., & Chu, J. (2003). The Old Alluvium: Proceedings of Underground Singapore and Workshop on Updating the Engineering Geology of Singapore, 27–29 November 2003, Singapore, pp. 408–427.Google Scholar
  11. Deb, S., Chakraborty, S., Weindorf, D. C., Murmu, A., Banik, P., Debnath, M. K., & Choudhury, A. (2016). Dynamics of organic carbon in deep soils under rice and non-rice cropping systems. Geoderma Regional, 7, 388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb, S., Kumar, D., Chakraborty, S., Weindorf, D. C., Choudhury, A., Banik, P., Deb, D., De, P., Saha, S., Patra, A. K., Majhi, M., Naskar, P., Panda, P., & Hoque, A. (2019). Comparative carbon stability in surface soils and subsoils under submerged rice and upland non-rice crop ecologies: a physical fractionation study. Catena, 7, 400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecological Economics, 69, 1858–1868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 1: Physical and mineralogical methods (2nd ed., pp. 383–411). Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  15. Ghosh, S., Yusof, M. L., & Tan, Y. C. (2015). Assessment of soil quality of an urban park in central Singapore. In 8th International Conference of the Soils in Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (SUITMA), September 20–25, 2015, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  16. Ghosh, S., Scharenbroch, B., Burcham, D., Ow, L. F., Shenbagavalli, S., & Mahimairaja, S. (2016a). Influence of soil properties on street tree attributes in Singapore. Urban Ecosystems, 19, 949–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghosh, S., Scharenbroch, B., & Ow, L. F. (2016b). Soil organic carbon distribution in roadside soils of Singapore. Chemosphere, 165, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goovaerts, P. (1998). Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of microbiological and physico-chemical soil properties. Biology Fertilizers and Soil, 27, 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granatstein, D., & Bezdicek, D. F. (1992). The need for a soil quality index: Local and regional perspectives. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7, 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greinert, A. (2015). The heterogeneity of urban soils in the light of their properties. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 15, 1725–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta, A., Rahman, A., Wong, P. P., & Pitts, J. (1987). The old alluvium of Singapore and the extinct drainage system of the South China Sea. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 12, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haq, S. M. A. (2011). Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable environment. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kros, J., Reinds, G. J., & Vries, W. D. (2016). Geostatistical prediction and simulation of European soil property maps. Geoderma Regional, 7, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodgson, J. M. (Ed.). (1974). Soil survey field handbook: Describing and sampling soil profiles (p. 99). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station, Soil Survey England and Wales.Google Scholar
  25. Jim, C. Y. (1998). Urban soil characteristics and limitations for landscape planting in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Karlen, D. L., & Stott, D. E. (1994). A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. In J. W. Doran, D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek, & B. A. Stewart (Eds.), Defining soil quality for a sustainable Environment. SSSA Special Publication No. 35 (pp. 53–72). Madison: SSSA.Google Scholar
  28. Lau, S. L. (1979). A study of hydrologic properties of soils in Singapore. (p. 84). Academic Press, Department of Geography, University of Singapore. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  29. Leong, E. C., Rahardjo, H., & Tang, S. K. (2002). Characterization and engineering properties of Singapore residual soils. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Singapore, December 2–4, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  30. Mehlich, A. (1984). Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15, 1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ow, L. F., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Urban cities and road traffic noise: reduction through vegetation. Applied Acoustics, 120, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patzold, S., Mertens, F. M., Bornemann, L., Koleczek, B., Franke, J., Feilhauer, J., & Welp, G. (2008). Soil heterogeneity at the field scale: a challenge for precision crop protection. Precision Agriculture, 9, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2009). Altered resources, disturbance and heterogeneity: a framework for comparing urban and non-urban soils. Urban Ecosystems, 12, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pitts, J. (1984). A survey of engineering geology in Singapore. Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, 15, 1–20.Google Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team. (2006). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  36. Rahardjo, H., Aung, K. K., Leong, E. C., & Rezaur, R. B. (2004). Characteristics of residual soils in Singapore as formed by weathering. Engineering Geology, 73, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rahman, A. (1991). Chapter 4: Soils. In C. L. Sien, A. Rahman, & D. B. H. Tay (Eds.), The biophysical environment of Singapore (pp. 89–13). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ruth, B. J., Marshall, J., Velásquez, E. E., & Bachman, S. S. (2015). Teaching note—educating public health social work professionals: results from an MSW/MPH program outcomes study. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Santra, P., Kumar, M., Panwar, N. R., & Das, B. S. (2017). Digital soil mapping and best management of soil resources: a brief discussion with few case studies. In A. Rakshit, P. C. Abhilash, H. B. Singh, & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Adaptive soil management: from theory to practices (pp. 3–38). Singapore: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schindelbeck, R. R., van Es, H. M., Abawi, G. S., Wolfe, D. W., Whitlow, T. L., Gugino, B. K., Idowu, O. J., & Moebius-Clune, B. N. (2008). Comprehensive assessment of soil quality for landscape and urban management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sobocka, J. (2003). Urban soils vs. anthropogenic soils, their characteristics and functions. Phytopedon, 2, 76–80.Google Scholar
  42. Sparks, D. L., Page, A., Helmke, P., Loeppert, R., Soltanpour, P., Tabatabai, M., Johnston, C., & Sumner, M. (1996). Part 3—chemical methods. In Methods of soil analysis (p. 1390). Madison: Soil Science Society of America Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Tenando, E. (2003). Strength properties and mineralogy of Singapore old alluvium. Masters thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  44. Thwaites, K., Helleur, E., & Simkins, I. (2005). Restorative urban open space: exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfilment in urban open space. Landscape Research, 30, 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Torrent, J., Schwermann, U., Fechter, H., & Alferez, F. (1983). Quatitative relationships between soil color and hematite content. Soil Science, 136, 354–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trinh, D. H., & Chui, T. F. M. (2013). Assessing the hydrologic restoration of an urbanized area via an integrated distributed hydrological model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 4789–4801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Unal, M., Uslu, C., & Cilek, A. (2016). GIS-based accessibility analysis for neighbourgood parks: the case of Cukurova district. Journal of Digital Landscpae Architecture, 46–56.  https://doi.org/10.14627/537612006.
  48. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1999). Soil taxonomy—a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, second edition (p. 1–871).Google Scholar
  49. van Reeuwijk, L. P. (1993). Procedures for soil analysis. Technical Paper No. 9. Wageningen: International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC).Google Scholar
  50. Vasenev, V. I., Stoorvogel, J. J., & Vasenev, I. I. (2013). Urban soil organic carbon and its spatial heterogeneity in comparison with natural and agricultural areas in the Moscow region. Catena, 107, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Velasquez, E., Lavelle, P., & Andrade, M. (2007). GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39, 3066–3080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vrscaj, B., Poggio, L., & Marsan, F. A. (2008). A method for soil environmental quality evaluation for management and planning in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walkley, A., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Watanabe, F., & Olsen, S. (1965). Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 29, 677–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wells, N. (1977). The role of soils in the utilization of sewage sludge in Singapore, NZ Bureau Scientific Report 30 (p. 59). New Zealand: Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.Google Scholar
  56. Wells, N., & Leamy, M. L. (1980). Genetic properties of Singapore soils and their implications for soil management. Proceedings of the Conference on Classification and Management of Tropical Soils, Kualalampur, 15-20 August, 1977, Malaysian Society of Soil Science, pp. 230–243.Google Scholar
  57. World Reference Base (WRB) for soil resources. (2014). World Soil Resources Reports, 106, 1–191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Urban Greenery and EcologyNational Parks BoardSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Soil Science and Agricultural ChemistryUttar Banga Krishi ViswavidyalayaCooch BeharIndia
  4. 4.Indian Grassland and Fodder Research InstituteJhansiIndia

Personalised recommendations