Advertisement

Journal of Arid Land

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 551–566 | Cite as

Determining the spatial distribution of soil properties using the environmental covariates and multivariate statistical analysis: a case study in semi-arid regions of Iran

  • Mojtaba ZeraatpishehEmail author
  • Shamsollah Ayoubi
  • Magboul Sulieman
  • Jesús Rodrigo-Comino
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Natural soil-forming factors such as landforms, parent materials or biota lead to high variability in soil properties. However, there is not enough research quantifying which environmental factor(s) can be the most relevant to predicting soil properties at the catchment scale in semi-arid areas. Thus, this research aims to investigate the ability of multivariate statistical analyses to distinguish which soil properties follow a clear spatial pattern conditioned by specific environmental characteristics in a semi-arid region of Iran. To achieve this goal, we digitized parent materials and landforms by recent orthophotography. Also, we extracted ten topographical attributes and five remote sensing variables from a digital elevation model (DEM) and the Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM), respectively. These factors were contrasted for 334 soil samples (depth of 0–30 cm). Cluster analysis and soil maps reveal that Cluster 1 comprises of limestones, massive limestones and mixed deposits of conglomerates with low soil organic carbon (SOC) and clay contents, and Cluster 2 is composed of soils that originated from quaternary and early quaternary parent materials such as terraces, alluvial fans, lake deposits, and marls or conglomerates that register the highest SOC content and the lowest sand and silt contents. Further, it is confirmed that soils with the highest SOC and clay contents are located in wetlands, lagoons, alluvial fans and piedmonts, while soils with the lowest SOC and clay contents are located in dissected alluvial fans, eroded hills, rock outcrops and steep hills. The results of principal component analysis using the remote sensing data and topographical attributes identify five main components, which explain 73.3% of the total variability of soil properties. Environmental factors such as hillslope morphology and all of the remote sensing variables can largely explain SOC variability, but no significant correlation is found for soil texture and calcium carbonate equivalent contents. Therefore, we conclude that SOC can be considered as the best-predicted soil property in semi-arid regions.

Keywords

soil properties remote sensing data topographical attributes multivariate statistical analyses geographic information systems land management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors also acknowledge the financial support of Isfahan University of Technology (IUT) for this research. Moreover, we would like to thank Dr. Yeboah GYASI-AGYEI and the anonymous reviewers for their appreciated support, helpful suggestions and corrections.

References

  1. Alijani Z, Sarmadian F. 2014. The role of topography in changing of soil carbonate content. Indian Journal Science Research, 6(1): 263–271.Google Scholar
  2. Amare T, Zegeye A D, Yitaferu B, et al. 2014. Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil and water conservation measures in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 14(3): 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson D W. 1988. The effect of parent material and soil development on nutrient cycling in temperate ecosystems. Biogeochemistry, 5(1): 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayoubi S, Mokhtari J, Mosaddeghi M R, et al. 2018. Erodibility of calcareous soils as influenced by land use and intrinsic soil properties in a semiarid region of central Iran. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(4): 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouyoucos G J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal, 54(5): 464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruand A, Tessier D. 2000. Water retention properties of the clay in soils developed on clayey sediments: significance of parent material and soil history. European Journal of Soil Science, 51(4): 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castillo-Monroy A P, Maestre F T, Delgado-Baquerizo M, et al. 2010. Biological soil crusts modulate nitrogen availability in semi-arid ecosystems: insights from a Mediterranean grassland. Plant and Soil, 333(1–2): 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerdà A, Rodrigo-Comino J, Novara A, et al. 2018. Long-term impact of rainfed agricultural land abandonment on soil erosion in the Western Mediterranean basin. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 42(2): 202–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conforti M, Lucà F, Scarciglia F, et al. 2016. Soil carbon stock in relation to soil properties and landscape position in a forest ecosystem of southern Italy (Calabria region). Catena, 144: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwivedi RS, Sreenivas K. 1998. Delineation of salt-affected soils and waterlogged areas in the Indo-Gangetic plains using IRS-1C LISS-III data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14: 2739–2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gribov A, Krivoruchko K. 2012. New flexible non-parametric data transformation for Trans-Gaussian Kriging. In: Abrahamsen P, Hauge R, Kolbjørnsen O. Geostatistics Oslo. Dordrecht: Springer, 51–65.Google Scholar
  12. IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  13. Jia F Q, Tiyip T, Wu N, et al. 2017. Characteristics of soil seed banks at different geomorphic positions within the longitudinal sand dunes of the Gurbantunggut Desert, China. Journal of Arid Land, 9(3): 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karchegani P M, Ayoubi S, Lu S G, et al. 2011. Use of magnetic measures to assess soil redistribution following deforestation in hilly region. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 75(2): 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keshavarzi A, Tuffour H, Bagherzadeh A, et al. 2018. Spatial and fractal characterization of soil properties across soil depth in an agricultural field, Northeast Iran. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 7(2): 93–102.Google Scholar
  16. Khaledian Y, Brevik E C, Pereira P, et al. 2017a. Modeling soil cation exchange capacity in multiple countries. Catena, 158: 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khaledian Y, Kiani F, Ebrahimi S, et al. 2017b. Assessment and monitoring of soil degradation during land use change using multivariate analysis. Land Degradation & Development, 28(1): 128–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khormali F, Ajami M, Ayoubi S, et al. 2009. Role of deforestation and hillslope position on soil quality attributes of loess-derived soils in Golestan province, Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 134(3–4): 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kravchenko A, Bullock D G. 1999. A comparative study of interpolation methods for mapping soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 91(3): 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li J, Heap A D. 2011. A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: Performance and impact factors. Ecological Informatics, 6(3–4): 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li S S, Wang Q, Li L H. 2016. Interdecadal variations of pan-evaporation at the southern and northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains, China. Journal of Arid Land, 8(6): 832–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liao Y, Wu W L, Meng F Q, et al. 2015. Increase in soil organic carbon by agricultural intensification in northern China. Biogeosciences, 12(5): 1403–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malinowski E R. 2002. Factor Analysis in Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons Press, 1–432.Google Scholar
  24. Martínez-Hernández C, Rodrigo-Comino J, Romero-Díaz A. 2017. Impact of lithology and soil properties on abandoned dryland terraces during the early stages of soil erosion by water in Southeast Spain. Hydrological Processes, 31(17): 3095–3109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martínez-Murillo J F, Hueso-González P, Ruiz-Sinoga J D. 2017. Topsoil moisture mapping using geostatistical techniques under different Mediterranean climatic conditions. Science of The Total Environment, 595: 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Massart D L, Kaufman L. 1983. The Interpretation of Analytical Chemical Data by the Use of Cluster Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons Press, 237.Google Scholar
  27. Mehnatkesh A, Ayoubi S, Jalalian A, et al. 2013. Relationships between soil depth and terrain attributes in a semi arid hilly region in western Iran. Journal of Mountain Science, 10(1): 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ASTER GDEM. 2009. ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (ASTER GDEM). [2009-06-29]. http://www.jspacesystems.or.jp/ersdac/GDEM/E/.
  29. Metternicht G I, Zinck J A, 2003. Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints. Remote Sensing of Environment, 85: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minasny B, McBratney A B. 2006. A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information. Computers & geosciences, 32(9): 1378–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morin J, Van Winkel J. 1996. The effect of raindrop impact and sheet erosion on infiltration rate and crust formation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(4): 1223–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson D W, Sommers E L. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks D L. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America Press, 961–1010.Google Scholar
  33. Olaya V. 2004. A Gentle Introduction to SAGA GIS. Gottingen: The SAGA User Group Press, 1–216.Google Scholar
  34. Orgill S E, Condon J R, Conyers M K, et al. 2017. Parent material and climate affect soil organic carbon fractions under pastures in south-eastern Australia. Soil Research, 55(8): 799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ortíz-Rodríguez A J, Borselli L, Sarocchi D. 2017. Flow connectivity in active volcanic areas: Use of index of connectivity in the assessment of lateral flow contribution to main streams. Catena, 157: 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page A L, Miller R H, Keeney D R. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, 1–1159.Google Scholar
  37. Poeppl R E, Keesstra S D, Maroulis J. 2017. A conceptual connectivity framework for understanding geomorphic change in human-impacted fluvial systems. Geomorphology, 277: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramos M C, Nacci S, Pla I. 2000. Soil sealing and its influence on erosion rates for some soils in the Mediterranean area. Soil Science, 165(5): 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodrigo-Comino J, Senciales J M, Cerdà A, et al. 2018. The multidisciplinary origin of soil geography: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 177: 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosemary F, Indraratne S P, Weerasooriya R, et al. 2017. Exploring the spatial variability of soil properties in an Alfisol soil catena. Catena, 150: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruggieri N, Castellano M, Capello M, et al. 2011. Seasonal and spatial variability of water quality parameters in the Port of Genoa, Italy, from 2000 to 2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(2): 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sağir Ç, Kurtuluş B. 2017. Hydraulic head and groundwater 111Cd content interpolations using empirical Bayesian kriging (EBK) and geo-adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (geo-ANFIS). Water SA, 43(3): 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Samsonova V P, Blagoveshchenskii Y N, Meshalkina Y L. 2017. Use of empirical Bayesian kriging for revealing heterogeneities in the distribution of organic carbon on agricultural lands. Eurasian Soil Science, 50(3): 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schjønning P, Munkholm L J, Elmholt S, et al. 2007. Organic matter and soil tilth in arable farming: Management makes a difference within 5–6 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 122(2): 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shiri J, Keshavarzi A, Kisi O, et al. 2017. Modeling soil cation exchange capacity using soil parameters: Assessing the heuristic models. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 135: 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shukla M K, Lal R, Ebinger M. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(2): 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singer M J, Shainberg I. 2004. Mineral soil surface crusts and wind and water erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 29(9): 1065–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy (12th ed.). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1–360.Google Scholar
  49. Stavi I, Ungar E D, Lavee H, et al. 2008. Grazing-induced spatial variability of soil bulk density and content of moisture, organic carbon and calcium carbonate in a semi-arid rangeland. Catena, 75(3): 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sulieman M, Saeed, I, Hassaballa A, et al. 2018. Modeling cation exchange capacity in multi geochronological-derived alluvium soils: An approach based on soil depth intervals. Catena, 167: 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sun W Y, Zhu H H, Guo S L. 2015. Soil organic carbon as a function of land use and topography on the Loess Plateau of China. Ecological Engineering, 83: 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi R, Nabiollahi K, Kerry R. 2016. Digital mapping of soil organic carbon at multiple depths using different data mining techniques in Baneh region, Iran. Geoderma, 266: 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tajik S, Ayoubi S, Nourbakhsh F, 2012. Prediction of soil enzymes activity by digital terrain analysis: comparing artificial neural network and multiple linear regression models. Environmental Engineering Science, 29(8): 798–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tran C P, Bode R W, Smith A J, et al. 2010. Land-use proximity as a basis for assessing stream water quality in New York State (USA). Ecological Indicators, 10(3): 727–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. EarthExplorer Help Index: EarthExplorer Tutorial. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.
  56. Wang C, Zhao C Y, Xu Z L, et al. 2013. Effect of vegetation on soil water retention and storage in a semi-arid alpine forest catchment. Journal of Arid Land, 5(2): 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang J Q, Liu L C, Qiu X Q, et al. 2016. Contents of soil organic carbon and nitrogen in water-stable aggregates in abandoned agricultural lands in an arid ecosystem of Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 8(3): 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilford J, De Caritat P, Bui E. 2015. Modelling the abundance of soil calcium carbonate across Australia using geochemical survey data and environmental predictors. Geoderma, 259–260: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeraatpishe M, Khormali F. 2012. Carbon stock and mineral factors controlling soil organic carbon in a climatic gradient, Golestan province. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 12(4): 637–654.Google Scholar
  60. Zeraatpisheh M, Ayoubi S, Jafari A, et al. 2017. Comparing the efficiency of digital and conventional soil mapping to predict soil types in a semi-arid region in Iran. Geomorphology, 285: 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zeraatpisheh M, Ayoubi S, Brungard C W, et al. 2019. Disaggregating and updating a legacy soil map using DSMART, fuzzy c-means and k-means clustering algorithms in Central Iran. Geoderma, 340: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mojtaba Zeraatpisheh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Shamsollah Ayoubi
    • 1
  • Magboul Sulieman
    • 4
  • Jesús Rodrigo-Comino
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, College of AgricultureIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions, College of Environment and PlanningHenan UniversityKaifengChina
  3. 3.Department of Soil ScienceAgricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of KhuzestanAhvazIran
  4. 4.Department of Soil and Environment Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of KhartoumShambatSudan
  5. 5.Instituto de Geomorfología y Suelos, Department of GeographyUniversity of MálagaMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations