Spatial Variation Assessment of Selected Soil Properties for Precision Field Experimentation

Authors

  • Aikaterini Karyoti Depaprtment of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly.1 Fytocou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece Hellenic Agricultural Organisation-Soil and Water Resources Institute, Sindos-Greece
  • Evagelos Hatzigiannakis Hellenic Agricultural Organisation-Soil and Water Resources Institute, Sindos-Greece
  • Dimitris Bartzialis Depaprtment of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly.1 Fytocou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece
  • Nicolaos Danalatos Depaprtment of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly.1 Fytocou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece

Keywords:

soil, field, nutrients, horizon, coefficient of variation.

Abstract

Spatial variation and status of selected soil properties were assessed in a small-sized field, cultivated with irrigated corn. A geo-referenced sampling was performed and twenty four soil samples were collected from two depths (0-30 and 30-60 cm) from 12 different locations in order selected soil properties to be  determined. Despite the small parcel size, soil properties exhibited a spatial variability, with coefficient of variance (CV) ranging between 7.0 and15.4% for soil texture, 9.9-12.9% for Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), 12.8-16.8% for organic carbon (Corg) and 15.7-20.6% for total nitrogen (Ntot). CV for Bulk Density (BD) and pH were very low in both soil depths indicating rather high stability.CEC, Corg and Ntot mean values were higher in the top soils. Increased values for pH, clay and CaCO3 contents in the subsurface samples, may be attributed to partial leaching of exchangeable bases and CaCO3. A strong relation between Ntot and Corg found indicating that these elements are mainly bound in the soil organic matter (SOM). A strong negative relation also was recorded between clay content and bulk density (BD) of soils, indicating that BD depends primary on soil texture. In addition, other soil properties showed very low or absence of correlation between each other. Prediction maps have indicated variation in soil properties partially caused by different farming practices. The interpolated maps showed clear differences mainly on Clay, CaCO3, SOM, Norg. and EC across the surveyed area. Application of a simple ordinary kriging clearly demonstrated the spatial variability of soil properties, which should be taken into consideration for designing field experiments, particularly when split-plot factorial block designs are to be used. As shown in this investigation, this can be realized with decreased field work, and lower total cost for laboratory analyses.

References

[1]. S.O. Chung, J.H. Sung, K.A. Sudduth, S.T. Drummond and B.K. Hyun. 2001. Spatial variability of yield, chlorophyll content, and soil properties in a Korean rice paddy field. In P.C. Robert et al, (ed.), Proc. 5th International Conf. on precision agriculture [CD-rom], ASA, CSSA, Madison, WI.
[2]. L.A. Gaston, M.A. Locke, R.M. Zablotowicz, and K.N. Reddy. 2001. Spatial variability of soil properties and weed populations in the Mississippi delta, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:449–459.
[3]. Z.F. Montezano, E.J. Corazza, and T. Muraoka. 2006. Variabilidade espacial da fertilidade do solo em área cultivada e manejada homogeneamente. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 30:839-847.
[4]. J. Mitsios, ?. ?oulios, ?. Charoulis, F. Gatsios and S. Floras. 2000. “Soil Survey and Soil Map of the experimental farm of the University of Thessaly in Velestino area”. Published by Zymel. ?thens, pp. 21-41.
[5]. Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
[6]. Soil Taxonomy. 1999. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil survey (Agricult. Handbook No. 436), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[7]. Working Group WRB. 2006. World reference base for soil resources. “World Soil Resources Reports No. 103”, FAO, Rome. ISBN 92-5-105511-4.
[8]. G. Gee, and J. Bauder. 1986. Particle size analysis. In Methods of soil analysis, part 1: “Physical and mineralogical methods”, ed. A, Klute, 383–411, Madison, Wisc,: ASA and SSSA.
[9]. G.R. Blake, and K.H. Hartge. 1986b. Particle Density. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1 - Physical and Mineralogical Methods Second Edition, American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI.
[10]. J. Rhoades. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. In Methods of soil analysis: part 2, “Chemical and microbiological properties”, ed. A. L. Page et al., 149–157, Madison, Wisc,: ASA and SSSA.
[11]. F. McLean. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page, A.L., Ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, “Chemical and Microbiological Properties”, American Society of Agronomy, Agr, Series Monograph No, 9, Madison, WI, 199–223.
[12]. G. Thomas. 1982. Exchangeable cations. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2, “Chemical and Microbiological Properties”, ed. A.L. Page, Agronomy 9, 159–164.
[13]. D. W. Nelson, and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Methods of soil analysis, part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties, ed. A.L. Page et al, 539–579, Madison, Wisc,: ASA and SSSA.
[14]. L. E. Allison, and C. D. Moodie. 1965. Carbonate. In Methods of soil analysis, Part 2; Chemical and Microbiological Properties eds. C. A. Black, 1379–1400. Madison, Wisc,: American Society of Agronomy.
[15]. S. Kuo. 1996. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3: “Chemical Methods”, Soil Science Society of America, Book Series 5; Madison, WI; 869–960.
[16]. D.J. Mulla and A.B. McBratney.2000. Soil Spatial Variability. In: Handbook of Soil Science, ed. M E Sumner, Boca Raton, pp. 343-370.
[17]. L.P. Wilding. 1985. “Spatial variability: its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys”, pp. 166-194. In D.R. Nielsen and J. Bouma (eds.), Soil Spatial Variability: Pudoc. Wageningen, Netherlands.
[18]. J. D. Jabro, W. B. Stevens, R. G. Evans, W. M. Iversen.2010. Spatial Variability and Correlation of Selected Soil Properties in the Ap Horizon of a Crop Grassland. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 26(3): 419-428.
[19]. V. Van?k, J. Balík, J. Šilha, J. ?erný.2008. Spatial variability of total soil nitrogen and sulphur content at two conventionally managed fields. Plant Soil Environ., 54: 413-419.
[20]. G. B. Tesfahunegn, L. amene, L., and P.L. Vlek. 2011. Catchment scale spatial variability of soil properties and implications on site-specific soil management in northern Ethiopia, Soil Till. Res., 117, 124–139.
[21]. D. George, and M. Mallery. 2010. Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
[22]. E.J. Sadler, R.G. Evans, K.C., Stone, and C. R. Camp. 2005. Opportunities for conservation with precision irrigation. J. Soil and Water Cons. 60(6): 371?379.
[23]. C. Gülser, I. Ekberli, F. Candemir, Z. Demir. 2016. Spatial variability of soil physical properties in a cultivated field, Eurasian J Soil Sci. 5 (3) 192 – 200.
[24]. P. Dey, S. Karwariya and N. S. Bhogal. 2017. Spatial Variability Analysis of Soil Properties Using Geospatial Technique in Katni District of Madhya Pradesh, India. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 17(3): 1-13, 2017; Article no.IJPSS.34219, ISSN: 2320-7035.

Downloads

Published

2017-09-21

How to Cite

Karyoti, A., Hatzigiannakis, E., Bartzialis, D., & Danalatos, N. (2017). Spatial Variation Assessment of Selected Soil Properties for Precision Field Experimentation. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 35(1), 352–363. Retrieved from https://asrjetsjournal.org/index.php/American_Scientific_Journal/article/view/3352

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 1 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who submit papers with this journal agree to the following terms.