Comparison of different models for predicting soil bulk density. Case study – Slovakian agricultural soils

Makovníková, Jarmila; Širáň, Miloš; Houšková, Beata; Pálka, Boris; Jones, Arwyn

doi:10.1515/intag-2016-0079

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, most of these pedotransfer functions developed for predicting soil bulk density are suitable only for specific agro-pedo-climatic conditions and can be applied only within a limited geographic area (Martin et al, 2009, Makovníková et al, 2017b. In addition, they achieve a higher soil bulk density estimation error than direct measurement methods (Lark et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring of Soil Bulk Density in Context with Its Small-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity

Širáň¹,

Makovníková²

2021

GEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of soil monitoring system is to obtain the knowledge of the most current state and development of soil properties according to concrete threats to soil. To determine the significant changes of soil properties in time, it is important to know spatial variability of concrete soil parameter for concrete site. Only those time changes of the soil parameter are significant, which exceed its spatial variability at the site. The main aim of the study has been focused on the evaluation of small-scale site heterogeneity of equilibrium soil bulk density and the integration of impact of this heterogeneity in evaluation of degradation process of soil compaction in time. As site variation coefficients have considerably varied at standard sampling with five repetitions during monitoring period, one-time detail spatial variability mapping of soil bulk density was realized at 17 repetitions on five selected monitoring sites with different soil type, texture and use. This increase in the number of sampling points helped us to specify and stabilize the values of variation coefficients (between minimum and maximum by standard sampling) as well as the extent of confidence intervals. Standard deviations at the chosen monitoring sites moved from 0.039 to 0.118 g•cm −3 in topsoil and from 0.031 to 0.067 g•cm −3 in subsoil and expressed as variation coefficient 2.9% -9.2% and 2.0% -4.9%, respectively. The intervals of significant time changes of soil bulk density for the sites and depths were determined on the base of its site confidence interval (95%) and uncertainty rate of its measure methodology. The time changes of bulk density values between single year-to-year sampling were overlapped by this interval of significant changes to obtain significant bulk density changes in time. This method allowed us to distinguish significant time changes in soil bulk density from insignificant ones. The bulk density value changes on the monitoring sites were significant in the range of six to nine years within observed period 2002-2014 in both depths.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring of Soil Bulk Density in Context with Its Small-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity

Širáň¹,

Makovníková²

2021

GEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The following calculation was carried out to determine this. First, the amount of affected topsoil per ha was calculated based on the LUCAS (https: //esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/lucas (accessed on 24 October 2021)) soil bulk density data from Ballabio [75] and Makovinikova [76]. Bulk density of soil in EU agricultural areas varies from 1.2 to 1.4 tons/m 3 ; subsequently, a value of 1.3 was used here.…”

Section: Determining Safe Levels Of P Loading From Manurementioning

confidence: 99%

Phosphorus Flows, Surpluses, and N/P Agronomic Balancing When Using Manure from Pig and Poultry Farms

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pig and poultry industries continue to grow across the world and together they provide the majority of meat consumed. The European Union (EU) in particular has the highest global relative meat production by monogastrics (i.e., pig and poultry). The fate of phosphorus (P) in pig and poultry farming was studied, accounting for P content in feed, animals, manure, soil, and runoff. P input from manure, and P offtake in crops receiving manure, were plotted against each other to arrive at “safe” P loading rates, in order to minimize soil P surpluses along the lines of the EU Nitrogen Expert Panel in their work with nitrogen (N). However, it was observed that it is the N/P ratio and the background soil P levels that determine whether a certain manure will end up producing surplus levels of soil P. Critical N/P weight ratios were derived over different crop P offtake rates when applying stored manure to croplands. At spreading rates of 170 and 250 kgN/ha/year and a crop P offtake of 15 or 30 kgP/ha/year, stored pig and chicken manure result in soil P surpluses. An important factor in determining effective N/P ratios is the plant availability of N in stored manure, which runs at around 47%, estimated from previously published results. The minimization of N losses to the atmosphere and to groundwater in housing, storage, and spreading of manure has a major impact on the N/P weight ratio of the manure that ends up on fields. In most cases, half of the ex-animal N content has been lost in stored or degraded manure, with N/P weight ratios running at two and less. Following only the EU Nitrates Directive, which allows for a maximum of 170 kgN/ha/year in NVZs (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones), will often result in soil P surpluses leading to runoff losses to adjacent water bodies. Therefore, for the pig and poultry industries to continue thriving, measures are required to better manage manure, including improved storage and spreading techniques, acidification, separation, struvite extraction and ammonia stripping of pig slurry, and drying and pelleting of poultry litter. This way, excess manure and derived biofertilizers from animal farms can find their way back into the commercial market, instead of ending up as legacy P in watersheds and coastal zones.

show abstract

“…Importantly, soil degradation does not always follow a linear or exponential trajectory (Kozlovskii, 1999;Kozlovskii and Goryachkin, 1996). This means that changes (absolute for linear or relative for exponential) are not proportional to time or management intensity (Kozlovskii and Goryachkin, 1996;Matus and Egli, 2019). Soil degradation proceeds in stages of various levels of duration and intensity.…”

Section: Analysis Of Phase Diagrams and Identification Of Thresholds mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews and syntheses: Agropedogenesis – humankind as the sixth soil-forming factor and attractors of agricultural soil degradation

Kuzyakov¹,

Zamanian²

2019

Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Agricultural land covers 5.1×109 ha (ca. 50 % of potentially suitable land area), and agriculture has immense effects on soil formation and degradation. Although we have an advanced mechanistic understanding of individual degradation processes of soils under agricultural use, general concepts of agropedogenesis are absent. A unifying theory of soil development under agricultural practices, of agropedogenesis, is urgently needed. We introduce a theory of anthropedogenesis – soil development under the main factor “humankind” – the sixth factor of soil formation, and deepen it to encompass agropedogenesis as the most important direction of anthropedogenesis. The developed theory of agropedogenesis consists of (1) broadening the classical concept of factors→processes→properties→functions along with their feedbacks to the processes, (2) a new concept of attractors of soil degradation, (3) selection and analysis of master soil properties, (4) analysis of phase diagrams of master soil properties to identify thresholds and stages of soil degradation, and, finally, (5) a definition of the multidimensional attractor space of agropedogenesis. The main feature of anthropedogenesis is the narrowing of soil development to only one function (e.g. crop production for agropedogenesis), and this function is becoming the main soil-forming factor. The focus on only one function and the disregard of other functions inevitably lead to soil degradation. We show that the factor humankind dominates over the effects of the five natural soil-forming factors and that agropedogenesis is therefore much faster than natural soil formation. The direction of agropedogenesis is largely opposite to that of natural soil development and is thus usually associated with soil degradation. In contrast to natural pedogenesis leading to divergence of soil properties, agropedogenesis leads to their convergence because of the efforts to optimize conditions for crop production. Agricultural practices lead soil development toward a quasi-steady state with a predefined range of measured properties – attractors (an attractor is a minimal or maximal value of a soil property toward which the property will develop via long-term intensive agricultural use from any natural state). Based on phase diagrams and expert knowledge, we define a set of “master properties” (bulk density and macroaggregates, soil organic matter content, C:N ratio, pH and electrical conductivity – EC, microbial biomass and basal respiration) as well as soil depth (A and B horizons). These master properties are especially sensitive to land use and determine the other properties during agropedogenesis. Phase diagrams of master soil properties help identify thresholds and stages of soil degradation, each of which is characterized by one dominating process. Combining individual attractors in a multidimensional attractor space enables predicting the trajectory and the final state of agrogenic soil development and developing measures to combat soil degradation. In conclusion, the suggested new theory of anthro- and agropedogenesis is a prerequisite for merging various degradation processes into a general view and for understanding the functions of humankind not only as the sixth soil-forming factor but also as an ecosystem engineer optimizing its environment to fulfil a few desired functions.

show abstract

Comparison of different models for predicting soil bulk density. Case study – Slovakian agricultural soils

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Monitoring of Soil Bulk Density in Context with Its Small-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity

Monitoring of Soil Bulk Density in Context with Its Small-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity

Phosphorus Flows, Surpluses, and N/P Agronomic Balancing When Using Manure from Pig and Poultry Farms

Reviews and syntheses: Agropedogenesis – humankind as the sixth soil-forming factor and attractors of agricultural soil degradation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About