Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Joerg Ruehlmann

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3. Means, standard deviations and min-max values of each soil group: arable (ARAB, N = 163), proctor (PROC, N = 126), reclaimed (REC, A = 74), volcanic (VOL, N = 45), and wetland soils (WET, N = 193), respectively. Based on (a) bulk density and on (b) standardized bulk density.

Figure 3 Means, standard deviations and min-max values of each soil group: arable (ARAB, N = 163), proctor (PROC, N = 126), reclaimed (REC, A = 74), volcanic (VOL, N = 45), and wetland soils (WET, N = 193), respectively. Based on (a) bulk density and on (b) standardized bulk density.

Related Figures (8)

+ ARAB = arable soils (long-term experiments), PROC = proctor soil, WET = wetland soil, REC = reclaimed soils of open cast mining, VOL = volcanic soil. #1) Schjonning et al., 1994; 2) Kahle et al., 1992; 3) Dhein and Mertens, 1955; 4) Asmus et al., 1987; 5) Michael and Djurabi, 1964; 6) Singh et al., 2007; 7) Hati et al., 2007; 8) Masto et al., 2007; 9) Rudrappa et al., 2006; 10) Pettersson et al., 1992; 11) Kirchmann et al., 1994; 12) Ekwue, 1990; 13) Odell et al., 1984; 14) Anderson et al., 1990; 15) Aragon et al., 2000; 16) Krzic et al., 2004; 17) Smith et al., 1997; 18) Thomas et al., 1996; 19) Izaurralde et al., 1998; 20) Akala and Lal, 2001; 21) Hart, 1988; 22) Huygens et al., 2005; 23) Antilen et al., 2003; 24) Veldkamp and O’Brien, 2000; 25) Kurtz et al., 2001; 26) Scowcroft et al., 2004; 27) Vacca et al., 2003; 28) Tomer et al., 1999; 29) Hartshorn et al., 2003; 30) D’Amore and Lynn, 2002; 31) Hatton et al., 1983; 32) Craft et al., 1999; 33) Harter and Mitsch, 2003; 34) Morse et al., 2004; 35) Pennings et al., 2002; 36) McKee et al., 2006; 37) White and Reddy, 1999; 38) White and Reddy, 2000; 39) White and Reddy, 2001; 40) Werner and Zedler, 2002. § Soil group related data.
+ ARAB = arable soils (long-term experiments), PROC = proctor soil, WET = wetland soil, REC = reclaimed soils of open cast mining, VOL = volcanic soil. #1) Schjonning et al., 1994; 2) Kahle et al., 1992; 3) Dhein and Mertens, 1955; 4) Asmus et al., 1987; 5) Michael and Djurabi, 1964; 6) Singh et al., 2007; 7) Hati et al., 2007; 8) Masto et al., 2007; 9) Rudrappa et al., 2006; 10) Pettersson et al., 1992; 11) Kirchmann et al., 1994; 12) Ekwue, 1990; 13) Odell et al., 1984; 14) Anderson et al., 1990; 15) Aragon et al., 2000; 16) Krzic et al., 2004; 17) Smith et al., 1997; 18) Thomas et al., 1996; 19) Izaurralde et al., 1998; 20) Akala and Lal, 2001; 21) Hart, 1988; 22) Huygens et al., 2005; 23) Antilen et al., 2003; 24) Veldkamp and O’Brien, 2000; 25) Kurtz et al., 2001; 26) Scowcroft et al., 2004; 27) Vacca et al., 2003; 28) Tomer et al., 1999; 29) Hartshorn et al., 2003; 30) D’Amore and Lynn, 2002; 31) Hatton et al., 1983; 32) Craft et al., 1999; 33) Harter and Mitsch, 2003; 34) Morse et al., 2004; 35) Pennings et al., 2002; 36) McKee et al., 2006; 37) White and Reddy, 1999; 38) White and Reddy, 2000; 39) White and Reddy, 2001; 40) Werner and Zedler, 2002. § Soil group related data.
We presumed (i) that the fitted values of the Parameters c and d were independent on the site and (ii) that the value of Parameter c was very similar to that of the particle density of the mineral soil particles. Therefore, (i) we assumed that ¢ and d should have a general validity for all sites and (ii) we Fig. 1. Bulk density of soils as affected by (a) soil organic C concentration and (b) measured vs. calculated bulk density. Bulk density was calculated (b) by fitting Coefficient b separately for each soil group: arable (ARAB), proctor (PROC), reclaimed (REC), volcanic (VOL), and wetland soils (WET)
We presumed (i) that the fitted values of the Parameters c and d were independent on the site and (ii) that the value of Parameter c was very similar to that of the particle density of the mineral soil particles. Therefore, (i) we assumed that ¢ and d should have a general validity for all sites and (ii) we Fig. 1. Bulk density of soils as affected by (a) soil organic C concentration and (b) measured vs. calculated bulk density. Bulk density was calculated (b) by fitting Coefficient b separately for each soil group: arable (ARAB), proctor (PROC), reclaimed (REC), volcanic (VOL), and wetland soils (WET)
+ N = number of sampled treatments. # clay: <2 pm. § silt: 2-63 um. { sand: 63-2000 pm.
+ N = number of sampled treatments. # clay: <2 pm. § silt: 2-63 um. { sand: 63-2000 pm.
Table 3. Correlation matrix of the fitted Parameters d and b. (Parameter b was separately fitted for the five soil groups arable, proctor, reclaimed, volcanic, and wetland soils, respectively).
Table 3. Correlation matrix of the fitted Parameters d and b. (Parameter b was separately fitted for the five soil groups arable, proctor, reclaimed, volcanic, and wetland soils, respectively).
Fig. 4. Nomogram to determine the effect of soil organic C concentration on bulk density as generated using Eq. [6]. The asterisks, symbolizing three data pairs (dotted lines), were positioned on three of the eight curves which symbolize exemplarily the trend of the SOC affected change of p,, each on a different level of soil compactness. For direct reading of corresponding sp, values (1.3, 1.7 and 2.1 Mg m~3), follow these curves to the corresponding intercepts as marked by dots. The hatched areas provide information of the ratio Ap, /A SOC. The values for the Parameter b (Eq. [6]) corresponding to the upper bound (sp, = 2.1 Mg m7) and the lower bound (sp, = 0.7 Mg m7) are 0.004 and 0.014, respectively. culated the sp, values as described in Eq. [7] and related these to the corresponding clay concentrations (Fig. 6b). We estimated the range of sp, to be between 1.57 and 1.82 Mg m”°, Similar to the relationship sp, vs. clay (Fig. 6a), we found a negative corre- lation between Pp and the clay concentration: y = 1.783 (0.027) x + 0.001 (2 107“), (SE in parenthesis); R2 was 0.498. However, the slope of the relation between sp, and the clay concentration was only 50% of that between py, and clay concentration.
Fig. 4. Nomogram to determine the effect of soil organic C concentration on bulk density as generated using Eq. [6]. The asterisks, symbolizing three data pairs (dotted lines), were positioned on three of the eight curves which symbolize exemplarily the trend of the SOC affected change of p,, each on a different level of soil compactness. For direct reading of corresponding sp, values (1.3, 1.7 and 2.1 Mg m~3), follow these curves to the corresponding intercepts as marked by dots. The hatched areas provide information of the ratio Ap, /A SOC. The values for the Parameter b (Eq. [6]) corresponding to the upper bound (sp, = 2.1 Mg m7) and the lower bound (sp, = 0.7 Mg m7) are 0.004 and 0.014, respectively. culated the sp, values as described in Eq. [7] and related these to the corresponding clay concentrations (Fig. 6b). We estimated the range of sp, to be between 1.57 and 1.82 Mg m”°, Similar to the relationship sp, vs. clay (Fig. 6a), we found a negative corre- lation between Pp and the clay concentration: y = 1.783 (0.027) x + 0.001 (2 107“), (SE in parenthesis); R2 was 0.498. However, the slope of the relation between sp, and the clay concentration was only 50% of that between py, and clay concentration.
Fig. 5. Bulk density of soils as affected by (a) soil organic C concentration and (b) measured vs. calculatec bulk density. (Texture data set).
Fig. 5. Bulk density of soils as affected by (a) soil organic C concentration and (b) measured vs. calculatec bulk density. (Texture data set).
Among a multitude of other factors, SOM concentration is the most dominating factor changing p,, (Gosselink et al., 1984; Heuscher et al., 2005). The SOM concentration of soils is a resultant measurement of the relationship between organic matter (OM) input and OM mineralization. Whereas the OM input into agro-ecosystems is relatively simply to manage— di- rectly by applying different amounts of organic amendments and indirectly via changing the amount of crop and harvest residues by fertilizing or irrigating plants—the SOM miner- alization processes are affected by a large complex of factors. Unfortunately, the SOM mineralization controlling factors like texture, hydrological site conditions, traffic intensity, and till- age system also have an effect on p,,. According to the multiple interrelations within this complex, the relationship py, vs. SOM varies from site to site, and on a given site it may also vary over time. Therefore, it is a moot point to develop always novel site-specific approaches and solutions for this relationship. To make progress in this field, it is necessary to separate the effects of the single factors. However, and especially in the case of the relationship p, vs. SOM, a precondition to separate this effect among diverse other interacting factors is to use appropriate data sets. A key strength of our analyses is that data was derived from long-term fertilization experiments. The advantage of us- The use of this diverse data material allowed us to suc- cessfully parameterize a nonlinear model to describe the rela- tionship py, vs. SOC. The above-mentioned nomogram (Fig. 4) covers approximately the whole possible range of combina- tions between p,, and SOC and was generated using the model as given in Eq. [6]. The eight curves symbolize exemplarily the trend of SOC affected change of p,, each on a different level of soil compactness. The upper curve shows the trend of maximum compacted, “proctor soils,” ranging from py, = Fig. 6. (a) Bulk density of soils and (b) standardized bulk density as affected by clay concentration. (Texture data set).
Among a multitude of other factors, SOM concentration is the most dominating factor changing p,, (Gosselink et al., 1984; Heuscher et al., 2005). The SOM concentration of soils is a resultant measurement of the relationship between organic matter (OM) input and OM mineralization. Whereas the OM input into agro-ecosystems is relatively simply to manage— di- rectly by applying different amounts of organic amendments and indirectly via changing the amount of crop and harvest residues by fertilizing or irrigating plants—the SOM miner- alization processes are affected by a large complex of factors. Unfortunately, the SOM mineralization controlling factors like texture, hydrological site conditions, traffic intensity, and till- age system also have an effect on p,,. According to the multiple interrelations within this complex, the relationship py, vs. SOM varies from site to site, and on a given site it may also vary over time. Therefore, it is a moot point to develop always novel site-specific approaches and solutions for this relationship. To make progress in this field, it is necessary to separate the effects of the single factors. However, and especially in the case of the relationship p, vs. SOM, a precondition to separate this effect among diverse other interacting factors is to use appropriate data sets. A key strength of our analyses is that data was derived from long-term fertilization experiments. The advantage of us- The use of this diverse data material allowed us to suc- cessfully parameterize a nonlinear model to describe the rela- tionship py, vs. SOC. The above-mentioned nomogram (Fig. 4) covers approximately the whole possible range of combina- tions between p,, and SOC and was generated using the model as given in Eq. [6]. The eight curves symbolize exemplarily the trend of SOC affected change of p,, each on a different level of soil compactness. The upper curve shows the trend of maximum compacted, “proctor soils,” ranging from py, = Fig. 6. (a) Bulk density of soils and (b) standardized bulk density as affected by clay concentration. (Texture data set).
Related topics:
Soil ScienceSoil CompactionSoil DensitySoil Bulk Density
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved