Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer (한국토양비료학회지)

Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizer (한국토양비료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Soil Pore Properties between Anthropogenic and Natural Paddy Field Soils From Computed Tomographic Images

  • Chun, Hyen Chung (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Jung, Ki-Yuol (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Choi, Young Dae (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Jo, Su-min (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Sanghun (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Hyun, Byung-Keun (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Shin, Kooksik (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Sonn, Yeonkyu (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Kang, Hang-Won (Crop Production Technology Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA)
  • Received : 2015.08.06
  • Accepted : 2015.09.30
  • Published : 2015.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Human influence on soil formation has dramatically increased with human civilization and industry development. Increase of anthropogenic soils induced researches on the anthropogenic soils; classification, chemical and physical characteristics of anthropogenic soils and plant growth from anthropogenic soils. However there have been no comprehensive analyses on soil pore or physical properties of anthropogenic soils from 3 dimensional images in Korea. The objectives of this study were to characterize physical properties of anthropogenic paddy field soils by depth and to find differences between natural and anthropogenic paddy field soils. Soil samples were taken from two anthropogenic and natural paddy field soils; anthropogenic (A_c) and natural (N_c) paddy soils with topsoil of coarse texture and anthropogenic (A_f) and natural (N_f) paddy soils with topsoil of fine texture. The anthropogenic paddy fields were reestablished during the Arable Land Remodeling Project from 2011 to 2012 and continued rice farming after the project. Natural paddy fields had no artificial changes or disturbance in soil layers up to 1m depth. Samples were taken at three different depths and analyzed for routine physical properties (texture, bulk density, etc.) and pore properties with computer tomography (CT) scans. The CT scan provided 3 dimensional images at resolution of 0.01 mm to calculate pore radius size, length, and tortuosity of soil pores. Fractal and configuration entropy analyses were applied to quantify pore structure and analyze spatial distribution of pores within soil images. The results of measured physical properties showed no clear trend or significant differences across depths or sites from all samples, except the properties from topsoils. The results of pore morphology and spatial distribution analyses provided detailed information of pores affected by human influences. Pore length and size showed significant decrease in anthropogenic soils. Especially, pores of A_c had great decrease in length compared to N_c. Fractal and entropy analyses showed clear changes of pore distributions across sites. The topsoil layer of A_c showed more degradation of pore structure than that of N_c, while pores of A_f topsoil did not show significant degradation compared with those of N_f. These results concluded that anthropogenic soils with coarse texture may have more effects on pore properties than ones with fine texture. The reestablished paddy fields may need more fundamental remediation to improve physical conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Al-Raoush, R.I. and C.S. Willson. 2005. Extraction of physically realistic pore network properties from threedimensional synchrotron X-ray microtomography images of unconsolidated porous media systems. J. Hydrol. 300(1-4): 44-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.05.005
  2. Andraud, C., A. Beghdadi, and J. Lafait. 1994. Entropic analysis of random morphologies. Physica A. 207:208-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4371(94)90374-3
  3. Andraud, C., A. Beghdadi, E. Haslund, R. Hilfer, J. Lafait, and Virgin, B. 1997. Local entropy characterization of correlated random microstructures. Physica A. 235:307-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(96)00354-8
  4. Avery, B.W. 1980. Soil classification for England and Wales, p.67, Harpenden.
  5. Baveye, P., H. Rogasik, O. Wendroth, I. Onasch, and J.W. Crawford. 2002. Effect of sampling volume on the measurement of soil physical properties: Simulation with X-ray tomography data. Meas. Sci. Technol. 13(5):775-784. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/13/5/316
  6. Bidwell, O.W. and F.D. Hole. 1965. Man as factor of soil formation. Soil Sci. 99:65-72. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-196501000-00011
  7. Blume, H.P. 1989. Classification of soils in urban agglomerations. Catena Cremlingen 16:269-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(89)90013-1
  8. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Well. 1996. The nature and properties of soils. Pearson Prentice Hall, Ohio.
  9. Chun, H.C., D. Gimenez, and S.W. Yoon. 2008. Morphology, lacunarity and entropy of intra-aggregate pores: Aggregate size and soil management effects. Geoderma 146(1-2):83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.05.018
  10. Currie, J. A. 1966. The volume and porosity of soil crumbs. J. Soil Sci. 17(1):24-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1966.tb01449.x
  11. Dexter, A.R. 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil Till. Res. 11:199-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(88)90002-5
  12. Dexter, A.R., 2004. Soil physical quality. Part III. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S-theory. Geoderma. 120:227-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.006
  13. Dudal, R., F.O. Nachtergaele, and M.F. Purnell. 2002. The human factor of soil formation, pp.14-21S, Thailand.
  14. Gibson, J.R., H. Lin, and M.A. Burns. 2006. A comparison of fractal analytical methods on 2- and 3-dimensional computed tomographic scans of soil aggregates. Geoderma. 134:335-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.03.052
  15. Gimenez, D., R.R. Allmaras, E.A. Nater, and D.R. Huggins. 1997. Fractal dimensions for volume and surface of interaggregate pores - scale effects. Geoderma 77(1):19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00006-2
  16. Hur, S.O., Y.K. Sonn, K.J. Lee, S.T. Lee, C.W. Park, S.H. Jeon, S.K. Ha, and J.G. Kim. 2008. Water movement characteristics by soil horizon of cumulants Anthrosol in highland, p.132.
  17. Ibrahim, M., S.G. Ha, K.H. Han, and Y.S. Zhang. 2011. Physico-chemical characteristics of artificially disturbed soils as affected by agricumulants of different textures, pp. 189-190.
  18. Ibrahim, M., K.H. Han, S.K. Ha, Y.S. Zhang, and S.O. Hur. 2012. Physico-chemical characteristics of disturbed soils affected by accumulate of different texture in south Korea. Sains Malaysiana 41(3):285-291.
  19. Karlen, D. L. 2002. Structure, plant establishment and. pp 1269-1275. In:Lal, R. (ed). Encyclopedia of Soil Science. Marcel Dekker, Inc.
  20. Klavchenko, A. N., A. N. W. Wang, A. J. M. Smucker and M. L. Rivers. 2011. Long-term differences in tillage and land use affect intra-aggregate pore heterogeneity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75(5):1658-1666. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0096
  21. Kobayashi, Y., S. Kawasaki, M. Kato, T. Mukunoki, and T. Kaneko. 2009. Applicability of a method for evaluation of porosity to biogrouted geomaterials. J. MMIJ. 125(10):540-546. https://doi.org/10.2473/journalofmmij.125.540
  22. Langmaack, M., S. Schrader, U. Rapp-Bernhardt, and K. Kotzke. 2002. Soil structure rehabilitation of arable soil degraded by compaction. Geoderma. 105(1-2):141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00097-0
  23. Lee, S. B., Y. K. Sonn, H. C. Chun, C. W. Park, H. J. Cho, B. K. Hyun, K. C. Song, Y. S. Zhang and D. B. Lee. 2013. Comparison between Soil Taxonomy and WRB for classification of anthropogenic soils. Kor. J. Soil Sci. Fer. 67-67. (Abstr.)
  24. Liang, Y., Y. Yang, C. Yang, Q. Shen, J. Zhou, and L. Yang. 2003. Soil enzymatic activity and growth of rice and barley as influenced by organic manure in an anthropogenic soil. Geoderma 115(1-2):149-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00084-3
  25. Massoura, S.T., G. Echevarria, T. Becquer, J. Ghanbaja, E. Leclerc-Cessac, and J. Morel. 2006. Control of nickel availability by nickel bearing minerals in natural and anthropogenic soils. Geoderma 136(1):28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.01.008
  26. Peth, S., R. Horn, F. Beckmann, T. Donath, J. Fischer, and A.J.M. Smucker. 2008. Three-dimensional quantification of intra-aggregate pore-space features using synchrotronradiation-based microtomography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72(4):897-907. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0130
  27. Pozdnyakova, L, D. Gimenez, and P.V. Oudemans. 2005. Spatial analysis of cranberry yield at three scales. Agron. J. 97(1):49-57. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0049
  28. National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (NIAST). 2000. Analysis method of soil and plant. NIAST. pp.103-131.
  29. Renison, D., I. Hensen, and A.M. Cingolani. 2004. Anthropogenic soil degradation affects seed viability in Polylepis australis mountain forests of central Argentina. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 196(2-3):327-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.025
  30. Sonn, Y.K., Y.S. Zhang, C.W. Park, Y.H. Moon, B.K. Hyun, K.C. Song, and H.C. Chun. 2012. A comparison of spatial variation on anthropogenic soils. Kor. J. Soil Sci. Fer. 45(6):897-899. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2012.45.6.897
  31. Taina, I.A., R.J. Heck, and T. R. Elliot. 2008. Application of X-ray computed tomography to soil science: A literature review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 88(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJSS06027
  32. Treseder, K. K. and M. F. Allen. 2000. Mycorrhizal fungi have a potential role in soil carbon storage under elevated CO2 and nitrogen deposition. New Phytol. 147:189-200. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00690.x
  33. Vogel, H.J. and K. Roth. 2003. Moving through scales of flow and transport in soil. J. Hydroal. 272(1-4):95-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00257-3
  34. Volungevicius, J. and R. Skorupskas. 2011. Classification of anthropogenic soil transformation. Geologija 53(4):165-177.
  35. Wang, W., A. N. Kravchenko, A. J. M. Smucker and M. L. Rivers. 2011. Comparison of image segmentation methods in simulated 2D and 3D microtomographic images of soil aggregates. Geoderma 162 (3-4).
  36. Warkentin, B.P. 2001. The tillage effect in sustaining soil functions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 164:345-350 https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2624(200108)164:4<345::AID-JPLN345>3.0.CO;2-5
  37. Young, I. M. and J. W. Crawford. 1991. The fractal structure of soil aggregates: its measurement and interpretation. J. Soil Sci. 42:198-192.
  38. Young, I. M., J.W. Crawford, and C. Rappoldt. 2001. New methods and models for characterizing structural heterogeneity of soil. Soil Till. Res. 61:33-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00188-X

Cited by

  1. Soil Physico-chemical Properties by Land Use of Anthropogenic Soils Dredged from River Basins vol.49, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2016.49.4.341
  2. Spatial Analyses of Soil Chemical Properties from a Remodeled Paddy Field as Affected by Wet Land Leveling vol.49, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2016.49.5.555