Comparison of soil quality and productivity at two sites differing in profile structure and topsoil properties
Introduction
Natural sciences have increasingly embraced the concept of the soil resource as an integral contributor of ecosystem services necessary to support plant-based life (Robinson et al., 2012). Soil quality (SQ), defined as the capacity of a soil to function (Doran and Parkin, 1994, Karlen et al., 2001), serves as an important metric for quantifying soil's role to support multiple ecosystem services. Monitoring a balance of biological, physical, and chemical soil properties is central to assessments of SQ status (Doran and Jones, 1996).
The Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) was designed to make quantitative assessments of SQ status with the purpose of determining the sustainability of management (Andrews et al., 2002, Andrews et al., 2004). The SMAF was designed to assess the response of a given type of soil to management, and to indicate the SQ status within a relative range of potential for that soil; it was not designed to directly compare different soils (Andrews et al., 2004). A set of SQ indicator properties are scored through a series of relationships between soil properties and management goals, including soil productivity, waste recycling, and environmental protection. A management goal is designated by the user, and a SQ index (SQI) value is calculated from application of SMAF scoring algorithms to indicator properties.
An earlier proposal for SQ assessment was that of Larson and Pierce (1994), whereby indicator properties would be evaluated over the entire soil rootzone, weighted by root function with depth. While this concept of SQ assessment would involve evaluations of soil properties throughout the profile, more current SQ practices have focused on dynamic and accessible properties responsive to management in topsoil depths (Cambardella et al., 2004, Karlen et al., 2008, Liebig et al., 2012). However, soil productivity is affected by both topsoil and profile characteristics over depth (Hewitt, 2004). Accordingly, examination of soils closely related by soil genesis as reflected in their taxonomy, but having different parent materials and profile structure presents an opportunity to evaluate influences of topsoil vs. whole profile attributes on SQ.
An opportunity to explore topsoil versus full profile aspects of the SQ-soil productivity relationship arose through a pair of crop sequence experiments performed in the northern Great Plains on two soils classified as Haplustolls (Merrill et al., 2012, Tanaka et al., 2007). One soil had an alluvial-derived (AD) sandy loam profile, the other a glacial till-derived (GTD) loam/clay loam profile.
Here we present results of applying SMAF to compare SQ assessments of two contrasting soils. Soil productivity was examined by comparisons of crop yields from crop sequence experiments. To better understand influence of soil profile characteristics on productivity, measurements of soil water depletion (SWD) and root growth were examined.
A guiding hypothesis for the study was that topsoil properties of the coarser-textured AD soil with lower organic C content would result in lower SQ assessment and lower productivity compared to the finer-textured GTD soil with higher organic C content. Goals of the study were to (a) compare SQ assessments of the two soil types with their soil productivities as indicated by crop sequence experiment results, and (b) analyze effects of soil profile characteristics on productivity differences indicated by crop yield results.
Section snippets
Locations, soils, and climate
Soil properties and soil productivity were measured at two locations in south central North Dakota on lands of the USDA-ARS Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory (NGPRL). One location (46°45′30″ N, 100°55′00″ W) was at the Area IV Soil Conservation Districts Cooperative Research Farm, approximately 7 km south from NGPRL headquarters, and has GTD loam/clay loam soil classified as Temvik-Wilton silt loams (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Typic and Pachic Haplustolls (Table 1). The other
Soil properties and soil quality assessment
Differences in soil properties between the soils were consistent with textural differences (Table 1). The GTD soil had 74% more TOC than AD soil, 17.1 vs. 9.8 g kg−1, respectively, over the 0-30 cm depth interval. Glacial till-derived soil also had greater AWC than AD soil, 0.221 vs. 0.147 kg kg−1, respectively. The soils also differed in land management factors, such as the presence of tree shelterbelts at the AD soil location and their absence at the GTD soil location, and a prior history of
Soil productivity linked to soil quality assessment
A productivity comparison of the soils may be summed as follows (Fig. 2, Fig. 3): (a) Dry pea yield in 2004 was not significantly different between soils. (b) Maize seed yields in 2004 following the three prior species were significantly less on GTD soil than on AD soil for reasons attributable to whole profile differences between the soils. This was a year of relatively low springtime soil water storage, and lower subsoil conductivity appeared to be a productivity disadvantage to GTD soil. (c)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the contribution of the Area IV Soil Conservation Districts in North Dakota for providing land to conduct research reported in this manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge the technical assistance of Dawn Wetch, Becky Wald, Keely Schulz, Delmer Schlenker, Gail Sage, Sally Jacobs, Duane Hinsz, Marvin Hatzenbuhler, Justin Hartel, Jason Gross, and Joseph Doll.
References (36)
- et al.
A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
(2002) - et al.
Watershed-scale assessment of soil quality in the loess hills of southwestern Iowa
Soil and Tillage Research
(2004) - et al.
Soil quality: current concepts and applications
Advances in Agronomy
(2001) - et al.
A preliminary watershed scale soil quality assessment in north central Iowa, USA
Soil and Tillage Research
(2008) - et al.
Sequence effects among crops on alluvial-derived soil compared to those on glacial till-derived soil in the northern Great Plains, USA
Agricultural Systems
(2012) - et al.
The soil management assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method
Soil Science Society of America Journal
(2004) - et al.
Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity
Soil Science Society of America Journal
(1994) - et al.
An iPhone application for on-demand access to digital soil survey information
Soil Science Society of America Journal
(2010) - et al.
Bulk density
- et al.
On-the-go VisNIR potential and limitations for mapping soil clay and organic carbon
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
(2010)
Nitrogen availability indices
Soils, peatlands, and biomonitoring
Defining and assessing soil quality
Particle-size analysis
Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size distribution organic mater percent, and bulk density
Water Resources Research
Soil Properties Relevant to Plant Growth: A Guide to Recognising Soil Properties Relevant to Plant Growth and Protection
Phosphorus
Cited by (30)
Soil health assessment methods: Progress, applications and comparison
2022, Advances in AgronomyEvaluation of soil quality in major grain-producing region of the North China Plain: Integrating minimum data set and established critical limits
2020, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :Unfortunately, the establishment of critical values of indicators is difficult for a given study area. Critical values are soil property values where the crop yield reaches high productivity when the measured soil property is at an optimal level or has low productivity when the soil property is at an unacceptable level (Glover et al., 2000; Merrill et al., 2013; Biswas et al., 2017). In many cases, critical values based on expert opinion, published values, or measured values observed under near-ideal soil conditions for a specific site and special crop species were directly extended to large areas (Bhaduri and Purakayastha, 2014; Manna et al., 2005; Li et al., 2013).
Shifts in bacterial community composition increase with depth in three soil types from paddy fields in China
2019, PedobiologiaCitation Excerpt :However, subsurface microbes also play important roles in soil formation, biogeochemical processes, and degradation of contaminants (Vryzas et al., 2012; Schulz et al., 2013; Long et al., 2016). Merrill et al. (2013) found that subsoil properties can significantly affect soil productivity outcomes. Some studies have demonstrated that bacterial community structure varies considerably between different soil depths (Fierer et al., 2003; Li et al., 2017a).
An integrated approach to exploring soil fertility from the perspective of rice (Oryza sativa L.) yields
2019, Soil and Tillage ResearchCitation Excerpt :Soil fertility represents the capacity of soil productivity, ensures crop yield, and establishes a foundation for sustainable agriculture (Merrill et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2015; Kaniu and Angeyo, 2015).
Quantifying soil quality in a horticultural-cover cropping system
2019, GeodermaCitation Excerpt :Generally, soil physical properties are expected to change in the long-term due to their lesser dynamic nature than the chemical and biochemical properties (Filip, 2002; Franchini et al., 2007; Simard et al., 1994) and partially explains the lack of physical indicators in our medium-term study. Soil pH and OM are the most commonly used indicators for soil quality assessment (Arias et al., 2005; Bastida et al., 2008; Congreves et al., 2015; Merrill et al., 2013) which were consistent with our medium-term CC study. Key roles of soil OM in soil nutrient cycling, formation of soil aggregates and microbial activity (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2004; Six et al., 2002) further confirm its use as a soil quality indicator to evaluate the CC-induced impacts on soil performance and to monitor the changes in the soil quality.