Abstract
<abstract>
<p>Understanding how different climates and soil properties affect the soil processes requires quantifying these effects. Visual soil quality indicators have been proposed to assess the robustness of the soil processes and infer their ability to function. The scores of the visual soil quality indicators covary with climate features and soil properties, and their magnitude is different in acid-to-neutral and alkaline soils. These variables show collinearities and interactions, and the assessment of the individual effect of each variable on the scores of the visual indicators and the selection of the best set of explanatory variables can only be made with a definite set of variables. Logistic regression was used to calculate the effects of six climate variables and four soil properties, and their interactions, on the scores of eight visual soil quality indicators. Simple models featuring climate and soil variables explained a substantial part of the variation of the visual indicators. Models were fitted for each visual indicator for acid-to-neutral and alkaline soils. The sample size needed was calculated, and the method and its validity were discussed. For two possible outcomes, the sample size using the events per variable (EPV) criterium ranges between 62 and 183 observations, while using one variable and a variance inflation factor, it ranges between 22 and 234. Except for the model of soil structure and consistency for acid-to-neutral soils, with a C statistic of 0.67, all others had acceptable to excellent discrimination. The models built are adequate, for example, for the large-scale spatial outline of the soil health indices, to couple with soil morphological-dependent pedotransfer functions, and so on. Future models should consider (test) other explanatory variables: other climate variables and indices, other soil properties and soil management practices.</p>
</abstract>
Publisher
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
Reference22 articles.
1. Peerlkamp PK (1959) A visual method of soil structure evaluation. Meded Landbouwhogesch Opzoekingsstn Staat Gent 24: 216–221.
2. Shepherd T (2000) Visual Soil Assessment. Volume 1. Field guide for cropping and pastoral grazing on flat to rolling country. horizons.mw & Landcare Research, Palmerston North.
3. Ball B, Batey T, Munkholm L (2007) Field assessment of soil structural quality – a development of the Peerlkamp test. Soil Use Manage 23: 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00102.x
4. Van Leeuwen M, Heuvelink G, Wallinga J, et al. (2018) Visual soil evaluation: reproducibility and correlation with standard measurements. Soil Tillage Res 178: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.11.012
5. Mueller L, Kay BD, Hu C, et al. (2009) Visual assessment of soil structure: Evaluation of methodologies on sites in Canada, China and Germany. Soil Tillage Res 103: 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.12.015
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献