Modeling of land use effect on soil crust strength in southeastern Ahvaz

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor/ Natural Resources Research Department, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resources, Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ahvaz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor/ Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

3 Assistant Professor/ Desert Department, Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Crusts are a hard layer on surface soil, that is formed by disaggregation– aggregation process in which particles of soil, air, water, and organic matter are connected to each other and classified into different types including physical, chemical, and biological. Chemical crusts like salt crusts are formed due to intense evaporation on the surface of extremely salty soils. Physical crusts are formed raining or through irrigation of agricultural lands and are divided into three categories including structural, erosional, and sedimentary, depending on the process of their formation. The biological crust which is formed by the function of algae, cyanobacteria, mosses, and lichens, and due to their positive protective roles and restoration ability received much attention so far. However, studies on the effects of non-biological crust and their protective role have been considered less. Various effective factors on crust strength have been investigated but land use has been left out. This research has focused on modeling land use effection crust strength, in dust emission sources in the southeast of Ahvaz.
 
Materials and Methods
In the south-eastern of Ahvaz in Khouzestan province, three land uses including agriculture, agroforestry, and barren land were selected. In order to measure the strength of the surface crust in selected land uses, a handheld penetrometer was used and crust strength was measured in random points in 30 points in each land use. To reduce the influence of other environmental conditions, measurements were done scattered on each land use. Then, to obtain the strength in one point, three measured points were averaged, and finally, 90 measured points were obtained for each. The surface soil moisture of land uses was done by taking soil samples and measuring in the laboratory, and then significant differences between land use groups were tested by analysis of variance. Normality and homogeneity of variances were tested by using the Kolmogrove-Sminov and Levene's tests on soil strength data set. Due to the fact that the soil texture is different in studied land uses and also the soil texture is one of the most important factors affecting the strength of crust in the measured points, the soil texture was extracted from the existing maps. In order to investigate the effect of these two independent factors on the crust strength as well as their interaction, General Linear Modeling (GLM) was chosen to exclude the soil texture effect on crust strength variation and model the land use effects.
 
Results and Discussion
Results showed that soil surface moisture does not have a significant difference in land use groups. By using the General linear model, crust strength was modeled. In the first stage, the effect of land use and soil texture were investigated as the most important factors affecting the hardness of the crust and the results showed that land use and soil texture as well as their interactions are effective in changing the hardness of the crust at the level of 95 % and 99 %, respectively. These factors have an effect on the variance of crust hardness, but the main source of variance is land use, and this factor alone explains about 78 % of the crust strength variance, and the model explains 96 % of the variance of the dependent variable and the presented model is significant at the level of 99 %. In order to check the existence of a significant difference in crust strength in studied land uses, Helmert's Contrast and Bonferroni tests were used. The result showed that there is a significant difference in the average crust strength of barren lands with agriculture and agroforestry at the 99 % level, and no significant difference is observed between agriculture and agroforestry. Then, in order to investigate the single factor of land use, the soil texture was considered as covariance, and its effect on the hardness of the crust was removed. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the average hardness of barren land use with agriculture and agroforestry at the level of 99 %. The presented model explains 86 % of the variance of the hardness of the ridge, and among the factors with a significant level, 99 % of the hardness of the crust in a barren land with 70 % partial effect has the largest role in explaining the variance. With the change of land use from agroforestry to barren land, the hardness of the soil surface increases by 50 %, and with changing to agricultural land, it decreases by 14 %.
 
Conclusion
In agricultural and forestry land uses, with the increase in the traffic of people and heavy machinery, the crust is broken and does not return to its original strength. Based on these results, it can be said that in desert areas, vegetation conservation is not the only way to protect soil from wind erosion, but protecting the crust against traffic and breakage can be an efficient solution that has received less attention. Legal confrontation with land use change and land plowing can be a sustainable solution for these areas. It is suggested that with a general assessment of the surface strength of the crust on bare land, easily can be protected against the wind only with management practices.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Belnap, J. (2003). The world at your feet: Desert biological soil crusts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(4), 181-189. doi:10.2307/3868062
Belnap, J., & Eldridge, D. (2001). Disturbance and recovery of biological soil crusts. In: Biological Soil Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management,  Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56475-8_27
Belnap, J., & Gillette, D.A. (1997). Disturbance of biological soil crusts: impacts on potential wind erodibility of sandy desert soils in southeastern Utah. Land Degradation & Development, 8(4), 355-362. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-      145X(199712)8:4<355::AID-LDR266>3.0.CO;2-H
Belnap, J., & Gillette, D.A. (1998). Vulnerability of desert biological soil crusts to wind erosion: the influences of crust development, soil texture, and disturbance. Journal of Arid Environments, 39(2), 133-142. doi:10.1006/jare.1998.0388
Chepil, W.S. (1955). Factors that influence clod structure and erodibility of soil by wind: 111. calcium carbonate and decomposed organic matter. Soil Science, 77(6), 4473-480.
Davari Dolat Abadi, A., GHaazi Fard, A., Shirani, K., & Heydari, F. (2020). Investigation the application of saline waters in Segzi Plain with emphasis on the wind erosion control. Watershed Engineering and Management, 12(2), 492-504. doi:10.22092/ijwmse.2019.122154.1496 [In Persian]
Eldridge, D.J., & Leys, J.F. (2003). Exploring some relationships between biological soil crusts, soil aggregation and wind erosion. Journal of Arid Environments, 53(4), 457-466. doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1068
Enanani, M., Amirian Chakan, A.R., Faraji, M., & Yosefi Khaneghah, Sh. (2017). Using erosivity indices and surface crusts in soil sensitivity to wind erosion. 15th National Soil Congress, Isfahan, Iran. [In Persian]
Fang, H.Y., Cai, Q.G., Chen, H., & Li, Q.Y. (2007). Mechanism of formation of physical soil crust in desert soils treated with straw checkerboards. Soil and Tillage Research, 93(1), 222-230. doi:10.1016/j.still.2006.04.006
Gillette, D.A., Adams, J., Muhs, D., & Kihl, R. (1982). Threshold friction velocities and rupture moduli for crusted desert soils for the input of soil particles into the air. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 87(11), 9003-9016. doi:10.1029/JC087iC11p09003
Grünberger, O., Macaigne, P., Michelot, J.L., Hartmann, C., & Sukchan, S. (2008). Salt crust development in paddy fields owing to soil evaporation and drainage: Contribution of chloride and deuterium profile analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 348(1-2), 110-123. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.09.039
Hagen, L., Skidmore, E., & Saleh, A. (1992). Wind erosion: Prediction of aggregate abrasion coefficients. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 35(6), 1847-1850. doi:10.13031/2013.28805
Houser, C.A., & Nickling, W.G. (2001). The factors influencing the abrasion efficiency of saltating grains on a clay-crusted playa. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26(5), 491-505. doi:10.1002/esp.193
Kalantari Kh. (2003). Data processing and analysis in socio-economic research. Sharif Publication, 388 pages.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 610-611, 997-1009. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077
Kéry, M., & Royle, J.A. (2016). linear models, generalized linear models (glms), and random effects models: The components of hierarchical models. In: KÉRY, M., & ROYLE, J.A. (eds.), Applied Hierarchical Modeling in Ecology, Boston, Academic Press.
Khoshnood Motlagh, S., Sadoddin, A., Haghnegahdar, A., Razavi, S., Salmanmahiny, A., & Ghorbani, K. (2021). Analysis and prediction of land cover changes using the land change modeler (LCM) in a semiarid river basin, Iran. Land Degradation & Development, 32(10), 3092-3105. doi:10.1002/ldr.3969
Klose, M., Gill, T.E., Etyemezian, V., Nikolich, G., Ghodsi Zadeh, Z., Webb, N.P., & Van Pelt, R.S. (2019). Dust emission from crusted surfaces: Insights from field measurements and modelling. Aeolian Research, 40, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2019.05.001
Leys, J.F., & Eldridge, D.J. (1998). Influence of cryptogamic crust disturbance to wind erosion on sand and loam rangeland soils. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 23(11), 963-974. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(1998110)23:11<963::AID-ESP914>3.0.CO;2-X
Li, S., Li, C., & Fu, X. (2021). Characteristics of soil salt crust formed by mixing calcium chloride with sodium sulfate and the possibility of inhibiting wind-sand flow. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 9746. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-89151-1
Mousavi, F., Abdi, E., Ghalandarayeshi, S., & Page-Dumroese, D.S. (2021). Modeling unconfined compressive strength of fine-grained soils: Application of pocket penetrometer for predicting soil strength. CATENA, 196, 104890. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2020.104890
Pi, H., Huggins, D.R., & Sharratt, B. (2020). Influence of clay amendment on soil physical properties and threshold friction velocity within a disturbed crust cover in the inland pacific northwest. Soil and Tillage Research, 202, 104659. doi:10.1016/j.still.2020.104659
Pi, H., & Sharratt, B. (2019). Threshold friction velocity influenced by the crust cover of soils in the columbia plateau. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83(1), 232-241. doi:10.2136/sssaj2018.06.0230
Pi, H., Webb, N.P., Huggins, D.R., & Sharratt, B. (2021). Influence of physical crust cover on the wind erodibility of soils in the inland pacific northwest, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 46(8), 1445-1457. doi:10.1002/esp.5113
Rice, M.A., & Mcewan, I.K. (2001). Crust strength: A wind tunnel study of the effect of impact by saltating particles on cohesive soil surfaces. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26(7), 721-733. doi:10.1002/esp.217
Rice, M.A., Mcewan, I.K., & Mullins, C.E. (1999). A conceptual model of wind erosion of soil surfaces by saltating particles. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24(5), 383-392. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199905)24:5<383::AID-ESP995>3.0.CO;2-K
Rice, M.A., Willetts, B.B., & Mcewan, I.K. (1996). Wind erosion of crusted soil sediments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 21(3), 279-293. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199603)21:3<279::AID-ESP633>3.0.CO;2-A
Rolston, D.E., Bedaiwy, M.N.A., & Louie, D.T. (1991). Micropenetrometer for in situ measurement of soil surface strength. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55(2), 481. doi:10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500020031x
Sirjani, E., Sameni, A.M., Mousavi, S.A.A., & Mahmoudabadi, M. (2017). Relationship between soil features and wind erosion in Fars Province. 15th Natinal soil Congress, Isfahan Iran, Pp. 1-6. [In Persian]
Stovall, M.S., Ganguli, A.C., Schallner, J.W., Faist, A. M., Yu, Q., & Pietrasiak, N. (2022). Can biological soil crusts be prominent landscape components in rangelands? A case study from new mexico, USA. Geoderma, 410, 115658. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115658
Thomas, A.D., & Dougill, A.J. (2007). Spatial and temporal distribution of cyanobacterial soil crusts in the Kalahari: Implications for soil surface properties. Geomorphology, 85(1-2), 17-29. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.03.029
Webb, N.P., Mcgowan, H.A., Phinn, S.R., Leys, J.F., & Mctainsh, G.H. (2009). A model to predict land susceptibility to wind erosion in western queensland, australia. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(2), 214-227. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.06.006
Webb, N.P., & Strong, C.L. (2011). Soil erodibility dynamics and its representation for wind erosion and dust emission models. Aeolian Research, 3(2), 165-179. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2011.03.002
Yan, Y., Wu, L., Xin, X., Wang, X., & Yang, G. (2015). How rain-formed soil crust affects wind erosion in a semi-arid steppe in northern china. Geoderma, 249-250, 79-86. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.03.011
Yasrebi, B., Abbasi, H., Behnamfar, K., & Dinarvand, M. (2022). Land use/ land cover dynamic modeling using RS and GIS with emphasis on maximum likelihood rule and transition matrix. ECOPERSIA, 10(3), 191-202.
Zhang, Y.M., Wang, H.L., Wang, X.Q., Yang, W.K., & Zhang, D.Y. (2006). The microstructure of microbiotic crust and its influence on wind erosion for a sandy soil surface in the gurbantunggut desert of northwestern china. Geoderma, 132(3), 441-449. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.06.008
Zobeck, T.M. (1991). Abrasion of crusted soils: influence of abrader flux and soil properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55(4), 1091-1097. doi:10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500040033x