Mean-weight diameter of aggregation as affected by initial screen size of two fine-textured soils

Alan J. Franzluebbers, Katiuça Sueko Tanaka, Letusa Momesso, Juliano Carlos Calonego, Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol
{"title":"Mean-weight diameter of aggregation as affected by initial screen size of two fine-textured soils","authors":"Alan J. Franzluebbers,&nbsp;Katiuça Sueko Tanaka,&nbsp;Letusa Momesso,&nbsp;Juliano Carlos Calonego,&nbsp;Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil aggregation is considered a key indicator of soil health to protect soil against erosion, enhance organic C storage, and offer habitat for soil organisms. Various methods to assess aggregation may change interpretations of management, and therefore should be cross-calibrated. We assessed the impact of initial sieve opening size (8 or 4.75 mm) prior to determination of dry-stable and water-stable mean-weight diameter (MWD) from two fine-textured soils—a Rhodic Hapludox from São Paulo, Brazil and a Rhodic Kanhapludult from North Carolina, United States. Both soils were subjected to management expected to alter surface soil conditions. As expected, initial sieving through 8 mm led to greater dry-stable MWD (3.37 ± 0.60 mm) than initial sieving through 4.75 mm (1.94 ± 0.28 mm). However, soil stability index (water-stable MWD/dry-stable MWD) was not affected by initial sieve size opening (0.56 ± 0.13 mm mm<sup>−1</sup> under both initial sieve openings). Management interpretations were consistent with both approaches as well, and in particular to detect the strong depth effect on water-stable MWD (i.e., declining with depth). Water-stable macroaggregates had 32% ± 25% greater C concentration than microaggregates; similarly under both initial sieving conditions. Soil stability index when initially sieved through 4.75 mm was highly associated with aggregate stability of 1–2-mm sized dry aggregates, which is a more common procedure. We conclude that passing soil through a screen with 4.75-mm openings to conduct a diversity of soil analyses can be appropriate for obtaining reasonable estimates of and interpretations about surface soil aggregation.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"87 3","pages":"644-655"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20517","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.20517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil aggregation is considered a key indicator of soil health to protect soil against erosion, enhance organic C storage, and offer habitat for soil organisms. Various methods to assess aggregation may change interpretations of management, and therefore should be cross-calibrated. We assessed the impact of initial sieve opening size (8 or 4.75 mm) prior to determination of dry-stable and water-stable mean-weight diameter (MWD) from two fine-textured soils—a Rhodic Hapludox from São Paulo, Brazil and a Rhodic Kanhapludult from North Carolina, United States. Both soils were subjected to management expected to alter surface soil conditions. As expected, initial sieving through 8 mm led to greater dry-stable MWD (3.37 ± 0.60 mm) than initial sieving through 4.75 mm (1.94 ± 0.28 mm). However, soil stability index (water-stable MWD/dry-stable MWD) was not affected by initial sieve size opening (0.56 ± 0.13 mm mm−1 under both initial sieve openings). Management interpretations were consistent with both approaches as well, and in particular to detect the strong depth effect on water-stable MWD (i.e., declining with depth). Water-stable macroaggregates had 32% ± 25% greater C concentration than microaggregates; similarly under both initial sieving conditions. Soil stability index when initially sieved through 4.75 mm was highly associated with aggregate stability of 1–2-mm sized dry aggregates, which is a more common procedure. We conclude that passing soil through a screen with 4.75-mm openings to conduct a diversity of soil analyses can be appropriate for obtaining reasonable estimates of and interpretations about surface soil aggregation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受两种细粒土初始筛网尺寸影响的骨料平均重量直径
土壤团聚体被认为是土壤健康的关键指标,可以保护土壤免受侵蚀,增加有机碳的储存,并为土壤生物提供栖息地。评估聚合的各种方法可能会改变对管理的解释,因此应该交叉校准。我们评估了初始筛孔尺寸(8或4.75 mm)对测定两种细质土壤(巴西圣保罗的Rhodic Hapludox和美国北卡罗来纳州的Rhodic Kanhapludult)干稳定性和水稳定性平均重量直径(MWD)的影响。这两种土壤都受到预期会改变表层土壤条件的管理。正如预期的那样,初始筛分直径为8 mm的MWD(3.37±0.60 mm)比初始筛分直径为4.75 mm(1.94±0.28 mm)的MWD更大。土壤稳定性指数(水稳型MWD/干稳型MWD)不受初始筛孔的影响(两种初始筛孔均为0.56±0.13 mm mm−1)。管理解释也与这两种方法相一致,特别是在探测深度对水稳定MWD(即随深度下降)的强烈影响时。水稳性大团聚体的碳浓度比微团聚体高32%±25%;在两种初始筛分条件下相似。土壤稳定性指数最初筛过4.75 mm时与1 - 2 mm大小的干团聚体的团聚体稳定性高度相关,这是一个更常见的过程。我们得出的结论是,将土壤通过具有4.75 mm开口的筛网进行多样性土壤分析可以适当地获得对表层土壤聚集的合理估计和解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Soil carbon fraction responses to grazing intensity and texture in a semiarid grassland Investigating plasticity and swelling properties of improved expansive soil designs based on hybrid deep learning optimization for high pay load applications Integrated assessment of potassium speciation in Taiwanese soils using chemical extraction and X-ray absorption spectroscopy Comparison of Laboratory- and field-determined soil water retention curves in a well-aggregated tallgrass prairie soil A Green-Ampt model for muddy water considering air resistance based on the layered assumption
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1