基于状态和过渡模型的参考点选择,用于耕地参考生态单元内的土壤健康差距评估

Saurav Das , Aaron Hird , Bijesh Maharjan , Mitchell Stephenson , Lithma Kariyawasam
{"title":"基于状态和过渡模型的参考点选择,用于耕地参考生态单元内的土壤健康差距评估","authors":"Saurav Das ,&nbsp;Aaron Hird ,&nbsp;Bijesh Maharjan ,&nbsp;Mitchell Stephenson ,&nbsp;Lithma Kariyawasam","doi":"10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Comparative soil health studies are critical in soil conservation and gauging the success of different management practices in soil health improvement. A primary challenge in these studies is the selection of a consistent natural reference site. Current choices vary widely, from minimally disturbed areas to pristine prairies. This methodological paper underscores the need for deliberate and thoughtful reference site selection for benchmark soil properties. Utilizing the State &amp;Transition models, the study introduces a framework for this selection, drawing upon the ecological site (ES) and reference plant communities detailed in an ecological site description (ESD) within a respective Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). This study advocates for a localized classification within the framework of the Cropland Reference Ecological Unit (CREU), emphasizing the significance of local precipitation and soil data to ensure unbiased comparisons. Soil samples from eastern (MLRA 106) and western (MLRA 67A) Nebraska were collected, representing distinct pedogenetic and climatic differences. Analysis of soil organic matter between MLRAs displayed substantial variations, suggesting potential biases and complexities in soil health gap calculations when using reference sites and croplands not in the same MLRA, soil types (texture class), or precipitation zones. However, refining the comparisons by delineating the MLRA, soil, and precipitation zones within the framework of CREU yielded more consistent and realistic comparative data. Integrating the MLRA and ES, complemented by granular soil and precipitation data, provides a robust method for establishing soil health benchmark data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74839,"journal":{"name":"Soil security","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000169/pdfft?md5=1bb1010edca721ba07e29abc29771be6&pid=1-s2.0-S2667006224000169-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reference site selection based on state-and-transition models for soil health gap evaluation within cropland reference ecological units\",\"authors\":\"Saurav Das ,&nbsp;Aaron Hird ,&nbsp;Bijesh Maharjan ,&nbsp;Mitchell Stephenson ,&nbsp;Lithma Kariyawasam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Comparative soil health studies are critical in soil conservation and gauging the success of different management practices in soil health improvement. A primary challenge in these studies is the selection of a consistent natural reference site. Current choices vary widely, from minimally disturbed areas to pristine prairies. This methodological paper underscores the need for deliberate and thoughtful reference site selection for benchmark soil properties. Utilizing the State &amp;Transition models, the study introduces a framework for this selection, drawing upon the ecological site (ES) and reference plant communities detailed in an ecological site description (ESD) within a respective Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). This study advocates for a localized classification within the framework of the Cropland Reference Ecological Unit (CREU), emphasizing the significance of local precipitation and soil data to ensure unbiased comparisons. Soil samples from eastern (MLRA 106) and western (MLRA 67A) Nebraska were collected, representing distinct pedogenetic and climatic differences. Analysis of soil organic matter between MLRAs displayed substantial variations, suggesting potential biases and complexities in soil health gap calculations when using reference sites and croplands not in the same MLRA, soil types (texture class), or precipitation zones. However, refining the comparisons by delineating the MLRA, soil, and precipitation zones within the framework of CREU yielded more consistent and realistic comparative data. Integrating the MLRA and ES, complemented by granular soil and precipitation data, provides a robust method for establishing soil health benchmark data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil security\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000169/pdfft?md5=1bb1010edca721ba07e29abc29771be6&pid=1-s2.0-S2667006224000169-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000169\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006224000169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

土壤健康比较研究对于土壤保护和衡量不同管理方法在改善土壤健康方面的成功与否至关重要。这些研究的主要挑战是选择一致的自然参照地。目前的选择差异很大,从受干扰最小的地区到原始大草原,不一而足。这篇方法论论文强调,需要深思熟虑地选择基准土壤属性的参照点。该研究利用国家&过渡模型,引入了一个选择框架,借鉴了各自主要土地资源区(MLRA)内生态场地(ES)和生态场地描述(ESD)中详细描述的参考植物群落。本研究主张在耕地参考生态单元(CREU)框架内进行本地化分类,强调本地降水和土壤数据对确保无偏见比较的重要性。从内布拉斯加州东部(MLRA 106)和西部(MLRA 67A)采集的土壤样本代表了不同的成因和气候差异。对 MLRA 之间土壤有机质的分析显示出巨大的差异,这表明在使用不在同一 MLRA、土壤类型(质地等级)或降水带的参照地和农田进行土壤健康差距计算时,可能会出现偏差和复杂性。不过,通过在 CREU 框架内划分 MLRA、土壤和降水区域来完善比较,可以获得更一致、更真实的比较数据。将 MLRA 和 ES 与粒状土壤和降水数据相结合,为建立土壤健康基准数据提供了一种可靠的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reference site selection based on state-and-transition models for soil health gap evaluation within cropland reference ecological units

Comparative soil health studies are critical in soil conservation and gauging the success of different management practices in soil health improvement. A primary challenge in these studies is the selection of a consistent natural reference site. Current choices vary widely, from minimally disturbed areas to pristine prairies. This methodological paper underscores the need for deliberate and thoughtful reference site selection for benchmark soil properties. Utilizing the State &Transition models, the study introduces a framework for this selection, drawing upon the ecological site (ES) and reference plant communities detailed in an ecological site description (ESD) within a respective Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). This study advocates for a localized classification within the framework of the Cropland Reference Ecological Unit (CREU), emphasizing the significance of local precipitation and soil data to ensure unbiased comparisons. Soil samples from eastern (MLRA 106) and western (MLRA 67A) Nebraska were collected, representing distinct pedogenetic and climatic differences. Analysis of soil organic matter between MLRAs displayed substantial variations, suggesting potential biases and complexities in soil health gap calculations when using reference sites and croplands not in the same MLRA, soil types (texture class), or precipitation zones. However, refining the comparisons by delineating the MLRA, soil, and precipitation zones within the framework of CREU yielded more consistent and realistic comparative data. Integrating the MLRA and ES, complemented by granular soil and precipitation data, provides a robust method for establishing soil health benchmark data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Soil security
Soil security Soil Science
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
90 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信