Impacts of water erosion on soil physical properties

1523 ACTA UNIVERSITATIS AGRICULTURAE ET SILVICULTURAE MENDELIANAE BRUNENSIS Volume 64 168 Number 5, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.11118/actaun201664051523 IMPACTS OF WATER EROSION ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES Jan Hladký1, Jaroslava Novotná2, Jakub Elbl3, Jindřich Kynický3, David Juřička1, Jitka Novotná3, Martin Brtnický4 1 Central European Institute of Technology, Brno University of Technology, Purkyňova 656/123, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic 2 Research Institute for Fodder Crops, Ltd. Troubsko, Zahradní 1, Troubsko 664 41 Czech Republic 3 Department of Geology and Pedology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic 4 Department of Geology and Pedology, Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plan Nutrition, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic Abstract HLADKÝ JAN, NOVOTNÁ JAROSLAVA, ELBL JAKUB, KYNICKÝ JINDŘICH, JUŘIČKA DAVID, NOVOTNÁ JITKA, BRTNICKÝ MARTIN. 2016. Impacts of Water Erosion on Soil Physical Properties. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(5): 1523–1527. The aim of the paper is to determine the effect of water erosion on maximum capillary water capacity, bulk density, soil airiness, total porosity and minimal air capacity. For this purpose, 13 plots located in South Moravia were selected. Each plot was divided into three positions. The first one, eluvial, was located on the top of the slope. These were always flat and water erosion did not occur there. The second one was midslope position where soil was damaged by water erosion. Soil washed down from the midslope position was accumulated in the third one. It has been found that water erosion has a statistically significant effect on minimal air capacity of topsoil, and on bulk density and airiness of subsoil. Variance analysis showed less variance of values referring all characteristics beyond these: the minimal air capacity of the midslope position damaged by erosion regarding topsoil; and maximum capillary water capacity, soil airiness and porosity regarding the subsoil. Keywords: soil, physical properties, water erosion, soil degradation, porosity, bulk density, capillary water capacity INTRODUCTION Together with water and air, soil is a major natural resource for life on Earth. It provides a large variety of goods and services (Verheijen et al., 2009), particularly in relation to biodiversity, soil biota, plant composition, runoff control, water-holding capacity, carbon sequestration and ecosystem productivity (Van Oost et al., 2000). Consequently, soil degradation is one of the most important threats to soil productivity and human welfare (Pimentel et al., 1976). Soil erosion is a major cause of soil degradation as it involves removal of the most fertile topsoil where organic matter and nutrients are concentrated (Li et al., 2009). Soil erosion is considered to be one of the greatest threat jeopardizing food safety and environmental health, and it results in environmental and economical damages (Pimentel, 2006). Erosion causes degradation and loss of soil resources, damage to agricultural production, eutrophication of surface waters, floods, and damage to infrastructure (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2010; Pimentel, 2006). The issue of soil erosion is very serious throughout the whole Europe. Given that in most cases, the rate of erosion occurring in agricultural areas is higher than the rate of soil formation (Verheijen et al., 2009), several reports (e.g. Boardman, 2006) have highlighted a decrease in soil quality in many areas worldwide. This in part explains increases in production costs, 1524 Jan Hladký, Jaroslava Novotná, Jakub Elbl, Jindřich Kynický, David Juřička, Jitka Novotná, Martin Brtnický declining crop yields, and farmland abandonment in the worst cases (Montgomery, 2007). Physical properties of soils are largely air and moisture conditions in soil together with its compaction. The optimum amount of air and water is essential for the vitality of soil organisms, and also right functioning of the chemical properties, proper crop growth and sufficient yield (Lal, 1976; Qamar et al., 2005; Javeed, 2013). Quine and Zhang (2002) reported that water erosion is a major factor affecting the spatial variability of soil properties and production. The on-site effects of accelerated soil erosion on crop productivity are due to a multitude of interacting factors e.g. reduction in rooting depth, decline in plant-available water reserves, decrease in soil fertility, and adverse soil physical conditions (Ebeid et al. 1995) High porosity and low bulk density is convenient to microorganisms and fungi. Such soil is richer in micro-roots contributing to greater stability of the soil which is therefore less susceptible to water and wind erosion (levers rand Hamilton, 1993). Authors (Packer and Hamilton, 1993) found that increased bulk density also increases the quantity of soil washed off. This is caused by disruption of the stability of soil due to excessive compaction and subsequent adverse physical, biological and chemical properties impaired by compaction. Also, the authors Ebeid et al. (1995) indicate that soils damaged by erosion have a higher bulk density and the soils with higher density are erosion prone. This is related to the content of air and water. In erosion-damaged soils, the contents were the lowest, especially the maximum water holding capacity (Ebeid et al., 1995). Nizeymana and Olson (1988) found smaller porosity at erosion-damaged soils. The authors also found lower available water capacity at erosion damaged soil. Shift in soil grain size composition is also significant. Authors Stone et al. (1985) reported soil damaged by erosion contained by up to 10 % clay (< 0.002 mm). The aim of the presented study is to find out effect of water erosion on disruption of selected physical properties of soil on plots damaged by erosion. METHODS Samples were taken from 13 plots located in South Moravia. Sampling sites are drawn on the Fig No. 1. For the purpose of the study, sloping land with chernozem was selected. Selected plots were divided into three parts – the first eluvial slope position located on the platform was not damaged by erosion; the second position was translocation in the middle of the slope always damaged by water erosion; and the third position located in accumulation part of the slope where washed off sediments from translocation part were accumulated. Samples were taken from topsoil at the depth of 5–25 cm and subsoil at the depth of 30–50 cm. Kopecký’s sampling tubes (100 cm3) were used to take samples for physical analysis. Physical properties were determined and evaluated using standard methods according to Zbíral et al. (2010). 8 sampling tubes were taken from each sampling site. All plots were planted with maize in time of sampling. Samples were always taken after harvest and before tillage. Results were assessed statistically. Descriptive statistics was carried out and single-factor ANOVA was done to investigate the effects of water erosion on physical properties. 1: Sampling sites Impacts of Water Erosion on Soil Physical Properties 1525 I: Descriptive statistics – topsoil Maximum capillary water capacity (% vol.) Bulk density (g*cm-3) Soil airiness (% vol.) Total porosity (% vol.) Minimal air capacity (%) Eluvium Average 34,12 1,54 15,08 40,63 4,41 Median 34,61 1,56 11,28 40,12 3,69 Variability 12,71 0,02 72,23 26,48 6,26 Min. 24,57 1,24 5,99 31,69 1,05 Max. 40,02 1,78 32,98 53,44 8,78 Midslope position Average 33,96 1,54 14,34 39,46 5,39 Median 34,56 1,55 11,52 39,25 5,88 Variability 11,64 0,01 65,83 21,47 12,51 Min. 25,49 1,26 2,99 31,22 1,40 Max. 39,31 1,73 32,98 53,44 15,26 Aluvium Average 35,39 1,51 18,64 41,77 7,13 Median 35,62 1,55 20,36 41,22 7,22 Variability 12,17 0,02 81,56 47,28 15,62 Min. 28,49 1,24 1,23 10,25 0,55 Max. 41,22 1,72 33,25 52,70 15,22 II: Descriptive statistics – subsoil Maximum capillary water capacity (% vol.) Bulk density (g*cm-3) Soil airiness (% vol.) Total porosity (% vol.) Minimal air capacity (%) Eluvium Average 37,75 1,53 26,91 42,80 5,02 Median 36,27 1,53 29,33 41,22 4,32 Variability 50,25 0,00 38,28 25,87 7,87 Min. 24,77 1,43 10,18 16,33 1,08 Max. 53,15 1,73 36,17 49,55 10,47 Midslope position Average 35,68 1,49 28,65 40,68 6,61 Median 35,97 1,50 29,62 43,22 6,86 Variability 15,00 0,01 21,94 18,34 14,20 Min. 28,79 1,25 18,52 31,22 0,52 Max. 42,55 1,59 37,85 51,22 14,55 Aluvium Average 34,98 1,55 22,12 41,30 5,72 Median 34,79 1,55 26,21 40,15 5,80 Variability 16,03 0,01 76,99 19,89 14,23 Min. 28,67 1,25 6,34 34,25 0,30 Max. 45,78 1,73 33,24 55,48 16,45 III: ANOVA statistics (α < 0,05) Maximum capillary water capacity (% vol.) Bulk density (g*cm-3) Soil airiness (% vol.) Total porosity (% vol.) Minimal air capacity (%) Value P – topsoil 0,14352 0,40463 0,06406 0,19892 0,00215 Value P – subsoil 0,05514 0,00511 0,00012 0,18248 0,13216 1526 Jan Hladký, Jaroslava Novotná, Jakub Elbl, Jindřich Kynický, David Juřička, Jitka Novotná, Martin Brtnický RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In all three positions (eluvial, midslope and accumulation position), physical conditions are disturbed – bulk density, total porosity and minimal air capacity. The average value of bulk density for eluvial position is 1.54 g * cm-3 which is very above the limit (1.45 g * cm-3 for the conditions). In the midslope position, the value is the same. The value found in the position of accumulation is lower (Tab. I).The total porosity is below the limit at all three positions. The average value of total porosity measured was 40.63 % vol. at eluvial position, 39.46 % vol. at midslope position, and 41.77 % vol. at position of accumulation. The worst value was measured in the midslope position where water erosion occurred. This is consistent with findings of authors Nizeymana and Olson (1988), who found disrupted total porosity of places affected by water erosion. It is probably related to the changes in the grain size composition caused by washing off the smallest particles of soil (Stone et al., 1985). The minimum air capacity is also significantly below the limit at all three positions – average value 4.41 % at eluvial position, 5.39 % at midslope position, and 7.13 % at position of accumulation. The best value was achieved in the accumulation position. Beyond minimum air capacity, where the lowest variance is found at eluvial position, analysis of variance revealed that all other properties have the lowest variance of measured values just in the midslope position. This is probably due to a certain homogenization of the soil environment caused by erosion (Stone et al., 1985; Lal, 1995) even though statistically significant affection of these properties by water erosion has not been found. To determine effect of erosion on physical properties, the single factor analysis ANOVA was carried out. As drawn in the table III, erosion has affected only minimal air capacity regarding topsoil (P = 0,00215, α = 0,05). The physical condition of the subsoil is unfavourable as well. Average value of the maximum capillary water capacity of eluvium was 37.75 % vol. Therefore, the limit of 36 % vol. was exceeded (Tab. II). Bulk density is impaired at all three positions. There were measured mean values * 1.53 g cm-3 at eluvium, 1.49 g * cm-3 at the midslope, and 1.51 g * cm-3 at the position of accumulation. The total porosity was also disrupted in all three slope positions. The worst mean value (40.68 % vol.) was measured at the subsoil in the midslope position (Tab. II). It is interesting that the best value of the minimum air capacity (6.61 % – Tab. II) was achieved at subsoil in the midslope position. The analysis of variance was carried out even for the subsoil. The analysis found the lowest variance of the measured values at the maximum capillary water capacity, soil airiness and total porosity (Tab. II). There is probably also a certain homogenization of the soil environment due to runoff of fine soil particles caused by water erosion (Stone et al., 1985; and Lal, 1995). However, single factor analysis ANOVA has shown that regarding subsoil, water erosion has a statistically significant effect only on the bulk density and soil airiness (Tab. III) CONCLUSION Regading topsoil, it was found that the water erosion has a statistically significant effect only on minimal air capacity. However, analysis of variance found that regarding erosion damaged midslope positions, the variance of the measured values of the maximum capillary water capacity, bulk density and total porosity is lower than in the eluvial and accumulation position of the slope. This is probably due to a certain homogenization of the soil in these parts due to water erosion leading to leaching of fine grain fraction. Regarding the subsoil, statistically significant effect of water erosion on the bulk density and soil airiness was confirmed. As in the case of topsoil, lower variance of maximum capillary water capacity, soil airiness and total porosity was detected at the areas damaged by water erosion. Acknowledgements This research was supported by National Agency for Agricultural Research (NAZV), project: QJ1230066 and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the project CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601). Impacts of Water Erosion on Soil Physical Properties 1527 REFERENCES AILINCĂI, C., JITĂREANU, G., BUCUR, D., AILINCĂ, D., MERCUŞ, A. 2011. Evolution of some chemical properties of soil under influence of soil erosion and different cropping systems. Agronomical Research in Moldavia, 4(148): 5 – 18. BLANCO-CANQUI, H., LAL, R. 2010. Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer. BOARDMAN, J. 2006. Soil erosion science: reflections on the limitations of current approaches. Catena, 68: 73 – 8 6. HAMMEROVÁ, A., JANDAK, J., BRTNICKY, M., HLADKY, J., HRABOVSKA, B. 2013. Physical Parameters of černozem lands affected by water erosion. In: 20th International PhD Students Conference. Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Agronomy, Czech Republic. 20 – 21 November. Brno: Mendel University in Brno. JAVEED, H. M. R., ZAMIR, M. S. I., TANVEER, A., YASEEN, M. 2013. Soil physical properties and grain Šeld of spring maize (zema mays L.) as influence by tillage practices and mulch treatments. Agronomical Research in Moldavia, 1(153): 69 – 75. LAL, R. 1976. Soil erosion on alfisols in western Nigeria, V. The ganges in physical properties and the response of crops. Geoderma, 16 (5): 419 – 431. LAL, R. 1995. Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: LAL, R., KIMBLE, J., LEVINE, E., STEWART, B.A. (Eds.), Soils and Global Change, Advances in Soil Science. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 131 – 142. LI, L., DU, S., WU, L., LIU, G. 2009. An overview of soil loss tolerance. Catena, 78: 93 – 99. MONTGOMERY, D. R. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. PNAS, 104: 13268 – 13272. NIZEYIMANA, E., OLSON, K. R. 1988. Chemical, mineralogical, and physical property differences between moderately and severely eroded Illinois soils. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J., 52(6): 1740 – 1748. QAMAR, R., ULLAH, E., SAQIB, M., JAVEED, H. M. R., REHMAN, A., ALI, A. 2015. Influence of tillage and mulch on soil physical properties and wheat yield in rice-wheat systém. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(1): 21 – 38. QUINE, T. A., ZHANG, Y. 2002. An investigation of spatial variation in soil erosion, soil properties, and crop production within an agricultural field in Devon, United Kingdom. J. Soil Water Conserv., 57: 55 – 65. PACKER, I. J., HAMILTON, G. J. 1993. Soil physical and chemical ganges due to tillage and thein implications for erosion and productivity. Soil and Tillage Research, 27: 329 – 339. PIMENTEL, D., 2006. Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 8: 119 – 137. PIMENTEL, D., TERHUNE, E . C., DYSON-HUDSON, R., ROCHEREAU, S., SAMIS, R., SMITH, E. A., DENMAN, D., REIFSCHNEIDER, D., SHEPARD, M. 1976. Land degradation: effects on food and energy resources. Science, 194: 149 – 155. STONE, J. R., GILLIAM, J. W., CASSEL, D. K., DANIELS, R. B., NELSON, L. A., KIEISS, H. J. 1985. Effects of erosion and landscape position on the productivity of Piedmont soils. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J., 49: 987 – 991. VAN OOST, K., GOVERS, G., DESMET, P., 2000. Evaluating the effects of changes in landscape structure on soil erosion by water and tillage. Landsc. Ecol., 15: 577 – 589. VERHEIJEN, F. G. A., JONES, R. G. A., RICKSON, R. J., SMITH, C. J. 2009. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth Sci. Rev., 94: 23 – 38. ZBÍRAL, J. 2002. Analýza půd: jednotné pracovní postupy. Vyd. 2., přeprac. a rozš. Brno: Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. Contact information Ing. Martin Brtnický: [email protected] Ing. Jan Hladký, Ph.D.: pudo[email protected] Ing. Jaroslava Novotná Ph.D.: jaroslava[email protected] Ing. Jakub Elbl: jakub.elb[email protected] doc. Mgr. Jindřich Kynický, Ph.D.: [email protected] Ing. David Juřička: DJuri[email protected] RNDr. Jitka Novotná: [email protected]