首页> 外文期刊>Soil & Tillage Research >Visual soil evaluation - Spade vs. profile methods and the information conveyed for soil management
【24h】

Visual soil evaluation - Spade vs. profile methods and the information conveyed for soil management

机译:视觉土壤评价 - Spade Vs.配置文件和土壤管理传达的信息

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Visual soil evaluation (VSE) techniques, established in soil management and quality assessment are categorised into spade and profile methods. Both approaches have merits and limitations. For example, VESS, a widely used spade method, requires basic equipment and is quick, thereby enabling wide spatial deployment, but only gives a general indication of soil structural quality to 25 cm depth, potentially missing important features below the cultivation zone in arable soils. SubVESS, the profile equivalent of VESS, gives detailed information to approximate to 1 m at specific points but is time consuming, relatively expensive and cannot be deployed over wide areas. Despite giving more detailed information, full (to approximate to 1 m) profile methods may not always be desirable. Our aim was to compare possible management recommendations derived from soil structure, obtained by VESS, SubVESS and a new procedure that bridged both approaches, called the Double Spade method (DS). In-field and headland zones at 10 arable sites in Ireland under conventional tillage were surveyed using the methods, assessing to approximate to 25 (VESS), 40 (DS) and 80 (SubVESS) cm depth respectively. Results showed significant difference between field zones, indicating structural damage at headlands, occasionally to 80 cm depth. From the soils surveyed, VESS was not always sufficient for determining soil quality related management requirements. DS indicated that damage occurred below 20 cm depth. SubVESS gave additional information to the other VSE techniques regarding the extent of damage, in some cases only evident below 40 cm depth. Quantitative measurements showed significant difference only to 20 cm depth. It was concluded that the extra information obtained using DS was worth the time spent collecting the data. It is suggested that SubVESS may be appropriate to further investigate suspected issues as indicated by DS, but not for routine survey over large areas.
机译:在土壤管理和质量评估中建立的视觉土壤评价(VSE)技术分为铁锹和型材方法。两种方法都有优点和局限性。例如,ves是一种广泛使用的铁锹方法,需要基本的设备并且很快,从而实现了宽的空间部署,但只能给土壤结构质量的一般指示达到25cm深度,可能缺少耕地中的栽培区以下的重要特征。 Subvess,ves的轮廓等同物,提供了在特定点近似为1米的详细信息,但耗时,相对昂贵,不能在广泛的区域上部署。尽管提供了更详细的信息,但完全(以近似为1米)型材方法可能并不总是可取的。我们的目的是比较由饲养,消毒和桥梁两种方法的新程序获得的土壤结构的可能管理建议,称为双铲方法(DS)。使用该方法调查在常规耕作下,在爱尔兰10个耕地的现场和岬角区域进行调查,分别评估近似为25(VAS),40(DS)和80(Subvess)CM深度。结果显示出场区之间的显着差异,表明岬角的结构损坏,偶尔将达到80厘米深度。从调查的土壤中,Vess并不总是足以确定土壤质量相关的管理要求。 DS表示损坏发生在20厘米的深度以下。 Subvess向其他VSE技术提供了关于损坏程度的其他VSE技术,在某些情况下只明显低于40厘米的深度。定量测量显示出显着差异仅为20厘米深度。得出结论是,使用DS获得的额外信息值得花费收集数据的时间。建议,消毒可能是适当的,以进一步调查DS所示的疑似问题,但不是在大面积上进行常规调查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号