Comparison of Different Texture Analysis for Soil Erodibility Calculations of Loamy and Sandy-Loam Soils in Moravian Regions

Abstract

The subject of this article is a comparison of results of soil texture analysis of loamy and sandy‑loam soils for soil erodibilty calculation using the Casagrande areometric method and results obtained by the laser diffraction method. A comparison was made of 27 samples taken from the Větřkovice locality, and 18 samples taken from the Hustopeče locality. On the basis of laboratory analysis of the soil samples, curves of grain composition were plotted, and the soils were divided into grain‑size groups according to the ratio of individual fractions. For comparison of the results, the soils’ regression dependence, with linear, exponential, quadratic and polynomic trends were derived. Applying these different methods for determining soil texture may affect the determination of K factor values and the value of soil loss. The results show that the laser diffraction method provides higher values of % silt and % silty sand at both model sites. Using the K values determining from Casagrande method measuring can led to the underestimation of soil erodibility. This underestimation can be explained by a change in particle size distribution between the described methods used.

Laser Diffraction as An Innovative Alternative to Standard Pipette Method for Determination of Soil Texture Classes in Central Europe

“…Many teams have been working on the development of unified methodology and regression models that allow conversion of results by LD to the values comparable to sedimentation methods [2,[27][28][29]. So far, the comparison of the standard methods with LD has been done by means of regression analysis for the whole dataset [53] or specific particle size fractions [30,38,54,55]. Other approaches involved methods such as network analysis [55], regression tree, and Random Forest [54].…”

“…In total, 542 soil samples were used in this study, of which 271 were used for determining the relationship between PM and LD measurements. Some other published studies are based on a dataset of 10-37 samples [30,53,55,56]. Miller and Schaetzl [57] published a study with 1485 samples, however those were analyzed only by LD as the study was aimed to precision of soil particle size analysis using LD.…”

“…The authors further added that robustness, reproducibility, and comparability of grain size data obtained with various devices is a basic issue and associated uncertainties are rarely considered. Dumbrovský et al [53], along with other authors, mentioned the possibility of LD analysis to calculate the results for any soil fraction classification. Of course, this can be done also for PM as there are various soil classification systems used worldwide, however the classification needs to be specified prior to the measurement because of different particle settling times.…”

Early changes in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former agricultural land

“…The values of the bulk density were calculated as the dry weight/volume. In the case of all the soils used in our experiment, the soil class according to Novak's classification was a sandy loam (Dumbrovský et al 2019). The class according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture textural classification (Soil Science Division Staff 2017) was a loam (Haplic Chernozem) or a sandy loam (Haplic Cambisol).…”

The Circular Economics of Revitalization Process of Concentrated Water Runoff Paths and Retention Reservoirs

“…In solving the problem, we used the methods applied at the Institute of Landscape Water Management, University of Technology, Brno, which has a pedological laboratory for the possibility of processing soil samples (physical properties of soil, analysis of intact soil sample, saturated hydraulic conductivity, etc.). Previous research on the physical properties of soil has been carried out on the basis of available and published methodologies, published, for example, by Dumbrovský et al (2019), Dumbrovský and Larišová (2016), Dumbrovský et al (2011).…”