Relationship between Pedodiversity and Geomorphologic Patterns Using Modified Fractal Dimension (Case Study: East of Isfahan, Central Iran)

Authors
S. Havaee 1
N. Toomanian 2
A. Kamali 1
1 Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University, Postal Code 7713936417, Rafsanjan, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2 Department of Soil and Water Research, Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abstract
Based on the obvious relationship between geoforms and soils, pedodiversity was investigated in this study through the Spatial Distribution Patterns (SDPs) of LandForms (LFs) using quantitative analysis of the irregular geometry of LFs in Zayandeh-Rud Valley. The main objectives of this research were to: (1) Assess the applicability of fractal and modified fractal dimensions in quantifying the irregular geometry of LFs in the study area and (2) Specify the relationship between the irregular geometry of LFs and the pedodiversity in the region. LF units were delineated using aerial photographs at a scale of 1:55,000; and the geoform classification system was defined according to Zinck. After fieldwork and soil sampling, Soil Taxonomy was used for soil classification at the family level and determination of the geomorphic map units. The fractal Dimension (D) and modified fractal Dimension (Dm), as geometric indicators, and richness (S), Shannon diversity index (H′), maximum diversity (H′max), and Evenness (E), as pedodiversity measures, were determined for LFs. Results showed that D and Dm were appropriate indicators of geometric irregularity, with their high values corresponding to fluvial surfaces with intensive dissection and deposition processes, and their low values corresponding to the smoother and more stable landforms. Comparison of the pedodiversity indices with the geometric measures in the landscapes showed that Dm was a suitable alternative to D in presenting structure of landscapes with high D and Dm values relatively coinciding with high amounts of richness in the study area. In addition, Dm was more closely related to the diversity indices than D was to the discernment of the pedodiversity of LFs.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Anderson, A. N., McBramey, A. B. and Crawford, J. W. 2006. Applications of Fractals to Soil Studies. Adv. Agron., 63: 1‒76.
2. Burrough, P. A. 1981. Fractal Dimension of Landscapes and Other Environmental Data. Nature, 294: 240–242.
3. Ibáñez, J. J., Caniego, J. and Garcia-Alvarez, A. 2005. Nested Subset Analysis and Taxa-Range Size Distributions of Pedological Assemblages: Implications for Biodiversity Studies. Ecol. Model., 182: 239–256.
4. Ibáñez, J. J., De-Alba, S., Bermudez, F. F. and Garcia-Alvarez, A. 1995. Pedodiversity: Concepts and Measures. Catena, 24: 215–232.
5. Ibáñez, J. J., Jimenez-Ballesta, R. and Garcia-Alvarez, A. 1990. Soil Landscapes and Drainage Basins in Mediterranean Mountain Areas. Catena, 17: 573–583.
6. Ibáñez, J. J., Pérez-González, A., Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Saldaña,A. and Gallardo-Díaz, J. 1994. Evolution of Fluvial Dissection Landscapes in Mediterranean Environments. Quantitative Estimates and Geomorphological, Pedological and Phytocenotic Repercussions. Z. Geomorph. N. F., 37(4): 123-138.
7. Ibáñez, J. J., Pérez-Gómez, R. and San José Martínez, F. 2009. The Spatial Distribution of Soils Across Europe: A Fractal Approach. Ecol. Complexity, 6: 294–301.
8. Ibáñez, J. J., Vargas, R. J. and Vázquez-Hoehne, A. 2013. Pedodiversity State of the Art and Future Challenges. In: “Pedodiversity”, (Eds.): Ibáñez, J. J. and Bockheim, J. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
9. Lam, N. S. N. 1990. Description and Measurement of Landsat TM Images Using Fractals. Photogr. Eng. Remote Sens., 56: 187‒195.
10. Lovejoy, S. and Mandelbrot, B. B. 1985. Fractal Properties of Rain, and a Fractal Model. Tellus, 37: 209‒232.
11. Mandelbrot, B. 1967. How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension. Science, 156: 636‒638.
12. Mandelbrot, B., 1982. The Fractal Geomtry of Nature. W. H. Freeman and Co., NY, USA.
13. Martin, M. A. and Rey, J. M. 2000. On the Role of Shannons Entropy as a Measure of Heterogeneity. Geoderma, 98: 1–3.
14. Olsen, E. R., Ramsey, R. D. and Winn, D. S. 1993. A Modified Fractal Dimension as a Measure of Landscape Diversity. Photogr. Eng. Remote Sens., 59: 1517‒1520.
15. Parsons, H. 2000. An Analysis of Landscape Diversity on the Floodplain of a Scottish Wandering Gravel-Bed River. University of Stirling, Scotland.
16. Peitgen, H. O. and Saupe, D. 1988. The Science of Fractal Images. Springer, Verlag.
17. Phillips, J. D. 1992. Qualitative Chaos in Geomorphic Systems, with an Example from Wetland Response to Sea Level Rise. J. Geol., 100: 365–374.
18. Phillips, J. D. 2001. The Relative Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Pedodiversity. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 91: 609‒621.
19. Phillips, J. D. 2017. Soil Complexity and Pedogenesis. Soil Sci., 182: 117‒127.
20. Saldana, A. 2013. Pedodiversity and Landscape Ecology. In: “Pedodiversity”, (Eds.): Ibáñez, J. J. and Bockheim, J. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, PP. 133–152.
21. Saldaña, A. and Ibáñez, J. J. 2004. Pedodiversity Analysis at Large Scales: An Example of Three Fluvial Terraces of the Henares River (Central Spain). Geomorphology, 62: 123–138.
22. Saldaña, A., Ibáñez, J. J. and Zinck, J. A. 2011. Soilscape Analysis at Different Scales Using Pattern Indices in the Jarama–Henares Interfluve and Henares River Valley, Central Spain. Geomorphology, 1135: 284–294.
23. San José Martínez, F. and Javier Caniego Monreal, F. 2013. Fractals and Multifractals in Pedodiversity and Biodiversity Analyses. In: “Pedodiversity”, (Eds.): Ibáñez, J. J. and Bockheim, J. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, PP. 133–152.
24. Schoeneberger, P. J., Wysocki, D. A., Benham, E. C. and Staff, S. S. 2012. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, USA.
25. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. USDA Handbook No. 436, 2nd Edition, US Gov., Printing Office, Washington DC, USDA.
26. Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 11th Edition, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
27. Soil Taxonomy. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th Edition, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
28. Toomanian, N. 2007. Landscape Evolution, Pedodiversity and Mapping of Some Pedogenic Attributes of Soils in Central Iran. , Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.
29. Toomanian, N., Jalalian, A., Khademi, H., Karimian Eghbal, M. and Papritz, A. 2006. Pedodiversity and Pedogenesis in Zayandeh-Rud Valley, Central Iran. Geomorphology, 81: 376–393.
30. Zachar, D. 1982. Developments in Soil Science. 10: Soil Erosion. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
31. Zinck, J. A. 1988. Physiography and Soils. Physiography and Soils. Lecture Notes for Soil Students, Soil Science Division, Soil Survey Courses Subject Matter: K6 ITC, Enschede, Netherlands.
32. Zinck, J. A., Metternicht, G., Bocco, G. and Del Valle, H. F. 2016. Geopedology. An Integration of Geomorphology and Pedology for Soil and Landscape Studies. Springer, Switzerland.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 21, Issue 6
September and October 2019
Pages 1607-1622