4.7 Article

Time-stability of soil water content (SWC) in an Atlantic Forest - Latosol site

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 288, 期 -, 页码 64-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.10.034

关键词

Forest-oxisol site; Soil physics; Environmental monitoring; Time-stable techniques; Landscape indicators

资金

  1. FAPEMIG [PPM VIII - 71-14]
  2. CNPq [303059/2013-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Time-stability of the soil water content (SWC) under influence of a native forest has great interest, however, it has been little scientifically explored in tropical and subtropical regions. This study aimed to monitor in a systematic way the SWC at soil depth to analyze its space-time variability and time-stability under conditions of an Atlantic Forest remnant, a native environment of southeastern Brazil. Time-stability was monitored at five soil depths (0.10 m, 0.20 m, 0.30 m, 0.40 m and 1.0 m), analyzing the statistical dispersion measures (SDM). Based on SDM, we also aimed to infer about the time-stability locations that are most representative for the study site. The sampling effort for SWC comprised a monthly recording time step at 32 points in the site from June/2013 to January/2016. We observed a decrease in the variability of the following SDM with increase of soil depth: mean relative difference (delta(ij)), standard deviation and Temporal Stability Indicator (TSI). It was possible to infer that local topographic elements induced the time-stability. It was not possible to select only one location representative for SWC since the statistical criteria did not adequately converge for all soil depths at the same location. However, the point locations selected for each depth produced adequate statistics of validation. We were able to identify the relation between the points and the landscape representation indicators, which can help in the endeavor of identification of point locations which are more stable and the time-stability of SWC in a native forest site. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据