4.0 Article

Soil-landscape relationships in a sandstone-basalt lithosequence in Pereira Barreto, Sao Paulo

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 519-529

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832007000300012

关键词

geomorphic surface; pedogenesis; geomorphology; soil attributes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The focus of our study were to study soil-landscape relationships in a sandstone-basalt transition lithosequence and to compare the limits of geomorphic surfaces mapped in the field with those mapped by geostatistical techniques. An area of 530 ha was mapped using GPS equipment in order to generate a model of digital elevation, which allowed for the establishment of a transection of 2.100 m from the hill top downwards. Along the transection, the altitude was measured at 50 m regular intervals to construct. the elevation profile. The geomorphic surfaces were identified and delimited according to topographic and stratigraphic criteria based on detailed field investigations. Soil samples were collected at 67 points of the identified geomorphic surfaces, in the 0.0-0.25 m and 0.80-1.00 m depths. Besides, trenches were opened in the slope segments of the mapped geomorphic surfaces. The samples were analyzed for bulk density, texture, Ca, K, Mg, SB, CEC, V%, pH (water and KCL), SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 (H2SO4 attack), and `free iron oxides extracted with dithionite-citrate-bicarbonate, while poorly crystallized iron was extracted with ammonium oxalate. The iron-free clay fraction was analyzed by x-ray diffraction. The compartmentalization of the area in geomorphic surfaces and the identification of the parent material explained well the variation in the soil attributes.. An individual analysis of the soil attributes by univariate statistics contributed to the discrimination of the three geomorphic surfaces. Geostatistical techniques confirmed the agreement of the limits determined by individualized soil attributes with those of the geomorphic surfaces.

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

4.0
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