documenting soil change using dynamic soil properties and ecological site descriptions skye wills...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions
Skye Wills
NCSS, 2011
![Page 2: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Soil and Ecosystem Change
• Soil Change Guide– Document change in soil function applicable
over the entire extent of a soil series or component phase
– When possible, Ecological Sites and associated State and Transition Models inform study design and interpretation
– Dynamic soil properties collected concurrently with vegetation properties
![Page 3: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Space and Time
• Some conceptual model is needed to separate the soil component being evaluated into conditions that can be compared in space– Space for time substitution allows us to
interpret change over time or caused by management system
– Statistical inference: where can results be applied
![Page 4: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Conceptual Model
• Ecological Site with State and Transition Model
![Page 5: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Begay DSP Project (Utah)
• Used STM to separate ecological site (R035XY215UT) and the correlated soil map component phases into conditions for comparison– Reference State -Community Phase
• 1.1 Perennial grassland/shrubland
– Alternative State -Community Phase• 4.1 and 4.2 Cheatgrass Dominated/Monoculture
![Page 6: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Sub-state
Bul
k de
nsity
(<
2mm
) g/
cm3 :0
-2 c
m
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
PG-S AG
Sub-state
Db
(<2m
m)
g/cm
3 : A
hor
izon
with
out
0-2
cm
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
PG-S AG
Sub-state
Db
(<2m
m)
g/cm
3 : B
hor
izon
to
25 c
m
1.46
1.48
1.50
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.60
PG-S AG
Bulk density
Sub-state
Org
anic
car
bon
%: 0
-2 c
m
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
PG-S AG
Sub-state
Org
anic
car
bon
%: A
hor
izon
with
out 0
-2 c
m
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
PG-S AG
Sub-state
Org
anic
car
bon
%: B
hor
izon
to 2
5 cm
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
PG-S AG
PG-S = perennial grass-shrub; AG = Annual grass (cheat grass) n=4
Organic carbon %
0-2
cm2
cm t
o ba
se o
f AB
to
25 c
m
High and low values of reference state
![Page 8: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Org
anic
car
bon
%: 0
-2 c
m
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
PG-S AG
![Page 9: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conceptual Model
• Ecological Site with State and Transition Model• Add additional land uses – assume
these represent different states and that we understand the dynamics at work between these land uses.
![Page 10: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
MLRA 77C (TX)Amarillo DSP Project
• Chose conditions for study based on past and current land use– Rangeland – ‘Degraded’ shortgass, shrub
invaded (R077CY034TX; Shrub Dominant Community 3.1)
– Conservation Reserve Program – previously cropped, currently dominated by ungrazed introduced grasses
– Cropland –Irrigated conventionally tilled cotton
![Page 11: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CRP – variable conditions and past management difficult to fit within STM concepts
Cropland – could conceivably be considered a separate state. However, the large energy inputs available could overwhelm any subtle ecological dynamics in the site.
![Page 12: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Amarillo: Wet Aggregate Stability
Mean Weight
Diameter
Standard ErrorMean Weight
Diameter
Mean Proportion > 0.25 mm
Standard Error
Proportion > 0.25 mm
mm mm % %
Shrub (3.1) 4.81a* 0.25 0.84a 0.04
CRP 2.73b 0.22 0.55b 0.03
Crop 0.43c 0.22 0.14c 0.03
* Means with same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05)Ted Zobeck, personal communication 4/20/11
![Page 13: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Conceptual Model
• Ecological Site with State and Transition Model• Add additional land uses – assume these represent
different states and that we understand the dynamics at work between these land uses.
• Chose to evaluate management systems within one land use– Pasture– Forest – Crop
![Page 14: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Idaho Threebear project
• Chose to evaluate management conditions in forest land– Mature forest– Clear-cut and planted forest
![Page 15: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Threebear Results
![Page 16: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
MLRA 106 (NE and KS): Kennebec Soil
• Chose to evaluate management systems within cropland– Generally, corn/soybean rotation with
• Conventional tillage system• No-till system• “organic” system
– While this sounds like a straightforward comparison there are many variations of each of these management systems. Deciding what to compare and what to include in each was a major difficulty.
![Page 17: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Kennebec Results%
WA
S
To
tal C
sto
cks
(Mg
ha-1
to
40cm
)
![Page 18: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Using ESDs to Interpret Soil Change
• An ESD and particularly the state and transition model provide context for making management recommendations and interpretations
• It also segments a soil map unit component phase into conditions relevant for management– That is – this component with the same
community phase present will likely have the same properties and respond to management in the same way
![Page 19: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Using ESDs to Interpret Soil Change
• Begay Project – the STM supplies contextual information about the ecological dynamics of the site
• Amarillo Project – While the STM provides information about range and CRP land – it doesn’t tell us how broadly we can apply the results from the cropland or what processes are important for maintaining or restoring ecosystem function
![Page 20: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ongoing Projects• MLRA 133A (GA)Tifton – Longleaf
Pine/Wiregrass vs. Pasture – Data collection being done concurrently with
ecological site data collection– Presents challenges …………but should allow
us to interpret and infer ecosystem change• MLRA 80A (OK and KS) Kirkland –
Claypan Prairie Rangeland vs. Cropland– Conventional and no-till management
systems within cropland land use will be sampled
![Page 21: Documenting Soil Change using Dynamic Soil Properties and Ecological Site Descriptions Skye Wills NCSS, 2011](https://reader037.vdocument.in/reader037/viewer/2022110406/56649f045503460f94c17ee8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Acknowledgements
• Arlene Tugel• Cindy Stiles• Ted Zobeck• Laurie Kiniry• Craig Bird• Gerald Crenwelgie
• Dave Kohake• Bruce Evans• Judy Ward• Brian Gardner