Zoning of a Newly-Planted Vineyard: Spatial Variability of Physico-Chemical Soil Properties
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Site
2.2. Soil Sampling and Analysis
2.3. Statistical Characterization of the Data
2.4. Geostatistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Statistical Characterization of Soil Properties in the Experimental Vineyard
3.2. Spatial Dependence Analysis
3.3. Kriging Interpolation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mulla, D.J.; McBratney, A.B. Soil spatial variability. In Soil Physics Companion; Warrick, A.W., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 343–373. [Google Scholar]
- Corá, J.E.; Araujo, A.V.; Pereira, G.T.; Beraldo, J.M.G. Variabilidade espacial de atributos do solo para adoção do sistema de agricultura de precisão na cultura de cana-de-açúcar. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2004, 28, 1013–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramley, R.G.V.; Ouzman, J.; Boss, P.K. Variation in vine vigour, grape yield and vineyard soils and topography as indicators of variation in the chemical composition of grapes, wine and wine sensory attributes. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2011, 17, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baluja, J.; Tardaguila, J.; Ayestaran, B.; Diago, M.P. Spatial variability of grape composition in a Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) vineyard over a 3-year survey. Precis. Agric. 2013, 14, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vaudour, E.; Shaw, A.B. A worldwide perspective on viticultural zoning. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2005, 26, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cancela, J.J.; Fandiño, M.; Rey, B.J.; Dafonte, J.; González, X.P. Discrimination of irrigation water management effects in pergola trellis system vineyards using a vegetation and soil index. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 183, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arno, J.; Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ribes-Dasi, M.; Rosell, J.R. Review: Precision viticulture. Research topics, challenges and opportunities in site-specific vineyard management. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 7, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santesteban, L.G.; Guillaume, S.; Royo, J.B.; Tisseyre, B. Are precision agriculture tools and methods relevant at the whole-vineyard scale? Precis. Agric. 2013, 14, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, B.A.; Koszinski, S.; Wehrhan, M.; Sommer, M. Comparison of spatial association approaches for landscape mapping of soil organic carbon stocks. Soil 2015, 1, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brevik, E.C.; Calzolari, C.; Miller, B.A.; Pereira, P.; Kabala, C.; Baumgarten, A.; Jordán, A. Soil mapping, classification, and pedologic modeling: History and future directions. Geoderma 2016, 264, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhoades, J.D.; Chanduvi, F.; Lesch, S.M. Soil Salinity Assessment: Methods and Interpretation of Electrical Conductivity Measurements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 57; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Vitharana, U.W.A.; van Meirvenne, M.; Cockx, L.; Bourgeois, J. Identifying potential management zones in a layered soil using several sources of ancillary information. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 22, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, O.R.; Morgan, C.L.S. Predicting regional-scale soil variability using single calibrated apparent soil electrical conductivity model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramley, R.G.V.; Proffitt, A.P.B.; Corner, R.J.; Evans, T.D. Variation in grape yield and soil depth in two contrasting Australian vineyards. In Soil 2000—New Horizons for a New Century, Australian & New Zealand 2nd Joint Soils Conference, 2: Oral Papers; Lincoln University, New Zealand, December 2000; Adams, J.A., Metherell, A.K., Eds.; New Zealand Society of Soil Science: Canterbury, New Zealand, 2000; pp. 29–30. [Google Scholar]
- Morari, F.; Castrignanò, A.; Pagliarin, C. Application of multivariate geostatistics in delineating management zones within a gravelly vineyard using geo-electrical sensors. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2009, 68, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulton, A.; Schwankl, L.; Lynn, K.; Lampinen, B.; Edstrom, J.; Prichard, T. Using EM and VERIS technology to assess land suitability for orchard and vineyard development. Irrig. Sci. 2011, 29, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Priori, S.; Martini, E.; Andrenelli, M.C.; Magini, S.; Agnelli, A.E.; Bucelli, P.; Biagi, M.; Pellegrini, S.; Constantini, E.A.C. Improving wine quality through harvest zoning and combined use of remote and soil proximal sensing. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2013, 77, 1338–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urretavizcaya, I.; Royo, J.B.; Miranda, C.; Tisseyre, B.; Guillaume, S.; Santesteban, L.G. Relevance of sink-size estimation for within-field zone delineation in vineyards. Precis. Agric. 2017, 18, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; p. 192. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, K.H. Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Sumner, M.E.; Miller, W.P. Cation exchange capacity and Exchange coefficients. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3 Chemical Methods; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 437–474. [Google Scholar]
- Kamprath, E.J. Exchangeable aluminium as a criterion for liming leached mineral soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1970, 34, 252–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.R.; Sommers, L.E. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties; American Socitey of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 403–430. [Google Scholar]
- Soto, B.; Arias, M.; Díaz-Fierros, F. Desarrollo de una función de pedotransferencia para los suelos de Galicia (NW Spain). Agrochimica 2001, 45, 178–188. [Google Scholar]
- Corwin, D.L.; Lesch, S.M. Characterizing soil spatial variability with apparent soil electrical conductivity: Part I. Survey protocols. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 46, 103–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heil, K.; Schmidhalter, U. Characterisation of soil texture variability using the apparent soil electrical conductivity at a highly variable site. Comput. Geosci. 2012, 39, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Tomillo, A.; Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Dafonte-Dafonte, J.; Paz-González, A. Estimating soil organic matter using interpolation methods with a electromagnetic induction sensor and topographic parameters: A case study in a humid region. Precis. Agric. 2017, 18, 882–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, T.P.; Metternicht, G. Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2006, 50, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goovaerts, P. Geostatistical approaches for incorporating elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall. J. Hydrol. 2000, 228, 113–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, S.R. Uso de geoestatística em estudos de variabilidade espacial de propriedades do solo. In Tópicos em Ciência do Solo; Novais, R.F., Ed.; Sociedade Brasileira da Ciência do Solo: Viçosa, Brazil, 2000; pp. 3–87. [Google Scholar]
- Cambardella, C.A.; Moorman, T.B.; Novak, J.M.; Parkin, T.B.; Karlen, D.L.; Turco, R.F.; Konopka, A.E. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1994, 58, 1501–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Evans, R.G.; Schneider, S.M.; Rawlins, S.L. Spatial variability of soil properties on two-center pivot irrigated fields. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 23–26 June 1996; American Society of Agronomists: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 97–106. [Google Scholar]
- Chilés, J.P.; Delfiner, P. Geostatistics. Modelling Spatial Uncertainty; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Karnieli, A. Application of kriging technique to areal precipitation mapping in Arizona. GeoJournal 1990, 22, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goovaerts, P. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation; Applied Geostatistics Series; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Pebesma, E.J. Multivariable geostatistics in S: The gstat package. Comp. Geosci. 2004, 30, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gräler, B.; Pebesma, E.J.; Heuvelink, G. Spatio-temporal interpolation using gstat. RFID J. 2016, 8, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- Moral, F.J.; Terrón, J.M.; Marques da Silva, J.R. Delineation of management zones using mobile measurements of soil apparent electrical conductivity and multivariate geostatistical techniques. Soil Till. Res. 2010, 106, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazelton, P.; Murphy, B. Interpreting Soil Test Results. What Do All the Numbers Mean? CSIRO Publishing: Clayton, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, S.K.; Shibusawa, S.; Okayama, T. Textural analysis of soil images to quantify and characterize the spatial variation of soil properties using a real-time soil sensor. Precis. Agric. 2006, 7, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnin, J.J.; Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Lanças, K.P.; Paz González, A.; Vieira, S.R. Spatial variability of soil penetration resístanse influenced by season of sampling. Bragantia 2010, 69, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Tomillo, A.; Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Dafonte-Dafonte, J.; Paz-González, A. Mapping soil texture using geostatistical interpolation combined with electromagnetic induction measurements. Soil Sci. 2017, 182, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farahani, H.J.; Buchleiter, G.W.; Brodahl, M.K. Characterization of apparent soil electrical conductivity variability in irrigated sandy and non-saline fields in Colorado. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gozdowski, D.; Stępień, M.; Samborski, S.; Dobers, E.S.; Szatyłowicz, J.; Chormański, J. Prediction accuracy of selected spatial interpolation methods for soil texture at farm field scale. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sudduth, K.; Drummond, S.; Kitchen, N. Accuracy issues in electromagnetic induction sensing of electrical conductivity for precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2001, 31, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corwin, D.L.; Lesch, S.M. Characterizing soil spatial variability with apparent soil electrical conductivity. Part II. Case study. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 46, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxton, K.E.; Rawls, W.J. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 1569–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gijsman, A.J.; Jagtap, S.S.; Jones, J.W. Wading through a swamp of complete confusion: How to choose a method for estimating soil water retention parameters for crop models. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 18, 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, E.M.; Serafín Cuesta, T.; Cancela, J.J. The efficiency of different estimation methods of hydro-physical limits. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2012, 36, 1756–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tarr, A.; Moore, K.J.; Burras, C.L.; Bullock, D.G.; Dixon, P.M. Improving map accuracy of soil variables using soil electrical conductivity as a covariate. Precis. Agric. 2005, 6, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peralta, N.R.; Cicore, P.L.; Marino, M.A.; Marques da Silva, J.R.; Costa, J.L. Use of geophysical survey as a predictor of the edaphic properties variability in soils used for livestock production. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 13, e1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pérez, J.R.; Plant, R.E.; Lambert, J.J.; Smart, D.R. Using apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa) to characterize vineyard soils of high clay content. Precis. Agric. 2011, 12, 775–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sudduth, K.A.; Kitchen, N.R.; Wiebold, W.J.; Batchelor, W.D.; Bollero, G.A.; Bullock, D.G.; Clay, D.E.; Palm, H.L.; Pierce, F.J.; Schuler, R.T.; et al. Relating apparent electrical conductivity to soil properties across the north-central USA. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 46, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doolittle, J.A.; Brevik, E.C. The use of electromagnetic induction techniques in soils studies. Geoderma 2014, 223–225, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Leeuwen, C.; de Rességuier, L. Major soil-related factors in Terroir expresión and vineyard siting. Elements 2018, 14, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
Variable | Units | Mean | Median | SD 1 | CV | Min. | Max. | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pH (H2O) | 5.10 | 5.08 | 0.32 | 6.3 | 4.45 | 6.21 | 0.48 | 0.57 | |
pH (KCl) | 4.35 | 4.34 | 0.18 | 4.2 | 4.08 | 5.48 | 2.40 | 10.79 | |
Ca | cmol(+) kg−1 | 0.78 | 0.46 | 0.82 | 105.2 | 0.04 | 5.88 | 2.62 | 10.46 |
Mg | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 91.2 | 0.01 | 1.29 | 1.95 | 3.77 | |
Na | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 43.5 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 1.10 | 1.37 | |
K | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 37.6 | 0.07 | 0.37 | 0.71 | 0.40 | |
Al | 2.06 | 2.09 | 0.68 | 32.9 | 0.24 | 4.09 | −0.13 | 0.59 | |
ECEC | 3.41 | 3.24 | 0.81 | 23.7 | 1.84 | 7.00 | 0.95 | 1.80 | |
Al Sat. | % | 63.28 | 70.55 | 20.67 | 32.7 | 4.81 | 88.54 | −0.99 | 0.18 |
P | mg kg−1 | 11.67 | 10.35 | 5.27 | 45.2 | 3.34 | 25.73 | 0.70 | −0.25 |
Organic matter | % | 3.88 | 3.69 | 1.38 | 35.6 | 1.28 | 7.96 | 0.61 | −0.01 |
C | 2.25 | 2.14 | 0.80 | 35.6 | 0.74 | 4.62 | 0.61 | −0.01 | |
N | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 35.9 | 0.04 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 1.60 | |
C/N | 14.24 | 13.89 | 2.68 | 18.8 | 9.71 | 29.47 | 2.67 | 10.52 | |
Fine Fraction | 62.60 | 63.70 | 9.79 | 15.6 | 37.44 | 84.66 | −0.28 | −0.22 | |
Coarse Fraction | 37.40 | 36.30 | 9.79 | 26.2 | 15.34 | 62.56 | 0.28 | −0.22 | |
Sand | 58.41 | 59.12 | 4.89 | 8.4 | 42.00 | 71.12 | −0.26 | 0.43 | |
Silt | 20.27 | 20.00 | 4.68 | 23.1 | 9.93 | 38.00 | 0.49 | 0.75 | |
Clay | 21.32 | 21.60 | 3.02 | 14.1 | 15.28 | 30.88 | 0.40 | 0.29 | |
Soil water holding capacity | mm m−1 | 164.34 | 163.81 | 15.86 | 9.7 | 128.81 | 228.03 | 0.49 | 1.10 |
ECa-H median | mS m−1 | 9.59 | 9.63 | 2.38 | 24.9 | 1.79 | 15.84 | −0.45 | 1.60 |
ECa-H min | 8.99 | 9.16 | 2.34 | 26.1 | 1.52 | 14.44 | −0.69 | 1.14 | |
ECa-H max | 10.24 | 10.10 | 2.62 | 25.6 | 2.29 | 20.90 | 0.23 | 3.16 | |
ECa-V median | 45.62 | 48.87 | 9.97 | 21.8 | 10.07 | 64.12 | −1.59 | 2.45 | |
ECa-V min | 42.81 | 46.28 | 10.11 | 23.6 | 9.77 | 58.46 | −1.47 | 1.70 | |
ECa-V max | 48.88 | 51.28 | 9.89 | 20.2 | 11.89 | 69.69 | −1.50 | 2.57 |
Variable | C0 1 | C0 + C1 | Range (m) | DR (%) | MCD (m) | Cross-Validation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r | ME | MSPE | ||||||
pH (H2O) | 0.06 | 0.115 | 197.2 | 52.6 | 35.1 | 0.488 | 0.001 | 0.079 |
pH (KCl) | 0.02 | 0.034 | 182.7 | 70.5 | 20.2 | 0.442 | −0.001 | 0.027 |
Ca | Pure Nugget Effect | |||||||
Mg | 0 | 0.063 | 53.0 | 0 | 19.9 | 0.347 | 0.001 | 0.055 |
Na | 0 | 0.002 | 57.0 | 0 | 21.4 | 0.558 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
K | 0.002 | 0.004 | 89.8 | 60.9 | 13.2 | 0.345 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
Al | 0.29 | 0.430 | 78.4 | 67.9 | 9.4 | 0.357 | 0.026 | 0.399 |
ECEC | 0.45 | 0.580 | 93.1 | 77.3 | 7.9 | 0.438 | 0.028 | 0.528 |
Al Sat. | 204.4 | 373.8 | 29.6 | 54.7 | 5.0 | 0.357 | 0.299 | 370.5 |
P | 15.6 | 28.8 | 287.5 | 54.0 | 49.6 | 0.529 | −0.019 | 19.9 |
Organic matter | 0.43 | 1.85 | 96.6 | 23.4 | 27.8 | 0.605 | 0.024 | 1.21 |
C | 0.15 | 0.62 | 96.6 | 23.5 | 27.7 | 0.604 | 0.014 | 0.407 |
N | 0.0006 | 0.003 | 94.2 | 18.3 | 28.9 | 0.638 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
C/N | Pure Nugget Effect | |||||||
Fine Fraction | 24.9 | 85.9 | 111.1 | 29.0 | 29.6 | 0.578 | −0.247 | 63.6 |
Coarse Fraction | 24.9 | 85.9 | 111.1 | 29.0 | 29.6 | 0.578 | 0.247 | 63.6 |
Sand | 1.3 | 22.5 | 47.8 | 5.8 | 16.9 | 0.305 | −0.130 | 21.6 |
Silt | 6.82 | 19.8 | 54.8 | 34.4 | 13.5 | 0.298 | 0.024 | 19.8 |
Clay | 6.97 | 10.1 | 245.9 | 69.4 | 28.3 | 0.369 | 0.017 | 7.8 |
Soil water holding capacity | 117.32 | 228.79 | 114.16 | 51.3 | 20.9 | 0.491 | 0.309 | 190.4 |
ECa-H median | 0.99 | 5.4 | 165.9 | 18.2 | 50.9 | 0.772 | −0.031 | 2.3 |
ECa-H min | 1.08 | 5.2 | 177.2 | 21.0 | 52.5 | 0.752 | −0.031 | 2.4 |
ECa-H max | 1.12 | 6.9 | 146.1 | 16.1 | 45.9 | 0.739 | −0.051 | 3.1 |
ECa-V median | 19.8 | 94.4 | 185.5 | 20.9 | 55.0 | 0.768 | −0.132 | 41.1 |
ECa-V min | 22.1 | 96.2 | 177.2 | 23.0 | 51.2 | 0.741 | −0.143 | 46.2 |
ECa-V max | 23.2 | 95.4 | 193.0 | 24.3 | 54.8 | 0.753 | −0.129 | 42.8 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Fandiño, M.; Rey, B.J.; Dafonte, J.; Cancela, J.J. Zoning of a Newly-Planted Vineyard: Spatial Variability of Physico-Chemical Soil Properties. Soil Syst. 2020, 4, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040062
Mirás-Avalos JM, Fandiño M, Rey BJ, Dafonte J, Cancela JJ. Zoning of a Newly-Planted Vineyard: Spatial Variability of Physico-Chemical Soil Properties. Soil Systems. 2020; 4(4):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040062
Chicago/Turabian StyleMirás-Avalos, José Manuel, María Fandiño, Benjamín J. Rey, Jorge Dafonte, and Javier J. Cancela. 2020. "Zoning of a Newly-Planted Vineyard: Spatial Variability of Physico-Chemical Soil Properties" Soil Systems 4, no. 4: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040062