Identification and predictability of soil quality factors and indicators from conventional soil and vegetation classifications

Abstract

Generally, the physical, chemical and biological attributes of a soil combined with abiotic factors (e.g. climate and topography) drive pedogenesis. However, biological indicators of soil quality play no direct role in traditional soil classification and surveys. To support their inclusion in classification schemes, previous studies have shown that soil type is a key factor determining microbial community composition in arable soils. This suggests that soil type could be used as proxy for soil biological function and vice versa. In this study we assessed the relationship between soil biological indicators with either vegetation cover or soil type. A wide range of soil attributes were measured on soils from across the UK to investigate whether; (1) appropriate soil quality factors (SQFs) and indicators (SQIs) can be identified, (2) soil classification can predict SQIs; (3) which soil quality indicators were more effectively predicted by soil types, and (4) to what extent do soil types and/ or aggregate vegetation classes (AVCs) act as major regulators of SQIs. Factor analysis was used to group 20 soil attributes into six SQFs namely; Soil organic matter, Organic matter humification, Soluble nitrogen, Microbial biomass, Reduced nitrogen and Soil humification index. Of these, Soil organic matter was identified as the most important SQF in the discrimination of both soil types and AVCs. Among the measured soil attributes constituting the Soil organic matter factor were, microbial quotient and bulk density were the most important attributes for the discrimination of both individual soil types and AVCs. The Soil organic matter factor discriminated three soil type groupings and four aggregate vegetation class groupings. Only the Peat soil and Heath and bog AVC were distinctly discriminated from other groups. All other groups overlapped with one another, making it practically impossible to define reference values for each soil type or AVC. We conclude that conventionally classified soil types cannot predict the SQIs (or SQFs), but can be used in conjunction with the conventional soil classifications to characterise the soil types. The two-way ANOVA showed that the AVCs were a better regulator of the SQIs than the soil types and that they (AVCs) presented a significant effect on the soil type differences in the measured soil attributes.