Soil–landscape resource assessment for plantations — a conceptual framework towards an explicit multi-scale approach

Abstract Soil survey is a major component of forest land resource assessment. Conceptual and operational problems arise from employing the conventional methods of survey in forest lands, namely: implicit methods of landscape interpretation (lack of explicit procedures), transfer of data by analogy to unsampled landscapes by inferences which are scale-, and interpreter-dependent, variability of intuitive surveyor judgement, and poor expression of soil variation within map units. These issues are being addressed through the forestland resource assessment and modeling study (FRAMS). This study redefines the conceptual process of resource assessment, and applies soil–landscape modeling (developed here as regolith–terrain modeling) by developing explicit relationships between soil–landscape attributes within a digital, spatial geographic information system (GIS) framework. Soil survey (advanced here as regolith–terrain modeling) is the science and art of predicting soil attribute patterns in the 3D landscape. The FRAMS attempts to overcome some scale and procedural issues related to soil mapping in forest site assessment by adopting a multi-scale and explicit landscape modeling approach. The conceptual aspects of the method presented here aim to predict the ranges in variation of soil–geomorphic attributes that are relevant to forest plantation management. Soil–landscape analysis is adapted in this study to encompass regolith–terrain analysis (i.e. the complete regolith within an understanding of geomorphic systems) employed at three environmental scales: ‘hillslope’, ‘catenary’, and ‘landscape’. There is no linear relationship of data resolution and expression of regolith–terrain attributes between these scales. Each scale is a scale-dependent system linked by an explicit multi-scale method. When combined with geological and climatic data analysis the resultant model provides an advanced, stratified sampling scheme for subsequent field survey procedures in forestland resource assessment. The field analysis, remote-sensing and digital terrain model (DTM) analyses are managed in a raster GIS and can then be effectively classified, a posteriori, according to ‘fuzzy logic’ rules. In the FRAMS, we investigate the scale effect on both the regolith–terrain parameters and their notional relationships to forestland management by investigation at finer scales: hillslope and catenary scales (in southeast Queensland for planted native hoop pine (Araucaria cunninghamii)), and at a broader scale: the landscape scale (in north Queensland for native species reforestation). The study is still in the preliminary stages so the model is not yet fully functional nor have the components been validated so far.

[1]  D. C. Grey.  The Geomorphic Approach to Site Delineation in Exotic Plantations , 1983 .

[2]  Ward Chesworth,et al.  Book reviewPedogenesis and soil taxonomy: L. P. Wilding, N. E. Smeck and G. F. Hall. Vol. I concepts and interactions; vol. II. The soil orders, 1983, Elsevier, US $49.00 and $55.25 , 1985 .

[3]  Alex B. McBratney,et al.  A spatial framework for integrating soil-landscape and pedogenic models , 1994 .

[4]  T. Allen,et al.  Toward a Unified Ecology. , 1994 .

[5]  G. F. Hall.  Chapter 5 - Pedology and Geomorphology , 1983 .

[6]  Johan Bouma,et al.  Using Soil Survey Data for Quantitative Land Evaluation , 1989 .

[7]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance , 2011, Ecological Studies.

[8]  J. Turner,et al.  A soil technical classification system for Pinus radiata (D. Don) plantations. I. Development. , 1990 .

[9]  H. Jenny,et al.  Factors of Soil Formation , 1941 .

[10]  G. F. Hall,et al.  Concepts and interactions , 1983 .

[11]  Paul E. Gessler,et al.  Soil-Landscape Modelling and Spatial Prediction of Soil Attributes , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[12]  J. Rowe.  Why classify forest land , 1971 .

[13]  I. Baillie,et al.  Booker tropical soil manual. , 1986 .

[14]  R. Bourne.  Regional survey and its relation to stocktaking of the agricultural and forest resources of the British empire , 1932 .

[15]  V. N. Sukachev,et al.  Fundamentals of forest biogeocoenology , 1964 .

[16]  R. Huggett,et al.  Soil landscape systems: A model of soil Genesis , 1975 .

[17]  Marcel R. Hoosbeek,et al.  Towards the quantitative modeling of pedogenesis — a review , 1992 .

[18]  R. Gardner,et al.  Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: an introduction , 1991 .

[19]  T. Fenton.  Quantitative Modeling of Soil-Forming Processes , 1995 .

[20]  E. Paul,et al.  Carbon and Nitrogen Mineralization Kinetics in Soil Previously Amended with Sewage Sludge , 1989 .

[21]  B. Hudson,et al.  The Soil Survey as Paradigm-based Science , 1992 .

[22]  C. S. Holling.  Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems , 1992 .

[23]  D. C. Grey,et al.  Classification of Forestry Land , 1985 .

[24]  J. Turner,et al.  Site classification of Pinus radiata plantations in the lithgow district, New South Wales, Australia , 1985 .

[25]  A. Young,et al.  Soil Survey and Land Evaluation. , 1982 .

[26]  Johan Bouma,et al.  Transfer functions and threshold values: from soil characteristics to land qualities. , 1987 .

[27]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Soils: A New Global View , 1995 .

[28]  J. Bouma,et al.  The contribution and importance of soil scientists in interdisciplinairy studies dealing with land. , 1996 .

[29]  W. H. Carmean,et al.  Forest Site Quality Evaluation in The United States , 1975 .

[30]  Elgene O. Box,et al.  Scale Effects in Landscape Studies , 1987 .

[31]  Robert F. Powers,et al.  Assessing Soil Quality: Practicable Standards for Sustainable Forest Productivity in the United States , 1998 .

[32]  Michael R. Moss,et al.  Landscape synthesis, landscape processes and land classification, some theoretical and methodological issues , 1983 .

[33]  J. Dijkerman,et al.  Pedology as a science: The role of data, models and theories in the study of natural soil systems , 1974 .

[34]  Neil McKenzie,et al.  A quantitative Australian approach to medium and small scale surveys based on soil stratigraphy and environmental correlation , 1993 .

[35]  J. Bouma,et al.  The role of quantitative approaches in soil science when interacting with stakeholders. , 1997 .

[36]  D. C. Grey.  On the concept of site in forestry. , 1980 .

[37]  A. Costantini,et al.  Pinus plantation establishment in Queensland: I. Field surveys for site preparation planning and site design. , 1991 .

[38]  R. N. Thwaites.  An Introduction to Digital Terrain Modelling in Forest Site Analysis—An Example from the Grabouw-Lebanon Key Area , 1988 .

[39]  Neil McKenzie,et al.  Integrating forest soils information across scales: spatial prediction of soil properties under Australian forests. , 2000 .

[40]  Ary M. van Oosten.  Quantified land evaluation procedures: Proceedings of an International Workshop International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), Enschede, the Netherlands, 1987, 160 pp , 1988 .