Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Agriculture in China

ISSN 1673-7334

ISSN 1673-744X(Online)

CN 11-5729/S

Front Agric Chin    0, Vol. Issue () : 504-513    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11703-011-1102-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Physical land suitability evaluation for specific cereal crops using GIS at Mashhad Plain, Northeast of Iran
Ali BAGHERZADEH1(), Mohammad Reza MANSOURI DANESHVAR2
1. Department of Agriculture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran; 2. Department of Geography, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
 Download: PDF(492 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Land evaluation is the process of predicting land use potential on the basis of its attributes. In the present study, the physical land suitability evaluation approach was investigated for specific cereal crops including irrigated wheat, barley, grain maize and sorghum, based on FAO land evaluation frameworks (FAO, 1976, 1983, 1985) and the proposed method by Sys et al. (1991) at Mashhad Plain, Northeast Iran. Twenty eight soil profiles were studied on seven land units by a precise soil survey and their morphological and physicochemical properties were determined. Climatic and land qualities/characteristics of four cereal crops were determined using the tables of crop requirements developed by Sys et al. (1993). An interpolation function was used to map values to scores in terms of land qualities/characteristics for land utilization types and the evaluation was carried out according to parametric approaches. The interpolation technique using GIS functions helped in managing the spatial data and visualizing the results. Our results indicated that the most important limiting factors for irrigated wheat and barley cultivations are soil physical and fertility/chemical properties, while the production of irrigated grain maize and sorghum is mainly limited by climatic conditions at Mashhad Plain. It was shown that all land units suitable for irrigated wheat cultivation overlap with that of barley, whereas the same limiting factors resulted in the overlapping of the irrigated grain maize production area with that of sorghum. The results of the physical land suitability evaluation for specific cereal crops indicated the priority of irrigated barley and wheat cultivations over irrigated grain maize and sorghum at the study area.

Keywords land suitability evaluation      parametric methods      Storie and Square root methods      Kalogirou method     
Corresponding Author(s): BAGHERZADEH Ali,Email:abagher_ch@yahoo.com   
Issue Date: 05 December 2011
 Cite this article:   
Ali BAGHERZADEH,Mohammad Reza MANSOURI DANESHVAR. Physical land suitability evaluation for specific cereal crops using GIS at Mashhad Plain, Northeast of Iran[J]. Front Agric Chin, 0, (): 504-513.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/10.1007/s11703-011-1102-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/Y0/V/I/504
Fig.1  Location and geographical position of the study area.
Fig.2  Satellite image of the study area.
Fig.3  Topography and elevation map of the study area.
Fig.4  Soil profiles location map of the study area.
Fig.5  Land units map of the study area.
Soil classIntensity of limitationDegree of limitation
S1Without limitations95-100
S1Slight limitations85-95
S2Moderate limitations60-85
S3Severe limitations40-60
N1Very severe (modifiable)25-40
N2Very severe (non modifiable)0-25
Tab.1  Land suitability classes according to degree of limitations (Sys et al., 1991)
Soil classIntensity of limitationLand index
S1Highly suitable75-100
S2Moderately suitable50-75
S3Marginally suitable25-50
N1Currently not suitable12.5-25
N2Permanently not suitable0-12.5
Tab.2  Land suitability classes according to land index (Sys et al., 1991)
Climatic characteristicsWheatBarleyMaizeSorghum
Growing cycle date10 Oct.–10 Nov. 1 Apr.–10 Jul.10 Oct.–10 Nov. 1 Apr.–15 Jul.10 May–15 Sep.15 May–20 Sep.
Mean temp. during growing cycle (°C)20.5819.5925.4025.40
Mean min. temp. during growing cycle (°C)12.7012.70
Mean max. temp. during growing cycle (°C)38.10
Mean temp. at vegetative stage (°C)16.2615.52
Mean temp. at flowering stage (°C)22.7920.93
Mean temp. at ripening stage (°C)27.0126.39
Mean daily min. temp. in the coldest month (°C)-1.67-1.67
Mean daily max. temp. in the coldest month (°C)8.158.15
Relative humidity at developing stage (%)30.80
Relative humidity at maturation stage (%)34.39
Relative humidity during growing cycle (%)30.29
* n/N at maturation stage0.76
n/N during growing cycle0.70
Tab.3  Climatic requirements and characteristics for wheat, barley, grain maize and sorghum cultivation at the study area
Climatic characteristicsWheatBarleyGrain maizeSorghum
Climatic index72.7377.2141.9048.43
Climatic rate82.1386.1654.3852.75
Climatic classS2S1S3S3
Tab.4  Climatic index, climatic rate and climatic class for each crop at the study area
Profile No.Storie methodSquare root methodKalogirou method
Land indexSuitability class/subclassLand indexSuitability class/subclassLand indexSuitability class/subclass
19.68N2s12.47N2s47.79S3s
28.48N2s11.65N2s46.14S3s
317.10N1s19.95N1s35.88S3s
457.37S2s64.65S2s69.71S2s
511.49N2c13.54N1c51.23S2c
619.38N1s28.21S3s51.89S2s
726.70S3s27.29S3s41.36S3s
826.76S3s33.78S3s49.16S3s
927.71S3s32.25S3s45.78S3s
1021.90N1s23.59N1s38.49S3s
1122.66N1s28.40S3s44.56S3s
1225.87S3s30.26S3s44.17S3s
1318.46N1s29.27S3s48.50S3s
1431.64S3s39.05S3s53.10S2s
1520.52N1s29.26S3s51.38S2s
1622.00N1s31.25S3s52.88S2s
1717.71N1s27.38S3s48.66S3s
1817.50N1s22.57N1s39.44S3s
1922.69N1s28.81S3s52.74S2s
2021.55N1s29.03S3s49.85S3s
2133.69S3s44.51S3s61.64S2s
2232.21S3s45.05S3s63.37S2s
2338.00S3s46.47S3s58.35S2s
2421.80N1s31.76S3s45.15S3s
2519.95N1s27.36S3s49.34S3s
2622.52N1s32.25S3s52.54S2s
2724.70N1s26.80S3s41.50S3s
2837.71S3s47.79S3s60.53S2s
Tab.5  Land index and land suitability classes and sub-classes based on parametric methods for irrigated barley
Profile No.Storie methodSquare root methodKalogirou method
Land indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclass
14.53N2f4.61N2 f42.84S3 f
23.36N2 f3.36N2 f40.99S3 f
314.61N1s18.44N1s33.53S3s
448.43S3c57.16S2c65.15S2c
52.99N2 f2.07N2 f45.10S3 f
616.76N1s26.23S3s48.57S3s
720.20N1s23.74N1s38.06S3s
822.49N1s30.97S3s45.84S3s
923.79N1s29.88S3s42.86S3s
1018.94N1s21.94N1s36.06S3s
1119.27N1s26.19S3s41.62S3s
1222.04N1s27.94S3s41.30S3s
1315.88N1s27.15S3s45.37S3s
1426.71S3s35.88S3s49.57S3s
1517.17N1s26.76S3s47.80S3s
1618.40N1s28.58S3s49.21S3s
1714.70N1s24.95N1s45.24S3s
1815.13N1s20.99N1s36.93S3s
1919.25N1s26.54S3s49.21S3s
2018.19N1s26.67S3s46.48S3s
2128.06S3c40.62S3c57.38S2c
2227.19S3c41.39S3c56.33S2c
2331.72S3s42.45S3s54.38S2s
2418.04N1s28.89S3s41.98S3s
2516.84N1s25.14S3s45.99S3s
2616.16N1s26.13S3s47.89S3s
2721.10N1s24.77N1s38.81S3s
2832.22S3s44.17S3s56.62S2s
Tab.6  Land index and land suitability classes and sub-classes based on parametric methods for irrigated wheat.
Profile No.Storie methodSquare root methodKalogirou method
Land indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclass
13.11N2c3.82N2c28.33S3c
22.35N2c2.81N2c27.38S3c
38.74N2s14.26N1s21.83N1s
433.35S3c31.40S3c43.24S3c
51.97N2c1.68N2c29.60S3c
68.23N2c15.60N1c30.50S3c
711.53N2s17.93N1s24.79N1s
815.37N1c21.32N1c30.31S3c
913.32N1c19.85N1c27.67S3c
109.54N2s15.57N1s22.99N1s
1112.20N2c19.00N1c27.29S3c
1213.55N1c20.02N1c26.96S3c
138.43N2c15.79N1c29.03S3c
1418.26N1c23.24N1c32.80S3c
1511.18N2c18.19N1c31.20S3c
1611.53N2c18.47N1c31.39S3c
177.57N2c14.96N1c28.76S3c
187.57N2s14.85N1s23.49N1s
1912.59N1c19.30N1c32.47S3c
2012.50N1c19.23N1c30.85S3c
2118.86N1c23.62N1c37.66S3c
2218.20N1c23.20N1c37.20S3c
2321.51N1c25.22S3c35.74S3c
2412.48N2c19.21N1c27.84S3c
2511.43N2c18.39N1c30.35S3c
269.67N2c16.91N1c31.34S3c
2712.62N1s19.16N1s25.28S3s
2818.71N1c23.52N1c36.36S3c
Tab.7  Land index and land suitability classes and sub-classes based on parametric methods for irrigated grain maize
Profile No.Storie methodSquare root methodKalogirou method
Land indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclassLand indexSuitability class/ subclass
13.08N2c3.80N2c27.75S3c
22.31N2c2.78N2c26.70S3c
310.11N2s15.34N1s21.81N1s
433.29S3c30.44S3c42.28S3c
51.98N2c1.69N2c29.16S3c
611.61N2c17.97N1c31.55S3c
714.07N1c19.78N1c24.77N1c
815.42N1c20.71N1c29.76S3c
916.50N1c21.43N1c27.87S3c
1013.19N1s18.31N1s23.47N1s
1113.28N1c19.22N1c27.05S3c
1215.21N1c20.57N1c26.82S3c
1310.82N2c17.35N1c29.42S3c
1418.26N1c22.54N1c32.10S3c
1511.26N2c17.70N1c30.75S3c
1612.24N2c18.45N1c31.73S3c
1710.17N2c16.82N1c29.37S3c
1810.47N2c17.07N1c24.03N1c
1919.22N1c13.27N1c32.00S3c
2012.51N1c18.66N1c30.21S3c
2118.81N1c22.88N1c37.00S3c
2218.24N1c22.53N1c36.44S3c
2321.44N1c24.43N1c35.08S3c
2412.18N2c18.41N1c27.13S3c
2511.46N2c17.86N1c29.75S3c
2611.26N2c17.70N1c31.21S3c
2714.59N1c20.15N1c25.23S3c
2822.03N1c24.76N1c36.60S3c
Tab.8  Land index and land suitability classes and sub-classes based on parametric methods for irrigated sorghum
Fig.6  Land suitability map for irrigated barley cultivation.
Fig.7  Land suitability map for irrigated wheat cultivation.
Fig.8  Land suitability map for irrigated grain maize cultivation.
Fig.9  Land suitability map for irrigated sorghum cultivation.
CropsLand indexClassArea (km2)Percent of total study area
Barley50-75S2398464.99
40-50S3214635.01
Wheat50-75S2248840.59
40-50S3364259.41
Tab.9  Land index and land suitability classes for irrigated barley and wheat crops by parametric Kalogirou method at the study area
CropsLand indexClassArea (km2)Percent of total study area
Grain maize35-50S3162026.43
25-35S3417868.17
20-25N13315.40
Sorghum35-50S3135922.17
25-35S3445372.65
20-25N13175.17
Tab.10  Land index and land suitability classes for irrigated grain maize and sorghum crops by parametric Kalogirou method at the study area
1 Behzad M, Albaji M, Papan P, Nasab S B, Naseri A A, Bavi A (2009). Qualitative evaluation of land suitability for principal crops in the Gargar Region, Khuzestan Province, Southwest Iran. Asian J Plant Sci , 8(1): 28–34
doi: 10.3923/ajps.2009.28.34
2 Dunshan C, Claudia D B, Sara D S, Hui B, Maddalena D L L, Weidong L, Hailong M A (2006). Land evaluation in Danling County, Sichuan Province, China. Proceedings of 26th Course Professional Master Geomatics and Natural Resources Evaluation, Nov. 7, 2005-Jun. 23, 2006, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Instituto Agronomico Per L’olfremare, Italy , 1–153
3 FAO (1976). A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 32, Rome
4 FAO (1983). Guidelines: Land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin. No. 52, Rome
5 FAO (1985). Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin, No. 55, Rome
6 Jafarzadeh A A, Abbasi G (2006). Qualitative land suitability evaluation for the growth of onion, potato, maize, and alfalfa on soils of the Khalat Pushan Research Station. Biologia, Bratislava, 61/Suppl . 19: 349–352
7 Kalogirou S (2002). Expert systems and GIS: an application of land suitability evaluation. Comput Environ Urban Syst , 26(2-3): 89–112
doi: 10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00031-X
8 Njiki A G A, Antonio B, Fernanda C V M, Sara C, Wenqiang F, Edoardo F (2005). Land evaluation in the Shouyang County, Shanxi Province, China. Proceedings of 25th Course Professional Master Geomatics and Natural Resources Evaluation, Nov.8, 2004-Jun.23, 2005, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare, Italy , 1–141
9 Rossiter D G (1996). A theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma , 72(3-4): 165–190
doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(96)00031-6
10 Samir M K (1986). A statistical approach in the use of parametric system applied to the FAO framework for land evaluation. P.D. thesis, State University of Ghent, Belgium , 141
11 Sokol B, Federico B, Marco F, Imene M, Rosa M, Cheikh M, Paolo P (2004). Land evaluation in the out rind catchment, Tunisia. Proceedings of 24th Course Professional Master Geomatics and Natural Resources Evaluation, Nov. 10, 2003-Jun23, 2004 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare, Italy , 1–149
12 Storie R E (1976). Storie Index Soil Rating. special publication Div. Agric. Sci. No. 3203, University of California, Berkeley
13 Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye I J (1991a). Land evaluation. Part I: Principles In Land Evaluation and Crop Production Calculations. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural publication-No. 7, Brussels-Belgium , 274
14 Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye I J (1991b). Land evaluation. Part II: Methods In land Evaluation. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural publication-No. 7, Brussels-Belgium , 247
15 Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye I J, Beernaert F (1993). Land evaluation. Part III: Crop Requirements. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural publication-No. 7, Brussels-Belgium , 199
16 USDA (2003). Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Soil Survey Staff, USDA, 9th edition
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed