Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Soils and Water Use Dept., National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract: Eighteen soil profiles have been chosen to represent production and research station of National
Research Centre, which including El-Emam Malek and El-Esraa and El Mearage farms. The main
morphological properties of the studied soil profiles were described. The studied soil profiles are classified
to subgroup level according to Key of Soil Taxonomy as Typic Torripsamments. The obtained results
indicate that the soil texture is sandy, and gravels are found in some soil profiles. Organic matter content
is low and ranged between 0.08-0.92 %. Soil salinity is low and ranges between 0.15-1.64 dS/m. Cation
exchange capacity is low and ranges between 4.2-13.9 meq/100g soil. Calcium carbonate content ranges
between 1.17-13.34%. Land capability classification of area under investigation is belonging to Class 4,
the limiting factors for agricultural production are gravel percent (G%), available moisture percent(AM%),
exchangeable sodium percent (ESP) and cation exchange capacity(CEC). The studied soils are evaluated
to determine its suitability for growing 12 crops. Data reveal that soil profiles from El Emam Malek and
El-Esraa farms are placed at high suitable (S2) and moderate suitable (S3) for growing crops, while soils
represented by profiles 5 and 6 are placed at non-suitable (S5) for growing crops, the limiting factors for
agricultural production are soil texture and exchangeable sodium percent (ESP) in the most of soil profiles.
Key words: Land suitability, Land capability, Remote sensing, Geographic Information System, Al-
Bostan area.
Corresponding Author: M.Z. Salem, Soils and Water Use Dept., National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
485
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Map 1: Location map of the production and research station of National Research Centre, Landsat (ETM 2001)
486
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
crops. The limitations are gravel %, salinity, ESP, also the study dealt with land capability and land
depth and slope. The formula is as follows IS = suitability[1 5] in sandy soils at El Bostan region,
A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H. The suggested quantitative systems[9] and found that the capability classes of the
were more suitable under the Egyptian conditions, investigated area are classes (C3) moderate, (C4)
where the results were compatible and added that[10,11] marginal, while most of the studied soils are
it could be considered prevailing in the soils of Egypt. moderately (class 3) to low (class 4) suitable for tested
On the other hand [12] reported that the quantitative land crops. The main limiting factors in all the studied soils
capability classification also worked out following the are soil texture, sodium saturation, salinity, useful depth
modified system[11] . The main objectives of land and carbonate content.
evaluation are to assess the suitability of different tracts
of land for specific alternative forms of rural land MATERIALS AND METHODS
use [13] . 5.46 % of total area of newly reclaimed areas
in Nubariya area high suitable only for olives and Eighteen soil profiles were chosen to represent
moderately suitable for potato, pepper, onion, garlic, the studied area which covering about 305
watermelon, apples, almond, date palms, citrus, grape feddans. Ten soil profiles from El-Emam Malek farm
and pea [4]. Land capability classification indicated that and eight profiles from El-Esraa and El-Mearage
soils of W est Nubariya belong to class 1(9.34%), class farm. The profiles were morphologically described[16] .
II (20.74%) and class III (70.10%). Land suitability Fifty five soil samples were collected for the following
classification was carried out for wheat, alfalfa, maize analyses; particle size distribution using standard
and watermelon [14] . While land capability classification sieving technique [ 1 7] , soil moisture constants [ 1 8 ] ,
of the soils of branch 20 areas of West Nubariya hydraulic conductivity in disturbed soil samples [ 19], soil
belong to class I, II, III and IV [6] . Land suitability reaction (pH) of soil water suspension (1:2.5), EC
evaluation for wheat, maize, citrus and banana (dS/m) of soil extract (1:1), soluble cations and anions,
respectively, have been done in the same study. Cation exchange capacity (CEC), calcium carbonate
The changes in soil characteristics and soil quality content (CaCO 3 %) and gypsum content[20] .
under different land use periods and management Soil classification was carried out [21] . Land
practices (cropping patterns, irrigation systems, water capability classification was performed on the
recourses and quality were compare and analyze study area [22] , while land suitability classification was
487
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
488
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Table 1: Continued
El-Esraa and El-Mearage farm
11 0-30 - 11.13 17.25 30.25 34.21 4.84 2.32 andy
30-60 - 12.13 10.4 37.25 32.31 4.8 3.11 Sandy
60-90 - 5.32 4.91 28.23 52.33 5.68 3.53 Fine sand
90-150 - 7.83 10.11 35.33 33.24 9.28 4.12 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 0-35 6 11.35 20.22 26.45 33.2 5.55 3.23 Coarse sand
35-65 8 8.75 10.22 30.23 40.11 6.88 3.81 Sandy
65-90 14 3.52 7.23 28.22 50.42 6.4 4.21 [Fine sand
90-140 - 9.27 10.11 33.21 30.22 13.34 3.85 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 0-40 9 10.23 11.33 37.22 30.33 8.66 2.23 Sandy
40-80 15 9.23 10.45 38.33 31.23 7.64 3.12 Sandy
80-150 10 8.75 11.33 40.11 28.32 7.38 4.11 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 0-40 5 12.14 18.45 32.23 30.31 4.7 5.17 Sandy
40-65 3 10.32 11.21 35.23 28.31 11.8 3.13 Sandy
65-150 3 9.24 10.34 36.24 33.21 6.81 4.15 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 0-30 7 10.13 13.11 34.22 31.31 8 3.23 Sandy
30-50 2 9.58 10.21 37.22 34.23 4.64 4.12 Sandy
50-70 2 5.35 6.21 26.23 53.2 5.46 3.55 Fine sand
70-150 24 7.52 5.62 40.24 30.21 12.18 4.23 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 0-30 - 9.53 10.11 34.33 37.22 6.46 2.35 Sandy
30-50 2 5.63 9.52 26.23 50.21 4.56 3.85 [Fine sand
50-110 - 9.53 12.11 34.55 30.22 10.19 3.4 Sandy
110-150 - 8.25 9.32 35.32 33.14 9.55 4.42 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 0-30 - 13.22 14.23 34.32 32.33 3.58 2.32 Sandy
30-70 - 9.32 10.34 35.22 37.33 4.34 3.45 Coarse sand
70-110 - 4.56 9.23 24.11 54.32 3.98 3.8 Fine sand
110-150 - 5.72 10.22 33.22 34.54 12.07 4.23 Sandy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 0-25 10 10.22 9.32 34.35 30.21 12.55 3.35 Sandy
25-60 15 9.72 10.55 36.23 31.23 8.47 3.8 Sandy
Where: V=very; C= coarse; F= fine; M= medium; S=sand
489
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Table 2: Continued
10 0-20 24 Sandy 10.6 3.8 6.8 24.1
20-50 22 Sandy 14.3 4.6 9.7 19.5
50-120 22 Sandy 15.2 5.8 9.4 17.4
120-150 22 Sandy 13.7 4.3 9.4 19.3
El-Esraa and El-Mearage farm
11 0-30 15 sandy 4.2 4.2 10 18
30-60 17 Sandy 3.9 3.9 9.3 20.1
60-90 16 Fine sand 3.5 3.5 9.3 21.5
90-150 25 Sandy 3.3 3.3 9.3 20.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 0-35 19 Coarse sand 5.7 5.7 9.5 15.2
35-65 20 Sandy 5.6 5.6 10 14.3
65-90 22 [Fine sand 4.2 4.2 8.1 22.4
90-140 25 Sandy 4.1 4.1 8.6 23.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 0-40 22 Sandy 3.5 3.5 9.1 22.8
40-80 20 Sandy 3.8 3.8 9.6 20.4
80-150 25 Sandy 5.2 5.2 10 14.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 0-40 20 Sandy 4.2 4.2 8.3 21.5
40-65 22 Sandy 4.4 4.4 8.4 20.8
65-150 25 Sandy 5.8 5.8 10.3 18.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 0-30 21 Sandy 4.7 4.7 9.80 16.7
30-50 25 Sandy 5.3 5.3 10 15.2
50-70 23 Fine sand 5.7 5.7 9.9 14.7
70-150 28 Sandy 4.8 4.8 10.4 15.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 0-30 16 Sandy 4.2 4.2 7.7 19.6
30-50 18 [Fine sand 4.6 4.6 7.9 21.4
50-110 18 Sandy 4.5 4.5 7.9 22.1
110-150 22 Sandy 4.8 4.8 8.4 20.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 0-30 20 Sandy 5.6 5.6 9.6 15.2
30-70 15 Coarse sand 4.2 4.2 9.0 18.9
70-110 20 Fine sand 4.1 4.1 9.3 19.1
110-150 23 Sandy 3.7 3.7 9.1 21.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 0-25 22 Sandy 3.5 3.5 6.7 22.4
25-60 16 Sandy 4.2 4.2 8.4 20.4
Where: SP= saturation percent, FC= field capacity, WP= wilting point, AW= available water, HC= hydraulic conductivity.
490
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
491
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Table 3: Continued
10 0-20 0.87 8.5 0.43 4.68 0.08 0.7 2.2 2.5 4 9.4 2.0 18.3
20-50 0.27 8.65 0.28 3.51 0.02 0.6 1.4 2.1 3 7.1 1.4 16.06
50-110 0.09 8.62 0.16 4.68 - 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.9 4.2 1.3 17.14
110-135 - 8.79 0.16 3.51 - 0.6 0.8 0.9 2 4.3 1.1 15.12
El-Esraa and El-Mearage farm
11 0-30 0.67 8.28 0.28 3.51 0.03 3.8 2.2 1.4 0.6 8 1.4 15.25
30-60 0.3 8.35 0.25 53.04 0.01 3.2 2 1.5 0.5 7.2 1.6 18.06
60-90 0.2 8.48 0.36 5.85 0.03 4.3 2.9 1.5 0.8 9.5 1.0 13.89
90-150 0.1 8.42 0.42 7.02 0.05 5 3.1 1.6 0.9 10.6 1.0 12.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 0-35 0.3 8.22 0.5 5.85 0.1 5.1 3.3 1.8 1 11.2 1.2 23.81
35-65 0.2 7.92 1.57 10.53 0.19 5 3.2 2.8 1.5 12.5 3.9 10.72
65-90 0.1 8.48 0.35 7.02 0.06 4 2.7 1.5 0.8 9 1.0 14
90-140 - 8.98 0.49 6.08 0.07 4.3 3.1 2.5 1 10.9 1.8 18.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 0-40 0.4 8.2 1.05 7.02 0.09 5.3 4 3.5 1.1 13.9 2.5 18.53
40-80 0.2 8.11 1.29 5.85 0.3 5.5 3.3 2.7 1 12.5 2.9 13.28
80-150 - 8.6 0.24 4.68 - 3 2.1 1.5 0.7 7.3 1.5 16.71
14 0-40 0.67 8.59 0.22 4.21 - 2.8 1.9 1.4 0.6 6.7 1.6 17.61
15.52
40-65 0.4 8.57 0.24 9.36 0.01 2.9 2 1.3 0.5 6.7 1.6 16.15
65-150 0.1 8.3 0.22 7.02 - 2.7 1.9 1.3 0.6 6.5 1.5 15.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 0-30 0.43 8.45 0.25 5.85 0.02 3.0 2.0 1.5 0.7 7.2 1.6 17.36
20-50 0.2 8.4 0.21 9.36 0.6 2.9 1.9 1.4 0.5 5.7 1.6 19.65
50-70 0.11 8.45 0.24 9.83 0.7 3.3 2.5 1.5 0.7 8 1.2 15.88
70-150 - 8.38 0.47 8.19 0.04 4.9 3.3 2.8 0.9 11.5 2.3 17.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 0-30 0.32 8.36 0.22 5.85 - 2.8 1.7 1.3 0.7 6.5 1.5 17.23
30-50 0.22 8.44 0.18 7.02 - 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.5 5.5 1.7 18.55
50-110 0.12 8.49 0.2 4.68 - 2.5 1.6 1.3 0.6 6 1.5 18.67
110-150 - 8.39 0.27 8.19 0.02 3.1 2.3 1.5 0.7 7.6 1.1 16.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 0-30 0.43 8.35 0.18 5.85 - 2 1.3 1.2 0.5 5 1.7 20.0
30-70 0.11 8.41 0.2 4.68 - 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.3 5.1 1.7 20.0
70-110 0.09 8.42 0.2 4.21 - 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.4 5.3 1.5 20.2
110-150 0.05 8.12 1.64 12.87 0.08 5.1 3.4 2.7 1.2 12.4 4.0 20.75
25-60 0.08 8.46 0.2 6.32 0.01 2.4 1.7 1.2 0.5 5.8 1.3 7.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 0-25 0.21 8.27 0.29 5.85 0.03 0.9 1.5 2.8 3.5 8.7 1.3 14.25
25-60 0.08 8.46 0.2 6.23 0.01 0.5 1.2 1.7 2.4 5.8 1.3 18.28
is non-saline and EC values ranged between 0.15 respectively, Maps (8 and 9), this is due to the
– 1.64 dS/m in the studied soil profiles, Maps (4 coarse texture and low content of clay and organic
and 5). pH value is slightly alkaline to alkaline matter. Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) value
and ranged between 7.92 to 9.32 and there is no ranged between 7.5- 23.81, in most soil profiles, Maps
specific trend with depth in the studied soil profiles. (10 and 11).
Organic matter content (OM %) was very low as
that soil is newly cultivated and organic matter Soil Classification: The climatic conditions prevailing
ranged from 0.08 to 0.92%. The Calcium carbonate in the studied area, the morphological characteristics of
content have wide variation and ranged between1.17 the studied soil profiles, the physical and chemical
to 13.34 and 3.04 to 12.87 % at El-Emam Malek and properties of the soils, therefore the studied soil
El-Esraa and El-Mearage farms, respectively, Maps profiles were classified to Entisols as Typic
(6, 7). Gypsum content is very low in most studied Torripsamments[22] .
profiles and ranged between 0.1-0.7%. Cation exchange
capacity (CEC) is low and ranged between 4.2-10.9 Land Capability Evaluation: Land capability
meq/100g soil and 5.0-13.9 meq/100g soil at El- evaluation of the studied area was performed[23] .
Emam Malek and El-Esraa and El-Mearage farms, The outputs from the land evaluation software linked
492
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
493
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Map 9: Cation exchange capacity distribution of El Esraa and El- Merage farm
494
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
495
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
The main limiting factors for capability classes capability classes of El Esraa farm are available
of El-Emam Malek and El-Esraa are gravel percentage moisture percent (AM%) exchangeable sodium percent
(G %), available moisture percent (AM%)exchangeable (ESP) and cation exchange capacity (CEC), Map (13)
sodium percent (ESP) and cation exchange capacity but these soils may need different management to
(CEC), Map (12), while the limiting factors for recover the productive capability.
Map 12: Limiting factors for land capability class of El-Emam Malek farm
Map 13: Limiting factors for land capability class of El Esraa and El- Merage farm
496
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
to the GIS software (Arc Map 9.0) across a database classes of soil for most studied profiles belonging to
file and different queries were carried out to get the class (C4) Table (4).
final outputted maps. Data reveal that the capability
Land Suitability Evaluation: Different land suitability suitable (S5) for growing crops. Soils of El-Esraa and
classes and indices 12 crops were predicted based on El-Mearage farm are placed at high suitable (S2) and
the matching between land qualities and characteristics moderate suitable (S3) for growing all crops.
and crop standard requirements using Almagra program The main limiting factors for agricultural
through MicroLIES evaluation software [23] . Evaluated production are soil texture and exchangeable sodium
crops are wheat, corn, watermelon, potato, soybean, percentage (ESP) in the most profiles, except soils
cotton, sunflower, sugar beet, alfalfa, peach, citrus and represented by profile 18; the limiting factors are
olive. Data shown in Table (5), indicated that the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) and soil
studied soil profiles of El-Emam Malek farm are depth. The obtained results help the decision makers
moderately suitable (S3) for growing crops, while the in defining the optimum agricultural land use in the
soils represented by profiles 5 and 6 are placed at non- area.
497
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
Table 5: Continued
2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t, d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t, d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 t, d, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 t, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a
El-Esraa farm
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 t, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 t, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 t, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a, t
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 ds, a
Where: suitability class: S1 = optimum suitability, S2= High suitable, S3= Moderate suitable, S 4 = Marginal suitability, S5 = no suitability.
498
Res. J. Agric. & Biol. Sci., 4(5): 485-499, 2008
14. Ramadan, H.M. and I.M. Morsy, 2001. Application 20. Black, C.A., D.D. Evans, J.I. Nhite, L.E.
of GIS technology in soil survey and land use Ensminger and F.E. Clark, 1982. ”Methods of Soil
system analysis, West Nubaria, Egypt. Minufiya, J. Analysis”. Amr. Soc. Angron. Inc. Madison.
Agric. Res., 26(50): 1279-1302. 21. Key to Soil Taxonomy, 2003. Soil Survey Staff,
15. Ragab, I.M., 2003. Impact of land management E igh t E d ition, USDA, Natura l R e so u r c e s
practices on soil quality in sandy soils, El Bostan Conservation Service, Washington, D,C.
region, Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac.,of Agric. Alex., 22. Siderius, W., 1989. Selective readings in Land
Univ. Evaluation. Lecture Note, ITC, En. Schede. The
16. F.A.O., 1990. Guideline for soil profile description. Netherlands.
3 rd Edition, F.A.O., Rome. 23. De la Rosa, D., 2000. MicroLIES: Conceptual
17. Folk, R.L., 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary rocks, Framework Agroecological Land Evaluation. Istituo
Hemphill publishing Company. Austin, Taxes, de Recursos Naturales Agrobiologia, CSIC, avda.
pp: 94. Reina Mercedes 10. 41010 Selvilla, Spain.
18. Klute, A., 1986. Water Retention: Laboratory
methods. Methods of Soil Analysis, A. Klute
(ed), Part 12 nd edition, Agron. Monogr. pp: 635-
662, ASA.
19. Klute, A. and Dirksen, C.(1986). Hydraulic
conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods.
In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1 Agronomy 2nd
edition. ASA and SSSA, Madison, W1. A. Klute
(ed), p: 687-734.
499