Study of limiting factors in suitable vegetation cover stabilization in Ahvaz riverside park using fuzzy knowledge-base

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 1Department of Soil Science, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan

2 Iranian Soil and Water Research Institution, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Modelling of environment and landscape quality involves the consideration of a number of factors, including existing vegetation cover, man-made constructions, topography, and soil attributes. Today, the goal of assessing the quality of the environment and the landscape is to determine the indicators and criteria by which they can preserve, restore and reconstruction the landscape. In fact, in this way, it is possible to preserve aesthetically pleasing landscapes and restore other landscapes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of environment and landscape in the riverside parks of Ahvaz using fuzzy knowledge-base.
Materials and Methods: To do this research, two depths of 0.30-0.30 cm were taken and soil samples were transferred to laboratories for laboratory studies and exposed to air and dried and soil properties, slope percentage, visual aesthetic elements of man-made and vegetation cover were measured. A visual assessment was used to investigate the plant factor (resistant and effective on aesthetics) and human elements. For this purpose, 150 photographs of coastal parks were prepared and rated by space experts. Finally, the fuzzy knowledge-base with six parameters (salinity, gradient, soil texture, man-made, resistant plants and soil fertility) and seven models were used to study and model the quality of environment and landscape of the riverside parks of Ahwaz.
Results: The results of this study indicated that the average amount of soil texture, bulk density, mean weight diameter (MWD), soil salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, organic matter, Olsen phosphorous, slope, visual aesthetic of vegetation and man-made elements were sandy loam, 1.67, 0.33, 10.96, 24.94, 2.42, 17.81, 3.7, 2.26 and 0.12 in this parks, respectively. The visual aesthetic elements of man-made and vegetation cover is also low due to lack of this elements. According to the experts of soil science, salinity, gradient, soil texture, man-made, resistant plants and soil fertility are the most effective variables for classifying the environment and landscape, so these variables can be important indicators for assessing the quality of green spaces and environment and landscape. The fuzzy knowledge-base models used in quality classification of the environment and landscape of Ahvaz riverside Parks showed that 38.7, 58.8 and 2.5 percent have low, medium and high degree of quality class, respectively.
Conclusions: These results showed that the soils in this parks have saline & sodic properties with high density and low aggregate stability. Saline & sodic properties and soil erosion has been recognized as the most important limiting factors in the area with low and medium quality class. Therefore, drainage systems construction and soil leaching for reduce salinity and planting of tolerant vegetation cover to control of environmental stress were recommended for restoration of green space in this area.

Keywords

References

1.Alesheikh, A.A., Soltani, M.J., Nouri. N.
and Khalilzadeh, M. 2008. Land assessment
for flood spreading site selection using
geospatial information system. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Te. 5: 455-462.
2.Ayoubi, S., and Jalalian, A. 2005. Land
Evaluation, Isfahan University of Technology
Publications. Iran. 386p. (In Persian)
3.Azghadi, A.A., Khorasani, R., Mokaram,
M., and Moezi, A.A. 2010. Soil fertility
evaluation based on factors phosphorus,
potassium and organic matter for plants
using fuzzy AHP and GIS. J. Soil Water.
24: 5. 973-984. (In Persian)
4.Blake, G.R., and Hartge, K.H. 1986. Bulk
density. P 363-375. In: A. Klute, (Ed),
Methods of soil analysis. 2nd ed. Agron.
Monogr. 9. ASA. Madison.
5.Blanco-Canqui, H., and Lal, R. 2007. Soil
structure and organic carbon relationships
following 10 years of wheat straw
management in no-till. Soil Tillage Res.
95: 240-254.
6.Craul. T.A., and Craul, P.G. 2006. Soil
Design Protocols for Landscape Architects
and Contractors. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
339p.
7.Daniel, T.C., and Vining, J. 1983.
Methodological issues in the assessment
of landscape quality. New York: plenum.
Pp: 39-84.
8.Davidson, D.A., Theocharopoulos, S.P.,
and Bloksma, R.J. 1994. A land
evaluation project in Greece using GIS
and based on Boolean and fuzzy set
methodologies. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci.
8: 369-384.
9.Gee, G.W., and Bauder, J.W. 1986.
Particle size analysis. P 383-411. In:
Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part 1 Agronomy Handbook
No. 9. American Society of Agronomy
and Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI. Pp: 383-411.
10.Ghadimi, M., Hosseini, S.M., Pour
Ghasemi, H.R., and Moradi, H.R. 2010.
Protective modeling Manesht protected
area and Qalarang using fuzzy logic.
Environmental Sciences. 8: 85-106.
(In Persian)
11.Golchin, P., and Behbahani, H. 2013.
Evaluating the landscape archaeological
sites with an emphasis on the visual
aesthetic approach. Ecology, 39: 2. 11-24.
(In Persian)
12.Hodza, P. 2010. Fuzzy logic and
differences between interpretive soil
maps. Geoderma, 156: 189-199.
13.Kane, P.S. 1981. Assessing landscape
attractiveness: A comparative test of two
method. Appl. Geogr. 1: 77-96.
14.Kemper, W.D., and Rosenau, R.C. 1986.
Size Distribution Aggregates. P 425-442.
In: A. Klute, (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part 1. Agronomy Handbook
No 9. American Society of Agronomy
and Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI.
15.Millward, A., and Sabir, S. 2011.
Benefits of a forested urban park: What
is the value of Allan Gardens to the city
of Toronto, Canada?, Landsc. Urban
Plan 100: 177-188.
16.Mota, L.A., Feitosa, Q., Coutinho, L.C.,
Liedtke, C., Muller, S., Pakzad, K.,
Margareth, S., and Meirelles, P. 2007.
Multitemporal fuzzy classification model
based on class transition possibilities.
ISPRS J. Photogramm Remote Sens.
62: 186-200.
17.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E. 1996.
Total carbon, organic carbon and organic
matter. P 961-1010. In: D.L. Sparks
(Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3.
Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society
of America. Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
18.Olsen, R.S., Cole, C.V., Watanable,
F.S., and Dean, L.A. 1954. Estimation
of Available Phosphorus in Soils by
Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate;
USDA Circular; U.S. Department of
Agriculture: Washington, no. 939, 19p.
19.Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney,
D.R. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 2, chemical and microbiological
properties. American Society of Agronomy,
Inc. Soil Science Society of America.
Madison, WI.
20.Saeedavi, Z., Khalili Moghadam, B.,
Bagheri Bodaghabadi, M., and Rangzan,
N. 2017. Land suitability assessment for
urban green space using AHP and GIS:
A case study of Ahvaz parks, Iran,
Desert. 22: 117-133.
21.Sasikala, K.R., Petrou, M., and Kittler, J.
2006. Fuzzy Classification with a GIS as
an Aid to Decision Making, Advances in
remote sensing, 4: 97-105.
22.Shokouhi, A., and Nourian, F. 2004.
Fuzzy urban location using geographic
information systems (Fuzzy_GIS). (Case
locating green spaces and urban parks
Zanjan). Geomatics Congress, Pp: 52-64.
(In Persian)
23.Wang, X.J., and Gong, Z.T. 1998.
Assessment and analysis of soil quality
changes after eleven years of
reclamation in subtropical China.
Geoderma, 81: 339-355.
24.Yao, Y., Xiaodong, Z., Yingbi, X.,
Haiyan, Y., Xian, W., Yangfan, L., and
Yanfeng, Z. 2011. Assessing the visual
quality of green landscaping in
rural residential areas: the case of
Changzhou, China. Environ Monit
Assess. 184: 2. 951-67.
Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production
Volume 8, Issue 3
December 2018
Pages 115-128

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics