Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2013.22.10.1295

Physicochemical Properties of Topsoil Used for River Improvement and Non-Improvement Areas  

Kim, Won-Tae (Department of Landscape Architecture, Cheonan Yonam College)
Cho, Yong-Hyeon (Department of Landscape Architecture, Kongju National University)
Yoon, Yong-Han (Department of Forest Science, Konkuk University)
Kang, Hee-Kyoung (Department of Horticulture, Kongju National University)
Park, Bong-Ju (Department of Horticultural Science, Chungbuk National University)
Shin, Kyung-Jun (JangWon Landscape Technology Institute)
Eo, Yang-Joon (JangWon Landscape Technology Institute)
Yoon, Taek-Seong (Suppro Plant Environment Research Center)
Jang, Kwang-Eun (Suppro Plant Environment Research Center)
Kwak, Moo-Young (Dreambios Co. LTD.)
Song, Hong-Seon (Ethno-plant Research Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Science International / v.22, no.10, 2013 , pp. 1295-1304 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was carried out to evaluate the physicochemical properties and perform a feasibility analysis of planting material composed of topsoil from river improvement and non-improvement areas. The results showed that the physicochemical properties of topsoil from river improvement areas were on the average sandy loam~loamy sand in soil texture, 5.6~6.8 in pH, 0.01~0.06 dS/m in EC, 0.9~2.1% in OM, 0.02~0.12% in T-N, 8~14 $cmol^+/kg$ in CEC, 0.01~0.08 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $K^+$, 2.55~11.11 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Ca^{2+}$, 0.34~2.06 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Mg^{2+}$, and 3~396 mg/kg in Av. $P_2O_5$. And non-improvement areas showed on average sandy clay loam~sand in soil texture, 5.7~6.7 in pH, 0.02~0.08 dS/m in EC, 0.9~4.4% in OM, 0.02~0.23% in T-N, 7~18 $cmol^+/kg$ in CEC, 0.01~0.08 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $K^+$, 3.81~12.67 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Ca^{2+}$, 0.60~1.95 $cmol^+/kg$ in Ex. $Mg^{2+}$, and 3~171 mg/kg in Av. $P_2O_5$. Meanwhile, the results of an applied valuation of topsoil- based planting were as follows. Ex. $K^+$ levels were low grade in all survey areas. OM was low grade in 12 improvement areas and 11 non-improvement areas. Av. $P_2O_5$ levels were low grade in 10 improvement areas and 10 non-improvement areas. T-N was low grade in six improvement areas and four non-improvement areas. Ex. $Mg^{2+}$ levels were low grade in two improvement areas.
Keywords
Topsoil; River improvement; Physicochemical properties; Planting base;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Park, E. J., Kang, K. Y., Yi, S. R., 2008, The status of soil exposure and management practices for soil conservation in urban watersheds, 06/2008, Gyeonggi Research Institute.
2 Jeong, J. H., Kim, C. S., Goo, K. S., Lee, C. H., Won, H. G., Byun, J. G., 2003, Physico-chemical properties of Korean forest soils by parent rocks, Korean Forest Society, 92(3), 254-262.   과학기술학회마을
3 Rural Development Administration, 2000. Soil and Plant analysis method, Rural Development Administration, 113-119.
4 Yoo, S. H., 2000, Soil dictionary, Seoul National University Press, 369.
5 The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 2007, Landscape Design Standard, Kimoondang Press, 356.
6 Cho, Y. H., Kim, G. S., 2000, A preliminary study on application of alluvial deposit in the Han river for planting soil, The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 3(4), 60-73.   과학기술학회마을
7 Kim, W. T., Yoon, Y. H., Cho, Y. H., Kang, H. K., Park, B. J., Shin, K. J., Eo, Y. J., Yoon, T. S., Jang, K. E., Kwak, M. Y., Song, H. S., 2012, Comparison of phusicochemical properties of topsoil from forest development and non-development area, Journal of the Enviromental Sciences, 21(11), 1389-1394.   DOI   ScienceOn