Publication Details |
| Category | Text Publication |
| Reference Category | Book chapters |
| DOI | 10.1007/978-3-031-12176-0_6 |
| Title (Primary) | Quantification of soil porous architecture |
| Title (Secondary) | X-ray imaging of the soil porous architecture |
| Author | Schlüter, S.; Vogel, H.J. |
| Publisher | Jon Mooney, S.; Young, I.M.; Heck, R.J.; Peth, S. |
| Year | 2022 |
| Department | BOSYS |
| Page From | 81 |
| Page To | 97 |
| Language | englisch |
| Topic | T5 Future Landscapes |
| Abstract | In recent decades X-ray Computed Tomography (X-ray CT) has become a standard technique for non-invasive imaging of the three-dimensional structure of intact soil. The number of working groups worldwide that routinely apply X-ray CT for soil-related research is steadily growing. A consequence of this expanding community is a wealth of methods for the quantification of soil pore structure which are provided through different software toolboxes. There has not yet been a consensus about what a minimum set of metrics would be that is absolutely essential to quantify pore structure. The reasons for that are two-fold. First, soil structure analysis is not an end in itself. It is meant to reveal the heterogeneous small-scale architecture of soil, which is required for a mechanistic understanding of observable processes and phenomena at larger scale such as water movement, solute fluxes, plant–soil interactions, gas emissions or the maintenance of biodiversity. Likewise, the existence of hot spots in biological activity and geochemical processes is a manifestation of microscale processes regulated by soil structure. Depending on the specific focus, different characteristics of the pore structure might be most relevant, e.g. the volume fraction, continuity, size distribution, clustering, or roughness of pores. It is good practice that the set of investigated metrics is tailored accordingly. This is supported by theoretical or empirical evidence regarding the sensitivity of the investigated process to one or another structural feature or their combination. For example, if we are interested in hydraulic conductivity, then we should analyse not only the pore volume but also the pore size distribution and pore connectivity. In contrast, if we are interested in soil aeration, then the volume and spatial distribution pattern of macropores is highly relevant. Also, researchers all tend to stick to established image analysis protocols irrespective of the underlying research question either out of habit or due to limited capacity for adapting alternative protocols. This can have two negative side effects: First, the structural description may remain suboptimal with regard to the processes investigated and second, an untargeted shot-gun approach might be carried out to analyse as many metrics as possible to discover correlations, without a clear hypothesis on the causal relationship between form and function. This could be a promising approach in case the causal relationships are not sufficiently clear or to discover unexpected relationships. However, more often than not, such studies merely report the correlations that were found without further interpretation. Thus, the link between correlation and causation is frequently missing, and generalizations are impossible as the outcome could have been very different under different conditions. This chapter is an attempt to prioritize and identify some highly relevant pore structure metrics well-grounded in mechanistic process understanding. This chapter is not meant to provide a thorough review of the relationship between soil structure and soil functions. For this we refer the reader to Rabot et al. (2018). |
| Persistent UFZ Identifier | https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=20939&ufzPublicationIdentifier=29395 |
| Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.J. (2022): Quantification of soil porous architecture In: Jon Mooney, S., Young, I.M., Heck, R.J., Peth, S. (eds.) X-ray imaging of the soil porous architecture Springer, Cham, p. 81 - 97 10.1007/978-3-031-12176-0_6 |
|