Submitted:
26 February 2024
Posted:
27 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Soil sampling
2.3. Farm Survey
2.4. Soil Analysis
2.5. Statistical Analysis
2.6. Baseline Content
2.7. Soil Contamination Assessment
2.7.1. Contamination Factor (CF) and Pollution Load Index (PLI)
2.7.2. Nemerow’s Comprehensive Pollution Index Method
2.7.3. Enrichment Factor (EF)
2.7.4. Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo)
2.7.5. Maximum Permissible Total Addition
3. Results
3.1. Land Use Types
3.2. Organic Matter
3.3. Phosphorous
3.4. Potassium
3.5. Copper
3.6. Zinc
3.7. Iron
3.8. Manganese
3.9. Nickel
3.10. Cadmium
3.11. Lead
4. Discussion
4. Conclusions
- 1)
- The impact of crop-specific management practices on plant nutrient concertation in the soil is substantial. The single-factor ANOVA test showed statistically significant differences in the contents of all studied macro- (P, K) and micro- (Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn) and toxic elements (Cd, Pb) between land use forms. The differences are also evident in organic matter content, an essential prerequisite for soil fertility. The agricultural practices established in the vineyards have the biggest impact on soil nutrient status and toxic element content, followed by intensive and extensive arable lands and orchards. In contrast, the soils under pastures are relatively less affected as they experience no direct input from the farmers’ side;
- 2)
- The soils under the former and existing vineyards are the most enriched with Cu and Zn. This likely results from long-term intensive application of Cu- and Zn-based fungicides, with possible additions from metal-contaminated irrigation water and fertilizers. DTPA extractable Cu and Zn concertation in those soils reaches toxic levels for crops and can deteriorate the quality and quantity of the agricultural produce;
- 3)
- Increased concertation of plant-available Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb were mainly associated with irrigation water and intensive use of fungicides; Fe, Mn, and Ni were closely linked to several factors, such as mineralogical composition of soils, mineral and organic fertilizers inputs, and atmospheric deposition from diffuse sources, where exhausts from transport is probably the major source. During our study, we attempted to differentiate irrigation water inputs from fungicides using simulation based on irrigation pattern, irrigation water quality, and fungicide application rate and their metal content. The simulation revealed that the intensive application of fungicides, especially in vineyards, is more significant in enriching soils with Cu and Zn than irrigation water, with an average annual input of 5 kg/ha/year of Cu and 1 kg/ha/year of Zn;
- 4)
- Organic fertilizer inputs are affecting Fe, Mn, and Ni availability to plants, while mineral fertilizers are linked with total Ni and Cd accumulation and, to a smaller extent, Ni plant-available pool;
- 5)
- Cd is the element of concern among toxic elements studied. Its concertation exceeds the MPC level set by the legislative norm in Georgia (2 mg/kg) in 76% of samples. However, according to the EF index, in the majority (96%) of the samples, Cd can have a natural origin without substantial impact from anthropogenic sources. In contrast, Cd availability to plants is affected by contaminated irrigation water and fungicide application;
- 6)
- Pb rarely exceeds its legislative threshold level and is less affected by agricultural practices, but its plant-available pool is nearly equally affected by irrigation water and fungicide application and atmospheric deposition from diffuse sources;
- 7)
- The study indicates the necessity of understating the cumulative impact of agricultural practices, including irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide application, and awareness rising among farmers to minimize inputs of harmful substances while improving soil fertility or protecting crops from diseases and pests.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ahrends, H.E.; Siebert, S.; Rezaei, E.E.; Seidel, S.J.; Hüging, H.; Ewert, F.; Döring, T.; Rueda-Ayala, V.; Eugster, W.; Gaiser, T. Nutrient Supply Affects the Yield Stability of Major European Crops—a 50 Year Study. Environmental Research Letters 2020, 16, 014003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timsina, J. Can Organic Sources of Nutrients Increase Crop Yields to Meet Global Food Demand? Agronomy 2018, 8, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, N.K. Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security. Environmental Sustainability 2018, 1, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornick, S.B. Factors Affecting the Nutritional Quality of Crops. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1992, 7, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soils of the European Union with Implications for Food Safety. Environment International 2016, 88, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baaken, M.C. Sustainability of Agricultural Practices in Germany: A Literature Review along Multiple Environmental Domains. Regional Environmental Change 2022, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R. The Importance of Long-Term Experiments in Agriculture: Their Management to Ensure Continued Crop Production and Soil Fertility; the Rothamsted Experience. European Journal of Soil Science 2018, 69, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolbe, H. Comparative Analysis of Soil Fertility, Productivity and Sustainability of Organic Farming in Central Europe—Part 1: Effect of Medium Manifestations on Conversion, Fertilizer Types and Cropping Systems. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Werf, H.M.G.; Petit, J. Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture at the Farm Level: A Comparison and Analysis of 12 Indicator-Based Methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2002, 93, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzouramani, I.; Mantziaris, S.; Karanikolas, P. Assessing Sustainability Performance at the Farm Level: Examples from Greek Agricultural Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiwakoti, S.; Zheljazkov, V.D.; Gollany, H.T.; Kleber, M.; Xing, B.; Astatkie, T. Macronutrient in Soils and Wheat from Long-Term Agroexperiments Reflects Variations in Residue and Fertilizer Inputs. Scientific Reports 2020, 10, 3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denton-Thompson, S.M.; Sayer, E.J. Micronutrients in Food Production: What Can We Learn from Natural Ecosystems? Soil Systems 2022, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhaliwal, S.S.; Naresh, R.K.; Mandal, A.; Singh, R.; Dhaliwal, M.K. Dynamics and Transformations of Micronutrients in Agricultural Soils as Influenced by Organic Matter Build-Up: A Review. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 2019, 1–2, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Agriculture, Water, and Land Policies to Scale up Sustainable Agrifood Systems in Georgia. 2022. [CrossRef]
- FAO. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; FAO: Rome, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Tóth, G.; Jones, A.; Montanarella, L. LUCAS Topsoil Survey Methodology, Data and Results. [CrossRef]
- Collect Mobile – Open Foris. openforis.org/tools/collect-mobile/.
- FAO. 2021. Standard operating procedure for soil pH determination. Rome.
- FAO. 2021. Standard operating procedure for soil electrical conductivity, soil/water, 1:5. Rome.
- FAO. 2020. Standard operating procedure for soil calcium carbonate equivalent. Volumetric Calcimeter method. Rome, FAO.
- FAO. 2020. Standard operating procedure for soil organic carbon Walkley-Black method: Titration and colorimetric method. Rome.
- Kachinskii, N.A. Soil Physics; High School: Moscow, 1965 (in Russian).
- United States. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Science Division. Soil Survey Manual; United States Department Of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 2017. 2017.
- Shein, E.V. The Particle-Size Distribution in Soils: Problems of the Methods of Study, Interpretation of the Results, and Classification. Eurasian Soil Science 2009, 42, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. 2021. Standard operating procedure for soil available phosphorus – Olsen method. Rome.
- Faithfull, N.T. Methods in Agricultural Chemical Analysis: A Practical Handbook; Cabi Pub: Oxon, Uk ; New York, 2002.
- ISO 11260:2018 Soil quality — Determination of effective cation exchange capacity and base saturation level using barium chloride solution.
- FAO. 2022. Standard operating procedure for soil available micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn) and heavy metals (Ni, Pb, Cd), DTPA extraction method. Rome.
- ISO 11466:1995 Soil quality — Extraction of trace elements soluble in aqua regia.
- Ching, J.; Phoon, K.-K.; Li, D.-Q. Robust Estimation of Correlation Coefficients among Soil Parameters under the Multivariate Normal Framework. Structural Safety 2016, 63, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salminen, R.; Tarvainen, T. The Problem of Defining Geochemical Baselines. A Case Study of Selected Elements and Geological Materials in Finland. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 1997, 60, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sappa, G.; Barbieri, M.; Andrei, F. Assessment of Trace Elements Natural Enrichment in Topsoil by Some Italian Case Studies. SN Applied Sciences 2020, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karim, Z.; Qureshi, B.A.; Mumtaz, M. Geochemical Baseline Determination and Pollution Assessment of Heavy Metals in Urban Soils of Karachi, Pakistan. Ecological Indicators 2015, 48, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Z.; Cai, M.; Wang, J.; Yang, H.; He, J. Baseline Values for Metals in Soils on Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, Antarctica: The Extent of Anthropogenic Pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2011, 184, 7013–7021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambashidze, G.O.; Urushadze, T.F.; Blum, W.E.; Mentler, A.F. Heavy Metals in Some Soils of Western Georgia. Eurasian Soil Science 2014, 47, 834–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antoniadis, V.; Golia, E.E.; Liu, Y.-T.; Wang, S.-L.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J. Soil and Maize Contamination by Trace Elements and Associated Health Risk Assessment in the Industrial Area of Volos, Greece. Environment International 2019, 124, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Withanachchi, S.; Ghambashidze, G.; Kunchulia, I.; Urushadze, T.; Ploeger, A. Water Quality in Surface Water: A Preliminary Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of the Mashavera River, Georgia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018, 15, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Gu, X. Enrichment, Contamination, Ecological and Health Risks of Toxic Metals in Agricultural Soils of an Industrial City, Northwestern China. Journal of Trace Elements and Minerals 2022, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, K.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, S.; Ma, Y. Contamination Characteristics, Source Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment of Toxic Metals and Metalloid in Agricultural Soil in Yuzhong, China. Journal of Environmental Quality 2020, 50, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Yinan, L.; Ting, Z. The Analysis and Evaluation on Heavy Metal Pollution of Topsoil in Chinese Large-Scale Cities. Energy Procedia 2012, 16, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayraklı, B.; Dengiz, O. Determination of Heavy Metal Risk and Their Enrichment Factor in Intensive Cultivated Soils of Tokat Province. EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE (EJSS) 2019, 8, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Ren, B.; Hursthouse, A.S.; Thacker, J.R.M.; Wang, Z. Soil from an Abandoned Manganese Mining Area (Hunan, China): Significance of Health Risk from Potentially Toxic Element Pollution and Its Spatial Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17, 6554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Order of the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Protection of Georgia No. 297/N, on the approval of norms of the qualitative state of the environment. Tbilisi, 2001 (in Georgian).
- Che Abdullah, M.I.; Md Sah, A.S.R.; Haris, H. Geoaccumulation Index and Enrichment Factor of Arsenic in Surface Sediment of Bukit Merah Reservoir, Malaysia. Tropical Life Sciences Research 2020, 31, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, G. Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. Geojournal 1969, 2, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
- Barbieri, M. The Importance of Enrichment Factor (EF) and Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo) to Evaluate the Soil Contamination. Journal of Geology & Geophysics 2016, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law of Georgia on Ownership of Agricultural Lands, 22 March 1996 (in Georgian).
- Farzadfar, S.; Knight, J.D.; Congreves, K.A. Soil Organic Nitrogen: An Overlooked but Potentially Significant Contribution to Crop Nutrition. Plant and Soil 2021, 462, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vilkienė, M.; Ambrazaitienė, D.; Karčauskienė, D.; Dabkevičius, Z. Assessment of Soil Organic Matter Mineralization under Various Management Practices. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 2016, 66, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, C.; Edwards, D.G.; Loneragan, J.F. Interactions between Potassium and Calcium in Their Absorption by Intact Barley Plants. I. Effects of Potassium on Calcium Absorption. Plant Physiology 1968, 43, 1717–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, J. High Potassium to Magnesium Ratio Affected the Growth and Magnesium Uptake of Three Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) Cultivars. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2018, 17, 2813–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yruela, I. Copper in Plants. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 2005, 17, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adriano, D.C. Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments; Springer New York: New York, NY, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, B. Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant Analysis; CRC Press, 2001.
- Michaud, A.M.; Bravin, M.N.; Galleguillos, M.; Hinsinger, P. Copper Uptake and Phytotoxicity as Assessed in Situ for Durum Wheat (Triticum Turgidum Durum L.) Cultivated in Cu-Contaminated, Former Vineyard Soils. Plant and Soil 2007, 298, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komárek, M.; Čadková, E.; Chrastný, V.; Bordas, F.; Bollinger, J.-C. Contamination of Vineyard Soils with Fungicides: A Review of Environmental and Toxicological Aspects. Environment International 2010, 36, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrzak, U.; McPhail, D.C. Copper Accumulation, Distribution and Fractionation in Vineyard Soils of Victoria, Australia. Geoderma 2004, 122, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brun, L.A.; Maillet, J.; Hinsinger, P.; Pépin, M. Evaluation of Copper Availability to Plants in Copper-Contaminated Vineyard Soils. Environmental Pollution 2001, 111, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felix-henningsen, P.; Urushadze, T.F.; Namrimandze, E.I.; Wichmann, I.; Steffens, D.; Kalandadze, B.B. Heavy metal pollution of soils and food crops due to mining wastes in an irrigation district south of Tbilisi, eastern Georgia. Annales of Agrarian Science 2007, 5, 11–27. [Google Scholar]
- Felix-Henningsen, P.; Urushadze, T.; Steffens, D.; Kalandadze, B.; Narimanidze, E. Uptake of heavy metals by food crops from highly polluted Kastanozems in an irrigation district south of Tbilisi, eastern Georgia. Agronomy Research 2010, 8, 781–795. [Google Scholar]
- Felix-Henningsen, P.; Sayed, M.A.H.A.; Narimanidze-King, E.; Steffens, D.; Urushadze, T. Bound forms and plant availability of heavy metals in irrigated, highly polluted Kastanozems in the Mashavera valley, SE Georgia. Annales of Agrarian Science 2011, 9, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
- Matchavariani, L.; Kalandadze, B. Pollution of Soils by Heavy Metals from Irrigation near Mining Region of Georgia. Forum geografic 2012, XI, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghambashidze, G.; Kentchiashvili, N.; Tarkhnishvili, M.; Meskhi, T.; Mgaloblishvili, E. 2.2. 11. Pollution of agricultural soils with heavy metals through irrigation water in Eastern Georgia. TION 2018, 446. [Google Scholar]
- Vázquez-Blanco, R.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P. Changes in Cu Accumulation and Fractionation along Soil Depth in Acid Soils of Vineyards and Abandoned Vineyards (Now Forests). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2022, 339, 108146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruyters, S.; Salaets, P.; Oorts, K.; Smolders, E. Copper Toxicity in Soils under Established Vineyards in Europe: A Survey. Science of The Total Environment 2013, 443, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernández-Calviño, D.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Díaz-Raviña, M.; Arias-Estévez, M. Copper Accumulation and Fractionation in Vineyard Soils from Temperate Humid Zone (NW Iberian Peninsula). Geoderma 2009, 153, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagostin, S.; Schärer, H.-J.; Pertot, I.; Tamm, L. Are There Alternatives to Copper for Controlling Grapevine Downy Mildew in Organic Viticulture? Crop Protection 2011, 30, 776–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFOAM. Strategy for the Minimisation of Copper in Organic Farming in Europe; 2018.
- Sonoda, K.; Hashimoto, Y.; Wang, S.-L.; Ban, T. Copper and Zinc in Vineyard and Orchard Soils at Millimeter Vertical Resolution. Science of The Total Environment 2019, 689, 958–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.-Y.; Liu, J.-S.; Wang, Y.; Yu, H.-W. Accumulations of Copper in Apple Orchard Soils: Distribution and Availability in Soil Aggregate Fractions. Journal of Soils and Sediments 2015, 15, 1075–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Bai, Y.; Luo, L.; Wan, J.; Wang, W.; Zhao, G. Effects of High Dose Copper on Plant Growth and Mineral Nutrient (Zn, Fe, Mg, K, Ca) Uptake in Spinach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021, 28, 37471–37481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Takkar, P.N.; Mann, M.S. Toxic Levels of Soil and Plant Zinc for Maize and Wheat. Plant and Soil 1978, 49, 667–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Navarro, F.J.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Garcia-Pradas, J.; Amoros, J.A.; Perez de los Reyes, C.; Bravo, S. Zinc Concentration and Distribution in Vineyard Soils and Grapevine Leaves from Valdepeñas Designation of Origin (Central Spain). Sustainability 2021, 13, 7390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CropWat | Land & Water | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/cropwat/en/.
- Aydın, Y. Quantification of Water Requirement of Some Major Crops under Semi-Arid Climate in Turkey. PeerJ 2022, 10, e13696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezzahouani, A.; Valancogne, C.; Pieri, P.; Amalak, T.; Gaudillère, J.-P. Water Economy by Italia Grapevines under Different Irrigation Treatments in a Mediterranean Climate. OENO One 2007, 41, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abatzoglou, J.T.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; Parks, S.A.; Hegewisch, K.C. TerraClimate, a High-Resolution Global Dataset of Monthly Climate and Climatic Water Balance from 1958–2015. Scientific Data 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RMG. Production History. https://www.richmetalsgroup.com/production-history/.
- Zuo, Y.; Zhang, F. Soil and Crop Management Strategies to Prevent Iron Deficiency in Crops. Plant and Soil 2010, 339, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maqueda, C.; Herencia, J.F.; Ruiz, J.C.; Hidalgo, M.F. Organic and Inorganic Fertilization Effects on DTPA-Extractable Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn, and Their Concentration in the Edible Portion of Crops. The Journal of Agricultural Science 2010, 149, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojeda-Barrios, D.L.; Sánchez-Chávez, E.; Sida-Arreola, J.P.; Valdez-Cepeda, R.; Balandran-Valladares, M. The Impact of Foliar Nickel Fertilization on Urease Activity in Pecan Trees. Journal of soil science and plant nutrition 2016. No. ahead. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tkhelidze, A.; Liparteliani, R.; Mumladze, N.; Khomasuridze, D.; Danelia, G. Chemicalization of Agriculture and Environmental Protection; Community knowledge, Tbilisi, 2009 (in Georgian).
- Nicholson, F.A.; Chambers, B.J. Sources and Impacts of Past, Current and Future Contamination of Soil, Appendix 1, 1-28, Mansfield, ADAS, 2008.
- Sánchez Bisquert, D.; Matías Peñas Castejón, J.; García Fernández, G. The Impact of Atmospheric Dust Deposition and Trace Elements Levels on the Villages Surrounding the Former Mining Areas in a Semi-Arid Environment (SE Spain). Atmospheric Environment 2017, 152, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Contamination Factor (CF) | Pollution Load Index (PLI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CF value | Contamination level | PLI value | Indication |
| <1 | Low | 0 | Perfection |
| 1-3 | Moderate | <1 | Baseline level |
| 3-6 | Considerable | >1 | Polluted |
| >6 | Very high | ||
| Single-factor pollution index (PI) | Nemerow’s comprehensive pollution index (PIN) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| PI value | Pollution level | PIN value | Indication |
| ≤1 | No | ≤0.7 | Safe |
| 1-2 | Slight | 0.7-1 | Slight pollution |
| 2-3 | Medium | 1-2 | Precaution level |
| >3 | Heavy | 2-3 | Medium pollution |
| >3 | Heavy pollution | ||
| Enrichment Factor (EF) | Geoaccumulation index (Igeo) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EF | Nature of enrichment |
Igeo | Level of pollution |
| <2 | Deficiency to minimal enrichment |
≤0 | Not polluted |
| 2-5 | Moderate enrichment |
>0-1 | Not polluted to moderately polluted |
| 5-20 | Significant enrichment |
>1-2 | Moderately polluted |
| 20-40 | Very high enrichment |
>2-3 | Moderately polluted to strongly polluted |
| >40 | Extremely high enrichment |
>3-4 | Strongly polluted |
| >4-5 | Strongly polluted to extremely polluted |
||
| >5 | Extremely polluted | ||
| Land use | Number of Sampling sites | pH | SOM (%) |
Bulk Density (g/cm3) |
CEC (cmolc/kg) |
CaCO3 (%) |
EC (dS/m) |
P2O5 (mg/kg) |
K2O (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orchard | 5 | 7.70 ±0.74* |
5.73 ±1.09 |
1.25 ±0.07 |
55.64 ±1.09 |
4.35 ±4.17 |
0.16 ±0.05 |
40.98 ±52.48 |
661.30 ±386.82 |
| Vineyard | 9 | 8.05 ±0.41 |
5.31 ±0.97 |
1.24 ±0.13 |
63.19 ±9.83 |
4.08 ±2.76 |
0.20 ±0.11 |
38.94 ±21.82 |
955.09 ±692.28 |
| Former vineyards |
10 | 8.11 ±0.37 |
4.72 ±1.34 |
1.26 ±0.09 |
60.05 ±10.77 |
5.36 ±5.10 |
0.16 ±0.04 |
27.96 ±24.42 |
736.85 ±768.54 |
| Arable, intensive |
14 | 8.21 ± 0.37 |
3.74 ±0.97 |
1.23 ±0.12 |
52.18 ±13.91 |
4.39 ±2.90 |
0.18 ±0.06 | 38.13 ±25.30 |
630.05 ±431.95 |
| Arable, extensive |
20 | 8.08 ±0.44 |
4.46 ±1.20 |
1.18 ±0.13 |
59.22 ±13.24 |
4.70 ±5.18 |
0.14 ±0.03 |
22.96 ±15.30 |
404.45 ±181.19 |
| Pasture | 25 | 8.14 ±0.46 | 6.12 ±2.36 |
1.23 ±0.16 |
55.29 ±10.90 |
11.45 ±10.69 |
0.20 ±0.15 |
15.89 ±9.91 |
485.37 ±522.70 |
| Land use | Cu (mg/kg) |
Zn (mg/kg) |
Fe (mg/kg) |
Mn (mg/kg) |
Ni (mg/kg) |
Cd mg/kg) |
Pb (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orchard | 4.53 ±2.40 |
1.25 ±1.19 |
59.43 ±88.85 |
50.80 ±26.16 |
2.68 ±1.45 |
0.20 ±0.08 |
1.24 ±0.25 |
| Vineyard | 41.66 ±40.61 |
11.23 ±19.89 |
37.89 ±23.54 |
28.68 ±20.89 |
1.72 ±0.66 |
0.60 ±0.76 |
1.32 ±0.49 |
| Former vineyards, currently with different land use | 46.95 ±16.14 |
18.17 ±17.85 |
23.86 ±18.40 |
55.81 ±47.88 |
2.26 ±0.85 |
0.74 ±0.48 |
2.00 ±0.84 |
| Arable, intensive | 9.11 ±8.33 |
2.11 ±3.72 |
21.42 ±25.07 |
56.21 ±35.92 |
2.61 ±0.82 |
0.34 ±0.15 |
1.49 ±0.73 |
| Arable, extensive | 4.97 ±4.64 |
0.97 ±1.24 |
12.35 ±7.33 |
86.65 ±72.23 |
3.89 ±2.02 |
0.26 ±0.12 |
2.03 ±0.58 |
| Pasture | 5.30 ±8.15 |
1.09 ±1.89 |
16.34 ±14.94 |
75.49 ±46.15 |
2.50 ±0.95 |
0.23 ±0.13 |
0.93 ±0.40 |
| Land use / main crop type | Cu (mg/kg) |
Zn (mg/kg) |
Fe (g/kg) |
Mn (mg/kg) |
Ni (mg/kg) |
Cd mg/kg) |
Pb (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orchard | 48.89 ±16.24 |
80.58 ±12.35 |
38.42 ±14.08 |
671.40 ±157.58 |
73.64 ±34.01 |
3.16 ±0.93 |
20.70 ±11.09 |
| Vineyard | 184.08 ±155.85 |
324.31 ±353.34 |
45.09 ±13.09 |
747.53 ±185.63 |
114.70 ±100.09 |
3.79 ±2.21 |
14.36 ±11.21 |
| Former vineyards, currently with different land use | 300.01 ±131.64 |
310.86 ±166.27 |
36.90 ±8.48 |
1157.21 ±612.52 |
137.06 ±103.21 |
6.96 ±9.39 |
25.03 ±12.22 |
| Arable, intensive | 76.99 ±35.84 |
108.40 ±54.58 |
34.91 ±11.04 |
1039.76 ±617.75 |
74.65 ±23.56 |
3.21 ±0.81 |
22.96 ±13.74 |
| Arable, extensive | 63.71 ±22.05 |
115.63 ±49.96 |
29.81 ±7.92 |
1645.57 ±748.74 |
77.96 ±17.52 |
2.60 ±0.92 |
30.10 ±13.91 |
| Pasture | 56.83 ±28.45 |
79.78 ±24.32 |
26.27 ±8.16 |
784.91 ±626.94 |
82.75 ±16.05 |
2.28 ±1.14 |
21.33 ±9.91 |
| Baseline content* | 52.86 | 81.86 | 25.60 | 1057.64 | 93.69 | 3.01 | 28.49 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
