Next Article in Journal
Influence of Olive Maturity and Season on the Quality of Virgin Olive Oils from the Area Assigned to the Protected Designation of Origin of “Aceite de la Alcarria” (Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
Ammonium Excess Leads to Ca Restrictions, Morphological Changes, and Nutritional Imbalances in Tomato Plants, Which Can Be Monitored by the N/Ca Ratio
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy11071438
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Topographic Position, Land Use and Soil Management Effects on Soil Organic Carbon (Vineyard Region of Niš, Serbia)

by
Snežana Jakšić
1,*,
Jordana Ninkov
1,
Stanko Milić
1,
Jovica Vasin
1,
Milorad Živanov
1,
Veljko Perović
2,
Borislav Banjac
3,
Savo Vučković
4,
Gordana Dozet
5 and
Vedrana Komlen
6
1
Laboratory for Soil and Agroecology, Institute of Filed and Vegetable Crops, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Department of Ecology, Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Despota Stefana 142, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, 21102 Novi Sad, Serbia
4
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Zemun, Serbia
5
Faculty of Biofarming, Megatrend University, Maršala Tita 39, 24300 Bačka Topola, Serbia
6
Agromediterranean Faculty, Džemal Bijedic University of Mostar, 88104 Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(7), 1438; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071438
Submission received: 2 June 2021 / Revised: 4 July 2021 / Accepted: 15 July 2021 / Published: 20 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon (SOC) is the result of a combination of various factors related to both the natural environment and anthropogenic activities. The aim of this study was to examine (i) the state of SOC in topsoil and subsoil of vineyards compared to the nearest forest, (ii) the influence of soil management on SOC, (iii) the variation in SOC content with topographic position, (iv) the intensity of soil erosion in order to estimate the leaching of SOC from upper to lower topographic positions, and (v) the significance of SOC for the reduction of soil’s susceptibility to compaction. The study area was the vineyard region of Niš, which represents a medium-sized vineyard region in Serbia. About 32% of the total land area is affected, to some degree, by soil erosion. However, according to the mean annual soil loss rate, the total area is classified as having tolerable erosion risk. Land use was shown to be an important factor that controls SOC content. The vineyards contained less SOC than forest land. The SOC content was affected by topographic position. The interactive effect of topographic position and land use on SOC was significant. The SOC of forest land was significantly higher at the upper position than at the middle and lower positions. Spatial distribution of organic carbon in vineyards was not influenced by altitude, but occurred as a consequence of different soil management practices. The deep tillage at 60–80 cm, along with application of organic amendments, showed the potential to preserve SOC in the subsoil and prevent carbon loss from the surface layer. Penetrometric resistance values indicated optimum soil compaction in the surface layer of the soil, while low permeability was observed in deeper layers. Increases in SOC content reduce soil compaction and thus the risk of erosion and landslides. Knowledge of soil carbon distribution as a function of topographic position, land use and soil management is important for sustainable production and climate change mitigation.

1. Introduction

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is key constituent of soil organic matter (SOM), which is an essential component of soils as it supports soil structure, fertility and a range of physical and chemical properties. Soil organic carbon stocks comprise the largest carbon pool in terrestrial ecosystems and act as a major source or sink for atmospheric CO₂ [1,2]. SOC sequestration is regarded as an option to mitigate climate change and is based on positive SOC budgets for specific land use and management systems, whereby the input of C into soils exceeds the losses of SOC through erosion, mineralization/volatilization and leaching [3]. Small changes in the SOC stock impact the carbon cycle and may significantly increase or decrease the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere [4]. Batjes [5] estimated the global SOC stock up to a 2 m depth to be 2060 ± 215 Pg. C. Scharlemann et al. [6] reviewed the SOC estimations published in 27 studies from 1951 to 2014 and pointed out that there was a very considerable range of variation, between 504 and 3000 Pg. Responding to the current capacities for soil carbon sequestration, the initiative “4 per Thousand” (4 p1000) was formed in Paris in 2015, with the aim of increasing awareness about land use responsibility and climate change [7].
Spatial distribution of SOC is the result of a combination of various factors related to both the natural environment and human activities, with heterogeneity observed at different spatial scales [8].
Land use is one of the main factors that control the distribution of SOC [9]. Changes in land use are the second most important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere after fossil fuel burning [10,11]. The replacement of forest and natural grassland by cropland may cause a reduction of SOC [12]. SOC loss after deforestation is between 30% and 42% and conversion from grassland to cropland caused a decline of 24–59% of total SOC [13,14]. Deng et al. [15] stated that cropland has lower SOC content compared to undisturbed natural soil due to the continual harvest of aboveground biomass. In contrast, improved soil management, like conversion from cropland into grassland and afforested land, can reduce emissions through SOC sequestration, since plant residues and roots are accumulated in the soil as soil organic matter [13].
Soil management can change the content and distribution of SOC. Tillage operations strongly control the soil environment. These effects influence many physical, chemical and biological properties of soil [16]. Conventional tillage has been shown to enhance short-term CO2 evolution and microbial biomass turnover, as well as accelerate organic C oxidation to CO2, not only by improving soil aeration but also by increasing contact between soil and crop residues and by exposing aggregate-protected organic matter to microbial attack [17].
Topographic position influences accumulation of SOC mainly by altering the input and output of carbon via hydrological processes [18,19], and it affects soil erosion and sediment deposition [20], temperature regime, vegetation distribution, and soil processes [14]. Surface SOC concentration has been found to correlate negatively with annual mean temperature and correlate positively with annual mean precipitation and altitude [21]. However, in soils located on steeper terrain, organic matter accumulation often occurs at the bottom of the slope. There are two reasons for this accumulation: conditions are wetter, and organic matter is transported to the lowest point in the landscape through runoff and erosion [22]. Increases in SOM content at mid- or upper-slope positions may decrease soil erodibility and reduce risks of soil erosion [23].
Soil loss caused by erosion, with various categories of degradation, is a serious problem in the Republic of Serbia [24]. In the Niš region, which mainly belongs to the hilly, mountainous area of the country, a part of the surface is under the influence of high and severe intensity erosion, which requires the application of protective measures. Some of the measures include no-till farming, reduced tillage, terrace construction and maintenance, cover crops, continuous plant cover and crop rotation and shelterbelts. Also, in recent years, the trend for soil use changes has been very pronounced, especially the replacement of perennial crops with annual ones, which brings an additional risk of soil erosion and loss of organic matter. However, perennial plants are also endangered by these processes. In vineyards, erosion processes can be very pronounced because vineyards are usually based on steep and hilly terrain, as well as on mountains with southern exposure due to the better quality of grapes obtained [25,26]. Besides, due to specific soil properties in vineyards, such as limited soil development, coarse texture and low capacity to protect SOM binding to soil minerals, these soils are sensitive to degradation [27,28,29] and lose potentially more SOC than other agricultural soils.
To ensure sustainable land management and to protect the land from degradation, it is necessary to achieve a satisfactory level of SOC and maintain it. Thus, understanding soil carbon distribution as a function of topographic position, land use, soil management and their interaction is important for designing sustainable production and climate change mitigation that also contribute to food security [30,31]. These effects have not been studied enough in the soils of Serbia, especially not with regard to multiannual plantations like vineyards. This study represents a continuation of soil examination in vineyards. Previous research covered the vineyard region of Tri Morava in Serbia, examining the state of SOC and the impact of soil type and fertilization strategy on the organic carbon content of the soil [32].
The aim of this study was to examine (i) the state of SOC in topsoil and subsoil of vineyards compared to the nearest forest, (ii) the influence of soil management on SOC, (iii) the variation of SOC content with topographic position, (iv) soil erosion intensity in order to estimate the significance of SOC leaching from upper to lower topographic positions, (v) the significance of SOC for reducing the susceptibility of soil to compaction.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area was the vineyard region of Niš (Figure 1), which represents a medium-sized vineyard region in Serbia with a surface area of 1040.84 km2. This region is located between 43°41′ N and 43°13′ N.
The Niš region includes vineyards located in the valley of the lower Nisava river basin and the lower basins of the Južna Morava and Moravica rivers. Although in previous periods the areas used for vineyards in the Niš region were much larger, currently there are 13.12 km2 of vineyards [33].
There are six vine growing districts in this region (Figure 1a): Sokobanja, Aleksinac, Žitkovac, Čegar, Kutina and Svrljig [34]. The relief characteristics of the region are visible at three general altitudes (Figure 1b): (1) plains around the rivers in the southeast/northwest directions—lower level; (2) areas with hills and ridges on both sides of the valleys (except in the southwestern part of the region)—higher level; and (3) the ends of the mentioned mountains in the northeast and a small part in the west (near the mountain Jastrebac)—the highest mountain level. Most of the plots (48.11%) are located at altitudes between 200 and 300 m; 28.11% are located at altitudes of 300 to 400 m, while 13.02% are located at altitudes of 400 to 500 m. At other altitudes, there are significantly lower shares of the plots.
Viticultural plots in the Niš region are mostly located on flat and slightly steep terrains: 43.39% of the plots are located on terrain with a slope greater than 0 to 5° (Figure 1c). The share of vineyard plots in the Niš region on slopes greater than 5 to 10° is 26.42%, while 16.04% of plots are located on very steep terrain (slopes greater than 10 to 15°) [34].
Figure 1d shows that the plots in the Niš region are mostly located in the south (S) (31.5%), southwest (SW) (19.16%) and southeast (SE) (14.04%) and in western (W) (11.95%) and eastern (I) exposures (7.40%) [34].
Significant pedological diversity, i.e., the diversity of soil types, is expressed in the Niš viticultural region (Figure 2). The Niš wine-growing region consists of fourteen different types of soil represented by larger or smaller areas, and the most common soil types are vertisol, eutric cambisol and luvisol.

2.2. Climate Characteristics

Climatological data were obtained from four meteorological stations: Niš (Jasenovik, Malča, Sićevo and Gornji Barbeš localities), Aleksinac (Jasenje, Šurić, Beli Breg and Vele Polje localities), Sokobanja (Beli Potok locality) and RC Niš (Svrljig locality).
For the last 20 years, the mean annual air temperatures were 12.4, 9.3, 13 and 11.2 °C at the Niš (204 m a.s.l.), RC Niš (807 m a.s.l.), Aleksinac (180 m a.s.l.) and Sokobanja (300 m a.s.l.) meteorological stations, respectively (Figure 3). The heat summation period (April–October), also known as the Winkler index, is 1713.8, placing this region in zone III according to Winkler [34].
Huglin’s (heliothermic) index (HI) (April–September) for the Niš region is 2259.7, which puts the lower parts of the region in the HI + 1 group of regions, in the interval > 2100 ≤ 2400 with the climate type moderate-warm [35]. The value of the drought index for the Niš region is 138.0 mm, which classifies this region as a DI-1 sub-humid (medium humid) region, with typical absence of drought [36].
For the last 20 years, the mean annual precipitation levels were 629, 746, 624 and 700 mm at the Niš, RC Niš, Aleksinac and Sokobanja meteorological stations, respectively (Figure 4).

2.3. Soil Management Practices

The soil management data were derived from long-term management records for the period 1997–2016. Soil management practices usually involve ameliorative fertilization with large amounts of mineral fertilizers (300–500 kg P2O5 ha−1 and 200–300 kg K2O ha−1) with the addition of organic amendments, most often manure (30–40 t ha−1), when planting vineyards. Common practice also includes deep tillage to an average depth of 60–80 cm, mixing of soil horizons and placing of organic materials into deeper soil layers. Some wine producers avoid deep tillage and plow at 30–40 cm. In the first years of the vineyard plantation, no fertilization is carried out, or smaller amounts of mineral fertilizer are applied. During the following years of exploitation, mineral fertilizers are applied, while opinions are divided on the issue of applying organic fertilizers. Some wine producers avoid using organic fertilizers for grape production, because they fear there will be a negative impact on the quality of the grapes. Winegrowers generally do not bring grape pomace back to the soils. Other growers apply organic fertilizers, usually manure, every fourth year. Frequent tillage between the rows is a common practice during exploitation to keep the soil free of weeds.

2.4. Soil Sampling

The study was carried out in 10 representative vineyard localities (Table 1). Some localities are shown in Figure 5 and Supplementary Materials, Figure S1. Field work took place during 2016. In each topographic position samples were taken from the vineyard and forest soils. The total analyzed area included 20 production vineyard plots and 10 forest soils in the close vicinity of the vineyard plots. These plots exhibited uniform micro-relief and slope in their terrain, as well as having the same cultivation practices. The size of the plots (subplots) varied from 1400 to 34,500 m2.
The soil was sampled from two depths, 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm. Composite soil samples amounted to about 20 individual samples. The total number of these composite soil samples was 60.
In order to determine the indigenous soil type of the vineyard, i.e., the soil that had not been altered by powerful ameliorative measures (deep tillage) during the vineyard establishment and turned into an anthrosol (eutric, clayic, regic; AT-eu.ce.rg), soil profiles were analyzed at a nondisturbed site in the vineyards or near the vineyards (Figure 6).
Soil profiles were analyzed at 10 representative locations, up to a maximum depth of 200 cm or to the parent material. Samples for soil profile description and classification were taken in disturbed state using an Eijkelkamp Edelman auger. The total number of this soil samples was 45.
Georeferencing of soil and parcel samples in this study was performed using GPS receivers (Trimble GPS GeoXH 3000, Trimble GPS Juno SC, Terrasync Professional software; Trimble, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Data processing was carried out using the ESRI ArcEditor 10 geographic information system (GIS).

2.5. Soil Compaction Measurement

Soil compaction was determined using an Eijkelkamp penetrologger by measuring resistance to penetration in all plots. The measurement depth was 80 cm. The threshold values of soil compaction are shown in Table 2.

2.6. Laboratory Analysis

All laboratory analyses were performed at the Laboratory for Soil and Agroecology of the Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, accredited according to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [38].
The soil samples collected were naturally air-dried, milled and passed through a 2.0 mm sieve, following ISO 11464:2006 [39]. Soil pH value was determined with the potentiometric method following ISO 10390:2005 [40] in a 1:5 suspension of soil in 1 M KCl using a Mettler Toledo SevenCompact pH meter with glass electrode (Mettler Toledo, LLC, Columbus, OH, USA). The carbonate content (as CaCO₃) was determined according to the ISO 10693:1995 [41] volumetric method. SOC was determined by elementary analysis using a CHNSO VarioEL III Elementar (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany) after dry combustion and carbonate removal, in accordance with ISO 10694:1995 [42]. The particle size distribution was determined in the <2 mm fraction using the pipette method [43]. The size fractions were defined as clay (<2 μm), silt (2–20 μm), fine sand (20–200 μm) and coarse sand (200–2000 μm).

2.7. Soil Erosion Intensity Assessment

Soil erosion intensity assessment was carried out using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model [44]:
A = R · K · LS · C · P
where A (t ha−1 yr−1) is the mean annual soil loss, R (MJ mm h−1 ha−1 y−1) is the rainfall erosivity factor, K (t ha h ha−1 MJ−1 mm−1) is the soil erodibility factor, LS is the topographic factor, C is the land use/cover factor, and P is the practice factor (conversational measures, because erosion measures in the examined area were not taken into account).
Climatic data from the measuring stations around the studied territory were used to calculate the R factor. In this study, a simplified GJRM model was used to obtain the value of this factor [45,46]. The K factor was calculated using the Wischmeier and Smith equations [44]. In generating the LS factor of the study area, the SAGA GIS module was used, calculated from the ratio developed by Desmet and Govers [47], while the CLC database was used to calculate the C factor.
The classification of soil erosion risk categories according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [48] uses the following ranges: tolerable (<6.0 t ha−1 yr−1), low (6.1–10.0 t ha−1 yr−1), moderate (10.1–22.0 t ha−1 yr−1), high (22.1–33.0 t ha−1 yr−1) and severe erosion (>33.1 t ha−1 yr−1).

2.8. Statistical Analyses

Study data were processed using the methods of descriptive statistics. A general linear mixed model was fitted for SOC data. All factors, including the main effects of land use, topographic position and soil depth, as well as the corresponding interactions in the model, were considered as fixed. Additionally to this base model, several alternative candidate models with diagonal structures for the main effects and interactions were fitted. The best model based on the AIC value criterion was selected for further discussion and for least squares means comparisons. The differences were tested when significant effects were detected. Correlation analysis between SOC content and resistance to penetration of soil, as well as between mean annual soil loss and altitude, was explored by using the Pearson correlation at a significance level of p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software and Statistica 12.6 (StatSoft, Inc. Corporation, Tulsa, OK, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of the Soil

Physical and chemical soil properties of the investigated area for the soil layers at 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm and for the profile horizons (<200 cm) are given in Table 3. In topsoil and subsoil, the pH value was highly acid to slightly alkaline, according to the classification for vineyard soils [49]. Soil pH value comes from the pH reaction of the parent substrate in which the soil was formed. The topsoil layer (0–30 cm) had an acidic pH value for the most part (62% of the region’s surface area). In the soil profile horizons, the pH values of most soils increased with depth. The most suitable soil pH in terms of vine cultivation is neutral [50]. According to White [51], the optimum pH range for vine growth is 5.5–8. Slightly acidic and neutral vineyard soils have a better nutrient balance for plant growth.
Samples of topsoil and subsoil belonged to the noncalcareous to highly calcareous soil categories [49]. The content of CaCO₃ in completely carbonate-free soils was either uniform in terms of profile depth or a small amount of carbonates appeared at the lower layer. In other soils, the carbonate content increased with the depth of the profile. The content of CaCO₃ largely depended on the parent substrate.
Increased clay content was recorded in both soil layers and varied between 21.44% and 61.88% in topsoil and 21.56% and 51.92% in subsoil. Most of the samples were concentrated in the classes of light clay and heavy clay. This texture is unfavorable for most cultivated plant species. Loamy soils with high organic matter, low-water-holding capacity and well-drained characteristics are more suitable for plant production [52].

3.2. Intensity of Soil Erosion

The mean annual soil loss in the Niš region was 5.42 t ha−1 yr−1, determined using the USLE model [44] (Figure 7). The average erosion intensity in the observed localities ranged between 0.05 and 9.80 t ha−1 yr−1, with a mean value of 4.43 t ha−1 yr−1 (Table 4), which classifies this area as having tolerable erosion risk according to the OECD classification [48].
A low risk of surface soil erosion was determined for 12.45% of the surface, while 16.52% of the territory was found to be under a moderate erosion processes. High risk of erosion was detected for 2.73% of the territory and severe risk of soil erosion was observed for 0.73% of the territory. The most endangered vine-growing districts were Sokobanja, with 8.15% of the territory under high and severe risk and Čegar, with 5.92% of the territory under high and severe risk. The highest mean annual soil loss was in the Beli Potok (9.80 t ha−1 yr−1) and Sićevo (8.81 t ha−1 yr−1) localities. The lowest mean annual soil loss was in the Svrljig locality (0.58 t ha−1 yr−1).

3.3. Effect of Topographic Position and Soil Depth on SOC Content

The effect of topographic position on SOC content is shown in Table 5 and Figure 8. After fitting several candidate models that assumed heterogeneous error variance for the model term, the most suitable model with a heterogeneous error variance structure for the factors was selected based on the AIC value (data not shown). All further discussion (throughout the study) is based on inferences from the selected model. Topographic position was a significant factor, while soil depth was highly significant.
The SOC content was significantly higher at the upper and the middle position than at the lower positions. The SOC in the lower topographic position (<350 m a.s.l.) of the vine-growing region of Niš ranged between 2.55 and 13.46 g kg−1, with a mean value of 8.22 g kg−1. At 350–450 m, SOC content ranged from 3.48 g kg−1 to 14.09 g kg−1, with a mean value of 9.38 g kg−1. At the highest altitudes above 450 m, the SOC content ranged from 5.34 g kg−1 to 24.13 g kg−1, with a mean value of 10.45 g kg−1.
These results might be attributable to the differences in temperature and precipitation between different topographic positions. Decreasing temperature and increasing precipitation with altitude can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The highest mean annual precipitation (746 mm) and the lowest temperature (9.3 °C) were at the highest altitude (807 m a.s.l.). The lowest mean annual precipitation (624 mm) and the highest temperature (13 °C) were at the lowest altitude (180 m a.s.l.).
Altitude affects climatic characteristics, composition and productivity of vegetation [51], soil water balance, soil erosion, geological deposition processes, soil microbiological activity and other processes [52,53], thereby influencing the content of and changes in organic carbon in the soil. At higher altitudes, SOC accumulation is higher due to decreases in temperature and increasing levels of soil moisture [54,55,56]. At the, increasing soil temperature accelerates the rate of SOC decomposition [57,58], improves the level of soil respiration [57] and leads to a significant decrease in SOC content [58,59,60]. These findings are consistent with the results obtained by Sims and Nielsen [61], who reported that SOC had a significant relationship with altitude in Montana, USA. Also, Dai and Huang [62] reported that SOC stocks had a linear and positive correlation with altitude. Decreasing temperature with altitude has been shown to limit SOC turnover in forest soils, leading to enhanced SOC storage [63]. lower positions
Previous studies in Serbian soils have shown that organic carbon content has decreased from 52.7 g kg−1 (1450 m a.s.l.) to 39.4 g kg−1 (500 m a.s.l.) [21]. In the study by Vidojević [55], SOC increased from lower to upper positions. In this study, the SOC content was: 35.60 g kg−1 at 500–1000 m a.s.l., 18.70 g kg−1 at 200–500 m a.s.l. and 15.20 g kg−1 at altitudes below 200 m a.s.l. In the examination by Fang et al. [64], SOC in forest land increased with altitude and levels were significantly different at 0–200 and 400–800 m in the 10–30 cm soil layer. Similar results were obtained by Abebe et al. [65], where SOC stock in bushland was the highest (166.22 Mg ha−1) in the upper position.
In contrast, numerous studies have confirmed carbon leaching through erosion related to topography [65,66,67,68]. With increasing slope, infiltration decreases because the increasing slope area and the velocity of the water flow lead to increasing runoff. Although a part of the surface of the examined area was endangered by erosion processes, a high threat of erosion was found only for 2.73% of the territory and a severe threat for 0.73%. The average erosion intensity in the observed localities ranged between 0.05 and 9.80 t ha−1 yr−1, with a mean value of 4.43 t ha−1 yr−1, which classifies this area as having tolerable soil loss according to the OECD classification [48]. The correlation between mean annual soil loss and altitude (r = 0.29) was not significant. It can be concluded that erosion did not significantly contribute to leaching of organic matter.
The overall mean SOC concentration of the samples in topsoil (0–30 cm), 10.85 g kg−1, was significantly higher than SOC concentrations in subsoil (30–60 cm), 7.25 g kg−1. This is in agreement with the results of other research [1,32].

3.4. The SOC Content for Different Land Uses

The SOC contents were significantly affected by land use (Table 5 and Figure 9). Vineyard areas exhibited lower values of SOC (8.28 g kg−1) compared to forest areas (10.58 g kg−1), indicating that the management adopted in these areas contributed to the reduction of these fractions. Forests have dense cover, which protects soil from being exposed to any other factors, such as erosion; hence, the SOC content is less affected [69]. This finding has been confirmed by many authors, who have shown that forest soils supply a large carbon input and have low litter decomposition [32]. This means that forest soils are distinguished by higher SOC, which is highly related to the lower degree of natural and human-induced disturbance.
Due to the specificities of soils in vineyards, such as limited soil development and their coarse texture and low capacity to protect SOM from binding to soil minerals, these soils are sensitive to degradation [28,29,30]. In addition, intensive viticulture under conventional cultivation systems is likely to increase the risk of soil degradation in the studied area. Intensive viticulture could lead to the loss of soil fertility, acceleration of soil erosion and SOM mineralization and increases in CO₂ emissions [59,70,71]. Soil tillage affects soil respiration, temperature, water content, pH, oxidation–reduction potential and the soil ecology [6,61]. In particular, it enhances the microbial biomass turnover and, in turn, the short-term CO₂ evolution by improving soil aeration, increasing the contact between soil and crop residues and exposing organic matter to microbial attack [17].
Similar results were obtained in wine-producing regions in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil [65]. In the study by Gatullo et al. [72], the SOC content in a table grape vineyard in southern Italy was 2.86 g kg−1. Similar results were recorded by Doğan and Gülser [54] in a soil study in the Menderes district of Izmir, Turkey, where the SOC content was in the range of 2.70–14.91 g kg−1. Zhou et al. [4] concluded that land use is the main SOC change driver.
Previous studies in Serbian soils have shown that land use is an important factor in SOC variability. Manojlovic et al. [21] observed a significantly higher SOC content in forest land (0–20 cm depth) compared to agricultural land. Vidojević [55] stated that the largest reserves of organic carbon are in forest soil (27.8 g kg−1), while they are significantly lower (15.80 g kg−1) in agricultural land. In the study by Antonović and Mrvić [73], the average SOC content in forests was 15.20 g kg−1. The SOC in vineyards was lower, 12.91 g kg−1.

3.5. Effects of Land Use on SOC Across Topographic Positions

The interaction between topographic position and land use had a significant effect on SOC (Figure 10). The SOC contents of forest land were significantly higher at the upper position (17.32 g kg−1) than that at the middle (9.56 g kg−1) and lower positions (8.46 g kg−1). However, SOC contents in vineyards were not significantly different across topographic positions. At the lower positions in vineyards, SOC ranged from 3.95 g kg−1 to 12.24 g kg−1, with an average value of 8.09 g kg−1. At the middle positions, the SOC content ranged from 4.17 to 12.47 g kg−1, with a mean value of 9.20 g kg−1. At the upper topographic position in vineyards, the SOC content ranged from 3.88 g kg−1 to 15.49 g kg−1, with an average value of 8.17 g kg−1.
Unlike forests, which have less human interference, agricultural land is often disturbed by soil management. Variations in the SOC content at the same altitude and with the same soil type were primarily due to the different approaches of winegrowers to vineyard fertilization and tillage (see Section 3.6). Some winegrowers avoid using organic fertilizers because they fear there will be negative effects on the quality of the grapes (extended period of grape ripening, low sugar and high acid content). Furthermore, there is also a higher risk of SOC being leached from upper to lower topographic positions in agricultural land compared to forests. Similar results were obtained by Dortzbach et al. [74]. Their study found that the irregular spatial distribution of SOC in the vineyard soils was significantly influenced by management practices and soil disturbance, in addition to altitude and climatic factors. Furthermore, Abebe et al. [65] observed irregularities in the spatial distribution of SOC in vineyard soils.

3.6. The Influence of Soil Management on SOC

Figure 11 shows the SOC content, which depended on the management practice, in the topsoil and subsoil of vineyards. The effects of soil type and location on the SOC of vineyards were not significant in our study. Vineyards, in which deep tillage was performed along with the application of organic amendments, had a higher average SOC content in subsoil in comparison to vineyards in which tillage was performed at depths of 30–40 cm. There was no difference in the surface layer.
The SOC content in the subsoil of deeply tilled vineyards was similar to the value in the subsoil of forest land. Deep tillage (60–80 cm) has led to deep placement of organic amendments. This practice shows high potential for SOC preservation in the deeper soil layer and for prevention of carbon loss from the surface layer. Subsoil has high potential for the storage of additional soil organic carbon because of the large number of unsaturated mineral surfaces and environmental conditions that impede SOC decomposition, e.g., a more constant moisture and temperature regime or oxygen limitation [75]. Subsoiling can break compacted hardpan layers and it reduces soil strengths and improves water use efficiencies [75,76,77]. Similar results have been obtained by other authors. According to Liu et al. [16], deep tillage (subsoiling) increased SOC and N compared to conventional tillage. Cervantes et al. [78] stated that after the deep plowing, the layer of the deeply plowed fields accumulated 0.4 ± 0.1 Mg SOC ha−1 yr−1 on average. In the study by Shen et al. [79], subsoiling was found to increase aggregate-associated organic carbon, dry matter and maize yield on the North China Plain.

3.7. SOC and Soil Compaction

In our study, in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) on all plots (Figure 12, line a), the compaction was within the optimal values. At a depth of 30 cm, the compaction went beyond the optimum range, as it entered the range of moderately compacted soil up to the fiftieth centimeter, where it continued to grow. In some plots, a significant increase in penetrometric resistance or soil compaction at the depth of tillage could be observed (Figure 12, line c), which can negatively affect the growth and development of the root system of plants. Also, the presence of a soil layer with low permeability has resulted in the the top soil layer being more prone to saturation with water. The top soil layer is thus at risk of causing landslides. In contrast, individual plots were characterized by optimum values throughout the entire soil layer in which the plant root system had already developed (Figure 12, line b). Increased soil compaction has a very unfavorable effect on both soil and plants [46]. Soil compaction can induce or accelerate other soil degradation processes, such as erosion or landslides. Compaction reduces the infiltration rate, which increases run-off in sloping [80].
Heavy mechanization, extensive cultivation activities—especially if performed under unfavorable soil moisture conditions—and a trend of decreasing organic matter content in agricultural soils increase soil compaction and disturb the water, air and temperature regime.
Soil structure can be improved by increasing soil organic matter [81] and reducing the soil’s susceptibility to compaction, erosion and landslides [82,83]. Increases in organic matter can reduce compactibility by increasing resistance to deformation and/or increasing elasticity (rebound effects) [84]. In our study, a significant negative correlation (−0.53) was found between the SOC content and soil compaction, expressed through penetrometric soil resistance. Similar results were obtained in the study by Vasin et al. [85]. Compactibility is sensitive to even quite small changes in the amount of organic matter. These observations have important implications for the improvement of soil management in order to avoid over-compaction problems in crop production.

4. Conclusions

The amount of organic carbon in soil and its spatial distribution depend on the land use, soil depth, altitude and management practices, as well as the interaction between land use and topographic position. Land use proved to be an important factor influencing SOC distribution. Due to specific soil properties in vineyards and the conventional land cultivation and specific fertilization strategies used, vineyards contained less SOC than forest land. The effect of topographic position was significant. The distribution of SOC in forest soils was influenced by altitude. At higher altitudes, SOC accumulation was higher due to lower temperatures and increased levels of soil moisture. At lower positions, higher soil temperatures led to a significant decrease in SOC content. The spatial distribution of organic carbon in the vineyards was not dependent on altitude, but most likely resulted from different soil management practices. Deep tillage at 60–80 cm, along with application of organic amendments, has high potential for the preservation of SOC in the deeper soil layer and for the prevention of carbon loss from the surface layer. Continuous tillage in vineyards at constant depths has led to the formation of a layer with low permeability. Increases in SOC content, i.e., organic matter, reduce soil compaction and lower the risk of erosion and landslides.
Knowledge of soil carbon distribution as a function of topographic position, land use and management practice is important for sustainable soil management and climate change mitigation. Systematic monitoring and more efficient soil management should be considered for the improvement of SOC status.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy11071438/s1, Figure S1. Some of the observed vineyards in the vineyard region of Niš.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J. and J.N.; methodology, S.J., J.N. and V.P.; formal analysis, S.J., M.Ž. and V.P.; investigation, S.J., J.N., V.P., M.Ž., S.M., B.B., S.V., V.K., G.D. and J.V.; data curation, S.J., M.Ž., B.B., V.P., S.V.; V.K., G.D. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation S.J.; review and editing, J.N.; writing—review and editing S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is part of the project “Soil fertility control and content of hazardous and harmful substances in the soil under the vineyards of the Nis region” funded by Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, Directorate for Agricultural Land. A part of this research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, grant no. 451-03-68/2021-14/200032 and grant no. 451-03-9/2021-14/200007.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Darko Jakšić from the Centre for Viticulture and Oenology, Belgrade, for his valuable input with detailed data and terroir descriptions of the Niš vineyard region.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, J. Impact of land use change on profile distributions of soil organic carbon fractions in the Yanqi Basin. Catena 2014, 115, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Martin, D.; Lal, T.; Sachdev, C.B.; Sharma, J.P. Soil organic carbon storage changes with climate change, landform and land use conditions in Garhwal hills of the Indian Himalayan mountains. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 138, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lal, R. Sequestering Carbon in Soils of Agro-Ecosystems. Food Policy 2011, 36, S33–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhou, Y.; Hartemink, A.; Shi, Z.; Liang, Z.; Lu, Y. Land use and climate change effects on soil organic carbon in North and Northeast China. Sci. Total Enivorn. 2019, 647, 1230–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Batjes, N.H. Soil Property Values for Broad-Scale Modelling (WISE30sec) with Estimates of Global Soil Carbon Stocks. Geoderma 2016, 269, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Tanner, E.V.J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global Soil Carbon: Understanding and Managing the Largest Terrestrial Carbon Pool. Carbon Manag. 2014, 5, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lal, R. Food security impacts of the “4 per Thousand” initiative. Geoderma 2020, 374, 114427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, D.; Liu, Y.; Wu, G.L.; Ding, L.M.; Yang, Z.; Hao, H.M. Effect of rest-grazing management on soil water and carbon storage in an arid grass-land. J. Hydrol. 2015, 527, 754–760. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 423–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. IPCC. Summary for policy makers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wiesmeier, M.; Urbanski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; von Lützow, M.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; van Wesemael, B. Soil Organic Carbon Storage as a Key Function of Soils—A Review of Drivers and Indicators at Various Scales. Geoderma 2019, 333, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Don, A.; Schumacher, J.; Freibauer, A. Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks—A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 1658–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Guo, L.B.; Gifford, R.M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.; Fu, B.; Lü, Y.; Chen, L. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon sequestration at multiple scales in semi-arid Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2011, 85, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deng, L.; Zhu, G.; Tang, Z.; Shannguan, Z. Global patterns of the effects of land-use changes on soil carbon stocks. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2016, 5, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Liu, X.; Liu, J.; Xing, B.; Herbert, S.J.; Meng, K.; Han, X.; Zhang, X. Effects of Long-Term Continuous Cropping, Tillage, and Fertilization on Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen of Black Soils in China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2005, 36, 1229–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beare, M.H.; Hendrix, P.F.; Cabrera, M.L.; Coleman, D.C. Aggregate-Protected and Unprotected Organic Matter Pools in Conventional- and No-Tillage Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1994, 58, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, W.; Zhu, H.; Guo, S. Soil organic carbon as a function of land use and topography on the Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 83, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dessalegn, D.; Beyene, S.; Ram, N.; Walley, F.; Gala, T.S. Effects of topography and land use on soil characteristics along the toposequence of Ele watershed in southern Ethiopia. Catnea 2014, 115, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dialynas, Y.G.; Bastola, S.; Bras, R.L.; Billings, S.A.; Markewitz, D.; Richter, D.d. Topographic variability and the influence of soil erosion on the carbon cycle. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2016, 30, 644–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Manojlović, M.; Čabilovski, R.; Sitaula, B. Soil Organic Carbon in Serbian Mountain Soils: Effects of Land Use and Altitude. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2011, 20, 977–986. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bot, A.; Benites, J. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sustained Food Production; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wischmeier, W.H.; Mannering, J. Relation of soil properties to its erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 1969, 33, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ristić, R.; Milošević, D. Hidrologija Bujičnih Tokova; Šumarski Fakultet: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  25. Perović, V.; Jakšić, D.; Jaramaz, D.; Koković, N.; Čakmak, D.; Mitrović, M.; Pavlović, P. Spatio-temporal analysis of land use/land cover change and its effects on soil erosion (Case study in the Oplenac wine-producing area, Serbia). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Comino, J.R.; Iserloh, T.; Morvan, X.; Malam Issa, O.; Naisse, C.; Keesstra, S.D.; Cerdà, A.; Prosdocimi, M.; Arnáez, J.; Lasanta, T.; et al. Soil Erosion Processes in European Vineyards: A Qualitative Comparison of Rainfall Simulation Measurements in Germany, Spain and France. Hydrology 2016, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Le Bissonnais, Y.; Blavet, D.; De Noni, G.; Laurent, J.-Y.; Asseline, J.; Chenu, C. Erodibility of Mediterranean Vineyard Soils: Relevant Aggregate Stability Methods and Significant Soil Variables. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2007, 58, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Concepción Ramos, M. Soil Alteration Due to Erosion, Ploughing and Levelling of Vineyards in North East Spain. Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Belmonte, S.A.; Celi, L.; Stahel, R.J.; Bonifacio, E.; Novello, V.; Zanini, E.; Steenwerth, K.L. Effect of Long-Term Soil Management on the Mutual Interaction Among Soil Organic Matter, Microbial Activity and Aggregate Stability in a Vineyard. Pedosphere 2018, 28, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Teferi, E.; Bewket, W.; Simane, B. Effects of land use and land cover on selected soil quality indicators in the headwater area of the Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Solomon, D.; Lehmann, J.; Zech, W. Land use effects on soil organic matter properties of chromic luvisols in semi-arid northern Tanzania: Carbon, nitrogen, lignin and carbohydrates. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 78, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jakšić, S.; Ninkov, J.; Milić, S.; Vasin, J.; Banjac, D.; Jakšić, D.; Živanov, M. The State of Soil Organic Carbon in Vineyards as Affected by Soil Types and Fertilization Strategies (Tri Morave Region, Serbia). Agronomy 2021, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ivanišević, D.; Jakšić, D.; Korać, N. Vineyard Atlas; Republican Bureau of Statistics: Belgrade, Serbia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakšić, D.; Petrović, V. Some important properties of the terroir of the Vineyard region of Niš. In Soil Properties of the Vineyard Region of Niš; Ninkov, J., Ed.; Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nakalamić, A.; Marković, N. Opšte Vinogradarstvo; Poljoprivredni Fakultet Beograd; Zadužbina Svetog Manastira Hilandara: Belgrade, Serbia, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tonietto, J.; Carbonneau, A. A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2004, 124, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Vasin, J.; Živanov, M. Soil classification in the Vineyard region of Niš. In Soil Properties of the Vineyard Region of Niš; Ninkov, J., Ed.; Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. ISO/IEC 17025:2017. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. ISO 11464:2006. Soil Quality—Pretreatment of Samples for Physico-Chemical Analysis; Institute for Standardization of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  40. ISO 10390:2005. Soil Quality—Determination of PH; Institute for Standardization of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. ISO 10693:1995. Soil Quality—Determination of Carbonate Content—Volumetric Method; Institute for Standardization of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  42. ISO 10694:1995. Soil Quality—Determination of Organic and Total Carbon after Dry Combustion (Elementary Analysis); Institute for Standardization of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for Soil Analysis, 6th ed.; ISRIC FAO Technical Paper vol. 9; International Soil Reference and Information Centre Wageningen: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook, No 537; USDA/Science and Education Administration; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van der Knijff, J.M.; Jones, R.J.A.; Montanarella, L. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Italy; EUR 19022 EN; European Soil Bureau: Ispra, Italy, 1999; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
  46. Grimm, M.; Jones, R.J.A.; Rusco, E.; Montanarella, L. Soil Erosion Risk in Italy: A Revised USLE Approach; EUR, EN; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2003; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
  47. Desmet, P.J.J.; Govers, G. A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1996, 51, 427–433. [Google Scholar]
  48. OECD. Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ninkov, J. Karakterizacija Zemljišta Niškog Vinogradarskog Rejona; Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  50. Leake, S. Vineyard Soil Management; Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty Ltd.: Sydney, Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  51. White, R.E. Soils for Fine Wines; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gücüyen, A. Manisa ili ve Çevresinde Bağcılıkta Mekanizasyon Durumu, Sorunları ve iyi Tarım Uygulamalarına Yönelik Çözüm Önerileri; Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: İzmir, Turkey, 2007; p. 146. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  53. Kosmas, C.; Danalatos, N.; Cammeraat, L.H.; Chabart, M.; Diamantopoulos, J.; Farand, R.; Gutierrez, L.; Jacob, A.; Marques, H.; Martinez-Fernandez, J.; et al. The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean conditions. Catena 1997, 29, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Doğan, B.; Gülser, C. Assessment of Soil Quality for Vineyard Fields: A Case Study in Menderes District of Izmir, Turkey. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2019, 8, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vidojević, D. Estimation of Soil Organic Matter in the Soils of Serbia; Faculty of Agriculture: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  56. Smith, W.N.; Desjardins, R.L.; Pattey, E. The Net Flux of Carbon from Agricultural Soils in Canada 1970–2010. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2000, 6, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gardi, C.; Sconosciuto, F. Evaluation of carbon stock variation in Northern Italian soils over the last 70 years. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Morari, F.; Lugato, E.; Berti, A.; Giardini, L. Long-Term Effects of Recommended Management Practices on Soil Carbon Changes and Sequestration in North-Eastern Italy. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 22, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Novara, A.; Minacapilli, M.; Santoro, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Carrubba, A.; Sarno, M.; Venezia, G.; Gristina, L. Real Cover Crops Contribution to Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Sloping Vineyard. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Robinson, C.A.; Cruse, R.M.; Kohler, K.A. Soil management. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems; Hatfield, J.L., Karlen, D.L., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1994; pp. 109–134. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sims, Z.R.; Nielsen, G.A. Organic carbon in Montana soils as related to clay content and climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 1986, 50, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dai, W.; Huang, Y. Relation of soil organic matter concentration to climate and altitude in zonal soils of China. Catena 2006, 65, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Trumbore, S.E.; Vitousek, P.M.; Amundson, R.R. Rapid exchange between soil carbon and atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by temperature change. Science 1996, 272, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Fang, H.; Ji, B.; Deng, X.; Ying, J.; Zhou, G.; Shi, Y.; Xu, L.; Tao, J.; Zhou, Y.; Li, C.; et al. Effects of topographic factors and aboveground vegetation carbon stocks on soil organic carbon in Moso bamboo forests. Plant Soil 2018, 433, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abebe, G.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Takeshi, T.; Wondie, M.; Adgo, E.; Masunaga, T.; Tsubo, M.; Ebabu, K.; Berihun, M.L.; et al. Effects of Land Use and Topographic Position on Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen Stocks in Different Agro-Ecosystems of the Upper Blue Nile Basin. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Zheng, X.Y.; Liu, M.Z.; Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; Zhao, W.; Li, A.; Chen, S.; Chen, S.; Han, X.; Huang, J. Topography and grazing effects on storage of soil organic carbon and nitrogen in the northern China grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schöning, I.; Totsche, K.U.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Small Scale Spatial Variability of Organic Carbon Stocks in Litter and Solum of a Forested Luvisol. Geoderma 2006, 136, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rhanor, T. Topographic Position and Land Cover Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Distribution of Loess-Veneered Hillslopes in the Central United States; Southern Illinois University: Carbondale, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  69. Jendoubi, D.; Liniger, H.; Speranza, C.I. Impacts of land use and topography on soil organic carbon in a Mediterranean landscape (north-western Tunisia). Soil 2019, 5, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Napoli, M.; Dalla Marta, A.; Zanchi, C.A.; Orlandini, S. Assessment of Soil and Nutrient Losses by Runoff under Different Soil Management Practices in an Italian Hilly Vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rodrigo-Comino, J. Five Decades of Soil Erosion Research in ‘Terroir’. The State-of-the-Art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 179, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gattullo, C.E.; Mezzapesa, G.N.; Stellacci, A.M.; Ferrara, G.; Occhiogrosso, G.; Petrelli, G.; Castellini, M.; Spagnuolo, M. Cover Crop for a Sustainable Viticulture: Effects on Soil Properties and Table Grape Production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Antonović, G.; Mrvić, V. Zemljišta Sliva Nišave; Institute for Soil Science: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  74. Dortzbach, D.; Assunção, S.A.; Pereira, M.G.; Carvalho da Silva, E. Fractions of soil organic matter in the vineyards of altitude regions in Santa Catarina. Ciênc. Agrárias Londrina 2017, 38, 1799–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Wang, Y.X.; Chen, S.P.; Zhang, D.X.; Yang, L.; Cui, T.; Jing, H.R.; Li, Y.H. Effects of subsoiling depth, period interval and combined tillage practice on soil properties and yield in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1596–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, S.L.; Wang, H.; Hafeez, M.B.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, Q.; Wang, R.; Wang, X.; Li, J. Notillage and subsoiling increased maize yields and soil water storage under varied rainfall distribution: A 9-year site-specific study in a semi-arid environment. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 255, 10786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pikul, J.L., Jr.; Aase, J.K. Water Infiltration and storage affected by subsoiling and subsequent tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cervantes, V.A.; Don, A.; Well, R.; Schneider, F.; Nieder, R. Deep ploughing mineral soils for SOC sequestration. In Global Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Shen, Y.; Zhang, T.; Cui, J.; Chen, S.; Han, H.; Ning, T. Subsoiling increases aggregate-associated organic carbon, dry matter, and maize yield on the North China Plain. Peer J. 2021, 9, e11099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Scharlemann, J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global Map of Terrestrial Soil Organic Carbon Stocks; UNEP-WCMC; EU-JRC: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  81. Novara, A.; Favara, V.; Novara, A.; Francesca, N.; Santangelo, T.; Columba, P.; Chironi, S.; Ingrassia, M.; Gristina, L. Soil Carbon Budget Account for the Sustainability Improvement of a Mediterranean Vineyard Area. Agronomy 2020, 10, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Kuhn, N.J. Erodibility of soil organic matter: Independence of organic matter resistant to interrill erosion. Earth Surf. Proc. Land 2007, 32, 794–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Guerra, A. The effect of organic matter content on soil erosion in simulated rainfall experiements in W. Sussex, U.K. Soil Use Manag. 1994, 10, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Soane, B.D. The role of organic matter in soil compactibility: A review of some practical aspects. Soil. Tillage Res. 1990, 16, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vasin, J.; Živanov, M.; Ninkov, J.; Milić, S.; Žeželj, B. Effect of organic farming on soil compaction. In Proceedings of the VI International Scientific Agricultural Symposium “Agrosym 2015”, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15–18 October 2015; p. 496. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 11 01438 g001 550
Figure 1. The vineyard region of Niš, Serbia: (a) vine-growing districts; (b) elevation (m a.s.l.); (c) slope (°); (d) aspect ([33], modified by the authors).
Figure 1. The vineyard region of Niš, Serbia: (a) vine-growing districts; (b) elevation (m a.s.l.); (c) slope (°); (d) aspect ([33], modified by the authors).
Agronomy 11 01438 g001
Agronomy 11 01438 g002 550
Figure 2. Pedological map of the wine-growing region of Niš and borders of vine-growing districts, according to the World Reference Base (WRB) soil classification; based on a digitalized primary pedological map of the Republic of Serbia, 1:50,000.
Figure 2. Pedological map of the wine-growing region of Niš and borders of vine-growing districts, according to the World Reference Base (WRB) soil classification; based on a digitalized primary pedological map of the Republic of Serbia, 1:50,000.
Agronomy 11 01438 g002
Agronomy 11 01438 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean annual temperatures in the Niš region from 1997 to 2016, obtained from four meteorological stations.
Figure 3. Mean annual temperatures in the Niš region from 1997 to 2016, obtained from four meteorological stations.
Agronomy 11 01438 g003
Agronomy 11 01438 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean annual precipitation levels in the Niš region from 1997 to 2016, obtained from four meteorological stations.
Figure 4. Mean annual precipitation levels in the Niš region from 1997 to 2016, obtained from four meteorological stations.
Agronomy 11 01438 g004
Agronomy 11 01438 g005 550
Figure 5. Some localities of the vine-growing region of Niš: (a) Svrljig—abruptic luvisol (clayic), LV-ap-ce; (b) Beli Breg—haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh; (c) Sićevo—skeletic, dolomitic, eutric leptosol (clayic, ochric), LP-sk.do.eu-ce.oh.
Figure 5. Some localities of the vine-growing region of Niš: (a) Svrljig—abruptic luvisol (clayic), LV-ap-ce; (b) Beli Breg—haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh; (c) Sićevo—skeletic, dolomitic, eutric leptosol (clayic, ochric), LP-sk.do.eu-ce.oh.
Agronomy 11 01438 g005
Agronomy 11 01438 g006 550
Figure 6. Some of the soil profiles: (a) Svrljig locality—abruptic luvisol (clayic), LV-ap-ce; (b) Malča locality—haplic vertisol, VR-ha-oh.
Figure 6. Some of the soil profiles: (a) Svrljig locality—abruptic luvisol (clayic), LV-ap-ce; (b) Malča locality—haplic vertisol, VR-ha-oh.
Agronomy 11 01438 g006
Agronomy 11 01438 g007 550
Figure 7. Mean annual soil loss in the Niš region (t ha−1 y−1).
Figure 7. Mean annual soil loss in the Niš region (t ha−1 y−1).
Agronomy 11 01438 g007
Agronomy 11 01438 g008 550
Figure 8. Soil organic carbon content: (a) for different topographic positions, p < 0.05; (b) in soil layers, p < 0.01 Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, (N = 60).
Figure 8. Soil organic carbon content: (a) for different topographic positions, p < 0.05; (b) in soil layers, p < 0.01 Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, (N = 60).
Agronomy 11 01438 g008
Agronomy 11 01438 g009 550
Figure 9. Effect of land use on soil organic carbon content. Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.01 (N = 60).
Figure 9. Effect of land use on soil organic carbon content. Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.01 (N = 60).
Agronomy 11 01438 g009
Agronomy 11 01438 g010 550
Figure 10. Effects of land use on SOC across topographic positions. Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.05 (N = 60). V—vineyard, F—forest.
Figure 10. Effects of land use on SOC across topographic positions. Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.05 (N = 60). V—vineyard, F—forest.
Agronomy 11 01438 g010
Agronomy 11 01438 g011 550
Figure 11. Soil organic carbon (SOC) content in soil layers of vineyards for different tillage depths (N = 60). Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.05.
Figure 11. Soil organic carbon (SOC) content in soil layers of vineyards for different tillage depths (N = 60). Significant differences between soil groups are labeled with different letters, p < 0.05.
Agronomy 11 01438 g011
Agronomy 11 01438 g012 550
Figure 12. Penetrometric resistance of the tested soil: (a) average value for all plots; (b) Jasenovik locality—haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh; (c) Malča locality—haplic vertisol, VR-ha-oh.
Figure 12. Penetrometric resistance of the tested soil: (a) average value for all plots; (b) Jasenovik locality—haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh; (c) Malča locality—haplic vertisol, VR-ha-oh.
Agronomy 11 01438 g012
Table
Table 1. Locations, vine growing districts, global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and soil types of the vineyards.
Table 1. Locations, vine growing districts, global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and soil types of the vineyards.
LocalityVine Growing DistrictGPS (E)GPS (N)Soil Type (FAO–WRB)
JasenjeAleksinac21.57595143.629562Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
ŠurićŽitkovac21.64482243.453924Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
Beli BregAleksinac21.81491543.478903Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
Beli PotokSokobanja21.85913543.674641Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
Vele PoljeČegar21.82774343.450464Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
SvrljigSvrljig22.06971543.414675Abruptic luvisol (clayic), LV-ap-ce
JasenovikČegar22.03086243.355521Haplic vertisol (ochric), VR-ha-oh
MalčaČegar22.01056843.316971Haplic vertisol, VR-ha-oh
SićevoČegar22.08198743.346480Skeletic, dolomitic, eutric leptosol (clayic, ochric), LP-sk.do.eu-ce.oh
Gornji BarbešKutina21.95072343.188976Vertic, eutric cambisol (ochric), CM-vr.eu-oh
Table
Table 2. Threshold values of soil compaction [37].
Table 2. Threshold values of soil compaction [37].
Soil CompactionThreshold Values
Optimal1.0–2.5 MPa
Moderate compaction2.5–3.0 MPa
High compaction3.0–5.0 MPa
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of soil properties in layers: 0–30 cm, 30–60 cm and profile horizons (<200 cm).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of soil properties in layers: 0–30 cm, 30–60 cm and profile horizons (<200 cm).
Soil PropertiesMean ± Standard Deviation
0–30 cm
pH (in 1 M KCl)5.42 ± 1.15
CaCO₃ (%)2.65 ± 10.84
Clay (%)36.67 ± 9.91
Silt (%)22.32 ± 4.86
Fine sand (%)28.57 ± 7.17
Coarse sand (%)12.44 ± 8.26
30–60 cm
pH (in 1 M KCl)5.46 ± 1.15
CaCO₃ (%)5.01 ± 10.84
Clay (%)39.92 ± 9.78
Silt (%)21.35 ± 4.94
Fine sand (%)26.71 ± 7.28
Coarse sand (%)12.02 ± 8.24
Profile horizons, 0–200 cm
pH (in 1 M KCl)5.62 ± 1.13
CaCO₃ (%)6.26 ± 10.79
Clay (%)35.12 ± 9.93
Silt (%)21.04 ± 4.85
Fine sand (%)31.04 ± 7.18
Coarse sand (%)12.80 ± 8.00
Table
Table 4. Mean annual soil loss in observed localities.
Table 4. Mean annual soil loss in observed localities.
LocalityA
Jasenje5.64
Šurić5.83
Beli Breg3.43
Beli Potok9.82
Vele Polje5.86
Svrljig0.58
Jasenovik1.78
Malča2.77
Sićevo8.81
Gornji Barbeš3.24
A—Mean annual soil loss (t ha−1 yr−1).
Table
Table 5. Tests of fixed effects from the model with a suitable error variance structure.
Table 5. Tests of fixed effects from the model with a suitable error variance structure.
EffectNum DFDen DFF-ValuePr > F
Land use118.28.570.0089
Soil depth118.212.330.0025
Topographic position218.25.350.0148
Land use × soil depth118.20.680.4191
Land use × topographic position218.25.760.0115
Soil depth × topographic position218.20.010.9910
Land use × soil depth × topographic position218.20.080.9248
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jakšić, S.; Ninkov, J.; Milić, S.; Vasin, J.; Živanov, M.; Perović, V.; Banjac, B.; Vučković, S.; Dozet, G.; Komlen, V. Topographic Position, Land Use and Soil Management Effects on Soil Organic Carbon (Vineyard Region of Niš, Serbia). Agronomy 2021, 11, 1438. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071438

AMA Style

Jakšić S, Ninkov J, Milić S, Vasin J, Živanov M, Perović V, Banjac B, Vučković S, Dozet G, Komlen V. Topographic Position, Land Use and Soil Management Effects on Soil Organic Carbon (Vineyard Region of Niš, Serbia). Agronomy. 2021; 11(7):1438. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071438

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jakšić, Snežana, Jordana Ninkov, Stanko Milić, Jovica Vasin, Milorad Živanov, Veljko Perović, Borislav Banjac, Savo Vučković, Gordana Dozet, and Vedrana Komlen. 2021. "Topographic Position, Land Use and Soil Management Effects on Soil Organic Carbon (Vineyard Region of Niš, Serbia)" Agronomy 11, no. 7: 1438. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071438

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop