Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Is a landscape sensitive or resilient to climatic and/or socio-economic changes, and how can stability, sensitivity or resistivity be quantified?
- At what degree of sensitivity can a landscape be considered stable or unstable?
- At what land use intensity are threshold conditions reached, i.e., where a landscape switches from stable to unstable conditions?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources
2.2. Search for Articles
2.3. Article Screening and Study Eligibility Criteria
- absence of a definition of the search terms (stability, sensitivity, resistivity), or
- absence of quantification methods of the search terms, and
- articles belonging to a different field of research,
- articles where only the title and abstract are reported in English, but the rest of the text is in another language. Generally, it was not possible to exclude these articles earlier using the filter options in Scopus and Web of Science.
2.4. Data Collection
- For the bibliometric analysis, a bibtext file (readable by the R package bibliometrix [19]) was prepared with all the articles that passed the screening process. The bibtext file was automatically extracted from Scopus with all the relevant information for the bibliometric analysis. To avoid formatting conflicts, the data extracted from Web of Science were entered manually in the same bibtext file. Due to the fact that articles were sometimes present in both databases with different citation statistics, we decided to use the Scopus, since it generally presents higher numbers of citations than Web of Science.
- For further analysis and interpretation, another table was set up including the outcomes of the analysis in terms of the specific definitions of stability, sensitivity and resistivity, as well as the respective quantification methods.
2.5. Bibliometric Analysis
2.6. Connotation and Quantification Methods
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search and Screening
Document | DOI | TC | TC/YEAR | LC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[32] | Brunsden and Thornes, 1979 | 10.2307/622210 | 472 | 10.7273 | 21 |
[33] | Six et al., 2000 | 10.2136/sssaj2000.6431042x | 327 | 14.2174 | 3 |
[34] | Orwin and Wardle, 2004 | 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.04.036 | 272 | 14.3158 | 2 |
[35] | Harvey, 2001 | 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00139-9 | 261 | 11.8636 | 9 |
[36] | Lal, 1993 | 10.1016/0167-1987(93)90059-X | 189 | 6.3 | 0 |
[37] | North, 1976 | 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1976.tb02014.x | 185 | 3.9362 | 3 |
[38] | Brunsden, 2001 | 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00134-X | 181 | 8.2273 | 7 |
[39] | Knox, 2001 | 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00138-7 | 166 | 7.5455 | 5 |
[40] | Thomas, 2001 | 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00138-7 | 166 | 7.5455 | 5 |
[41] | Bullard and McTainsh, 2003 | 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00133-8 | 164 | 7.4545 | 4 |
3.2. Identification of Connotation
Article | Parameters of Quantification of Soil and Landscape Stability/Sensitivity | Research Field | |
---|---|---|---|
[89] | (Ran et al., 2022) | mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), | soil properties |
[85] | (Abbas et al., 2021b) | aggregate stability | soil properties |
[95] | (Sawicka et al., 2021) | base saturation (BS), aluminum saturation (Alsat), | soil properties |
[88] | (Liu et al., 2021) | mean weight diameter (MWD) | soil structure |
[96] | (Ghosh et al., 2021) | mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (MWD), normalized soil stability index (NSSI) | soil erosion |
[97] | (Mamedov et al., 2021) | modal suction (MS), soil VDP (area under a specific water capacity curve and above the soil shrinkage line) | soil structure |
[98] | (Abbas et al., 2021a) | relative stability of soil aggregates (RSA) | soil structure |
[99] | (Jiaguo et al., 2021) | slope class, aspect class, land use class | soil pollution |
[86] | (Teixeira et al., 2021) | soil aggregate stability | soil structure |
[100] | (Molaeinasab et al., 2021) | soil cover percentage, litter cover percentage, origin and degree of decomposition, cryptogam cover percentage, crust brokenness, soil erosion type and severity, deposited material, soil surface nature, slake test | soil properties |
[42] | (Song et al., 2021) | soil resilience, soil resistance | soil structure |
[101] | (Minhas et al., 2021) | structural index (ratio of volume of drainable pores to modal suction ‘peak of water capacity curve’) | soil hydrology |
[44] | (Mirzaee et al., 2020) | baseline inter-rill soil sensitivity to erosion, slope factor, rainfall intensity, runoff rate, inter-rill sediment, detachment capacity, baseline rill soil sensitivity to erosion, flow shear stress, rill detachment threshold parameter or soil baseline critical shear stress | soil erosion |
[43] | (Manolaki et al., 2020) | ecological sensitivity, cultural sensitivity (integrity and value), visual sensitivity | ecology |
[102] | (Crawford et al., 2020) | mean weight diameter (MWD) of soil aggregates | soil biology |
[103] | (Okolo et al., 2020) | mean weight diameter, % of soil organic matter, %silt, %clay | soil structure |
[103] | (Okolo et al., 2020) | normalized channel steepness index (ksn) | remote sensing |
[104] | (Brahim et al., 2020) | rainfall and runoff erosivity factor, slope length and steepness factor, soil erodibility factor, vegetation cover, management and cultural practices factor, conservation practice factor. | soil erosion |
[105] | (Ran et al., 2020) | mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), fractal dimension (D) | soil restoration |
[106] | (Oliva et al., 2019) | aerial cover for rain interception, litter cover, origin and degree of incorporation, cryptogram cover, deposited materials, soil crust type and degree to which it was disturbed, surface crust resistance and slake test, time that soil aggregates retain integrity in water | ecology |
[107] | (Dor et al., 2019) | aggregate durability index (ADI) based on changes in soil particle-size distribution | soil properties |
[108] | (Durante et al., 2019) | Ca exch, Mg exch, K exch, Ptot and Ntot | ecology |
[109] | (Karadag and Senik, 2019) | erosion sensitivity, landslide sensitivity, water infiltration sensitivity, habitat sensitivity | ecology |
[110] | (Farazmand et al., 2019) | geology, soil texture, climate, runoff, topography, vegetation, land use, current erosion, gully erosion | ecology |
[46] | (Llena et al., 2019) | index of sediment connectivity | geomorphology |
[111] | (Sepehr et al., 2019) | mean weight diameter of aggregates (MWD), soil aggregate stability (SAS), clay dispersion index (CDI) | soil biology |
[112] | (Riggert et al., 2019) | precompression stress and bulk density | soil degradation |
[113] | (Chung et al., 2019) | soil aggregate stability | soil biology |
[87] | (Young et al., 2019) | soil aggregate stability | soil structure |
[114] | (Daniell et al., 2019) | soil cover percentage, litter cover percentage, origin and degree of decomposition, cryptogam cover percentage, crust brokenness, soil erosion type and severity, deposited material, soil surface nature, slake test | soil pollution |
[93] | (Safaei et al., 2019) | soil organic carbon, % silt, % clay | soil structure |
[115] | (Klopp et al., 2019) | soil swelling | soil structure |
[116] | (Niewiadomska et al., 2018) | soil resistance under natural conditions over time (t0), resistance of soil subjected to pressure over time | ecology |
[117] | (Molaeinasab et al., 2018) | soil cover percentage, litter cover percentage, origin and degree of decomposition, cryptogam cover percentage, crust brokenness, soil erosion type and severity, deposited material, soil surface nature, slake test | soil quality |
[49] | (Lizaga et al., 2018) | Upslope and downslope component, average weighting factor of the upslope contributing area, average slope gradient of the upslope contributing area, upslope contributing area | land use change |
[118] | (Merante et al., 2017) | clay content, soil organic carbon | soil management |
[119] | (Cao, 2017) | landscape patch change | remote sensing |
[120] | (Tamene et al., 2017) | rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, 3D terrain representation, land use/cover, conservation/management factor. | soil erosion |
[121] | (Ali et al., 2017) | soil aggregate stability, penetration resistance, soil shear vane strength | ecology |
[122] | (Berendt et al., 2017) | soil texture | ecology |
[123] | (Munoz et al., 2017) | water-stable aggregates | agriculture |
[124] | (Read et al., 2016) | aerial cover for rain interception, litter cover, origin and degree of incorporation, cryptogram cover, deposited materials, soil crust type and degree to which it was disturbed, surface crust resistance and slake test, time that soil aggregates retain integrity in water | ecology |
[78] | (Xuan et al., 2016) | instability patch area ratio, dispersion, uniformity, uniformity shape coefficient | ecology |
[125] | (Geraei et al., 2016) | carbon pools in uncultivated and cultivated soils | land use change |
[126] | (Mirmousavi, 2016) | soil erodibility index of the texture classes, wind condition, vegetation and land cover | soil erosion |
[127] | (Bast et al., 2015) | mean weight diameter (MWD), aggregate stability coefficient (ASC) | soil structure |
[128] | (Reid and Brierley, 2015) | river style, potential for adjustment | fluvial geomorphology |
[56] | (Store et al., 2015) | scenic attractiveness or quality, visibility of landscape, the number and type of viewers | ecology |
[129] | (Reinhart et al., 2015) | soil aggregate stability | ecology |
[130] | (Ladanyi et al., 2015) | soil moisture regimes, groundwater resources, biomass production of vegetation, levels of wind erosion hazard. | ecology |
[79] | (Guo et al., 2015) | type of soil | ecology |
[131] | (Safeeq et al., 2015) | watershed drainage area, principal component, regression coefficients a, b, c | fluvial geomorphology |
[132] | (Pulido Moncada et al., 2014) | particle size distribution (%clay and % soil) and soil organic carbon | soil structure |
[133] | (Fultz et al., 2013) | mean weight diameter (MWD) | agricolture |
[58] | (Zhang et al., 2013) | rainfall erosivity, soil types, relief, vegetation coverage (%) | soil erosion |
[134] | (Roy et al., 2012) | base cations to aluminum ratio, aluminum to calcium ratio, pH, and aluminum concentration | soil properties |
[135] | (Munro et al., 2012) | rain splash protection, perennial vegetation cover, leaf litter, cryptogram cover, crust brokenness, soil erosion, deposited material, soil surface roughness, resistance to disturbance, slake test, soil texture | ecology |
[136] | (Sharma et al., 2012) | soil depth, soil texture, surface texture, erosion, stoniness, slope, drainage, hydraulic conductivity | landslide |
[137] | (Schacht et al., 2011) | buffering capacity for inorganic adsorbable pollutants, slaking of the upper soil layers, salinization, buffering capacity for boron, buffering capacity for non-adsorbable substances, soil surface area | agriculture |
[138] | (Dexter et al., 2011) | clay dispersion from soil | soil structure |
[139] | (Rozsa and Novak, 2011) | constants of climatic condition (Kc) and relief condition (Kr) | geomorphology |
[140] | (Nichols and Toro, 2011) | soil aggregate stability | soil properties |
[141] | (Bhardwaj et al., 2011) | soil aggregate stability | ecology |
[80] | (DeJong et al., 2010) | undrained shear strength (Su), remolded undrained shear strength (Sur) | geotechnics |
[91] | (Carpenter and Chong, 2010) | resistance of soil samples to slaking | soil biology |
[142] | (Washington-Allen et al., 2010) | bands of Landsat MSS data, soil taxonomy | soil erosion |
[143] | (Zink et al., 2010) | precompression stress | agriculture |
[144] | (Du et al., 2010) | rate of dispersion of soil aggregates in water | soil erosion |
[82] | (Chaudhary et al., 2009) | in-field aggregate stability test | soil biology |
[83] | (Derbel et al., 2009) | rainsplash protection, perennial vegetation cover, leaf litter, cryptogram cover, crust brokenness, soil erosion, deposited material, soil surface roughness, resistance to disturbance, slake test, soil texture | ecology |
[145] | (Pohl et al., 2009) | stability of soil aggregate | soil structure |
[146] | (Whicker et al., 2008) | dust flux (HDF) | restoration |
[147] | (Bayramin et al., 2008) | percentage of silt and sand, percentage organic matter, structure and permeability | soil erosion |
[148] | (Czyz and Dexter, 2008) | readily dispersible clay | soil properties |
[149] | (Bowker et al., 2008) | soil aggregate stability | soil erosion |
[150] | (Belnap et al., 2007) | soil aggregate stability | soil biology |
[151] | (Rezaei et al., 2006) | individual soil surface features comprising soil cover, litter cover, cryptogam cover, crust brokenness, erosion features, deposited material, microtopography, slake test, and soil surface texture | soil quality |
[63] | (Kheir et al., 2006) | vegetal cover, drainage density, slopes maps | soil erosion |
[90] | (Marquez et al., 2004) | mean weight diameter (MWD), water stable aggregates (WSA), stable aggregates (SAI), stable macroaggregates index | soil structure |
[34] | (Orwin and Wardle, 2004) | resilience and resistance index | soil biology |
[152] | (Bowker et al., 2004) | soil aggregate stability | soil biology |
[153] | (Pernes-Debuyser and Tessier, 2004) | soil surface, aggregate stability, soil water dispersion index (DI) | soil treatment |
[154] | (Koptsik et al., 2003) | soil acidity, cation exchange capacity (CEC), degree of base saturation, base content | soil properties |
[64] | (Tao et al., 2002) | base saturation (BS), cation exchange capacity (CEC), | soil properties |
[155] | (Herrick et al., 2002) | soil aggregate stability | ecology |
[156] | (Barlow and Nash, 2002) | soil water characteristics curves (between 0 and 3 kPa) | soil properties |
[157] | (Gordon et al., 2002) | vegetation type and strength of the root mat, regolith cohesion and soil properties, topographic position, degree of exposure | ecology |
[158] | (Herrick et al., 2001) | soil aggregate stability | soil structure |
[33] | (Six et al., 2000) | aggregate distribution before and after disruption | soil structure |
[159] | (Martínez-Mena et al., 1998) | aggregate stability RSSI | soil structure |
[160] | (Hodson et al., 1998) | short-term acid buffering capacity | soil properties |
[161] | (Dodds and Fey, 1998) | soil score, lithology score, land use score, rainfall score | soil properties |
[162] | (Curtin et al., 1996) | pH | soil properties |
[163] | (Hodgkinson and Thorburn, 1996) | total suspended clay and silt as a result of aggregate disruption by mechanical factors | agriculture |
[164] | (Watts et al., 1996) | turbidity index, tensile strength index | soil structure |
[165] | (Hornung et al., 1995) | base saturation and pH | soil properties |
[37] | (Lal, 1993) | rates of new soil formation or soil restoration (Sst), which include organic matter, texture properties, soil biodiversity, and climate, vegetation; susceptibility of soil to degradation (Ssu) based of its parent material, climate, pedogenetic processes | soil properties |
[84] | (Friedman and Zube, 1992) | land use | landscape dynamics |
[166] | (Wace and Hignett, 1991) | dispersible clay content at 10Kpa | soil properties |
[167] | (Gobran and Bosatta, 1988) | cation depletion | soil properties |
[168] | (Levine and Ciolkosz, 1988) | pH, soil solution Al concentration | soil properties |
[94] | (Lau and Mainwaring, 1985) | buffer capacity | soil properties |
[169] | (Cass and Sumner, 1982) | water composition volume element which lies below the threshold concentration plane, total volume of the water composition element. | soil structure |
[38] | (North, 1976) | energy dispersion | soil properties |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Our analysis of publication trends shows that the number of relevant, peer-reviewed papers is undergoing exponential growth, with some fluctuations due to, for example, the publication of the special issue of Catena in 2001 on ‘landscape sensitivity’.
- Research on landscape stability, sensitivity and resistivity is widespread globally and is particularly prevalent in the USA and the UK. Authors from these countries were among the first to study the aforementioned topics, while China, which was in third place, has started to study them in recent decades, and as such, still has fewer papers and citations.
- The most popular definition of “landscape sensitivity” was established by Brunsden and Thornes (1979). Those authors applied the term to geomorphological environments. It did not undergo substantial evolution over time. In fact, theirs remains the most widely used definition.
- There is not a clear definition of “landscape stability”, and it is often synonymous with “sensitivity”.
- A large number of methods were identified for the assessment of soil and landscape stability and sensitivity; however, it was not possible to identify a universal method due to the specific characteristics of each study area and the individual focus of each paper. Quantification methods variously encompass analyses of individual soil physical and chemical properties (i.e., aggregate stability, cation exchange capacity, etc.), of intangible properties (culture, scenic attractiveness and visibility) and of land use change, susceptibility to erosion, etc.
- Quantifications of stability and sensitivity have been carried out in very different landscapes and contexts, ranging from arid and semi-arid environments to agricultural fields, but also fluvial systems, coastal environments, mountain catchments, forests, highland ecosystems and rangelands. Moreover, different spatial scales are covered from very small areas to entire countries.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OECD. Healthy People, Healthy Planet: The Role of Health Systems in Promoting Healthier Lifestyles and a Greener Future; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2017.
- GEO-6. Global Environment Outlook–GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People; UN Environment, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; ISBN 9781108627146. [Google Scholar]
- United Nation Global Sustainable Development Report; Department of Economic and Social Affair United Nation: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781107415379. [Google Scholar]
- Millenium Ecosystem Assesment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
- May, R.M. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuart Chapin, F.; Matson, P.A.; Vitousek, P.M. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781441995049. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, M.F. Landscape sensitivity to rapid environmental change—A Quaternary perspective with examples from tropical areas. Catena 2004, 55, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGlade, J.; McIntosh, B.S.; Jeffrey, P. Landscape Sensitivity, Resilience and Sustainable Watershed Management. In Coping with Water Deficiency; Koundouri, P., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 113–134. ISBN 978-1-4020-6615-3. [Google Scholar]
- Lamoureux, S.F.; Lafreniere, M.J. Impacts of permafrost change on landscape stability and water quality. In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, San Franciso, CA, USA, 14–18 December 2015; Volume 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, P.; House, J.I.; Bustamante, M.; Sobocká, J.; Harper, R.; Pan, G.; West, P.C.; Clark, J.M.; Adhya, T.; Rumpel, C.; et al. Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1008–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bezak, N.; Mikoš, M.; Borrelli, P.; Alewell, C.; Alvarez, P.; Anache, J.A.A.; Baartman, J.; Ballabio, C.; Biddoccu, M.; Cerdà, A.; et al. Soil erosion modelling: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pritchard, A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J. Doc. 1969, 25, 348–349. [Google Scholar]
- Bu, C.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, C.; Wu, S. Key Factors Influencing Rapid Development of Potentially Dune-Stabilizing Moss-Dominated Crusts. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wagner, C.S.; Park, H.W.; Leydesdorff, L. The Continuing Growth of Global Cooperation Networks in Research: A Conundrum for National Governments. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y.; Ren, Z.; Kong, W.; Jiang, H. Compiler testing: A systematic literature analysis. Front. Comput. Sci. 2020, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadegani, A.A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ebrahim, N.A. A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine-Clark, M.; Gil, E.L. A Comparative Citation Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. J. Bus. Financ. Libr. 2008, 14, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statystical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, S.; Kumar, S. Collaboration in research productivity in oil seed research institutes of India. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics, Berlin, Germany, 29 July–1 August 2008; Volume 28. [Google Scholar]
- Lotka, A. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Washingt. Acad. Sci. 1926, 16, 317–323. [Google Scholar]
- White, H.D.; Griffith, B.C. Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1981, 32, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, H.D.; McCain, K.W. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1998, 49, 327–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayer, A.E.; Smart, J.C.; McLaughlin, G.W. Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1990, 41, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cawkell, A.E.; Newton, I. Understanding science by analysing its literature. Inf. Sci. 1976, 10, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1973, 24, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, H.P.F.; Van Raan, A.F.J. Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis-An expercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics 1991, 20, 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glänzel, W. National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 2001, 51, 69–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.-N.; Lee, P.-C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 2010, 85, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radhakrishnan, S.; Erbis, S.; Isaacs, J.A.; Kamarthi, S. Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster sys-tematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172778. [Google Scholar]
- Brunsden, D.; Thornes, J.B. Landscape Sensitivity and Change. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1979, 4, 403–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil Structure and Soil Organic Matter II. A Normalized Stability Index and the Effect of Mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orwin, K.; Wardle, D. New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 1907–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, A. Coupling between hillslopes and channels in upland fluvial systems: Implications for landscape sensitivity, illustrated from the Howgill Fells, northwest England. CATENA 2001, 42, 225–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunsden, D. A critical assessment of the sensitivity concept in geomorphology. Catena 2001, 42, 99–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lal, R. Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality, and sustainability. Soil Tillage Res. 1993, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, P.F. Towards an absolute measurement of soil structural stability using ultrasound. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1976, 27, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knox, J.C. Agricultural influence on landscape sensitivity in the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Catena 2001, 42, 193–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, M.F. Landscape sensitivity in time and space–an introduction. Catena 2001, 42, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullard, J.E.; McTainsh, G.H. Aeolian-fluvial interactions in dryland environments: Examples, concepts and Australia case study. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2003, 27, 471–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; Zou, Y.; Lv, C.; Chen, F. Evaluating the Impacts of Azotobacter chroococcum Inoculation on Soil Stability and Plant Property of Maize Crop. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manolaki, P.; Zotos, S.; Vogiatzakis, I.N. An integrated ecological and cultural framework for landscape sensitivity assessment in Cyprus. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzaee, S.; Ghorbani-Dashtaki, S.; Kerry, R. Comparison of a spatial, spatial and hybrid methods for predicting inter-rill and rill soil sensitivity to erosion at the field scale. Catena 2020, 188, 104439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.-Y.; Liu, J.-W.; Li, L.-K.; Liu, M.-Q.; Chen, X.-Y.; Chen, F.-J. Evaluating the effects of transgenic Bt rice cultivation on soil stability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 17412–17419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llena, M.; Vericat, D.; Cavalli, M.; Crema, S.; Smith, M. The effects of land use and topographic changes on sediment connectivity in mountain catchments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 899–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brogan, D.J.; MacDonald, L.H.; Nelson, P.A.; Morgan, J.A. Geomorphic complexity and sensitivity in channels to fire and floods in mountain catchments. Geomorphology 2019, 337, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohl, E. Geomorphic context in rivers. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2018, 42, 841–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lizaga, I.; Quijano, L.; Palazón, L.; Gaspar, L.; Navas, A. Enhancing Connectivity Index to Assess the Effects of Land Use Changes in a Mediterranean Catchment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathburn, S.L.; Shahverdian, S.M.; Ryan, S.E. Post-disturbance sediment recovery: Implications for watershed resilience. Geomorphology 2018, 305, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, L.A. Ten conceptual models of large-scale legacy sedimentation—A review. Geomorphology 2018, 317, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthony Stallins, J.A.; Corenblit, D. Interdependence of geomorphic and ecologic resilience properties in a geographic context. Geomorphology 2018, 305, 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haara, A.; Store, R.; Leskinen, P. Analyzing uncertainties and estimating priorities of landscape sensitivity based on expert opinions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 163, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fryirs, A.K. River sensitivity: A lost foundation concept in fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, J.D.; Van Dyke, C. Principles of geomorphic disturbance and recovery in response to storms. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2016, 41, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Store, R.; Karjalainen, E.; Haara, A.; Leskinen, P.; Nivala, V. Producing a sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 144, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, P.-O.; Azevedo, L.B.; Margni, M.; van Zelm, R.; Deschênes, L.; Huijbregts, M.A. Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: A systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 500–501, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Liu, X.; Heathman, G.C.; Yao, X.; Hu, X.; Zhang, G. Assessment of soil erosion sensitivity and analysis of sensitivity factors in the Tongbai–Dabie mountainous area of China. Catena 2013, 101, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falconer, L.; Hunter, D.-C.; Telfer, T.C.; Ross, L.G. Visual, seascape and landscape analysis to support coastal aquaculture site selection. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, V.; Tandon, S.K.; Sinha, R. Application of modern geomorphic concepts for understanding the spatio-temporal complexity of the large Ganga river dispersal system. Curr. Sci. 2012, 103, 1300–1319. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, J.D. Changes, perturbations, and responses in geomorphic systems. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2009, 33, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregory, C.E.; Reid, H.E.; Brierley, G.J. River Recovery in An Urban Catchment: Twin Streams Catchment, Auckland, New Zealand. Phys. Geogr. 2008, 29, 222–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kheir, R.B.; Cerdan, O.; Abdallah, C. Regional soil erosion risk mapping in Lebanon. Geomorphology 2006, 82, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, F.; Hayashi, Y.; Lin, E. Soil Vulnerability and Sensitivity to Acid Deposition in China. Water, Air Soil Pollut. 2002, 140, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usher, M.B. Landscape sensitivity: From theory to practice. Catena 2001, 42, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, J.; Cummins, R.; French, D.; Gardner, S.; Orr, J.; Shewry, M. Landscape sensitivity: An ecological view. Catena 2001, 42, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D.S.G.; Allison, R.J. The Sensitivity of Landscape; Thomas, D.S.G., Allison, R.J., Eds.; Wiley: Chirchester, UK, 1993; ISBN 0471936367. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, R. Sensitivity of the British Landscape to Erosion; Thomas, D.S.G., Allison, R.J., Eds.; Wiley: Chirchester, UK, 1993; ISBN 0471936367. [Google Scholar]
- Downs, P.W.; Gregory, K.J. The Sensitivity of River Channels in the Landscape System; Thomas, D.S.G., Allison, R.J., Eds.; Wiley: Chirchester, UK, 1993; ISBN 0471936367. [Google Scholar]
- Schumm, S.A. To Interpret the Earth. Ten Ways to Be Wrong; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Picariello, E.; Baldantoni, D.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; Concha-Graña, E.; De Nicola, F. A synthetic quality index to evaluate the functional stability of soil microbial communities after perturbations. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 128, 107844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldridge, D.J.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Quero, J.L.; Ochoa, V.; Gozalo, B.; García-Palacios, P.; Escolar, C.; García-Gómez, M.; Prina, A.; Bowker, M.A.; et al. Surface indicators are correlated with soil multifunctionality in global drylands. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vojteková, J.; Vojtek, M. GIS-Based Landscape Stability Analysis: A Comparison of Overlay Method and Fuzzy Model for the Case Study in Slovakia. Prof. Geogr. 2019, 71, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H. Evaluating landscape stability through disturbance regimes in Zhalong Wetland, China. Ekoloji 2019, 28, 2005–2011. [Google Scholar]
- Menezes, M.N.; Araújo-Júnior, H.I.; Bó, P.F.D.; Medeiros, M.A.A. Integrating ichnology and paleopedology in the analysis of Albian alluvial plains of the Parnaíba Basin, Brazil. Cretac. Res. 2019, 96, 210–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, G.; Hou, G.; Jiang, M. Landscape Pattern Changes in the Xingkai Lake Area, Northeast China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prokopová, M.; Salvati, L.; Egidi, G.; Cudlín, O.; Včeláková, R.; Plch, R.; Cudlín, P. Envisioning Present and Future Land-Use Change under Varying Ecological Regimes and Their Influence on Landscape Stability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xuan, L.; Wenkai, L.; Hebing, Z.; Haipeng, N. Comprehensive Landscape Ecology Stability Assessment of a Coal Gangue Backfill Reclamation Area. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 25, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.-L.; Wang, Q.; Yan, W.-P.; Zhou, Q.; Shi, M.-Q. Assessment of habitat suitability in the Upper Reaches of the Min River in China. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeJong, J.T.; Yafrate, N.J.; DeGroot, D.J. Evaluation of Undrained Shear Strength Using Full-Flow Penetrometers. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 137, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikheeva, I.V. Changes in the probability distributions of particle size fractions in chestnut soils of the Kulunda Steppe under the effect of natural and anthropogenic factors. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2010, 43, 1351–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhary, V.B.; Bowker, M.A.; O’Dell, T.E.; Grace, J.B.; Redman, A.E.; Rillig, M.; Johnson, N.C. Untangling the biological contributions to soil stability in semiarid shrublands. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derbel, S.; Cortina, J.; Chaieb, M. Acacia saligna Plantation Impact on Soil Surface Properties and Vascular Plant Species Composition in Central Tunisia. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2009, 23, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, S.K.; Zube, E.H. Assessing landscape dynamics in a protected area. Environ. Manag. 1992, 16, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, F.; Zhu, Z.; An, S. Evaluating aggregate stability of soils under different plant species in Ziwuling Mountain area using three renowned methods. Catena 2021, 207, 105616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, F.; Basch, G.; Alaoui, A.; Lemann, T.; Wesselink, M.; Sukkel, W.; Lemesle, J.; Ferreira, C.; Veiga, A.; Garcia-Orenes, F.; et al. Manuring effects on visual soil quality indicators and soil organic matter content in different pedoclimatic zones in Europe and China. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 212, 105033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, K.E.; Bowker, M.A.; Reed, S.C.; Duniway, M.C.; Belnap, J. Temporal and abiotic fluctuations may be preventing successful rehabilitation of soil-stabilizing biocrust communities. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, D.; Ju, W.; Jin, X.; Li, M.; Shen, G.; Duan, C.; Guo, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Fang, L. Associated soil aggregate nutrients and controlling factors on aggregate stability in semiarid grassland under different grazing prohibition timeframes. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ran, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, S.; Li, W.; Zhu, K.; Ji, Y.; Mir, Y.; Ma, M.; Huang, P. A higher river sinuosity increased riparian soil structural stability on the downstream of a dammed river. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 802, 149886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marquez, C.O.; Garcia, V.J.; Cambardella, C.A.; Schultz, R.C.; Isenhart, T.M. Aggregate-size stability distribution and soil stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, D.R.; Chong, G.W. Patterns in the aggregate stability of Mancos Shale derived soils. Catena 2010, 80, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brogan, D.J.; Nelson, P.A.; MacDonald, L.H. Spatial and temporal patterns of sediment storage and erosion following a wildfire and extreme flood. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2019, 7, 563–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safaei, M.; Bashari, H.; Mosaddeghi, M.R.; Jafari, R. Assessing the impacts of land use and land cover changes on soil functions using landscape function analysis and soil quality indicators in semi-arid natural ecosystems. Catena 2019, 177, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, W.; Mainwaring, S. The determination of soil sensitivity to acid deposition. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1985, 25, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawicka, K.; Clark, J.M.; Vanguelova, E.; Monteith, D.T.; Wade, A.J. Spatial properties affecting the sensitivity of soil water dissolved organic carbon long-term median concentrations and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, A.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Manna, M.C.; Jha, P.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Sannagoudar, M.S.; Singh, R.; Chaudhari, S.K.; Kumar, R. Do moisture conservation practices influence stability of soil organic carbon and structure? Catena 2021, 199, 105127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamedov, A.; Fujimaki, H.; Tsunekawa, A.; Tsubo, M.; Levy, G. Structure stability of acidic Luvisols: Effects of tillage type and exogenous additives. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 206, 104832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, F.; Lin, F.; Zhu, Z.; An, S. A Novel Index (RI) to Evaluate the Relative Stability of Soils Using Ultrasonic Agitation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiaguo, R.; Bin, W.; Qianqian, W.; Huading, S.; Xixi, R. Temporal and spatial variability and stability evaluation of soil arsenic pollution in Juzhang River basin. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molaeinasab, A.; Bashari, H.; Mosaddeghi, M.R.; Esfahani, M.T. Effects of Different Vegetation Patches on Soil Functionality in the Central Iranian Arid Zone. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 1112–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minhas, P.S.; Bali, A.; Bhardwaj, A.K.; Singh, A.; Yadav, R.K. Structural stability and hydraulic characteristics of soils irrigated for two decades with waters having residual alkalinity and its neutralization with gypsum and sulfuric acid. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 244, 106609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, K.M.; Busch, M.H.; Locke, H.; Luecke, N.C. Native soil microbial amendments generate trade-offs in plant productivity, diversity, and soil stability in coastal dune restorations. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okolo, C.C.; Gebresamuel, G.; Zenebe, A.; Haile, M.; Eze, P.N. Accumulation of organic carbon in various soil aggregate sizes under different land use systems in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 297, 106924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brahim, B.; Meshram, S.G.; Abdallah, D.; Larbi, B.; Drisss, S.; Khalid, M.; Khedher, K.M. Mapping of soil sensitivity to water erosion by RUSLE model: Case of the Inaouene watershed (Northeast Morocco). Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, Y.; Ma, M.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, K.; Yi, X.; Wang, X.; Wu, S.; Huang, P. Physicochemical determinants in stabilizing soil aggregates along a hydrological stress gradient on reservoir riparian habitats: Implications to soil restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 143, 105664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliva, G.; Bran, D.; Gaitán, J.; Ferrante, D.; Massara, V.; Martínez, G.G.; Adema, E.; Enrique, M.; Domínguez, E.; Paredes, P. Monitoring drylands: The MARAS system. J. Arid Environ. 2019, 161, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dor, M.; Emmanuel, S.; Brumfeld, V.; Levy, G.J.; Mishael, Y.G. Microstructural changes in soils induced by wetting and drying: Effects on atrazine mobility. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 746–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durante, S.; Augusto, L.; Achat, D.L.; Legout, A.; Brédoire, F.; Ranger, J.; Seynave, I.; Jabiol, B.; Pousse, N. Diagnosis of forest soil sensitivity to harvesting residues removal–A transfer study of soil science knowledge to forestry practitioners. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karadağ, A.A. Landscape sensitivity analysis as an ecological key: The case of Duzce, Turkey. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 14277–14296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farazmand, A.; Arzani, H.; Javadi, A.S.; Sanadgol, A.A. Determining the factors affecting rangeland suitability for livestock and wildlife grazing. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sepehr, A.; Hassanzadeh, M.; Rodriguez-Caballero, E. The protective role of cyanobacteria on soil stability in two Aridisols in northeastern Iran. Geoderma Reg. 2019, 16, e00201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggert, R.; Fleige, H.; Horn, R. An Assessment Scheme for Soil Degradation Caused by Forestry Machinery on Skid Trails in Germany. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2019, 83, S1–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, Y.A.; Thornton, B.; Dettweiler-Robinson, E.; Rudgers, J.A. Soil surface disturbance alters cyanobacterial biocrusts and soil properties in dry grassland and shrubland ecosystems. Plant Soil 2019, 441, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniell, A.; Malo, D.S.; van Deventer, P.W. Monitoring the pollution effects from a gold tailing storage facility on adjacent land through Landscape Function Analysis. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klopp, H.; Arriaga, F.J.; Likos, W.J.; Bleam, W.F. Atterberg limits and shrink/swell capacity of soil as indicators for sodium sensitivity within a gradient of soil exchangeable sodium percentage and salinity. Geoderma 2019, 353, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niewiadomska, A.; Sulewska, H.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Waraczewska, Z.; Budka, A.; Ratajczak, K. An assessment of the influence of selected herbicides on the microbial parameters of soil in Maize (Zea Mays) cultivation. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 4735–4752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molaeinasab, A.; Bashari, H.; Esfahani, M.T.; Mosaddeghi, M.R. Soil surface quality assessment in rangeland ecosystems with different protection levels, central Iran. Catena 2018, 171, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merante, P.; Dibari, C.; Ferrise, R.; Sánchez, B.; Iglesias, A.; Lesschen, J.P.; Kuikman, P.; Yeluripati, J.; Smith, P.; Bindi, M. Adopting soil organic carbon management practices in soils of varying quality: Implications and perspectives in Europe. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, K. Valuating landscape stability through disturbance regimes in Zhalong Wetland, China: A case study in south Yingkou, China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 15, 923–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamene, L.; Adimassu, Z.; Aynekulu, E.; Yaekob, T. Estimating landscape susceptibility to soil erosion using a GIS-based approach in Northern Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017, 5, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, H.E.; Reineking, B.; Münkemüller, T. Effects of plant functional traits on soil stability: Intraspecific variability matters. Plant Soil 2017, 411, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berendt, F.; Fortin, M.; Jaeger, D.; Schweier, J. How Climate Change Will Affect Forest Composition and Forest Operations in Baden-Württemberg—A GIS-Based Case Study Approach. Forests 2017, 8, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz, K.; Buchmann, C.; Meyer, M.; Schmidt-Heydt, M.; Steinmetz, Z.; Diehl, D.; Thiele-Bruhn, S.; Schaumann, G. Physicochemical and microbial soil quality indicators as affected by the agricultural management system in strawberry cultivation using straw or black polyethylene mulching. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 113, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Read, Z.J.; King, H.P.; Tongway, D.J.; Ogilvy, S.; Greene, R.S.B.; Hand, G. Landscape function analysis to assess soil processes on farms following ecological restoration and changes in grazing management. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2016, 67, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geraei, D.S.; Hojati, S.; Landi, A.; Cano, A.F. Total and labile forms of soil organic carbon as affected by land use change in southwestern Iran. Geoderma Reg. 2016, 7, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirmousavi, S.H. Regional modeling of wind erosion in the North West and South West of Iran. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2016, 49, 942–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bast, A.; Wilcke, W.; Graf, F.; Lüscher, P.; Gärtner, H. A simplified and rapid technique to determine an aggregate stability coefficient in coarse grained soils. Catena 2015, 127, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, H.; Brierley, G. Assessing geomorphic sensitivity in relation to river capacity for adjustment. Geomorphology 2015, 251, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhart, K.O.; Nichols, K.A.; Petersen, M.; Vermeire, L.T. Soil aggregate stability was an uncertain predictor of ecosystem functioning in a temperate and semiarid grassland. Ecosphere 2015, 6, art238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladányi, Z.; Blanka, V.; Meyer, B.; Mezősi, G.; Rakonczai, J. Multi-indicator sensitivity analysis of climate change effects on landscapes in the Kiskunság National Park, Hungary. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 58, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safeeq, M.; Grant, G.E.; Lewis, S.L.; Staab, B. Predicting landscape sensitivity to present and future floods in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 5337–5353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulido Moncada, M.P.; Gabriels, D.; Lobo, D.; De Beuf, K.; Figueroa, R.; Cornelis, W.M. A comparison of methods to assess susceptibility to soil sealing. Geoderma 2014, 226–227, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fultz, L.M.; Moore-Kucera, J.; Zobeck, T.M.; Acosta-Martínez, V.; Wester, D.B.; Allen, V.G. Organic carbon dynamics and soil stability in five semiarid agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 181, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, P.-O.; Deschênes, L.; Margni, M. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Terrestrial Acidification: Modeling Spatially Explicit Soil Sensitivity at the Global Scale. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 8270–8278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munro, N.T.; Fischer, J.; Wood, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Assessing ecosystem function of restoration plantings in south-eastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 282, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, L.P.; Patel, N.; Debnath, P.; Ghose, M.K. Assessing landslide vulnerability from soil characteristics—A GIS-based analysis. Arab. J. Geosci. 2012, 5, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schacht, K.; Gönster, S.; Jüschke, E.; Chen, Y.; Tarchitzky, J.; Al-Bakri, J.; Al-Karablieh, E.; Marschner, B. Evaluation of Soil Sensitivity towards the Irrigation with Treated Wastewater in the Jordan River Region. Water 2011, 3, 1092–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dexter, A.R.; Richard, G.; Czyz, E.A.; Davy, J.; Hardy, M.; Duval, O. Clay Dispersion from Soil as a Function of Antecedent Water Potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 444–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rózsa, P.; Novák, T. Mapping anthropic geomorphological sensitivity on a global scale. Zeitschrift Geomorphol. 2011, 55, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nichols, K.; Toro, M. A whole soil stability index (WSSI) for evaluating soil aggregation. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 111, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhardwaj, A.K.; Jasrotia, P.; Hamilton, S.K.; Robertson, G.P. Ecological management of intensively cropped agro-ecosystems improves soil quality with sustained productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washington-Allen, R.A.; West, N.E.; Ramsey, R.D.; Phillips, D.; Shugart, H. Retrospective assessment of dryland soil stability in relation to grazing and climate change. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zink, A.; Fleige, H.; Horn, R. Load Risks of Subsoil Compaction and Depths of Stress Propagation in Arable Luvisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1733–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Q.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, K.-Y. Root Effect of Three Vegetation Types on Shoreline Stabilization of Chongming Island, Shanghai. Pedosphere 2010, 20, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohl, M.; Alig, D.; Körner, C.; Rixen, C. Higher plant diversity enhances soil stability in disturbed alpine ecosystems. Plant Soil 2009, 324, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whicker, J.; Iii, J.P.; Breshears, D. Thinning semiarid forests amplifies wind erosion comparably to wildfire: Implications for restoration and soil stability. J. Arid Environ. 2008, 72, 494–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayramin, I.; Basaran, M.; Erpul, G.; Canga, M.R. Assessing the effects of land use changes on soil sensitivity to erosion in a highland ecosystem of semi-arid Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 140, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Czyz, E.A.; Dexter, A.R. Soil physical properties under winter wheat grown with different tillage systems at selected locations. Int. Agrophys. 2008, 22, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
- Bowker, M.A.; Belnap, J.; Chaudhary, V.B.; Johnson, N.C. Revisiting classic water erosion models in drylands: The strong impact of biological soil crusts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2309–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belnap, J.; Phillips, S.L.; Herrick, J.E.; Johansen, J.R. Wind erodibility of soils at Fort Irwin, California (Mojave Desert), USA, before and after trampling disturbance: Implications for land management. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2007, 32, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, S.A.; Gilkes, R.; Andrews, S.S. A minimum data set for assessing soil quality in rangelands. Geoderma 2006, 136, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowker, A.M.; Belnap, J.; Rosentreter, R.; Graham, B. Wildfire-resistant biological soil crusts and fire-induced loss of soil stability in Palouse prairies, USA. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2004, 26, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pernes-Debuyser, A.; Tessier, D. Soil physical properties affected by long-term fertilization. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2004, 55, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koptsik, G.N.; Sokolova, T.A.; Makarov, M.I.; Dronova, T.Y.; Tolpeshta, I.I. Degradation of soils caused by acid rain. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2003, 36, S43–S58. [Google Scholar]
- Herrick, J.E.; Brown, J.R.; Tugel, A.J.; Shaver, P.L.; Havstad, K.M. Application of soil quality to monitoring and management: Paradigms from rangeland ecology. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlow, K.; Nash, D. Investigating structural stability using the soil water characteristic curve. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2002, 42, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.E.; Dvorák, I.J.; Jonasson, C.; Josefsson, M.; Kociánová, M.; Thompson, D.B. Geo–ecology and management of sensitive montane landscapes. Geogr. Ann. Ser. A Phys. Geogr. 2002, 84, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrick, J.; Whitford, W.; de Soyza, A.; Van Zee, J.; Havstad, K.; Seybold, C.; Walton, M. Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. Catena 2001, 44, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Mena, M.; Williams, A.; Ternan, J.; Fitzjohn, C. Role of antecedent soil water content on aggregates stability in a semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res. 1998, 48, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, M.E.; Langan, S.J.; Lumsdon, D.G. A Comparison of Soil Sensitivity to Acidification Based on Laboratory-Determined Short-Term Acid Buffering Capacity and the Skokloster Classification. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1998, 105, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, H.; Fey, M. Evaluation of some systems for classifying soil sensitivity to acid deposition in the South African highveld. Soil Use Manag. 1998, 14, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtin, D.; Campbell, C.A.; Messer, D. Prediction of Titratable Acidity and Soil Sensitivity to pH Change. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25, 1280–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgkinson, R.; Thorburn, A. Factors influencing the stability of salt affected soils in the UK—Criteria for identifying appropriate management options. Agric. Water Manag. 1996, 29, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watts, C.; Dexter, A.R.; Dumitru, E.; Canarache, A. Structural stability of two Romanian soils as influenced by management practices. Land Degrad. Dev. 1996, 7, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornung, M.; Bull, K.; Cresser, M.; Ullyett, J.; Hall, J.; Langan, S.; Loveland, P.; Wilson, M. The sensitivity of surface waters of Great Britain to acidification predicted from catchment characteristics. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 87, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wace, S.; Hignett, C. The effect of rainfall energy on tilled soils of different dispersion characteristics. Soil Tillage Res. 1991, 20, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobran, G.R.; Bosatta, E. Cation depletion rate as a measure of soil sensitivity to acidic decomposition: Theory. Ecol. Model. 1988, 40, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, E.R.; Ciolkosz, E.J. Computer Simulation of Soil Sensitivity to Acid Rain. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cass, A.; Sumner, M.E. Soil Pore Structural Stability and Irrigation Water Quality: III. Evaluation of Soil Stability and Crop Yield in Relation to Salinity and Sodicity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1982, 46, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Main Information about Data | Results |
---|---|
Timespan | 1976–2022 |
Sources (Journals) | 64 |
Documents | 147 |
Average years from publication | 10.7 |
Average citations per documents | 36.15 |
Average citations per year per doc | 2.65 |
References | 8169 |
Overlap | 20.47 |
Article | 143 |
Review | 4 |
Country | Time Interval | Articles | SCP | MCP | TC | TC/Articles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 2022–1988 | 27 | 23 | 4 | 1661 | 61.52 |
United Kingdom | 2022–1976 | 16 | 11 | 5 | 1132 | 70.75 |
China | 2022–2002 | 14 | 11 | 3 | 75 | 5.36 |
Australia | 2020–2985 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 162 | 16.20 |
Germany | 2021–2010 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 138 | 17.25 |
Iran | 2022–2006 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 179 | 22.38 |
France | 2019–2004 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 108 | 27.00 |
Canada | 2014–1996 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 102 | 34.00 |
India | 2021–2012 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 25 | 8.33 |
Italy | 2021–2016 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 57 | 19.00 |
Journal | Articles | TC | PY Start |
---|---|---|---|
Catena | 16 | 1079 | 2001 |
Science of the Total Environment | 8 | 109 | 2014 |
Geomorphology | 7 | 167 | 2006 |
Soil and Tillage Research | 7 | 320 | 1991 |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | 6 | 420 | 1982 |
Article | Connotations of Soil and Landscape Sensitivity | |
---|---|---|
[42] | (Song et al., 2021) | Soil resistance refers to the capacity of soil to retain stability upon exposure to stress. Soil resilience means the ability of soil to resist degradation and recover to its pre-perturbation status within an appropriate time scale. |
[43] | (Manolaki et al., 2020) | The term landscape sensitivity can imply both resistance to change and resilience, i.e., the ability to recover from a change. Landscape sensitivity was defined as the ratio of the change in a system to the change in a landscape component; the larger the ratio, the greater the sensitivity. |
[44] | (Mirzaee et al., 2020) | Resistance of soil particles to erosive forces such as rainfall and runoff is defined as soil sensitivity to erosion. |
[45] | (Song et al., 2020) | Soil resistance (the capacity of soil to maintain its stability upon exposure to of stress) and soil resilience (the ability of soil to resist degradation and return to its pre-perturbation status). |
[46] | (Llena et al., 2019) | The geomorphic sensitivity of the landscape: the response of the system to environmental change or disturbance and its recovery. |
[47] | (Brogan et al., 2019) | Sensitivity is defined as “the propensity of a system to respond to a minor external change”. Sensitivity also can vary across landscapes and over time, depending on other, previous perturbations. |
[48] | (Wohl, 2018) | Earlier descriptions of resilience include landscape sensitivity and transient and persistent landforms. Transience and persistence, which are commonly defined in terms of the duration of a specific landform relative to the frequency of the process creating that landform, also take into account the temporal dimensions of the associated context (i.e., the recurrence interval of disturbances). |
[49] | (Lizaga et al., 2018) | Geomorphic or landscape sensitivity refers to how geomorphic systems respond to environmental change, that is, the ability of a system faced with external interference to withstand the change. |
[50] | (Rathburn et al., 2018) | Landscape sensitivity is another way to assess landscape resilience and resistance (i.e., the ability to resist changes in form and process caused by external factors). Sensitivity can thus be considered a function of the spatial and temporal distributions of the resisting properties (e.g., rock strength, resistance to weathering and erosion) and the disturbance forces (e.g., sediment load, high shear stress). |
[51] | (James, 2018) | Landscape sensitivity, in turn, reflects a large variety of factors such as geology, soil, vegetation cover, antecedent conditions and topography. Legacy sediment is both a response to and a driver of landscape sensitivity and change. |
[52] | (Anthony Stallins and Corenblit, 2018) | Like resilience theory, landscape sensitivity encompasses the propensities of a geomorphic system to recover from disturbance, as well as the tendency to change in state. |
[53] | (Haara et al., 2017) | Landscape sensitivity describes the tolerance of landscape to change, which affects visibility, recreation and ecological sustainability. Landscape sensitivity varies both spatially and temporally. |
[54] | (Fryirs, 2017) | Sensitivity is a system response characteristic that describes the severity of a response to a disturbance relative to the magnitude of the disturbance force. |
[55] | (Phillips and Van Dyke, 2016) | Resilience is the ability of a system to return to its previous state after a perturbation. The landscape sensitivity concept in geomorphology incorporates resilience as well as resistance. |
[56] | (Store et al., 2015) | The term “landscape sensitivity” has been used to indicate geomorphic sensitivity, which means how geomorphic systems respond to environmental changes such as erosion, increasing temperature, winds and storms and human activity. It can imply both resilience to change and the ability to recover from change. It can be defined as the likelihood that implementing certain forestry practices or other activities will evoke criticism and concern from the public. |
[57] | (Roy et al., 2014) | Soil sensitivity represents receptor changes (if any) in soil properties over a certain area due to deposition in a single fraction. |
[58] | (Zhang et al., 2013) | Soil erosion sensitivity is defined as the possibility of soil erosion occurrence and the identification of areas which are susceptible to erosion due to natural factors. |
[59] | (Falconer et al., 2013) | Landscape sensitivity is measured to assess the degree to which a landscape can accommodate the type of change being predicted. |
[60] | (Jain et al., 2012) | The sensitivity of a system is defined by the system specifications that describe its propensity for change and its ability to absorb any disturbing forces. The sensitivity dictates the landform response to external change. |
[61] | (Phillips, 2009) | The landscape sensitivity concept encompasses the probability that a given change in the boundary conditions or forcings of a geomorphic system will ‘produce a recognizable and persistent response’. |
[62] | (Gregory et al., 2008) | Regarding rivers, disturbance responses reflect the sensitivity to change or capacity for adjustment of any given reach. |
[63] | (Kheir et al., 2006) | Landscape sensitivity is assumed to be inversely proportional to vegetal cover but directly proportional to slope and drainage density. |
[41] | (Bullard and McTainsh, 2003) | Landscape sensitivity is the capacity of systems to absorb, resist or respond to changes in controlling factors such as moisture availability, sediment availability or transport capacity. The sensitivity of a given landscape is largely determined by its internal connectivity, i.e., the density and strength of the links between different parts of a geomorphic system. |
[64] | (Tao et al., 2002) | Sensitivity, in this context, refers to the degree to which a system will respond to acid deposition. Thus, the term emphasizes the risk of an increase in the rate of change of the soil chemistry (the acidification rate). |
[65] | (Usher, 2001) | Landscape sensitivity is expressed as the ratio of the change in a system to the change in a landscape component; the larger the ratio, the greater the sensitivity. |
[66] | (Miles et al., 2001) | Landscape sensitivity indicates the likelihood of change, i.e., of instability versus stability. |
[35] | (Harvey, 2001) | Sensitivity can be expressed by the ratio between the mean relaxation time of the system and the mean recurrence time between effective events. It distinguishes between robust landscapes, where the effects of disturbances are minimized, and sensitive landscapes, where the effects of disturbances may persist, i.e., landscapes which are transient in nature. |
[40] | (Thomas, 2001) | The concept of landscape sensitivity, therefore, implies conditional instability within a system, with the possibility of the occurrence of rapid and irreversible change due to perturbations in the controlling environmental processes. |
[36] | (Brunsden, 2001) | The landscape sensitivity concept describes the likelihood that a given change in a system or in the forces applied to that system will produce a recognizable and persistent response. Sensitivity refers to the propensity of a system to respond to minor external changes. Beyond a certain threshold, a significant adjustment occurs in the system. The system is considered to be sensitive if it is near such a threshold and will respond to an external influence. |
[67] | (Thomas and Allison, 1993) | The question of sensitivity thus focuses on the potential and likely magnitude of change within a physical system and the ability of that system to resist change A cause/effect relationship can be identified where external processes control, influence and dictate change. |
[68] | (Evans, 1993) | The sensitivity of a given landscape to erosion depends upon the threshold at which erosional forces are triggered by weather or earthquake shocks, in association with gravity, overcoming the resistance of rock, soil and vegetation. |
[69] | (Downs and Gregory, 1993) | Sensitivity can be mathematically described as the ratio of two differentials that express the response or induced output change resulting from stimulus or applied input change. |
[70] | (Schumm, 1991) | Sensitivity refers to the propensity of a system to respond to a minor external change. Changes occur at a threshold, which, when exceeded, results in a significant adjustment. If the system is sensitive, i.e., near the threshold, it will respond to the external influence. |
[32] | (Brunsden and Thornes, 1979) | The sensitivity of a given landscape is expressed as the likelihood that a change in the controls of the system will produce a recognizable and persistent response. The concept involves two aspects: the propensity for change and the capacity of the system to absorb such a change. |
Article | Connotations of Soil and Landscape Stability | |
---|---|---|
[71] | (Picariello et al., 2021) | Soil stability encompasses both resistance, i.e., the ability to withstand a perturbation or stress, and resilience, i.e., the ability to recover to pre-perturbation levels. |
[72] | (Eldridge et al., 2020) | The ability of surface soil aggregates to break down in water; stable soil fragments will stay intact upon wetting. |
[73] | (Vojtekova and Vojtek, 2019) | The term landscape stability refers to the spatial and functional stability in various land-use categories over time. Basically, landscape stability represents the share of stable areas between the first and last years of study. In contrast, landscape structure instability refers to situations when a small change in the environment is enough to divert the system from its oscillating mode around a central state. |
[74] | (Zhang and Zhang, 2019) | Landscape stability describes a balanced state in the landscape structure and pattern of a fixed size. A landscape pattern describes the response when that landscape is controlled and shaped by climate or human disturbances. |
[75] | (Menezes et al., 2019) | Periods of landscape stability in which the pedogenesis exceeded the sedimentation rates, resulting in the formation of soil profiles |
[76] | (Liu et al., 2019) | Landscape stability describes a landscape that has been stable (i.e., when perturbed, it tends to return to an undisturbed state) and which will not undergo significant structural changes in the short term. The term also implies that the natural processes that contribute to the functions and sustainability of that landscape will not be disrupted |
[77] | (Prokopová et al., 2019) | Ecological (landscape) stability is defined as the ability of a given ecosystem to return to its initial equilibrium state after a disturbance. Additionally, this notion describes the intrinsic ability to maintain ecological functions despite disturbance. The notion is based on three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability and transformability. |
[78] | (Xuan et al., 2016) | Landscape stability is an index that is effective at revealing past changes. Landscape stability assessments measure the risk faced by a certain area after a disturbance and analyze the relationship between that disturbance and stability, as well as other relationships between the structure of ecological areas and their stability. |
[79] | (Guo et al., 2015) | Soil stability indicates the extent of the anti-erosion properties of various soil types, |
[80] | (DeJong et al., 2010) | the ratio of initial penetration resistance and the remolded resistance. |
[81] | (Mikheeva, 2010) | Stability describes the ability of soil to retain its properties, regime parameters, phase ratio and structural organization within a set of limits determined by natural variations under different external perturbations (including anthropogenic ones). |
[82] | (Chaudhary et al., 2009) | Soil stability is the ability of soils to resist erosive forces. |
[83] | (Derbel et al., 2009) | The stability index provides information about the ability of soil to withstand erosion and to recover after disturbance. |
[34] | (Orwin and Wardle, 2004) | Stability (resistance and resilience to disturbance) is a key factor influencing the properties and processes of a soil system. |
[36] | (Brunsden, 2001) | Landscape stability is assessed according to the temporal and spatial distributions of resisting and disturbing forces and is therefore diverse and complex. |
[37] | (Lal, 1993) | Soil stability refers to the susceptibility of soil to change under natural or anthropogenic perturbations. |
[84] | (Friedman and Zube, 1992) | The purposes of this article is to present means by which to assess (i) the spatial and temporal changes in land use and land cover at the landscape and vegetation community scales, and (ii) landscape stability. Landscape stability is defined as no change in the extent of each of the relevant components. |
[32] | (Brunsden and Thornes, 1979) | Landscape stability is a function of the temporal and spatial distributions of resisting and disturbing forces and may be described by the landscape change safety factor, here considered to be the ratio of the magnitude of barriers to change to the magnitude of the disturbing forces. |
[38] | (North, 1976) | The stability of a soil is indicated by its ability to resist potentially disruptive forces. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bettoni, M.; Maerker, M.; Bosino, A.; Schillaci, C.; Vogel, S. Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity. Land 2022, 11, 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081328
Bettoni M, Maerker M, Bosino A, Schillaci C, Vogel S. Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity. Land. 2022; 11(8):1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081328
Chicago/Turabian StyleBettoni, Manuele, Michael Maerker, Alberto Bosino, Calogero Schillaci, and Sebastian Vogel. 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity" Land 11, no. 8: 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081328
APA StyleBettoni, M., Maerker, M., Bosino, A., Schillaci, C., & Vogel, S. (2022). Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity. Land, 11(8), 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081328