Application of WOA and AHP for identification of soil and land potential zones towards sustainable watershed management

Background

The soil, where food begins, as part of the ecosystem, the services rendered in the life cycle of many creatures and hosting several natural phenomena are very critical in making life possible on planet Earth. Soil has multifaceted role in supporting plant growth, regulating water flow, cycling nutrients, and hosting a vast array of biodiversity which confirms soil as one of the bases of our terrestrial ecosystems. Perspective on soil services as critical role in functioning of biogeochemical in many different direct and indirect ways including climate control, water quantity and quality, nutrient cycling and being the habitat of an overwhelming biodiversity has increasingly moved beyond its permissive range when man is intervening to explore for his own needs. The global demand for agricultural products is expected to grow at 1.1 per cent per year from 2005/2007-2050 (Lichtfouseetal.,2009) from projected a population of 9.15 billion in 2050 as per United Nations. Rapidly eroding resources are making the task of food production more daunting. At the same time due to natural and manmade activities the potential of land and its use is changing at an alarmingly pace. Across the world, in different geographies availability of productive soil and land for cultivation of most essential food crop cultivation itself is becoming scarce. Challenges like climate change, land use change and mammoth demand from evergrowing world population making scenario from hard to harsh. Mounting pressure to produce more food and shelter on shrinking soil and land resources, accelerating the rate of depletion in productive capability of soil, as most of the time lands are put under different use without giving due importance to their potential and limitations.The simultaneous increase in population and irregular urban spread has increased the pressure on the utilization of agricultural resources and that may leave the land in lack of nutrition (Elaalem et al., 2011; Hovhannisyan and Devadoss, 2020; Jonah and May, 2020). Under such circumstances, need of the hour is to assess present status of soil and land with respect to their qualitative and quantitative parameters so that demand for soil services can be strengthened to make it balanced and sustainable, in long and preserve it for coming generations. In this endeavour, strategies should be devised for increasing productivity based on suitable interventions as per specific potentials and limitations of land parcels. The land potentials and issues of its limitations are directly related to status of soil availability with a given set of physical, chemical and biological properties to support crop growth. An intervening approach with appropriate measures like suitable soil and water conservation methods, adoption of crops based on soil and land properties and nutrient management practices can bring major positive change in productive potential of land. As performance of any given crop will be at its optimum only when they are under suitable weather, soil and land conditions. Capability of soil and land resources to support or hinder the growth and development of a crop under congenial weather conditions will be decided by their individual and collective influence of physical, chemical and biological properties of soil (Parikh et al., 2012). Research findings indicate that any land cannot be considered as suitable for any crop, as requirement and preference of a crop for different soil and land features differs from one another. Land suitability is the fitness of a given type of land for a defined use (FAO, 1976) [1] . Each character of the soil and land will be having both favourable and unfavourable influence on growth and development of a crop. The critical soil functions influencing productivity within any soil are those that provide physical support, a rooting medium, available water, aeration, and essential nutrients (Karlen, 2011). Indicators like soil depth (effective rooting depth), texture, water holding capacity, bulk density, soil organic carbon, CEC and status of erosion are vital information in evaluation of soil and land for their productive and sustainable management. Limitations and potentials of the land, sets the base line for land use planning (Bandyopadhyayet al., 2009). Land Resources Inventory (LRI) which includes detailed soil & land survey and their characterization for assessment of limiting and potential factors is decisive in planning to ensure suitable land use and sustainable management for growth and development of crop plants. Land utility for crop production based on site specific data on soil fertility, land character, water availability and crop management at mapping unit level will be the key factor in enhancing crop productivity (AbdelRahmanet al., 2016) [2] . Integration of sitespecific information on the status of each factor of soil and land generated through LRI on micro watershed (MWS) or sub watershed (SWS) basis on large scale base map guides different stake holders including farmer in understanding the abilities and potentials of his land. Apart from that a robust scientific and sustainable decision support system generated at a micro and sub watershed level on the basis of LRI data sets will assist in detailed project planning in micro watershed or sub watershed. Strategies, approaches and practices applied for implementing the sustainable land management programs have to be problem and area specific. The mechanism to assess the effectiveness of practices, policies and strategies followed in the implementation should be included in the follow up actions (Ghoshet al., 2018). A system of land use and its management plan as per potential of soil and land with high accuracy with suitable crop plan becomes very essential in deciding site specific interventions to ensure most sustainable and economic results. Crops will be forced to restrict their abilities to utilize available and favourable factors of production if soil and land are not suitable. Therefore, to strengthen the decision support system of sustainable enhancement of productivity, site specific crop suitability can be made as an important and integral part it. Intensive data on inherent properties of site-specific nature, influence on each other's potential and capabilities plays vital role in evaluating land suitability for different crops there by becomes critical inputs in making strategies of increasing productivity and making agriculture suitable for sustainable development of (ElBaroudy2016; Falascaetal.,2012 and Pramanik,2016). Efforts have been made by various researchers around the world, in identifying potential zones with due importance to the characters of soil and land through multicriteria analysis at different scales. In particular, relative importance of individual properties of soil and land with their most limiting and favourable influence in terms of ratings over crop growth and development have been established by several scientific studies (O`geen, 2008) [3] . By exploring basic and applied research findings to find out Soil and Land Potential Index (SLPI), present investigation was carried out in Raipalli SWS which comprise of ten micro watersheds covering an area of 6622 ha, situated in between 17 o 36° 00° to 17 o 40 • 0 • N latitude to 77 ^ o22 • 0 • to 77 ^ o28 ^, 00 ^, E longitude of Humanabadtaluk, Bidar district, Karnataka state. Outcomes of LRI datasets were processed through Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for individual and set of characters of soil and land (Mapping unit) to identify the weightage (%) for potential rating of the different soil and land properties to assess the influence of these properties in deciding the potential of a given land parcel towards achieving higher accuracy in establishing soil and land potential zones using Weighted overlay analysis (Feizizadeh and Blaschke, 2013). The outcome was compared with the crop suitability categories (S1 to N) generated based on land resource inventory. Further, delineation of soil and land potential zones was done with the help of spatial analyst tool like weighted overlay analysis, integrated with multi-criteria analysis on GIS platform (Ennajiet al., 2018). The study also focused on identifying the most influential property of a land parcel in deciding the crop suitability along with mapping their spatial distribution. Such site specific data base can be a part of decision support system for bringing out the site specific recommendations for each parcel or individual survey number of the farmer at MWS or SWS scale. The analysis not only guides in identifying important limiting factors for cultivation of a crop and enables decision makers to develop a crop management system for increasing the land productivity (Muelleret al., 2010) but the study also focused on identifying the most influential property of a land parcel in deciding the crop suitability along with mapping their spatial distribution. The outcome of such study can be made as an integral part of decision support system (DSS) for prioritization of the area in the MWS for planning and implementation of development activities by institutions at macro level and by individual farmer at farm level.

Material and Methodology 2.1 Study Area

The district of Bidar lies in North Eastern corner of Karnataka, it is grouped under North Eastern transitional zone of Karnataka (Agro climatic zone I). The district covers an expanse of 5448 sq km of land and lies between 17 o 35" and 18 o 25" North latitude and 76° 42° and 77 o 39" East longitude. The study area of Raipalli sub watershed (4E6E2D) having geographical area of 6,621.08 ha and is located in HumnabadTaluk, Bidar District, Karnataka State (Fig. 1). The subwatershed lies between 77° 14° 1 " East latitude and 17° 39′ 37 " North longitude. The sub watershed comprises of ten micro-watersheds viz., Babulgaon-1, Babulgaon-2, Karanji Kurd Raipalli-1, Raipalli-2, Mustariwadi, Musatri south, Mustari, Kodambal, Udbal. The cadastral map depicts the presence of 300 survey numbers falling under the Raipalli sub watershed.

Land Resource Inventory (LRI)

As a per field activity to interpret physiography, landscape, geology, land use, land cover, drainage pattern,slope, and its aspect, segregation of slope into different slope classes done on a contour map of 2.0 meters with the support of visual interpretation of satellite image was done considering distinguishable variations in spectral signature, shape, size, pattern and texture in reconnaissance mode. Surface land features like soil texture, extent of erosion, slope, aspect and amount of gravel/rock fragments cover on the surface were studied at a grid interval of 320 m.

Surface soil samples (650) were collected from different grid locations for further lab analysis. Soil profiles were opened at 78 representative locations in different transects spread across the Raipally sub watershed (SWS) and horizon wise soil properties in the profile were recorded. (Soil Survey Staff, 1993) [4] .

Data

Establishment of Soil Series and Mapping Units

In the selected transect, profile sites were located by considering the land scape, physiography, slope, soil color and other surface features which indicates the change in the soil and land characters. In the selected sites, profile (vertical cut showing the soil layers from the surface to bed rock or till weathered parent material) were opened up to 200 cm or to the depth limited by rock or hard substratum and studied in detail for all their morphological and physical characteristics which distinguish different horizons. Horizon wise soil samples were collected and analyzed for various chemical and physical properties by following standard procedures. The soil and site characteristics were recorded for all profile sites on a standard Proforma as per the guidelines given in USDA Soil Survey Manual. Apart from the transect study, profiles were studied at randomly selected spots in the transect of similar soil and land characters in the SWS. Based on the soil-site characteristics, the soils were grouped into different soil series. Soil depth, texture, color, amount and nature of gravel cover, nature of substratum and horizon sequence were the major identifying characteristics of soil series occurring in the area. Characterization of soils of the study area was done with the help of data obtained from lab analysis of sur samples with respect to their chemical and physical properties apart from surface features. Brief description of soil series identified in the study area is furnished in

Finalization of soil maps

The area under each series was further divided into phases and their boundaries delineated on the cadastral map based on the variations observed in the texture of the surface soil, slope, erosion, presence of gravels, stoniness, etc. A phase is a sub division of a soil series based mostly on surface features that affect its use and management. The delineated mapping units are shown on the map in the form of symbols. During the survey about 19 transects representing different landforms occurring in the watershed were identified and about 71 profiles were opened for detailed soil and site characterization. All the profile locations are indicated on the sub watershed map. The soil map of the sub watershed shows the distribution of 130 mapping units occurring in the sub watershed (Fig. 7). The map unit description is provided in the accompanying Table 2. The series map shows the occurrence of soil series identified and mapped in the watershed. The phase map, which shows the sub division of the series into management units based on surface texture, slope, erosion, gravels, rock out crops etc, shows the distribution of 130 phases mapped in the sub watershed. Each phase or mapping unit delineated on the map has similar soil and site characteristics. In other words, all the farms or survey numbers included in one phase will have similar management needs and they have to be treated accordingly. The detailed description of each phase mapped in the sub watershed and their area of occurrence is provided in maps (Appendix 2 and 3).

Generation of thematic maps

Finalized maps were digitized and processed through ArcGIS 10.7. Further the corresponding conceptual data collected during survey as well the soil analytical data were attached to these polygons using soil phase map unit as unique IDs. Then, the colour coded symbological maps were generated for soil depth, soil phase, land morphological characteristics and suitability maps were generated. Discrete soil physico-chemical properties were interpolated using Kriging with lowest nugget values (exponential model) was generated and these outputs raster data were converted to vector polygons to make soil fertility classifications with legends. The final maps layout was carried out in ArcGIS 10.7.

Deriving the weights using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

The relative importance values were determined following Storie index (Storie, 1978 and O'geen, 2008) [3] where a saaty`s scale score of 1 to 9 of the respective importance were obtained. A pair wise comparison matrix is derived using Storie methods 9 point importance scale based on thematic and fertility layers used for soil and land suitability. The AHP captures the idea of uncertainty in judgments through the principal Eigen value and the consistency index (CI) (Saaty's, 2008) [5] .Consistency Index (CI) as deviation or degree of consistency was derived using the following equation:

Where λ ₘₐₓ is the largest Eigen value of the pair-wise comparison matrix and n is the number of classes. Consistency Ratio (CR) is a measure of consistency of pair wise comparison matrix and is given by equation.

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

Where RI is the ratio Index (Saaty, 2008 and Alonso and Lamata, 2006) [5] . The value of RI for different n values is given in Table .3 and 4 When CR value is less than 0.10, the matrix indicates a reasonable consistency. The calculated results of weight would be accepted when the consistency ratio was satisfactory (Saaty`s, 2008 and Imoro et al., 2012) [5]

Weighted overlay analysis

Based on the degree of role played by the different soil and land characters in deciding the productivity, they have been rated from 1 to 9 through storie rating index (O'geen, 2008) [3] . Thematic layers of different surface and sub-surface characters with their respective ratings were analyzed through AHP (Agarwal et al., 2013) [6] method to get their weightages.The analytical hierarchy process is a multi-attribute land evaluation technique which allows to determine the weights of these multiple and heterogeneous criteria indicating relative importance (Zhang et al., 2015) [7] .Different thematic layers identified in the study with their respective weightages were further integrated with each other in ArcGIS 10.6.1 tool as per weighted overlay technique using the spatial analyst tool. Through weighted overlay analysis, potential zones of different mapping units as High, Medium, Low, Very Low were obtained.

Deriving Storie soil and Land Potential Index (SLPI)

The Storie Land Productivity Index (SLPI) was estimated for the different mapping units of the study area using the model produced by Storie (1978) as:

𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶(%) = (𝐹𝐹𝜆𝜆𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝐴𝐴/10) × (𝐹𝐹𝜆𝜆𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵/10) × (𝐹𝐹𝜆𝜆𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶/10) × (𝐹𝐹𝜆𝜆𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑋𝑋/10) × 100

Where, SLPI is the Storie Land Potential Index, A is the soil Depth, B is the surface texture, C is the slope/gradient, and X is the dynamic properties like drainage, soil chemical properties, physical properties, fertility level, erosion etc. Each factor is rated on a scale from 0 to 10, the actual percentages being multiplied by each other. Storie Index ratings were previously a score between the numbers 0 to 100 (Mulengera and Payton, 1999) [8] .

Result and Discussion

Rational utilization of finite natural soil resources needs science based approaches for conservation of precious soil resources for sustainable production of food in long run. To achieve sustainability and ecological harmony, soil resources have to be given top most priority. There is a need to understand nature and properties of soil and land for framing effective management practices for their utilization and conservation. The development of different characters of soil and land is decided by the factors like geology, climate, physiography, land use and management practices of a given location. Influence of these factors creates different potentials and limitations to the soil for its utilization for crop cultivation. To realize the capabilities and lacunae of different soils there is a need to study in depth regarding different physical, chemical, fertility characters of soils for scientific characterization and classification for subsequent evaluation of their potentials. The information on soil and land potential (SLPI) generated can be used for planning for soil and water conservation, crop planning and nutrient management strategies. In this background an investigation was conceived to identify different soil and land potential zones in Raipalli sub-water shed coming under Humnabad Taluk of Bidar District in Karnataka state, India through processing of selected physical, chemical and fertility properties of soil and land AHP and WOA on GIS platform. The results obtained have been presented and discussed under different heads as mentioned below.

• Assessment of Soil chemical and fertility properties of Raipalli sub watershed.

• Potentials weightage values of soil and land characters • Soil and land potential index values for different mapping units in Raipalli sub -watershed.

• Distribution of Soil and land potential zones in Raipalli Subwatershed.

Assessment of surface/subsurface features.

Surface and subsurface features of the study area were assessed by considering four major criteria namely soil texture, lope, status of erosion hazards and most importantly the depth of soil. Among four textural classes belonging to moderately coarse to fine textural groups (Soil Survey staff, 1996) (Natarajan A and Deepak Sarkar, 2009) reference as per Field guide Sujala-II identified, maximum area of 2303 ha ( 34.78 % ) soils were found with clay texture. When we refer three physiographic positions existing in the study area namely upland, mid land and low land, these fine clay soil are typically found in low lands due to the fact that processes of illuviation where rain and runoff water detaches the finer fraction of soil from upland and mid lands and deposits in the low land under the guidance of slope resulting in formation of alluvial soil (Schulp and Verburg, 2009) [9] . Whereas large area of 4058 ha (61.28%) was belonging to sandy clay loam and sandy clay soil texture. This status of soil texture may be mainly due to influence of parent material as soils of the study area are derived from laterite.

Secondly as these soils are found on upland and midland physiographic position where finer particles of soil tends to detached and displaced at the lowlands (Akamigbo and Asadu,1982) [10] , (Areola and Faniran, A. 1978) [11] .

Land parcels of the study area were found distributed on five different slope classes such as Nearly leveled (0 -1%), Very gently sloping (1-3%),Moderately sloping (5-10%), Gently sloping (3-5%) and Moderately sloping (5-10%) (Soil Survey Staff, 1993) [4] . In particular an area of 3289 ha (49.67%) identified with Very gently sloping and 2866 ha (43.29%) with Nearly level were major slope classes among all the classes identified. As these land parcels found located at low land and lower part of midlands, clearly indicating association of Nearly level and Very gently sloping classes with low land physiography. Similarly, existence of Gently sloping covering area of 161ha (2.43%) on Mid land and Moderately sloping class occupying an area of 68ha (1.03%) on uplands confirm the influence of physiographic positions in deciding slope of these land units (Laekemariam et al. 2016) [12] [13] .

There was a general increase in soil depth downslope, indicating potential fluvial transport processes involving erosion and deposition. All the established seven series of Raipalli SWS were categorically divided into three distinct groups of upland, mid-upland and low land Physiography. In upland category Bhadrapur (P1), Kodambal (P2) and Mustari (P3) were grouped, while in the mid upland two prominent series Ainapur (P4) and Mustarwadi (P5) were included, where as in the third category of low land region Mudnal (P6) and Raipalli (P7) series were included. In the upland scenario, the solum depth varied from 13 to 50 cm with very shallow to shallow with a lithic (P1) to paralithic (P2 and P3) contact within 50 cm depth. This feature limited the root penetration especially for deep rooted crops. In mid-upland physiography profile depth varied from 55-183 cm with moderately deep (P4) to very deep (P5) soils. However in low lands the profile depth varied from 150 to 170 cm which were very deep soils (P6 and P7). Taking depth into consideration these mid-upland and low land soils proved to have no limitation for deep rooted crops. The variation in depth over the catenic sequence may be attributed to denudation, transportation, sedimentation and deposition along the slope.

Conclusion:

Fundamentally, coexistence of soil, land, physiography, land scape or geology of the region is an indicator of strong influence on one another with respect to their respective properties and features. Similarly, it was very clear that characters of soils of seven soil series found possessing with morphological, physical and chemical properties were found in accordance with soils series identified at their respective physiography. Very shallow to shallow soils of the study area were found highly influenced with high rainfall erosion hazards. Accordingly, the soils of Bhadrapur, Kodambal and Mustari were found low to moderate in their fertility status. As soil organic carbon was found to be the most influential factor for deciding the potential of land, majority of these soils were found low in SOC. When soils of these series were assessed for their potential, they found falling in low to medium potential zone of the Raipalli SWS.

Limitations like depth of soil, coarse soil texture, low available water capacity made the soils none to marginally suitable for selected agriculture and horticulture crops. Apart from that, such soils are recommended with soil and water conservation measures like contour bunding, trench cum bund and in case of severe erosion gully plugging. Soils of Ainapur, Mudnal, Mustarwadi and Raipalli were found in midland and low land physiographies. As these soils were subjected for illuviation the capabilities of these soils were found with potentials like improved water holding capacity, nutrient retention conditions and favourable depth for all the crops selected for evaluation towards their suitability. Soil and land potential deciding criterias like SOC, depth and slope were found favourable for crop cultivation. Accordingly, soil mapping units belonging to Mustarwadi were rated with high potential weightage values and found falling in high potential zone. Among low land soils, inspite of favourable rooting depth soils of Raipalli series were identified with limitations like unfavourable texture and drainage conditions. Accordingly, such soils suitability was limited to few crops. The overall conclusion from the present study is that potential of soil and land are majorly influenced by physiographic position and pedogenic process. Large area of Raipalli SWS situated in midland and mid upland were judged with falling under medium to high potential zone. Soils of high potential zone can be explored for cultivation of wide range of agriculture and horticulture crops with minimum interventions towards nutrient management and soil and water conservation measures. Low to very low potential zone were found concentrated in the uplands of the study area. Limitations like low soil organic carbon, very shallow to shallow depth, gently to moderately sloping lands coupled with moderate to severe erosion, constituted these zones were in they require interventions of soil and water conservation measures, fertility improvement and hardy crops who can withstand limitations of these lands. The information on potentials of soil and land properties and their zones can be made as important decision support system to improve productivity of land in a most sustainable manner.

References

1. FAo A. A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin. 1976;32.
2. AbdelRahman MA, Natarajan A, Hegde R. Assessment of land suitability and capability by integrating remote sensing and GIS for agriculture in Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka, India. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science. 2016;19(1):125-141.
3. O'geen AT. A revised storie index for use with digital soils information. UCANR Publications. 2008.
4. Soil Survey Staff. Soil survey manual. 1993.
5. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences. 2008;1(1):83-98.
6. Agarwal E, Agarwal R, Garg RD, Garg PK. Delineation of groundwater potential zone: An AHP/ANP approach. Journal of earth system science. 2013;122(3):887-898.
7. Zhang H, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y. Evaluation of the land management harmony degree on the three attributes of land: The case study of Beijing. African Journal of Business Management. 2015;9(10):450456.https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm2014.7673
8. Mulengera MK, Payton RW. Modification of the productivity index model. Soil and Tillage Research. 1999;52(1-2):11-19.https://doi.org/10.1016/s01671987(99)00022-7
9. Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. Effect of land use history and site factors on spatial variation of soil organic carbon across a physiographic region. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2009;133(1-2):86-97.
10. Akamigbo FOR, Asadu CLA. Influence of Parent Materials on the Soils of Southestern Nigeria. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal. 1982;48(1-4):8191.https://doi.org/10.1080/00128325.1982.11663106
11. Areola O, Faniran A. Essentials of Soil Study. London: Heineman; 1978.
12. Laekemariam F, Kibret K, Mamo T, Karltun E, Gebrekidan H. Physiographic characteristics of agricultural lands and farmers' soil fertility management practices in Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research. 2016;5(1):1-15.
13. Tian H, Kong Z. Influence of Rainfall Intensity and Slope on the Slope Erosion of Longling Completely Weathered Granite. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(9):5295.https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095295
14. Abdullahi A. Erosion effect on soil physical properties in selected farmlands in GidanKwano, Niger State. Journal of Horticulture and Plant Research. 2018;2:10-22.
15. Aderonke DO, Gbadegesin GA. Spatial variability in soil properties of a continuously cultivated land. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2013;8(5):475-483.
16. Alonso JA, Lamata MT. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. International journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge-based systems. 2006;14(04):445-459.
17. Bandyopadhyay S, Jaiswal RK, Hegde VS, Jayaraman V. Assessment of land suitability potentials for agriculture using a remote sensing and GIS based approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2009;30(4):879895.
18. Bobade SV, Bhaskar BP, Gaikwad MS, Raja P, Gaikwad SS, Anantwar SG, et al. A GIS-based land use suitability assessment in Seoni district, Madhya Pradesh, India. Tropical ecology. 2010;51(1):41-54.
19. Borchers JG, Perry DA. The influence of soil texture and aggregation on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in southwest Oregon forests and clearcuts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1992;22(3):298-305.
20. Collins MG, Steiner FR, Rushman MJ. Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: historical development and promising technological achievements. Environmental management. 2001;28(5):611-621.
21. Delgado A, Gómez JA. The soil. Physical, chemical and biological properties. In Principles of agronomy for sustainable agriculture. Springer, Cham. 2016:15-26.
22. Ditzler C, Scheffe K, Monger HC. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Handbook, 18. 2017.
23. Ennaji W, Barakat A, El Baghdadi M, Oumenskou H, Aadraoui M, Karroum LA, et al. GIS-based multi-criteria land suitability analysis for sustainable agriculture in the northeast area of Tadla plain (Morocco). Journal of Earth System Science. 2018;127(6):1-14.
24. Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI). User Guide ARC/INFO, The Geographic Information System Software. 1988.
25. Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI). ARC/INFO, Training course class material, vol.1. Redlands, CA, USA: ESRI Inc; 1989.
26. Everest Tİ M U Ç İ N, Sungur A, Özcan H. Determination of agricultural land suitability with a multiple-criteria decision-making method in Northwestern. 2021.
27. Franzen DW, Hopkins DH, Sweeney MD, Ulmer MK, Halvorson AD. Evaluation of soil survey scale for zone development of site specific nitrogen -management. Agronomy Journal. 2002;94(2):381-389.
28. Gami SK, Lauren JG, Duxbury JM. Influence of soil texture and cultivation on carbon and nitrogen levels in soils of the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains. Geoderma. 2009;153(34):304-311.
29. Guzman JG, Al-Kaisi MM. Landscape position effect on selected soil physical properties of reconstructed prairies in southcentral Iowa. Journal of soil and water conservation. 2011;66(3):183-191.
30. Halder JC. Land suitability assessment for crop cultivation by using remote sensing and GIS. Journal of geography and Geology. 2013;5(3):65.
31. Hassan I, Javed MA, Asif M, Luqman M, Ahmad SR, Ahmad A, et al. Weighted overlay based land suitability analysis of agriculture land in Azad Jammu and Kashmir using GIS and AHP. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;57(6).
32. Jenny H. Factors of soil formation: a system of quantitative pedology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1983.
33. Joshua JK, Anyanwu NC, Ahmed AJ. Land suitability analysis for agricultural planning using GIS and multi criteria decision analysis approach in Greater Karu Urban Area, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Afr J AgricSciTechnol. 2013;1(1):14-23.
34. Juhos K, Szabó S, Ladányi M. Influence of soil properties on crop yield: a multivariate statistical approach. International Agrophysics. 2015;29(4).
35. Kadlec V, Holubík O, Prochazkova E, Urbanova J, Tippl M. Soil organic carbon dynamics and its influence on the soil erodibility factor. Soil and Water Research. 2012;7(3):97-108.
36. Kairis O, Aratzioglou C, Filis A, van Mol M, Kosmas C. The Effect of Land Management Practices on Soil Quality Indicators in Crete. Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8619.
37. Karaca S, Gülser F, Selçuk R. Relationships between soil properties, topography and land use in the Van Lake Basin, Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science. 2018;7(2):115120.
38. Lal R. Societal value of soil carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2014;69(6):186A-192A.
39. Laskar A. Integrating GIS and multicriteria decision making techniques for land resource planning. Netherlands: ITC; 2003.
40. Mendoza GA. GIS-based multicriteria approaches to land use suitability assessment and allocation. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NC. 2000:89-94.
41. MÜYÜKYAZICI M, Meral S. The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 2003;32(1):65-73.
42. Nagarajan M, Singh S. Assessment of groundwater potential zones using GIS technique. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 2009;37(1):69-77.
43. Naidu LGK, Ramamurthy V, Challa O, RajendraHegde KP. Manual soil site criteria for major crops NBSS Publication No. 129. NBSS&LUP, Nagpur. 2006:118.
44. Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology. 1977;15(3):234-281.
45. Saaty TL. Fundamentals of the analytic network processmultiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. journal of systems science and systems engineering. 2004;13(3):348-379.
46. Sarkar A. Soil Geomorphology of Garpanchkot Hill Area and Its Influence on Land Use and Land Cover. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection. 2019;7(07):108.
47. Sarkar A, Ghosh A, Banik P. Multi-criteria land evaluation for suitability analysis of wheat: a case study of a watershed in eastern plateau region, India. Geo-Spatial Information Science. 2014;17(2):119-128.
48. Singha C, Swain KC. Land suitability evaluation criteria for agricultural crop selection: A review. Agricultural reviews. 2016;37(2).
49. Taye M, Simane B, Selsssie YG, Zaitchik B, Setegn S. Analysis of the Spatial Variability of Soil Texture in a Tropical Highland: The Case of the Jema Watershed, Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018;15(9):1903.
50. Usda ARS. (Agricultural Research Service): Draft Science Documentation, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2. 2008.
51. USDA S. Procedures for collecting soil samples and methods of analysis for soil survey. Soil Survey Investigations Rep. 1984;(1).
52. Wang DC, Li CJ, Song XY, Wang JH, Yang XD, Huang WJ, et al. Assessment of land suitability potentials for selecting winter wheat cultivation areas in Beijing, China, using RS and GIS. Agricultural Sciences in China. 2011;10(9):1419-1430.
53. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning (No. 537). Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration. 1978.
54. Wu SW, Lin CY, Sun MY, Lu SY. Estimation of soil depth in the Liukuei Experimental Forest by using conceptual model. Catena. 2022;209:105839.
55. Yalew SG, Van Griensven A, Mul ML, van der Zaag P. Land suitability analysis for agriculture in the Abbay basin using remote sensing, GIS and AHP techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2016;2(2):1-14.
56. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Tarabees E. Integrated evaluation of urban development suitability based on remote sensing and GIS techniques: contribution from the analytic hierarchy process. Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2011;4(3-4):463-473.
57. Yüksek T, Göl C, Yüksek F, ErdoğanYüksel E. The effects of land-use changes on soil properties: The conversion of alder coppice to tea plantations in the Humid Northern Blacksea Region. 2009.
58. Zhang P, Shao MA. Spatial variability and stocks of soil organic carbon in the Gobi Desert of Northwestern China. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93584.
59. Zhong Z, Chen Z, Xu Y, Ren C, Yang G, Han X, et al. Relationship between soil organic carbon stocks and clay content under different climatic conditions in Central China. Forests. 2018;9(10):598.
60. Silva R, Silva Y, van Straaten P, Nascimento C, Biondi C, Silva Y, et al. Influence of parent material on soil chemical characteristics in a semi-arid tropical region of Northeast Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2022;194.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09914-9
61. Ai N, Zhu Q, Liu G, et al. Soil Erosion Influencing Factors in the Semiarid Area of Northern Shaanxi Province, China. Soil Moisture Importance. IntechOpen. 2021.http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92979