Transcript Slide 1

VALUASI EKONOMI
SUMBERDAYA
LAHAN:
KESESUAIAN
Diabstraksikan : soemarno, jtnh fpub 2014
TANAH DAN EVALUASI LAHAN
Land evaluation requires a team of multidisciplinary evaluators.
The difficulty of forming these teams makes it common for such studies on
land evaluation to be reduced to the analysis of the physical medium of the
soil, creating a certain confusion.
Therefore, we propose using the term “soil evaluation” for the assessment of
the soil properties as a phase prior to land evaluation, considering soil
properties in their broader sense, both the intrinsic ones (those of the soil
itself: depth, texture, etc.) as well as the extrinsic ones (the soil surface:
topography, climate, hydrology, vegetation, use, etc.).
Soil evaluation would be similar to what today is understood as land
evaluation, but excluding all the social, economic and political characteristics
which would be covered under the concept of “land evaluation.”
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
INDIKATOR KESESUAIAN TANAH UNTUK PERTANIAN…
Very favourable
Favourable
Unfavourable
Very unfavourable
Intrinsic properties
Effective depth, cm
>120
120-70
70-30
<30
balanced
moderate heavy
heavy
light
<10
10-30
30-60
>60
f, md, 3, 2
c, 1
sg, 0
ms, 0
Absent
md, >60
md, >20 or st, >60
st, < 30
>100
100-60
60-20
<20
Without hydro
Hydro > 80 cm
Hydro > 40 cm
Hydro a 0 cm
Permeability, cm/hour
>2
2-0.5
0.5-0.1
<0.1
Organic matter, %
>5
5-2
2-1
<1
>40
40-20
20-10
<10
>75
75-50
50-25
<25
7.3-6.7
6.7-5.5 or 7.3-8.0
5.5-4.5 or 8.0-9.0
<4.5 or >9.0
Carbonates, %
<7
7-15
15-25
>25
dSm-1
<2
2-6
6-12
>12
Texture
Course fragments, %
Structure
Compact, cemen, gr, cm
Available water, mm
Internal drainage
CEC, cmol(+)
kg-1
Saturation degree, %
pH
Salinity,
Extrinsic properties
Slope, %
<4
4-10
10-25
>25
Surface stoniness,%
<2
2-20
2-20
>50
Surface rockiness, %
<2
2-20
2-20
>50
Flooding,
months
Texture:
balanced
<1 clay loam, silty clay 1-3
>3
= loam, silt loam, sandy0clay loam; heavy = sandy clay,
loam, silt; heavy = clay,
Erosion,
Tm/ha/year
<10 f = fine; md = medium; c10-20
20-60 ms = massive;>60
silty clay;
light = sand, loamy sand. Structure.
= coarse; sg = single grain;
3=
strong; 2 = moderate; 1 = weak; 0 = structureless.
Compact = compaction,
cmsevere
=
Ploughing
no problems
limited cemen = cementation,
severe gr = degree, very
depth at which
it appears; md = moderate;
st = strong. Internal drainage:
hydro = hydromorphy.
CEC = cation-exchange
Precipitation,
mm
>1000
1000-600
600-300
<300
capacity.
Ploughing: no problems = ploughing
is possible at any time of1-3
the year; limited = not possible
during wet >6
Frost,
Tª<0º, months
<1
3-6
periods, clayey soils; severe = only in dry periods, soils very clayey. Very severe = not possible due to steep slopes or
high groundwater table; Precipitation = Annual precipitation.
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
Comparisons between the classes defined by the soil-evaluation systems.
LCC, Land Capability Classification; Si, Storie Index; RPI, Riquier Productivity Index; FK, FAO
Framework.
LCC
SI
RPI
FK
Intensive soil cultivation
I
1
P1
S1
Moderate soil cultivation
II
2
P2
S2
Limited soil cultivation
III
3
P3
Occasional soil cultivation
IV
4
Grazing
V, VI
5
P4
Forestry
VII
6
P5
Natural reserves
VIII
S3
N
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
PENDEKATAN PARAMETRIK ..…
Storie Index (1933).
This represents the first parametric approach that was developed. It is an index that uses the multiplicative
scheme. In addition, it uses intrinsic properties of the soils (genetic profile, parent material, profile depth,
texture, drainage, nutrients, acidity an alkalinity), characteristics of the soil surface (slope and microrelief)
and aspects of soil conservation (degree of erosion). The evaluation properties are grouped into four factors
that are quantified in the corresponding tables. The factors are weighed a priori, the more important being
related on a scale from 5 to 100 and the less important factors from 80 to 100.
With this index, general agricultural soil uses can be evaluated (hence it is a soil-capability evaluation
method). To formulate the index, the four factors are multiplied together and the index is expressed as a
percentage. Six classes are defined at the degree level, with decreasing values from 1 to 6. The degrees 1 to
3 are for agricultural use, degree 4 for very limited agricultural use, 5 for pasture and 6 without use.
Subdegrees are established according to limiting factors: “s” for depth, “p” for permeability, “x” for texture,
“t “ slope, “d” for drainage and “a” for salts.
It is important to emphasize that this system does not consider climatic characteristics. Thus the evaluation is
of the soil itself, valid for comparing the soils of a certain region with the same type of climate.
This evaluation index was developed for California, and thus application to other regions of the world has
involved numerous modifications (in Canada by Bowser, 1940; in India by Shome and Raychaudhuri, 1960; in
tropical countries by Sys and Frankart, 1972; in arid regions by Sys and Verheye, 1974).
Diunduh dari Sumber: .................... 31/10/2011 .
..... Klasifikasi Kapabilitas Lahan ..…
This method was established by the Soil Conservation Service de USA according to the
system proposed by Klingebiel and Montgomery (1961) and has been widely used
throughout the world with numerous adaptations. It is a categorical system that uses
qualitative criteria. The inclusion of a soil within a class is made in the inverse manner—that
is, without directly analysing its capacity, but rather its degree of limitation with respect to a
parameter according to a concrete use. Some factors that restrict soil use can be used to
define the productive capacity (intrinsic: soil depth, texture, structure, permeability,
rockiness, salinity, soil management; extrinsic: temperature and rainfall) and yield loss (slope
of the terrain and degree of erosion). Five systems of permanent agricultural exploitation are
considered: permanent soil cultivation, occasional soil cultivation, pasture, woods and
natural reserves. This system seeks maximum production with minimum losses in potential.
Depending on the type of limitation, various subclasses of capacity are established: e, for
erosion risks; w, for wetness and drainage; s, for rooting and tillage limitations resulting from
shallowness, drought risk, stoniness, or salinity; c, for climatic limitations. The capability units
represent similar proposals of use and management.
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
INDEKS PRODUKTIVITAS Riquier et al. (FAO, 1970).
The basic concept of this method is that agricultural-soil productivity, under optimal management
conditions, depends on the intrinsic characteristics. This is a multiplicative parametric method to evaluate
soil productivity, from a scheme similar to the Storie index. The concept of productivity is defined as the
capacity to produce a certain quantity of harvest per hectare per year, expressed as a percentage of
optimal productivity, which would provide a suitable soil in its first year of cultivation. The introduction of
improvement practices leads to a potential productivity or potentiality. The quotient between the
productivity and the potentiality is called the improvement coefficient.
The evaluation is made for three general types of use: agricultural crops, cultivation of shallow-rooted
plants (pastures), and deep-rooted plants (fruit trees and forestation).
The determining factors of soil depth are: wetness, drainage, effective depth, texture/structure,
base saturation of the adsorbent complex, soluble-salt concentration, organic matter, cation-exchange
capacity/nature of the clay and mineral reserves. The parameters of the soil surface (e.g., slope, erosion,
flood tendency, or climate) are not considered
The different parameters are evaluated in tables and, as also occurs in the Storie index, the evaluation
factors present different weights.
Productivity is expressed as the product of all these factors expressed in percentages. Five productivity
classes are defined: class P1 = excellent; class P2 = good, valid for all types of agricultural crops; class P3 =
medium, for marginal agricultural use, suitable for non-fruiting trees; class P4 = poor, for pasture or
forestation or recreation; class P5 = very poor or null, soils not adequate for any type of exploitation.
Diunduh dari Sumber: .................... 31/10/2011 .
Soil Fertility Capability Classification (FCC). …
This was proposed by Buol et al., (1975) and modified by Sanchez et al. (1982) to evaluate
soil fertility. In this system, three levels or categories were established.
The first, the type, was determined by the texture of the arable layer, or of the first 20 cm, if
this is thinner. Its denomination and range are: S, sandy (sandy and sandy loam); L, loams
<35% clay (excluding sandy and sandy loam); C, clayey > 35% clay; O, organic > 30% organic
matter to 50 cm or more.
The type of substrate is the second level and is used when there is a significant textural
change in the first 50 cm of the soil. It is expressed with the same letters, adding “R” when a
rock or a hard layer is found within this depth.
The third level is comprised of the modifiers, which are the chemical and physical
parameters that negatively influence soil fertility. These are numerous and are represented
by lower-case letters.
In the denomination of the soil class, the principle limitations for use are directly
represented. For example, for an Orthic Solonchak, the FCC class that represents it is LCds,
which signifies that it is a soil susceptible to severe erosion (L), limited drainage (C), dry soil
moisture regime (d) and with salinity (s).
Diunduh dari Sumber: .................... 31/10/2011 .
KERANGKA KERJA EVALUASI LAHAN ..…
This framework is an approach, not a method. It is designed primarily to
provide tools for the formulation of each concrete evaluation. The system is
based on the following concepts:
1. The land is qualified, not only the soil.
2. Land suitability must be defined for a specific soil use (crop and management).
3. Land evaluation was to take into account both the physical conditions as well as economic
ones;
4. The concept of land evaluation is essentially economic, social and political.
5. The evaluation requires a comparison between two or more alternative kinds of use.
6. The evaluation must propose a use that is sustainable.
7. A multidisciplinary approach is required (Purnell, 1979; van Diepen et al., 1991).
These limiting factors are used to define the third category of the system,
which is the subclass. In the symbol of each subclass, the number of
limitations involved should be kept to the minimum one letter, or, rarely,
two. The limitations proposed include: t, slope; e, erosion risk; p, depth; s,
salinity; d, drainage; c, bioclimatic deficiency; r, rockiness; i, flood risk.
Diunduh dari Sumber: .................... 31/10/2011 .
Evaluasi Kapabilitas Tanah / Lahan
Soil type
Parent material
LCC
SI
RPI
FK
1 Typic Cryosaprist
micaschist
IVsp
4ps
P5fp-->(P3)
S3sp
2 Typic Xerofluvent
alluvial
II
2
P2
S2
3 Typic Xerofluvent
alluvial
I
1
P1
S1
4 Typic Xeropsamment
dolomite
VIIr
3g-->(6)
P5g
S3r-->(N)
5 Lithic Xerorthent
micaschist
VIIs
6dg
P5dg
Ns
6 Lithic Xerorthent
dolomite
VIgr
5dgr
P5dg-->(P4)
S3d-->(N)
7 Typic Chromoxeret
marl
II
3p-->(2)
P2p
S3-->(S2)
8 Calcixerollic Xerochrept
marl
IVd
4d
P3d
S3d
9 Calcixerollic Xerochrept
sandstone
VIg
4gd-->(5)
P5g-->(P4)
S2-->(N)
10 Calcixerollic Xerochrept
conglomerate
III
3d
P2-->(P3)
S2
LCC, Land Capability Classification; SI, Storie Index; RPI, Riquier Productivity Index; FK, FAO Framework.
Limiting characteristics: e, erosion; d, depth; g, gravels; f, frozen; m, moisture; p, permeability or drainage or flooding; r, rocks or pebbles or
stones; s, slope; t, texture or structure. In bold, the results that do not coincide with the evaluations of the other methods; in parenthesis the
results that would correspond with the other methods. In bold and cursive, results that strongly differ from those of the other methods.
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
Evaluasi Kapabilitas Tanah / Lahan
11 Lithic Xerochrept
slate
IIId-->(4)
5dr-->(4)
P3d
S3d
12 Lithic Xerochrept
granite
IId
3d-->(2)
P2dt
S2
13 Typic Humaquept
micaschist
Vp
5p
P5p-->(P4)
S3pf-->(N)
14 Typic Cryumbrept
micaschist
IIIs-->(IV)
4s
5fg-->(P3)
S3sf
15 Typic Haplumbert
micaschist
VIIs
5sg-->(6)
P5gf
Ns
andesite
Vm
2-->(5)
P5m-->(P4)
Nm
17 Petrogypsic Gypsiorthid
silts, gypsum
IVdg
5dg-->(4)
P4dg-->(P3)
S3d
18 Lhitic Haploxeroll
conglomerate
VIIrd
6d
P5dg
Nd
19 Calcic Haploxeroll
micaschist
VIIs
4dg-->(6)
P2-->(P5)
Ns
20 Typic Haploxeroll
sandstone
VIIs
5sg-->(6)
P2-->(P5)
Ns
16 Vertic Haplargid
LCC, Land Capability Classification; SI, Storie Index; RPI, Riquier Productivity Index; FK, FAO Framework.
Limiting characteristics: e, erosion; d, depth; g, gravels; f, frozen; m, moisture; p, permeability or drainage or flooding; r, rocks or pebbles or
stones; s, slope; t, texture or structure. In bold, the results that do not coincide with the evaluations of the other methods; in parenthesis the
results that would correspond with the other methods. In bold and cursive, results that strongly differ from those of the other methods.
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .
Evaluasi Kapabilitas Tanah / Lahan
21 Typic Haploxeroll
micaschists
VIIs
6s
P5gf
Ns
22 Udic Haplustoll
serpentine
IIId
3dt
P3d
S2
23 Mollic Haploxeralf
limestone
IVd
4d
P3d
S3d
24 Typic Haploxeralf
slate
IIIe
3e
P2-->(P3)
S3e
25 Xerochreptic Haploxeralf
slate
IIIs
3se
P1-->(P3)
S3se
26 Typic Rhodoxeralf
conglomerate
I
1
P1
S1
27 Calcic Rhodoxeralf
conglomerate
IIg
1-->(2)
P1-->(P2)
S2m
28 Mollic Palexeralf
limestone
IIIr
3t
P2t-->(P3)
S2
29 Typic Palexerult
slate
IIIs
3r
P2-->(P3)
S2
30 Typic Palexerult
clays
IIes-->(III)
3t
P3t
S2
LCC, Land Capability Classification; SI, Storie Index; RPI, Riquier Productivity Index; FK, FAO Framework.
Limiting characteristics: e, erosion; d, depth; g, gravels; f, frozen; m, moisture; p, permeability or drainage or flooding; r, rocks or pebbles or
stones; s, slope; t, texture or structure. In bold, the results that do not coincide with the evaluations of the other methods; in parenthesis the
results that would correspond with the other methods. In bold and cursive, results that strongly differ from those of the other methods.
Diunduh dari Sumber: http://edafologia.ugr.es/comun/congres/cartart.htm.................... 31/10/2011 .