SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14

Determination of Profile Development Index of Soils Formed on Different Parent Materials

Farklı Anamateryaller Üzerinde Gelişen Toprakların Profil Gelişim İndekslerinin Belirlenmesi

Timuçin Everest(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3670-2114
Ali Sungur(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2943-9207
Hasan Özcan(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3476-1241
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, further research is required to better evaluate and compare Vertisols.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to classify soils and determine their Profile Development Index (PDI) scores for soils formed on four different parent materials (sandstone, claystone, andesite, alluvium) in the Lapseki-Çanakkale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The calculations revealed that the PDI scores of the soils were in the order of Profile 2 (0.105) > Profile 3 (0.057) > Profile 1 (0.054) > Profile 4 (0.018).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, further research is required to better evaluate and compare Vertisols.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Pedogenesis · Profil gelişimi · Toprak sınıflaması

Abstract

This study aimed to classify soils and determine their Profile Development Index (PDI) scores for soils formed on four different parent materials (sandstone, claystone, andesite, alluvium) in the Lapseki-Çanakkale. Soil profiles were excavated at four points, and samples were collected from the soil horizons. The PDI values were calculated to compare and quantify the differentiation of horizon properties from their parent materials. The data were obtained from morphological observations during field studies and physicochemical analyses. For the calculation of the PDI, eight parameters were evaluated: rubification, color paling, color lightening, melanization, moist consistence, dry consistence, pH, texture, and structure. The calculations revealed that the PDI scores of the soils were in the order of Profile 2 (0.105) > Profile 3 (0.057) > Profile 1 (0.054) > Profile 4 (0.018). The highest-profile development was observed in Profile 2, which formed on alluvial parent material in flat to nearly flat floodplain landscapes. Relatively lower PDI values were calculated for Profile 3 (andesite) and Profile 1 (sandstone), where the slope increases gradually. The lowest index value was recorded for Profile 4 (claystone), classified as a Vertisol. In this profile, the low index is attributed to minimal color and texture variation throughout, due to pedoturbation. In this context, further research is required to better evaluate and compare Vertisols.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Çanakkale ilinin, Lapseki ilçesinde dört farklı litoloji (kumtaşı, kiltaşı, andezit, alüvyon) üzerinde oluşmuş toprakların tanımlanması, sınıflandırılması ve profil gelişim indekslerinin hesaplanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda dört farklı noktada profiller açılmış, morfolojik tanımlamaları yapılmış ve horizon esasına göre örneklenmiştir. Profil gelişim indeksi değerleri, horizon özelliklerinin ana materyallerden farklılaşmasını karşılaştırmak amacıyla nicelleştirilerek hesaplanmıştır. Veriler, arazi çalışmasındaki morfolofik gözlemler ve fizikokimyasal analizler ile elde edilmiştir. Profil gelişim indeksinin hesaplanması için rubifikasyon, renkte ton değişimi, renk parlak değişimi, melanizasyon, nemli kıvam, kuru kıvam, pH, tekstür ve strüktür olmak üzere toplam sekiz parametre değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Yapılan hesaplamalar sonucunda toprakların profil gelişim indeksleri Profil 2 (0.105) > Profil 3 (0.057) > Profil 1 (0.054) > Profil 4 (0.018) olduğu ortaya konmuştur. En yüksek profil gelişimi taşkın düzlüğünde, düz ve düze yakın arazilerde alüviyal anamateryal üzerinde oluşmuş profil 2 de görülmüştür. Eğimin kademeli arttığı profil 3 (andezit) ve profil 1 (kumtaşı)’nda ise nispeten daha düşük profil gelişim indeks hesaplanmıştır. En düşük indeks ise vertisol olarak sınıflandırılan profil 4 (kiltaşı) için hesaplanmıştır. Kiltaşı üzerinde oluşmuş 4 nolu profilde düşük indeks pedoturbasyon nedeniyle profil boyunca çok az renk ve bünye değişiminden kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda vertisolleri kıyaslamak açısından çok daha fazla araştırmaya ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Everest, T., Sungur, A., Özcan, H. (2026). Determination of Profile Development Index of Soils Formed on Different Parent Materials. Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14. https://ajindex.com/articles/1524459

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Applegarth, M.T., Dahms D.E. (2001). Soil catenas of calcareous tills, Whiskey Basin, Wyoming, USA. Catena42(1):17–38
  2. Aytop, H., Yılmaz, C.H., Koca, Y.K., Sünbül, M.R., Dengiz, O., Şenol, S. (2025). Detailed soil mapping and classification in semi-humid regions: a focus on Kahramanmaraş-Çağlayancerit. Soil Studies14(2):103–113
  3. Birkeland, P.W., Machette, N.M., Haller, K. (1991). Soils as a tool for applied Quaternary geology. UtahGeological and Mineral Survey, Publication 91-3, Salt Lake City, UT.
  4. Busacca, A.J. (1987). Pedogenesis of a chronosequence in the Sacramento Valley, California, U.S.A.: I.Application of a soil development index. Geoderma 41:123–148
  5. Çanakkale İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü Brifing Raporu. (2025). Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Çanakkale İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü, Brifing Raporu, https://canakkale.tarimorman.gov.tr/Menu/17/Brifing-Raporu
  6. Dönmez, M., Akçay, A.E., Duru, M., Ilgar, A., Pehlivan, Ş. (2008). 1:100.000 ölçekli Türkiye jeoloji haritaları, Çanakkale H 17 paftası No 101. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, 27 s.
  7. Everest, T., Erenoğlu, O., Açar, T.S., Temel, E., Sungur, A., Özcan, H. (2025). Determination of chemical weathering and profile development indexes of soils formed on volcanic rocks in the Biga Peninsula, NW Türkiye. Catena 260:109467
  8. MGM. (2025). Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, İllere ait resmi istatistikler, Çanakkale, https://mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?k=undefined&m=CANAKKALE
  9. Graham, R.C., Indorante, S.J. (2017). Concepts of Soil Formation and Soil Survey. In: West, L., Singer, M.,Hartemink, A. (eds) The Soils of the USA. World Soils Book Series. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41870-4_2
  10. Gee, G.W., Or, D. (2002). Particle-size analysis. Methods of soil analysis. Part 4 Physical methods 5, 255–293.
  11. Harden, J.W. (1982). A quantitative index of soil development from field descriptions: examples from achronosequence in central California. Geoderma 28(1):1–28
  12. Harden, J.W., Taylor E.M. (1983). A quantitative comparison of soil development in four climatic regimes. Quat Res 20:342–359
  13. Haugland, J.E., Haugland B.S.O. (2008). Cryogenic disturbance and pedogenic lag effects as determined bythe profile developmental index: the styggedalsbreen glacier chronosequence. Norway Geomorphol96(1–2):212–220
  14. Huggett, R.J. (1998). Soil chronosequences, soil development, and soil evolution: a critical review. Catena32(3–4):155–172
  15. Kılıç, K., Durak A. (2019). Kazova ve Niksar Ovasında yer alan Yeşilırmak ve Kelkit Çayı teras topraklarının toprak gelişim oranları. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1): 125-132.
  16. Kurşun, G., Dengiz, O. (2018). Arid karasal ekosistem koşulları altında oluşmuş toprakların sınıflaması ve dağılımlarının belirlenmesi. Toprak Su Dergisi 7(2):1–11
  17. Li, J., Du, J., Zhong, S. Ci, E., Wei, C. (2021). Changes in the profile properties and chemical weatheringcharacteristics of cultivated soils affected by anthropic activities. Sci Rep 11:20822
  18. Lybrand, R.A., Rasmussen, C. (2015). Quantifying climate and landscape position controls on soildevelopment in semiarid ecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79(1):104–116
  19. Mohanty, B.P., Skaggs T.H. (2001). Spatio-temporal evolution and time-stable characteristics of soil moisture within remote sensing footprints with varying soil, slope, and vegetation. Adv Water Resour 24(9–10):1051–1067
  20. Nelson, R.E. (1982). Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A.L. Ed., Methods of soil analysis, part 2: chemical andmicrobiological properties. ASA and SSSA, 181–197.
  21. Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E. (1982). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page, A.L. Ed.,Methods of soil analysis. ASA and SSSA, 539–579.
  22. Nielson, T., Bradford, J., Holbrook, W.S., Seyfried, M. (2021). The effect of aspect and elevation on criticalzone architecture in the Reynolds Creek Critical Zone Observatory: a seismic refraction study. FrontWater 3:670524
  23. Özcan, H., Özger, İ., Everest, T., Sungur, A. (2024). Soil profile development of the Korudağı toposequence,northwest Turkey. Int J Environ Sci Technol 21:6325–6338
  24. Özsoy, G, Aksoy, E. (2013). Properties and classification of irrigated and non irrigated Vertisols formed under Mediterranean climate. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 11(3&4), 2478–2480.
  25. Singh, S. (2018). Understanding the role of slope aspect in shaping the vegetation attributes and soil properties in montane ecosystems. Int Soc Trop Ecol Trop Ecol 59(3):417–430
  26. Soil Science Division Staff. (2017). Soil survey manual. In: Ditzler, C., Scheffe, K. and Monger, H.C. Eds.,USDA Handbook 18. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
  27. Soil Survey Staff. (2022). Keys to Soil Taxonomy. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  28. Sumner, D. (2023). GEL 109: Sediments and Strata (Sumner), Chapter 9.9.1 Weathering. University of California, Davis
  29. Thomas, G.W. (1996). Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loppert, R.H.,Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T. and Sumner, M.E. Eds., Methods of soil analysis, part 3: chemical methods. Madison: ASA and SSSA, 475–490.
  30. Tomar, S., Hirmas, D.R., Graham, R.C., Cole, M., Ajami, H., Frisbie, A., Gray, A.B., Blake, E. (2025). Soil development along an elevational transect in the arid White Mountains, California. Soil Sci Soc Am J89(3): e70083
  31. Tunçay, T. (2019). Kurak ekolojik koşullar altında oluşmuş toprakların detaylı toprak etüt haritalama çalışması ve sınıflaması. Akademik Ziraat Dergisi 8(1):101–112
  32. USDA. (2026). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/soil/soil-survey
  33. Zielhofer, C., Espejo, J.M.R., Granados, M.À.N. and Faust, D. (2009). Durations of soil formation and soil development indices in a Holocene Mediterranean floodplain. Quatern Int 209(1–2):44–
  34. Graham, R.C., Indorante, S.J. (2017). Concepts of Soil Formation and Soil Survey. In: West, L., Singer, M.,Hartemink, A. (eds) The Soils of the USA. World Soils Book Series. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41870-4_2