الفهرس 
Material and methodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 169 |  |  |
| | | from | 169 | | |
Abstract
5. SUIDIARY
Ten profiles representing soils of an area in the
Northern side of Cairo-Suez desert road were studied.
from the geomorphic view-point, the area consist~of
three geomorphic units i.e. old deltaic plain, structural
plain, and clysmic plain, profiles 1, 2, ~ and 4 represented
the first unit; profiles 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 represented
the second unit, profile 5 represented the third unit. All
profiles were described morphologically according to the
USDA soil survey manual. Soil properties of : particle
size distribution, pH, EC, soluble cation and anions, Cac03,
gypsum, organic matter~ hydraulic conductivity I water retention,
sand mineralogy and clay mineralogy were determined.
R••ult•• ere •• fellewa:
·1) The texture was mainly coarse to mediWll ranging be1iWeen
sandy to sandy clay loam.
2) EO ranged between 0.8 - 70.61 mmhos/cm, profiles1and 9
were non saline-non alkali soils, other profile were
saline aa4 me.tIl alkali
~) pH ranged between 7.6 and 8.4.
4) Calcium carbonates ranged between 0.42 and 38.64%, with
profiles 9 and 10 being the bigmst.
(140)
5) Gypsumranged between nil and 4.0%,·w1ia
5 baving the highest.- centeatJ’.
profile
6) Orga.nic matter ~as evidenty low ranging between 0.02
a.nd 0.52%.
7) Variation in texture was mBnifested in hydraulic
conductivi.ty, water retention and porosity.
8) .Water aRd.1ad e•••• d t. UTe be••
clearly the main factors of soil formation.
9) The distinctive heavY minerals of t:OO.aad fraction were
the opaquest p~roxenes, ampheboles. biotite and zircon~
Apatite waS distinctive in profile 5.
10) Tbe dominant light Inineral in the sand fraction ’Was
quartz other minerals included feldspars (microcline,
orthoclase, plagioclase).
11) Parameters such as, distribution of heavy and. light
minerals, index figures, Z/R, ZIT, Z/RtY (z=zircon,
R=rulite, T==tourmaline)and ~ (coefficient of skewness)
show that the parent material of soils are of a multiorigin,
and heterogeneous. Wea’thering ra’tl0 and distribution
of heavy and ligh’t minerals sholled ’that the
soils are .ftcent and young.
~----_.
l14~J
12) Distinctive minerals of the clay fraction were smectite,
kandite and illite; accessory minerals were quartz and
feldspars. Smectite was.... deainant lI1aerals except 1»-
case .Zprofile 5 where illite displayed a dominance.
Thus suggesting .ccurrence .f some Nile depositions
in lands of both the old deltaic and the structural
plains;and lacustrine deposition in lands of the clysmic
plain.
13) Classified according to ”Soil TaxonomytI.
(A)_ Soils of the old deltaic plain unit are I siliceous,
thermic, ~ypic torripsamments (profiles 1,2,3),
loamy, mixed, thermic, typic torri9rthents
(profile 4).
(B) _ Soils of the structural plain are : sandy-skeletal,
silicious, thermic, typic torrlorthents (protiles 6
and 8), loamy-skeletal, mixed, ’thermic, typic torriortbent
(profile 7), Sandy-skeletal, mixed, thermic t
typic paleort.nidS (profile 9) I sandy-skeletal,
mixed, thermic I typic calciortbids· uu·.rlle 10)
(e) Soils of the clySllic plaiD are ; •l.oamy, Jli:xed, thermic,
typic torrips8J1J118nts (profile 5).
c_~ c_c _c _
(142)
14) Evaluated ten1;s.tively according to tba USDAland
capability classification (provided good quality irrigst10n
water is available) soils represented by
profile 1 may be of class II, profiles 2 to 9 maybe
of class III and that of profile 10 may be of class
IV. Limitation are mainly of a soil origin.
Evaluated tentatively according to the index rating
approach of storie (1937)and Riquier -et -al (1971):
A _ Soils represented by profile 1were ”average”.
B _ Soils represented by profiles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8t 9 were ”poor”.
c - Soils represented by profile 10 were ”very poor”.