water

Article
The Vital Roles of Parent Material in Driving Soil Substrates
and Heavy Metals Availability in Arid Alkaline Regions:
A Case Study from Egypt
Manal A. Alnaimy 1 , Ahmed S. Elrys 1,2, * , Martina Zelenakova 3, * , Katarzyna Pietrucha-Urbanik 3,4
and Abdel-Rahman M. Merwad 1

1 Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt;
[email protected] (M.A.A.)
2 College of Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
3 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Kosice,
04200 Kosice, Slovakia; [email protected]
4 Faculty of Civil, Environmental Engineering and Architecture, Rzeszow University of Technology,
Al. Powstancow Warszawy 6, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.S.E.); [email protected] (M.Z.)

Abstract: Despite studies focusing on soil substrates (carbon and nitrogen) and heavy metal availabil-
ity, the impact of diversified parent materials in arid alkaline regions has received little attention. To
reveal the influence of parent material, we investigated four different parent materials: fluvio-marine,
Nile alluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian deposits. We assessed the effect of soil parent materials through
selected soil physical and chemical properties, such as clay content, bulk density, pH, and available
phosphorus (AP). The Tukey HSD test (SPSS ver. 23) was used to assess the soils derived from
these different sediments. Using the R “glmulti” package, we examined this effect in a model of
mixed-effects meta-regression. The sum of Akaike weights for models that contained each element
Citation: Alnaimy, M.A.;
Elrys, A.S.; Zelenakova, M.;
was used to estimate the importance of each factor. The average contents of soil organic carbon
Pietrucha-Urbanik, K.; (SOC) and total N in alluvial deposits were greater (p < 0.001) than those of marine, aeolian, and
Merwad, A.-R.M. The Vital Roles of lacustrine deposits. A multivariate analysis in arid regions revealed that parent material, soil pH, and
Parent Material in Driving Soil the availability of P had the greatest effects on SOC concentration, whereas clay content, available
Substrates and Heavy Metals P, soil pH, parent material, and bulk density had the greatest effects on soil total nitrogen. The
Availability in Arid Alkaline Regions: average content of Fe in the aeolian deposits was greater (p < 0.001) than those of marine, alluvial, and
A Case Study from Egypt. Water 2023, lacustrine deposits, without any significant differences between the latter two deposits. We found
15, 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/
that the highest average contents of zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and copper (Cu) were recorded in
w15132481
alluvial deposits, with significant differences between other deposits. Soil parent material was the
Academic Editors: Steven G. major factor impacting soil iron (Fe) content, along with clay content and soil pH. However, soil bulk
Pueppke, Antonio Panico and density was the most important factor controlling soil Zn and Mn contents, while SOC drove Cu
Wenzhi Zeng content. This study will help in developing a more accurate model of the dynamics of soil substrates
Received: 10 March 2023
and availability of heavy metals by considering readily available variables, such as parent materials,
Revised: 29 June 2023 soil pH, soil bulk density, and clay content.
Accepted: 3 July 2023
Published: 6 July 2023 Keywords: SOC stocks; soil substrate availability; soil heavy metals; soil forming factors; soil genesis;
alkaline soils

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction
This article is an open access article
Along with climate, biota, relief, and time, parent material is widely recognized as a
distributed under the terms and
significant soil-forming factor [1]. The variability of the mineralogical and physicochemical
conditions of the Creative Commons
characteristics of soils reflects the parent material origin [2]. In agricultural, environmental,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and geological investigations, parent material is used as a significant factor in soil classifica-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
tion and explaining soil units [3]. Under identical conditions of vegetation and topography,
4.0/).

Water 2023, 15, 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132481 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2023, 15, 2481 2 of 20

various parent materials impact the chemistry and morphology of soils, particularly in
arid and semiarid areas [4]. Parent material is frequently associated with critical soil physi-
cal properties (clay mineralogy, soil texture, soil structure, soil thickness, erodibility, and
shrinkage and swelling potential) and chemical properties (cation exchange capacity (CEC),
nutrient status, heavy metals, sodicity, salinity, and acidity) [5]. With the notable exceptions
of oxygen, carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and hydrogen, which are taken predominantly from
the atmosphere and organic matter, the majority of nutrients required for plant growth
are derived primarily from parent material [5]. Soil organic C (SOC) and total N, known
as soil substrate, are vital soil components for agricultural production, soil fertility, and,
consequently, its quality [6,7]. Parent material type plays a primary role in soil C and
N mineralization [8]. Moreover, variations in parent materials affect soil attributes, such
as texture, soil bulk density, pH, and calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) [9]. On a global scale,
numerous studies have identified that variations in soil substrate content have been cor-
related with vegetation type and climate [10]. Soil total N and SOC storage increased as
the revegetation chronosequence progressed [11,12]. Various parent materials and soil
texture influence bacterial diversity and nutrients, particularly SOC [13]. Heavy metals,
such as manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), and copper (Cu), are fundamental for crop
production, yield quantity, and holding yield responses to frequent NPK fertilizer [14].
However, an increase of these elements in soil beyond the permissible limit can reduce
crop yields and be poisonous [15]. Soil parent material controls the original supply of those
heavy metals from the weathering process and affects the balance between heavy metal
retention and loss [16]. Exudates and organic acids produced by plants and microorganisms
improve minerals weathering, and, ultimately, heavy metal release [17]. Heavy metals
may be adsorbed to SOM and clay or interact with organic substances, thereby decreasing
their mobility and speciation in soils [17]. These processes are influenced by soil formation,
which alters the environment at various depths as soil horizons develop [16]. However, the
impact of parent material on the original soil heavy metals supply in arid alkaline regions
remains largely unknown [17].
The studied regions are situated in Egypt and have an important role in population,
environmental, and agricultural development. These regions include a variety of parent
material types, regionally derived from either alluvial, aeolian, marine, or lacustrine de-
posits. Aeolian sandy soils are those that develop on sand-based parent material as a
result of wind action. In such soils, a sandy layer of ≥1 m is common, consisting primarily
of fine sand with approximately 80% of particles falling between 0.25 and 0.05 mm in
size [18]. Whatever the climatic circumstances, the prevalence of quartz in the bedrock
makes it exceedingly unlikely that the suite of clay minerals present in the soil is the result
of weathering [19]. The parent material of CaCO3 -rich soil in the northwestern coastal
region of Egypt is composed of a variety of rocks, e.g., limestone, sandstone, CaCO3 -rich
shale, or marl, formed as a result of weathering, translocation, and deposition processes
under the arid climatic conditions [20,21]. The following parameters were used to choose
the marine soil profiles: CaCO3 , soil texture, electrical conductivity (EC), and hydrogen
power; macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and organic carbon; mi-
cronutrients such as manganese, zinc, iron, and copper; and other sodium and CEC [20].
High CaCO3 content has an impact on soil pH, soil buffering capacity, CEC, base saturation,
and nutrient availability, as well as the soil hydraulic conductivity and permeability [22].
Organic matter, clay content, soil texture, pH, Aluminum, Fe, and Calcium contents influ-
enced P sorption [23]. Thus, poor P and K availability in plants results in issues that are
more severe than their shortages. One of the key goals of plant nutrition is to increase the
availability of these nutrients. The morphological features and particle size distribution
show that the texture class is sandy loam and sand clay loam for the subsurface horizon [24].
Alluvial soils are among the most important and productive soil resources. The silt de-
posited by fluvial systems, such as streams and rivers, is alluvium, the parent material
of alluvial soils [3]. Depending on the depositional environment and geologic materials
source, alluvium can have a wide range of textures and compositions. Alluvium can be
 Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

alluvium, the parent material of alluvial soils [3]. Depending on the depositional
Water 2023, 15, 2481 3 of 20
environment and geologic materials source, alluvium can have a wide range of textures
and compositions. Alluvium can be found in all temperate zones and sits beneath
geomorphic surfaces with ages ranging from zero to millions of years; it is therefore
found
widely indiverse
all temperate
[3]. zones and sits beneath geomorphic surfaces with ages ranging from
zero to millions of
Lacustrine years; itare
deposits is therefore
sedimentarywidely
rockdiverse
formations[3]. that developed at the bottom of
ancient lakes [25]. Such deposits frequently have silt thatthat
Lacustrine deposits are sedimentary rock formations wasdeveloped
transported at the
intobottom of
the basin
ancient lakes [25]. Such deposits frequently have silt that was transported
by a river or stream and frequently contain beds that are extensively laminated with silt, into the basin
by a river
clay, and or stream
even and frequently
carbonates. contain
In geologic beds
time, lakesthat aremomentary;
are extensivelyonce
laminated
the waterwithstops
silt,
clay, and even carbonates. In geologic time, lakes are momentary; once
flowing into them, they dry out and produce a formation [26]. In terms of Egypt, lacustrinethe water stops
flowing
deposits into them,
cover they dry out
considerable andparticularly
areas, produce a formation [26]. Inparts
in the northern termsnear
of Egypt, lacustrine
the lakes and the
deposits cover considerable areas, particularly in the northern parts
Mediterranean coastal zone, which are characterized by moist conditions that prevail near the lakes and
the Mediterranean coastal zone, which are characterized by moist conditions
most of the year [26]. Most of the profiles here have medium texture; the enrichment of that prevail
most
lime of
or the year [26].
gypsum occursMost of the
in some profilesand
profiles, here
thehave
soil medium texture; the enrichment
color is characterized by a 10YR hue of
lime or gypsum occurs in some profiles, and the soil color is characterized
with a value between 3 and 5 and a chroma of mostly 2 [26]. Bluish or brownish mottling by a 10YR hue
with a value
occurs between
in most of the 3profiles.
and 5 and Theawetness
chroma isofmostly
mostlyassociated
2 [26]. Bluish
withora brownish
high salinitymottling
due to
occurs in most of the profiles. The wetness is mostly associated with a high salinity due to
the high groundwater table [27]. Furthermore, the solum of these soils is mostly shallow
the high groundwater table [27]. Furthermore, the solum of these soils is mostly shallow
(45–100 cm) [28]. To our knowledge, our study is one of the first to elucidate the impact of
(45–100 cm) [28]. To our knowledge, our study is one of the first to elucidate the impact of
contrasting parent materials on soil substrates and heavy metal availability in arid alkaline
contrasting parent materials on soil substrates and heavy metal availability in arid alkaline
regions. Our study’s objectives were to: (1) elucidate the patterns and controlling factors
regions. Our study’s objectives were to: (1) elucidate the patterns and controlling factors
of soil substrates (SOC and total N) and heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu) availability in
of soil substrates (SOC and total N) and heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu) availability in
arid alkaline regions under contrasting parent materials, and (2) compare soil metrics and
arid alkaline regions under contrasting parent materials, and (2) compare soil metrics and
features in various parent materials. Our study hypothesized that parent material would
features in various parent materials. Our study hypothesized that parent material would
be the most important factor affecting soil substrates and heavy metal availability in arid
be the most important factor affecting soil substrates and heavy metal availability in arid
alkaline regions.
alkaline regions.

2.2.Materials
MaterialsandandMethods
Methods
2.1.Site
2.1. SiteSpecification
Specification
Eightsoil
Eight soil profiles
profiles were were selected
selected from from four
four soil soil catchments
catchments of parent
of different different parent
materials
materials
in in Egypt.
Egypt. These Theseare
regions regions
situatedare in
situated
eastern, in western,
eastern, western,
southern,southern,
and middleand Egypt:
middle
Egypt:1Profile
Profile 1 (P1)—elevation
(P1)—elevation 31 m
31 m a.s.l., 30◦a.s.l.,
480 56.008 00 N and 29
30°48′56.008″ N◦and
230 38.764
29°23′38.764 E; 2Profile
E; Profile (P2)—2
elevation 26 m, 30
(P2)—elevation 26◦ 53
m,0 5.766 00 N and 29◦ 430 2.44400 E; Profile 3 (P3)—6 m, 30◦ 410 20.10300 N
30°53′5.766″ N and 29°43′2.444″ E; Profile 3 (P3)—6 m, 30°41′20.103″
and 31◦31°40′50.089″
N and 400 50.08900 E; E; Profile
Profile 4 (P4)—14 ◦ 230 24.15600 N and 31◦ 100 1.89100 E; Profile
4 (P4)—14m,m,3030°23′24.156″ N and 31°10′1.891″ E; Profile 5
5(P5)—13
(P5)—13m, ◦ 0
m,30°58′58.057″
30 58 58.057NN 00 and ◦ 0
31 46 32.347E; 00 E; Profile 6 (P6)—2 m, 30◦ 530 5.76600 N
and 31°46′32.347″ Profile 6 (P6)—2 m, 30°53′5.766″ N and
and 31◦ 490 57.703
31°49′57.703″ E; 00Profile
E; Profile 7 (P7)—224
7 (P7)—224 m, 29◦ 450 23.546
m, 29°45′23.546″ 00 N and 30◦ 240 58.04700 E; Profile 8
N and 30°24′58.047″ E; Profile 8 (P8)—
(P8)—56 m, 30◦ 140 2.767
56 m, 30°14′2.767″
00 and 30◦ 140 7.755
N andN30°14′7.755″
00 E (Figure 1).
E (Figure 1).

Figure1.1.Location
Figure Locationmap
mapofofthe
thesoil
soilprofiles.
profiles.

The soil survey was performed during the year 2021, and the pedons were dug ac-
cording to soil morphological observations, to their depth, to the hard layer, or to the
parent rock. The soil profile consists of a number of horizons, which were sampled in all 27
Water 2023, 15, 2481 4 of 20

of the profiles. The representative soil samples were air-dried and sieved to 2 mm three
times for chemical and physical analyses. According to the key of Soil Taxonomy [29],
the field morphological description of these profiles and the main physical and chemical
characteristics revealed that the soils were formed from fluvio-marine, Nile alluvial, la-
custrine, and aeolian deposits. According to [30], the parent material of P1 and P2 was
related to fluvio marine deposits, which consisted of sandy clay loam deposits and were
produced by Pleistocene marine regressions. The parent material of P3 and P4 was related
to alluvial deposits of silty clay sediments, while P5 and P6 were related to lacustrine
deposits composed of clay sediments, and P7 and P8 were related to aeolian plains and
inherited from shale, limestone, or sandstone as a parent material, which were composed
of sandy sediments.

2.2. Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

The international pipette method was used to perform the particle-size analysis [31].
The soil pH was determined by electrode immersion 1 h after stirring with a glass rod in a
suspension of 1:2.5 soil:water. With intermittent agitation for one hour and centrifugation
at 2000 rpm for 15 min, the EC of the soil was measured in a 1:1 soil-to-water ratio [32].
Soil CEC was estimated using the sodium acetate method [31]. The exchangeable sodium
percentage (ESP, %) was computed as follows [33]:

ESP = (Na+ /CEC) × 100, (1)

where Na+ : measured exchangeable Na, cmol kg−1 ; CEC: cation exchange capacity,
cmol kg−1 .
The following equation was used to determine the amount of coarse fraction in the
soil (particles larger than 2 mm) [34]:

Gravel content (%) = (coarse materials weight/coarse and fine materials weight) × 100, (2)
The SOC concentration was determined using the SOC pool calculation (SOCP). By
multiplying the SOM by a factor of 0.58, the content of SOM for each horizon was first
converted to a SOC percentage [34]. The SOC% was multiplied by the soil depth, soil bulk
density (Mg m−3 ), and soil fraction (<2 mm in size) to determine the SOCP (kg C m−2 ) for
each soil horizon [34]:

SOCP = [L × B.D × SOC × (1 − F/100)]/10, (3)

where SOCP refers to the soil organic carbon pool for each soil horizon (kg m−2 ), L is the
thickness of soil horizon, SOC is the soil organic carbon content (wt%), F is equal to 10 mm
for coarse soil fragment and 5 mm for fine soil fragment (wt%), and BD is the soil dry bulk
density (Mg m−3 ).
Available N was determined according to [35]. Available P was determined using
the ascorbic acid method [35]. Ammonium acetate (1.0 N) was used to extract available
potassium (K) at pH 7.0 and quantified by the flame photometer [35]. Total N in soil
was digested by 10 mL H2 SO4 + 5 mL HClO4 and determined using the micro-Kjeldahl
method [35]. Diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) was used to extract the available
micronutrients from the soil samples (Zn, Fe, Cu, and Mn), which were then measured
using an atomic absorption spectrometer [36].

2.3. Mineralogical Analysis

The original samples, which were derived from different deposits, were dried. Using
bromoform, they were all set for mineral separation (Sp. Gr. 2.86 g cm−3 ). Individual
grains of heavy minerals were subjected to chemical analyses using a Phillips XL-30
environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM), while semi-quantitative EDX was
used for the mineralogical analysis of the mineral components [37].
Water 2023, 15, 2481 5 of 20

2.4. Data Analyses

The comparisons between deposits were analyzed using the test of Tukey HSD (SPSS
version 23). The “stats” package in R was used to analyze the correlation coefficients among
the soil attributes. We used the variance inflation factor (VIF) to test the collinearities
among factors and excluded factors with a VIF value greater than 10. We studied the soil
parent materials’ impact and the soil’ physical (e.g., clay content and bulk density) and
chemical (e.g., pH and available P) properties on the SOC, soil total N, and soil heavy
metals (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu) content in a model of mixed-effects meta-regression using the
“glmulti” package in R. The total of the Akaike weights for models that included a certain
component was used to estimate the relevance of that factor, which can be viewed as the
overall support for that factor across all models. The threshold was set at 0.8 to focus on
the most crucial elements.

3. Results
3.1. Morphological Properties of Studied Soils
The surveyed soils were divided into four types: fluvio-marine, Nile alluvial, lacus-
trine, and aeolian deposits, based on soil classification, morphological description, and
mineralogical, physical, and chemical properties. Diagnostic horizons descriptions and
morphological aspects were identified using the criteria of [29] (Table 1). The soils of P1
and P2 were derived from marine deposits (limestone) with varying CaCO3 levels, where
the Bca horizon developed as a result of CaCO3 accumulation in the subsurface layer [38].
P3 and P4 were derived from the alluvium deposits, where the argillic B horizon developed.
Salic and Natric B horizons developed in the soils of lacustrine deposits in profiles 5 and 6.
Soils that originated from aeolian deposits (P7 and P8) were weakly developed and have no
pedogenetic horizons. The solum thickness of the studied soil profiles varied from 60 cm in
the soils originating from aeolian deposits to 2.0 m in alluvium soils. In dry conditions, the
soil color ranged between very pale brown (10YR 7/3), dark grey (10YR 4/1), very dark
greyish brown (10YR 5/2), and yellow (10YR 7/6) for marine, alluvium, lacustrine, and
aolian deposits, respectively. Clay content was the highest in alluvium- and lacustrine-
originated soils, while the sand content was the highest in marine- and aeolian-derived
soils (Figure 2). The uppermost surface of the marine deposit’s soils had a massive structure
that was subangular and blocky downward. The structure was granular in the topsoil
horizons of alluvial deposits, while it was subangular in the topsoil of lacustrine deposits
and changed to massive profiles downward. The aeolian deposits were characterized by a
weak structure along the profiles. In the coarse and fine textured horizons, respectively,
the soil consistency ranged from non-sticky to moderately sticky and from non-plastic to
moderately plastic (Table 1).

Table 1. Morphological description and mineralogy of the studied soil profiles.

Horizons

Depth, Topography, Munsell soil color (dry, moist), Soil texture, Soil structure, Stickiness (wet), Plasticity (wet),
Soil consistency (moist), Soil consistency (dry); Calcium Carbonate, Clay and Sand Mineralogy *

P1 (parent material: Fluvio-Marine); land cover (alfalfa plant)

0–40 cm; flat; Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/1) dry; Dark gray (10YR 4/2) moist; SL; Ma; Sst; Spl; Lo; slightly hard dry;
A0
Moderately calcareous; quartz (+++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+).
40–80 cm; Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6); Dark brown (10YR 3/2); SCL; Ma; Sst; Spl; Fi; slightly hard dry;
B1
Moderately calcareous; quartz (+++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+).
80–120 cm; brown (10YR 5/3); Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/3); SCL; Sb; St; Pl; Vfi; hard dry; quartz (+++), plagioclase
B2
(+), orthoclase (+).
120–150; brown (10YR 5/3); Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/3); SCL; Sb; St; Pl; Vfi; very hard dry; quartz (+++),
C
plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+).
Water 2023, 15, 2481 6 of 20

Table 1. Cont.
Horizons

Depth, Topography, Munsell soil color (dry, moist), Soil texture, Soil structure, Stickiness (wet), Plasticity (wet),
Soil consistency (moist), Soil consistency (dry); Calcium Carbonate, Clay and Sand Mineralogy *

P2 (parent material: Fluvio-Marine); land cover (wheat)

0–30 cm; very pale brown (10YR 7/3) dry; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) moist; L; Ma; Sst; Spl; Fi; slightly hard dry;
At
extremely calcareous; quartz (+++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++).
30–80 cm; light brown (7.5YR 6/4) dry; brown (10YR 5/6) moist; L; Sb; Vst; Vpl; Vfi; very hard dry; extremely
B1
calcareous; quartz (+++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++).
80–150 cm; Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) dry; brownish yellow (10 YR 6/6) moist; L; Sb; Vst; Vpl; Vfi; extremely hard
C
dry; extremely calcareous; quartz (+++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++).
P3 (parent material: Nile alluvial deposit); land cover (alfalfa plant)
0–60 cm; Almost flat; Gray (10YR 5/1) dry; dark gray (10 YR 4/2) moist; CL; Gr; Sst; Spl; Fi; slightly hard dry; Slightly
A0
calcareous; Montmorillonite (++++), kaolinite (++), mica (++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), Microcline (+), quartz (+),
60–100 cm; Dark gray (10YR 4/1); very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); CL; Sb; St; Pl; Fi; very hard dry; Montmorillonite (++++),
B1
quartz (++), kaolinite (+), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), Microcline (+).
100–150 cm; Dark gray (10YR 4/1); very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Sb; St; Pl; Vfi; very hard dry; Montmorillonite
B2
(++++), quartz (++), plagioclase (+), Albite (+), orthoclase (+), Microcline (+).
150–200 cm; Dark gray (10 YR 4/1); very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Sb; Vst; Vpl; Vfi; extremely hard dry;
C
Montmorillonite (++++), quartz (++), plagioclase (+), Albite (+), orthoclase (+), Microcline (+).
P4 (parent material: Nile alluvial deposit); land cover (vegetables)
0–30 cm; Light gray (10YR 7/2) dry; Light brownish gray (10 YR 6/2) moist; SL; Gr; Sst; Spl; Lo; soft dry; Non
At
calcareous; Montmorillonite (+++), quartz (+), kaolinite (+), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), Microcline (+).
30–60 cm; SL; Sb; Sst; Spl; Fi; soft dry; Montmorillonite (++++), quartz (++), kaolinite (+), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+),
B1
Microcline (+).
60–150 cm; SL; Sb; Sst; Spl; Fi; slightly hard dry; Montmorillonite (++++), quartz (++), kaolinite (+), plagioclase (+),
C
orthoclase (+), Microcline (+).
P5 (parent material: Lacustrine); land cover (alfalfa plant)
0–20 cm; Almost flat; Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry; Dark gray (10 YR 4/1) moist; lC; Sb; St; Pl; Fi; hard dry;
A1 Moderately calcareous; Montmorillonite (++++), kaolinite (++), Vermiculite (+), illite (+), plagioclase (++), orthoclase
(++), quartz (+).
20–35 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2); Dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2); lC; Sb;; Vst; Vpl; Vfi; very hard dry;
A2
Montmorillonite (++++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++), kaolinite (+), Muscovite (+), quartz (+).
35–85 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Co; Vst; Vpl; Efi; very hard dry; Montmorillonite
BC
(++++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
85–135 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Co; Vst; Vpl; Efi; extremely hard dry; Montmorillonite
C
(++++), plagioclase (++), orthoclase (++), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
P6 (parent material: Lacustrine); land cover (onion)
0–10 cm; Almost flat; Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry; Dark gray (10 YR 4/1) moist; lC; Sb; St; Pl; Fi; slightly hard dry;
A1 Moderately calcareous; Montmorillonite (+++), kaolinite (+), Vermiculite (+), illite (+), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+),
quartz (+).
10–35 cm; grayish brown (10YR 5/2); Dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2); lC; Sb; Vst; Vpl; Vfi; hard dry; Montmorillonite
A2
(+++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), kaolinite (+), Muscovite (+), quartz (+).
35–90 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Ma; Vst; Vpl; Efi; very hard dry; Montmorillonite (++),
BC
plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
85–135 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Ma; Vst; Vpl; Efi; extremely hard dry; Montmorillonite
C
(++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
 35–90 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Ma; Vst; Vpl; Efi; very hard
BC
Montmorillonite (++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
85–135 cm; Dark clay (10YR 4/1); Very dark gray (10 YR 3/1); lC; Ma; Vst; Vpl; Efi; extremely h
C
Water 2023, 15, 2481
Montmorillonite (++), plagioclase (+), orthoclase (+), kaolinite (+), quartz (+).
7 of 20
P7 (parent material: Aeolian); land cover (Non-cultivated)
0–30 cm; Almost flat; Yellow (10YR 7/6) dry; Brownish yellow (10 YR 6/6) moist; S; We; Nst; Npl; L
Table 1. Cont.
calcareous; quartz, opaques as; magnetite, ilmenite, leucoxene, hematite and the second is the no
A
include zircon, garnet, monazite, rutile, silica (yellow and red silica) and green silicates (pyro
Horizons

Depth, Topography, Munsell soil color (dry, moist), Soil texture, Soil structure, Stickiness (wet), Plasticity (wet),
amphibole
Soil consistency (moist), groups,
Soil consistency epidote
(dry); Calcium and mica
Carbonate, Clay group) (++++). *
and Sand Mineralogy
C 30–50 cm; Rock.
P7 (parent material: Aeolian); land cover (Non-cultivated)
CD 50–100 cm; Hard rock
0–30 cm; Almost flat; Yellow (10YR 7/6) dry; Brownish yellow (10 YR 6/6) moist; S; We; Nst; Npl; Lo; loose dry;
calcareous; quartz, P8 (parent
opaques material:
as; magnetite, Aeolian);
ilmenite, leucoxene, land
hematitecover
and the(Non-cultivated)
second is the non-opaques include
A
zircon, garnet, monazite, rutile, silica (yellow and red silica) and green silicates (pyroxene and amphibole groups,
0–30 cm; Almost flat; Pale brown (10YR 6/3)
epidote anddry; Very (++++).
mica group) pale brown (10YR 7/3) moist; S; We; Nst; N
Cdry; Calcareous; quartz, opaques as; magnetite, ilmenite, leucoxene, hematite and the second i
30–50 cm; Rock.
A
opaques
CD include zircon, garnet, monazite, 50–100 rutile,cm;silica (yellow and red silica) and green silicates (p
Hard rock
amphibole
P8 (parent groups,
material: Aeolian); landepidote and mica group) (++++).
cover (Non-cultivated)

CD 0–30 cm; Almost flat; Pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; Very
30–60 cm; Hard 7/3)
pale brown (10YR rock.moist; S; We; Nst; Npl; Lo; soft dry;
Calcareous; quartz, opaques as; magnetite, ilmenite, leucoxene, hematite and the second is the non-opaques include
A Notes:rutile,
* Soil texture
zircon, garnet, monazite, silica (yellow according
and red silica)to
and[29]:
greenSL: sandy
silicates loam;and
(pyroxene SCL: sandy
amphibole clay loam; L:
groups,
epidote and mica group) (++++).
loam; lC: light clay; S: Sandy. Soil structure: We = Weak; Sb = Sub angular blocky; C
CD Ma = Massive; Gr= Granular. 30–60 cm;Stickiness
Hard rock. (wet): Vst = Very sticky; St = Sticky; Sst = Slig
=Notes:
non-sticky. Plasticity
* Soil texture according to(wet):
[29]: SL:Vpl
sandy=loam;
VerySCL:
plastic; Pl loam;
sandy clay = Plastic;
L: loam;Spl
CL: = Slightly
clay plastic; Np
loam; lC: light
clay; S: Sandy. Soil structure: We = Weak; Sb = Sub angular blocky; Co = Columnar; Ma = Massive; Gr= Granular.
Soil Consistency (moist): Lo = loose; Fi = Firm; Vfi = very firm; Efi = Extrem
Stickiness (wet): Vst = Very sticky; St = Sticky; Sst = Slightly sticky; Nst = non-sticky. Plasticity (wet): Vpl = Very
plastic;
mineralogy:Pl = Plastic; Spl = Slightly plastic; Npl = non-plastic. Soil
+ = few; ++ = common; +++ = many; ++++ = abundant. Consistency (moist): Lo = loose; Fi = Firm;
Vfi = very firm; Efi = Extremely firm. Soil mineralogy: + = few; ++ = common; +++ = many; ++++ = abundant.

Figure 2. Soil texture of the studied sediments.

Figure 2. Soil texture of the studied sediments.
3.2. Soil Taxonomy of the Studied Pedons
According to [29], the soil classification was based on the presence or absence of
diagnostic horizons, soil moisture, temperature regimes, morphological traits, and chemical
and mineralogical composition. The soil temperature regime was hyperthermic, while
the moisture regime was aridic. The studied soils were classified as aridisols, entisols, or
vertisols based on soil taxonomy [29] (Table 2).
Water 2023, 15, 2481 8 of 20

Table 2. Soil classification according to [29] of the studied soil profiles.

Profile Order, Suborder, Great Group, Subgroup, Family

P1 Aridisols, Calcids, Petrocalcids, Typic Petrocalcids, Fine loamy, mixed, thermic
P2 Aridisols, Calcids, Petrocalcids, Natric Petrocalcids, Fine loamy, mixed, thermic
P3 Aridisols, Calcids, Haplocalcids, Typic Haplocalcid, mixed, thermic
P4 Aridisols, Calcids, Haplocalcids, Typic Haplocalcid, mixed, thermic
P5 Aridisols, Salids, Aquisalids, Typic Aquisalids
P6 Vertisols, Torrerts, Haplotorrerts, Sodic Haplotorrerts
P7 Entisols, Samments, Torripsamments, Lithic Torripsamments
P8 Entisols, Samments, Torripsamments, Lithic Torripsamments

3.3. Mineralogy of Sand and Clay Fractions

The sand and clay fractions are listed in Table 1. The sand fraction for all profiles
showed that quartz predominated, with calcium-sodium feldspars (plagioclase) being
the most common feldspar type. The aeolian and marine deposits had more quartz than
the other types of deposits. Plagioclase, orthoclase, illite, kaolinite, quartz, and calcite
formed the majority of the clay fraction in the marine deposits, with trace amounts of
feldspar, dolomite, and iron oxides. On the other hand, alluvial deposits were formed
of montmorillonite, kaolinite, mica, feldspars, and quartz. The lacustrine deposits were
dominated by smectite, primarily in the form of montmorillonite, and kaolinite. The main
constituents of the heavy fraction were opaque minerals, such as ilmenite, leucoxene, rutile,
zircon, garnet, monazite, red silica, and green silicates (Table 3). Individual grains of
heavy minerals were subjected to chemical studies utilizing a Phillips XL-30 Environmental
Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM) and semi-quantitative Energy Dispersive X-ray
Analysis (EDX) to investigate the mineral composition (Figures 3 and 4).

Table 3. The content of total heavy minerals (g kg−1 ) of the studied sediments.

Profile Ilmenite Leucoxene Rutile Zircon Garnet Monazite Red Silica Green Silicates
P1 3.222 ± 0.23 0.145 ± 0.03 0.250 ± 0.04 0.302 ± 0.06 0.155 ± 0.02 0.010 ± 0.00 0.616 ± 0.03 0.219 ± 0.04
P2 2.344 ± 0.31 0.205 ± 0.020 0.525 ± 0.07 0.306 ± 0.04 0.444 ± 0.02 0.030 ± 0.00 0.822 ± 0.06 0.323 ± 0.03
P3 0.064 ± 0.01 0.027 ± 0.00 0.017 ± 0.00 0.013 ± 0.00 0.027 ± 0.00 0.000 ± 0.00 0.245 ± 0.02 0.135 ± 0.01
P4 0.111 ± 0.00 0.062 ± 0.01 0.021 ± 0.00 0.003 ± 0.00 0.077 ± 0.01 0.011 ± 0.00 0.544 ± 0.06 0.212 ± 0.01
P5 0.053 ± 0.00 0.022 ± 0.00 0.011 ± 0.00 0.009 ± 0.00 0.025 ± 0.00 0.000 ± 0.00 0.237 ± 0.01 0.126 ± 0.02
P6 0.050 ± 0.00 0.024 ± 0.00 0.011 ± 0.00 0.009 ± 0.00 0.022 ± 0.00 0.000 ± 0.00 0.237 ± 0.01 0.124 ± 0.02
P7 3.930 ± 0.42 0.494 ± 0.05 0.740 ± 0.13 0.607 ± 0.04 0.543 ± 0.03 0.060 ± 0.01 0.943 ± 0.08 0.678 ± 0.05
P8 2.310 ± 0.22 0.159 ± 0.01 0.290 ± 0.06 0.212 ± 0.01 0.319 ± 0.04 0.000 ± 0.00 5.491 ± 0.35 0.794 ± 0.03
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
Water 2023, 15, 2481 9 of 20

Figure 3.
Figure Photomicrograph showing
3. Photomicrograph showing the
the heavy
heavy minerals
minerals in
in the
the studied
studied sediments.
sediments.
Water 2023,
Water 2023, 15,
15, 2481
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1010of
of 20
20

Figure 4. EDX and BSE of heavy minerals for the studied sediments.
 were marine and aeolian in origin. Moreover, alluvial- and marine-derived soils had
higher values of the CEC and available NPK content (g kg−1) than the aeolian- and
lacustrine-derived soils. Soil bulk density decreased in the alluvial- and lacustrine-derived
soils and increased in the marine- and aeolian-derived soils. SOC and total N (mg kg−1)
also differed with deposits (Figure 5a), ranging from 0.74 to 5.50 and from 0.29 to 1.87,
Water 2023, 15, 2481
with an average of 2.90 ± 0.39 and 0.96 ± 0.12, respectively. The average contents of11SOC of 20

and total N in the alluvial deposits were greater (p < 0.001) than those of the marine,
aeolian, and lacustrine deposits.
3.4. Patterns and Controlling Factors of Soil Substrate Availability in Arid Regions
The results of the multivariate analysis (Figure 6a) revealed that parent material, soil
The soil
pH, and physiochemical
available P were theproperties of the studied
most important deposits
factors are listed
influencing SOCin content
Table 4. Accord-
in arid
ing to [36], the pH mean values in the studied soil profiles were from slightly
regions. Clay content, available P, soil pH, parent material, and bulk density were to strongly
the key
alkaline.
factors The soils
driving soil ranged
total N,from being
but clay non-saline
content was theto most
very strongly
importantsaline, where 6b).
one (Figure lacustrine-
Based
originated soils had the greatest values. The studied soils ranged from being non-calcareous
on Pearson’s correlation (Table 5), SOC was negatively associated with soil bulk density
to extremely calcareous. The highest CaCO levels were found in soils that were marine
(p < 0.001), EC (p < 0.001), ESP (p < 0.01), soil3 pH (p < 0.01), and soil Fe content (p < 0.05),
and aeolian in origin. Moreover, alluvial- and marine-derived soils had higher values of
but it was enhanced with increasing CEC−(p < 0.001), available P (p < 0.001), available K (p
the CEC and available NPK content (g kg 1 ) than the aeolian- and lacustrine-derived soils.
< 0.001), available N (p < 0.001), total N (p < 0.001), C/N ratio (p < 0.05), soil Mn content (p
Soil bulk density decreased in the alluvial- and lacustrine-derived soils and increased in the
< 0.05), and soil Cu content (p < 0.001). Soil total N content was negatively correlated with
marine- and aeolian-derived soils. SOC and total N (mg kg−1 ) also differed with deposits
soil bulk density (p < 0.001), soil pH (p < 0.05), and soil Fe content (p < 0.01) and positively
(Figure 5a), ranging from 0.74 to 5.50 and from 0.29 to 1.87, with an average of 2.90 ± 0.39
correlated with clay content (p < 0.001), CEC (p < 0.001), and available P (p < 0.05), available
and 0.96 ± 0.12, respectively. The average contents of SOC and total N in the alluvial
K (p < 0.05), available N (p < 0.05), SOC (p < 0.001), and soil Cu content (p < 0.05).
deposits were greater (p < 0.001) than those of the marine, aeolian, and lacustrine deposits.

Figure 5.
Figure Effect of
5. Effect of different
different parent
parent material deposits (fluvio-marine,
material deposits (fluvio-marine, NileNile alluvial,
alluvial, lacustrine,
lacustrine, and
and
aeolian) on (a) soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil total N content and (b) soil heavy metal (Fe, Mn,
aeolian) on (a) soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil total N content and (b) soil heavy metal (Fe, Zn, Zn,
and Cu)
Mn, and content
Cu) contentusingusing
variance analysis.
variance Values
analysis. are presented
Values as means
are presented ± standard
as means deviation
± standard (SD)
deviation
usingusing
(SD) the number of the studied
the number soil profiles
of the studied soil (n = 8). For
profiles (n =each
8). attribute,
For each bars with different
attribute, bars withsuperscript
different
superscript
letters (a, b, letters
c, and (a,
d) b, c, andad)
denote denote a difference
significant significantbetween
difference thebetween the
effects of effects
types of of typesmaterial
parent of parent
at
material
p < 0.05. at p <appearance
The 0.05. The appearance
of the sameofletter
the same
means letter
thatmeans that the was
the difference difference was not significant.
not significant.

The results of the multivariate analysis (Figure 6a) revealed that parent material, soil
pH, and available P were the most important factors influencing SOC content in arid
regions. Clay content, available P, soil pH, parent material, and bulk density were the
key factors driving soil total N, but clay content was the most important one (Figure 6b).
Based on Pearson’s correlation (Table 5), SOC was negatively associated with soil bulk
density (p < 0.001), EC (p < 0.001), ESP (p < 0.01), soil pH (p < 0.01), and soil Fe content
(p < 0.05), but it was enhanced with increasing CEC (p < 0.001), available P (p < 0.001),
available K (p < 0.001), available N (p < 0.001), total N (p < 0.001), C/N ratio (p < 0.05), soil
Mn content (p < 0.05), and soil Cu content (p < 0.001). Soil total N content was negatively
correlated with soil bulk density (p < 0.001), soil pH (p < 0.05), and soil Fe content (p < 0.01)
and positively correlated with clay content (p < 0.001), CEC (p < 0.001), and available P
(p < 0.05), available K (p < 0.05), available N (p < 0.05), SOC (p < 0.001), and soil Cu content
(p < 0.05).
Water 2023, 15, 2481 12 of 20

Table 4. The chemical properties of the studied sediments (Bulk density/Soil organic).

Bulk Density CEC CaCO3 EC Available N Available P Available K Total N Soil Organic C
Profile (cmolc kg−1 ) (g kg−1 ) (dS m−1 ) pH
(g cm−1 ) (mg kg−1 ) (mg kg−1 ) (mg kg−1 ) (g kg−1 ) (g kg−1 )
P1 1.67 ± 0.10 26.8 ± 1.27 336 ± 9.24 1.31 ± 0.06 8.40 ± 0.08 20.2 ± 0.44 12.2 ± 0.64 72.2 ± 1.85 0.87 ± 0.04 3.00 ± 0.02
P2 1.44 ± 0.15 24.2 ± 0.69 428 ± 6.81 3.35 ± 0.08 8.21 ± 0.00 16.8 ± 0.14 6.39 ± 0.18 67.1 ± 1.56 0.83 ± 0.10 3.70 ± 0.06
P3 1.30 ± 0.13 33.5 ± 1.10 4.90 ± 0.68 0.79 ± 0.12 7.83 ± 0.01 45.7 ± 1.79 19.8 ± 0.40 287 ± 7.16 1.67 ± 0.12 5.50 ± 0.08
P4 1.30 ± 0.13 32.1 ± 1.10 4.40 ± 0.87 0.77 ± 0.11 7.80 ± 0.01 43.2 ± 1.79 20.7 ± 0.40 298 ± 8.78 1.69 ± 0.09 4.80 ± 0.06
P5 1.38 ± 0.17 32.0 ± 1.04 36.7 ± 2.34 32.0 ± 2.34 8.50 ± 0.12 25.8 ± 0.64 6.70 ± 0.12 155 ± 4.16 1.02 ± 0.01 1.50 ± 0.06
P6 1.40 ± 0.17 31.0 ± 1.04 36.9 ± 2.34 29.0 ± 2.34 8.40 ± 0.12 23.8 ± 0.64 6.10 ± 0.12 150 ± 4.16 1.02 ± 0.01 1.40 ± 0.06
P7 1.80 ± 0.11 3.80 ± 0.27 820 ± 12.4 22.1 ± 1.73 8.07 ± 0.00 11.1 ± 0.28 4.60 ± 0.45 62.6 ± 1.56 0.34 ± 0.02 0.80 ± 0.03
P8 1.70 ± 0.16 3.97 ± 0.36 149 ± 5.20 8.90 ± 0.96 8.16 ± 0.02 10.3 ± 0.86 4.80 ± 0.52 60.9 ± 1.21 0.33 ± 0.02 1.00 ± 0.03

Table 5. Correlation coefficients between different soil properties for the studied sediments.

Clay BD CEC EC ESP pH CaCO3 AP AK AN TN SOC C/N Fe Zn Mn

BD −0.70 ***
CEC 0.85 *** −0.77 ***
EC 0.27 ns 0.22 ns −0.24 ns
ESP 0.73 *** −0.17 ns 0.32 ns 0.75 ***
pH 0.23 ns 0.39 ns −0.03 ns 0.52 * 0.71 ***
CaCO3 −0.31 ns 0.31 ns −0.11 ns −0.32 ns −0.14 ns 0.46 *
AP 0.37 ns −0.60 ** 0.70 *** −0.60 ** −0.31 ns −0.61 ** −0.40 ns
AK 0.56 ** −0.75 *** 0.69 *** −0.28 ns −0.07 ns −0.62 ** −0.67 *** 0.89 ***
AN 0.61 ** −0.77 *** 0.80 *** −0.36 ns −0.06 ns −0.54 * −0.54 * 0.93 *** 0.98 ***
TN 0.65 ** −0.77 *** 0.87 *** −0.40 ns −0.02 ns −0.46 * −0.39 ns 0.92 *** 0.93 *** 0.98 ***
SOC 0.35 ns −0.70 *** 0.75 *** −0.73 *** −0.60 ** −0.56 ** −0.06 ns 0.88 *** 0.76 *** 0.84 *** 0.88 ***
C/N −0.33 ns −0.004 ns 0.08 ns −0.79 *** −0.36 ns −0.17 ns 0.71 *** 0.16 ns −0.12 ns −0.01 ns 0.10 ns 0.50 *
Fe −0.80 *** 0.67 *** −0.89 *** 0.05 ns −0.45 * −0.18 ns −0.12 ns −0.40 ns −0.39 ns −0.52 * −0.62 ** −0.54 * −0.06 ns
Zn −0.28 ns −0.022 ns −0.12 ns −0.24 ns −0.62 ** −0.82 *** −0.60 ** 0.51 * 0.55 ** 0.44 * 0.35 ns 0.32 ns −0.04 ns 0.37 ns
Mn −0.33 ns 0.21 ns 0.11 ns −0.63 ** −0.65 ** −0.34 ns 0.17 ns 0.49 * 0.17 ns 0.27 ns 0.29 ns 0.49 * 0.54 * 0.05 ns 0.44 *
Cu −0.18 ns −0.25 ns 0.33 ns −0.93 *** −0.75 *** −0.57 ** 0.24 ns 0.67 *** 0.40 ns 0.49 * 0.53 * 0.83 *** 0.80 *** −0.13 ns 0.41 ns 0.73 ***
Notes: BD, CEC, EC, ESP, AP, AK, AN, TN, SOC, and C/N refer to bulk density, cation exchange capacity, electric conductivity, exchangeable sodium percentage, available phosphorus,
available potassium, available nitrogen, total nitrogen, soil organic carbon, and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, respectively. * Correlation is significant at p < 0.05, ** Correlation is significant at
p < 0.01, *** Correlation is significant at p < 0.001, ns refers to non-significant relationship.
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20

Water 2023, 15, 2481 13 of 20

Figure 6. Model-averaged importance of the predictors of the impact of the factors on soil substrates
Figure 6. Model-averaged importance of the predictors of the impact of the factors on soil substrates
and heavy metal content: (a) soil organic C; (b) total N stocks; (c) soil Fe content; (d) soil Zn content;
and heavy metal content: (a) soil organic C; (b) total N stocks; (c) soil Fe content; (d) soil Zn content;
(e) soil Mn content; (f) soil Cu content. The importance is based on the sum of Akaike weights
(e) soil Mn
derived content;
from (f) soilselection
the model Cu content. The importance
process is based
using Akaike’s on the sum
information of Akaike
criterion weightsfor
corrected derived
small
from the model
samples. selection
The cut-off process
is set at 0.8using
(red Akaike’s information between
line) to differentiate criterion unimportant
corrected for and
smallimportant
samples.
The cut-off
factors [39].isPM,
setparent
at 0.8 (red line) to
materials; AP,differentiate between unimportant
available phosphorus; and
BD, soil bulk important
density; SOC, factors [39].
soil organic
PM, parent materials; AP, available phosphorus; BD, soil bulk density; SOC, soil organic carbon.
carbon.

3.5.
3.5. Patterns
Patterns and
and Controlling
Controlling Factors
Factors of
of Heavy
Heavy Metal
Metal Availability
Availability in Arid Regions
in Arid Regions
The − 1
The soil
soil content
content of heavy metals
of heavy metals (mg
(mg kg
kg−1) varied,
) varied, with
with deposits
deposits ranging
ranging from
from 0.99
0.99 to
to 5.17, from 0.44 to 0.86, from 0.41 to 0.72, and from 0.33 to 0.70, with an average of
5.17, from 0.44 to 0.86, from 0.41 to 0.72, and from 0.33 to 0.70, with an average of 2.38 ±
2.38 ± 0.29, 0.64 ± 0.03, 0.56 ± 0.02, and 0.57 ± 0.03 for Fe, Zn, MN, and Cu, respectively
0.29, 0.64 ± 0.03, 0.56 ± 0.02, and 0.57 ± 0.03 for Fe, Zn, MN, and Cu, respectively (Figure
(Figure 5b). The average content of Fe in aeolian deposits was greater than those in marine,
5b). The average content of Fe in aeolian deposits was greater than those in marine,
alluvial, and lacustrine deposits (p < 0.001), without any significant differences between
alluvial, and lacustrine deposits (p < 0.001), without any significant differences between
alluvial and marine deposits. The highest average content of Zn, Mn, and Cu was recorded
alluvial and marine deposits. The highest average content of Zn, Mn, and Cu was recorded
in alluvial deposits, with significant differences between other deposits (Figure 5b). Parent
in alluvial deposits, with significant differences between other deposits (Figure 5b). Parent
material, clay content, soil pH, and SOC were the primary impact factors on the amount of
material, clay content, soil pH, and SOC were the primary impact factors on the amount
soil-available Fe (Figure 6c). Bulk density, soil pH, and clay content had the most effects
of soil-available Fe (Figure 6c). Bulk density, soil pH, and clay content had the most effects
on the amount of soil-accessible Zn, while parent material, SOC, and available P had
on the amount of soil-accessible Zn, while parent material, SOC, and available P had little
little impact (Figure 6d). Only bulk density and SOC had an impact on the amount of
impact (Figure 6d). Only bulk density and SOC had an impact on the amount of soil-
soil-available Mn; the other parameters had no significance (Figure 6e). The major factors
available
that Mn; thesoil
determined other parameters
availability hadwere
of Cu no significance (Figure 6e).
SOC, clay content, andThe
soil major
pH, withfactors
littlethat
or
determined soil availability of Cu were SOC, clay content, and soil pH,
no impact from bulk density, parent material, or available P (Figure 6f). Based on Pearson’s with little or no
impact from
correlation bulk5),
(Table density,
soil Fe parent
contentmaterial, or available
was negatively P (Figure
associated with 6f).
clayBased
content on(pPearson’s
< 0.001),
CEC (p < 0.001), ESP (p < 0.05), total available N (p < 0.05), soil total N (p < 0.01),(pand
correlation (Table 5), soil Fe content was negatively associated with clay content < 0.001),
SOC
(p < 0.05), but it increased (p < 0.001) with increasing soil bulk density. Soil Zn content SOC
CEC (p < 0.001), ESP (p < 0.05), total available N (p < 0.05), soil total N (p < 0.01), and was
(p < 0.05), but
negatively it increased
correlated with(pESP< 0.001) with soil
(p < 0.01), increasing
pH (p <soil bulkand
0.001), density.
CaCOSoil (p Zn
< content
0.001), was
while
3
negatively correlated with ESP (p < 0.01), soil pH (p < 0.001), and CaCO 3 (p < 0.001), while
it was positively correlated with available P (p < 0.05), available K (p < 0.01), and available
Water 2023, 15, 2481 14 of 20

N (p < 0.05). Soil Mn content increased with increasing available P (p < 0.05), SOC (p < 0.05),
C/N ratio (p < 0.05), and soil Zn content (p < 0.05), but it decreased with increasing EC
(p < 0.01) and ESP (p < 0.01). Soil Cu content was negatively correlated with EC (p < 0.001),
ESP (p < 0.001), and soil pH (p < 0.001) and positively correlated with available P (p < 0.001),
available N (p < 0.05), and total N (p < 0.05), SOC (p < 0.001), C/N ratio (p < 0.001), and soil
Mn content (p < 0.001).

4. Discussion
Parent material, time, climate, relief, and organisms are the five main variables that
combine to form soil [40]. The sixth factor is human activity (anthropogenic activities),
which influences soil formation [41]. These activities refer to a group of geomorphic and
pedological processes, including irrigation, extensive ploughing, the burning of natural
vegetation, and the production of genetically modified crops [42]. Each soil factor’s propor-
tional weight varies from place to place, but the totality of all factors frequently determines
the type of soil that forms in any particular region [43]. Parent material, which might
include organic materials or mineral rock, is the basis for the majority of soil formation
processes [44]. Soil formation occurs when parent rock material is exposed to the atmo-
sphere or when organic matter, minerals, or both are put on the Earth’s surface [45]. Here,
we offer four cases of some of the most significant effects of parent material influences on
soil parameters [46]. Providing a straightforward quantification of all the soil components
that affect soil formation is difficult in practice [43].
Parent material, which affects soil physical, chemical, and biological aspects, is one of
the most important variables governing soil development and genesis [47]. It also supplies
macro and micronutrients for plant growth as well as a habitat for soil microbes [47]. Thus,
the ability of parent material to shape these qualities plays a significant role in the structure
and communities of soil microorganisms [48]. The impact of parent material on the soil
microbial population and structure is well understood [48]. However, there have been
few investigations on the effects of parent materials on soil substrate (SOC and total N)
and heavy metal (Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu) availability [17,49]. Here, we discuss the impact of
soil parent materials and soil physical (e.g., bulk density and clay content) and chemical
(e.g., pH and available P) properties on SOC, soil total N, and soil heavy metal (Fe, Zn, Mn,
and Cu) availability.

4.1. The Role of Parent Material in Controlling Soil Substrate Availability in Arid Regions
One of the purposes of this study was to assess the impact of soils derived from
four different parent material categories (fluvio-marine, Nile alluvial, lacustrine, and aeo-
lian) on soil substrate availability. SOC is gaining popularity, since it is the largest terrestrial
carbon store and plays an important role in the global carbon cycle [50]. In the present study,
SOC content was slightly higher in the soils developed from alluvial deposits compared
to the soils formed from other deposits. The high content was most likely connected with
continuous vegetation forms and dense cover [51]. The aggregation of soils from alluvial
deposits enhances the stability of SOC contained within organo-mineral associations, re-
sulting in increased resistance to soil erosion [52]. In addition, organic matter improves
soil physical qualities, increases water infiltration, and improves soil structure. Thus, it
appears that these sediments are ideal for a methodological case study to demonstrate
how the lithological facies might change in response to river sedimentation dynamics.
Manure application is a common source of SOM [52]. Furthermore, alluvial soils had
higher CEC values than the other deposits, indicating their high clay and SOC content. The
low SOC content in soils developed from lacustrine deposits can be attributed to long arid
periods and poor vegetation [53]. One of the main issues with calcareous soils derived from
marine deposits is a lack of organic matter. On the other hand, there are extensive areas of
sandy soils that are being farmed, but the soil fertility is frequently low and depends on
the SOC levels [54]. The pedons that were selected from aeolian deposits had the lowest
SOC. Aeolian soils are typically characterized by having limited organic matter content,
Water 2023, 15, 2481 15 of 20

a sandy or loamy sand texture, and very weak structural stability [55]. Because sand is
inert and has minimal surface bonding on its particles, these soils also have relatively poor
CEC [56]. Moreover, sand contains significant macropores, which are pores with a large
particle size and typically contain air rather than water [56]. They are rather simple to
manage without any compacting from mechanical cultivation [57]. Sandy soils are sensitive
to slumping, mainly when there is a deficiency in organic matter [58]. More siliceous
parent materials, such as illite and kaolinite, create clay minerals with a lower CEC than
less siliceous parent materials, such as montmorillonite and vermiculite [59]; therefore,
boosting the clay fraction’s content could benefit SOC stocks in two different ways, thus
playing a relatively greater role in the CEC [60]. Moreover, the predominance of quartz
for soils inherent from aeolian and marine deposits would facilitate leaching due to its
low surface area and charges [61]. Parent material has an impact on the nutrients in the
soil [62], which may then change how much root exudation occurs and how the rooting
system develops. In the present study, the low available NPK level of aeolian deposits was
due to the low organic matter and clay content. In addition, nutrients generally increase
as the parent material becomes less siliceous. Owing to low nutrient retention, additional
supplies of fertilizers are used to keep nutrient levels at their ideal levels [61,63]. Liming is
important, but it should only be performed little and often. Because it serves to store water
and plant nutrients in the soil and to enhance soil structure and biological activity, organic
matter, especially as humus, is very advantageous [64]. Many different crops can be grown
successfully in sandy soils, including carrot, beetroot, cucumber, muskmelon, watermelon,
fenugreek, radish, etc. [65]. However, alluvial deposits had the highest available NPK
content as a result of their high content of clay and organic matter, cultivation management
processes, and vegetation; consequently, the majority of the biological activities occurred
there [66]. Soil microbial biomass, soil substrate availability, and soil bulk density drive soil
gross N mineralization [67,68]. Soil substrate availability is a main factor controlling soil
dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium. In addition, clay minerals in the old alluvial
plain were generated by subsequent Nile floods from Pleistocene deposits [69]. We found
that montmorillonite, vermiculite, and illite are the clay minerals identified in alluvial soils,
in decreasing order of abundance [70]. They have the capacity to store irrigation water
and adsorb more exchangeable cations in aqueous media, providing plant nutrients [70].
In the current study, parent materials affected soil chemical aspects; thus, soils formed
from lacustrine and marine deposits had the highest pH values, which were attributed to
shell fragments, the accumulation of CaCO3 , and a high value of ESP [23]. In addition,
these soils were classified as saline soils due to the great quantities of soluble salts in Lake
Manzala [71,72]. It is essential to cultivate such soils with crops suitable for the local climate,
topography, and water availability, which includes halophyte plants, as well as growing
crops with high economic yields that can resist salt [73]. Soil conditioners may be used to
improve the chemical and physical properties of such soils [74]. On the other hand, soils
representing alluvial River Nile sediments (the old deltaic plain) had the lowest values of
soil pH, EC, CaCO3 , and ESP, as well as advanced cultivation processes, for a long time [7].
Rice, corn, cotton, wheat, oranges, and potatoes are the most common crops grown in
these soils [75]. The northern Mediterranean zone’s arid or semiarid soils are primarily
calcareous [76]. The amount of CaCO3 in the soil is an accurate indicator of how the marine
parent material has affected the soil [76]. The limestone and calcarenite ridges that eroded
into the surface layer of Egypt’s northern coastline resulted in the majority of the sand
being formed by the combination of CaCO3 [77]. As a result of the exceptionally low acidity
of carbonic acid, calcareous soils are often alkaline in character [78]. They may contain a
calcic horizon, a layer of secondary carbonate deposits (typically calcium or magnesium),
more carbonate than an underlying layer by at least 5%, and more carbonate than the
horizon, so they are identified by the parent material’s CaCO3 content [78]. Acid-forming
fertilizers, such as ammonium sulphate and urea fertilizers, sulfur compounds, organic
manures, and green manures, are considered effective ways of reducing the pH of soil to a
neutral value [20]. Wheat, alfalfa, sunflower, barley, date palm, cotton, and olive were the
Water 2023, 15, 2481 16 of 20

optimum crops for land use in this unit [79]. In aeolian soils, carbonates and soluble salts
may be carried by the wind; nevertheless, their endurance in the soil is caused by limited
leaching [80]. Poor drainage and the use of saline water for irrigating agricultural crops is
reflected in the high salinity of these soils [81].

4.2. Drivers of Heavy Metal Availability in Arid Regions

Understanding the variables affecting the distribution of heavy metals in agricultural
soil is crucial [82]. A number of factors, including intrinsic soil properties (such as pH and
soil P content), environmental conditions (such as climate and topographic moisture), land
use characteristics, and soil type, can influence the availability and mobility of heavy metals
in the soil [83]. Moreover, soil heavy metal levels decrease with increasing distance from
the source due to topography and water flow [84]. The most critical factor among them
is soil pH, since it regulates nearly all physical, chemical, and biological processes in soil
that affect metal availability, such as metal solid phase dissolution and the precipitation,
complexation, and acid–base interactions of metal species [85]. The rivalry between free
metal ions and other cations in solution increases when pH decreases metal ion sorption on
soil particles, leading to increased metal concentrations in the soil solution [86]. Alkaline
soils require particular management strategies, such as the addition of acidifying minerals,
organic matter, and gypsum, to raise pH levels [87]. Growing legumes can help maintain a
lower pH. Using alkalinity-tolerant crops and pastures can also help mitigate the effects of
high pH levels [88]. This conclusion suggests that when developing models to predict soil
heavy metals in response to parent materials and soil pH, these factors should be taken
into account. In our study, the SOM content had a significant impact on the heavy metal
availability in the soil because it adsorbs metals through complexation processes [89]. In
addition, the availability of heavy metals was found to be highly correlated with EC, where
higher EC values are typically associated with greater metal release rates [90]. The amount
of heavy metals in their soluble forms, such as Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb, is often increased in soil
that has been fertilized with NPK and manure.

5. Conclusions
Eight soil profiles derived from four different parent materials—fluvio-marine, Nile
alluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian deposits—were meticulously set out in the current study
so that their effects on soil substrate and heavy metal availability could be assessed. The
soil parent material clearly differed in the contents of SOC and total N through its impact
on the soil chemical and physical properties, mainly clay content. The major factor that
determined soil Fe availability was the soil parent material type, whereas soil bulk density
was the driver of soil Zn and Mn contents. Clay content was the most important factor
affecting soil Cu content. The findings of this study could deepen our understanding of
the effect of soil parent materials on soil substrates (SOC and total N), which are the main
factors controlling soil nutrients availability, and could also deepen our understanding of
micronutrient management in alkaline soils. This study is useful for agricultural authorities
to help farmers understand their soil and how to manage it. Both anthropogenic activities
and agricultural land use should be considered when assessing the impact of parent
material change on different soil aspects.

Author Contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: M.A.A. and A.S.E.; Performed the
experiments: M.A.A. and A.-R.M.M.; Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: M.A.A. and
A.-R.M.M.; Analyzed the data: M.A.A., A.-R.M.M. and A.S.E.; Wrote the paper: M.A.A., A.S.E., M.Z.
and K.P.-U.; Revised the paper: M.A.A. and A.S.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are
available on the request from the corresponding author.
Water 2023, 15, 2481 17 of 20

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency
under contract no. APVV-20-0281. This work was supported by project HUSKROUA/1901/8.1/0088,
Complex flood-control strategy on the Upper-Tisza catchment area. The authors are grateful for the
support from the Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Egypt.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wilson, M. The importance of parent material in soil classification: A review in a historical context. Catena 2019, 182, 104131.
[CrossRef]
2. Wysocki, D.A.; Lietzke, D.; Zelazny, L. Effects of parent material weathering on chemical and mineralogical properties of selected
Hapludults in the Virginia Piedmont. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 196–203. [CrossRef]
3. Suther, B.E.; Leigh, D.S.; West, L.T. Soil Chemistry and Clay Mineralogy of an Alluvial Chronosequence from the North Carolina
Sandhills of the Upper Coastal Plain, USA. Soil Syst. 2021, 6, 1. [CrossRef]
4. Irmak, S.; Surucu, A.; Aydogdu, I. Effects of different parent material on the mineral characteristics of soils in the arid region of
Turkey. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. PJBS 2007, 10, 528–536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Gray, J.; Murphy, B. Parent material and world soil distribution. In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress of Soil Science,
Bangkok, Thailand, 14–21 August 2002; pp. 1–2215.
6. Khorasani, M.; Ghorbani, R.R. Evaluation of carbon sequestration potential in corn fields with different management systems.
Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 133, 2531.
7. Alnaimy, M.A.; Shahin, S.A.; Afifi, A.A.; Ewees, A.A.; Junakova, N.; Balintova, M.; Abd Elaziz, M. Spatio Prediction of Soil
Capability Modeled with Modified RVFL Using Aptenodytes Forsteri Optimization and Digital Soil Assessment Technique.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14996. [CrossRef]
8. Al-Kaisi, M.M.; Yin, X.; Licht, M.A. Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as influenced by tillage and cropping systems in some Iowa
soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 105, 635–647. [CrossRef]
9. Angst, G.; Messinger, J.; Greiner, M.; Häusler, W.; Hertel, D.; Kirfel, K.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Leuschner, C.; Rethemeyer, J.;
Mueller, C.W. Soil organic carbon stocks in topsoil and subsoil controlled by parent material, carbon input in the rhizosphere,
and microbial-derived compounds. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 122, 19–30. [CrossRef]
10. Gray, J.M.; Bishop, T.F. Change in soil organic carbon stocks under 12 climate change projections over New South Wales, Australia.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 1296–1307. [CrossRef]
11. Xue, Z.; An, S. Changes in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen at a small watershed scale as the result of land use conversion on
the loess plateau. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4757. [CrossRef]
12. Elrys, A.S.; Desoky, E.-S.M.; Alnaimy, M.A.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.-B.; Cai, Z.-C.; Cheng, Y. The food nitrogen footprint for African
countries under fertilized and unfertilized farms. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111599. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Zhang, X.; Li, M.-J.; Yang, C.; Zhan, L.-Q.; Wu, W.; Liu, H.-B. The stratification of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen affected
by parent material and cropping system. Catena 2022, 210, 105898. [CrossRef]
14. Van Eynde, E.; Groenenberg, J.E.; Hoffland, E.; Comans, R.N. Solid-solution partitioning of micronutrients Zn, Cu and B in
tropical soils: Mechanistic and empirical models. Geoderma 2022, 414, 115773. [CrossRef]
15. Elrys, A.S.; Merwad, A.-R.M.; Abdo, A.I.; Abdel-Fatah, M.K.; Desoky, E.-S.M. Does the application of silicon and Moringa
seed extract reduce heavy metals toxicity in potato tubers treated with phosphate fertilizers? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018,
25, 16776–16787. [CrossRef]
16. Anderson, D. The effect of parent material and soil development on nutrient cycling in temperate ecosystems. Biogeochemistry
1988, 5, 71–97. [CrossRef]
17. Zinn, Y.L.; de Faria, J.A.; de Araujo, M.A.; Skorupa, A.L.A. Soil parent material is the main control on heavy metal concentrations
in tropical highlands of Brazil. Catena 2020, 185, 104319. [CrossRef]
18. Zhenghu, D.; Honglang, X.; Zhibao, D.; Gang, W.; Drake, S. Morphological, physical and chemical properties of aeolian sandy
soils in northern China. J. Arid. Environ. 2007, 68, 66–76. [CrossRef]
19. Ugolini, F.; Hillier, S.; Certini, G.; Wilson, M. The contribution of aeolian material to an Aridisol from southern Jordan as revealed
by mineralogical analysis. J. Arid. Environ. 2008, 72, 1431–1447. [CrossRef]
20. Alnaimy, M.; Zelenakova, M.; Vranayova, Z.; Abu-Hashim, M. Effects of Temporal Variation in Long-Term Cultivation on Organic
Carbon Sequestration in Calcareous Soils: Nile Delta, Egypt. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4514. [CrossRef]
21. Ibrahim, A.; Gemail, K.S.; Bedair, S.; Saada, S.A.; Koch, M.; Nosair, A. An Integrated Approach to Unravel the Structural Controls
on Groundwater Potentialities in Hyper-arid Regions Using Satellite and Land-Based Geophysics: A Case Study in Southwestern
Desert of Egypt. Surv. Geophys. 2022, 44, 783–819. [CrossRef]
22. Ferreira, E.P.; Anjos, L.H.C.d.; Pereira, M.G.; Valladares, G.S.; Cipriano-Silva, R.; Azevedo, A.C.d. Genesis and classification of
soils containing carbonate on the Apodi Plateau, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2016, 40, 1–20. [CrossRef]
23. Wilford, J.; De Caritat, P.; Bui, E. Modelling the abundance of soil calcium carbonate across Australia using geochemical survey
data and environmental predictors. Geoderma 2015, 259, 81–92. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2481 18 of 20

24. Ismail, A. Soil properties and moisture characteristics and their relationship with crop mid-day stress in the Sudan Gezira. Geo J.
1991, 23, 233–237. [CrossRef]
25. Caicedo, B.; Mendoza, C.; Lizcano, A.; Lopez-Caballero, F. Some contributions to mechanical behaviors of lacustrine deposit in
Bogotá, Colombia. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 11, 837–849. [CrossRef]
26. Shaheen, S.M.; Abo-Waly, M.E.; Ali, R.A. Classification, characterization, and management of some agricultural soils in the North
of Egypt. In Developments in Soil Classification, Land Use Planning and Policy Implications: Innovative Thinking of Soil Inventory for
Land Use Planning and Management of Land Resources; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 417–448.
27. Elewa, H.H.; Nosair, A.M.; Zelenakova, M.; Mikita, V.; Abdel Moneam, N.A.; Ramadan, E.M. Environmental Sustainability of
Water Resources in Coastal Aquifers, Case Study: El-Qaa Plain, South Sinai, Egypt. Water 2023, 15, 1118. [CrossRef]
28. Omran, E.-S.E.; Negm, A.M. Adaptive management zones of Egyptian coastal lakes. In Egyptian Coastal Lakes and Wetlands: Part I:
Characteristics and Hydrodynamics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 37–60.
29. US Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Manual; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
30. Conoco, C. Geological Map of Egypt, Scale 1:500,000-NF 36 NE-Bernice, Egypt; The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation: Cairo,
Egypt, 1987.
31. Klute, A. Water Retention: Laboratory Methods; SSSA Book Series; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy:
Madison, WI, USA, 2018; pp. 635–662.
32. Tedesco, M.; Gianello, G.; Bissani, C.; Bohnen, H.; Volkweiss, S. Análises de Solo, Plantas e Outros Materiais. Rev. e Ampliada;
Departamento de Solos, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1995; Volume 174.
33. van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for Soil Analysis; No. 9; International Soil Reference and Information Center, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1986; ISSN 0923-3792.
34. Tan, Z.; Lal, R. Carbon sequestration potential with changes in land use and management in Ohio. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005,
110, 140–152. [CrossRef]
35. Baruah, T.; Barthakur, H. Determination of available Potassium, Sulphur, Particle density and textural properties. In A Text Book
of Soil Analysis; Vikas Publishing House Private Lim: New Delhi, India, 1997.
36. Lindsay, W.; Norvell, W. Development of DTPA soils test for Zinc Cu, Fe and Mn. Soil Sci. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428. [CrossRef]
37. Brown, G. Crystal Structures of Clay Minerals and Their X-ray Identification; The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland:
London, UK, 1982; Volume 5.
38. Dietrich, F.; Diaz, N.; Deschamps, P.; Ngatcha, B.N.; Sebag, D.; Verrecchia, E.P. Origin of calcium in pedogenic carbonate nodules
from silicate watersheds in the Far North Region of Cameroon: Respective contribution of in situ weathering source and dust
input. Chem. Geol. 2017, 460, 54–69. [CrossRef]
39. Elrys, A.S.; Uwiragiye, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Abdel-Fattah, M.K.; Chen, Z.-X.; Zhang, H.-M.; Meng, L.; Wang, J.; Zhu, T.-B.; Cheng, Y.
Expanding agroforestry can increase nitrate retention and mitigate the global impact of a leaky nitrogen cycle in croplands. Nat.
Food 2023, 4, 109–121. [CrossRef]
40. Huggett, R. Soil landscape systems: A model of soil genesis. Geoderma 1975, 13, 1–22. [CrossRef]
41. Chen, B.; Zhang, X.; Tao, J.; Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Shi, P.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, C. The impact of climate change and anthropogenic activities
on alpine grassland over the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2014, 189, 11–18. [CrossRef]
42. Lal, R. Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse effect. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2003, 22, 151–184.
[CrossRef]
43. Jenny, H. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology; Courier Corporation: Chelmsford, NC, USA, 1994.
44. Wagai, R.; Mayer, L.M.; Kitayama, K.; Knicker, H. Climate and parent material controls on organic matter storage in surface soils:
A three-pool, density-separation approach. Geoderma 2008, 147, 23–33. [CrossRef]
45. Chesworth, W. The parent rock effect in the genesis of soil. Geoderma 1973, 10, 215–225. [CrossRef]
46. Babur, E. Effects of parent material on soil microbial biomass carbon and basal respiration within young afforested areas. Scand. J.
For. Res. 2019, 34, 94–101. [CrossRef]
47. Wilding, L. Factors of soil formation: Contributions to pedology. Factors Soil Form. A Fiftieth Anniv. Retrosp. 1994, 33, 15–30.
48. Company, J.; Valiente, N.; Fortesa, J.; García-Comendador, J.; Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Ortega, R.; Miralles, I.; Estrany, J. Secondary suc-
cession and parent material drive soil bacterial community composition in terraced abandoned olive groves from a Mediterranean
hyper-humid mountainous area. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 332, 107932. [CrossRef]
49. Massas, I.; Kalivas, D.; Ehaliotis, C.; Gasparatos, D. Total and available heavy metal concentrations in soils of the Thriassio plain
(Greece) and assessment of soil pollution indexes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 6751–6766. [CrossRef]
50. Horwath, W. Carbon cycling and formation of soil organic matter. In Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biochemistry; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 303–339.
51. John, K.; Abraham Isong, I.; Michael Kebonye, N.; Okon Ayito, E.; Chapman Agyeman, P.; Marcus Afu, S. Using machine learning
algorithms to estimate soil organic carbon variability with environmental variables and soil nutrient indicators in an alluvial soil.
Land 2020, 9, 487. [CrossRef]
52. Song, K.; Zheng, X.; Lv, W.; Qin, Q.; Sun, L.; Zhang, H.; Xue, Y. Effects of tillage and straw return on water-stable aggregates,
carbon stabilization and crop yield in an estuarine alluvial soil. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4586. [CrossRef]
53. Paul, E.; Collins, H.; Leavitt, S. Dynamics of resistant soil carbon of Midwestern agricultural soils measured by naturally occurring
14C abundance. Geoderma 2001, 104, 239–256. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2481 19 of 20

54. Azam, S. Collapse and compressibility behaviour of arid calcareous soil formations. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2000, 59, 211–217.
[CrossRef]
55. Dickson, B.L.; Scott, K.M. Recognition of aeolian soils of the Blayney district, NSW: Implications for mineral exploration. J.
Geochem. Explor. 1998, 63, 237–251. [CrossRef]
56. McTainsh, G.; Strong, C. The role of aeolian dust in ecosystems. Geomorphology 2007, 89, 39–54. [CrossRef]
57. Ravi, S.; D’Odorico, P.; Breshears, D.D.; Field, J.P.; Goudie, A.S.; Huxman, T.E.; Li, J.; Okin, G.S.; Swap, R.J.; Thomas, A.D. Aeolian
processes and the biosphere. Rev. Geophys. 2011, 49, RG3001. [CrossRef]
58. Bröder, L.; Keskitalo, K.; Zolkos, S.; Shakil, S.; Tank, S.E.; Kokelj, S.V.; Tesi, T.; Van Dongen, B.E.; Haghipour, N.; Eglinton, T.I.
Preferential export of permafrost-derived organic matter as retrogressive thaw slumping intensifies. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021,
16, 054059. [CrossRef]
59. Croffie, M.E.; Williams, P.N.; Fenton, O.; Fenelon, A.; Daly, K. Rubidium measured by XRF as a predictor of soil particle size in
limestone and siliceous parent materials. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 818–830. [CrossRef]
60. Saiz, G.; Bird, M.I.; Domingues, T.; Schrodt, F.; Schwarz, M.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Veenendaal, E.; Djagbletey, G.; Hien, F.; Compaore,
H. Variation in soil carbon stocks and their determinants across a precipitation gradient in W est A frica. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012,
18, 1670–1683. [CrossRef]
61. Pincus, L.; Ryan, P.; Huertas, F.; Alvarado, G. The influence of soil age and regional climate on clay mineralogy and cation
exchange capacity of moist tropical soils: A case study from Late Quaternary chronosequences in Costa Rica. Geoderma 2017, 308,
130–148. [CrossRef]
62. Torn, M.S.; Swanston, C.; Castanha, C.; Trumbore, S. Storage and turnover of organic matter in soil. In Biophysico-Chemical
Processes Involving Natural Nonliving Organic Matter in Environmental Systems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp.
219–272.
63. Elnaggar, A. Spatial variability of soil physiochemical properties in Bahariya Oasis, Egypt. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 57, 313–328.
64. Vandenberghe, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, X.; Abels, H.; Liu, X. Grain-size characterization of reworked fine-grained aeolian deposits. Earth
Sci. Rev. 2018, 177, 43–52. [CrossRef]
65. Ouda, S.; Sayed, M.; El-Afandi, G.; Khalil, F. Developing an adaptation strategy to reduce climate change risks on wheat grown in
sandy soil in Egypt. In Meeting the Challenge of Sustainable Development in Drylands under Changing Climate-Moving from Global to
Local, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Development of Drylands, Cairo, Egypt, 12–15 December 2010; International
Dryland Development Commission (IDDC): Cairo, Egypt, 2011; pp. 346–356.
66. Kumar, A.; Yadav, D. Long-term effects of fertilizers on the soil fertility and productivity of a rice–wheat system. J. Agron. Crop
Sci. 2001, 186, 47–54. [CrossRef]
67. Elrys, A.S.; Wang, J.; Metwally, M.A.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, J.B.; Cai, Z.C.; Chang, S.X.; Müller, C. Global gross nitrification rates are
dominantly driven by soil carbon-to-nitrogen stoichiometry and total nitrogen. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 6512–6524. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
68. Abdo, A.I.; Deng, Y.; Sun, D.; Chen, X.; Alnaimy, M.A.; El-Sobky, E.-S.E.; Wei, H.; Zhang, J. Maintaining higher grain production
with less reactive nitrogen losses in China: A meta-analysis study. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 322, 116018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Afify, A.; Arafat, S.; Ghar, M.A.; Khader, M. Physiographic soil map delineation for the Nile alluvium and desert outskirts in
middle Egypt using remote sensing data of EgyptSat-1. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2010, 13, 129–135. [CrossRef]
70. Yoothong, K.; Pukamphol, M.; Hutspardol, A. Distribution of Clay Minerals–Kaolinite, Illite and Montmorillonite in the Coarse
and the Fine Clay Fractions in Some Alluvial Soils. Agric. Nat. Resour. 1986, 20, 285–299.
71. Nosair, A.M.; Shams, M.Y.; AbouElmagd, L.M.; Hassanein, A.E.; Fryar, A.E.; Abu Salem, H.S. Predictive model for progressive
salinization in a coastal aquifer using artificial intelligence and hydrogeochemical techniques: A case study of the Nile Delta
aquifer, Egypt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 9318–9340. [CrossRef]
72. Abu Salem, H.S.; Gemail, K.S.; Junakova, N.; Ibrahim, A.; Nosair, A.M. An Integrated Approach for Deciphering Hydrogeochemi-
cal Processes during Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers. Water 2022, 14, 1165. [CrossRef]
73. Youghly, N.A.; Elbous, M.M.; Elbanna, M.A.; Taher, H.S.; Hegazi, N.A.; Youssef, H.A.; Fouad, M.F. Assessment of heavy metal
contamination and tolerant bacteria associated with halophyte Arthrocnemum Macrostachyum in Lake Manzala, Egypt. Alfarama
J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2021, 2, 263–284. [CrossRef]
74. Ali, S.; Ahmed, H.R. Comparative effects of different soil conditioners on wheat growth and yield grown in saline-sodic soils.
Sains Malays. 2016, 45, 339–346.
75. Abdel Monem, M.A.; Radojevic, B. Agricultural production in Egypt: Assessing vulnerability and enhancing adaptive capacity
and resilience to climate change. In Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security in Egypt: Land and Water Resources—
Smart Farming—Livestock, Fishery, and Aquaculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 205–222.
76. González-Ubierna, S.; Jorge-Mardomingo, I.; Carrero-González, B.; de la Cruz, M.T.; Casermeiro, M.Á. Soil organic matter
evolution after the application of high doses of organic amendments in a Mediterranean calcareous soil. J. Soils Sediments 2012,
12, 1257–1268. [CrossRef]
77. Ata, A.; Salem, T.N.; Hassan, R. Geotechnical characterization of the calcareous sand in northern coast of Egypt. Ain Shams Eng. J.
2018, 9, 3381–3390. [CrossRef]
78. Lucena, J.J. Effects of bicarbonate, nitrate and other environmental factors on iron deficiency chlorosis. A review. J. Plant Nutr.
2000, 23, 1591–1606. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 2481 20 of 20

79. Ayyad, M. Vegetation and environment of the Western Mediterranean coastal land of Egypt: IV. The habitat of non-saline
depressions. J. Ecol. 1976, 64, 713–722. [CrossRef]
80. Mohamed, E.S.; Belal, A.; Saleh, A. Assessment of land degradation east of the Nile Delta, Egypt using remote sensing and GIS
techniques. Arab. J. Geosci. 2013, 6, 2843–2853. [CrossRef]
81. El Shinawi, A.; Zeleňáková, M.; Nosair, A.M.; Abd-Elaty, I. Geo-spatial mapping and simulation of the sea level rise influence
on groundwater head and upward land subsidence at the rosetta coastal zone, nile delta, Egypt. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2022,
34, 102145. [CrossRef]
82. Wu, Q.; Hu, W.; Wang, H.; Liu, P.; Wang, X.; Huang, B. Spatial distribution, ecological risk and sources of heavy metals in soils
from a typical economic development area, Southeastern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146557. [CrossRef]
83. Ramadan, E.M.; Badr, A.M.; Abdelradi, F.; Negm, A.; Nosair, A.M. Detection of Groundwater Quality Changes in Minia
Governorate, West Nile River. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4076. [CrossRef]
84. Zechmeister, H.G. Correlation between altitude and heavy metal deposition in the Alps. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 89, 73–80.
[CrossRef]
85. Fairbrother, A.; Wenstel, R.; Sappington, K.; Wood, W. Framework for metals risk assessment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2007,
68, 145–227. [CrossRef]
86. Nahmani, J.; Hodson, M.E.; Black, S. A review of studies performed to assess metal uptake by earthworms. Environ. Pollut. 2007,
145, 402–424. [CrossRef]
87. Soltanpour, P.; Schwab, A. A new soil test for simultaneous extraction of macro- and micro-nutrients in alkaline soils. Commun.
Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1977, 8, 195–207. [CrossRef]
88. Msimbira, L.A.; Smith, D.L. The roles of plant growth promoting microbes in enhancing plant tolerance to acidity and alkalinity
stresses. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 106. [CrossRef]
89. Zeng, F.; Ali, S.; Zhang, H.; Ouyang, Y.; Qiu, B.; Wu, F.; Zhang, G. The influence of pH and organic matter content in paddy soil
on heavy metal availability and their uptake by rice plants. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 84–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Wierzbowska, J.; Kovačik, P.; Sienkiewicz, S.; Krzebietke, S.; Bowszys, T. Determination of heavy metals and their availability to
plants in soil fertilized with different waste substances. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 567. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.