欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

晋北黄土丘陵区不同人工植被对土壤质量的影响

王改玲1**,王青杵2   

  1. 1山西农业大学资源环境学院, 山西太谷 030801; 2山西省水土保持生态环境建设中心, 太原 030002)  
  • 出版日期:2014-06-10 发布日期:2014-06-10

Effects of artificial vegetation types on soil quality in loess hilly area in Northern Shanxi Province.

WANG Gai-ling1**, WANG Qing-chu2   

  1. (1Institute of Resource and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi, China; 2Shanxi Centre of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment Construction, Taiyuan 030002, China)
  • Online:2014-06-10 Published:2014-06-10

摘要:

以山西省阳高县大型径流观测场为依托,选择土壤机械组成、孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、有机质、全氮、碱解氮、速效磷和速效钾8项反映土壤特性的因子作为评价指标,采用主成分分析对裸坡、荒坡、柠条(Caragana korshinskii)、沙棘(Hippophae rhamnoides)、油松(Pinus tabuliformis)和苜蓿(Medicago sativa)6种不同植被条件下土壤质量进行综合评价。结果表明:8项理化性质指标可归纳为有机质因子、质地因子和孔隙因子3个公因子;柠条、沙棘、油松和苜蓿4种人工植被土壤有机质因子和孔隙因子均高于荒地;除苜蓿外,其他3种人工植被土壤质地因子均高于荒地;而裸地土壤的3个公因子均处于最低水平;苜蓿、柠条、沙棘、油松、荒地、裸地土壤质量综合指数分别为0.596、0.584、0.495、0.481、0.305和0.194。说明苜蓿、柠条、沙棘和油松4种人工植被均能促进土壤质量改善,其中苜蓿和柠条的优势更明显,裸坡则使土壤退化。

 

关键词: 制约因素, 生产标准, 种植技术, 有机农业, 发展规模

Abstract:

Based on the runoff plots located in Yanggao County, Shanxi Province, the effects of different vegetation types, including bare land, wasteland, Caragana korshinskii, Hippophae rhamnoides, Pinus tabuliformis and Medicago sativa, on soil quality in loess hilly area in North Shanxi Province were assessed by principal component analysis. The results showed that eight soil physicochemical indicators (soil texture, porosity, capillary porosity, organic matter, total nitrogen, alkalihydrolysis nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium) could be represented by three common types of soil quality factors, which were organic matter factor, soil texture factor and pore factor. The scores of both the organic matter factor and pore factor under the four artificial vegetation types were all higher than in the wasteland. Except for M. sativa, soil texture factor scores under the artificial vegetation were also higher than in the wasteland. Scores of all three common quality indicators in the bare land were the lowest. Soil integrated assessment scores for M. sativa, C. korshinski, H. rhamnoides, P. tabuliformis, wasteland, and bare land were 0.596, 0.584, 0.495, 0.481, 0.305, and 0.194, respectively. This meant that the four types of artificial vegetation could improve soil quality and M. sativa and C. korshinskii were more effective than others. Bare land led to soil degradation.
 

Key words: development scale, planting technology, production standards, organic agriculture, constraint factor.