青藏高原东北缘不同土地利用类型土壤质量综合评价

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.202212.016

应用生态学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (12): 3279-3286.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202212.016

青藏高原东北缘不同土地利用类型土壤质量综合评价

蒋丛泽^1,2, 受娜^1,2, 高玮^1,2, 马仁诗^1,2, 沈禹颖^1,2, 杨宪龙^1,2*

¹兰州大学草种创新与草地农业生态系统全国重点实验室, 兰州 730020;
²兰州大学草地农业科技学院, 兰州 730020

收稿日期:2022-03-02 接受日期:2022-09-29 出版日期:2022-12-15 发布日期:2023-07-05
通讯作者: * E-mail: yangxianl@lzu.edu.cn
作者简介:蒋丛泽, 男, 1997年生, 硕士研究生。主要从事饲草高产优质栽培研究。E-mail: jiangcz21@lzu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家牧草产业技术体系项目(CARS-34)

Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality of different land use types on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

JIANG Cong-ze^1,2, SHOU Na^1,2, GAO Wei^1,2, MA Ren-shi^1,2, SHEN Yu-ying^1,2, YANG Xian-long^1,2*

¹State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China;
²College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China

Received:2022-03-02 Accepted:2022-09-29 Online:2022-12-15 Published:2023-07-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 土壤质量评价是合理利用土壤资源的重要前提。通过采集青藏高原东北缘甘肃省天祝县境内林地(n=9)、草地(n=18)和耕地(n=38)土壤样品,并测定土壤容重、田间持水量和有机质等13项土壤理化性质指标,采用主成分分析和相关性分析构建最小数据集(MDS),建立土壤质量评价指标体系,对3个不同土地利用类型的土壤质量进行综合评价。结果表明: 林地的总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、田间持水量、毛管持水量、饱和含水量、有机质、全氮和速效钾含量显著高于草地和耕地。林地土壤质量评价指标体系包括田间持水量、有机质、全氮、速效氮和速效钾,土壤质量指数(SQI)介于0.329～0.678,平均值为0.481;草地土壤质量评价指标体系包括田间持水量和速效氮,SQI介于0.302～0.703,平均值为0.469;耕地土壤质量评价指标体系包括毛管持水量、非毛管孔隙度、速效氮、速效磷和速效钾,SQI介于0.337～0.616,平均值为0.462。影响林地、草地和耕地土壤质量的最大障碍指标分别为速效钾、田间持水量和毛管持水量。基于MDS的土壤质量指数能够实现研究区不同土地利用类型土壤质量的准确评价,土壤质量整体上表现为林地>草地>耕地,评价结果对该区域土壤可持续管理具有重要参考价值。

关键词: 土地利用类型, 主成分分析, 最小数据集, 土壤质量评价

Abstract: Soil quality evaluation is an important prerequisite for the rational soil resource utilization. We collected soil samples from forest (n=9), grassland (n=18) and cropland (n=38) in Tianzhu County, Gansu Province, which is located on the northeastern edge of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Soil quality was evaluated based on thirteen soil physical and chemical indicators, including soil bulk density, field capacity, and organic matter. A minimum data set (MDS) was constructed using principal component analysis and correlation analysis to establish a soil qua-lity evaluation index (SQI) system, which was used in the soil quality evaluation for the three land-use types. The results showed that total porosity, capillary porosity, field capacity, capillary water capacity, saturated water content, organic matter, total nitrogen and available potassium content were significantly higher in forest than those in grassland and cropland. The SQI system of forest was based on field capacity, organic matter, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, and available potassium, and the SQI ranged between 0.329 to 0.678, with a mean value of 0.481. Grassland SQI system was based on field capacity and available nitrogen, with the SQI ranging between 0.302 to 0.703 and a mean value of 0.469. Cropland SQI system was based on capillary water capacity, non-capillary porosity, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium, and the SQI ranged from 0.337 to 0.616 with a mean value of 0.462. The most important barriers to soil quality improvement in forest, grassland, and cropland were available potassium, field capacity, and capillary water capacity, respectively. The MDS-based SQI enabled an accurate evaluation of soil quality across different land-use types in the study area, which was best in forest followed by grassland and cropland. The evaluation results would provide important reference for sustainable soil management in the local area.

Key words: land use type, principal component analysis, minimum data set, soil quality evaluation

蒋丛泽, 受娜, 高玮, 马仁诗, 沈禹颖, 杨宪龙. 青藏高原东北缘不同土地利用类型土壤质量综合评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(12): 3279-3286.

JIANG Cong-ze, SHOU Na, GAO Wei, MA Ren-shi, SHEN Yu-ying, YANG Xian-long. Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality of different land use types on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2022, 33(12): 3279-3286.

参考文献

[1] 李鑫, 张文菊, 邬磊, 等. 土壤质量评价指标体系的构建及评价方法. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(14): 3043-3056
[2] 张汪寿, 李晓秀, 黄文江, 等. 不同土地利用条件下土壤质量综合评价方法. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(12): 311-318
[3] 张俊伶, 张江周, 申建波, 等. 土壤健康与农业绿色发展: 机遇与对策. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(4): 783-796
[4] 刘占锋, 傅伯杰, 刘国华, 等. 土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价. 生态学报, 2006, 26(3): 901-913
[5] 王飞, 李清华, 林诚, 等. 福建冷浸田土壤质量评价因子的最小数据集. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(5): 1461-1468
[6] Fu BJ, Liu SL, Chen LD, et al. Soil quality regime in relation to land cover and slope position across a highly modified slope landscape. Ecological Research, 2004, 19: 111-118
[7] Larson WE, Pierce FJ. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management. Symposium on Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1994: 37-51
[8] 梅楠, 谷岩, 李德忠, 等. 基于最小数据集的吉林省黑土耕层土壤质量评价. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(12): 91-98
[9] Raiesi F, Kabiri V. Identification of soil quality indicators for assessing the effect of different tillage practices through a soil quality index in a semi-arid environment. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 71: 198-207
[10] 刘鑫, 王一博, 吕明侠, 等. 基于主成分分析的青藏高原多年冻土区高寒草地土壤质量评价. 冰川冻土, 2018, 40(3): 469-479
[11] Shao GD, Ai JJ, Sun QW, et al. Soil quality assessment under different forest types in the Mount Tai, central Eastern China. Ecological Indicators, 2020, 115: 106439
[12] 梁文举, 董元华, 李英滨, 等. 土壤健康的生物学表征与调控. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(2): 719-728
[13] 李桂林, 陈杰, 檀满枝, 等. 基于土地利用变化建立土壤质量评价最小数据集. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(1): 16-25
[14] 陈志杰, 白永平, 周亮. 高寒山地生态脆弱区聚落空间格局特征及成因识别——以天祝藏族自治县为例. 生态学报, 2020, 40(24): 9059-9069
[15] 天祝藏族自治县人民政府. 天祝县第三次全国国土调查主要数据公报[EB/OL]. (2021-11-01) [2022-03-28]. http://www.gstianzhu.gov.cn
[16] 王树青, 徐义, 杨坤. 甘肃省天祝县草原补奖政策实施效果. 草业科学, 2021, 38(8): 1650-1656
[17] Zhang ZY, Ai N, Liu GQ, et al. Soil quality evaluation of various microtopography types at different restoration modes in the loess area of Northern Shaanxi. Catena, 2021, 207: 105633
[18] Walkley AJ, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 1934, 37: 29-38
[19] 陈春霏, 付洁, 梁鹏, 等. 土壤中全氮分析方法的研究进展. 中国环境监测, 2018, 34(1): 112-119
[20] Bond CR, Maguire RO, Havlin JL. Change in soluble phosphorus in soils following fertilization is dependent on initial Mehlich-3 phosphorus. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2006, 35: 1818-1824
[21] Shang W, Wu XD, Zhao L, et al. Seasonal variations in labile soil organic matter fractions in permafrost soils with different vegetation types in the central Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Catena, 2016, 137: 670-678
[22] 李霞, 朱万泽, 舒树淼, 等. 基于主成分分析的大渡河中游干暖河谷草地土壤质量评价. 生态学报, 2021, 41(10): 3891-3900
[23] 李桂林, 陈杰, 孙志英, 等. 基于土壤特征和土地利用变化的土壤质量评价最小数据集确定. 生态学报, 2007, 27(7): 2715-2724
[24] Li XY, Li HY, Yang LM, et al. Assessment of soil quality of croplands in the Corn Belt of Northeast China. Sustainability, 2018, 10: 248
[25] 冯瑞琦, 潘萍, 欧阳勋志, 等. 基于最小数据集的闽楠天然次生林土壤质量评价. 江西农业大学学报,2021, 43(3): 585-597
[26] Masto RE, Chhonkar PK, Singh D, et al. Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping, fertilization and manuring for 31 years in these mi-arid soils of India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2008, 136: 419-435
[27] 金慧芳, 史东梅, 钟义军, 等. 红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量退化特征及障碍因子诊断. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(20): 84-93
[28] 宋鸽, 史东梅, 曾小英, 等. 紫色土坡耕地耕层质量障碍特征. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(7): 1397-1410
[29] 全国土壤普查办公室. 中国土壤. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998: 45-72
[30] 赵川, 和丽萍, 李贵祥, 等. 昆阳磷矿废弃地植被恢复对土壤质量的影响及评价. 西部林业科学, 2018, 47(2): 106-111
[31] 杨淇钧, 吴克宁, 冯喆, 等. 大空间尺度土壤质量评价研究进展与启示. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(3): 565-578
[32] Ritz K, Black HIJ, Campbell CD, et al. Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: A framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development. Ecological Indicators, 2009, 9: 1212-1221
[33] 邵兴华, 张建忠, 胡兴万, 等. 红壤不同利用方式下理化性状及土壤生物学特性的变化. 新疆农业大学学报, 2011, 34(4): 339-343

青藏高原东北缘不同土地利用类型土壤质量综合评价

Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality of different land use types on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张铜会, 丛安琪, 连杰, 徐远志, 王宁. 从科尔沁草原到科尔沁沙地的思考 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(1): 25-30.
[2]	苟国花, 樊军, 王茜, 周明星, 杨学亭. 基于最小数据集的青藏高原南北部不同土地利用方式土壤质量评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(5): 1360-1366.
[3]	杜箫宇, 吕飞南, 王春雨, 宇振荣. 基于MSPA-Conefor-MCR的县域尺度生态网络构建——以延庆区为例 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(4): 1073-1082.
[4]	史多鹏, 叶子壮, 李惠通, 吕慎强, 王林权, 周春菊. 生物炭和氮肥配施对夏玉米-冬小麦轮作体系耕层土壤质量的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(2): 442-450.
[5]	郝嘉元, 智烈慧, 李晓文, 董世魁, 李巍. 青藏高原土地利用格局和生态系统服务的时空演变特征及关系 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(11): 3053-3063.
[6]	岳奕帆, 陈国鹏, 王立, 杨钧, 杨克彤. 基于Google Earth Engine云平台的甘肃舟曲县生态环境质量动态监测与评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(6): 1608-1614.
[7]	马玉诏, 党红凯, 李科江, 郑春莲, 曹彩云, 张俊鹏, 李全起. 咸水灌溉对冬小麦籽粒品质特性和产量的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(4): 1063-1068.
[8]	曹雯婕, 李玉强, 陈银萍, 陈云, 王旭洋, 龚相文. 科尔沁沙地不同土地利用类型土壤化学计量特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(12): 3312-3320.
[9]	滕慧颖, 耿艳楼, 张恒硕, 查同刚. 冀北土石山区不同土地利用类型土壤质量评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(11): 3046-3054.
[10]	黄进, 陈金华, 张方敏. 基于主成分分析的安徽省冬小麦气候灾损风险的时空演变 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(9): 3185-3194.
[11]	宫彬彬, 吴晓蕾, 张斌, 陈一卓, 边鑫宇, 纪日翟, 高洪波. 草莓种苗壮苗指数模型的构建与质量评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(8): 2809-2817.
[12]	陈旋, 李玉娥, 万运帆, 高清竹, 王斌, 秦晓波. 基于¹³C、¹⁵N和C/N识别南岳小流域沉积有机质的来源 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(6): 1998-2006.
[13]	赵楚, 盛茂银, 白义鑫, 刘树西. 喀斯特石漠化地区不同土地利用类型土壤氮磷有效性及其环境影响因子 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(4): 1383-1392.
[14]	徐超, 王明田, 杨再强, 韩玮, 郑盛华. 高温对温室草莓光合生理特性的影响及胁迫等级构建 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(1): 231-240.
[15]	李娜, 韩晓增, 盛明, 龙静泓. 东北黑土成土母质培肥过程中土壤肥力变化特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(4): 1155-1162.