非粮化耕地土壤健康评价: 以浙江省宁波市东吴镇为例

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.202410.018

应用生态学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 2785-2793.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202410.018

非粮化耕地土壤健康评价: 以浙江省宁波市东吴镇为例

赵玉枭^1,3, 肖谋良², 崔鑫涛¹, 鲁顺保¹, 王双³, 祝贞科³, 张艳杰^1*, 葛体达^1,3

¹江西师范大学生命科学学院, 南昌 330022;
²浙江农林大学环境与资源学院, 杭州 311300;
³宁波大学植物病毒学研究所, 农产品质量安全危害因子与风险防控国家重点实验室, 浙江宁波 315211

收稿日期:2024-05-13 接受日期:2024-08-20 出版日期:2024-10-18 发布日期:2025-04-18
通讯作者: * E-mail: yanjiezhang0710@126.com
作者简介:赵玉枭, 女, 1997年生, 硕士研究生。主要从事农田土壤生态环境研究。E-mail: 202140100803@jxnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家食用豆产业技术体系项目(CARS-08-G-09)、国家自然科学基金项目(32260297)、宁波市科技局项目(2022Z169,2023Z114)、浙江省科技厅项目(2023C02016,2023C02005)和江西师范大学研究生国内访学研究项目

Soil health evaluation of non-grain cultivated land: A case study of Dongwu Town, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China

ZHAO Yuxiao^1,3, XIAO Mouliang², CUI Xintao¹, LU Shunbao¹, WANG Shuang³, ZHU Zhenke³, ZHANG Yanjie^1*, GE Tida^1,3

¹College of Life Science, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China;
²College of Environment and Resources, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China;
³State Key Laboratory for Managing Biotic and Chemical Threats to the Quality and Safety of Agro-products, Institute of Plant Viro-logy, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, Zhejiang, China

Received:2024-05-13 Accepted:2024-08-20 Online:2024-10-18 Published:2025-04-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 耕地非粮化利用对农田土壤生态和土壤健康造成威胁,制约了粮食生产。为明确非粮化利用下耕地土壤关键障碍因子,探讨其土壤质量和土壤功能的变化,综合评估非粮化利用对农田土壤健康状况的影响,本研究采用土壤质量指数法和土壤多功能性指数法结合敏感性、抗性指标,对不同非粮化利用方式下(蔬菜、竹林-空茬、苗木-撂荒、苗木-水稻)耕地土壤健康进行评价。结果表明: 竹林-空茬处理下土壤有机碳和全氮(TN)分别为蔬菜、苗木-撂荒、苗木-水稻处理的95.3%、66.7%、65.7%和82.6%、57.0%、59.5%。蔬菜土壤电导率为其他非粮化耕地土壤的2.2～2.5倍;全磷和硝态氮分别为其他非粮化耕地土壤的1.8～2.0和3.5～5.5倍。不同非粮化利用方式中,蔬菜处理的土壤质量指数和土壤多功能性指数均为最高,与之相比,竹子-空茬(50.2%和22.7%)、苗木-撂荒(38.3%和14.4%)和苗木-水稻处理(27.7%和8.5%)的土壤质量指数和多功能性指数均显著下降。随机森林模型分析发现,有效钾和有效氮(AN)是影响土壤质量指数的关键因子之一,TN和与土壤碳循环相关的纤维素酶和木聚糖酶活性是影响土壤多功能性指数的关键因子之一。此外,有效磷、AN、TN和酶活性是非粮化耕地土壤变化较敏感的指标。本研究通过综合评价非粮化耕地土壤质量,明确了关键障碍因子,可为非粮化耕地土壤健康培育和可持续利用提供理论基础。

关键词: 耕地非粮化, 土地利用方式, 雷达图面积法, 土壤多功能性, 土壤质量, 土壤养分

Abstract: Non-grain utilization of cultivated land threatens farmland ecological environment and soil health, which restricts grain production. To identify the key obstacle factors of cultivated soil under non-grain utilization, explore the changes of soil quality and function, and evaluate the effects of non-grain utilization on the health of farmland soil, we evaluated soil health of farmland under different non-grain utilization types (vegetables, bamboo-abandoned, nursery-grown plant-abandoned, nursery-grown plant-rice) by soil quality index and soil multifunctionality index method combined with sensitivity and resistance approaches. The results showed that soil organic carbon and total nitrogen (TN) in the bamboo-abandoned soil were 95.3%, 66.7%, 65.7% and 82.6%, 57.0%, 59.5% of those under vegetables, nursery-grown plant-abandoned and nursery-grown plant-rice treatments, respectively. The electrical conductivity of vegetable soil was 2.2-2.5 times that of other soils of non-grain cultivated land. Total phosphorus and nitrate nitrogen were 1.8-2.0 times and 3.5-5.5 times of other soils of non-grain cultivated land, respectively. Among different non-grain utilization types, soil quality index and soil multifunctionality index of vegetable soil were the highest. Soil quality index and soil multifunctionality index decreased significantly in bamboo-abandoned (50.2% and 22.7%), nursery-grown plant-abandoned (38.3% and 14.4%) and nursery-grown plant-rice (27.7% and 8.5%) treatments, compared with that of vegetable soil. Random forest model analysis showed that available potassium and available nitrogen (AN) were the key factors affecting soil quality index. TN, cellulase and xylanase activities that related to soil C cycle were the key factors affecting soil multifunctionality index. In addition, available phosphorus, AN, TN and enzyme activity were sensitive indices to soil change in non-grain cultivated land. By comprehensively evaluating soil quality of non-grain cultivated land, we identified the key obstacle factors and provide a theoretical basis for the healthy soil cultivation and sustainable utilization of non-grain cultivated land.

Key words: non-grain utilization of cultivated land, land use mode, radar map area method, soil multifunctionality, soil quality, soil nutrient

赵玉枭, 肖谋良, 崔鑫涛, 鲁顺保, 王双, 祝贞科, 张艳杰, 葛体达. 非粮化耕地土壤健康评价: 以浙江省宁波市东吴镇为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(10): 2785-2793.

ZHAO Yuxiao, XIAO Mouliang, CUI Xintao, LU Shunbao, WANG Shuang, ZHU Zhenke, ZHANG Yanjie, GE Tida. Soil health evaluation of non-grain cultivated land: A case study of Dongwu Town, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2024, 35(10): 2785-2793.

参考文献

[1] 国务院第三次全国国土调查领导小组办公室, 自然资源部国家统计局. 第三次全国国土调查主要数据公报. 人民日报, 2021-08-27(017)
[2] 孔祥斌. 耕地“非粮化”问题、成因及对策. 中国土地, 2020(11): 17-19
[3] 李超, 程锋. “非粮化”对耕作层破坏的认定问题思考. 中国土地, 2021(7): 12-14
[4] 李廷强, 郝点. 我国耕地“非粮化”现状及其复耕培肥技术研究进展. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(6): 1703-1712
[5] 周艺霖, 宋易倩. 耕地流转“非粮化”的形成原因与化解对策: 基于国家粮食安全视角. 广东农业科学, 2016, 43(1): 189-192
[6] 郝士横, 吴克宁, 董秀茹, 等. 耕地“非粮化”耕作层破坏诊断标准探讨. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(5): 1028-1033
[7] 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
[8] Lehmann J, Bossio DA, Kögel-Knabner I, et al. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2020, 1: 544-553
[9] 张江周, 李奕赞, 李颖, 等. 土壤健康指标体系与评价方法研究进展. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(3): 603-616
[10] Vasu D, Tiwari G, Sahoo S, et al. A minimum data set of soil morphological properties for quantifying soil quality in coastal agroecosystems. Catena, 2021, 198: DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.105042
[11] Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2002, 90: 25-45
[12] Guillaume T, Maranguit D, Murtilaksono K, et al. Sensitivity and resistance of soil fertility indicators to land-use changes: New concept and examples from conversion of Indonesian rainforest to plantations. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 67: 49-57
[13] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000
[14] 吴金水, 林启美, 黄巧云, 等. 土壤微生物生物量测定方法及其应用. 北京: 气象出版社, 2006: 71-74
[15] Razavi BS, Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. Temperature selects for static soil enzyme systems to maintain high catalytic efficiency. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2016, 97: 15-22
[16] Marx MC, Kandeler E, Wood M, et al. Exploring the enzymatic landscape: Distribution and kinetics of hydrolytic enzymes in soil particle-size fractions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2005, 37: 35-48
[17] Burns RG, DeForest JL, Marxsen J, et al. Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2013, 58: 216-234
[18] 苟国花, 樊军, 王茜, 等. 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. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(5): 1360-1366
[19] Wei L, Li YH, Zhu ZK, et al. Soil health evaluation approaches along a reclamation consequence in Hangzhou Bay, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2022, 337: 108045
[20] Andrews SS, Carroll CR. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 2001, 11: 1573-1585
[21] Kuzyakov Y, Gunina A, Zamanian K, et al. New approaches for evaluation of soil health, sensitivity and resistance to degradation. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering, 2020, 7: 282-288
[22] Byrnes JEK, Gamfeldt L, Isbell F, et al. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: Challenges and solutions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2014, 5: 111-124
[23] 赵瑾, 鲁瑞洁, 马罗. 青藏高原不同土地利用方式下的土壤质量评价. 地球环境学报, 2023, 14(3): 339-351
[24] Raiesi F. A minimum data set and soil quality index to quantify the effect of land use conversion on soil quality and degradation in native rangelands of upland arid and semiarid regions. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 75: 307-320
[25] Kooch Y, Tavakoli M, Akbarinia M. Microbial/biochemical indicators showing perceptible deterioration in the topsoil due to deforestation. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 91: 84-91
[26] 徐秋芳, 姜培坤, 董敦义, 等. 毛竹林地土壤养分动态研究. 竹子研究汇刊, 2000, 19(4): 46-49, 71
[27] Li YF, Zhang SB, Fang YY, et al. Nitrogen deposition-induced stimulation of soil heterotrophic respiration is counteracted by biochar in a subtropical forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2024, 349: 109940
[28] Lu XH, Li YF, Wang HL, et al. Responses of soil greenhouse gas emissions to different application rates of biochar in a subtropical Chinese chestnut plantation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019, 271: 168-179
[29] 王海霞, 曾庆南, 程平, 等. 毛竹林地覆盖对土壤养分的影响研究. 竹子学报, 2021, 40(4): 56-60
[30] 徐秋芳, 俞益武, 姜培坤. 商品林地土壤养分贫瘠化评价. 水土保持学报, 2002, 16(2): 99-102
[31] 王紫颖, 谷思玉, 车延静, 等. 东北风蚀区不同土地利用方式下土壤有机碳组分及其稳定性. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(7): 1815-1824
[32] 王传杰, 王齐齐, 徐虎, 等. 长期施肥下农田土壤-有机质-微生物的碳氮磷化学计量学特征. 生态学报, 2018, 38(11): 3848-3858
[33] Askari MS, Holden NM. Indices for quantitative evaluation of soil quality under grassland management. Geoderma, 2014, 230: 131-142
[34] 阳祥, 李先德, 刘吉龙, 等. 不同轮作模式的土壤真菌群落结构及功能特征分析. 环境科学学报, 2022, 42(4): 432-442
[35] 王士超, 闫志浩, 王瑾瑜, 等. 秸秆还田配施氮肥对稻田土壤活性碳氮动态变化的影响. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(4): 782-794
[36] Liu J, Fang LC, Qiu TY, et al. Crop residue return achieves environmental mitigation and enhances grain yield: A global meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2023, 43: 78
[37] Sinsabaugh RL, Manzoni S, Moorhead DL, et al. Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: Stoichio-metry, methodology and modelling. Ecology Letters, 2013, 16: 930-939

非粮化耕地土壤健康评价: 以浙江省宁波市东吴镇为例

Soil health evaluation of non-grain cultivated land: A case study of Dongwu Town, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 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]	吴傲淼, 洪宗文, 游成铭, 徐琳, 徐红伟, 徐振锋, 骆紫藤, 谭波. 华西雨屏区不同林龄柳杉人工林土壤团聚体碳氮磷化学计量特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(9): 2518-2526.
[2]	李明辉, 李秧秧, 樊军. 陕北黄土区深剖面不同土地利用方式下土壤水分和温度的分布特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(9): 2552-2560.
[3]	尧波, 邹素珍, 梁金凤, 叶家飞, 徐晨瀛, 汪晓倩, 任琼, 胡启武. 候鸟活动对鄱阳湖苔草湿地土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(7): 1988-1996.
[4]	刘聪, 万翠翠, 宋旭, 夏光富, 傲耐, 桑加拉, 王奎明, 王军. 复合菌剂对新疆辣椒的促生效果和根际真核生物群落结构的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(6): 1599-1607.
[5]	李佳玉, 施秀珍, 李帅军, 王振宇, 王建青, 邹秉章, 王思荣, 黄志群. 杉木人工林和天然次生林林龄对土壤酶活性的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(2): 339-346.
[6]	马旭满, 于小萌, 王伟鹏, 孟亚馨, 徐学华. 不同土地利用方式土壤微生物磷脂脂肪酸在土壤剖面上的变化 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(10): 2755-2764.
[7]	崔鑫涛, 肖谋良, 赵玉枭, 吴愉萍, 吴碧波, 齐琳, 李和孟, 余朝旭, 鲁顺保, 张艳杰, 葛体达. 基于土壤质量指数法的枇杷园土壤健康评价 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(10): 2775-2784.
[8]	刘洪顺, 布仁仓, 王正文, 常禹, 熊在平, 齐丽, 高越. 辽西北沙化土地植被生产力关键影响因素 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(1): 49-54.
[9]	王国华, 王佳琪, 刘婧. 晋西北丘陵风沙区柠条锦鸡儿人工林植被和土壤随林龄变化特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(1): 62-72.
[10]	植可翔, 关欣, 李仁山, 王娇, 段萱, 陈波翰, 张伟东, 杨庆朋. 杉木林下植物氮磷重吸收对微尺度土壤养分异质性的响应 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(5): 1187-1193.
[11]	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.
[12]	白金珂, 李笑雨, 王力. 1980s与2020s青藏高原南部土壤质量变化 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(5): 1367-1374.
[13]	王世豪, 徐新良, 黄麟, 赵广. 1980s—2010s东北农田土壤养分时空变化特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(4): 865-875.
[14]	许窕孜, 叶彩红, 张耕, 张中瑞, 朱航勇, 何茜, 丁晓纲. 北江中下游不同林分类型土壤C、N、P生态化学计量特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(4): 962-968.
[15]	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.