喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量的影响
|
摘要
【目的】探明贵州西部喀斯特生态脆弱区土地利用方式对土壤质量的影响,为喀斯特山区生态文明建设和社会经济的可持续发展提供理论参考。【方法】以贵州省盘州市农田、弃耕地、天然草地、人工草地及林地等5种土地利用方式为研究对象,采用野外调查和室内分析相结合的方法,研究不同土地利用方式对土壤质量的影响。【结果】不同土地利用方式对土壤容重和土壤孔隙度的影响差异显著,林地土壤的容重最小、孔隙度最大,农田土壤的容重最大、孔隙度最小;土壤田间持水量为34.01%～48.38%,且在不同土地利用方式之间的差异性显著。土壤pH为4.59～5.53,以农田最小;林地、人工草地及弃耕地的阳离子交换量高于天然草地和农田;有机质含量为28.40～76.27 g/kg,其中林地的土壤有机质含量最大,天然草地和人工草地次之,弃耕地和农田较小;农田的全氮、全磷、碱解氮和有效磷含量最高,不同土地利用方式间全钾和速效钾含量差异显著且有效性指数均小于0.9;5种土地利用方式的土壤有效铜和有效锌有效性指数为6.50～14.65。土壤质量为林地>天然草地>人工草地>弃耕地>农田,土壤有效性综合指数林地为农田的1.68倍。【结论】林地和草地的土壤质量优于农田和弃耕地,为区域土壤资源的综合利用和生态恢复提供理论参考。
【Objective】This purpose of the article was to prove effects of land use types on soil quality, and to offer reference for ecological civilization construction and sustainable development of social economy in fragile karst environment of western Guizhou. 【Method】 Five different land use types(farmland, abandoned land, natural grassland, artificial grassland and forest land)were researched to explore their influences on soil quality by means of field experiments and laboratory analysis. 【Result】The different land use types resulted in significant differences in soil bulk density and porosity. The forest land had the best soil bulk density and porosity, and the farmland had the worst. The value of soil field moisture capacity of five land use types ranged from 34.01 % to 48.38 % which resulted in a significant difference. The pH values of five land use types ranged from 4.59 to 5.53, and the farmland had the minimum of pH value. The soil cation exchange capacity of forest land, artificial grassland and abandoned land was higher than that of natural grassland and farmland. The descending order of five land use types according to the soil organic matter content(28.4-76.27 g/kg) was forest land, natural grassland, artificial grassland, farmland and old field. The contents of total N, total P, available N and available P were the highest in farmland. The available indexes of total K and available K were less than 0.9 in difference land use types, and there was significant different among them. The soil available Cu and available Zn index of the five land use types ranged from 6.50 to 14.65. Based on the comprehensive indices of soil nutrients,five land use types were listed in descending order: forest land, natural grassland, artificial grassland, abandoned land and cropland. The comprehensive index of forest was about 1.68 times to that of farmland. 【Conclusion】Soil quality of grassland and forest land was better than that of farmland and abandoned land. The conclusion of this paper was to provide the basis for rational development and utilization of land resources.
【Objective】This purpose of the article was to prove effects of land use types on soil quality, and to offer reference for ecological civilization construction and sustainable development of social economy in fragile karst environment of western Guizhou. 【Method】 Five different land use types(farmland, abandoned land, natural grassland, artificial grassland and forest land)were researched to explore their influences on soil quality by means of field experiments and laboratory analysis. 【Result】The different land use types resulted in significant differences in soil bulk density and porosity. The forest land had the best soil bulk density and porosity, and the farmland had the worst. The value of soil field moisture capacity of five land use types ranged from 34.01 % to 48.38 % which resulted in a significant difference. The pH values of five land use types ranged from 4.59 to 5.53, and the farmland had the minimum of pH value. The soil cation exchange capacity of forest land, artificial grassland and abandoned land was higher than that of natural grassland and farmland. The descending order of five land use types according to the soil organic matter content(28.4-76.27 g/kg) was forest land, natural grassland, artificial grassland, farmland and old field. The contents of total N, total P, available N and available P were the highest in farmland. The available indexes of total K and available K were less than 0.9 in difference land use types, and there was significant different among them. The soil available Cu and available Zn index of the five land use types ranged from 6.50 to 14.65. Based on the comprehensive indices of soil nutrients,five land use types were listed in descending order: forest land, natural grassland, artificial grassland, abandoned land and cropland. The comprehensive index of forest was about 1.68 times to that of farmland. 【Conclusion】Soil quality of grassland and forest land was better than that of farmland and abandoned land. The conclusion of this paper was to provide the basis for rational development and utilization of land resources.
引文
[1]彭建,蔡运龙,何钢,等.喀斯特生态脆弱区猫跳河流域土地利用/覆被变化研究[J].山地学报,2007,25(5):566-576.
[2]Chang J,Zhu J,Xu L,et al.Rational land-use types in the karst regions of China:Insights from soil organic matter composition and stability[J].Catena,2018,160:345-353.
[3]胡吉彪.贵州喀斯特地区水土流失及生态治理探讨[J].中国资源综合利用,2018,36(2):124-125.
[4]杨丰.贵州不同土地利用方式对土壤性质的影响[D].贵阳:贵州大学,2016:1-4.
[5]李果.贵州喀斯特地区不同土地利用方式下土壤理化性质与土壤肥力评价[D].重庆:西南大学,2017:2-5.
[6]李生,姚小华,任华东,等.喀斯特地区石漠化生态治理与可持续发展[J].江西农业大学学报,2006,28(3):403-408.
[7]Rolando J L,Dubeux J C B,Ramirez D A,et al.Land Use Effects on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling in the Peruvian High-Andean Puna Grasslands[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2018,82(2):463-474.
[8]马志敏,吕一河,孙飞翔.黑河中游荒漠绿洲区土地利用的土壤养分效应[J].生态学报,2013,33(19):6328-6334.
[9]熬登高娃.脆弱草原带土地利用对土壤质量的影响研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学:75-85.
[10]唐梦迎,王雪梅,丁建丽,等.不同土地利用/土地覆盖方式下渭-库绿洲土壤养分评价研究[J].西南农业学报,2016,29(5):1183-1188.
[11]陈超,杨丰,赵丽丽,等.贵州省不同土地利用方式对土壤理化性质及其有效性的影响[J].草地学报,2014,22(5):1007-1013.
[12]梁博,聂晓刚,杨东升,等.西藏尼洋河流域下游5种典型土地利用方式土壤物理性质差异分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2018,46(1):119-126.
[13]石永红,韩建国,邵新庆,等.奶牛放牧对人工草地土壤理化特性的影响[J].中国草地学报,2007,29(1):24-30.
[14]卢怡.岩溶山区生态系统对土壤理化性质及土壤微生物特性的影响[D].贵阳:贵州师范大学,2017:10-16.
[15]岳庆玲,常庆瑞,刘京,等.黄土高原不同土地利用方式对土壤养分与酶活性的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(12):103-108.
[16]杨晓娟,王海燕,刘玲,等.东北过伐林区不同林分类型土壤肥力质量评价研究[J].生态环境学报,2012(9):1553-1560.
[17]吴志丹,江福英,尤志明,等.福建省安溪县铁观音茶园土壤钾素状况[J].茶叶学报,2018,59(1):26-32.
[18]冯秀娟.庐山土壤有机质及氮磷钾含量与海拔关系研究[J].安徽农业科学,2017,45(28):118-121.
[19]杨霖,杨程,朱同彬,等.岩溶区原始林土壤微量元素含量与有效特征[J].中国岩溶,2018,37(1):59-66.
[20]詹林庆,李伟,陈松柏,等.西南丘陵区水田土壤有效铜和有效锌含量的空间变异[J].西南农业学报,2013,26(1):250-254.
[21]严连香,黄标,邵学新,等.长江三角洲典型地区土壤有效铜和锌的时空变化及其影响因素研究[J].土壤通报,2007,38(5):971-977.
[22]文小琴,舒英格,何欢.喀斯特山区土地不同利用方式的土壤养分及微生物特征[J].西南农业学报,2018,31(6):1227-1232.
[2]Chang J,Zhu J,Xu L,et al.Rational land-use types in the karst regions of China:Insights from soil organic matter composition and stability[J].Catena,2018,160:345-353.
[3]胡吉彪.贵州喀斯特地区水土流失及生态治理探讨[J].中国资源综合利用,2018,36(2):124-125.
[4]杨丰.贵州不同土地利用方式对土壤性质的影响[D].贵阳:贵州大学,2016:1-4.
[5]李果.贵州喀斯特地区不同土地利用方式下土壤理化性质与土壤肥力评价[D].重庆:西南大学,2017:2-5.
[6]李生,姚小华,任华东,等.喀斯特地区石漠化生态治理与可持续发展[J].江西农业大学学报,2006,28(3):403-408.
[7]Rolando J L,Dubeux J C B,Ramirez D A,et al.Land Use Effects on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling in the Peruvian High-Andean Puna Grasslands[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2018,82(2):463-474.
[8]马志敏,吕一河,孙飞翔.黑河中游荒漠绿洲区土地利用的土壤养分效应[J].生态学报,2013,33(19):6328-6334.
[9]熬登高娃.脆弱草原带土地利用对土壤质量的影响研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学:75-85.
[10]唐梦迎,王雪梅,丁建丽,等.不同土地利用/土地覆盖方式下渭-库绿洲土壤养分评价研究[J].西南农业学报,2016,29(5):1183-1188.
[11]陈超,杨丰,赵丽丽,等.贵州省不同土地利用方式对土壤理化性质及其有效性的影响[J].草地学报,2014,22(5):1007-1013.
[12]梁博,聂晓刚,杨东升,等.西藏尼洋河流域下游5种典型土地利用方式土壤物理性质差异分析[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2018,46(1):119-126.
[13]石永红,韩建国,邵新庆,等.奶牛放牧对人工草地土壤理化特性的影响[J].中国草地学报,2007,29(1):24-30.
[14]卢怡.岩溶山区生态系统对土壤理化性质及土壤微生物特性的影响[D].贵阳:贵州师范大学,2017:10-16.
[15]岳庆玲,常庆瑞,刘京,等.黄土高原不同土地利用方式对土壤养分与酶活性的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(12):103-108.
[16]杨晓娟,王海燕,刘玲,等.东北过伐林区不同林分类型土壤肥力质量评价研究[J].生态环境学报,2012(9):1553-1560.
[17]吴志丹,江福英,尤志明,等.福建省安溪县铁观音茶园土壤钾素状况[J].茶叶学报,2018,59(1):26-32.
[18]冯秀娟.庐山土壤有机质及氮磷钾含量与海拔关系研究[J].安徽农业科学,2017,45(28):118-121.
[19]杨霖,杨程,朱同彬,等.岩溶区原始林土壤微量元素含量与有效特征[J].中国岩溶,2018,37(1):59-66.
[20]詹林庆,李伟,陈松柏,等.西南丘陵区水田土壤有效铜和有效锌含量的空间变异[J].西南农业学报,2013,26(1):250-254.
[21]严连香,黄标,邵学新,等.长江三角洲典型地区土壤有效铜和锌的时空变化及其影响因素研究[J].土壤通报,2007,38(5):971-977.
[22]文小琴,舒英格,何欢.喀斯特山区土地不同利用方式的土壤养分及微生物特征[J].西南农业学报,2018,31(6):1227-1232.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |