Evaluating Fertile Topsoil Construction in Aeolian-sandy Soil in Northeast China Based on Tillage Index

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0134

Abstract

Abstract:

Evaluating the impact of fertile topsoil construction model on the quality of Aeolian-sandy soil in northeast China can provide a scientific basis for the selection of reasonable construction model in this area. Systematic clustering method was used to establish the minimum data set (MDS) of evaluating index of the fertile topsoil. Combined with the tillage index of the minimum data set (TI-MDS), the construction quality of the topsoil in Aeolian-sandy soil in northeast China was quantitatively evaluated across five different construction models, including conventional tillage, no tillage, breaking the plough pan, conventional tillage plus organic fertilizer and ploughing plus straw returning. Nash effective coefficient (E_f) and relative deviation coefficient (E_r) were used to verify the quality. The results showed that the mean value of the full data set (TI-TDS) and TI-MDS was 0.47 and 0.48, respectively, positive correlations were shown between TI-TDS and TI-MDS (R=0.958^**), and between TI-MDS and corn yield (R=0.895^**). The E_f and E_r were 0.909 and 0.017, respectively, which indicated that the TI-MDS was reasonable and suitable to evaluate the topsoil quality of Aeolian-sandy soil. According to the tillage index, compared to conventional tillage, the construction model of conventional tillage plus organic fertilizer could improve soil quality by a level from medium to high. However, the topsoil quality did not show significant difference among no tillage, breaking the plough pan and ploughing plus straw returning. In summary, in agricultural production process in Aeolian-sandy soil in northeast China, the construction model of conventional tillage combined with organic fertilizer is worthy of recommending.

Key words: Aeolian-sandy soil, fertile topsoil, tillage index, minimum data set

LI Qing, MIAO Shujie, QIAO Yunfa. Evaluating Fertile Topsoil Construction in Aeolian-sandy Soil in Northeast China Based on Tillage Index[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(5): 109-115.

Figures/Tables 8

类型	公式	评价指标	隶属度函数含义
升型隶属函数	$f x = 0.1 x ≤ a 0.9 x - a / b - a + 0.1 a < x < b 1.0 x ≥ b$	碱解氮、速效磷、速效钾、全氮、全磷、全钾、有机质、含水量、田间持水量、孔隙度、渗透速率	在一定范围内，土壤质量与评价指标呈正相关关系
降型隶属函数	$f x = 1.0 x ≤ a 0.9 x - a / b - a + 0.1 a < x < b 0.1 x ≥ b$	容重、pH、硬度	在一定范围内，土壤质量与评价指标呈负相关关系

类型	公式	评价指标	隶属度函数含义
升型隶属函数	$f x = 0.1 x ≤ a 0.9 x - a / b - a + 0.1 a < x < b 1.0 x ≥ b$	碱解氮、速效磷、速效钾、全氮、全磷、全钾、有机质、含水量、田间持水量、孔隙度、渗透速率	在一定范围内，土壤质量与评价指标呈正相关关系
降型隶属函数	$f x = 1.0 x ≤ a 0.9 x - a / b - a + 0.1 a < x < b 0.1 x ≥ b$	容重、pH、硬度	在一定范围内，土壤质量与评价指标呈负相关关系

	参数	代码	最小值	最大值	平均值	标准偏差	方差	偏度	峰度	变异系数%
物理指标	硬度/(N·cm²)	X1	240.27	421.53	336.49	49.36	2436.65	-0.09	-0.48	14.67
	含水量/%	X2	13.02	16.83	14.00	1.08	1.17	1.66	2.26	7.71
	田间持水量/%	X3	21.72	29.33	25.80	2.26	5.09	-0.21	-0.71	8.76
	孔隙度/%	X4	25.72	40.45	34.32	4.18	17.47	-0.41	-0.36	12.18
	容重/(g/cm³)	X5	1.29	1.54	1.40	0.06	0.00	0.17	0.81	4.29
	渗透速率/(mm/min)	X6	1.62	5.40	3.86	1.16	1.35	-0.55	-0.63	30.05
化学指标	pH	X7	7.91	8.43	8.09	0.15	0.02	1.24	0.56	1.85
	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	X8	66.60	109.22	82.85	14.35	205.82	0.86	-0.66	17.32
	速效磷/(mg/kg)	X9	4.34	17.14	7.91	4.15	17.24	1.36	0.45	52.47
	速效钾/(mg/kg)	X10	83.80	206.30	131.19	37.40	1398.93	1.04	0.19	28.51
	全氮/(g/kg)	X11	0.57	1.24	1.02	0.17	0.03	-1.28	2.27	16.67
	全磷/(g/kg)	X12	0.40	0.78	0.54	0.09	0.01	1.16	3.51	16.67
	全钾/(g/kg)	X13	21.99	25.86	23.76	1.28	1.63	0.34	-1.21	5.39
	有机质/(g/kg)	X14	13.29	23.46	17.31	2.68	7.18	0.77	0.74	15.48

	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11	X12	X13	X14
X1	1
X2	-0.377	1
X3	0.2	0.016	1
X4	0.072	0.057	0.811^**	1
X5	0.357	-0.363	-0.585^*	-0.751^**	1
X6	-0.415	0.205	0.332	0.477	-0.465	1
X7	0.096	0.309	0.192	0.039	-0.031	0.059	1
X8	-0.039	0.311	-0.133	0.018	-0.027	0.156	0.569^*	1
X9	0.011	0.151	-0.143	-0.278	0.192	0.135	0.521^*	0.732^**	1
X10	-0.163	0.327	-0.173	-0.093	0.016	0.171	0.644^**	0.937^**	0.811^**	1
X11	0.132	0.045	-0.263	-0.315	0.12	-0.29	0.387	0.446	0.453	0.363	1
X12	0.4	-0.095	-0.264	-0.307	0.529^*	-0.159	-0.119	0.158	0.504	0.132	0.069	1
X13	-0.031	0.017	-0.353	-0.358	0.191	-0.041	0.566^*	0.593^*	0.605^*	0.617^*	0.637^*	0.018	1
X14	-0.25	0.375	-0.196	-0.363	0.228	0.039	0.594^*	0.661^**	0.757^**	0.789^**	0.34	0.131	0.596^*	1

	最小值	最大值	平均值	标准差	变异系数/%
全量数据集	0.30	0.83	0.47	0.17	36.17
最小数据集	0.27	0.90	0.48	0.18	37.50

References 25

[1]	韩晓增, 邹文秀, 陆欣春, 等. 构建肥沃耕层对沙性土壤水分物理性质及玉米产量的影响[J]. 土壤与作物, 2017, 6(2):81-88.
[2]	李俊颖. 黑龙江省耕地土壤功能评价及分区研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学, 2020.
[3]	赵红香. 耕作措施与秸秆还田对农田土壤质量和冬小麦根系生长与代谢的调控[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2021.
[4]	HE L Y, LU S X, WANG C G, et al. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities in response to tillage practices in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Soil & tillage research, 2021:209.
[5]	苗淑杰, 赵红飞, 乔云发, 等. 基于耕作指数评价耕作措施对东北风沙土耕层土壤质量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(4):9-15.
[6]	郑琦, 王海江, 吕新, 等. 新疆棉田土壤质量综合评价方法[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(4):1291-1301. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201804.029
[7]	乔云发, 钟鑫, 苗淑杰, 等. 基于最小数据集的东北风沙土农田耕层土壤质量评价指标[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(4):132-138.
[8]	欧芷阳, 申文辉, 庞世龙, 等. 平果喀斯特山地不同植物群落的土壤质量评价. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(10):2771-2777.
[9]	贡璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(3):682-689.
[10]	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[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(14):3043-3056.
[11]	邓绍欢, 曾令涛, 关强, 等. 基于最小数据集的南方地区冷浸田土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2016(5):8.
[12]	姜宁, 王斌, 谢永刚. 黑龙江省黑土地质量评价指标体系构建[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 612(33):98-104.
[13]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000:146-194.
[14]	金慧芳, 史东梅, 陈正发, 等. 基于聚类及PCA分析的红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价指标[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(7):155-164.
[15]	NASH J E, SUTCLIFFE J V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I-A discussion of principles[J]. Journal of hydrology, 1970, 10(3):282-290. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 URL
[16]	赵明松, 张甘霖, 吴运金, 等. 江苏省土壤有机质含量时空变异特征及驱动力研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2014, 51(3):448-458.
[17]	李冬初, 黄晶, 马常宝, 等. 中国农耕区土壤有机质含量及其与酸碱度和容重关系[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(6):252-258.
[18]	胡立峰. 中国土壤类型下免耕对土壤容重的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 555(12):73-78.
[19]	叶宗裕. 关于多指标综合评价中指标正向化和无量纲化方法的选择[J]. 浙江统计, 2003(4):24-25.
[20]	乔云发, 苗淑杰, 陆欣春, 等. 不同土壤耕作方式对东北风沙土区玉米田土壤质量及产量的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018, 38(3):19-23.
[21]	刘利昆, 赵广举, 穆兴民, 等. 基于最小数据集的青藏公路沿线土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(2):125-131.
[22]	陈正发, 史东梅, 何伟, 等. 基于“要素-需求-调控”的云南坡耕地质量评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(12):236-246.
[23]	赵洋毅, 王玉杰, 王云琦, 等. 渝北水源区水源涵养林构建模式对土壤渗透性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(15):4162-4172.
[24]	刘小娥, 苏世平, 李毅. 兰州市南北两山5种典型人工林土壤的渗透特性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2021, 41(3):69-75.
[25]	MARTIYA S, GEORGE A M, EMMANUEL JOHN M C, et al. Rare earth element distribution and mineralization in Sweden: An application of principal component analysis to FOREGS soil geochemistry[J]. Journal of geochemical exploration, 2013, 133(10):160-175. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.10.015 URL