Effects of Compounds Plantations of Torreya grandis on Soil Nutrient Conservation in Mountainous Areas of Southern Anhui Province

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0595

Abstract

Abstract:

The prevention and control of soil erosion should be considered when planting in mountainous areas, so as to conserve and regulate surface runoff and reduce nutrient loss. In this paper, four compound planting patterns and a single planting pattern of Torreya grandis were studied in the mountain field of Torreya grandis base in Hecheng Township, Xiuning County, Huangshan City, Anhui Province. By comparing the total amount and migration of soil nutrients, the effect of compound planting pattern on soil nutrient conservation in this type of mountain was analyzed. The results showed (1) The compound planting of Torreya grandis-Rubus palmatum (T1) had significant effects on soil total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium, available potassium and pH, and its contents were 1.2, 0.5, 0.2, 0.3 times and 0.1 times higher than that of Torreya grandis (CK) alone respectively; the effects of compound planting of Torreya grandis-RhizomaPolygonatum (T2) on soil total phosphorus, available phosphorus, total potassium and available potassium were more obvious, and their contents were 0.4, 2.3, 0.2 times and 0.3 times higher than that of CK respectively; there had more obvious effects on soil available potassium (0.5 times higher than that of CK) and pH (0.1 times higher than CK) in the compound planting of Torreya grandis-Peucedanumpraeruptorum (T3) pattern; the compound planting of Torreya grandis-Artemisia annua (T4) also had obvious effects on soil available potassium and pH, which were 0.2 times and 0.1 times higher than that of CK respectively; (2) Soil nutrients were distributed unevenly at the top, middle and bottom of the slope, and there had greater impact on the distribution of available phosphorus in compounds planting of Torreya grandis-RhizomaPolygonatumandTorreya grandis-Artemisia argyi. (3) The consistent changes in soil pH and water content were found in compound planting treatments, and the soil pH and water content were significantly positively correlated with soil nutrient content and significantly negatively correlated with soil nutrient content by correlation analysis. Compound planting is beneficial to improve the activation and maintenance of soil pH and soil nutrients in mountainous areas, and reduce the soil water content.

Key words: Torreya grandis, compound planting, mountain soil nutrients, soil pH, water content

LUO Yi, ZHANG Xue, SHE Xinsong, ZHUANG Min, SU Min, HU Changyu, TIAN Yuan. Effects of Compounds Plantations of Torreya grandis on Soil Nutrient Conservation in Mountainous Areas of Southern Anhui Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(20): 51-59.

Figures/Tables 14

References 27

[1]	李树兴. 杨树林间复合种植模式和造林技术探究[J]. 南方农业, 2020, 14(32):109-110.
[2]	卢喜平, 史东梅, 吕刚, 等. 紫色土坡地果草种植模式的水土流失特征研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005, 19(2):21-25.
[3]	魏志红, 姜小三, 黄耀欢, 等. 湘赣边界山区林地土壤养分分异规律[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(1):349-355.
[4]	汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 程鹏, 等. 不同银杏复合经营模式土壤酶活性及综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 34(4):1-6.
[5]	VERMA R K, CHAUHAN A, VERMA R S, et al. Improving production potential and resources use efficiency of peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) intercropped with geranium (Pelargonium graveolens L. Herit ex Ait) under different plant density[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2013, 44:577-582. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.09.019 URL
[6]	程云霞. 农林复合经营的生态效益研究[J]. 北京农业, 2016(1):138-139.
[7]	单宏年. 农林复合经营的生态效益研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2008(6):203-204.
[8]	CARDOSO I M, JANSSEN B H, OENEMA O, et al. Phosphorus pools in Oxisols under shaded and unshaded coffee systems on farmers' fields in Brazil[J]. Agroforestry systems, 2003, 58(1):55-64. doi: 10.1023/A:1025436908000 URL
[9]	麻婷婷. 泡桐生长性状及在苏北平原林农间作系统中的应用研究[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2007.
[10]	余小英. 香榧产业现状及发展对策[J]. 现代园艺, 2017, 2(1):25-26.
[11]	梁淑云, 丁之恩, 胡文翠. 安徽香榧资源概况及栽培技术[J]. 经济林研究, 2006, 24(2):59-62.
[12]	管礼松, 郭伟玲, 李鑫, 等. 2000—2018年皖南山区土壤侵蚀时空变化[J]. 水土保持通报, 2021, 41(2):114-121.
[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.
[14]	王勤, 孙梦瑶, 遆建航, 等. 毛竹-多花黄精复合经营模式对土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 生态科学, 2020, 39(6):54-59.
[15]	刘帅楠, 李广, 吴江琪, 等. 黄土丘陵区不同土地类型下土壤养分特征——基于生态化学计量学[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3):200-207. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020146
[16]	曹婷, 孟军, 兰宇, 等. 稻壳炭对不同土壤磷淋溶的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2017, 48(4):385-391.
[17]	曹胜, 欧阳梦云, 周卫军, 等. 湖南省柑橘园土壤pH和主要养分特征及其相互关系[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(1):31-38.
[18]	WANG H, XU R K, WANG N, et al. Soil acidification of alfisols as influenced by tea cultivation in Eastern China[J]. Pedosphere, 2010, 20(6):799-806. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(10)60070-7 URL
[19]	许自成, 王林, 肖汉乾. 湖南烟区土壤pH分布特点及其与土壤养分的关系[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2008, 16(4):830-834.
[20]	徐阳, 龚榜初, 吴开云, 等. 掌叶覆盆子套种对板栗林土壤细菌群落结构演变及多样性的影响[J]. 生物学杂志, 2019, 36(3):31-36.
[21]	刘雅洁. 香榧-黄精复合经营对土壤理化性质及微生物群落的影响[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2020.
[22]	张丽君, 麻万诸, 项佳敏, 等. 浙江省耕地土壤速效钾状况及影响因素分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(4):607-611.
[23]	毛珞, 曾德慧. 农林复合系统植物竞争研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(2):379-386.
[24]	于德水, 卢杰. 地被物对土壤含水量及养分影响的研究进展[J]. 吉林林业科技, 2022, 51(1):24-28.
[25]	索立柱, 黄明斌, 段良霞, 等. 黄土高原不同土地利用类型土壤含水量的地带性与影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(6):2045-2053.
[26]	HOU E, WEN D, KUANG Y, CONG J, et al. Soil pH predominantly controls the forms of organic phosphorus in topsoils under natural broadleaved forests along a 2500 km latitudinal gradient[J]. Geoderma, 2018, 315:65-74. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.041 URL
[27]	DEVAU N, CADRE E L, HINSINGER P, et al. Soil pH controls the environmental availability of phosphorus: Experimental and mechanistic modelling approaches[J]. Applied geochemistry, 2009, 24(11):2163-2174. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2009.09.020 URL

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	总磷/(g/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	总钾/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	含水率/%	pH
T1	29.15±1.64 b	0.71±0.08 a	165.78±8.55 a	0.80±0.01 a	2.46±0.02 d	19.11±0.11 ab	8.30±1.24 ab	19.13±0.94 c	5.34±0.08 ab
T2	26.89±1.23 c	0.62±0.04 b	154.54±4.53 a	0.74±0.01 b	6.59±0.02 a	19.19±0.05 a	7.84±0.96 ab	26.56±0.90 b	5.27±0.01b
T3	26.12±0.25 c	0.44±0.04 c	150.27±17.57 a	0.70±0.01 c	3.53±0.03 c	18.68±0.02 c	9.53±1.28 a	19.11±0.38 c	5.54±0.20 a
T4	25.62±0.51 c	0.35±0.02 d	151.04±2.17 a	0.60±0.03 d	5.73±0.01 b	19.02±0.05 b	7.72±1.48 ab	22.92±1.40 bc	5.43±0.06 ab
CK	37.21±0.95 a	0.33±0.03 d	170.33±11.67 a	0.53±0.01 e	2.01±0.02 e	15.93±0.03 d	6.22±0.47 b	35.17±4.92 a	4.82±0.02 c

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	总磷/(g/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	总钾/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	含水率/%	pH
T1	29.15±1.64 b	0.71±0.08 a	165.78±8.55 a	0.80±0.01 a	2.46±0.02 d	19.11±0.11 ab	8.30±1.24 ab	19.13±0.94 c	5.34±0.08 ab
T2	26.89±1.23 c	0.62±0.04 b	154.54±4.53 a	0.74±0.01 b	6.59±0.02 a	19.19±0.05 a	7.84±0.96 ab	26.56±0.90 b	5.27±0.01b
T3	26.12±0.25 c	0.44±0.04 c	150.27±17.57 a	0.70±0.01 c	3.53±0.03 c	18.68±0.02 c	9.53±1.28 a	19.11±0.38 c	5.54±0.20 a
T4	25.62±0.51 c	0.35±0.02 d	151.04±2.17 a	0.60±0.03 d	5.73±0.01 b	19.02±0.05 b	7.72±1.48 ab	22.92±1.40 bc	5.43±0.06 ab
CK	37.21±0.95 a	0.33±0.03 d	170.33±11.67 a	0.53±0.01 e	2.01±0.02 e	15.93±0.03 d	6.22±0.47 b	35.17±4.92 a	4.82±0.02 c

	有机质	总氮	碱解氮	总磷	有效磷	总钾	速效钾	含水率	pH
有机质	1	-0.320	0.561*	-0.521*	-0.674**	-0.908**	-0.506	0.768**	-0.866**
总氮	-	1	0.139	0.910**	0.077	0.575*	0.188	-0.425	0.264
碱解氮	-	-	1	-0.123	-0.506	-0.470	-0.590*	0.356	-0.408
总磷	-	-	-	1	0.139	0.748**	0.444	-0.669**	0.521*
有效磷	-	-	-	-	1	0.610*	0.116	-0.140	0.401
总钾	-	-	-	-	-	1	0.543*	-0.798**	0.832**
速效钾	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-0.674**	0.616**
含水率	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-0.847**
pH	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1

	有机质	总氮	碱解氮	总磷	有效磷	总钾	速效钾	含水率	pH
有机质	1	-0.320	0.561*	-0.521*	-0.674**	-0.908**	-0.506	0.768**	-0.866**
总氮	-	1	0.139	0.910**	0.077	0.575*	0.188	-0.425	0.264
碱解氮	-	-	1	-0.123	-0.506	-0.470	-0.590*	0.356	-0.408
总磷	-	-	-	1	0.139	0.748**	0.444	-0.669**	0.521*
有效磷	-	-	-	-	1	0.610*	0.116	-0.140	0.401
总钾	-	-	-	-	-	1	0.543*	-0.798**	0.832**
速效钾	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-0.674**	0.616**
含水率	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-0.847**
pH	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1