Variability of Soil Heavy Metal Content of Five Stand Types in Beijiang River Basin

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0964

Abstract

Abstract:

To examine the characteristics of soil heavy metal content and the pollution condition of different forest types in the Beijiang River Basin and to provide a theoretical framework for the assessment of heavy metal pollution, soil concentrations of Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb and Hg were investigated in the 0-40 cm soil layer of five different forest types (Eucalyptus robusta, Bambusoideae, Cunninghamia lanceolata, Pinus massoniana and Pinus elliotti) in the Beijiang River Basin. The single factor index method, Nemerow comprehensive pollution index method, geo-accumulation index method and potential ecological risk index method were used to evaluate the pollution and possible ecological risk of soil heavy metal contamination in each stand type. The results showed that: (1) Zn and Hg had the highest and lowest concentrations of heavy metals respectively in the soil of all stands. (2) The four heavy metal components of soil (Cr, Ni, Cu and Zn) had a strong link with one another. Additionally, soil pH, TN, TP and OC all had an impact on soil’s heavy metal content, with TP had the biggest impact. (3) Only the geo-accumulation index evaluation results revealed that the Hg element in the soil of the Bambusoideae stands was mildly to moderately contaminated. The soil of the five stands tested for heavy metal pollution was almost clean or safe. The potential ecological risk levels of mercury were moderate, while those of the other heavy metals were minimal. This study found that the soil environmental quality of the woodland in the Beijiang Basin was good, and the evaluation result of soil heavy metal pollution in the majority of areas was clean or no pollution, providing fundamental information and theoretical support for the prevention and control of soil pollution as well as for the regional ecological protection of the woodland in the Beijiang Basin.

Key words: stand type, soil heavy metals, pollution evaluation, ecological risk assessment

YE Caihong, XU Tiaozi, ZHANG Zhongrui, ZHU Hangyong, ZHANG Geng, HE Qian, DING Xiaogang. Variability of Soil Heavy Metal Content of Five Stand Types in Beijiang River Basin[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(34): 114-122.

Figures/Tables 12

References 36

[1]	蔡祖聪. 土壤在植物多样性形成中的作用及其研究意义[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(1):1-9.
[2]	王亲, 董炜华, 李晓强, 等. 土壤健康评价的研究进展[J]. 现代农业研究, 2022, 28(7):10-12.
[3]	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[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(3):603-616.
[4]	张继舟, 吕品, 王立民, 等. 大兴安岭森林土壤重金属含量空间变异与污染评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(3):810-819.
[5]	HU B F, SHAO S, NI H, et al. Current status, spatial features, health risks, and potential driving factors of soil heavy metal pollution in China at province level[J]. Environmental pollution, 2020, 266(3):114961. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114961 URL
[6]	姜宇, 郭庆军, 邓义楠. 长江流域沉积物和土壤重金属分布规律研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(4):804-812.
[7]	ZHANG Q C, WANG C C. Natural and human factors affect the distribution of soil heavy metal pollution: A review[J]. Water air and soil pollution, 2020, 231(7):604-618.
[8]	张善文, 孔令东, 毕守法, 等. 南岔林区土壤质量评价及若干问题的探讨[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 1987(4):111-118.
[9]	徐庆, 钱瑾, 张毓祥, 等. 上海市黄浦江表层沉积物重金属污染评价[J]. 中国环境监测, 2011, 27(3):89-92.
[10]	徐争启, 倪师军, 张成江, 等. 应用污染负荷指数法评价攀枝花地区金沙江水系沉积物中的重金属[J]. 四川环境, 2004(3):64-67.
[11]	MÜLLER G. Index of geo-accumulation in sediments of the Rhine River[J]. Geojournal, 1969, 2:108-118.
[12]	周秀艳, 王恩德, 朱恩静. 辽东湾河口底泥中重金属的污染评价[J]. 环境化学, 2004(3):321-325.
[13]	丁园, 刘丽华, 刘小伟, 等. 江西九江地区不同林分类型土壤重金属污染评价[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2014, 42(3):196-198.
[14]	庄玉婷, 冯嘉仪, 储双双, 等. 粤西地区不同林分类型土壤重金属含量及生态风险评价[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2018, 39(5):25-31.
[15]	李向阳, 吴疆, 刘洪强. 鄂东南5种森林土壤重金属含量及污染评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(10):102-108.
[16]	杨维鸽, 岳军伟, 张雁. 商洛金凤山不同林地土壤重金属含量研究[J]. 商洛学院学报, 2021, 35(4):33-40.
[17]	赛宁刚, 祁娟, 贾燕伟, 等. 东祁连山不同土地利用方式下土壤重金属污染评价[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(10):99-109. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021394
[18]	生态环境部南京环境科学研究所, 中国科学院南京土壤研究所, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所, 等. GB 15618—2018,土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行)[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2018:2.
[19]	马杰, 刘萍, 刘今朝, 等. 重庆市煤矸山周边农用地土壤重金属污染评价和定量溯源解析[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(12):12.
[20]	朱荟, 郑春丽, 白晶晶, 等. 内蒙古某尾矿废弃地周边土壤重金属污染评价[J]. 中国煤炭地质, 2022, 34(6):55-62.
[21]	中国环境监测总站. 中国土壤元素背景值[M]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 1990:331-380.
[22]	蒋军锋. 甘肃省平凉市土壤重金属潜在生态风险评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(8):176-180.
[23]	孙厚云, 卫晓锋, 刘卫, 等. 基于GIS基线分割与土地利用单元优化的土壤重金属生态风险累积效应评价方法[J]. 地质学报, 2022, 96(4):1488-1502.
[24]	樊志颖, 李江荣, 高郯, 等. 色季拉山森林土壤重金属空间分布特征及污染评价[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 48(8):93-100.
[25]	楚春晖, 佘宇晨, 佘济云, 等. 亚热带不同森林类型的土壤重金属空间分布特征及其潜在生态风险[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(5):258-263.
[26]	冯慧敏, 李海渤. 粤北地区重金属污染菜地现状及土壤修复对策与建议——以韶关为例[J]. 湖南生态科学学报, 2018, 5(3):48-56.
[27]	CHENG X F, TOMAS D, JARMILA D, et al. Soil heavy metal pollution and risk assessment associated with the Zn-Pb mining region in Yunnan, Southwest China[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2018, 190(4):194.1-194.16. doi: 10.1007/s10661-017-6336-1 URL
[28]	岳国辉. 土壤pH和有机质含量对重金属可利用性的影响[J]. 中国金属通报, 2021(5):196-197.
[29]	王文栋, 任振武, 张红英, 等. 新疆天山中部森林土壤重金属含量及其与土壤理化性质的相关性[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(3):47-56,66.
[30]	窦苗, 陶玉柱, 高瑶瑶. 田头山自然保护区林地土壤理化性质与重金属相关性研究[J]. 广东园林, 2022, 44(1):16-21.
[31]	周曼, 徐燕, 赵玉皓, 等. N、P添加对亚热带森林土壤重金属活性的影响[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2021, 44(4):23-27.
[32]	徐磊, 黄加忠, 张亚, 等. 滇中高山丘陵区土壤重金属来源及影响因素——以武定县为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(1):82-92. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0128
[33]	陈锦, 郭锦. 单因子法及综合污染指数法在矿山土壤重金属污染评价中的应用[J]. 世界有色金属, 2020(9):281-282.
[34]	WU G F, WANG L L, YANG R, et al. Pollution characteristics and risk assessment of heavy metals in the soil of a construction waste landfill site[J]. Ecological Informatics, 2022, 70(3):101700. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101700 URL
[35]	PENG X, CUI Y X, CAO W Q, et al. Remediation technologies and risk assessment of soil contaminated with heavy metals[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and environmental science, 2021, 781(3):032057. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/781/3/032057
[36]	闫欣荣, 樊旭辉. 多种方法评价城市表层土壤重金属污染的比较研究[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2013, 48(1):118-124.

等级划分	单因子指数		内梅罗综合指数
等级划分	P_i值	污染程度	P值	污染程度
1	P_i≤1	无污染	P≤0.7	安全状态
2	1<P_i≤2	轻度污染	0.7<P≤1.0	污染警戒
3	2<P_i≤3	中度污染	1.0<P≤2.0	轻度污染
4	P_i>3	重度污染	2.0<P≤3.0	中度污染
5			P>3.0	重度污染

等级划分	单因子指数		内梅罗综合指数
等级划分	P_i值	污染程度	P值	污染程度
1	P_i≤1	无污染	P≤0.7	安全状态
2	1<P_i≤2	轻度污染	0.7<P≤1.0	污染警戒
3	2<P_i≤3	中度污染	1.0<P≤2.0	轻度污染
4	P_i>3	重度污染	2.0<P≤3.0	中度污染
5			P>3.0	重度污染

风险级别	地累积指数范围	污染程度
0	I_geo≤0	无污染
1	0<I_geo≤1	轻度—中度污染
2	1<I_geo≤2	中度污染
3	2<I_geo≤3	中度—强污染
4	3<I_geo≤4	强污染
5	4<I_geo≤5	强—极严重污染
6	5<I_geo≤10	极严重污染

风险级别	地累积指数范围	污染程度
0	I_geo≤0	无污染
1	0<I_geo≤1	轻度—中度污染
2	1<I_geo≤2	中度污染
3	2<I_geo≤3	中度—强污染
4	3<I_geo≤4	强污染
5	4<I_geo≤5	强—极严重污染
6	5<I_geo≤10	极严重污染

等级划分	单一重金属潜在生态风险指数		多种重金属潜在生态风险综合指数
等级划分	E_i值	污染程度	R_I值	污染程度
1	E_i<40	轻微生态风险	R_I<150	轻微生态风险
2	40≤E_i<80	中等生态风险	150≤R_I<300	中等生态风险
3	80≤E_i<160	强生态风险	300≤R_I<600	强生态风险
4	160≤E_i<320	很强生态风险	R_I≥600	很强生态风险
5	E_i≥320	极强生态风险