Changes in Soil Quality During Process of Bauxite Residue Soilization

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0316

Abstract

Abstract:

The bauxite residue disposal area in Jiaozuo, Henan Province was selected as the experimental platform to study the process of bauxite residue soilization through substrate amendment and planting different plants. The changes in soil quality during the process of bauxite residue soilization were analyzed, providing reference for the bauxite residue soilization improvement and vegetation reconstruction of bauxite residue disposal area. In this experiment, 8 treatments were set up, including bauxite residue undisturbed soil (CN), only substrate amendment without planting plants in the open space (KD), planting Tamarix (CL), planting Suaeda salsa (JP), planting ryegrass (HMC), planting Artemisia annua (QH), planting mugwort (AC), and planting fungus grass (QC). After planting plants for 3 years, samples were taken from different plots to determine the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil after soil improvement. The impact of planting different plants on soil quality was analyzed, and the changes in soil quality during the process of bauxite residue soilization were studied from the perspective of ecological reconstruction. The results showed that after planting plants in the bauxite residue disposal area for 3 years, the soil properties of different plots changed to varying degrees, and there were significant differences in soil properties before and after treatment. After planting plants, the soil bulk density decreased by 54.17% to 67.19%, soil porosity increased by 109.38% to 137.50%, pH decreased by 0.8-1.77 units, organic matter increased by 38.15% to 245.95%, total nitrogen and alkaline nitrogen increased by 250.00% to 1975.00% and 106.53% to 501.94%, total phosphorus and available phosphorus increased by 132.71% to 228.97% and 105.59% to 681.36%, available potassium increased by 1.41% to 32.80%, and there was a significant increase in the number of bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes. Compared with undisturbed bauxite residue and open spaces without planting plants, soil improvement of bauxite residue can improve the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. The change in soil quality during the process of bauxite residue soilization also promotes the ecological restoration of the bauxite residue disposal area.

Key words: bauxite residue disposal area, soilization, microbial quantity, ecological restoration, soil quality

LIU Zhongsen, ZHAO Ya, XUE Haitao, ZHAO Yongchao, YUE Jingjing, GONG Weizheng. Changes in Soil Quality During Process of Bauxite Residue Soilization[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(2): 56-62.

Figures/Tables 5

References 32

[1]	许国栋, 敖宏, 佘元冠. 可持续发展背景下世界铝工业发展现状、趋势及我国的对策[J]. 中国有色金属学报, 2012, 22(7):2040-2051.
[2]	ZHU F, ZHOU J Y, XUE S G, et al. Aging of bauxite residue in association of regeneration: a comparison of methods to determine ag-gregate stability & erosion resistance[J]. Ecological engineering, 2016, 92(6):47-54.
[3]	ZHU F, XUE S G, LI X F, et al. Natural plant colonization improves the physical condition of bauxite residue over time[J]. Environmental science and pollution research, 2016, 23(22): 1- 9.
[4]	JONES B E H, HAYNES R J. Bauxite processing residue:a critical review of its formation, properties, storage, and revegetation[J]. Critical reviews in environmental science and technology, 2011, 41(3):271- 315.
[5]	薛生国, 朱峰, 吴川, 等. 氧化铝赤泥堆场自然风化过程的土壤发生研究[C]. 第六届重金属污染防治及风险评价研讨会,厦门, 2015:298- 304.
[6]	SCHMALENBERGER A, SULLIVAN O, GAHAN J, et al. Bacte- rial communities established in bauxite residues with different restoration histories[J]. Environmental science and technology, 2013, 47:7110-7119
[7]	WILLIAMS C, STEINBERGS A. Soil sulphur fractions as chemical indices of available sulphur in some Australian soils[J]. Australian journal of agricultural research, 1959, 10:340-352
[8]	GRAFE M, KLAUBER C. Bauxite residue issues: IV. Old obstacles and new pathways for in situ residue bioremediation[J]. Hydrometallurgy, 2011, 108(1/2):46-59.
[9]	XUE S G, ZHU F, KONG X F, et al. A review of the characterization and revegetation of bauxite residues (Red mud)[J]. Environmental science and pollution research, 2016, 23(2):1120-1132.
[10]	宋会兴, 苏智先, 彭远英. 渝东山地黄壤肥力变化与植物群落演替的关系[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005, 16(2):223-226.
[11]	黄和平, 杨吉力, 毕军, 等. 皇甫川流域植被恢复对改善土壤肥力的作用研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2005, 25(3):37-40.
[12]	孟广涛, 方向京, 柴勇, 等. 矿区植被恢复措施对土壤养分及物种多样性的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2011, 26(3):12-16.
[13]	COURTNEY R, FEENEY E, O GRADY A. An ecological assessment of rehabilitated bauxite residue[J]. Ecological engineering, 2014, 73:373-379.
[14]	温庆忠. 废弃石灰岩矿山植被恢复方法探讨[J]. 林业资源管理, 2008(4):108-111.
[15]	包志毅, 陈波. 工业废弃地生态恢复中的植被重建技术[J]. 水土保持学报, 2004, 18(3):163-164.
[16]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005:178-200.
[17]	中科院南土所微生物研究室. 土壤微生物研究法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985:44-46.
[18]	徐建明. 土壤质量指标与评价[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:44-51.
[19]	吕桂芬, 吴永胜, 李浩, 等. 荒漠草原不同退化阶段土壤微生物、土壤养分及酶活性的研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2010, 30(1):104-109.
[20]	陈相宇, 程凤科, 徐长亮, 等. 庐山土壤速效钾的垂直分布特征研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2012, 18(24):98-101.
[21]	卢铁光, 杨广林, 王立坤. 基于相对土壤质量指数法的土壤质量变化评价与分析[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2003, 34(1):56-59.
[22]	曾玉彬. 种植不同耐盐植物对盐渍化土壤理化和生物学性质的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2015.
[23]	谢小丁. 盐生植物在黄河三角洲滨海盐碱地绿化中的应用模式研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2006.
[24]	汪明冲, 张新长, 李辉霞, 等. 喀斯特石漠化生态恢复过程中土壤质量变化分析——以古周生态恢复重建区为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(6):947-955. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2016.06.006
[25]	王璐, 仲启铖, 陆颖, 等. 群落配置对滨海围垦区土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2014, 51(3):638-647.
[26]	曹丹. 有机、常规种植方式下土壤特性定位监测及生物肥的调控作用[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010.
[27]	阮佳萍, 杜照奎, 吴夏杉, 等. 七种草本植物对台州滩涂盐渍土的改良效果[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(16):50-56.
[28]	张立宾, 徐化凌, 赵庚星. 碱蓬的耐盐能力及其对滨海盐渍土的改良效果[J]. 土壤, 2007, 39(2):310-313.
[29]	张茹琴. 气候变暖对玉米生长及其土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(12):6409-6411.
[30]	赵雅, 刘钟森, 王骥博, 等. 种植耐盐植物对赤泥堆场有机质及微生物数量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(5):756-760
[31]	林新坚, 王飞, 蔡海松, 等. 不同有机肥源对土壤微生物生物量及花生产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(2):235-238.
[32]	欧阳资文. 喀斯特峰丛洼地不同退耕还林还草模式的生态效应研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2010.

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
CN	3.46±0.04c	0.04±0.00f	1.07±0.02e	11.33±0.21e	5.90±0.22e	639.33±4.92c	10.87±0.05a
KD	3.71±0.45c	0.08±0.00ef	2.32±0.03d	19.53±0.25d	7.73±0.12e	686.67±7.93c	10.60±0.16a
CL	7.71±0.99b	0.14±0.01e	3.37±0.16a	27.97±0.57bc	12.13±1.47d	693.33±16.50c	10.07±0.29b
JP	11.50±0.65a	0.44±0.04c	2.66±0.11c	29.87±3.11b	29.67±3.36b	750.00±46.37b	9.20±0.24c
HMC	8.06±0.46b	0.29±0.01d	2.49±0.12cd	19.67±0.83d	13.60±0.86cd	849.00±35.05a	10.03±0.12b
QH	11.97±1.17a	0.83±0.12a	2.54±0.11cd	68.20±6.65a	46.10±3.27a	649.00±36.04c	9.10±0.14c
AC	4.78±0.17c	0.34±0.02cd	3.52±0.11a	29.43±2.32b	14.23±1.11cd	848.33±17.00a	9.40±0.22c
JC	7.95±1.19b	0.65±0.05b	2.97±0.22b	23.40±0.71cd	16.53±1.31c	838.33±19.29a	9.97±0.19b

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
CN	3.46±0.04c	0.04±0.00f	1.07±0.02e	11.33±0.21e	5.90±0.22e	639.33±4.92c	10.87±0.05a
KD	3.71±0.45c	0.08±0.00ef	2.32±0.03d	19.53±0.25d	7.73±0.12e	686.67±7.93c	10.60±0.16a
CL	7.71±0.99b	0.14±0.01e	3.37±0.16a	27.97±0.57bc	12.13±1.47d	693.33±16.50c	10.07±0.29b
JP	11.50±0.65a	0.44±0.04c	2.66±0.11c	29.87±3.11b	29.67±3.36b	750.00±46.37b	9.20±0.24c
HMC	8.06±0.46b	0.29±0.01d	2.49±0.12cd	19.67±0.83d	13.60±0.86cd	849.00±35.05a	10.03±0.12b
QH	11.97±1.17a	0.83±0.12a	2.54±0.11cd	68.20±6.65a	46.10±3.27a	649.00±36.04c	9.10±0.14c
AC	4.78±0.17c	0.34±0.02cd	3.52±0.11a	29.43±2.32b	14.23±1.11cd	848.33±17.00a	9.40±0.22c
JC	7.95±1.19b	0.65±0.05b	2.97±0.22b	23.40±0.71cd	16.53±1.31c	838.33±19.29a	9.97±0.19b

处理	细菌/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	真菌/(×10⁵ cfu/g)	放线菌/(×10⁶ cfu/g)	微生物总量/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	比例/%
处理	细菌/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	真菌/(×10⁵ cfu/g)	放线菌/(×10⁶ cfu/g)	微生物总量/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	细菌	真菌	放线菌
CN	0.55±0.02e	1.68±0.04e	1.20±0.08d	0.69±0.03d	79.71	2.43	17.39
KD	1.13±0.12d	2.17±0.21e	2.30±0.16c	1.38±0.14c	81.88	1.57	16.67
CL	1.51±0.08ab	8.04±0.32c	2.77±0.12ab	1.86±0.09a	81.18	4.32	14.89
JP	1.57±0.05a	12.77±1.28b	2.80±0.08ab	1.97±0.07a	79.70	6.48	14.21
HMC	1.28±0.07cd	7.41±0.01c	2.72±0.10b	1.63±0.08b	78.53	4.55	16.69
QH	1.37±0.05bc	15.27±0.61a	3.07±0.26a	1.83±0.04a	74.86	8.34	16.78
AC	1.22±0.09cd	5.20±0.67d	2.40±0.14c	1.51±0.11bc	81.33	3.44	15.89
JC	1.33±0.05c	4.37±0.33d	2.31±0.16c	1.60±0.07b	83.13	2.73	14.44

处理	细菌/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	真菌/(×10⁵ cfu/g)	放线菌/(×10⁶ cfu/g)	微生物总量/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	比例/%
处理	细菌/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	真菌/(×10⁵ cfu/g)	放线菌/(×10⁶ cfu/g)	微生物总量/(×10⁷ cfu/g)	细菌	真菌	放线菌
CN	0.55±0.02e	1.68±0.04e	1.20±0.08d	0.69±0.03d	79.71	2.43	17.39
KD	1.13±0.12d	2.17±0.21e	2.30±0.16c	1.38±0.14c	81.88	1.57	16.67
CL	1.51±0.08ab	8.04±0.32c	2.77±0.12ab	1.86±0.09a	81.18	4.32	14.89
JP	1.57±0.05a	12.77±1.28b	2.80±0.08ab	1.97±0.07a	79.70	6.48	14.21
HMC	1.28±0.07cd	7.41±0.01c	2.72±0.10b	1.63±0.08b	78.53	4.55	16.69
QH	1.37±0.05bc	15.27±0.61a	3.07±0.26a	1.83±0.04a	74.86	8.34	16.78
AC	1.22±0.09cd	5.20±0.67d	2.40±0.14c	1.51±0.11bc	81.33	3.44	15.89
JC	1.33±0.05c	4.37±0.33d	2.31±0.16c	1.60±0.07b	83.13	2.73	14.44

	容重	孔隙度	有机质	全氮	全磷	碱解氮	有效磷	速效钾	pH	细菌	放线菌	真菌	微生物总量
容重	1
总孔隙度	-0.945^**	1
有机质	-0.736^**	0.735^**	1
全氮	-0.626^**	0.578^**	0.755^**	1
全磷	-0.762^**	0.701^**	0.288	0.324	1
碱解氮	-0.488^*	0.505^*	0.682^**	0.769^**	0.285	1
有效磷	-0.535^**	0.553^**	0.835^**	0.808^**	0.17	0.892^**	1
速效钾	-0.446^*	0.394	0.008	0.185	0.525^**	-0.245	-0.141	1
pH	0.729^**	-0.703^**	-0.718^**	-0.728^**	-0.569^**	-0.718^**	-0.758^**	-0.253	1
细菌	-0.879^**	0.878^**	0.704^**	0.479^*	0.761^**	0.441^*	0.495^*	0.303	-0.650^**	1
放线菌	-0.826^**	0.860^**	0.721^**	0.511^*	0.641^**	0.616^**	0.655^**	0.19	-0.669^**	0.890^**	1
真菌	-0.665^**	0.682^**	0.915^**	0.659^**	0.284	0.794^**	0.907^**	-0.118	-0.775^**	0.656^**	0.762^**	1
微生物总量	-0.888^**	0.894^**	0.765^**	0.528^**	0.721^**	0.529^**	0.591^**	0.249	-0.697^**	0.991^**	0.933^**	0.744^**	1