Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Soil pH in Typical Counties of Yantai City and Influencing Factors

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0672

Abstract

Abstract:

This paper explored the characteristics of soil pH change and its influencing factors in arable land of typical counties in Yantai City and provided a scientific basis for arable land quality improvement. The soil samples of cultivated layer were collected in 2010 by grid sampling method from Qixia City and Penglai District as the research objects. Soil properties, including soil pH, exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium were analyzed and compared with data of the second land survey in 1984. The pH spatiotemporal characteristics of different soil types were analyzed by geostatistics, changes in pH at different soil levels were compared. The results indicated that the soil pH in Yantai City showed a downward trend during 25 years (1984 to 2010). The declining degrees of pH were about 10% for cinnamon and fluvo-aquic soils and 6% for brown soil, respectively. The nugget effect of soil pH increased over time and the spatial autocorrelation of soil pH gradually decreased, and soil pH was greatly affected by random factors. Soil pH values in the northern and eastern edge of Yantai were high, and the acidification was not obvious. In contrast, soil pH values were low in southwest of Yantai where had severe acidification. The proportion of arable land with pH≤6.00 increased significantly from 5.8% in 1984 to 48.8% in 2010, while the proportion of arable land with pH>6.00 decreased significantly from 94.2% in 1984 to 51.2% in 2010. Both exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium in Qixia City increased first and then decreased with the increase of pH, while both exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium in Penglai City were positively correlated with pH. The cultivated land soil presented acidizing trend in Yantai. Climate and fertilization are the main factors affecting arable soil acidification in this region.

Key words: Yantai City, soil acidification, soil type, geostatistics, spatiotemporal characteristics

LI Yujing, XIA Ziyi, SHEN Tong, WANG Fei, ZHENG Lei, ZHOU Jianli, ZHANG Qiang, SUN Nan, XU Minggang. Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Soil pH in Typical Counties of Yantai City and Influencing Factors[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(21): 103-108.

Figures/Tables 7

References 30

[1]	邹晓锦, 仇荣亮, 黄穗虹, 等. 广东大宝山复合污染土壤的改良及植物复垦[J]. 中国环境科学, 2010, 28(9):775-780.
[2]	王洪, 曹婧, 毋俊华, 等. 近40年来陕西省耕层土壤pH的时空变化特征[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(6):1117-1126.
[3]	路艳艳, 丁方军, 刘春生, 等. 山东省胶东地区土壤酸化现状研究[J]. 化肥工业, 2017, 44(1):67-71,78-79.
[4]	张芳, 熊黑钢, 安放舟, 等. 基于盐(碱)生植被盖度的土壤碱化分级[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(4):665-672.
[5]	GUO J H, LIU X J, ZHANG Y, et al. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands[J]. Science, 2010, 327(59680):1008-1010. doi: 10.1126/science.1182570 URL
[6]	徐仁扣. 土壤酸化及其调控研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2):238-244.
[7]	HONG S B, PIAO S L, CHEN A P, et al. Afforestation neutralizes soil pH[J]. Nature communications, 2018, 9(1):520. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02970-1 pmid: 29410472
[8]	周杨, 姚岳良, 施丽珍, 等. 缙云县耕地土壤酸化及其预防与治理思考[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(4):833-836.
[9]	WU Z F, SUN X M, SUN Y Q, et al. Soil acidification and factors controlling topsoil pH shift of cropland in central China from 2008 to 2018[J]. Geoderma, 2022, 408(15):115586. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115586 URL
[10]	王文娟, 杨知建, 徐华勤. 我国土壤酸化研究概述[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(8):54-56.
[11]	胡敏, 向永生, 张智, 等. 恩施州耕地土壤pH近30年变化特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(4):1289-1297.
[12]	李涛, 于蕾, 万广华, 等. 近30年山东省耕地土壤pH时空变化特征及影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(1):180-190.
[13]	杜腾飞, 齐伟, 朱西存, 等. 基于生态安全格局的山地丘陵区自然资源空间精准识别与管制方法[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5):1190-1200. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200514
[14]	万炜, 师纪博, 刘忠, 等. 栖霞市苹果园氮磷养分平衡及环境风险评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(4):211-219.
[15]	连相汝, 庞延军, 李翔飞, 等. 烟台市林木种苗产业发展形势分析及对策研究[J]. 园艺与种苗, 2022, 42(6):54-55,75.
[16]	魏国栋, 李波, 高山, 等. 烟台市野生菊科药用植物资源和区系研究[J]. 中国野生植物资源, 2022, 41(7):91-98.
[17]	詹鸿. 福州市耕地土壤pH值空间分布及变化特征[J]. 福建农业科技, 2022, 53(2):71-75.
[18]	王志刚, 赵永存, 廖启林, 等. 近20年来江苏省土壤pH值时空变化及其驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 28(2):720-727.
[19]	周峻宇, 李明德, 周旋, 等. 南方典型母质发育水稻土剖面酸化特征研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3):7-13.
[20]	杨歆歆, 赵庚星, 李涛, 等. 山东省土壤酸化特征及其影响因素分析[J]. 农业工程报, 2016, 32(S2):155-160.
[21]	孟凡乔, 王坤, 肖广敏, 等. 华北平原潮土区粮田氮淋失阻控措施及效果分析[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(1):141-153.
[22]	全国土壤普查办公室. 中国土壤[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,1998.
[23]	谢建文. 洞口县稻田土壤酸化的现状及改良措施[J]. 中国农技推广, 2019, 35(3):50-52.
[24]	李继红. 我国土壤酸化的成因与防控研究[J]. 农业灾害研究, 2012, 2(6):42-45.
[25]	BREEMEN N V, BURROUGH P A, VELTHORST E J, et al. Soil acidification from atmospheric ammonium sulphate in forest canopy through fall[J]. Nature, 1982, 299(7):548-550. doi: 10.1038/299548a0
[26]	MULDER J, BREEMEN N V, EIJCK H C. Depletion of soil aluminum by acid deposition and implications for acid neutralization[J]. Nature, 1989, 337(19):247-249. doi: 10.1038/337247a0
[27]	曾路生, 高岩, 李俊良, 等. 寿光大棚菜地酸化与土壤养分变化关系研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2010(4):157-161.
[28]	陈绍荣, 余根德, 白云飞, 等. 土壤酸化及酸性土壤调理剂应用概述[J]. 化肥工业, 2013(2):66-68.
[29]	罗博仁, 李聪聪, 朱悦蕊, 等. 3种绿肥对茶园土壤pH值和交换性阳离子含量的影响[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2019, 15(2):121-126.
[30]	李爽, 张玉龙, 范庆锋, 等. 不同灌溉方式对保护地土壤酸化特征的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2012(5):909-915.

地区	年份	样本数	极差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差	变异系数/%	正态性
栖霞市	1984	33	1.90	5.90	7.80	6.62a	0.51	7.66	正态
栖霞市	2010	1469	4.00	4.20	8.20	5.82b	0.78	13.40	正态
蓬莱区	1984	19	2.80	5.20	8.00	6.85a	0.80	11.57	正态
蓬莱区	2010	2029	4.10	4.10	8.20	6.11b	0.70	12.15	对数正态
合计	1984	52	2.80	5.20	8.00	6.72a	0.63	9.32	偏态
合计	2010	3498	4.10	4.10	8.20	5.99b	0.77	12.89	偏态

地区	年份	样本数	极差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差	变异系数/%	正态性
栖霞市	1984	33	1.90	5.90	7.80	6.62a	0.51	7.66	正态
栖霞市	2010	1469	4.00	4.20	8.20	5.82b	0.78	13.40	正态
蓬莱区	1984	19	2.80	5.20	8.00	6.85a	0.80	11.57	正态
蓬莱区	2010	2029	4.10	4.10	8.20	6.11b	0.70	12.15	对数正态
合计	1984	52	2.80	5.20	8.00	6.72a	0.63	9.32	偏态
合计	2010	3498	4.10	4.10	8.20	5.99b	0.77	12.89	偏态

土壤类型	年份	样本数	极差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差	变异系数/%	正态性
潮土	1984	11	1.50	6.00	7.50	6.65a	0.43	6.47	正态
潮土	2010	710	3.80	4.10	7.90	5.99b	0.75	12.45	偏态
棕壤	1984	26	1.00	5.90	6.90	6.37a	0.29	4.62	正态
棕壤	2010	2075	4.10	4.10	8.20	5.99b	0.75	12.53	偏态
褐土	1984	14	1.20	6.80	8.00	7.51a	0.35	4.69	正态
褐土	2010	118	3.30	4.90	8.20	6.74b	0.69	10.24	偏态

土壤类型	年份	样本数	极差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差	变异系数/%	正态性
潮土	1984	11	1.50	6.00	7.50	6.65a	0.43	6.47	正态
潮土	2010	710	3.80	4.10	7.90	5.99b	0.75	12.45	偏态
棕壤	1984	26	1.00	5.90	6.90	6.37a	0.29	4.62	正态
棕壤	2010	2075	4.10	4.10	8.20	5.99b	0.75	12.53	偏态
褐土	1984	14	1.20	6.80	8.00	7.51a	0.35	4.69	正态
褐土	2010	118	3.30	4.90	8.20	6.74b	0.69	10.24	偏态

年份	模型	块金值(C₀)	基台值(C₀+C)	块基比/%	变程/m	RSS	R²
1984	高斯函数	0.00001	0.02142	0.05	2130	0.000094	0.535
2010	指数函数	0.00148	0.01636	9.05	9930	0.000001	0.805