半干旱风沙草原区盐湖植物防护体系土壤理化性状特征

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0674

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2024, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (1): 182-192.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0674

• 生物制造资源生态 • 上一篇

半干旱风沙草原区盐湖植物防护体系土壤理化性状特征

郭靖捷¹(), 任晓萌², 蒙仲举¹(), 王涛¹, 祁帅¹, 宋佳佳³, 宝孟克那顺³, 韩胜利⁴

^1.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院，呼和浩特 010018
^2.内蒙古自治区气象科学研究所，呼和浩特 010051
^3.鄂尔多斯市造林总场，内蒙古鄂尔多斯 014300
^4.鄂尔多斯市造林总场万太兴分场，内蒙古鄂尔多斯 014300

收稿日期:2022-08-16 接受日期:2022-09-14 出版日期:2024-01-15 发布日期:2024-01-08
通讯作者: 蒙仲举
作者简介:郭靖捷 E-mail：1063646151@qq.com；
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(42067015);内蒙古自治区自然科学基金项目(2020MS03038)

Characteristics of Soil Physicochemical Properties of Plant Protection System for Salt Lake in Semi-arid Wind-sand Grassland Area

Jingjie GUO¹(), Xiaomeng REN², Zhongju MENG¹(), Tao WANG¹, Shuai QI¹, Jiajia SONG³, Baomengkenashun³, Shengli HAN⁴

^1.Desert Science and Engineering College, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China
^2.Inner Mongolia Meteorological Institute, Hohhot 010051, China
^3.Ordos General Afforestation Field, Inner Mongolia Ordos 014300, China
^4.Wantaixing Branch of Ordos General Afforestation Field, Inner Mongolia Ordos 014300, China

Received:2022-08-16 Accepted:2022-09-14 Online:2024-01-15 Published:2024-01-08
Contact: Zhongju MENG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究植物防护措施对半干旱风沙草原区土壤的改良效应，以查干淖尔盐湖植物防护体系为研究对象，采用野外调查结合室内试验的方法，测定不同区域土壤理化性质，分析0—30 cm深度土壤含盐量、土壤酸碱度、土壤粒径组成、土壤有机质和氮磷钾含量的变化。结果表明，查干淖尔盐湖植物防护体系营造建设20年后，在防护带阻挡风蚀物质和植物改善土壤的协同作用下，原有高盐强碱土壤环境出现了显著变化。与干涸湖心相比，植物防护体系内各样地pH均有不同程度的降低，碱蓬防护带内土壤含盐量降低75.34%；碱蓬防护带内土壤粘粒和粉粒含量增幅明显，较干涸湖心分别增加51.60%和22.14%，粗砂含量较干涸湖心降低72.06%；碱蓬防护带内土壤速效钾、速效磷、有机质含量较高，分别是干涸湖心的86%、39%、55%；过渡带白刺灌丛速效氮含量较高，为干涸湖心的28%。总体上各养分含量与粘粒和粉粒呈显著相关（P<0.05）。历经20年的营建，碱蓬防护带内土壤速效钾、速效磷、有机质含量较建设初期明显增长，表明植物防护体系对土壤具有明显的改良作用。研究成果为盐湖植物防护体系防护效应评价提供数据支撑，并为半干旱风沙草原区干涸盐湖风蚀控制和区域植被恢复重建提供科学依据。

关键词: 半干旱风沙草原区, 植物防护体系, 土壤理化性质, 查干淖尔盐湖

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effect of plant protection measures on the improvement of the soil in semi-arid wind-sand grassland area， the plant protection system of Chagannur Salt Lake was used as the research object， and the physical and chemical properties of the soil in different areas were measured by the method of field investigation combined with indoor experiment， and the changes of soil salinity， soil pH， soil particle size composition， soil organic matter and nitrogen， phosphorus and potassium content in 0-30 cm depth were analyzed. The results showed that，20 years after the construction of the plant protection system in Chagannur Salt Lake， the initial highly saline and alkaline soil environment had changed significantly under the synergistic effect of the protection zone to block wind erosion materials and plants to improve the soil. Compared with the dried lake center， the pH of each site in the plant protection system decreased to different degrees， and the soil salinity in the alkaline shield decreased by 75.34%； the clay and powder content of the soil in the alkaline shield increased significantly， increasing by 51.60% and 22.14% respectively compared with the dried lake center， and the coarse sand content decreased by 72.06% compared with the dried lake center.The contents of quick-acting potassium， quick-acting phosphorus and organic matter of the soil in the alkaline shield were the highest， which were 86%， 39% and 55% of the dry lake center， respectively. The quick-acting nitrogen content of white thorn bushes in the transition zone was the highest， which was 28% of the dry lake center. Overall each nutrient content showed a significant correlation （P<0.05） with clay and powder grains. After 20 years of construction， the content of quick-acting potassium， quick-acting phosphorus and organic matter of the soil in the alkali plant protection zone had increased significantly compared with that at the beginning of the construction period， indicating that the plant protection system has a significant improvement effect on the soil. The research results could provide data support for the evaluation of the protective effect of the plant protection system in the salt lake， and could provide scientific basis for the control of wind erosion and regional vegetation restoration and reconstruction of the dry salt lake in the semi-arid sandy steppe area.

Key words: semi-arid sandy steppe zone, plant protection system, soil physical and chemical properties, Chagannur Salt Lake

中图分类号:

S714.2

郭靖捷, 任晓萌, 蒙仲举, 王涛, 祁帅, 宋佳佳, 宝孟克那顺, 韩胜利. 半干旱风沙草原区盐湖植物防护体系土壤理化性状特征[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(1): 182-192.

Jingjie GUO, Xiaomeng REN, Zhongju MENG, Tao WANG, Shuai QI, Jiajia SONG, Baomengkenashun, Shengli HAN. Characteristics of Soil Physicochemical Properties of Plant Protection System for Salt Lake in Semi-arid Wind-sand Grassland Area[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(1): 182-192.

图/表 10

参考文献 33

1	王亚俊,孙占东.中国干旱区的湖泊[J].干旱区研究,2007,24(4):422-427.
	WANG Y J, SUN Z D. Lakes in the arid areas in China [J]. Arid Zone Res., 2007,24(4):422-427.
2	王瑾杰,丁建丽,张喆. 2008—2014年新疆艾比湖流域土壤水分时空分布特征[J].生态学报,2019,39(5):1784-1794.
	WANG J J, DING J L, ZHANG Z. Temporal-spatial dynamic change characteristics of soil moisture in Ebinur Lake Basin from 2008—2014 [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2019, 39(5):1784-1794.
3	郝帅,李发东.艾比湖流域典型荒漠植被水分利用来源研究[J].地理学报,2021,76(7):1649-1661.
	HAO S, LI F D. Water sources of the typical desert vegetation in Ebinur Lake Basin [J]. Acta Geogr. Sin.,2021,76(7):1649-1661.
4	邓廷飞,刘彦,颜秋晓,等.贵州典型山银花土壤机械组成与养分特性及其关系[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(5):209-214.
	DENG T F, LIU Y, YAN Q X, et al.. Soil mechanical composition and nutrient characteristics of lonicera japonica in typical mountain of Guizhou and their relationship [J]. Soil Water conserv., 2014,28(5):209-214.
5	李学斌,张义凡,陈林,等.荒漠草原典型群落土壤粒径和养分的分布特征及其关系研究[J].西北植物学报,2017,37(8):1635-1644.
	LI X B, ZHANG Y F, CHEN L, et al.. Distribution characteristics and relationship between soil particle size and nutrients in typical community of desert steppe [J]. Acta Bot. Bor-Occid. Sin.,2017,37(8):1635-1644.
6	刘东伟,吉力力·阿不都外力,雷加强,等.盐尘暴及其生态效应[J].中国沙漠,2011,31(1):168-173.
	LIU D W, Abuduwaili Jilili, LEI J Q, et al.. Saline dust storm and its ecological effects [J]. J. Desert Res.,2011,31(1):168-173.
7	何玉惠,刘新平,谢忠奎.红砂灌丛对土壤盐分和养分的富集作用[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(3):115-119.
	HE Y H, LIU X P, XIE Z K. Enrichment of soil salinity and nutrients under desertification shrub Reaumuria soongorica [J]. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ., 2015,29(3):115-119.
8	刘涛涛,王勇辉,阿迪拉·阿布力米提.艾比湖湿地不同厚度盐结皮与土壤物理性质的相互关系及其影响因素[J].中山大学学报(自然科学版),2021,60(6):91-101.
	LIU T T, WANG Y H, Abulimiti Adila. The relationship between different salt crust thickness and soil physical properties in Ebinur Lake wetland and its influencing factors [J]. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni,2021,60(6):91-101.
9	邓怀敏,吉力力·阿不都外力,葛拥晓.艾比湖干涸湖底盐漠土壤环境特征分析[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(6):14-18.
	DENG H M, Abuduwaili Jilili, GE Y X. Analysis on the characteristics of dry lakebed sedimentary soil in Ebinur [J]. Res. Soil Water Conserv., 2013,20(6):14-18.
10	刘东伟,吉力力·阿不都外力,王立新.新疆艾比湖地区盐尘的沉积通量及其物质组成[J].冰川冻土,2014,36(2):352-359.
	LIU D W, Abuduwaili Jilili, WANG L X. Sediment fluxes and material composition of the salt dust in Ebinur lake region, Xinjiang [J]. J. Glaciol. Geocry., 2014,36(2):352-359.
11	鄢雪英,丁建丽,李鑫,等.艾比湖湿地退化对盐尘暴发生及运移路径的影响[J].生态学报,2015,35(17):5856-5865.
	YAN X Y, DING J L, LI X, et al.. Effects of salt dust storm migration pathways on degradation of Ebinur lake wetland [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin.,2015,35(17):5856-5865.
12	刘宏宇,宁小莉,海全胜,等.浑善达克沙地蒸散发时空变化及植被和气候响应[J].干旱区资源与环境,2022,36(8):110-118.
	LIU H Y, NING X L, HAI Q S, et al.. Spatial-temporal variability of evapotranspiration and its response to vegetation and climate in Hunshandake sandy land [J]. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ.,2022,36(8):110-118.
13	江南,王永,董进,等.内蒙古查干淖尔湖2000a以来气候环境演变的沉积记录[J].地质通报,2016,35(6):953-962.
	JIANG N, WANG Y, DONG J, et al.. Sedimentary record of climate and environmental evolution since 2000a in Chaganzhuer lake, Inner Mongolia [J]. Geol. Bull. China, 2016,35(6):953-962.
14	周玲美,王世航,权玲.基于遥感和地理信息系统的内蒙古呼日查干淖尔地区生态脆弱性评价[J].生态与农村环境学报,2021,37(4):484-491.
	ZHOU L M, WANG S H, QUAN L. Ecological vulnerability assessment in Huri Chagannoor of Inner Mongolia based on RS and GIS technology [J]. J. Ecol. Rural Environ.,2021,37(4):484-491.
15	鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].第3版.北京:中国农业出版社,2020:1-495.
16	谭明东,王振华,王越,等.长期滴灌棉田非灌溉季节土壤盐分累积特征[J].干旱区研究,2022,39(2):485-492.
	TAN M D, WANG Z H, WANG Y, et al.. Characteristics of soil salt accumulation in non-irrigated cotton field under long-term drip irrigation [J]. Arid Zone Res., 2022,39(2):485-492.
17	雷斯越,赵文慧,杨亚辉,等.不同坡位植被生长状况与土壤养分空间分布特征[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(1):86-91.
	LEI S Y, ZHAO W H, YANG Y H, et al.. Spatial distribution characteristics of soil nutrients and vegetation growth status in different slope [J]. Res. Soil Water Conserv.,2019,26(1):86-91.
18	王晓芬,马源,张格非,等.高寒草甸退化阶段植物群落多样性与系统多功能性的联系[J].草地学报,2021,29(5):1053-1060.
	WANG X F, MA Y, ZHANG G F, et al.. Relationship between plant community diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality during alpine meadow degradation [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin.,2021,29(5):1053-1060.
19	冯亚亚,汪季,党晓宏,等.土壤水盐因子对盐湖防护林体系植被群落分布的影响[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(2):43-50.
	FENG Y Y, WANG J, DANG X H, et al.. Effects of soil water and salt factors on distribution of vegetation community in salt lake shelterbelt system [J]. Bull. Soil Water Conserv.,2021,41(2):43-50.
20	袁媛,张鹤,武杼华,等.植被恢复对毛乌素沙地土壤pH和养分含量的影响[J].土壤通报,2021,52(1):148-156.
	YUAN Y, ZHANG H, WU Z H, et al.. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil pH and nutrient contents in the Mu Us sandland [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2021,52(1):148-156.
21	奚萨茹拉. 查干淖尔盐碱化土壤化学组成分析及其对碱蓬生物学特性的影响[D].呼和浩特 :内蒙古师范大学,2011.
	Xisarula. Analysis of chemical composition of saline-alkali soil and its effect on biological characteristics of Suaeda suaeda [D]. Hohhot:Inner Mongolia Normal University,2011.
22	王遵亲,祝寿泉,尤文瑞,等.中国盐渍土[M].北京:科学出版社,1993:1-573.
23	刘进辉,王雪芹,马洋.沙漠绿洲过渡带柽柳灌丛沙堆－丘间地系统土壤养分空间异质性[J].生态学报,2016,36(4):979-990.
	LIU J H, WANG X Q, MA Y. Spatial variation of soil nutrients of Tamarix ramosissima nebkhas and interdune areas in a desert-oasis ecotone [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2016,36(4):979-990.
24	董雷. 查干淖尔退化湖盆湿地植被分布特征与生态恢复效果评价[D].呼和浩特 :内蒙古农业大学,2014.
	DONG L. Vegetation distribution characteristics and ecological restoration effect evaluation of degraded lake basin wetland in Chaganuoer [D]. Hohhot:Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2014.
25	雷学明,段洪浪,刘文飞,等.鄱阳湖湿地碟形湖泊沿高程梯度土壤养分及化学计量研究[J].土壤,2017,49(1):40-48.
	LEI X M, DUAN H L, LIU W F, et al.. Soil nutrients and stoichiometry along elevation gradients in shallow-lakes of Poyang lake wetland [J]. Soils, 2017,49(1):40-48.
26	徐涛,蒙仲举,斯庆毕力格,等.吉兰泰盐湖周边不同沙化程度植被群落与土壤养分特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(4):95-100.
	XU T, MENG Z J, Siqingbilige, et al.. Vegetation communities and soil nutrient characteristics of the regions with different desertification degrees around the Jartai saline lake [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv., 2018,32(4):95-100.
27	吴晓妮,付登高,刘兴祝,等.柴河流域典型景观类型土壤氮磷含量的空间变异特征[J].土壤,2016,48(6):1209-1214.
	WU X N, FU D G, LIU X Z, et al.. Spatial variability of soil nitrogen and phosphorus in the typical landscape units in Chaihe catchment [J]. Soils, 2016,48(6):1209-1214.
28	YAN Y C, XIN X P, XU X L, et al.. Quantitative effects of wind erosion on the soil texture and soil nutrients under different vegetation coverage in a semiarid steppe of Northern China [J]. Plant Soil, 2013,369(1/2) :585-598.
29	李昂,高天鹏,张鸣,等.西北风蚀区植被覆盖对土壤风蚀动态的影响[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(6):120-123.
	LI A, GAO T P, ZHANG M, et al.. Effects of vegetation cover on dynamics of soil wind erosion in northwest China [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv.,2014,28(6):120-123.
30	周永维,葛瑶,艾宁,等.南泥湾湿地不同植被类型土壤养分变化规律与肥力评价[J].水土保持研究,2021,28(5):76-80.
	ZHOU Y W, GE Y, AI N, et al.. Soil nutrient variation patterns and fertility evaluation in different vegetation types in Nanniwan wetland [J]. Res. Soil Water Conserv., 2021,28(5):76-80.
31	黄娟,邓羽松,韦慧,等.喀斯特峰丛洼地不同植被类型土壤微生物量碳氮磷和养分特征[J].土壤通报,2022,53(3):605-612.
	HUANG J, DENG Y S, WEI H, et al.. Characteristics of soil microbial biomass C, N, P and nutrients in different vegetation types in karst peak cluster depression [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci.,2022,53(3):605-612.
32	管雪薇,汪季,丁延龙,等.吉兰泰盐湖防风固沙林体系土壤理化性状特征[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(5):114-120.
	GUAN X W, WANG J, DING Y L, et al.. Characteristics of soil physical and chemical properties in the wind-breaking and sand-fixing forest system in Jilantai salt lake [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv., 2019,33(5):114-120.
33	李静鹏,徐明锋,苏志尧,等.不同植被恢复类型的土壤肥力质量评价[J].生态学报,2014,34(9):2297-2307.
	LI J P, XU M F, SU Z Y, et al.. Soil fertility quality assessment under different vegetation restoration patterns [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2014,34(9):2297-2307.

土层深度 Soil depth/cm	样地 Sampling location	粘粒 Clay/%	粉粒 Silt/%	极细砂 Very fine sand/%	细砂 Fine sand/%	中砂 Medium sand/%	粗砂 Coarse sand/%	极粗砂 Very coarse sand/%
0—10	干涸湖心 DLC	17.17±1.02 b	36.36±5.16 b	0.05±0.03 d	0.00±0.00 c	3.52±0.17 d	33.39±4.20 b	9.51±1.13 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	26.03±2.15 a	44.41±3.41 a	4.41±0.31 a	4.62±0.75 b	9.43±1.74 c	9.33±6.21 c	1.75±2.45 d
	盐碱草滩地 SG	3.57±0.78 c	11.68±0.51 c	3.57±0.26 b	5.59±0.11 b	26.37±0.85 b	44.01±1.47 b	5.22±0.69 c
	白刺灌丛 WTB	1.69±0.20 c	6.83±0.15 cd	1.19±0.03 c	23.45±1.27 a	53.73±1.22 a	11.47±2.15 c	1.64±0.17 d
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	2.70±1.52 c	5.03±2.54 d	0.00±0.00 d	0.37±0.21 c	2.43±0.27 d	71.38±4.05 a	18.08±0.26 a
10—20	干涸湖心 DLC	27.26±6.86 a	59.72±1.50 b	0.45±0.19 c	0.03±0.03 c	0.53±5.27 c	11.12±7.74 b	1.89±3.28 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	35.84±5.30 a	61.26±3.92 a	0.46±0.09 c	0.00±0.00 c	1.45±1.29 d	0.99±1.08 b	0.00±0.00 b
	盐碱草滩地 SG	7.27±1.18 b	29.76±1.39 b	15.51±0.12 a	21.83±1.67 b	13.56±1.63 b	12.07±0.11 b	0.00±0.00 b
	白刺灌丛 WTB	2.05±0.22 b	11.15±0.14 a	2.03±0.05 b	33.04±0.74 a	38.80±0.60 a	10.87±1.32 b	2.05±0.50 b
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	5.47±0.75 b	10.19±0.31 a	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	51.40±1.47 a	32.93±0.44 a
20—30	干涸湖心 DLC	25.14±4.94 a	55.56±5.02 a	5.30±0.08 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 b	0.00±0.00 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	32.27±4.76 a	60.60±4.82 a	7.13±0.07 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 b	0.00±0.00 b
	盐碱草滩地 SG	1.94±0.23 b	9.35±0.71 b	8.38±0.49 a	24.97±1.58 a	20.65±2.60 b	29.37±4.32 b	5.34±1.06 b
	白刺灌丛 WTB	1.76±0.15 b	5.34±0.20 bc	1.30±0.07 b	13.16±0.44 b	49.59±1.06 a	26.59±1.61 b	2.26±0.54 b
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	0.86±0.16 b	1.93±0.12 c	0.17±0.04 c	2.64±0.06 c	11.24±0.48 c	69.86±0.63 a	13.28±1.01 a

土层深度 Soil depth/cm	样地 Sampling location	粘粒 Clay/%	粉粒 Silt/%	极细砂 Very fine sand/%	细砂 Fine sand/%	中砂 Medium sand/%	粗砂 Coarse sand/%	极粗砂 Very coarse sand/%
0—10	干涸湖心 DLC	17.17±1.02 b	36.36±5.16 b	0.05±0.03 d	0.00±0.00 c	3.52±0.17 d	33.39±4.20 b	9.51±1.13 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	26.03±2.15 a	44.41±3.41 a	4.41±0.31 a	4.62±0.75 b	9.43±1.74 c	9.33±6.21 c	1.75±2.45 d
	盐碱草滩地 SG	3.57±0.78 c	11.68±0.51 c	3.57±0.26 b	5.59±0.11 b	26.37±0.85 b	44.01±1.47 b	5.22±0.69 c
	白刺灌丛 WTB	1.69±0.20 c	6.83±0.15 cd	1.19±0.03 c	23.45±1.27 a	53.73±1.22 a	11.47±2.15 c	1.64±0.17 d
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	2.70±1.52 c	5.03±2.54 d	0.00±0.00 d	0.37±0.21 c	2.43±0.27 d	71.38±4.05 a	18.08±0.26 a
10—20	干涸湖心 DLC	27.26±6.86 a	59.72±1.50 b	0.45±0.19 c	0.03±0.03 c	0.53±5.27 c	11.12±7.74 b	1.89±3.28 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	35.84±5.30 a	61.26±3.92 a	0.46±0.09 c	0.00±0.00 c	1.45±1.29 d	0.99±1.08 b	0.00±0.00 b
	盐碱草滩地 SG	7.27±1.18 b	29.76±1.39 b	15.51±0.12 a	21.83±1.67 b	13.56±1.63 b	12.07±0.11 b	0.00±0.00 b
	白刺灌丛 WTB	2.05±0.22 b	11.15±0.14 a	2.03±0.05 b	33.04±0.74 a	38.80±0.60 a	10.87±1.32 b	2.05±0.50 b
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	5.47±0.75 b	10.19±0.31 a	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	51.40±1.47 a	32.93±0.44 a
20—30	干涸湖心 DLC	25.14±4.94 a	55.56±5.02 a	5.30±0.08 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 b	0.00±0.00 b
	碱蓬防护带 AS	32.27±4.76 a	60.60±4.82 a	7.13±0.07 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 c	0.00±0.00 b	0.00±0.00 b
	盐碱草滩地 SG	1.94±0.23 b	9.35±0.71 b	8.38±0.49 a	24.97±1.58 a	20.65±2.60 b	29.37±4.32 b	5.34±1.06 b
	白刺灌丛 WTB	1.76±0.15 b	5.34±0.20 bc	1.30±0.07 b	13.16±0.44 b	49.59±1.06 a	26.59±1.61 b	2.26±0.54 b
	沙地风蚀坑 SWEP	0.86±0.16 b	1.93±0.12 c	0.17±0.04 c	2.64±0.06 c	11.24±0.48 c	69.86±0.63 a	13.28±1.01 a

指标 Index	粘粒 Clay	粉粒 Silt	极细砂 Very fine sand	细砂 Fine sand	中砂 Medium sand	粗砂 Coarse sand	极粗砂 Very coarse sand
pH	0.69^**	0.76^**	0.28	-0.36	-0.62^*	-0.42	-0.38
速效氮 Available nitrogen	-0.05	-0.08	-0.23	-0.02	0.28	-0.03	-0.10
速效磷 Available phosphorus	0.62^*	0.58^*	-0.27	-0.43	-0.40	-0.29	-0.22
速效钾 Available potassium	0.82^**	0.86^**	0.03	-0.36	-0.33	-0.67^**	-0.62^*
有机质 Organic matter	0.45	0.47	-0.04	-0.18	0.02	-0.46	-0.49

指标 Index	粘粒 Clay	粉粒 Silt	极细砂 Very fine sand	细砂 Fine sand	中砂 Medium sand	粗砂 Coarse sand	极粗砂 Very coarse sand
pH	0.69^**	0.76^**	0.28	-0.36	-0.62^*	-0.42	-0.38
速效氮 Available nitrogen	-0.05	-0.08	-0.23	-0.02	0.28	-0.03	-0.10
速效磷 Available phosphorus	0.62^*	0.58^*	-0.27	-0.43	-0.40	-0.29	-0.22
速效钾 Available potassium	0.82^**	0.86^**	0.03	-0.36	-0.33	-0.67^**	-0.62^*
有机质 Organic matter	0.45	0.47	-0.04	-0.18	0.02	-0.46	-0.49

[1]	肖锐, 谭璐, 吴亮, 张皓, 郭佳源, 杨海君. 镉胁迫下地肤根际与非根际土壤微生物群落结构及多样性[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(8): 203-215.
[2]	尹兴盛, 包玲凤, 濮永瑜, 孙加利, 张庆, 李海平, 杨明英, 林跃平, 王怀鑫, 何永宏, 杨佩文. 减氮配施生物有机肥对植烟土壤特性及烟草青枯病的防效研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 122-131.
[3]	刘宏元, 周志花, 赵光昕, 沈钦瑞. 黄淮海平原农田土壤温室气体排放对长期施加生物炭的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 178-186.
[4]	庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.
[5]	孟璐, 范敬文, 赛欣娱, 曾路生, 宋祥云, 崔德杰. 石灰对苹果园土壤改良和植株生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 197-204.
[6]	魏艳晨, 陈吉祥, 王永刚, 孟彤彤, 韩亚龙, 李美. 荒漠植物珍珠猪毛菜根际土壤细菌多样性与土壤理化性质相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(5): 209-217.
[7]	李敏, 李钢铁, 张宏武, 陈家欢. 平茬对3种苗木来源蛋白桑林地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(1): 172-182.
[8]	黄艳飞, 陈君梅, 辛亚宁, 吴庆丽. 石膏对苏打盐碱土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(11): 139-146.
[9]	杨晶晶,张青青*,吐尔逊娜依·热依木,阿马努拉·依明尼亚孜,雪热提江·麦提努日. 游牧和定居对伊犁绢蒿荒漠草地土壤真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(7): 166-173.
[10]	贾国涛,杨永锋,杨欣玲*,王宝林,刘超,王根发,申洪涛,张书伟,刘向真,赵森森. 腐熟秸秆对植烟土壤理化性质和酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(9): 138-145.
[11]	尹继清,范弢*. 滇东南峰林湖盆区土壤理化性质的空间异质性分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(9): 117-127.

半干旱风沙草原区盐湖植物防护体系土壤理化性状特征

Characteristics of Soil Physicochemical Properties of Plant Protection System for Salt Lake in Semi-arid Wind-sand Grassland Area

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 33

相关文章 11

编辑推荐

Metrics