Present Situation and Distribution Evolution Characteristics of Soil Nutrients in Cultivated Land of Yanyuan County Based on GIS

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0150

Abstract

Abstract:

To understand the current status and patterns of soil nutrient distribution in cultivated land in Yanyuan County, and to promote environmentally friendly, efficient, and sustainable agricultural practices, this study utilized soil survey data from the cultivated land quality evaluation project conducted in Yanyuan County from 2020 to 2022. Statistical methods were employed to analyze the pH, organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium in the topsoil, providing a theoretical foundation for scientific fertilization of cultivated land in Yanyuan County. The results showed that the average levels of pH, organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium in Yanyuan County were pH 6.52, 25.91 g/kg, 1.41 g/kg, 24.36 mg/kg and 168.86 mg/kg, respectively, resulting in an average comprehensive grade of 5.93, which suggested a moderate overall quality of the cultivated land. Spatially, soil organic matter and total nitrogen levels increased from east to west, while available phosphorus exhibited no discernible trend, with lower values concentrated in specific areas. Available potassium levels were higher in the central region compared to the north-south region. Over the period from 2020 to 2022, pH remained stable at a weak acid level, organic matter and available potassium levels increased, whereas total nitrogen levels gradually decreased.

Key words: Yanyuan County, cultivated land, nutrient, soil, distribution, evolution trend

YOU Yu, XIONG Zhongwei, LIN Xianfeng, ZHANG Yunmei, ZHANG Liang, WANG Jianzhong, JIANG Yun. Present Situation and Distribution Evolution Characteristics of Soil Nutrients in Cultivated Land of Yanyuan County Based on GIS[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(12): 51-58.

Figures/Tables 8

References 29

[1]	颜雄, 张杨珠, 刘晶. 土壤肥力质量评价的研究进展[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2008(5):82-85.
[2]	XIA Z Q, PENG Y P, LIN C J, et al. A spatial frequency/spectral indicator-driven model for estimating cultivated land quality using the gradient boosting decision tree and genetic algorithm-back propagation neural network[J]. International soil and water conservation research, 2022, 10(4):635-648. doi: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2022.03.004 URL
[3]	郑立臣, 宇万太, 马强, 等. 农田土壤肥力综合评价研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2004, 23(5):156-161.
[4]	张连金, 赖光辉, 孙长忠. 北京九龙山不同林分土壤肥力诊断与综合评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(1):1-6.
[5]	庞夙, 陶晓秋, 黄玫, 等. 四川省植烟区土壤肥力评价[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2013(1):40-44.
[6]	钟林忆, 徐剑波, 蔡德楠, 等. 粤北山区耕地土壤肥力空间分布及综合评价研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2015, 42(16):2,37-43.
[7]	胡明. 关中灌区农业土壤肥力的时空演化:以渭南市临渭区为例[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2012, 40(10):86-89.
[8]	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(01):86-91,105.
[9]	张彬, 杨联安, 杨粉莉, 等. 礼泉县苹果园土壤养分空间变异特征及综合评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(4):860-867.
[10]	HUGGETT R J. Soil chronosequences, soil development, and soil evolution: a critical review[J]. Catena, 1998, 32(3-4):155-172. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00053-8 URL
[11]	CAMBARDELLA C A, MOORMAN T B, NOVAK J M, et al. Field- scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils[J]. Soil science society of America joumal, 1994, 58(5):1501-1511.
[12]	KUZEL S, NYDL V, KOLAR L, et al. Spatial variability of cadmium, pH, organic- matter in soil and its dependence on sampling scales[J]. Water air and soil pollution, 1994, 78(1-2):51-59. doi: 10.1007/BF00475667 URL
[13]	CHATTERJEE S, SANTRA P, MAJUMDAR K, et al. Geostatistical approach for management of soil nutrients with special emphasis on different forms of potassium considering their spatial variation in intensive cropping system of West Bengal, India[J]. Environmental monitoring & assessment, 2015, 187(4):183.
[14]	张宇军, 房丽君, 邵立志, 等. 基于GIS和Kriging的蓝田县土壤养分空间变异特征研究[J]. 陕西林业科技, 2011(4):10-14.
[15]	严玉梅, 李水利, 李茹, 等. 陕西省耕地土壤养分现状与分布特征[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(6):1298-1305.
[16]	杨爽. 墨脱县农田土壤养分现状与分布特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(22):84-89. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0636
[17]	朱牧之. 嘉兴市南湖区土壤养分时空变异研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2007.
[18]	赵越, 罗志军, 赵杰, 等. 峡江县土壤养分空间特征及与地形因子的相关性.水土保持研究[J]. 2018, 25(5):118-123.
[19]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M].(第三版). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011:30-65.
[20]	ZHANG X Y, SUI Y Y, ZHANG X D, et al. Spatial variability of nutrient properties in black soil of Northeast China[J]. Pedosphere, 2007, 17(1):19-29. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60003-4 URL
[21]	JANSSENS F, PEETERS A, TALLOWIN J R B, et al. Relationship between soil chemical factors and grassland diversity[J]. Plant and soil, 1998, 202(1):69-78. doi: 10.1023/A:1004389614865
[22]	郭旭东, 傅伯杰, 陈利顶, 等. 河北省遵化平原土壤养分的时空变异特征—变异函数与 Kriging插值分析[J]. 地理学报, 2000(5):555-566. doi: 10.11821/xb200005005
[23]	刘芬. 陕西省土壤养分与肥料资源利用研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2015.
[24]	程先富, 史学正, 于东升, 等. 江西省兴国县土壤全氮和有机质的空间变异及其分布格局[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2004, 10(1):64-67.
[25]	温延臣, 李燕青, 袁亮, 等. 长期不同施肥制度土壤肥力特征综合评价方法[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(7):91-99.
[26]	高祥照, 胡克林, 郭焱, 等. 土壤养分与作物产量的空间变异特征与精确施肥[J]. 中国农业科学, 2002(6):660-666.
[27]	杨世琦, 张爱平, 杨正礼, 等. 黄土高原果园土壤有机质变化趋势分析—以陕西省为例[J]. 水土保持研究, 2009, 16(1):27-31.
[28]	韦洋, 康吉利, 冯鑫鑫, 等. 1984-2019年广西表层土壤有效磷含量的演变特征[J]. 西南农业学报, 2024, 37(1):172-181.
[29]	张玲娥, 双文元, 云安萍, 等. 30年间河北省曲周县土壤速效钾的时空变异特征及其影响因素[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(5):923-933. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.05.009

区域	乡镇
泸沽湖文旅融合示范区	泸沽湖镇	长柏镇	甲米镇
环城城乡融合示范区	润盐镇	卫城镇	盐井镇
金河多元林果业发展区	金河镇	平川镇	官地镇	梅子坪镇	右所乡
树河干热河谷优质果蔬发展区	树河镇	田湾乡	藤桥乡
梅雨亚高原现代农业示范区	梅雨镇	黄草镇	盐塘镇	棉桠镇	龙塘镇
白乌高山生态农牧业发展区	白乌镇	沃底乡	大坡蒙古族乡	洼里乡

区域	乡镇
泸沽湖文旅融合示范区	泸沽湖镇	长柏镇	甲米镇
环城城乡融合示范区	润盐镇	卫城镇	盐井镇
金河多元林果业发展区	金河镇	平川镇	官地镇	梅子坪镇	右所乡
树河干热河谷优质果蔬发展区	树河镇	田湾乡	藤桥乡
梅雨亚高原现代农业示范区	梅雨镇	黄草镇	盐塘镇	棉桠镇	龙塘镇
白乌高山生态农牧业发展区	白乌镇	沃底乡	大坡蒙古族乡	洼里乡

耕地基础养分等级	综合指数范围	耕地基础养分等级	综合指数范围
Ⅰ	≥0.8550	Ⅵ	0.7360~0.7598
Ⅱ	0.8312~0.8550	Ⅶ	0.7122~0.7360
Ⅲ	0.8074~0.8312	Ⅷ	0.6884~0.7122
Ⅳ	0.7836~0.8074	Ⅸ	0.6646~0.6884
Ⅴ	0.7598~0.7836	Ⅹ	<0.6646

耕地基础养分等级	综合指数范围	耕地基础养分等级	综合指数范围
Ⅰ	≥0.8550	Ⅵ	0.7360~0.7598
Ⅱ	0.8312~0.8550	Ⅶ	0.7122~0.7360
Ⅲ	0.8074~0.8312	Ⅷ	0.6884~0.7122
Ⅳ	0.7836~0.8074	Ⅸ	0.6646~0.6884
Ⅴ	0.7598~0.7836	Ⅹ	<0.6646

指标	分级标准
指标	高	较高	中等	较低	低
pH	6.0~7.0	7.0~7.5	7.5~8.0	8.0~8.5	>8.5
pH	6.0~7.0	5.5~6.0	5.0~5.5	4.5~5.0	<4.5
有机质/(g/kg)	>35	25~35	15~25	10~15	≤10
全氮/(g/kg)	>2.0	1.5~2.0	1.0~1.5	0.5~1.0	≤0.5
有效磷/(mg/kg)	>40	25~40	10~25	5~10	≤5
速效钾/(mg/kg)	>150	100~150	75~100	50~75	≤50