Construction of Evaluation Index System for Reasonable Plough Layer of Irrigated Land in Yellow River Irrigation District Based on Principal Component Analysis

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0161

Abstract

Abstract:

Reasonable plough layer has an important impact on the high and stable yield of crops, and its evaluation system is the theoretical basis for constructing reasonable plough layer, but the evaluation system of plough layer suitable for irrigated land in Yellow River Irrigation District has not been established yet. Correlation analysis and principal component analysis were used to analyze 180 soil samples of the plough layer of maize fields in the Gansu Yellow River Irrigation District, to screen the evaluation indexes of plough layers suitable for irrigated field, and to establish an evaluation system. The results showed that the minimum data set (MDS) affecting the quality of plough soil was determined, including: plough layer depth, thickness of plough pan, >0.25 mm water-stable aggregates, available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium. The correlation between the full data set of plough soil quality index (SQI-TDS) and the minimum data set of plough soil quality index (SQI-MDS) confirmed the rationality of the evaluation indexes of the minimum data set; based on the response relationship between corn yields and key indexes, the lower and upper reference values of key indexes were obtained. The index system and the range of values for evaluating the reasonable plough layer of irrigated field in the Yellow River Irrigation Area are: plough layer depth (22.2-22.7cm), thickness of plough pan (6-8.6 cm), >0.25 mm water-stable agglomerates (13.9%-16.3%), available nitrogen (70.41-99.81 mg/kg), available phosphorus (17.34-30.84 mg/kg), available potassium (169.9-172.6 mg/kg). This system could be used as a reference basis for local farmers to rationally cultivate and fertilize, establish suitable plough layer and construct high-standard farmland.

Key words: Gansu Yellow River Irrigation District, reasonable plough layer of irrigated field, principal component analysis, minimum data set, soil quality index

CHEN Lan, WANG Chengbao, YANG Sicun, LUO Zhuzhu, HUO Lin, WEN Meijuan. Construction of Evaluation Index System for Reasonable Plough Layer of Irrigated Land in Yellow River Irrigation District Based on Principal Component Analysis[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2026, 16(1): 24-32.

Figures/Tables 9

References 36

[1]	甘肃农村年鉴编委会. 甘肃农村2011年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2012.
[2]	甘肃省土壤普查办公室. 甘肃土壤[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,1993.
[3]	牛叔文, 陈作芳. 农业区域开发探索——甘肃省沿黄灌区农业综合开发研[M]. 兰州: 兰州大学出版社,1998.
[4]	温美娟, 杨思存, 王成宝, 等. 深松和秸杆还田对灌耕灰钙土团聚体特征的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(2):78-85.
[5]	杨思存, 王成宝, 霍琳, 等. 不同耕作措施对甘肃引黄灌区耕地土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(2):114-121.
[6]	宫亮, 邢月华, 刘艳, 等. 棕壤土合理耕层标准调查研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(5):94-99,104.
[7]	郑洪兵. 耕作方式对土壤环境及玉米生长发育的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2018.
[8]	ZHAO J H, LIU Z X, LAI H J, et al. Optimizing residue and tillage management practices to improve soil carbon sequestration in a wheat-peanut rotation system[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2022, 306:114468. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114468 URL
[9]	SHAO Y H, XIE Y X, WANG C Y, et al. Effects of different soil conservation tillage approaches on soil nutrients, water use and wheat-maize yield in rained dry-land regions of North China[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2016, 81:37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.08.014 URL
[10]	王成宝, 温美娟, 杨思存, 等. 耕作方式对灌耕灰钙土耕层物理性质和玉米产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(03):171-175.
[11]	赵亚丽, 刘卫玲, 程思贤, 等. 深松(耕)方式对砂姜黑土耕层特性、作物产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(13):2489-2503. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.13.005
[12]	苏慧清, 韩晓日, 杨劲峰, 等. 长期施肥棕壤团聚体分布及其碳氮含量变化[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(4):924-932.
[13]	马玉涛, 苑佰飞, 张鹏, 等. 硫酸铝对新开垦苏打盐碱水田的快速改良和培肥效果[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 2:325-330,339.
[14]	杨思存, 车宗贤, 王成宝, 等. 甘肃沿黄灌区土壤盐渍化特征及其成因[J]. 干旱区研究, 2014, 31(1):57-64.
[15]	杨思存, 逄焕成, 王成宝, 等. 基于典范对应分析的甘肃引黄灌区土壤盐渍化特征研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(1):100-110. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.01.011
[16]	依艳丽. 土壤物理研究法[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2009.
[17]	NEISON D W, SOMMERS L E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter, methods of soil analysis: part 2; chemical and microbiological properties[R]. Winsconsin, US: American society of agronomy,1986:539-579.
[18]	戴育明. 土壤全氮分析的研究进展[J]. 上海农业科技, 1989(02):39-40.
[19]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社,2000:133-137.
[20]	王嘉琛. 多代尾叶桉人工林土壤肥力质量综合评价[D]. 湖南: 中南林业科技大学, 2019.
[21]	黄婷, 岳西杰, 葛玺祖, 等. 基于主成分分析的黄土沟壑区土壤肥力质量评价—以长武县耕地土壤为例[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(3):141-147.
[22]	YEMEFACK M, JETTEN V G, ROSSITER D G. Developing a minimum data set for characterizing soil dynamics in shifting cultivation systems[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2006, 86(1):84-98. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.02.017 URL
[23]	李桂林, 陈杰, 孙志英, 等. 基于土壤特征和土地利用变化的土壤质量评价最小数据集确定[J]. 生态学报, 2007(7):2715-2724.
[24]	金慧芳, 史冬梅, 陈正发, 等. 基于聚类分析与PCA分析的红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价指标[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(7):155-164.
[25]	刘鑫, 王一博, 吕明侠, 等. 基于主成分分析的青藏高原多年冻土区高寒草地土壤质量评价[J]. 冰川冻土, 2018, 40(3):469-479.
[26]	ANDREWS S S, MITCHELL J P, MANCIENLLI R, et al. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California's central valley[J]. Agronomy journal, 2002, 94(1):12-23.
[27]	贡璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋, 等. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(3):683-689.
[28]	李菊梅, 李生秀. 可矿化氮与各有机氮组分的关系[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2003(2):158-164.
[29]	郑存德, 鞠方成, 程根力. 基于模拟耕作模式容重对玉米根系生长的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(10):149-151.
[30]	张丽. 深松和培肥对旱地农田土壤水分保蓄能力及玉米生长的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2014.
[31]	SIX J, ELLIOT ET, PAUSTIAN K. Soil structure and soil organic mater. II. A normalized stability index and the effect of mineralogy[J]. Soil science society of America journal, 2000, 64:1042-1049. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2000.6431042x URL
[32]	仝利朋, 赵京考, 吴德亮, 等. 玉米施肥量优化模型与土壤无机氮变化特征[J]. 玉米科学, 2019, 27(6):145-152,159.
[33]	周顺利, 张福锁, 王兴仁. 土壤硝态氮时空变异与土壤氮素表观盈亏研究Ⅰ.冬小麦[J]. 生态学报, 2001(11):1782-1789.
[34]	周顺利, 张福锁, 王兴仁. 土壤硝态氮时空变异与土壤氮素表观盈亏Ⅱ.夏玉米[J]. 生态学报, 2002(1):48-53.
[35]	姚珊, 张东杰, 刘琳, 等. 冬小麦-夏玉米体系磷效率对塿土磷素肥力的响应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(6):1640-1650.
[36]	梅楠. 典型棕壤玉米田合理耕层指标体系及耕作技术评价研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2019.

耕层指标	最小值		最大值	平均值		标准差		变异系数/%
耕层深度/cm	16.0		32.0	22.5		3.20		14.14
犁底层厚度/cm	0.00		15.0	9.10		3.50		37.99
土壤容重/(g/cm³)	1.21		1.58	1.39		0.08		5.86
土壤紧实度/kPa	443		2199	1235		379		30.67
>0.25 mm水稳性团聚体/%	10.98		25.14	14.94		2.59		17.35
土壤有机质/(g/kg)	8.40		16.30	12.3		1.90		15.39
全氮/(g/kg)	0.32		1.40	0.93		0.19		20.53
全磷/(g/kg)	0.54		1.67	0.92		0.19		20.28
全钾/(g/kg)	19.6		24.60	22.0		1.10		5.22
速效氮/(mg/kg)	26.50		132	88.9		22.9		25.79
速效磷/(mg/kg)		7.80	49.60	25.9	10.2		39.46
速效钾/(mg/kg)		135	249.0	172	19.9		11.63

耕层指标	最小值		最大值	平均值		标准差		变异系数/%
耕层深度/cm	16.0		32.0	22.5		3.20		14.14
犁底层厚度/cm	0.00		15.0	9.10		3.50		37.99
土壤容重/(g/cm³)	1.21		1.58	1.39		0.08		5.86
土壤紧实度/kPa	443		2199	1235		379		30.67
>0.25 mm水稳性团聚体/%	10.98		25.14	14.94		2.59		17.35
土壤有机质/(g/kg)	8.40		16.30	12.3		1.90		15.39
全氮/(g/kg)	0.32		1.40	0.93		0.19		20.53
全磷/(g/kg)	0.54		1.67	0.92		0.19		20.28
全钾/(g/kg)	19.6		24.60	22.0		1.10		5.22
速效氮/(mg/kg)	26.50		132	88.9		22.9		25.79
速效磷/(mg/kg)		7.80	49.60	25.9	10.2		39.46
速效钾/(mg/kg)		135	249.0	172	19.9		11.63

耕层指标	PC1	PC2	PC3		PC4		PC5		Norm值		公因子方差		分组
X₁	0.100	-0.068	0.884		0.013		0.031		1.0095		0.798		3
X₂	-0.398	-0.051	-0.349		0.445		0.473		1.0451		0.705		5
X₃	-0.223	0.083	0.102		-0.609		0.072		0.7943		0.442		4
X₄	-0.023	-0.914	0.141		-0.011		0.005		1.4416		0.855		2
X₅	0.181	0.910	0.097		0.054		-0.091		1.4649		0.882		2
X₆	0.433	0.688	-0.001		-0.019		0.282		1.3246		0.74		2
X₇	0.799	-0.003	0.231		0.015		-0.053		1.3280		0.694		1
X₈	0.610	0.047		-0.284		0.411		-0.045		1.1431		0.626		1
X₉	0.228	0.025		0.072		-0.089		0.85		1.0070		0.788		5
X₁₀	0.746	0.357		0.074		-0.031		0.281		1.3751		0.77		1
X₁₁	0.759	0.344		-0.022		0.063		0.252		1.3782		0.762		1
X₁₂	-0.142	0.236		0.407		0.703		0.027		1.0078		0.736		4
X₁₃	2.652	2.456		1.254		1.248		1.188
X₁₄	22.096	20.463		10.451		10.399		9.901
X₁₅	22.096	42.559		53.009		63.409		73.31

耕层指标	PC1	PC2	PC3		PC4		PC5		Norm值		公因子方差		分组
X₁	0.100	-0.068	0.884		0.013		0.031		1.0095		0.798		3
X₂	-0.398	-0.051	-0.349		0.445		0.473		1.0451		0.705		5
X₃	-0.223	0.083	0.102		-0.609		0.072		0.7943		0.442		4
X₄	-0.023	-0.914	0.141		-0.011		0.005		1.4416		0.855		2
X₅	0.181	0.910	0.097		0.054		-0.091		1.4649		0.882		2
X₆	0.433	0.688	-0.001		-0.019		0.282		1.3246		0.74		2
X₇	0.799	-0.003	0.231		0.015		-0.053		1.3280		0.694		1
X₈	0.610	0.047		-0.284		0.411		-0.045		1.1431		0.626		1
X₉	0.228	0.025		0.072		-0.089		0.85		1.0070		0.788		5
X₁₀	0.746	0.357		0.074		-0.031		0.281		1.3751		0.77		1
X₁₁	0.759	0.344		-0.022		0.063		0.252		1.3782		0.762		1
X₁₂	-0.142	0.236		0.407		0.703		0.027		1.0078		0.736		4
X₁₃	2.652	2.456		1.254		1.248		1.188
X₁₄	22.096	20.463		10.451		10.399		9.901
X₁₅	22.096	42.559		53.009		63.409		73.31

	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂
X₁	1
X₂	-0.214	1
X₃	-0.013	-0.080	1
X₄	0.144	0.030	0.037	1
X₅	0.041	-0.146	-0.022	-0.780^**	1
X₆	0.062	-0.068	-0.075	-0.581^**	0.603^**	1
X₇	0.204	-0.292^*	-0.120	-0.030	0.190	0.292^*	1
X₈	-0.095	-0.024	-0.164	-0.118	0.142	0.269^*	0.303^*	1
X₉	0.044	0.042	-0.037	-0.084	0.020	0.288^*	0.142	0.096	1
X₁₀	0.123	-0.161	-0.068	-0.303^*	0.434^**	0.586^**	0.535^**	0.372^**	0.331^**	1
X₁₁	0.011	-0.122	-0.078	-0.262^*	0.424^**	0.601^**	0.540^**	0.421^**	0.294^*	0.744^**	1
X₁₂	0.147	0.126	-0.084	-0.107	0.222	0.036	0.016	0.132	-0.006	0.006	0.076	1