不同土地利用方式下南非林波波省与中国吉林省土壤化学养分与腐殖物质的差异

发布时间：2017-09-26 22:37

  本文关键词：不同土地利用方式下南非林波波省与中国吉林省土壤化学养分与腐殖物质的差异

  更多相关文章： 土壤有机碳 腐殖质组成 胡敏酸 富里酸 胡敏素 土地利用

【摘要】：土地利用方式的改变会对增加土壤有机质含量产生影响,有研究表明,在农业可持续性管理方面,土壤腐殖质各组分的数据的变化在指示不同土地利用方式对总有机碳含量的影响方面更有效。因此,有必要寻找合适的方法对土地进行持续管理,以增加作物产量。本研究的目的是要对比森林,草地和耕作土壤三种土地利用方式中,土壤化学性质和腐殖质组成的差异。分析所用的土壤分别采自南非林波波省和中国的吉林省,采自南非的土壤为以下三种利用方式：受保护森林(CF),耕作土壤和草地,其中耕作土壤分别为红土耕地(RLC)和黑土耕地(BLC),草地分别为黑土草地(BGL)和红土草地(RGL)。采集深度分别为0-7.5cm和7.5-20cm；采集自中国的土壤为耕作土壤和草地两种利用方式,耕作土壤采用两种处理：对照处理(CK)和秸秆还田(CF),采集深度分别为0-20cm,20-40cm；随后对采集的土壤样本进行实验分析：利用NaOH对腐殖物质进行提取、提纯、渗析,土壤中腐殖物质分别为HA、FA、Hu,并对其进行红外光谱和元素组成的测定。采自南非的土壤分析结果表明：土壤类型与土壤化学性质和腐殖质组成有关,在草地生态系统和耕地系统中,黑土的土壤化学性质和腐殖质含量都比红土要好。不同土地利用方式和不同深度对于土壤有机碳含量也有重要的影响。黑土HA中的碳含量比红壤中高,红壤耕地土壤中,HA的O/C和H/C比值更高。就表层土壤HA中2920/1720比值和2920/1620比值来说,黑土耕地土壤红壤耕地土壤黑土草地土。研究结果表明：相较于草地和耕作土地,森林土壤中有机碳,胡敏酸和富里酸含量更高。胡敏酸中C、H和N的含量都表现为保护森林草地耕地。相较其他两种土地利用方式耕地中HA的O/C比值更高,保护森林中H/C比值更高。对取自中国吉林省的土壤进行分析,其结果显示：相较于耕地土壤,草地土中腐殖质含量更高,且秸秆深还的改良措施能增加土壤中有机质的含量,增加有机碳和腐殖质含量。总的来说,秸秆深还的方式有利于增加土壤肥力,对照试验与秸秆深还处理的HA中,C和H的含量以及O/C比值并无明显变化,但对照试验HA的N含量比秸秆深还处理的土壤要高。对照试验HA中2920/1720的比值较高,即其氧化程度更高；秸秆深还处理的土壤HA中2920/1620的比值更高,即其缩合度更高。将两个国家的黑土进行对比,结果显示在化学性质和腐殖物质组成上都有区别。耕地和草地两种利用方式中,非洲黑土的可溶性有机碳总量、胡敏酸和胡敏素以及PQ值都高于中国吉林省的黑土。无论采取何种耕作方式,腐殖质各组分中碳含量的顺序均表现为：HuHAFA。对比两个国家的耕作土壤,吉林省的黑土HA的结构中C含量更高,O含量和H含量更低,H/C比值更低。就吉林省黑土而言,经秸秆还田处理的土壤,其C含量,H含量以及H/C比值高于对照试验,O含量低于对照试验。
【关键词】：土壤有机碳 腐殖质组成 胡敏酸 富里酸 胡敏素 土地利用
【学位授予单位】：吉林农业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：S158
【目录】：

• 摘要4-6
• Abstract6-15
• List of abbreviations15-16
• 1 INTRODUCTION 116-19
• 1.1 Background16-18
• 1.2 Objectives of the Study18
• 1.3 Hypotheses to be tested18
• 1.4 Research questions18-19
• 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 419-33
• 2.1 Outline of soils organic carbon researches in South Africa19-20
• 2.2 Soil SOC and humic substances studies international20-29
• 2.2.1 Soil organic matter20-23
• 2.2.1.1 The importance of Soil Organic Matter (SOM) in soil20-21
• 2.2.1.2 Contributors to soil organic matter (SOM) formation21-22
• 2.2.1.3 The decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM)22-23
• 2.2.2 Importance of Humus in soil23-27
• 2.2.2.1 Humus effect on microbial and enzyme actions25-26
• 2.2.2.2 Humus effect on plant growth26
• 2.2.2.3 Humus effect on nutrient uptake26-27
• 2.2.3 Techniques of studying soil organic matter27-29
• 2.2.3.1 Degraded method of humic substances analysis27-28
• 2.2.3.2 Non-degraded methods of humic substances analysis28-29
• 2.3 Land use and management effects on soil organic matter29-32
• 2.3.1 Land use practices29-30
• 2.3.2 Land management practices30-32
• 2.4 Purpose and significance of the study32-33
• 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 1833-40
• 3.1 Site description33-36
• 3.1.1 Soils from South Africa33-35
• 3.1.1.1 Site information33-34
• 3.1.1.2 Soil Sampling34-35
• 3.1.2 Soils from China35-36
• 3.1.2.1 Site information35
• 3.1.2.2 Soil Sampling35-36
• 3.2 Soil Analysis36-39
• 3.2.1 Determination of basic properties of soil36-37
• 3.2.2 Humus extracts component37-38
• 3.2.3 Humic substances structural characterization38-39
• 3.2.3.1 Optical properties (ΔlogK)38
• 3.2.3.2 Elemental composition analysis (elemental analysis)38
• 3.2.3.3 Infrared spectroscopy (IR)38-39
• 3.3 Data analysis39-40
• 4 RESULTS 2540-68
• 4.1 Soils from South Africa40-54
• 4.1.1 Land use and soil type effects on selected soil properties40-43
• 4.1.1.1 Soil type effects on selected soil properties40-42
• 4.1.1.2 Land use effects on selected soil properties42-43
• 4.1.2 Land use and soil type effects on SOC43-44
• 4.1.2.1 Soil type effects on SOC content of the soil43
• 4.1.2.2 Land use effects on SOC content of black soils43-44
• 4.1.3 Land use and soil type effects on soil humus composition44-48
• 4.1.3.1 Soil type effects on soil humus composition44-45
• 4.1.3.2 Land use effects on humus composition of black soils45-46
• 4.1.3.3 The PQ value (%) of varying land use and soil types46-48
• 4.1.4 Land use and soil type effects on soil structural characteristics of HA and FA48-54
• 4.1.4.1 Structural characteristics of varied with soil types48-50
• 4.1.4.2 Land use effects on structural characteristics of black soil50-54
• 4.2 Soils from China54-63
• 4.2.1 Land use and corn stover incorporation effects on selected properties of black soils54-56
• 4.2.1.1 Land use effects on selected properties of black soil54-55
• 4.2.1.2 Corn stover incorporation effects on selected properties of black soil55-56
• 4.2.2 Land use and corn stover incorporation effects on organic carbon soils of black56-57
• 4.2.2.1 Land use effect on the soil organic carbon (SOC)56-57
• 4.2.2.2 Corn stover incorporation effects on soil organic carbon (SOC)57
• 4.2.3 Land use and corn stover incorporation on humus composition (HA、FA、Hu、PQ)57-60
• 4.2.3.1 Land use effects on humus composition57-58
• 4.2.3.2 Corn stover incorporation effects on humus composition58
• 4.2.3.3 Land use and corn stover incorporation effect on PQ value58-60
• 4.2.4 Land use and deep incorporation of corn stover effects on soil structural characteristics of HA and FA60-63
• 4.2.4.1 Land use effects on structural characteristics of HA60-63
• 4.3 Comparisons of chemical properties and humic substances in black soils from South Africa and China63-68
• 4.3.1 Cultivated soils63-65
• 4.3.1.1 Comparisons of selected properties of black cultivated soils from two regions63
• 4.3.1.2 Comparisons of humus fractions of black cultivated soils from two regions63-64
• 4.3.1.3 Comparisons of humus structural characteristics black cultivated soils from two regions64-65
• 4.3.2 Grassland soils65-68
• 4.3.2.1 Comparisons of selected properties black grassland soils from two regions65-66
• 4.3.2.2 Comparison of humus fractions black cultivated soils from two regions66-67
• 4.3.2.3 Comparison of humus structural characteristics black cultivated soils from two regions67-68
• 5 DISCUSSIONS 5368-81
• 5.1 Land use and soil type effects on chemical properties and humic substances soils from South Africa68-75
• 5.2 Land use and stover incorporation effects on chemical properties and humic substances on black soils from China75-78
• 5.3 Comparisons of chemical properties and humic substances in black soils from South Africa and China78-81
• 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS81-83
• REFERENCES83-99
• 作者简介99-100
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS100

【参考文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前6条

1 朱青藤;申连玉;钱黎慧;郭世伟;代静玉;;有机物料对白土土壤胡敏酸结构特征的影响[J];植物营养与肥料学报;2015年02期

2 刘军;景峰;李同花;黄金花;谈建鑫;曹晶晶;刘建国;;秸秆还田对长期连作棉田土壤腐殖质组分含量的影响[J];中国农业科学;2015年02期

3 崔婷婷;窦森;杨轶囡;陈丽珍;黄毅;王瑞丽;;秸秆深还对土壤腐殖质组成和胡敏酸结构特征的影响[J];土壤学报;2014年04期

4 ;Characterization of humic acids extracted from the sediments of the various rivers and lakes in China[J];Journal of Environmental Sciences;2008年11期

5 耿玉辉,吴景贵,李万辉,姜岩;作物残体培肥土壤的研究进展[J];吉林农业大学学报;2000年02期

6 薛坚,赵秉强,李凤超,李增嘉;秸秆直接还田的定位研究[J];土壤肥料;1993年02期

，

本文编号：926140