PDF Download

[1]MA Hai-long,JIN Xiao-qin,LIU Guo-bin,et al.Change in Soil Anti-erodibility of Different Farmland Types in Loess Hilly Region[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2013,20(02):5-8.

Copy

Change in Soil Anti-erodibility of Different Farmland Types in Loess Hilly Region

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 20 Number of periods: 2013 02 Page number: 5-8 Column: Public date: 2013-04-28

Title:: Change in Soil Anti-erodibility of Different Farmland Types in Loess Hilly Region

Author(s):: MA Hai-long¹, JIN Xiao-qin³, LIU Guo-bin^1,2, XUE Sha^1,2; 1. Couege of Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China;
2. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwast A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China;
3. Management Center of Natural Forest Conservation Project of Liuba County, Liuba, Shaanxi 724100, China

Keywords:: loess hilly region; farmland types; soil anti-erodibility

CLC:: S157

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Small Zhifanggou watershed in typical erosion environment was regarded as study case, and the soil samples of different farmland types were selected. Several indices were analyzed such as physical and chemical properties, and anti-erodibility. The results showed that physic-chemical properties and anti-erodibility differed significantly. The poor chemical properties were found in slope cropland and the the best properties were found in the greenhouse vegetable land. Organic carbon, total nitrogen, available N and available K behaved similarly, the greenhouse vegetable land was the highest, followed by flat field, terrace, dam land and gully land, the sloping cropland was the lowest. Compared with the sloping cropland, other farmland types had a better soil physical and chemical properties and anti-erodibility. Among these types, gully land and flat field increased more drastically than terrace, dam land and greenhouse vegetable land. The results suggested that other farmland types were managed more scientifically, and had a better soil fertile as well as anti-erodibility compared to the sloping cropland.

References:: [1] 戴全厚,刘国彬,刘普灵,等.黄土丘陵区中尺度生态经济系统健康评价方法探索[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(5):990-998.
[2] Hartemink A E. Soil chemical and physical properties as indicator of sustainable land management under sugar cane in Papua New Guinea[J]. Geoderma,1998,85(4):283-306.
[3] Wang X, Gong Z. Assessment and analysis of soil quality changes after eleven years of reclamation in subtropical China[J]. Geoderma,1998,81(3):339-355.
[4] 丁文峰,李占斌.土壤抗蚀性的研究动态[J].水土保持科技情报,2001,1(1):36-39.
[5] 阮伏水.关于土壤可蚀性指标的讨论[J].水土保持通报,1996,16(6):68-72.
[6] 胡建忠,范小玲.黄土高原沙棘人工林地土壤抗蚀性指标探讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(2):25-30.
[7] Marriott C A, Hudson G, Hamilton D, et al. Spatial variability of soil total C and N and their stable isotopes in upland Scottish grassland[J]. Plant Soil,1997,196(1):151-162.
[8] 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,1999.
[9] 刘光崧.土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M].北京:中国标准出版社,1996.
[10] 刘国彬.黄土高原土壤抗冲性研究及有关问题[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(5):91-101.
[11] 中科院南京土壤研究所.土壤理化分析[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,1978.
[12] 史奕,陈欣,沈善敏.土壤团聚体的稳定机制及人类活动的影响[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(11):1491-1494.
[13] 史奕,陈欣,沈善敏.有机胶结形成土壤团聚体的机理及理论模型[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(11):1495-1498.
[14] 郑昭佩,刘作新.土壤质量及其评价[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(1):131-134.
[15] 高雪松,邓良基,张世熔.不同利用方式与坡位土壤物理性质及养分特征分析[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(2):53-56.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01