[1]CHEN Yiwen,LI Hongli,DONG Zhi,et al.Soil Improvement Effect and Quality Evaluation of Three Sand-Fixing Materials Combined with Aeolian Sandy Soil[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2022,29(05):48-54.
Copy
Soil Improvement Effect and Quality Evaluation of Three Sand-Fixing Materials Combined with Aeolian Sandy Soil
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
29
Number of periods:
2022 05
Page number:
48-54
Column:
Public date:
2022-08-20
- Title:
- Soil Improvement Effect and Quality Evaluation of Three Sand-Fixing Materials Combined with Aeolian Sandy Soil
- Keywords:
- flyash; desulfurization gypsum; cattle manure; fixing-sand and soil improvement; compound soil; soil quality
- CLC:
- S154.4
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- It is important to reveal the soil quality change and improvement effect of aeolian sand soil combined with other sand-fixing materials for the development of new sand-controlling and sand-fixing materials. The aeolian sand soil in Ulan Buhe Desert was taken as the control(CK), and three sand-fixing materials, flyash, desulfurized gypsum and cow dung, were mixed with aeolian sand soil at dry weight ratios of 15% and 25%, to study the improvement effects of different materials and ratios on mechanical composition, nutrient contents and metal contents. Soil quality was evaluated by minimum data set construction, membership degree calculation and soil quality index calculation. The results show that:(1)the mechanical composition of soils with different combinations changed, and the volume fraction of refractory and refractory particles such as silt and coarse sand increased, while the volume fraction of fine sand that is easy to be eroded decreased;(2)soil organic carbon content of gypsum compound soil was 1.2～10.4 times higher than that of CK, except that the nutrient indexes of gypsum compound soil were similar to that of CK; the nutrient content of cow manure compound soil was significantly higher than those of other materials; the metal contents in sand soils mixed with cow dung and gypsum increased or decreased, respectively, while the Cr and As of flyash mixed soil decreased compared with CK;(3)different combinations of soils had different effects on soil physical and chemical properties; flyash was better in particle size improvement, cow dung had a significant effect on nutrient enhancement, and gypsum had an obvious effect on reducing heavy metal contents; the combination of flyash and gypsum combinef the advantages of the two;(4)the three sand-fixing materials all improved the quality of the mixed soils to varying degrees, but the quality of the mixed soil was still at a low level. In this study, the soil quality score index of 15% fly ash combination is 0.545, and it had the best improvement effect on aeolian sand soil, followed by 15% desulfurized gypsum(0.537), 15% cow dung(0.506)and 25% fly ash and desulfurized gypsum(0.484).
- References:
-
[1] Lang L L, Wang X M, Wang G T, et al. Effects of aeolian processes on nutrient loss from surface soils and their significance for sandy desertification in Mu Us Desert, China:A wind tunnel approach[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2014,7:421-428.
[2] Skidmore E, Powers D. Dry soil-aggregate stability:Energybased index[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1982,46(6):1663-1666.
[3] Leys J, Koen T, Mctainsh G. The effect of dry aggregation and percentage clay on sediment flux as measured by a portable field wind tunnel[J]. Soil Research, 1996,34(6):849-861.
[4] Li X J, Zhou R P, Jian H T, et al. Quantitative analysis of how different checkerboard sand barrier materials influence soil properties:A study from the eastern edge of the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2018,77(13):481-495.
[5] 李红丽,万玲玲,董智,等.沙柳沙障对沙丘土壤颗粒粒径及分形维数的影响[J].土壤通报,2012,43(3):540-545.
[6] Yujie Dai, Zhi Dong, Hongli Li, et al. Effects of checkerboard barriers on the distribution of aeolian sandy soil particles and soil organic carbon[J]. Geomorphology, 2019,338:79-87.
[7] 丁国栋,董智主编.荒漠化防治学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2021.
[8] Jeffrey Skousena, Jae E. Yang, Jin-Soo Lee, et al. Review of fly ash as a soil amendment [J]. Geosystem Engineering, 2013,16(3):249-256.
[9] 张正昊.煤基固废与牛粪混合肥料在沙化土壤改良中的持续作用效果研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古大学,2019.
[10] Liu W, Ling N, Guo J, et al. Dynamics of the antibiotic resistome in agricultural soils amended with different sources of animal manures over three consecutive years[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021,401:123399.
[11] 吴洪生,陈小青,周晓冬,等.磷石膏改良剂对江苏如东滨海盐土理化性状及小麦生长的影响[J].土壤学报,2012,49(6):1262-1266.
[12] Moon D H, Chang Y Y, Ok Y S, et al. Amelioration of acidic soil using various renewable waste resources[J]. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 2014,21(1):774-780.
[13] 黄河.不同改良剂对盐碱土的影响研究[D].哈尔滨:东北农业大学,2015.
[14] Gupta A K, Dwivedi S, Sinha S, et al. Metal accumulation and growth performance of Phaseolus vulgaris grown in fly ash amended soil[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2007,98(17):3404-3407.
[15] 赵智,唐泽军,杨凯,等. PAM与粉煤灰改良沙土中重金属的迁移和富集规律[J].农业机械学报,2013,44(7):83-89.
[16] 鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].3版.北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[17] 中华人民共和国生态环境部.《土壤和沉积物12种金属元素的测定王水提取—电感耦合等离子体质谱法》[S].HJ803-2016,北京:中国环境科学出版社,2016.
[18] Gong L, RanQ, HeG, et al. A soil quality assessment under different land use types in Keriya river basin, Southern Xinjiang, China[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2015,146:223-229.
[19] 曹志洪,周建民.中国土壤质量[M].北京:科学出版社,2010.
[20] 庞世龙,欧芷阳,申文辉,等.广西喀斯特地区不同植被恢复模式土壤质量综合评价[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2016,36(7):60-66.
[21] 陈正发,史东梅,金慧芳,等.基于土壤管理评估框架的云南坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价[J].农业工程学报,2019,35(3):256-267.
[22] 许明祥,刘国彬,赵允格.黄土丘陵区土壤质量评价指标研究[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(10):1843-1848.
[23] 陶宝先,张金池,林杰,等,苏南丘陵不同林分类型土壤质量评价[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2009,33(6):74-78.
[24] 杨凯,唐泽军,赵智,等.粉煤灰和聚丙烯酰胺固沙效果的风洞试验[J].农业工程学报,2012,28(4):54-59.
[25] 董治宝,李振山.风成沙粒度特征对其风蚀可蚀性的影响[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1998,4(4):1-5,12.
[26] Su Y Z, Zhao H L, Zhao W Z, et al. Fractal features of soil particle size distribution and the implication for indicating desertification[J]. Geoderma, 2004,122(1):43-49.
[27] 生骏,陆文静,王洪涛.粉煤灰对污泥堆肥过程和土地施用后交换态重金属(Cu, Zn, Pb)的影响[J].环境科学,2007,28(6):1367-1371.
[28] 张俊华,尚天浩,刘吉利,等.宁夏西吉县养牛场粪污和周边土壤重金属及细菌群落特征[J].应用生态学报,2020,31(9):3119-3130.
[29] 张智勇,刘广全,艾宁,等.吴起县退耕还林后主要植被类型土壤质量评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2021,35(2):81-87.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
2022-08-20