[1]白 雪,杨 扬,黄婷婷,等.激光衍射法与湿筛—吸管法测定中国3种典型土壤粒径分布的差异分析[J].水土保持研究,2021,28(04):84-90.
　BAI Xue,YANG Yang,HUANG Tingting,et al.Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Measured by Laser Diffraction Method and Sieve-Pipette Method of Three Typical Soils in China[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2021,28(04):84-90.
点击复制

激光衍射法与湿筛—吸管法测定中国3种典型土壤粒径分布的差异分析

《水土保持研究》[ISSN:1005-3409/CN:61-1272/P] 卷: 28 期数: 2021年04期 页码: 84-90 栏目: 出版日期: 2021-08-10
Title:
Comparison of Particle Size Distributions Measured by Laser Diffraction Method and Sieve-Pipette Method of Three Typical Soils in China
文章编号:
1005-3409(2021)04-0084-07
作者:
白 雪1,2, 杨 扬1,2, 黄婷婷1,2, 吴欣桐1,2, 何 涛1,2, 王丽娟3, 刘宝元2
(1.北京师范大学 地理科学学部 地表过程与资源生态国家重点实验室, 北京 100875; 2.北京师范大学 地理科学学部 地理学院, 北京 100875; 3.北京市十三陵林场, 北京 102200)
Author(s):
BAI Xue1,2, YANG Yang1,2, HUANG Tingting1,2, WU Xintong1,2, HE Tao1,2, WANG Lijuan3, LIU Baoyuan2
(1.State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resources Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 2.School of Geography, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 3.Beijing Ming Tombs Forest Farm, Beijing 102200, China)
关键词:
土壤粒径分布;  激光衍射法;  湿筛—吸管法;  中国典型土壤
Keywords:
particle size distribution;  laser diffraction method;  sieve-pipette method;  Chinese typical soils
分类号:
S152.3
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
为探究激光衍射法(Laser Diffraction Method,LDM)与湿筛—吸管法(Sieve-Pipette Method,SPM)测定不同土壤粒径分布的差异,以中国3种典型土壤——黑土、褐土和紫色土为研究对象,采用LDM和SPM分别测定其250～2 000 μm,100～250 μm,53～100 μm,20～53 μm,10～20 μm,5～10 μm,2～5 μm和<2 μm粒级的百分比含量,并对SPM所得各粒级土壤悬液进行了LDM测定。结果表明:LDM相比SPM显著高估了3种土壤10～20 μm,5～10 μm,2～5 μm粒级含量,低估了<2 μm粒级含量,且二者的绝对差异随粒级减小而增大; 两种方法在>20 μm各粒级的差异因土壤类型而异。LDM在SPM所得250～2 000 μm,100～250 μm悬液中仅分别检出34.6%～70.1%和58.1%～70.6%的对应粒级颗粒。在SPM所得<100 μm各粒级悬液中,LDM检出的对应粒级占比介于52.7%～98.4%; 偏大颗粒主要分布在对应悬液的相邻粒级,且占比随悬液粒级减小呈增大趋势。LDM与SPM在土壤粒径分布测定方面的差异主要源自土壤颗粒尤其是细颗粒的不规则形状,二者之间的具体差异因土壤类型和粒级而异。
Abstract:
To investigate the differences of soil particle size distributions(PSD)measured by laser diffraction method(LDM)and the sieve-pipette method(SPM), eight size fractions of 250～2000 μm, 100～250 μm, 53～100 μm, 20～53 μm, 10～20 μm, 5～10 μm, 2～5 μm and <2 μm in three typical soils in China, i.e., black, cinnamon and purple soils were analyzed using LDM and SPM, and the particle size distributions were systematically compared. The results showed that in contrast to SPM, LDM consistently overestimated the fractions of 10～20 μm, 5～10 μm and 2～5 μm and underestimated the clay fractions <2 μm. Although the magnitude of either overestimation or underestimation varied among soil types, the absolute differences of particle fractions measured by LDM and SPM generally increased, as the particle size decreased. For the size fractions >20 μm, by comparison, the proportions determined by LDM could be higher or lower than, or statistically similar with those by SPM, depending on soil types. In the sieved particles of 250～2 000 μm and 100～250 μm obtained by SPM, LDM detected 34.6%～70.1% and 58.1%～70.6% of the corresponding size fractions, respectively, whereas, for those suspensions of the particles <100 μm obtained by SPM, LDM detected 52.7%～98.4% of the corresponding size fractions. The larger particles determined by LDM mostly fell in their neighboring size fractions, and the corresponding percentages exhibited increasing trends as the particle size decreased. The disparate soil PSDs measured by LDM and SPM result from the non-spherical shapes of the soil particles, especially the fine ones, and the specific difference depends on variation among soil types and size fractions.

参考文献/References:

[1] Gee G W, Bauder J W. Particle-size Analysis[M]∥Klute A. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America, 1986.
[2] Jonasz M. Size, Shape, Composition and Structure of Microparticles from Light Scattering[M]∥Syvistki J P M. Principles, Methods, and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[3] Yang Y, Wang L, Wendroth O, et al. Is the laser diffraction method reliable for soil particle size distribution analysis[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2019,83(2):276-287.
[4] Yang X L, Zhang Q Y, Li X Z, et al. Determination of soil texture by laser diffraction method[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2015,79(6):1556-1566.
[5] Bittelli M, Andrenelli M C, Simonetti G, et al. Shall we abandon sedimentation methods for particle size analysis in soils[J] Soil and Tillage Research, 2019,185:36-46.
[6] Konert M, Vandenberghe J. Comparison of laser grain size analysis with pipette and sieve analysis: a solution for the underestimation of the clay fraction[J]. Sedimentology, 1997,44(3):523-535.
[7] Taubner H, Roth B, Tippokotter R. Determination of soil texture: comparison of the sedimentation method and the laser-diffraction analysis[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2009,172(2):161-171.
[8] Buurman P, Pape T, Reijneveld J A, et al. Laser-diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples[J]. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 2001,80(2):49-57.
[9] Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning[R]∥USDA-NRCS. Agriculture Handbook 537. Washington DC, USA:1978.
[10] Lane L J, Nearing M A. Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile Model Documentation[R]∥USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. NSERL Report No.2. West Lafayette, IN, USA: 1989.
[11] 全国水土保持规划编制工作领导小组办公室,水利部水利水电规划设计总院.中国水土保持区划[M].北京:中国水利水电出版社,2016.
[12] 鲍玉海,丛佩娟,冯伟,等.西南紫色土区水土流失综合治理技术体系[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(3):143-150.
[13] Ry./zak M, Bieganowski A. Methodological aspects of determining soil particle-size distribution using the laser diffraction method[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2011,174(4):624-633.
[14] 冯腾,陈洪松,张伟,等.激光粒度仪与沉降吸管法测定喀斯特地区土壤机械组成的对比研究[J].农业现代化研究,2013,34(1):100-103.
[15] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service(USDA-NRCS). National soil survey handbook, title 430-Ⅵ[EB/OL]. https:∥www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142 p2_054242.
[16] 朱瑜,张卓栋,刘畅,等.激光粒度仪与吸管法测定土壤机械组成的比较研究:以不同退化程度栗钙土为例[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(3):62-67.
[17] 刘雪梅,黄元仿.应用激光粒度仪分析土壤机械组成的试验研究[J].土壤通报,2005,36(4):116-119.
[18] 杨金玲,张甘霖,李德成,等.激光法与湿筛—吸管法测定土壤颗粒组成的转换及质地确定[J].土壤学报,2009,46(5):772-780.
[19] Neumann A M, Kramer H J M. A comparative study of various size distribution[J]. Particle and Particle Systems Characterization, 2002,19(1):17-27.
[20] Sochan A, Bieganowski A, Bartmiński P, et al. Use of the laser diffraction method for assessment of the pipette method[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2015,79(1):37-42.

相似文献/References:

[1]陈子玉,顾祝军.南方水蚀区不同侵蚀程度土壤粒径分形研究[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(04):13.
　CHEN Zi-yu,GU Zhu-jun.Study on the Fractal Dimension of Soil Particle Size Distribution in Areas with Different Water-Erosion Degrees in Southern China[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2013,20(04):13.
[2]周小泉,刘政鸿,杨永胜,等.毛乌素沙地三种植被下苔藓结皮的土壤理化效应[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(06):340.
　ZHOU Xiao-quan,LIU Zheng-hong,YANG Yong-sheng,et al.Effects of Moss Dominated Crusts on Soil Physicochemical Properties Under Three Types of Vegetation in Mu Us Sandland[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2014,21(04):340.
[3]马悦阳,夏 栋,舒 倩,等.向家坝工程扰动区不同生态修复模式边坡土壤颗粒分形特征[J].水土保持研究,2023,30(04):83.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.04.050.]
　MA Yueyang,XIA Dong,SHU Qian,et al.Fractal Features of Soil Particles Under Different Ecological Remediation Modes of Xiangjiaba Project[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2023,30(04):83.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.04.050.]

备注/Memo

收稿日期:2020-09-10 修回日期:2020-09-25
资助项目:国家自然科学基金(41601277,41730748)
第一作者:白雪(1996—),女,陕西延安人,硕士研究生,研究方向为土壤侵蚀与水土保持研究。E-mail:baixue@mail.bnu.edu.cn
通信作者:杨扬(1987—),女,福建将乐人,博士,讲师,主要从事土壤侵蚀与水土保持研究。E-mail:yang.yang@bnu.edu.cn

更新日期/Last Update: 2021-08-20