|Table of Contents|

Changes of Soil Quality Under Different Forest Ages of Seabuckthorn Forest in Open-pit Coal Mine Dump

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2024年17
Page:
76-83
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Changes of Soil Quality Under Different Forest Ages of Seabuckthorn Forest in Open-pit Coal Mine Dump
Author(s):
CHEN Shichao1; LIU Tongtong1; ZHANG Qing1; ZHANG Liang1; JIA Zhi2; SHI Jianping3
(1.College of Desert Management,Inner Mongolia Agricultural University，Hohhot，Inner Mongolia 010018;2.Ulan Coal (Group) Co.Ltd.，Ordos，Inner Mongolia 017200;3.Agricultural Science Station of the People′s Government of Jinshan Town，Kalaqin Banner，Chifeng City，Chifeng,Inner Mongolia 024400)
Keywords:
soil quality; different forest ages; open-pit coal mine; seabuckthorn
PACS:
S 793.6
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20234548
Abstract:
Taking the soil of different forest ages of seabuckthorn forest in the dump of Manlailiang Open-pit Coal Mine in Ordos as the test material，and the non-vegetation sample plot in the dump as the control group，the soil of seabuckthorn under different forest ages was sampled by time instead of space.The soil bulk density，soil moisture content，soil porosity，organic matter，soil pH，available nitrogen，available phosphorus and available potassium were compared and analyzed.The effects of different forest ages of seabuckthorn on soil quality were studied,in order to provide reference for vegetation restoration in open-pit coal mine dumping sites.The results showed that there were differences in soil physical properties in different seabuckthorn plots，among which soil moisture content and soil porosity changed significantly，increasing by 1.658% and 4.14% respectively.In general，the soil chemical properties of sea buckthorn were improved by planting sea buckthorn.Among them，available nitrogen and available potassium were more obvious，which increased by 8.36 mg·kg-1 and 11.93 mg·kg-1，respectively.According to the calculation of soil quality index (SQI)，the soil quality increased by 0.05 with the increase of seabuckthorn forest age，and the soil quality was effectively improved to a certain extent.

References:

［1］王丹宁.基于Landsat数据的海州露天矿区生态环境尺度特征［D］.阜新:辽宁工程技术大学,2022.［2］骆俊腾,范燕敏,武红旗,等.新疆北疆不同地貌区土壤多样性特征及主要影响因素分析［J］.土壤通报,2023,54(6):1261-1270.［3］宫传刚.高寒矿区大型排土场生态致灾机理及功能提升研究［D］.徐州:中国矿业大学,2022.［4］张忠学,尹致皓,余佩哲,等.黑土区坡耕地水土保持耕作措施对土壤理化性状的影响［J］.农业机械学报,2024,55(1):282-293．［5］许素寒.鄂尔多斯高原东部主要水土保持树种的水分利用特征［D］.北京:中国林业科学研究院,2021.［6］高晓妍.西秦岭林区黑虎林场不同植被恢复模式研究［D］.兰州:甘肃农业大学,2018.［7］陈浮,赵姣,马静,等.植被恢复对黄土高原露天矿区土壤碳氮磷功能微生物类群的影响［J］.土壤学报,2023,60(5):1507-1519.［8］CHEN J,MO L,ZHANG Z,et al.Evaluation of the ecological restoration of a coal mine dump by exploring the characteristics of microbial communities［J］.Applied Soil Ecology,2020,147:103430.［9］程红刚,岳本江,朱卫东,等.沙棘在伊金霍洛旗矿区农林复合生态系统中的应用［J］.中国水土保持,2021(5):30-32.［10］肖礼,赵俊峰,黄懿梅,等.永利露天煤矿排土场不同植被类型下土壤理化性质和酶活性研究［J］.水土保持研究,2016,23(4):89-93.［11］刘一凡,张瑞芳,张弛,等.河北典型县域设施菜地土壤质量调查及其差异分析［J］.北方园艺,2022(21):89-99.［12］刘歌畅,岳丽华,刘春海,等.干旱胁迫对俄罗斯大果沙棘幼苗光合荧光参数的影响［J］.北方园艺,2022(22):16-23.［13］颜世伟.伊金霍洛旗生态恢复效益评价及耦合协调度分析［D］.北京:北京林业大学,2020.［14］康文慧.内蒙古伊金霍洛旗纳林陶亥镇煤矿开采对土壤性质影响的研究［D］.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2014.［15］李鹏飞,张兴昌,朱首军,等.植被恢复对黑岱沟矿区排土场土壤性质的影响［J］.水土保持通报,2015,35(5):64-70.［16］李荣,鄢慧芳,张龙,等.不同耕作措施对宁南地区土壤物理性质及作物产量的影响［J］.中国农业科学,2023,56(18):3543-3555.［17］郜敏,黄安东,李德成,等.基于GIS的江淮丘陵地区典型县域土壤质量评价［J］.土壤通报,2021,52(1):16-24.［18］李强,许明祥,赵允格,等.黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价［J］.自然资源学报,2012,27(6):1001-1012.［19］秦家凤,李阳,刘广全,等.煤矿复垦区不同恢复年限沙棘人工林土壤真菌群落特征［J］.土壤通报,2022,53(6):1413-1420.［20］李子敬.唐山迁安铁尾矿沙棘林生物量及其生长特性的研究［D］.保定:河北农业大学,2008.［21］卢建利,陈云明,张亚莉,等.黄土丘陵半干旱区沙棘生长对土壤水分及养分影响［J］.水土保持研究,2008,15(3):137-140,145.［22］卢立娜,赵雨兴,胡莉芳,等.沙棘(Hippophae rhamnoides)种植对鄂尔多斯砒砂岩地区土壤容重、孔隙度与贮水能力的影响［J］.中国沙漠,2015,35(5):1171-1176.［23］殷丽强,梁月.砒砂岩区不同立地条件下沙棘根系发育状况研究［J］.中国水利,2018(21):13-14.［24］刘静,李禾,郭建英,等.基于灰色关联分析的砒砂岩区不同林龄沙棘的改土效应［J］.水土保持通报,2019,39(4):127-133.［25］刘晓民,白嘉骏,杨耀天,等.内蒙古圪秋沟流域不同林分类型对土壤养分含量的影响［J］.土壤通报,2023,54(2):328-335.［26］李玲,樊华,李森,等.川西高原退化草地的中国沙棘生长及土壤养分研究［J］.四川林业科技,2019,40(3):27-30,36.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2024-09-24