中国农业科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (4): 661-675.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.04.008
收稿日期:
2018-07-13
接受日期:
2018-09-10
出版日期:
2019-02-16
发布日期:
2019-02-27
通讯作者:
史东梅
作者简介:
娄义宝,E-mail: 基金资助:
LOU YiBao1,SHI DongMei1(),JIN HuiFang1,JIANG GuangYi2,DUAN Teng1,JIANG Na1
Received:
2018-07-13
Accepted:
2018-09-10
Online:
2019-02-16
Published:
2019-02-27
Contact:
DongMei SHI
摘要:
【目的】紫色土坡耕地是西南区农业生产重要的耕地资源,其耕层质量集中表现为侵蚀性退化严重且农作物产量低而不稳,在地块尺度上农作物产量变化较土壤质量退化具有较明显的滞后效应。论文在紫色土不同地力等级坡耕地耕层土壤质量分析基础上,定量分析紫色土坡耕地耕层质量对农作物的适宜性程度。【方法】在不同地力等级耕层质量统计分析及聚类分析基础上,对农作物-耕层适宜性的耦合度程度进行诊断分析。【结果】(1)紫色土坡耕地不同地力等级的耕层厚度为19—21 cm,有效土层厚度在21—43 cm变化,耕层厚度比较稳定但有效土层浅薄现象严重,五级坡耕地不存在心土层;五级坡耕地产量限制因素为田面坡度、有效土层厚度、耕层厚度。(2)紫色土坡耕地3种耕层类型特征明显,其中Ⅰ类耕层土壤显弱酸性(pH 6.4),阳离子交换量(21.0 cmol(+)·L -1)最大;Ⅱ类耕层田面坡度最小(11°),有效土层厚度(38 cm)和耕层厚度(22 cm)最厚,土壤速效钾含量(136.5 mg·kg -1)最多;Ⅲ类耕层有效土层厚度(28 cm)最薄,土壤显酸性(pH 4.8),阳离子交换量(9.2 cmol(+)·L -1)最小;田面坡度,有效土层厚度,土壤酸化,阳离子交换量是影响坡耕地作物产量主导因子。(3)紫色土坡耕地不同地力等级的农作物与耕层适宜性存在协调发展类和失调衰退类两种状态和同步型、滞后型、损益型、共损型4种表现,在同样地力条件下,农作物产量较耕层质量更为敏感,衰退表现更加明显;农作物-耕层耦合关系(Cd)为Ⅰ类耕层(0.4820)和Ⅱ类(0.5207)属于基本协调发展类农作物耕层同步型,农作物生长勉强适宜;Ⅲ类(0.3343)濒临失调衰退类耕层损益型,农作物生长中度不适宜。 【结论】紫色土坡耕地耕层厚度比较稳定但有效土层浅薄化现象严重,不同地力等级的农作物与耕层适宜性存在协调发展类和失调衰退类两种状态和同步型、滞后型、损益型、共损型4种表现,紫色土坡耕地改良应减小田面坡度,增加有效土层厚度,调节土壤酸碱度。研究结果可为地块尺度上紫色土坡耕地合理耕层调控及构建提供技术参数。
娄义宝,史东梅,金慧芳,蒋光毅,段腾,江娜. 西南紫色土坡耕地农作物-耕层质量适宜性的耦合度诊断[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(4): 661-675.
LOU YiBao,SHI DongMei,JIN HuiFang,JIANG GuangYi,DUAN Teng,JIANG Na. Coupling Degree Diagnosis on Suitability Evaluation of Cultivated-Layer Quality for Slope Farmland in Purple Hilly Region of South-Western China[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(4): 661-675.
表1
紫色土坡耕地耕层土壤性质及生产条件"
地块号Block number | 行政区域 Adminis-trative region | 母质 Parent material | 田面 坡度Slope (°) | 有效土 层厚度Effective thickness of soil layer (cm) | 耕层 厚度Topsoil thickness (cm) | pH | 有机质 Soil organic matter (g·kg-1) | 阳离子 交换量Cation exchange Capacity (cmol (+)·L-1) | 全氮Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 有效磷 Effective phosphate (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | 作物 产量Crop yield (t·hm-2) | 地力等级 Productivity grade of cultivated land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 万州区Wanzhou district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 40 | 20 | 4.9 | 19.50 | 32.1 | 0.97 | 12.00 | 94.5 | 9.000 | 一 First |
2 | 万州区Wanzhou district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 45 | 22 | 5.2 | 10.00 | 27.6 | 0.66 | 10.00 | 79.1 | 6.750 | 二 Secondary |
3 | 万州区Wanzhou district | 侏罗纪遂宁组 Jurassic Suining Group | 10 | 50 | 20 | 7.9 | 9.69 | 16.3 | 0.91 | 2.90 | 69.2 | 5.250 | 三 Third |
4 | 万州区Wanzhou district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 15 | 20 | 15 | 5.1 | 7.02 | 19.9 | 0.41 | 10.00 | 54.5 | 4.50 | 四 Fourth |
5 | 万州区Wanzhou district | 侏罗纪遂宁组Jurassic Suining Group | 25 | 20 | 20 | 7.8 | 9.93 | 18.9 | 0.82 | 2.60 | 51.8 | 4.500 | 五 Fifth |
6 | 云阳县Yunyang country | 沙溪庙组 Shaximiao Group | 6 | 40 | 25 | 6.9 | 14.60 | 31.8 | 0.89 | 9.39 | 88.7 | 9.750 | 一 First |
7 | 云阳县Yunyang country | 沙溪庙组 Shaximiao Group | 7 | 50 | 25 | 6.2 | 8.99 | 21.1 | 0.61 | 6.61 | 114.0 | 9.250 | 二 Secondary |
8 | 云阳县Yunyang country | 巴东组 Padong Group | 12 | 40 | 24 | 8.0 | 19.90 | 22.4 | 1.36 | 5.57 | 157.0 | 8.000 | 三 Third |
9 | 云阳县Yunyang Country | 蓬莱镇组 Penglai Group | 16 | 40 | 20 | 6.5 | 12.30 | 24.8 | 0.72 | 3.74 | 55.1 | 6.500 | 四 Fourth |
地块号Block number | 行政区域 Adminis-trative region | 母质 Parent material | 田面 坡度Slope (°) | 有效土 层厚度Effective thickness of soil layer (cm) | 耕层 厚度Topsoil thickness (cm) | pH | 有机质 Soil organic matter (g·kg-1) | 阳离子 交换量Cation exchange Capacity (cmol (+)·L-1) | 全氮Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 有效磷 Effective phosphate (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | 作物 产量Crop yield (t·hm-2) | 地力等级 Productivity grade of cultivated land |
10 | 云阳县Yunyang Country | 蓬莱镇组 Penglai Group | 20 | 20 | 20 | 8.3 | 5.29 | 28.4 | 0.41 | 4.31 | 170.0 | 5.250 | 五 Fifth |
11 | 北碚区Beibei district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 35 | 20 | 6.0 | 12.40 | 28.4 | 0.89 | 18.00 | 78.8 | 9.000 | 一 First |
12 | 北碚区Beibei district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 40 | 19 | 7.6 | 12.90 | 24.7 | 1.02 | 6.30 | 72.1 | 7.875 | 二 Secondary |
13 | 北碚区Beibei district | 须家河组 Xujiahe Group | 10 | 30 | 20 | 5.1 | 16.60 | 17.4 | 1.14 | 45.00 | 47.3 | 7.125 | 三 Third |
14 | 北碚区Beibei district | 沙溪庙组 Shaximiao Group | 15 | 25 | 25 | 7.9 | 10.00 | 20.8 | 0.61 | 1.20 | 50.5 | 6.375 | 四 Fourth |
15 | 北碚区Beibei district | 沙溪庙组 Shaximiao Group | 25 | 15 | 15 | 4.9 | 10.60 | 28.8 | 0.65 | 6.10 | 44.4 | 5.625 | 五 Fifth |
16 | 綦江区Qijiang district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 40 | 20 | 6.8 | 12.20 | 12.9 | 0.80 | 29.00 | 39.6 | 9.300 | 一 First |
17 | 綦江区Qijiang district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 12 | 40 | 20 | 7.4 | 14.40 | 22.6 | 1.25 | 5.50 | 122.0 | 6.00 | 二 Secondary |
18 | 綦江区Qijiang district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 10 | 35 | 20 | 5.2 | 16.90 | 18.3 | 1.10 | 104.00 | 42.2 | 5.250 | 三 Third |
19 | 綦江区Qijiang district | 沙溪庙组 Shaximiao Group | 12 | 40 | 25 | 5.3 | 16.80 | 12.7 | 0.64 | 19.00 | 43.6 | 4.500 | 四 Fourth |
20 | 綦江区Qijiang district | 页岩、沙岩风化物Shale, sandstone weathering | 25 | 20 | 20 | 4.4 | 18.70 | 0.084 | 0.97 | 139.00 | 75.0 | 4.120 | 五 Fifth |
21 | 江津区Jiangjin district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 30 | 15 | 6.5 | 14.00 | 28.6 | 1.20 | 2.10 | 60.1 | 6.375 | 一 First |
22 | 江津区Jiangjin district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 5 | 40 | 19 | 7.6 | 12.90 | 21.5 | 1.02 | 6.30 | 72.1 | 6.000 | 二 Secondary |
23 | 江津区Jiangjin district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 10 | 40 | 20 | 6.7 | 10.50 | 15.8 | 0.75 | 1.40 | 111.0 | 5.250 | 三 Third |
24 | 江津区Jiangjin district | 侏罗纪沙溪庙组 Jurassic Shaximiao Group | 15 | 30 | 20 | 5.4 | 21.10 | 16.6 | 1.14 | 14.00 | 46.6 | 4.500 | 四 Fourth |
25 | 江津区Jiangjin district | 页岩、沙岩风化物 Shale, sandstone weathering | 15 | 30 | 20 | 7.1 | 16.30 | 14.1 | 1.17 | 0.00 | 86.2 | 4.125 | 五 Fifth |
26 | 彭水县Pengshui county | 巴东组紫色岩 Badong purple rock | 5 | 45 | 20 | 7.3 | 19.60 | 11.5 | 1.30 | 3.90 | 60.2 | 9.750 | 一 First |
27 | 彭水县Pengshui county | 巴东组紫色岩 Badong purple rock | 7 | 40 | 20 | 6.9 | 15.60 | 12.2 | 1.03 | 27.00 | 145.0 | 9.100 | 二 Secondary |
28 | 彭水县Pengshui county | 巴东组紫色岩 Badong purple rock | 14 | 30 | 20 | 6.0 | 14.00 | 16.5 | 1.08 | 7.50 | 37.1 | 7.750 | 三 Third |
29 | 彭水县Pengshui county | 巴东组紫色岩 Badong purple rock | 16 | 20 | 20 | 5.5 | 9.64 | 25.4 | 1.23 | 8.90 | 87.0 | 6.000 | 四 Fourth |
30 | 彭水县Pengshui county | 巴东组紫色岩Badong purple rock | 22 | 20 | 20 | 7.1 | 23.40 | 10.4 | 1.54 | 3.50 | 48.3 | 5.550 | 五 Fifth |
表2
农作物-耕层耦合协调度评价指标体系及指标权重"
目标层 Target layer | 准则层 Criteria layer | 指标层(xi)Indicator layer (xi) | 综合权重Comprehensive weight | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1级指标 Level 1 indicator | 权重 Weights | 2级指标 Level 2 indicator | 权重 Weights | |||
农作物-耕层耦合协调度 Crop-plough layer coupling coordination degree | 农作物综合评价指数Crop comprehensive evaluation index(CCE) | 产量特征 Yield properties | 1 | 作物产量 Crop yield | 1 | 1 |
耕层综合评价指数Topsoil comprehensive evaluation index(PCE) | 物理特性 Physical properties | 0.5 | 田面坡度 Slope | 0.2970 | 0.1485 | |
有效土层厚度 Effective thickness of soil layer | 0.1634 | 0.0817 | ||||
耕层厚度 Topsoil thickness | 0.5396 | 0.2698 | ||||
化学特性 Chemical properties | 0.5 | 土壤有机质 Soil organic matter | 0.3452 | 0.1726 | ||
阳离子交换量 Cation exchange capacity | 0.0888 | 0.0444 | ||||
土壤全氮 Soil total nitrogen | 0.2441 | 0.1220 | ||||
土壤有效磷 Soil effective phosphate | 0.1551 | 0.0776 | ||||
土壤速效钾 Soil available potassium | 0.0691 | 0.0345 | ||||
pH | 0.0977 | 0.0498 |
表3
农作物-耕层耦合协调度分类及诊断标准"
序号 No. | 耦合协调度(Cd) Coupling coordination degree (Cd) | 农作物-耕层耦合协调特征 Crop-plough layer coupling coordination properties | 适宜程度 Suitability |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 0<Cd≤0.2 | 失调衰退型Offset decline | 高度不适宜Highly unsuitable |
2 | 0.2<Cd≤0.4 | 濒临失调型Endangered | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate |
3 | 0.4<Cd≤0.6 | 基本协调型Basic coordination | 勉强适宜Basically suitable |
4 | 0.6<Cd≤0.8 | 良好协调型Good coordination | 中度适宜Moderately suitable |
5 | 0.8<Cd≤1.0 | 高度协调型Highly coordinated | 高度适宜Highly suitable |
表4
不同地力等级坡耕地耕层土壤特性与产量基本特征"
地力等级 Productivity grade of cultivated land | 土层深度 Soil depth (cm) | 有机质 Organic matter (g·kg-1) | 阳离子 交换量Cation exchange Capacity (cmol(+)·L-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 有效磷 Effective phosphate (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | pH | 田面坡度Slope (°) | 有效土层 厚度Effective thickness of soil layer (cm) | 作物产量 Crop yield (t·hm-2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
一 First | 耕作层 Tillage layer | 0-20 | 15.38 | 24.2 | 1.01 | 12.40 | 70.3 | 6.4 | 5 | 38 | 8.860 |
心土层 Heart layer | 20-38 | 9.59 | 22.4 | 0.75 | 5.13 | 54.5 | 7.0 | ||||
底土层Subsoil | >38 | 7.85 | 16.6 | 0.97 | 3.60 | 56.5 | 7.4 | ||||
二 Secondary | 耕作层 Tillage layer | 0-21 | 12.47 | 21.6 | 0.93 | 10.29 | 100.7 | 6.8 | 7 | 43 | 7.500 |
心土层 Heart layer | 21-43 | 9.14 | 21.2 | 0.72 | 10.29 | 80.5 | 7.2 | ||||
底土层Subsoil | >43 | 6.24 | 21.6 | 0.56 | 4.45 | 71.8 | 7.4 | ||||
三 Third | 耕作层 Tillage layer | 0-21 | 14.60 | 17.8 | 1.06 | 27.73 | 77.3 | 6.5 | 11 | 38 | 6.440 |
心土层 Heart layer | 21-38 | 8.85 | 15.5 | 0.70 | 3.99 | 67.9 | 6.8 | ||||
底土层Subsoil | >38 | 7.59 | 16.0 | 0.67 | 4.00 | 72.9 | 6.6 | ||||
四 Fourth | 耕作层 Tillage layer | 0-21 | 12.81 | 20.0 | 0.79 | 9.47 | 56.2 | 6.0 | 15 | 29 | 5.400 |
心土层 Heart layer | 21-37 | 11.00 | 15.1 | 0.68 | 7.07 | 48.6 | 5.7 | ||||
底土层Subsoil | >37 | 7.79 | 16.5 | 0.55 | 3.35 | 53.4 | 5.4 | ||||
五 Fifth | 耕作层 Tillage layer | 0-19 | 14.04 | 16.8 | 0.93 | 25.92 | 79.3 | 6.6 | 22 | 21 | 4.860 |
心土层 Heart layer | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
底土层Subsoil | >19 | 15.10 | 7.6 | 0.91 | 62.10 | 68.6 | 5.9 |
表5
3种坡耕地耕层类型的土壤质量变化特征"
分类 Sort | 统计值 Statistics | 田面坡度Slope (°) | 有效土层 厚度Effective thickness of soil layer (cm) | 耕层 厚度Topsoil thickness (cm) | pH | 有机质 Soil organic matter (g·kg-1) | 阳离子 交换量Cation exchange Capacity (cmol(+)·L-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 有效磷 Effective phosphate (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | 作物产量 Crop yield (t·hm-2) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I类 Class I | 均值 Average value | 12 | 33 | 20 | 6.4 | 13.89 | 21.0 | 0.95 | 10.07 | 62.1 | 6.640 | ||||||||||
标准差 Standard deviation | 6.7 | 9.84 | 2.73 | 1.07 | 4.24 | 6.79 | 0.27 | 10.39 | 17.69 | 1.83 | |||||||||||
变异系数Coefficient of variation (%) | 57.7 | 29.86 | 13.65 | 16.77 | 30.53 | 32.35 | 28.42 | 103.18 | 28.47 | 27.56 | |||||||||||
II类 Class II | 均值 Average value | 11 | 38 | 22 | 7.3 | 12.45 | 20.4 | 0.90 | 8.40 | 136.5 | 7.140 | ||||||||||
标准差 Standard deviation | 4.8 | 9.83 | 2.35 | 0.80 | 5.22 | 5.69 | 0.37 | 9.29 | 24.42 | 1.87 | |||||||||||
变异系数Coefficient of variation (%) | 42.4 | 25.65 | 10.93 | 11.03 | 41.93 | 27.86 | 41.11 | 110.60 | 17.89 | 26.19 | |||||||||||
III类 Class III | 均值 Average value | 18 | 28 | 20 | 4.8 | 17.80 | 9.2 | 1.04 | 121.50 | 58.6 | 4.690 | ||||||||||
标准差 Standard deviation | 10.6 | 10.61 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 1.27 | 12.88 | 0.09 | 24.75 | 23.19 | 0.80 | |||||||||||
变异系数Coefficient of variation (%) | 60.6 | 38.58 | 0.00 | 11.88 | 7.13 | 140.15 | 8.65 | 20.37 | 39.57 | 17.06 | |||||||||||
适宜性特征值[ | — | 40-60 | 20-25 | — | 8.99-22.8 | 21.1-32.1 | 0.66-1.02 | 6.3-18 | — | — |
表6
不同地力等级坡耕地农作物-耕层耦合协调度诊断"
地力等级 Productivity grade of cultivated land | 行政区域 Administrative region | CCE | PCE | C | T | Cd | CCE / PCE | 农作物-耕层耦合协调特征Crop-plough layer coupling coordination properties | 适宜程度 Suitability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
一 First | 万州区 Wanzhou district | 0.8668 | 0.6105 | 0.4924 | 0.7386 | 0.6031 | 1.4198 | 良好协调农作物耕层同步型 Good coordination of crop plough synchronization | 中度适宜Moderately suitable |
云阳县Yunyang Country | 1.0000 | 0.7038 | 0.4924 | 0.8519 | 0.6477 | 1.4209 | 良好协调农作物耕层同步型Good coordination of crop plough synchronization | 中度适宜Moderately suitable | |
北碚区 Beibei district | 0.8668 | 0.5304 | 0.4853 | 0.6986 | 0.5822 | 1.6342 | 基本协调耕层滞后型 Basic coordination of ploughing | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
綦江区Qijiang district | 0.9201 | 0.5145 | 0.4796 | 0.7173 | 0.5865 | 1.7883 | 基本协调耕层滞后型 Basic coordination of ploughing | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
江津区Jiangjin district | 0.4005 | 0.4253 | 0.4998 | 0.4129 | 0.4543 | 0.9417 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型 Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
彭水县Pengshui County | 1.0000 | 0.6469 | 0.4884 | 0.8235 | 0.6342 | 1.5458 | 良好协调耕层滞后型 Good coordination of ploughing | 中度适宜Moderately suitable | |
二 Secondary | 万州区 Wanzhou district | 0.4671 | 0.5446 | 0.4985 | 0.5059 | 0.5022 | 0.8577 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型 Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable |
云阳县Yunyang Country | 0.9112 | 0.6176 | 0.4907 | 0.7644 | 0.6124 | 1.4754 | 良好协调农作物耕层同步型 Good coordination of crop plough synchronization | 中度适宜Moderately suitable | |
北碚区 Beibei district | 0.6670 | 0.5408 | 0.4973 | 0.6039 | 0.5480 | 1.2334 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
綦江区Qijiang district | 0.3339 | 0.5619 | 0.4835 | 0.4479 | 0.4654 | 0.5942 | 基本协调农作物滞后型 Basic coordination of crop lag | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
江津区Jiangjin district | 0.3339 | 0.5363 | 0.4863 | 0.4351 | 0.4600 | 0.6226 | 基本协调农作物滞后型 Basic coordination of crop lag | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
彭水县Pengshui County | 0.8845 | 0.5839 | 0.4894 | 0.7342 | 0.5994 | 1.5148 | 基本协调耕层滞后型 Basic coordination of ploughing | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
三 Third | 万州区 Wanzhou district | 0.2007 | 0.5006 | 0.4520 | 0.3507 | 0.3981 | 0.4009 | 濒临失调耕层损益型 On the verge of loss of plough layer | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate |
云阳县Yunyang Country | 0.6892 | 0.7507 | 0.4995 | 0.7199 | 0.5997 | 0.9181 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型 Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 中度适宜Moderately suitable | |
北碚区 Beibei district | 0.5337 | 0.5286 | 0.5000 | 0.5312 | 0.5154 | 1.0096 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
綦江区Qijiang district | 0.2007 | 0.5730 | 0.4383 | 0.3868 | 0.4118 | 0.3503 | 基本协调耕层滞后型 Basic coordination of ploughing | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
江津区Jiangjin district | 0.2007 | 0.4622 | 0.4595 | 0.3315 | 0.3902 | 0.4342 | 濒临失调耕层损益型 On the verge of loss of plough layer | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate | |
彭水县Pengshui County | 0.6448 | 0.4543 | 0.4924 | 0.5495 | 0.5202 | 1.4193 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
地力等级 Productivity grade of cultivated land | 行政区域 Administrative region | CCE | PCE | C | T | Cd | CCE / PCE | 农作物-耕层耦合协调特征Crop-plough layer coupling coordination properties | 适宜程度 Suitability |
四 Fourth | 万州区 Wanzhou district | 0.0675 | 0.1489 | 0.4633 | 0.1082 | 0.2239 | 0.4533 | 濒临失调农作物耕层共损型 On the verge of a total loss of topsoil offset crop type | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate |
云阳县Yunyang Country | 0.4227 | 0.4282 | 0.5000 | 0.4255 | 0.4612 | 0.9872 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
北碚区 Beibei district | 0.4005 | 0.5110 | 0.4963 | 0.4558 | 0.4756 | 0.7838 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
綦江区Qijiang district | 0.0675 | 0.6043 | 0.3006 | 0.3359 | 0.3178 | 0.1117 | 濒临失调农作物损益型 Type of crop losses on the verge of disorder | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate | |
江津区Jiangjin district | 0.0675 | 0.5196 | 0.3190 | 0.2936 | 0.3060 | 0.1299 | 濒临失调农作物损益型 Type of crop losses on the verge of disorder | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate | |
彭水县Pengshui County | 0.3339 | 0.4105 | 0.4974 | 0.3722 | 0.4302 | 0.8134 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable | |
五 Fifth | 万州区 Wanzhou district | 0.0675 | 0.3094 | 0.3834 | 0.1884 | 0.2688 | 0.2182 | 濒临失调农作物损益型 Type of crop losses on the verge of disorder | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate |
云阳县Yunyang Country | 0.2007 | 0.3099 | 0.4884 | 0.2553 | 0.3531 | 0.6476 | 濒临失调农作物耕层共损型 On the verge of a total loss of topsoil offset crop type | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate | |
北碚区 Beibei district | 0.2673 | 0.1285 | 0.4682 | 0.1979 | 0.3044 | 2.0802 | 濒临失调农作物耕层共损型 On the verge of a total loss of topsoil offset crop type | 中度不适宜Moderately inappropriate | |
綦江区Qijiang district | 0.0000 | 0.4223 | 0.0000 | 0.2111 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 失调衰退农作物损益型Disadvantaged decline crop profit and loss type | 高度不适宜Highly unsuitable | |
江津区Jiangjin district | 0.0009 | 0.4978 | 0.0422 | 0.2493 | 0.1025 | 0.0018 | 失调衰退农作物损益型Disadvantaged decline crop profit and loss type | 高度不适宜Highly unsuitable | |
彭水县Pengshui County | 0.2540 | 0.5171 | 0.4700 | 0.3855 | 0.4257 | 0.4912 | 基本协调农作物损益型 Basic coordination of crop losses and benefits | 勉强适宜Marginally suitable |
表7
3种坡耕地类型的农作物-耕层耦合协调度诊断"
类型 Sort | CCE | PCE | C | T | Cd | CCE / PCE | 农作物-耕层耦合协调特征Crop-plough layer coupling coordination properties | 适宜程度 Suitability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I类 Class I | 0.4478 | 0.4824 | 0.4997 | 0.4651 | 0.4820 | 0.9283 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜 Marginally suitable |
II类 Class II | 0.5367 | 0.5477 | 0.5000 | 0.5422 | 0.5207 | 0.9799 | 基本协调农作物耕层同步型Basic coordination of crop plough synchronization | 勉强适宜 Marginally suitable |
III类 Class III | 0.1004 | 0.4976 | 0.3737 | 0.2990 | 0.3343 | 0.2018 | 濒临失调耕层损益型 On the verge of loss of plough layer | 中度不适宜 Moderately inappropriate |
[1] |
赵燮京, 刘定辉 . 四川紫色丘陵区旱作农业的土壤管理与水土保持. 水土保持学报, 2002,16(5):6-10, 16.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2002.05.002 |
ZHAO X J, LIU D H . Soil management and soil and water conservation of dryland agriculture in Sichuan Purple Hilly. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2002,16(5):6-10, 16. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2002.05.002 |
|
[2] | 何毓蓉 . 中国紫色土(II). 北京: 科学出版社, 2003. |
HE Y R. Purple Soil of China (II). Beijing: Science Press, 2003. (in Chinese) | |
[3] |
韩晓增, 邹文秀, 陆欣春, 段景海 . 旱作土壤耕层及其肥力培育途径. 土壤与作物, 2015(4):145-150.
doi: 10.11689/j.issn.2095-2961.2015.04.001 |
HAN X Z, ZOU W X, LU X C, DUAN J H . The soil cultivated layer in dryland and technical patterns in cultivating soil fertility. Soil and Crop, 2015,4(4):145-150. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11689/j.issn.2095-2961.2015.04.001 |
|
[4] |
闫一凡, 刘建立, 张佳宝 . 耕地地力评价方法及模型分析. 农业工程学报, 2014,30(5):204-210.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.05.026 |
YAN Y F, LIU J L, ZHANG J B . Evaluation method and model analysis for productivity of cultivated land. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2014,30(5):204-210. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.05.026 |
|
[5] | PIERCE F C, LARSON W E, DOWDY R H, GRAHAM W A . Productivity of soils: assessing long-term changes due to erosion. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1983,38:39-44. |
[6] |
MANNA P, BASILE A, BONFANTE A, MASCELLIS R D, TERRIBILE F . Comparative land evaluation approaches:An itinerary from FAO framework to simulation modeling. Geoderma, 2009,150:367-378
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.02.020 |
[7] |
VOORDE T F J V D, PUTTEN W H V D, BEZEMER T M . Intra- and interspecific plant-soil interactions, soil legacies and priority effects during old-field succession. Journal of Ecology, 2011,99(4):945-953.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01815.x |
[8] |
FUKAMI T, NAKAJIMA M . Complex plant soil interactions enhance plant species diversity by delaying community convergence. Journal of Ecology, 2013,101(2):316-324.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12048 |
[9] |
朱波, 况福虹, 高美荣, 汪涛, 王小国, 唐家良 . 土层厚度对紫色土坡地生产力的影响. 山地学报, 2009,27(6):735-739.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2009.06.014 |
ZHU B, KUANG F H, GAO M R, WANG T, WANG X G, TANG J L . Effects of soil thickness on productivity of sloping cropland of purple soil. Journal of Mountain Science, 2009,27(6):735-739. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2009.06.014 |
|
[10] |
焦菊英, 马祥华, 白文娟, 焦峰, 温仲明 . 黄土丘陵沟壑区退耕地植物群落与土壤环境因子的对应分析. 土壤学报, 2005,42(5):744-752.
doi: 10.11766/trxb200411110506 |
JIAO J Y, MA X H, BAI W J, JIAO F, WEN Z M . Correspondence analysis of vegetation communities and soil environmental factors on abandoned cropland on hilly-gullied Loess Plateau. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2005,42(5):744-752. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11766/trxb200411110506 |
|
[11] |
王芳, 卓莉, 覃新导, 李少英, 杨朝辉, 黄鸿健 . 广东边际性土地能源植物种植潜力适宜性评价. 农业工程学报, 2015,31(19):276-284.
doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.19.038 |
WANG F, ZHUO L, QIN X D, LI S Y, YANG C H, HUANG H J . Evaluation on suitability of planting potential of energy plants on marginal land of Guangdong Province. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2015,31(19):276-284. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.19.038 |
|
[12] | 徐明, 张健, 刘国彬, 邱甜甜, 郑明清 . 不同植被恢复模式沟谷地植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价. 自然资源学报, 2016,31(12):2137-2146. |
XU M, ZHANG J, LIU G B, QIU T T, ZHENG M Q . Analysis on vegetation-soil coupling relationship in gullies with different vegetation restoration patterns. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016,31(12):2137-2146. (in Chinese) | |
[13] |
彭晚霞, 宋同清, 曾馥平, 王克林, 杜虎, 鹿士杨 . 喀斯特峰丛洼地退耕还林还草工程的植被土壤耦合协调度模型. 农业工程学报, 2011,27(9):305-310.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2011.09.053 |
PENG W X, SONG T Q, ZENG F P, WANG K L, DU H, LU S Y . Models of vegetation and soil coupling coordinative degree in grain for green project in depressions between karst hills. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2011,27(9):305-310. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2011.09.053 |
|
[14] |
张艳, 赵廷宁, 史常青, 吴海龙, 李丹雄, 孙永康 . 坡面植被恢复过程中植被与土壤特征评价. 农业工程学报, 2013,29(3):124-131.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.03.017 |
ZHANG Y, ZHAO T N, SHI C Q, WU H L, LI D X, SUN Y K . Evaluation of vegetation and soil characteristics during slope vegetation recovery procedure. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2013,29(3):124-131. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.03.017 |
|
[15] | 赵彦锋, 程道全, 陈杰, 孙志英, 张化楠 . 耕地地力评价指标体系构建中的问题与分析逻辑. 土壤学报, 2015(6):1197-1208. |
ZHAO Y F, CHENG D Q, CHEN J, ZHANG Z Y, ZHANG H N . Problems and analytical logic in building cultivated land productivity evaluation index system. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2015(6):1197-1208. (in Chinese) | |
[16] | 李伟 . 重庆耕地地力研究与评价(一)(二)(三). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011. |
LI W. Research and Evaluation of Cultivated Land Fertility in Chongqing (I) (II) (III). Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2011. (in Chinese) | |
[17] |
史东梅, 蒋光毅, 蒋平, 娄义宝, 丁文斌, 金慧芳 . 土壤侵蚀因素对紫色丘陵区坡耕地耕层质量影响. 农业工程学报, 2017,33(13):270-279.
doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.13.036 |
SHI D M, JIANG G Y, JIANG P, LOU Y B, DING W B, JIN H F . Effects of soil erosion factors on cultivated-layer quality of slope farmland in purple hilly area. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017,33(13):270-279. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.13.036 |
|
[18] |
刘耀彬, 李仁东, 张守忠 . 城市化与生态环境协调标准及其评价模型研究. 中国软科学, 2005(5):140-148.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2005.05.027 |
LIU Y B, LI R D, ZHANG S Z . Study on the coordinative criteria and coordination degree model between regional urbanization and eco-environment. China Soft Science, 2005(5):140-148. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2005.05.027 |
|
[19] |
曾珍香 . 可持续发展协调性分析. 系统工程理论与实践, 2001,21(3):18-21.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2001.03.004 |
ZENG Z X . The analysis of coordination and sustainable development. Systems Engineering-theory and Practice, 2001(3):18-21. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2001.03.004 |
|
[20] | 刘定惠, 杨永春 . 区域经济-旅游-生态环境耦合协调度研究——以安徽省为例. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011,20(7):892-896. |
LIU D H, YANG Y C . Coupling coordinative degree of regional economy-tourism-ecological environment-a case study of Anhui Province. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2011,20(7):892-896. (in Chinese) | |
[21] | 章家恩, 徐琪 . 三峡库区退化土壤的恢复与重建研究. 长江流域资源与环境, 1998(3):248-254. |
ZHANG J E, XU Q . The restoration and reconstruction of degraded soils in the Three-gorge Reservoir Area. Resources and Environment in The Yangtze Basin, 1998(3):248-254. (in Chinese) | |
[22] |
张兴义, 刘晓冰, 隋跃宇, 张少良, 张久明, 刘焕军, Stephen J. Herbert . 人为剥离黑土层对大豆干物质积累及产量的影响. 大豆科学, 2006,25(2):123-126.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2006.02.006 |
ZHANG X Y, LIU X B, SUI Y Y, ZHANG S L, ZHANG J M, LIU H J, HERBERT S J . Effects of artificial topsoil removal on soybean day mater accumulation and yield in Chinese Mollisols. Soybean Science, 2006,25(2):123-126. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2006.02.006 |
|
[23] | 郭云周, 刘建香, 涂仕华, 贾秋鸿, 赵德柱 . 土壤侵蚀对坡耕地生产力影响的模拟研究. 土壤通报, 2012(6):1480-1485. |
GUO Y Z, LIU J X, XU S H, JIA Q H, ZHAO D Z . Impact of Soil Erosion on Productivity of Sloping Lands in a Simulated Pot Experiment. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2012(6):1480-1485. (in Chinese) | |
[24] | 王志强, 刘宝元, 王旭艳, 高晓飞, 刘刚 . 东北黑土区土壤侵蚀对土地生产力影响试验研究. 中国科学D辑: 地球科学, 2009,39(10):1397-1412. |
WANG Z Q, LIU B Y, WANG X Y, GAO X F, LIU G . Erosion effect on the productivity of black soil in Northeast China. Science China Ser D-Earth Science, 2009,39(10):1397-1412. (in Chinese) | |
[25] | 迟仁立, 左淑珍 . 土壤耕作现代化的探讨. 农业现代化研究, 1982,3(1):23-26. |
CHI R L, ZOU S Z . Discussion on Soil Cultivation Modernization. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 1982,3(1):23-26. (in Chinese) | |
[26] | 闫玉芹, 杨树山, 孙凤海, 康洪庆 . 玉米合理耕层构建与深松整地技术. 农村科学实验, 2010(9):13. |
YAN Y Q, YANG S S, SUN F H, KANG H Q . Construction of corn reasonable subsoil and deep pine land preparation technology. Scientific Experiment in Countryside, 2010(9):13. (in Chinese) | |
[27] | 宫亮, 邢月华, 刘艳, 包红静, 尹同波, 刘玉军, 孙文涛 . 棕壤土合理耕层标准调查研究. 玉米科学, 2016(5):94-99. |
GONG L, XING Y H, LIU Y, BAO H J, YIN T B, LIU Y J, LIU W T . Investigation on standards of the rational plough layer of brown soil. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2016(5):94-99. (in Chinese) | |
[28] | 王立春, 马虹, 郑金玉 . 东北春玉米耕地合理耕层构造研究. 玉米科学, 2008,16(4):13-17. |
WANG L C, MA H, ZHENG J Y . Research on rational plough layer construction of spring maize soil in Northeast China. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2008,16(4):13-17. (in Chinese) | |
[29] |
郑洪兵, 齐华, 刘武仁, 郑金玉, 罗洋, 李瑞平, 李伟堂 . 玉米农田耕层现状、存在问题及合理耕层构建探讨. 耕作与栽培, 2014(5):39-42.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2239.2014.05.018 |
ZHENG H B, QI H, LIU W R, ZHENG J Y, LUO Y, LI R P, LI W T . Present and problem of tillage layer of maize cropland and discussion of optimum tillage layer. Tillage and Cultivation, 2014(5):39-42. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2239.2014.05.018 |
|
[30] |
朱瑞祥, 张军昌, 薛少平, 姚万生, 李俊耀, 邓海涛 . 保护性耕作条件下的深松技术试验. 农业工程学报, 2009,25(6):145-147.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2009.06.027 |
ZHU R X, ZHANG J C, XUE S P, YANG W S, LI J Y, DENG H T . Experimentation about subsoiling technique for conservation tillage. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2009,25(6):145-147. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2009.06.027 |
|
[31] |
郭志军, 佟金, 周志立, 任露泉 . 深松技术研究现状与展望. 农业工程学报, 2001,17(6):169-174.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2001.06.042 |
GUO Z J, TONG J, ZHOU Z L, REN L Q . Review of subsoiling techniques and their applications. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2001,17(6):169-174. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2001.06.042 |
|
[32] |
邵长发, 郑志安, 林启瑞 . 全方位深松在农业可持续发展中的作用研究. 农业机械学报, 1999,30(5):81-85.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1298.1999.05.018 |
SHAO C F, ZHENG Z A, LIN Q R . A Study on affects of bluck sub-soiling diggers in all directions for the sustainable agricultural development. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, 1999,30(5):81-85. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1298.1999.05.018 |
[1] | 宋鸽,史东梅,蒋光毅,江娜,叶青,张健乐. 土壤管理措施对坡耕地侵蚀退化耕层的恢复作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(8): 1702-1714. |
[2] | 姚一文,戴全厚,甘艺贤,高儒学,严友进,王玉红. 雨强和地下孔(裂)隙度对喀斯特坡耕地养分流失的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(1): 140-151. |
[3] | 江娜,史东梅,蒋光毅,宋鸽,司承静,叶青. 土壤侵蚀对紫色土坡耕地耕层物理及力学特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(9): 1845-1859. |
[4] | 宋鸽,史东梅,曾小英,蒋光毅,江娜,叶青. 紫色土坡耕地耕层质量障碍特征[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(7): 1397-1410. |
[5] | 李超, 李文峰, 赵耀, 尚敬敏. 基于GIS的云南山区玉米生态适宜性评价方法与应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(3): 445-454. |
[6] | 张彪,刘璇,毕金峰,吴昕烨,金鑫,李旋,李潇. 基于BP人工神经网络算法的苹果制干适宜性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(1): 129-142. |
[7] | 徐春丽,谢军,王珂,李丹萍,陈轩敬,张跃强,陈新平,石孝均. 西南地区玉米产量对基础地力和施肥的响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(1): 129-138. |
[8] | 成艳红,黄欠如,武琳,黄尚书,钟义军,孙永明,张昆,章新亮. 稻草覆盖和香根草篱对红壤坡耕地土壤酶活性和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(23): 4602-4612. |
[9] | 肖继兵,孙占祥,蒋春光,郑家明,刘 洋,杨 宁,冯良山,白 伟. 辽西地区坡耕地垄膜沟种对土壤侵蚀和作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(20): 3904-3917. |
[10] | 王春青,李侠,张春晖,李学科,杜桂红,李海,谢小雷. 不同品种鸡蒸煮加工适宜性评价技术研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(15): 3090-3100. |
[11] | 姚启伦,陈发波,刘红芳,方平,赵彩芳. 西南地区玉米地方品种B染色体多态性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(14): 2697-2704. |
[12] | 刘少军,周广胜,房世波. 中国橡胶树种植气候适宜性区划[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(12): 2335-2345. |
[13] | 蒲玉琳1, 2, 3, 谢德体1, 3, 倪九派1, 3, 魏朝富1, 3, 林超文4. 紫色土区植物篱模式对坡耕地土壤抗剪强度与抗冲性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(5): 934-945. |
[14] | 赵锦, 杨晓光, 刘志娟, 吕硕, 王静, 陈阜. 全球气候变暖对中国种植制度的可能影响Ⅹ.气候变化对东北三省春玉米气候适宜性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(16): 3143-3156. |
[15] | 周冬梅1, 张仁陟1, 2, 孙万仓2, 3, 张军1, 2, 王鹤龄4. 北方旱寒区冬油菜种植气候适宜性研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(13): 2541-2551. |
|