Crops ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (3): 155-160.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2021.03.023

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comprehensive Evaluation of the Suitability of Tobacco Planting Soil Fertility in Jingxi City

Li Zilin1,2(), Lu Yachun3, Zhao Leifeng1, Fan Dongsheng3, Wei Zhong3, Zhou Wenliang3, Huang Liguang3, Huang Yang3, Huang Jingpeng3, Gu Xinquan3, Nian Fuzhao1()   

  1. 1College of Tobacco , Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China
    2Huaping County Branch of Lijiang Branch of Yunnan Tobacco Company, Lijiang 674800, Yunnan, China
    3Baise Company, Tobacco Company of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Baise 533000, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2020-06-01 Revised:2021-02-24 Online:2021-06-15 Published:2021-06-22
  • Contact: Nian Fuzhao E-mail:953733810@qq.com;fuzhaonian@126.com

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

180

Abstract:

To accurately evaluate the nutrient status of tobacco-planting soil in Jingxi city, Yunnan province, 206 soil samples were collected from ten tobacco-planting towns in the city and eight indexes (pH, organic matter, alkali-hydrolyzable as evaluation indicators nitrogen, available P, available K, available S, available Zn, and water-soluble Cl), as evaluation indicators.The suitability of soil fertility in the tobacco area of Jingxi was evaluated by using the membership function model, index sum method, and Kriging interpolation method using eight evaluation indicators. The results showed that the soil fertility of all the sampling sites were above grade V, the suitability index was 0.54, and the fertility was moderately low; among the 10 townships, Renzhuang had the highest fertility suitability grade, followed by Tongde, Huadong, Xinjing, Quyang, Yuexu, Dizhou, Xinjia, and Ludong, while Wuping had the lowest fertility. The southern of Renzhuang had the highest fertility, while the southern of Tongde had higher fertility; the northeastern of Quyang had higher fertility; the northern of Yuexu and Xinjing had medium fertility soil fertility; the middle part of Dizhou had lower fertility, the surrounding fertility was high; the overall fertility of Ludong was low; Wuping had the lowest fertility and extremely low in the north. According to the current situation of soil nutrient abundance and deficiency, the spatial distribution map of soil fertility grade was drawn, which provides a basis for scientific fertilization of tobacco production in this region.

Key words: Jingxi, Soil fertility, Membership function, Kriging interpolation method, Comprehensive evaluation

Table 1

Sampling sites and sampling numbers of soil samples"

新靖Xinjing 化峒
Huadong		 同德
Tongde		 武平
Wuping		 渠洋
Quyang		 新甲
Xinjia		 禄峒
Ludon		 岳圩
Yuexu		 壬庄
Renzhuang		 地州
Dizhou		 总数
Total
30 14 20 16 17 23 16 22 20 28 206

Fig.1

Spatial distribution of sample collection"

Table 2

Tobacco-planting soil nutrient abundance system in Jingxi"

分级
Classification		 pH 有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)		 水溶性氯
Water soluble Cl (mg/kg)		 碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzable N (mg/kg)		 速效磷
Available P (mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available K (mg/kg)		 有效硫
Available S (mg/kg)		 有效锌
Available Zn (mg/kg)
低Low (0,5.0] (0,15] (0,5] (0,30] (0,10]) (0,50] (0,5] (0,0.5]
较低Lower (5.0,5.5] (15,25] (5,15] (30,80] (10,20] (50,100] (5,10] (0.5,1.5]
适宜Suitable (5.5,7.0] (25,35] (15,25] (80,120] (20,35] (100,150] (10,25] (1.5,2.5]
较高Higher (7.0,7.5] (35,45] (25,40] (120,180] (35,45] (150,200] (25,40] (2.5,3.5]
高High (>7.5) >45 >40 >180 >45 >200 >40 >3.5

Table 3

The membership function of each indicator and their turning point values"

拐点值
Turning point value		 抛物线型Parabola-type 反S型Anti-S type S型S-type
pH 有机质
Organic matterr
(g/kg)		 碱解氮Alkali-hydrolyzable
N (mg/kg)		 水溶性氯
Water soluble Cl (mg/kg)		 速效磷Available P
(mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available K
(mg/kg)		 有效硫Available S (mg/kg) 有效锌Available Zn (mg/kg)
X1 5.0 15 30 30 20 80 3 1.0
X2 5.5 20 60
X3 6.5 30 120
X4 8.5 45 150 60 40 350 15 90

Table 4

Tobacco-planting fertility soil fertility suitability grade"

适宜性等级Suitability level Ⅰ级Grade I Ⅱ级Grade Ⅱ Ⅲ级Grade Ⅲ Ⅳ级Grade Ⅳ Ⅴ级Grade Ⅴ
得分范围Scoring range IFI≥0.80 0.60≤IFI<0.80 0.40≤IFI<0.60 0.20≤IFI<0.40 IFI<0.20
肥力水平Fertility level 较高 高 中等 低 较低

Table 5

Content and membership of soil indicators"

指标
Index		 指标养分含量总体特征Overall characteristics of index nutrient content 指标隶属度
Index membership
均值±标准差
Mean±SD		 峰度
Kurtosis		 偏度
Skewness		 适宜比例Suitable ratio (%)
低
Low		 较低
Lower		 适宜
Suitable		 较高
Higher		 高
High		 均值±标准差
Mean±SD		 峰度
Kurtosis		 偏度
Skewness
pH 7.17±0.61 -0.69 0.23 0 0 54.37 15.05 30.58 0.49±0.34 -1.58 0
有机质Organic matter (g/kg) 21.04±14.17 -0.97 0.13 33.98 21.36 27.18 13.59 3.88 0.53±0.40 -1.81 0.08
水溶性氯
Water soluble Cl (mg/kg)		 32.64±11.47 32.51 4.20 0 0.97 15.05 64.08 19.90 0.87±0.19 3.82 -1.86
碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzable N (mg/kg)		 123.41±49.27 3.05 0.96 0 18.93 33.01 33.50 14.56 0.77±0.31 -0.20 -1.13
速效磷Available P (mg/kg) 24.16±19.41 9.95 2.58 20.39 33.98 26.70 8.74 10.19 0.35±0.36 -0.71 1.03
速效钾Available K (mg/kg) 126.51±87.09 5.33 2.08 13.59 35.92 25.24 11.17 14.08 0.38±0.36 -0.97 0.86
有效硫Available S (mg/kg) 10.09±8.29 2.46 1.58 33.01 31.55 28.64 5.83 0.97 0.37±0.41 -1.25 0.87
有效锌Available Zn (mg/kg) 2.74±1.15 -0.11 0.65 0 14.08 34.47 26.70 24.76 0.61±0.25 -0.22 -0.61

Table 6

Weights of soil fertility evaluation indicators"

指标
Index		 S型S-type 反S型Anti-S type 抛物线型Parabola-type
速效磷
Available P		 速效钾
Available K		 有效硫
Available S		 有效锌
Available Zn		 水溶性氯
Water soluble Cl		 pH 有机质
Organic matter		 碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzable N
公因子方差CFV 0.579 0.758 0.787 0.471 0.624 0.707 0.673 0.384
权重Weight 0.085 0.055 0.050 0.031 0.135 0.329 0.199 0.116

Table 7

Soil fertility suitability levels and index characteristic values"

地点
Location		 样品数
Number of samples		 适宜性等级Suitability level (%) SFI特征值
SFI value
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ
全部Total 206 7.28 33.01 31.55 28.16 0 0.54±0.18
新靖Xinjing 30 0 40.00 53.33 6.67 0 0.58±0.10bc
化峒Huadong 14 0 42.86 57.14 0 0 0.60±0.05bc
同德Tongde 20 10.00 65.00 25.00 0 0 0.67±0.12ab
武平Wuping 16 0 0 37.50 62.50 0 0.38±0.10f
渠洋Quyang 17 29.41 11.76 0 58.83 0 0.54±0.27cd
新甲Xinjia 23 0 21.74 21.74 56.52 0 0.44±0.15def
禄峒Ludong 16 0 0 68.75 31.25 0 0.41±0.08ef
岳圩Yuexu 22 4.55 36.36 31.82 27.27 0 0.54±0.16cd
壬庄Renzhuang 20 15.00 80.00 5.00 0 0 0.74±0.09a
地州Dizhou 28 14.29 21.42 21.43 42.86 0 0.50±0.22cde

Fig.2

Spatial distribution of soil fertility suitability levels"

[1] 李卫, 周冀衡, 张一扬 , 等. 云南曲靖烟区土壤肥力状况综合评价. 中国烟草学报, 2010(2):61-65.
[2] 郭培国, 陈建军, 李荣华 . pH值对烤烟根系活力及烤后烟叶化学成分的影响. 中国农业科学, 2000,33(1):39-45.
[3] 邓小华, 蔡兴, 张明发 , 等. 喀斯特地区湘西州植烟土壤pH分布特征及其影响因素. 水土保持学报, 2016,30(6):308-311.
[4] 王育军, 周冀衡, 孙书斌 , 等. 云南省罗平县烟区土壤肥力适宜性评价及养分时空变异特征. 土壤, 2015,47(3):515-523.
[5] 左天觉 . 烟草的生产、生理和生物化学. 朱尊权,等译. 上海: 上海远东出版社, 1993.
[6] 李自林, 陆亚春, 赵磊峰 , 等. 广西隆林县植烟土壤肥力评价. 土壤通报, 2020,51(5):1042-1048.
[7] 倪明, 濮永瑜, 何翔 , 等. 保山市植烟土壤养分时空变异特征及土壤肥力适宜性评价. 西南农业学报, 2020,33(10):2303-2309.
[8] 汤宏, 邓洁, 张杨珠 , 等. 硫素营养与烟草生长发育,产量及品质的关系研究进展. 湖南农业科学, 2017(9):124-127.
[9] 付小红, 屠乃美, 张清壮 , 等. 烤烟氯素营养研究. 安徽农业科学, 2016,44(4):120-122,125.
[10] 褚旭, 王珂清, 魏建荣 , 等. 云南植烟土壤肥力状况的组合评价法研究. 中国烟草学报, 2019,25(2):48-54.
[11] 吕晓男, 陆允甫, 王人潮 . 土壤肥力综合评价初步研究. 浙江大学学报, 1999,25(4):378-382.
[12] 骆东奇, 白洁, 谢德体 . 论土壤肥力评价指标和方法. 土壤与环境, 2002(2):202-205.
[13] 骆伯胜, 钟继洪, 陈俊坚 . 土壤肥力数值化综合评价研究. 土壤, 2004,36(1):104-106.
[14] 何元胜, 杨美仙, 亚平 , 等. 临沧烟区土壤肥力综合评价. 中国烟草科学, 2014,35(3):23-26.
[15] 蔡寒玉, 廖文程, 李兰周 , 等. 云南丽江植烟土壤养分状况综合评价. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2016,30(2):341-347.
[16] 鲍士旦 . 土壤农化分析. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[17] 王远鹏, 黄晶, 柳开楼 , 等. 东北典型县域稻田土壤肥力评价及其空间变异. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020,26(2):256-266.
[18] 韦建玉, 黄崇峻, 金亚波 , 等. 重庆市主要烟区土壤肥力状况综合评价. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2019,41(11):30-36.
[19] 陈江华, 李志宏, 刘建利 , 等. 全国主要烟区土壤养分丰缺状况评价. 中国烟草学报, 2004,10(3):18-22.
[20] 李润林, 姚艳敏, 董鹏程 . 基于AHP、负权重和模糊数学的土壤质量评价研究. 湖北农业科学, 2016,55(17):4480-4483.
[21] 黄俊杰, 李世琛, 杨德海 , 等. 大理红塔植烟基地土壤肥力综合评价. 云南农业大学学报, 2017,32(1):125-133.
[22] 李玉宝, 王鹏, 张永革 , 等. 贵州毕节主要植烟区土壤肥力综合评价. 安徽农业科学, 2020,48(24):156-160.
[23] 吴海燕, 金荣德, 范作伟 , 等. 基于主成分和聚类分析的黑土肥力质量评价. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018,24(2):325-334.
[24] 宋峰, 陈桂芬, 王国伟 . 基于GIS与空间数据库技术的土壤肥力评价研究. 吉林农业科学, 2014,39(6):43-46.
[25] 李强, 周冀衡, 杨荣生 , 等. 曲靖植烟土壤养分空间变异及土壤肥力适宜性评价. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(4):950-956.
[26] 王育军, 李爽, 李强 , 等. 云南陆良县烟区土壤肥力评价及其影响因素. 湖南文理学院学报(自然科学版), 2018,30(3):89-94.
[27] 李梅, 张学雷 . 基于GIS的农田土壤肥力评价及其与土体构型的关系. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(1):129-136.
[28] 冯诚, 莫光森 . 广西百色典型烟草种植区土壤肥力评价. 广西农学报, 2016,31(5):46-51.
[29] 卢亮帆, 李素霞, 聂敏贤 , 等. 靖西县田七种植区土壤肥力特征的差异性分析. 现代农业科技, 2016(8):194-196.
[30] 高华军, 韦忠, 罗刚 , 等. 百色市植烟土壤状况及保育和修复技术. 作物研究, 2016,30(6):736-740.
[31] 宋承鉴, 宋月家, 周恩肖 , 等. 广西植烟土攘特征分析. 中国烟草, 1994(2):5-9.
[32] 张一扬, 粟深河, 林北森 , 等. 靖西市植烟土壤有机质含量的时空变异特征. 土壤, 2020,52(1):202-206.
[33] 谭智勇, 周冀衡, 王超 , 等. 云南保山市植烟土壤养分含量及肥力适应性评价. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2013,39(3):430-436.
[34] 胡玲, 周丽娟, 王娟 , 等. 云南烟区植烟土壤养分状况综合评价. 河南农业科学, 2014,43(7):52-59.
[1] Guo Qiang, Ma Wenqing, Qin Changxian, Shi Zesheng, Peng Chong, Bi Dejin, He Hongliang, Liang Yongjian, Tang Liqiu. Comprehensive Evaluation of New Sugarcane Clones by DTOPSIS Method [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 32-37.
[2] Feng Yanfei, Yang Wei, Ren Guoxin, Deng Jie, Li Wenlong, Gao Shuren. Comprehensive Evaluation of Some Maize Hybrids in Heilongjiang Province [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 46-50.
[3] Qu Xiangchun, Wang Nai, Shi Guishan, Yu Miao, Li Haiqing, Gao Yue, Xu Ning, Chen Bingru. Application in Similarity-Difference Analysis Method on Evaluation of Grain Sorghum Hybrids [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 46-50.
[4] Zhou Qilong. Grey Relational Grade Evaluation of 19 Oat Varieties Introduced in Ali of Tibet [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(1): 26-31.
[5] Wang Rui, Ping Jun′ai, Zhang Fuyao, Zhan Pengjie, Chu Jianqiang. Identification and Evaluation of Sorghum Breeding Resources for Barren Tolerance [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 30-37.
[6] Luo Yuqiong, Yan Bo, Wu Ke, Xie Huimin, Liang He, Jiang Ligeng. Effects of No-Tillage and Straw Returning on Soil Fertility and Rice Yield in Farmland [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 133-139.
[7] Zhang Yang, Zhang Wei, Zhao Weijun, Shao Rongfeng, Wang Guan, Xue Dingding, Li Jinmei. Variety Screening and Study of Cultivation Technology for Forage Triticale Varieties Based on Principal Component and Grey Relation Analysis [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(3): 117-124.
[8] Gu Kejun,Gu Dongxiang,Zhang Simei,Zhang Chuanhui,Zhang Henggan,Wu Jingjing,Fan Pingsheng. Short-Term Effects of Tillage and Organic Fertilizer Application on Soil Characters and Annual Rice-Wheat Yield in Coastal Low- and Medium-Yield Farmland of the Old Yellow River [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(1): 76-80.
[9] Ma Fanfan,Xing Sulin,Gan Manqin,Liu Peishi,Huang Yu,Gan Xiaoyu,Ma Youhua. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substituting for Chemical Fertilizer on Rice Yield, Soil Fertility and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss in Farmland [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 89-96.
[10] Li Jing,Nan Ming. Analysis of Agronomic Characters and Genetic Diversity of 62 Winter Wheat Germplasms from Russia and Ukraine in Northwest China [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 9-14.
[11] Jin Yulong,Bai Ting,Zhu Mingxia,Liu Xiaojiao,Wang Shanshan,Zhang Zhiwei,Hu Yun,Zhang Yuhong. Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Nine Tibetan Barley Landlaces by Factor Analysis [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(4): 55-60.
[12] Guo Qingrui,Wang Mengfei,Guo Fengqin,Yin Jianjun,Zhang Xiaojuan,Wang Li. Comprehensive Evaluation of Grain and Forage Maize Varieties in High Latitude and Cold Area of Shanxi Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(4): 61-68.
[13] Zhang Meng,Gou Jiulan,Wei Quanquan,Chen Long,He Jiafang. Effects of Different Biological Organic Fertilizers on the Growth of Spring Potato and Soil Fertility at High Altitude Region in Guizhou Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 132-136.
[14] Liping Mao,Dongtang Wu,Weimin Guo,Jun Ren. The Improved Effects of Planting Asparagus on Soil in Cold Desertification Area [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 180-185.
[15] Shi Liran,Bai Lirong,Lü Yaci,Zhao Minghui,Zhao Fengwu,Li Huimin. Analysis of Salt Tolerance at the Seedling Stage of Wheat Hybrid Variety Heng 9966 [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(6): 149-153.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!