Soil Available Phosphorus Investigated for Spatial Distribution and Effect Indicators Resulting from Ecological Construction on the Loess Plateau, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Soil Sample Collection and Determination Methods
2.2.2. Data Analysis and Processing Methods
3. Results
3.1. Statistical Characteristics of SAP
3.2. Changes of SAP and Bulk Density with Different Land Uses
3.3. Relationship between SAP Content and Topographic Factors
3.4. Geostatistics Analysis of SAP
3.5. Spatial Distribution of SAP
3.6. SAP Density and Reserves under Different Land Uses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bureau, M.F.; Mederski, H.J.; Evans, C.E. The effect of phosphatic fertilizer material and soil phosphorus level on the yield and phosphorus uptake of soybeans. Agron. J. 1953, 45, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehnaz, K.R.; Keitel, C.; Dijkstra, F.A. Phosphorus availability and plants alter soil nitrogen retention and loss. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 786–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mao, R.; Zhang, X.-H.; Li, S.-Y.; Song, C.-C. Long-term phosphorus addition enhances the biodegradability of dissolved organic carbon in a nitrogen-limited temperate freshwater wetland. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaind, S.; Pandey, A.K. Microbial biomass, P-nutrition, and enzymatic activities of wheat soil in response to phosphorus enriched organic and inorganic manures. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2006, 41, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meinikmann, K.; Hupfer, M.; Lewandowski, J. Phosphorus in groundwater discharge—A potential source for lake eutrophication. J. Hydrol. 2015, 524, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, T.C.; Sharpley, A.N.; Lemunyon, J.L. Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication: A symposium overview. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 27, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, S.D.; Li, Z.B.; Li, P.; Li, J. Experimental study on dynamic process of soil water-nutrient loss on slope with different pattern of grass. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014, 28, 58–61, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Yan, P.; Shen, C.; Fan, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Han, W. Tea planting affects soil acidification and nitrogen and phosphorus distribution in soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 254, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junior, R.V.; Varandas, S.G.P.; Fernandes, L.S.; Pacheco, F.A.L. Groundwater quality in rural watersheds with environmental land use conflicts. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 812–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordóñez-Fernández, R.; Rodríguez-Lizana, A.; Espejo-Pérez, A.J.; González-Fernández, P.; Saavedra, M.M. Soil and available phosphorus losses in ecological olive groves. Eur. J. Agron. 2007, 27, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valera, C.A.; Valle, R.F., Jr.; Varandas, S.; Fernandes, L.; Pacheco, F. The role of environmental land use conflicts in soil fertility: A study on the Uberaba River basin, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Li, S.; Peng, W.; Yu, B. Erodibility of agricultural soils on the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 76, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fu, B.; Liu, Y.; Lü, Y.; He, C.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, B. Assessing the soil erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Complex. 2011, 8, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, X.; Fu, B.; Piao, S.; Wang, S.; Ciais, P.; Zeng, Z.; Lü, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Li, Y.; Jiang, X.; et al. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 1019–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.B.; Li, J.J.; He, X.Z.; Liu, X.Y.; Wang, F.G. The status and sediment reduction effects of level terrace in the Loess Plateau. Yellow River 2015, 37, 89–93, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, L.P. Change of Soil Quality and Its Regulation in Re-Vegetation Ecosystem of the Loess Plateau; Northwest A.&F. University: Xianyang, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, X.; Xue, Z.; Li, B.; An, S. Soil organic carbon distribution in relation to land use and its storage in a small watershed of the Loess Plateau, China. CATENA 2012, 88, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Wang, G.-L.; Liu, G.-B.; Shangguan, Z.-P. Effects of age and land-use changes on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestrations following cropland abandonment on the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Xia, J.; Xie, W. Application of semi-variogram and Moran’s I to spatial distribution of trace elements in soil: A case study in Shouguang County. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ. 2011, 36, 1129–1133. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, G.C.; Li, Z.B.; Li, P.; Liu, X.J.; Gao, H.D. Study on TN spatial variability of Yingwugou small watershed in Dan River. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 25, 59–63, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, D.R.; Bouma, J. Soil spatial variability. In Proceedings of the Workshop of the ISSS and the SSSA, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 30 November—1 December 1984; pp. 170–175. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, B.; Li, Z.; Li, P.; Xu, G.; Gao, H.; Cheng, Y.; Chang, E.; Yuan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, Z. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and its influencing factors under the condition of ecological construction in a hilly-gully watershed of the Loess Plateau, China. Geoderma 2017, 296, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Z.; Qin, Y.; Yu, X. Spatial variability in soil organic carbon and its influencing factors in a hilly watershed of the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2016, 137, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Li, Z.; Dong, Y.; Nie, X.; Liu, L.; Xiao, H.; Zeng, G. Do land use change and check-dam construction affect a real estimate of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks on the Loess Plateau of China? Ecol. Eng. 2017, 101, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpley, A.N. The selection erosion of plant nutrients in Runoff. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1985, 49, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.Y. Contents and Characteristic of Different from Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Rhizosphere; Northwest A.&F. University: Xianyang, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, D.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Song, K.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Li, F.; Duan, H. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and analysis of related factors in croplands of the black soil region, Northeast China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.Q.; Hall, C.A.S.; Cornell, J.D.; Hall, M.H.P. Spatial dependence and the relationship of soil organic carbon and soil moisture in the Luquillo, Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Landsc. Ecol. 2002, 17, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-Q.; Zhang, X.-C.; Zhang, J.-L.; Li, S.-J. Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in a watershed on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 486–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Layer Depth (cm) | Mean Value | Standard Deviation | Min. | Max. | Skewness | Kurtosis | K-S (p) | CV (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 28.19 | 10.27 | 1.14 | 50.4 | −0.39 | −0.19 | 0.52 | 36 |
A2 | 27.26 | 10.12 | 1.17 | 50.72 | −0.45 | −0.26 | 0.35 | 37 |
A3 | 28.4 | 10.56 | 0.7 | 54.57 | −0.15 | −0.03 | 0.48 | 37 |
A4 | 27.66 | 10.54 | 0.52 | 57.15 | −0.24 | −0.05 | 0.87 | 38 |
A5 | 29.37 | 10.21 | 2.62 | 59.25 | −0.15 | 0.43 | 0.71 | 35 |
Layer Depth (cm) | Terrace | Grassland | Forestland | Sloping Cropland | Check Dam | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SAP | Bulk Density | SAP | Bulk Density | SAP | Bulk Density | SAP | Bulk Density | SAP | Bulk Density | |
(mg/kg) | (g/cm3) | (mg/kg) | (g/cm3) | (mg/kg) | (g/cm3) | (mg/kg) | (g/cm3) | (mg/kg) | (g/cm3) | |
A1 | 30.53 | 1.28 | 28.95 | 1.26 | 26.52 | 1.27 | 28.51 | 1.29 | 30.7 | 1.37 |
A2 | 28.6 | 1.35 | 28.33 | 1.35 | 24.85 | 1.28 | 26.83 | 1.36 | 27.12 | 1.17 |
A3 | 29.24 | 1.34 | 29.19 | 1.4 | 26.87 | 1.32 | 25.3 | 1.32 | 27.04 | 1.33 |
A4 | 28.15 | - | 29.5 | - | 24.59 | - | 26.12 | - | 24.94 | - |
A5 | 29.06 | - | 29.97 | - | 26.73 | - | 25.36 | - | 25.09 | - |
Mean Value | 29.11 | 1.32 | 29.19 | 1.34 | 25.84 | 1.29 | 26.42 | 1.32 | 26.98 | 1.29 |
Terrain Factors | Gradient (°) | Altitude (m) | Slope Aspect | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0–3 | 3–8 | 8–15 | 15–25 | 25–35 | >35 | ≤1000 | 1000–1050 | 1050–1100 | >1100 | Sunny Slope | Shady Slope | ||
Check Dam | A1 | 26.26 | - | - | - | - | - | 29.78 | 31.49 | - | - | 30.7 | - |
A2 | 23.91 | - | - | - | - | - | 29.5 | 25.07 | - | - | 27.12 | - | |
A3 | 29.5 | - | - | - | - | - | 27.42 | 26.72 | - | - | 27.04 | - | |
A4 | 23.96 | - | - | - | - | - | 25.57 | 24.4 | - | - | 24.94 | - | |
A5 | 28.8 | - | - | - | - | - | 28.06 | 22.56 | - | - | 25.09 | - | |
Terrace | A1 | 29.66 | - | - | - | - | - | 32.53 | 33.91 | 28.28 | 9.66 | 28.6 | 30.35 |
A2 | 27.57 | - | - | - | - | - | 32.72 | 30.86 | 25.62 | 11.42 | 27.62 | 27.54 | |
A3 | 28.31 | - | - | - | - | - | 30.71 | 32.26 | 27.15 | 9.57 | 30.69 | 26.76 | |
A4 | 27.91 | - | - | - | - | - | 31.55 | 29.02 | 28.67 | 14.68 | 27.61 | 28.1 | |
A5 | 29.49 | - | - | - | - | - | 29.18 | 31.33 | 31.82 | 12.21 | 29.24 | 29.66 | |
Grassland | A1 | - | 27.59 | 30.86 | 27.42 | 27.48 | 31.63 | 38 | 28.8 | 29.7 | 26.84 | 28.88 | 29.2 |
A2 | - | 31.63 | 29.12 | 27.26 | 25.18 | 31.53 | 38.05 | 29.6 | 27.18 | 26.45 | 27.33 | 28.94 | |
A3 | - | 29.73 | 33.05 | 25.85 | 29.98 | 29.56 | 35.46 | 29.13 | 29.99 | 26.5 | 29.32 | 28.99 | |
A4 | - | 25.06 | 31.82 | 26.17 | 28.59 | 31.12 | 34.86 | 29.03 | 30.99 | 24.16 | 29.05 | 28.85 | |
A5 | - | 29.69 | 33.04 | 29.89 | 27.43 | 32.65 | 37.5 | 30.61 | 30.11 | 29.04 | 30.3 | 30.36 | |
Forestland | A1 | 25.28 | 22.28 | 22.31 | 28.9 | 19.89 | 27.65 | 27.94 | 26.39 | 28.38 | 22.43 | 25.8 | 24.86 |
A2 | 6.53 | 19.02 | 22 | 30.19 | 22.69 | 27.69 | 31.71 | 25.66 | 23.44 | 23.57 | 26.03 | 23.14 | |
A3 | 0.7 | 25.33 | 20.06 | 36.15 | 19.06 | 31.25 | 27.38 | 28.78 | 24.67 | 27.22 | 27.64 | 26.6 | |
A4 | 26.69 | 21.79 | 20.27 | 29.26 | 21.76 | 27.43 | 24.37 | 25.34 | 25.24 | 25.13 | 26.6 | 22.72 | |
A5 | 16.37 | 31.69 | 21.49 | 34.16 | 28.48 | 30.08 | 35.83 | 26.41 | 27.09 | 30.07 | 31.69 | 23.69 | |
Sloping Cropland | A1 | - | 33.1 | 27.2 | 28.05 | 21.34 | 27.06 | 31.14 | 21.18 | 22.72 | 30.95 | 25.51 | 25.94 |
A2 | - | 26.18 | 27.45 | 28.29 | 26.04 | 27.56 | 30.59 | 23.32 | 27.84 | 26.06 | 27.89 | 26.68 | |
A3 | - | 31.87 | 23.82 | 27.44 | 23.37 | 19.28 | 26.52 | 20.35 | 27.86 | 30.79 | 26.5 | 24.53 | |
A4 | - | 24.22 | 29.33 | 30.58 | 21.48 | 30.69 | 30.99 | 19.69 | 30.13 | 24.5 | 22.31 | 28.44 | |
A5 | - | 29.72 | 31.18 | 26.83 | 21.32 | 21.06 | 24.35 | 22.44 | 26.3 | 31.62 | 22.66 | 25.98 |
Layer Depth | C0 | C0 + C | Nugget Coefficient | Variation Amplitude | Model | R2 | Residual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GD (%) | (m) | RSS | |||||
A1 | 49 | 98 | 50 | 424 | Spherical | 0.861 | 205 |
A2 | 28.7 | 90.35 | 68 | 194 | Gaussian | 0.941 | 170 |
A3 | 20.8 | 108.8 | 81 | 308 | Spherical | 0.859 | 410 |
A4 | 21.1 | 106.2 | 80 | 322 | Spherical | 0.71 | 1068 |
A5 | 53.5 | 110 | 51 | 493 | Spherical | 0.867 | 285 |
Layer Depth (cm) | Terrace | Grassland | Forestland | Sloping Cropland | Check Dam | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SAP | CV | SAP | CV | SAP | CV | SAP | CV | SAP | CV | |
(g/m2) | (%) | (g/m2) | (%) | (g/m2) | (%) | (g/m2) | (%) | (g/m2) | (%) | |
A1 | 7.91 | 9.51 | 7.08 | 3.77 | 6.44 | 5.52 | 7.16 | 8.47 | 7.77 | 7.02 |
A2 | 7.63 | 9.96 | 7.21 | 3.98 | 6 | 7.24 | 7.11 | 8.24 | 6.01 | 6.81 |
A3 | 7.97 | 8.89 | 7.2 | 4.27 | 6.43 | 8.17 | 6.6 | 8.6 | 7.07 | 6.49 |
A4 | 7.51 | 8.71 | 7.67 | 3.98 | 6.3 | 6.02 | 6.86 | 9.95 | 6.68 | 6.31 |
A5 | 7.98 | 8.83 | 7.95 | 3.56 | 6.63 | 7.16 | 6.65 | 8.6 | 6.67 | 7.32 |
0–100 cm | 39 | 8.63 | 37.12 | 3.51 | 31.81 | 6.29 | 34.37 | 8.31 | 34.19 | 5.78 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cheng, S.; Ke, G.; Li, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Wu, H. Soil Available Phosphorus Investigated for Spatial Distribution and Effect Indicators Resulting from Ecological Construction on the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12572. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212572
Cheng S, Ke G, Li Z, Cheng Y, Wu H. Soil Available Phosphorus Investigated for Spatial Distribution and Effect Indicators Resulting from Ecological Construction on the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(22):12572. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212572
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Shengdong, Ganggang Ke, Zhanbin Li, Yuting Cheng, and Heng Wu. 2021. "Soil Available Phosphorus Investigated for Spatial Distribution and Effect Indicators Resulting from Ecological Construction on the Loess Plateau, China" Sustainability 13, no. 22: 12572. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212572