干旱区滴灌农田土壤盐分变化分析
Analysis of Soil Salt Change in Drip Irrigation Farmland in Arid Area
DOI: 10.12677/HJSS.2019.72016, PDF,   
作者: 孟新伟:新疆第九师农业科学研究所,新疆 额敏;周和平*:新疆水利管理总站,新疆 乌鲁木齐
关键词: 干旱区滴灌农田土壤盐分变化分析Arid Area Drip Irrigation Farmland Soil Salinity Change Analysis
摘要: 为了解强烈干旱农业区非或弱咸性灌溉水质条件下滴灌土壤盐分变化问题,基于12种滴灌作物,土壤层0~30 cm深度,2016至2018年三年定位采集150个样品检测土壤总盐分和土壤八项离子,形成1446个系列数据,经数理统计方法分析结果显示,从滴灌土壤盐分总体变化状态来看,滴灌土壤总盐分含量均有增加且变化差异较大,土壤硫酸根、重碳酸根和钙离子含量居多,是监测灌区土壤酸碱度高土壤呈碱性的主要成因;从滴灌土壤盐分年际变化来看,12种滴灌作物平均土壤总盐分含量随着年份增加呈现明显增加趋势,土壤总盐分由2016年的1.23 g/kg,增加到2018年的2.01 g/kg,土壤硫酸根离子(SO42-)含量最高,由2016年的0.6782 g/kg,增加到2018年的0.6830 g/kg,其次是重碳酸根(HCO3-)由2016年的0.2631 g/kg,增加到2018年的0.3389 g/kg;从土壤盐分构成和盐分增加量来看,主要是重碳酸根、硫酸根离子、氯离子、钾离子和钠离子,表明本区土壤盐分主要是硫酸(碳酸)氯化物类型;从滴灌土壤盐分积累贮量来看,滴灌多种作物综合平均土壤盐分增量和年递增率分别为0.78 g/kg和17.70%,土壤盐分平均积累贮量和年增加量分别为3.57 kg/hm2和1.19 kg/hm2,滴灌土壤盐分积累贮量与滴灌作物用水量大小有关,灌溉用水定额较高,作物土壤盐分相对积累贮量减缓,反之,土壤盐分积累和贮量有所增加。分析结果表明,非或弱咸性灌溉水质长期进行滴灌,在干旱地区存在土壤盐分积累贮量增加的情形。
Abstract: In order to understand the change of soil salinity in drip irrigation under non- or weak-saline ir-rigation water quality in arid agricultural areas, 150 samples were collected in three years from 2016 to 2018 to detect total soil salinity and eight ions forming 1446 series of data. The results of mathematical statistics analysis showed that the total soil salinity of drip irrigation was the same as that of non- or weak-saline irrigation. From the point of view of change, the total salt content of drip irrigation soil increased and showed great difference. Soil sulfate, bicarbonate and calcium ion content were the main reasons for monitoring the alkalinity of soil with high soil acidity and alkalinity in the irrigation area. From the interannual change of soil salinity in drip irrigation, the average total salt content of 12 kinds of drip irrigation crops showed a significant increase trend with the increase of years. Soil total salinity increased from 1.23 g/kg in 2016 to 2.01 g/kg in 2018. Soil sulfate ion (SO42-) content was the highest, from 0.6782 g/kg in 2016 to 0.6830 g/kg in 2018, followed by bicarbonate (HCO3-) from 0.2631 g/kg in 2016 to 0.3389 g/kg in 2018. Root ions, chloride ions, potassium ions and sodium ions indicated that the main types of soil salt in this area were sulfuric acid (carbonate) chloride. From the point of view of soil salt accumulation and storage in drip irrigation, the comprehensive average soil salt increment and annual increment rates of various crops under drip irrigation were 0.78 g/kg and 17.70%, respectively. The average soil salt accumulation and annual increment were 3.57 kg/hm2 and 1.19 kg/hm2, respectively. The relative accumulation of soil salt in crops with higher irrigation water quota slowed down, whereas the accumulation and storage of soil salt increased. The results show that drip irrigation has been used for a long time in non- or weak-saline irrigation water quality, and there is an increase in soil salt accumulation and storage in arid areas.
文章引用:孟新伟, 周和平. 干旱区滴灌农田土壤盐分变化分析[J]. 土壤科学, 2019, 7(2): 127-135. https://doi.org/10.12677/HJSS.2019.72016

参考文献

[1] 韩万海, 王增丽. 不同灌溉模式对土壤水盐分布及棉花产量的影响[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2018, 433(11): 26-29.
[2] 徐大为, 魏占民, 杨黎, 等. 滴灌葵花不同灌溉制度下土壤水盐运移规律[J]. 节水灌溉, 2018, 279(11): 86-93.
[3] 李金刚, 屈忠义, 黄永平, 等. 微咸水膜下滴灌不同灌水下限对盐碱地土壤水盐运移及玉米产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017(1): 217-223.
[4] 白如霄, 陈勇, 王娟, 等. 土壤盐分对膜下滴灌水稻生长及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2016, 53(3): 473-480.
[5] 李亚莉, 乔江飞, 窦晓静, 等. 小麦不同滴灌年限小尺度土壤剖面盐分空间分布特征[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(3): 14-19.
[6] 龚婷婷, 吕德生, 王振华. 北疆滴灌春小麦土壤水盐分布特点研究[J]. 节水灌溉, 2012(6): 1-4.
[7] 周和平, 王少丽, 吴旭春. 膜下滴灌微区环境对土壤水盐运移的影响[J]. 水科学进展, 2014, 25(6): 816-824.
[8] 宗含, 高龙, 王雅琴, 等. 膜下滴灌条件下盐荒地土壤盐分变化规律研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018(6): 7-12.
[9] 梁萌帆, 李明思. 微咸地下水浅埋条件下滴灌频率对土壤盐分运移过程的影响[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 36(4): 422-430.
[10] 罗毅. 干旱区绿洲滴灌对土壤盐碱化的长期影响[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2014(8): 1679-1688.
[11] 李文昊, 王振华, 郑旭荣, 等. 长期膜下滴灌棉田土壤盐分变化特征[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(10): 67-74.
[12] 宰松梅, 仵峰, 温季韩, 等. 不同滴灌方式对棉田土壤盐分的影响[J]. 水利学报, 2011, 42(12): 1496-1503.
[13] 中国科学院南京土壤研究所主编. 土壤理化分析[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1978: 150-233.
[14] 张梅琳主编. 应用统计学[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2009: 261-268.
[15] 郭元裕主编. 农田水利学[M]. 北京: 水利电力出版社, 1986: 38-39.