Effects of different forage planting patterns on saline-alkali soil amelioration in the Yellow River beach land

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240920

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen effective forage planting patterns for ecological restoration of saline-alkali soil in the Ningxia section of the Yellow River beach land, this study employed alfalfa monoculture and four mixed-sowing patterns as experimental treatments. Using a combination of field sampling and laboratory experiments, soil pH value, total salt content, and soluble salt ion concentrations were measured in the third year after planting to evaluate the improvement effects of different forage planting patterns on saline-alkali soil. The results showed that the soil pH in the study area ranged from 8.0 to 8.5, indicating slightly alkaline soil. In the 0-20 cm soil layer, the alfalfa monoculture and mixed-sowing pattern A exhibited higher total salt content compared to other patterns, while mixed-sowing pattern B had the highest total salt content in the >20-40 cm soil layer. Compared with the soil depth, the type of forage planting had a more significant impact on soil soluble salt ion content, while the interaction between forage planting type and soil depth showed no significant impact. Total soil salt content exhibited a highly significantly positive correlation with Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, Na⁺, $\mathrm{SO}_{4}^{2-}$, and Cl^- content, a significantly negative correlation with $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ content, and no significant correlation with $\mathrm{CO}_{3}^{2-}$ content. In conclusion, mixed sowing of alfalfa with gramineous forage demonstrated the best restoration effect on the Yellow River beach land. This study provides a reference for vegetation selection in ecological restoration of saline-alkali soil in the Ningxia section of the Yellow River.

Key words: forage, mixed sowing, Yellow River beach land, saline-alkali soil

CLC Number:

S287

WU Ying, LI Weizhen, LI Wei, WANG Li, WANG Qiaoling, TIAN Ying. Effects of different forage planting patterns on saline-alkali soil amelioration in the Yellow River beach land[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(7): 1742-1747.

Figures/Tables 5

Table 1 Distribution characteristics of soil nutrient content

处理	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全氮含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全磷含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全钾含量/ (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	有效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1)
单播	12.43±0.99 a	0.67±0.06 a	0.85±0.05 a	18.80±0.23 b	44.27±2.66 a	36.50±6.77 a	150.67±8.38 a
混A	9.61±0.53 bc	0.51±0.04 bc	0.71±0.04 c	19.22±0.15 a	27.29±2.27 d	18.43±3.70 c	134.67±13.77 a
混B	10.80±0.49 ab	0.60±0.02 ab	0.76±0.01 bc	18.97±0.19 ab	33.03±2.57 bc	29.10±4.41 ab	139.00±3.56 a
混C	10.95±0.66 ab	0.61±0.01 ab	0.78±0.01 ab	18.78±0.03 b	35.09±0.97 b	24.77±1.68 bc	104.00±10.03 b
混D	8.75±1.08 c	0.47±0.07 c	0.76±0.03 bc	18.84±0.12 b	28.21±3.13 cd	21.23±2.93 bc	105.67±13.77 b

Fig.1 Soil pH value and total salt content after different treatments

Fig.2 Soil soluble salt ions content in each soil layer after different treatments

Table 2 Two-way analysis of soil salt ions

因子	pH值	$CO 3 2 -$	$HCO 3 -$	$SO 4 2 -$	Cl^-	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	K⁺	Na⁺	全盐
播种类型	<0.01	—	—	<0.01	<0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
土层	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
播种类型×土层	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Table 2 Two-way analysis of soil salt ions

因子	pH值	$CO 3 2 -$	$HCO 3 -$	$SO 4 2 -$	Cl^-	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	K⁺	Na⁺	全盐
播种类型	<0.01	—	—	<0.01	<0.05	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
土层	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
播种类型×土层	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Fig.3 Correlation between soluble salt ion concentration and total salt content in soil

References 25

[1]	苏春利, 纪倩楠, 陶彦臻, 等. 河套灌区西部土壤盐渍化分异特征及其主控因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3): 916-923.
[2]	石澎雨, 石晓萍, 侯玉梅, 等. 祁连山自然保护区祁丰林区森林土壤电导率和盐分含量[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(9): 127-129.
[3]	王海, 赵洪民, 陈冠光. 敦煌西湖保护区地下水埋深对表层土壤盐离子含量的影响[J]. 甘肃林业科技, 2024, 49(2): 30-35, 57.
[4]	朱小梅, 邢锦城, 洪立洲, 等. 不同施氮处理下黑麦草翻压还田对滩涂盐渍土碳氮与细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(1):159-168.
[5]	ZHANG X L, GUAN T Y, ZHOU J H, et al. Grounater depth and soil properties are associated with variation in vegetation of a desert riparian ecosystem in an arid area of China[J]. Forests, 2018, 9(1): 34.
[6]	于路加, 王翠平, 马海军, 等. 银川市黄河滩地土壤性状空间分布特征与肥力质量评价[J]. 土壤, 2024, 56(1): 202-213.
[7]	PANDER J, KNOTT J, MUELLER M, et al. Effects of environmental flows in a restored floodplain system on the community composition of fish, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2019, 132: 75-86.
[8]	王巧玲, 吴颖, 王占军, 等. 黄河银川段滩地11种牧草的营养价值、生产性能分析及土壤改良效果评价[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2024, 45(4): 68-77.
[9]	杨升, 王明睿, 刘培刚, 等. 海涂泥质盐碱地不同果桑品种生长适应性分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2024, 65(10): 2477-2485.
[10]	王娅琳, 魏琳, 李娜, 等. 3种牧草种子萌发期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 草业科学, 2023, 40(12): 3104-3113.
[11]	陈逸凡, 云岚, 艾芊, 等. 苜蓿与禾草混播对海流图盐碱地土壤改良效果研究[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(10): 3203-3211.
[12]	邵天韵, 燕潇, 贾秉志, 等. 种植草本植物狗牙根改良滨海黏性盐碱地的研究[J]. 土壤, 2023, 55(4): 764-770.
[13]	周利颖, 李瑞平, 苗庆丰, 等. 内蒙古河套灌区紧邻排干沟土壤盐渍化与肥力特征分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 114-122.
[14]	张丽芳, 胡海林. 土壤酸碱性对植物生长影响的研究进展[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2020, 48(8): 40-43.
[15]	张鞠凡航, 赵一鸣, 刘金霞, 等. 复合型混播地被草组合建植对盐碱地生态修复效果评价[J]. 现代农业研究, 2024, 30(9): 49-54.
[16]	王明涛, 赵玉红, 苗彦军, 等. 西藏林芝河谷地带紫花苜蓿和高羊茅混播牧草品质研究[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(6): 1590-1596.
[17]	周齐, 侯钰荣, 兰吉勇, 等. 11份紫花苜蓿种质播种当年在新疆北疆地区的农艺性状比较分析[J]. 草食家畜, 2024(6): 52-60.
[18]	徐静怡, 石昕岚, 李勋, 等. 国内紫花苜蓿混播研究现状分析[J]. 现代农业研究, 2024, 30(5): 107-111.
[19]	王文虎, 曹文侠, 王小军, 等. 河西走廊荒漠灌区不同豆禾混播对土壤养分及牧草产量的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(5): 40-49.
[20]	阎南南, 崔国文, 张茜, 等. 覆盖秸秆和补播牧草对松嫩退化盐碱草地土壤盐离子含量的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2015, 37(2): 112-116.
[21]	段凯祥, 赵保卫, 张松林, 等. 秦王川土壤酸碱度及盐离子对不同植物的响应[J]. 兰州交通大学学报, 2021, 40(4): 102-107.
[22]	张辉辉, 师尚礼, 李自立, 等. 紫花苜蓿与3种生活型多年生禾草混播的根系构型差异[J]. 草原与草坪, 2024, 44(1): 47-57.
[23]	侯钰荣, 许莹月, 兰吉勇, 等. 紫花苜蓿和冰草混播的根系适应策略探究[J/OL]. 草业科学, (2024-11-19). https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=oWJgMrFo8udRpbWQKo5t_LrpLRipSAx3ElEM3drz-Zwe3oku9EZuM3nOGYyf5E5IfeiWGu7AX6sPq794KUWPYekJrDN33LO1GxtEjMLdKnvafPpVO6WpDhDYVzk1IaUqt1lIt5kLK0555-GcEgmCvgDraMrszLWIpSHNBaBf2n0R93cPxqUtbQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
[24]	冯廷旭, 德科加, 向雪梅, 等. 一年生禾豆混播人工草地产量及品质影响因素的研究进展[J]. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2021, 51(4): 49-54.
[25]	张辉辉, 师尚礼, 武蓓, 等. 苜蓿与3种多年生禾草混播效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(2): 159-170.