The Relation between Stability of Aggregates on Surface and SOM of Red Bare Soil in the Karst Area of East Yunnan, China

Article Preview

Abstract:

Red bare soil is a kind of soil remained on plateau from ancient ages. Researchs toward better understanding of the relationship between stability of surface aggregate and SOM (Soil Organic Matter) based on 14 typical samples indicate that red bare soil clay (<0.002mm) contents between 12.18% and 64.02% which belongs to poor cultivation performance soil. The number of macro-soil aggregates after dry sieving were far more than the number after wet sieving. Water-stable aggregate content (WSAC) informed the feature of red bare soil. The WSAC were between 28.77% ~ 52.87% at the size >0.25mm and the aggregates destruction rate (PAD0.25) were 34.28% to 68.10%, mean weight diameter (MWD) were at the size of 0.53 to 1mm, geometric mean diameter (GMD) were between 0.37 and 0.58mm, fractal dimension (FD) were between 2.79 and 2.92. The 5 index above indicated the structural stability, anti erodibility and physical property were both poor when compared with other typical soil samples in southwest karst area of China. The research also indicated that soil organic matter (SOM) and WSAC has more effect than mechanical aggregate. SOM has significant positive correlation with MWD and GMD, and significant negative correlation with PAD0.25 and FD. Lack of SOM and exposed led to soil structure stability deterioration. These can be the reason why soil erosion seriously and can’t grow vegetation in red bare soil area.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 1030-1032)

Pages:

920-925

Citation:

Online since:

September 2014

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2014 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] Li Xiaoyan. submitted to Sci Sinterrae (2011).

Google Scholar

[2] Lu Jinwei, Li Zhanbin. submitted to Research of Soil and Water Conservation (2002).

Google Scholar

[3] Shi Yi, Chen Xin and Wen Dazhong. submitted to Chinses Journal of Eco-Agriculture (2005).

Google Scholar

[4] Rattan L. submitted to Soil Science (2000).

Google Scholar

[5] Zheng Zicheng, Li Tingxuan and Zhang Xizhou. submitted to Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (2009).

Google Scholar

[6] Zhao Yonggang, Zhao Shiwei and Hua J. submitted to Acta Prataculturae Sinica (2009).

Google Scholar

[7] Zhou Hu, Lu Yizhong and Yang ZhiChen. submitted to Agricultural Sciences in China(2007).

Google Scholar

[8] Pu Yulin, Lin Chaowei, Xie Deti, et al. submitted to Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (2013).

Google Scholar

[9] Chen Shan, Yang Feng, Lin Bin, et al. submitted to Journal of Soil and Water Conservation(2012).

Google Scholar

[10] Six J, Elliot E T, Paustian K. submitted to Soil Science Society of America Journal (2000).

Google Scholar

[11] LI Yangbin, XIE Deti, WEI Chaofu, et al. submitted to Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin (2002).

Google Scholar

[12] Wang Peijiang, Dai Quanhou, Ding Guijie, et al. submitted to Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (2012).

Google Scholar

[13] Wei Yawei, Su Yirong, Chen Xiangbin, et al. submitted to Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (2010).

Google Scholar

[14] Ma Shuai , Zhao Shiwei, Li Ting, et al. submitted to Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (2011).

Google Scholar

[15] Gong Wei, Hu Tingxing, W Jingyan. submitted to Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (2007).

Google Scholar

[16] Zhang Mingkui, He Zhenli, Chen Guochao, et al. submitted to Acta Pedologica Sinica (1997).

Google Scholar

[17] Li Yangbin, Xie Deti. submitted to Journal of Soil andWater Conservation (2001).

Google Scholar

[18] Yan Ningzhen, Bai Zhongcai, Xu Weihong, et al. submitted to Carsologica Sinica (2011).

Google Scholar