ارزیابی کیفیت خاک تحت روش‌های مرسوم مدیریت کشاورزی در استان زنجان

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زنجان

2 استادیار گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زنجان

3 استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، کرج

4 دانشیار گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زنجان

5 استادیار مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، استان زنجان

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: کیفیت خاک نقش مهمی در ایجاد ارتباط بین تولید بالا و پایداری منابع اراضی دارد و می‌تواند بر کیفیت هوا، آب و محیط زیست تأثیر‌گذار باشد. ارزیابی تأثیر روش‌های مدیریتی تحت کاربری‌های کشاورزی بر کیفیت خاک از فرآیندهای لازم برای دست‌یابی به مدیریت پایدار خاک در اکوسیستم‌های کشاورزی است. این پژوهش با هدف بررسی تأثیر روش‌های مرسوم مدیریت کشاورزی بر کیفیت خاک در استان زنجان انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: 154 نمونه خاک از 77 مزرعه در سطح استان زنجان (27 سایت در کاربری آبی و 50 سایت در کاربری دیم) از عمق 0 تا 30 و 30 تا 60 سانتی‌متری جمع‌آوری گردید. با توجه به تهدیدات اصلی در ارتباط با خاک در استان زنجان 30 ویژگی فیزیکی، شیمیایی و زیستی خاک اندازه‌گیری و به‌عنوان شناسه‌های کیفیت خاک مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. شاخص تجمعی کیفیت خاک با تلفیق ویژگی‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت خاک تعیین شد. مقایسه‌ی تأثیر روش‌های متداول مدیریتی در کاربری‌های دیم و آبی بر کیفیت خاک با استفاده از شاخص-های آماری انجام شد.
یافته‌ها: در کاربری دیم و در عمق 30-0 سانتی‌متر پایداری خاکدانه‌ها و هدایت هیدرولیکی اشباع خاک به ترتیب 49/49 و 04/22 درصد نسبت به کاربری آبی کم‌تر بود. جرم مخصوص ظاهری خاک در کاربری آبی 68/3 درصد کم‌تر از کاربری دیم بود. کربن آلی، کربن زیست توده‌ی میکروبی، تنفس خاک و شاخص ذخیره‌ی کربن و نیتروژن خاک در کاربری آبی بیش‌تر از کاربری دیم بود. کربن آلی در کاربری دیم، در عمق 30-0 سانتی‌متر 87/33 درصد و در عمق 60-30 سانتی‌متر 43/31 درصد نسبت به کاربری آبی کم‌تر بود. هدایت الکتریکی در عمق 30-0 سانتی‌متر در کاربری دیم 46/50 درصد نسبت به کاربری آبی کم‌تر بود. هم‌چنین، روی قابل جذب در کاربری دیم و در دو عمق 30-0 و 60-30 سانتی‌متر به‌ترتیب 54/66 و 43/63 درصد نسبت به کاربری آبی کم‌تر بود. ضریب متابولیکی در کاربری دیم بیش‌تر از کاربری آبی بود و در این مطالعه به‌عنوان یکی از ویژگی‌های نشان‌دهنده‌ی تخریب خاک شناسایی شد. ضریب متابولیکی در عمق 30-0 و 60-30 سانتی‌متر در کاربری آبی به ترتیب 40 و 33/33 درصد نسبت به کاربری دیم کم‌تر بود. همبستگی مثبت معنی‌دار بین کربن آلی و ویژگی‌های فیزیکی خاک شامل پایداری خاکدانه و هدایت هیدرولیکی اشباع و ویژگی‌های زیستی خاک شامل کربن زیست‌توده‌ی میکروبی و تنفس خاک مشاهده شد. شاخص کیفیت خاک تجمعی در عمق 0 تا 30 سانتی‌متر در کاربری آبی (64/0) به طور معنی‌داری بیش‌تر از کاربری دیم (55/0) بود.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد که از نظر کیفیت خاک، مدیریت کشاورزی آبی شرایط بهتری نسبت به مدیریت کشاورزی دیم دارد. با این وجود، هدایت الکتریکی بالاتر خاک در کاربری آبی ضرورت مدیریت بهتر کودهای شیمیایی و بررسی کیفیت آب‌های مورد استفاده برای آبیاری اراضی استان زنجان را نشان می‌دهد. کربن آلی خاک به عنوان مهم‌ترین ویژگی مؤثر بر کیفیت خاک‌های مورد مطالعه شناسایی شد. استفاده از روش‌های مدیریتی کارآمد از جمله خاک‌ورزی حفاظتی، اجرای تناوب زراعی مناسب و استفاده‌ی متعادل از کودهای شیمیایی و آلی که منجر به افزایش ماده‌ی آلی خاک می‌شود در هر دو کاربری و به‌ویژه در کاربری دیم ضروری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of soil quality under conventional agricultural management methods in Zanjan province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somayeh Hamidi Nehrani 1
  • Mohammad sadegh Askari 2
  • Saeed Saadat 3
  • Mohammad Amir Delavar 4
  • Mehdi Taheri 5
1 Ph.D Student, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan
3 Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Research Institute, Karaj
4 Associate Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zanjan
5 Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Zanjan Province
چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: Soil quality plays an important role in the link between high production and sustainability of land resources and can affect the quality of air, water and environment. Assessing the impact of management practices under agricultural land uses on soil quality is one of the necessary processes to achieve sustainable soil management in agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, this research was carried out with the aim of investigating the effects of conventional agricultural management systems on soil quality in Zanjan province.
Materials and Methods: 154 soil samples were collected from 77 farms in Zanjan province (27 sites in irrigated and 50 sites in rainfed) at 0-30 and 30-60 cm depths. Considering the main threats which are associated with soil in Zanjan province, 30 soil physical, chemical and biological properties were measured and evaluated as the soil quality indicators. Additive soil quality index was determined by integrating soil quality indicators. Statistical parameters were applied to compare conventional management approaches in irrigated and rain-fed land uses on soil quality.
Results: Under rainfed land use, at 0-30 cm depth, the aggregate stability and saturated hydraulic conductivity were decreased 49.49% and 22.04% respectively compared to the irrigated land use. Soil bulk density in irrigated land use was 3.68% lower than rainfed land use. Organic carbon, microbial biomass carbon, soil respiration and carbon and nitrogen stock index were higher under irrigated than rainfed land use. Under rainfed land use, soil organic carbon was decreased 33.87% and 31.43%, at 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm depth respectively, compared to the irrigated land use. The electrical conductivity at 0-30 cm depth was 50.46% lower than irrigated land use. Under rainfed land use, available zinc was decreased 66.54% and 63.43%, at 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm depth respectively, compared to the irrigated land use. The metabolic quotient in rainfed land use was higher than the irrigated land use and was identified as an indicator of soil degradation in this study. The metabolic quotient was reduced in irrigated land use by 40% and 33.33% at 0-30 and 30-60 cm depth respectively, compared to the rainfed land use. A significant positive correlation was found between organic carbon and soil physical properties including aggregate stability and saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil biological properties including microbial biomass carbon and soil respiration. The additive soil quality index at 0-30 cm depth, was significantly higher in irrigated land use (0.64) than rainfed land use (0.55).
Conclusion: The results showed that in terms of soil productivity and quality, irrigated management has better conditions than rainfed management. However, higher soil electrical conductivity in irrigated land use indicates the necessity of better chemical fertilizer management and assessing water quality used for irrigating lands in Zanjan province. Soil organic carbon was identified as the most important indicator that influenced the quality of studied soils. Using efficient management approaches including conservational tillage, operating appropriate crop rotation and application of equivalent chemical and organic fertilizers which result in increasing soil organic material are essential for both land uses, particularly under rainfed farming.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • soil physical quality
  • soil biological quality
  • agricultural land use
  • Soil management
1.Abawi, G.S., and Widmer, T.L. 2000. Impact of soil health management practices on soil borne pathogens, nematodes and root diseases of vegetable crops. Applied Soil Ecology. 15: 1. 37-47.
2.Alamdari, P., Rezaee, B., and Golchin, A. 2016. Effect of land use change on soil quality and clay mineralogy in Valarude region of Zanjan province. J. Water Soil Sci. 26: 1-1. 305-316. (In Persian)
3.Alef, K. 1995. Soil respiration. P 214-215, In: K. Alef and P. Nannipieri (eds.), Methods in Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry, Academic Press Inc., San Diego.
4.Alidoust, A., Afyuni, M., Hajabbasi, M.A., and Mosaddeghi, M.R. 2015. The impact of land use on some qualitative characteristics of soil, Case study: Lordegan watershed. 14th Soil Science Congress of Iran, Rafsanjan, Pp: 274-278. (In Persian)
5.Anderson, T.H., and Domsch, K.H. 1993. The metabolic quotient (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry.
25: 393-395.
6.Anderson, T.H. 2003. Microbial eco-physiological indicators to assess soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 98: 285-293.
7.Armenise, E., Redmile-Gordon, M.A., Stellacci, A.M., Ciccarese, A., and Rubino, P. 2013. Developing a soil quality index to compare soil fitness for agricultural use under different managements in the Mediterranean environment. Soil and Tillage Research.130: 91-98.
 8.Askari, M.S., and Holden, N.M. 2015. Quantitative soil quality indexing of temperate arable management systems. Soil and Tillage Research. 150: 57-67.
9.Babakkhani, A.R., and Sadeghi, A. 2004. Geological map of Zanjan: 1:100000, Geological Survey of Iran. 1p. (In Persian)
10.Banaei, M.H. 2000. Soil resources and use potentiality map of Iran. Soil and Water Research Institute. Tehran. 6p. (In 
11.Basher, L., Betts, H., Lynn, I., Marden, M., McNeill, S., Page, M., and Rosser, B. 2017. A preliminary assessment of the impact of landslide, earthflow and gully erosion on soil carbon stocks in New Zealand. Geomorphology. 307: 93-106.
12.Bastida, F., Zsolnay, A., Hernández, T., and García, C. 2008. Past, present and future of soil quality indices:A biological perspective. Geoderma. 147: 3-4. 159-171.
13.Beheshti, A., Raiesi, F., and Golchin, A. 2011. The effects of land use conversion from pasturelands to croplands on soil microbiological and biochemical indicators. J. Water Soil. 25: 3. 548-562. (In Persian)
14.Bini, D., Alcantara, C., Banhos, K., Kishino, N., Andrade, G., Zangaro, W., and Nogueira, M. 2013. Effects of land use on soil organic carbon and microbial processes associated with soil health in southern Brazil. Europ. J. Soil Biol. 55: 117-123.
15.Black, C.A., Evans, D.D., White,J.L., Ensminger, L.E., and Clark,F.E. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. "Chemical and Microbiological Properties". American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Agronomy Series No. 9, 801p.
16.Bremer, E., Janzen, H.H., Ellert, B.H., and McKenzie, R.H. 2008. Soil organic carbon after twelve years of various crop rotations in an Aridic Boroll. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 72: 970-974.
17.Carter, M.R., and Gregorich, E.G. 2008. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida. 1204p.
18.Doran, J.W., and Parkin, T.B. 1994. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. P 25-37, In: J.W. Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.), Methods for assessing soil quality. Special Publication 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison.
19.Franzluebbers, A.J., Causarano, H.J., and Norfleet, M.L. 2011. Soil conditioning index and soil organic carbon in the Midwest and southeastern United States. J. Soil Water Cons.66: 3. 178-182.
20.Gebeyehu, G., and Soromessa, T. 2018. Status of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks in Koga Watershed Area, Northwest Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security. 7: 9.
21.Gee, G.W., and Bauder, J.W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. P 383-411, In: A. Klute (eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
22.Gorji,M., Kakeh, J., and Alimohammadi, A. 2017. Quantitative soil quality assessment in different land uses at some Parts of south eastern of Qazvin. Iran. J. Soil Water Res.47: 4. 775-784. (In Persian)
23.Green, V.S., Stott, D.E., Cruz, J.C., and Curi, N. 2008. Tillage impacts on soil biological activity and aggregation in Brazilian cerrado oxisols. Soil and Tillage Research. 92: 114-121.
24.Grossman, R.B., and Reinsch, T.G. 2002. 2.1 Bulk Density and Linear Extensibility. P 201-228, In: A.W. Dick (eds.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 4 Physical methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series, Madison.
25.Hussain, I., Olson, K.R., Wander, M.M., and Karlen, D.L. 1999. Adaptation of soil quality indices and application to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil and Tillage Research. 50: 237-249.
26.Jamal, A., Delavar, M.A., Naderi, A., Nourieh, N., Medi, B., and Mahvi, A.H. 2018. Distribution and health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil surrounding a lead and zinc smelting plant in Zanjan, Iran. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 
27.Jones, N., de Graaff, J., Duarte, F., Rodrigo, I., and Poortinga, A. 2014. Farming systems in two less favored areas in Portugal: their development from 1989 to 2009 and the implication for sustainable land management. Land Degradation and Development. 25: 29-44.
28.Kelishadi, H., Mossaddeghi, M.R., Hajabbasi, M.A., and Ayoubi, S. 2014. Near-saturated soil hydraulic properties as influenced by land use management systems in Koohrang region of central Zagros, Iran. Geoderma. 213: 426-434.
29.Kemper, W.D., and Rosenau, R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. P 425-442, In: A. Klute (eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part I: Physical analysis. Soil Science Society of America, Madison.
30.Kimble, J.M., Heath, L.S., Birdsey, R.A., and Lal, R. 2003. The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press LLC, New York, 394p.
31.Klute, A., and Dirkson, C. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. P 687-734, In: A. Klute (eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
32.Lal, R., Kimble, J., and Follett, R.F. 1997. Pedospheric processes and the carbon cycle. P 1-8, In: R., Lal, W.H. Blum, C. Valentine and B.A. Stewart (eds.), Methods for assessment of soil degradation. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
33.Lima, A.C.R., Brussaard, L., Totola, M.R., Hoogmoed, W.B., and de Goede, R.G.M. 2013. A functional evaluation of three indicator sets for assessing soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology. 64: 194-200.
34.McKenzie, N.J., Webster, R., and Ryan, P.J. 2008. Sampling using statistical methods. P 317-326, In: N.J., McKenzie, M.J. Grundy, R. Webster and A.J. Ringrose-Voase (eds.), Guidelines for surveying soil and land resources, second ed. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.
35.Masto, R.E., Chhonkar, P.K., Singh, D., and Patra, A.K. 2008. Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping, fertilisation and manur-ing for 31 years in the semi-arid soils of India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 136: 419-435.
36.Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na and NH4 by North Carolina Soil Testing Laboratories. University of North Carolina, Raleigh.
37.Misaghi, F., Delgosha, F., Razzaghmanesh, M., and Myers, B. 2017. Introducing a water quality index for assessing water for irrigation purposes: A case study of the GhezelOzanRiver. Science of the Total Environment. 589: 107-116.
38.Mohaghegh, P., Naderi, M., and Mohammadi, J. 2016. Determination of minimum data set for assessment of soil quality: A case study in Choghakhur lake basin. J. Water Soil. 30: 1232-1243. (In Persian)
39.Mohammadian, M., Nouri, J., Afshari, N., Nassiri, J., and Nourani, M. 2008. Investigation of heavy metals concentrations in the water wells close to Zanjan zinc and lead smelting plant. Iran. J. Health Environ. 1: 51-56. (In Persian)
40.Mueller, L., Schindler, U., and Dexter, A. 1994. Subsoil structure characteristics of river lowland clay soils with shallow water tables, 13. International Soil Tillage Research Organization, Aalborg (Denmark), 24-29 Jul 1994. KVL, ISTRO.
41.Mulugeta, D., and Karl, S. 2010. Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on key soil properties in south Gondar, north-western Highlands of Ethiopia. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage. 1: 7. 164-176.
42.Nabiollahi, K., Golmohamadi, F., Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R., Kerry, R., and Davari, M. 2018. Assessing the effects of slope gradient and land use change on soil quality degradation through digital mapping of soil quality indices and soil loss rate. Geoderma. 318: 16-28.
43.Naderi, A., Delavar, M.A., Kaboudin, B., and Askari, M.S. 2017. Assessment of spatial distribution of soil heavy metals using ANN-GA, MSLR and satellite imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Pp: 189-214.
44.Nath, A.J., and Lal, R. 2017. Effects of tillage practices and land use management on soil aggregates and soil organic carbon in the north Appalachian region, USA. Pedosphere. 27: 172-176.
45.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. P 539-579, In: A.L. Page (eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. 2nd Ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
47.PBO. 2016. Plan and Budget Organization, Statistical Center of Iran (SCI), Iran Statistical Yearbook, 102p. (In Persian)
48.Pierzynski, G.M. 2000. Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals and waters. North CarolinaStateUniversity, Raleigh, 102p.
49.Reynolds, W.D., Drury, C.F., Yang, X.M., and Tan, C.S. 2008. Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma. 146: 3-4. 466-474.
50.Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. P 149-157, In: A.L. Page (eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and mineralogical properties. Agron. No. 9, 2nd Ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
51.Saieedifar, Z., Asgari, H., and Akram GHaderi, F. 2016. Effects of soil compaction on carbon and nitrogen sequestration in soil and wheat, soil physical properties and aggregates stability (Case study: Northern of Aq Qala). J. Water Soil. 29: 6. 1553-1566. (In Persian)
52.Sanchez, P.A., and Swaminathan, M.S. 2005. Hunger in Africa: the link between unhealthy people and unhealthy soils. The Lancet. 365: 9457. 442-444.
53.Shukla, M.K., Lal, R., and Ebinger, M. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research.87: 2. 194-204.
54.Simon, A., Dhendup, K., Rai, P.B., and Gratzer, G. 2018. Soil carbon stocks along elevational gradients in Eastern Himalayan mountain forests. Geoderma Regional. 12: 28-38.
55.Singh, M.J., and Khera, K.L. 2009. Physical indicators of soil quality in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses. Arid Land Research and Management. 23: 152-167.
56.Sparling, G.P. 1997. Soil microbial biomass, activity and nutrient cycling as indicators of soil health. P 97-119, In: C., Pankhurst, B.M. Doube and V.V.S.R. Gupta (eds.), Biological indicators of soil health. Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International, Wallingford, UK.
57.Thomas, G.W. 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. P 475-490, In: J.M. Bingham (eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison.
58.Toledo, D.M., Galantini, J., Dalurzo, H., Vazquez, S., and Bollero, G. 2013. Methods for assessing the effects of land use changes on carbon stocks of subtropical oxisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 77: 5. 1542-1552.
59.Tóth, G., Hermann, T., Da Silva, M.R., and Montanarella, L. 2016. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environment International. 88: 299-309.
60.Vance, E.D., Brookes, P.C., and Jenkinson, D.S. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass-C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 19: 703-707.
61.Walker, D.J., and Bernal, M.P. 2008. The effects of olive mill waste compost and poultry manure on the availability and plant uptake of nutrients in a highly saline soil. Bioresource Technology.99: 396-403.
62.Walsh, A. 1955. The application of atomic absorption spectra to chemical analysis. Spectrochimica Acta. 7: 108-117.
63.Zakii, J., Asoodar, M.A., and Almasi, M. 2014. Effect of hill slope, tillage and seeding techniques on soil erosion, alimentary elements, organic material and wheat grain yield under rain fed condition. Applied Field Crops Research. 27: 
64.ZanjanProvince Governorate. 2014. Report of the Strategic Development Plan of Agricultural and Watershed of ZanjanProvince Based on the Meetings of Agricultural and Water Governance Room. Planning and Budget Office. (In 
65.Zeng, D.H., Hu, Y.L., Chang, S.X., and Fan, Z.P. 2009. Land cover change effects on soil chemical and biological properties after planting Mongolian pine (Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica) in sandy lands in Keerqin, northeastern China. Plant and Soil. 317: 121-133.