4.7 Article

Soil quality evaluation for navel orange production systems in central subtropical China

期刊

SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 225-232

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2015.08.015

关键词

Soil quality evaluation; Soil quality index; Assigning indicator weights; Minimum data set; Navel orange orchards

资金

  1. GanPo 555 Talents Program of Jiangxi Province, China
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [ISSAS Y112000016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil quality evaluations based on crop yields can provide clear guidance for managing agricultural production. Navel oranges are widely cultivated around the world. However, systematic soil quality evaluations for navel orange orchards have not been reported. This study uses two weighting methods, principle component analysis (PCA) and multiple regression analysis (MRA), to evaluate the soil quality of navel orange orchards in central subtropical China. The PCA weighting method is widely used for evaluating soil quality. In contrast, the MRA weighting method, which is linked closely with crop yield, is rarely used. A variety of soil samples, representing the spatial homogeneity in 114 navel orange orchards of Xinfeng County, Jiangxi province, were collected and analyzed for 17 frequently used chemical and physical properties. Result showed that the sensitivity and accuracy of the MRA weighting method were superior to those of the PCA weighting method. Thus, the MRA weighting method was recommended for future soil quality assessments. The soil indicators retained in the minimum data set (MDS) included SUM, silt, pH, AB and AK. The MDS indicators changed with the crop and soil types. Therefore, future soil quality evaluations should be specific to the crop and soil types. Overall, the soil quality of the studied navel orange orchards was low or moderate. Thus, more efforts should be directed towards adding lime and organic, potassium (K) and boron (B) fertilizer in navel orange production management. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据