IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p3939-d780409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Substrate Improvement Based on the Minimum Data Set Method

Author

Listed:
  • Dong Tang

    (Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    College of the Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Jianjun Yang

    (Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    College of the Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Ping Cheng

    (Xinjiang Academy of Forestry Sciences, Urumqi 830018, China)

Abstract

Long-term transitional grazing on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang has led to severe vegetation degradation, loss of self-renewal capacity and regional ecological degradation in the region. This study was conducted to improve the soil quality and vegetation restoration efficiency in the foreland zone of the northern slope of the Tianshan Mountains (Xiangyataizi slope) using xanthic acid, bentonite, a green plant growth regulator (GGR) and high amounts of mulch as improvement materials, and eight sets of experiments were conducted. Fifteen physical and chemical indicators were selected as the total data set (TDS), and the minimum data set (MDS) was constructed using principal component analysis (PCA) combined with norm values to evaluate the soils in the study area by nonlinear (NL) and linear (L) evaluation methods. The results showed that the soil quality evaluation indexes of the MDS included effective phosphorus, organic matter, percentage of powder, total potassium and total salt for the Xiangyataizi slope of the Tianshan Mountains. The SQI was ( p < 0.05). The Ⅵ treatment significantly improved soil quality; that is, plastic mulch applied to soil with 250 g of fulvic acid, 1000 g of bentonite and 15 g of GGR (mixed with 100 kg of water) was the best treatment. Additionally, since the nonlinear soil quality evaluation method (SQI-NL) had a smaller variation interval and coefficient of variation of the soil quality index compared with linear soil quality evaluation method (SQI-L), the coefficient of determination between the MDS and TDS was 0.873 and 0.811 under the SQI-NL and SQI-L evaluation methods, respectively. The nonlinear soil quality evaluation method had better applicability in this region, and the minimum data set was more accurate for soil quality evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong Tang & Jianjun Yang & Ping Cheng, 2022. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Substrate Improvement Based on the Minimum Data Set Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3939-:d:780409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3939/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3939/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noge, Hirofumi & Ueno, Yoshie & Kadir, Hasannuddin Abdul & Yahya, Wira Jazair, 2021. "Utilization of palm acid oil for a diffusion combustion burner as fuel and nitrogen oxides reduction by the thermally decomposed hydrocarbons," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fengkui Qian & Yuanjun Yu & Xiuru Dong & Hanlong Gu, 2023. "Soil Quality Evaluation Based on a Minimum Data Set (MDS)—A Case Study of Tieling County, Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3939-:d:780409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.