| Literature DB >> 33285923 |
Jiping Niu1,2, Xiaoling Su1,2, Zejun Tang3, Kaiwen Lu1, Gengxi Zhang1,2, Fengxin Wang3, Jie Wang4.
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to investigate the combined application effects of fly ash (FA) (0, 5%, 10%, and 15% (w/w) soil) and polyacrylamide (PAM) (0, 0.006% and 0.012% (w/w) soil) on the edge of Hobq Desert in Inner Mongolia, China from May 2016 to October 2018. Seven different ratios of FA and PAM were selected as evaluation objects, a total of 14 soil property indices and 9 Artemisia ordosica growth indices were selected as evaluation indicators, and the entropy weight method was employed to evaluate the soil physicochemical properties and vegetation growth performances under FA and PAM amendments. The results showed that the F15P1 (15% FA + 0.006% PAM) and F5P1 (5% FA + 0.006% PAM) were the effective treatments for soil improvement and Artemisia ordosica growth respectively. Considering the soil properties and Artemisia ordosica growth in 2016-2018 synthetically, the highest score was observed in the F5P1, followed by the F5P2 (5% FA + 0.012% PAM) and F10P1 (10% FA + 0.006% PAM) treatments. The optimal amounts for FA and PAM should be recommended as 5% and 0.006%, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: anionic polyacrylamide (PAM); desertification control; entropy weight method; fly ash (FA)
Year: 2020 PMID: 33285923 PMCID: PMC7516561 DOI: 10.3390/e22020148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Design of experiment.
| Treatment | FA | PAM |
|---|---|---|
| CK | 0 | 0 |
| F5P1 | 5 | 0.006 |
| F5P2 | 5 | 0.012 |
| F10P1 | 10 | 0.006 |
| F10P2 | 10 | 0.012 |
| F15P1 | 15 | 0.006 |
| F15P2 | 15 | 0.012 |
Physicochemical properties of the fly ash (FA) and soil used in the experiment.
| Properties | Element | FA | Soil |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Bulk density (g/cm3) | 1.07 | 1.52 |
| Sand (20–2000 μm) (%) | 27.4 | 97.9 | |
| Silt (2–20 μm) (%) | 70.8 | 2.03 | |
| Clay (0.01–2 μm) (%) | 1.8 | 0.07 | |
| Texture | Silt loam | Sandy loam | |
|
| pH | 8.42 | 7.25 |
| EC (ms/cm) | 1.62 | 0.31 | |
| Total nitrogen (g/kg) | - | 0.15 | |
| Total phosphorous (g/kg) | 0.22 | 0.18 |
Mean values of soil property indices.
| Treatments | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 1.53 | 38.25 | 37.20 | 24.99 | 24.31 | 0.62 | 7.25 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| F5P1 | 1.42 | 38.89 | 38.34 | 27.48 | 27.09 | 0.64 | 7.68 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.17 |
| F5P2 | 1.42 | 40.37 | 39.36 | 28.40 | 27.69 | 0.68 | 7.64 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
| F10P1 | 1.41 | 38.97 | 37.48 | 27.93 | 26.84 | 0.65 | 7.73 | 0.34 | 0.25 | 0.18 |
| F10P2 | 1.40 | 39.53 | 38.29 | 28.27 | 27.38 | 0.66 | 7.71 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.18 |
| F15P1 | 1.35 | 43.24 | 42.44 | 32.08 | 31.48 | 0.76 | 7.79 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 0.18 |
| F15P2 | 1.34 | 42.94 | 42.17 | 32.02 | 31.44 | 0.75 | 7.87 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.19 |
Note: X1–X10: soil bulk density (g/cm3), total soil porosity (%), soil capillary porosity (%), saturated water content (%), field water-holding capacity (%), soil void ratio (%), pH, soil conductivity (dS/m), total nitrogen (g/kg), total phosphorous (g/kg).
Ej and Wj of soil property indices.
| Soil Property Indices |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 0.8125 | 0.0609 | |
| 0.675 | 0.1055 | |
| 0.6333 | 0.1191 | |
| 0.7447 | 0.0829 | |
| 0.7499 | 0.0812 | |
| 0.7054 | 0.0957 | |
| 0.5708 | 0.1394 | |
| 0.6956 | 0.0988 | |
| 0.6018 | 0.1293 | |
| 0.7312 | 0.0873 |
Note: X1–X10: soil bulk density (g/cm3), total soil porosity (%), soil capillary porosity (%), saturated water content (%), field water-holding capacity (%), soil void ratio (%), pH, soil conductivity (dS/m), total nitrogen (g/kg), total phosphorous (g/kg).
Comprehensive scores and rankings of soil property under different treatments.
| CK | F5P1 | F5P2 | F10P1 | F10P2 | F15P1 | F15P2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fi | 13.74 | 14.43 | 14.83 | 14.38 | 14.60 | 16.15 | 16.10 |
| rank | 7 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
Mean values of Artemisia ordosica growth indices in 2016–2018.
| Treatments | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | CK | 44.10 | 7.64 | 114.73 | 14.50 | 1291 | 173.99 | 74.94 | 64.81 | 10.13 |
| F5P1 | 41.54 | 9.08 | 88.95 | 12.15 | 938 | 181.42 | 56.77 | 46.07 | 10.70 | |
| F5P2 | 44.23 | 8.36 | 82.50 | 11.29 | 745 | 94.46 | 37.24 | 29.70 | 7.54 | |
| F10P1 | 40.64 | 4.77 | 85.75 | 13.67 | 482 | 60.80 | 26.91 | 22.57 | 4.34 | |
| F10P2 | 40.96 | 4.64 | 88.38 | 13.24 | 467 | 49.94 | 24.33 | 20.45 | 3.88 | |
| F15P1 | 35.26 | 3.14 | 75.00 | 10.03 | 318 | 26.85 | 12.84 | 10.99 | 1.85 | |
| F15P2 | 35.90 | 4.08 | 74.75 | 7.99 | 257 | 28.50 | 14.13 | 11.63 | 2.50 | |
| 2017 | CK | 167.00 | 17.42 | 9210 | 619.52 | 260.19 | 226.57 | 33.62 | ||
| F5P1 | 166.50 | 16.69 | 13930 | 658.69 | 279.19 | 241.82 | 37.37 | |||
| F5P2 | 145.00 | 15.58 | 7932 | 220.94 | 85.92 | 80.69 | 5.23 | |||
| F10P1 | 129.50 | 13.69 | 6184 | 264.67 | 116.42 | 104.62 | 11.80 | |||
| F10P2 | 116.00 | 13.28 | 5224 | 80.09 | 37.84 | 34.07 | 3.77 | |||
| F15P1 | 122.00 | 10.37 | 3030 | 200.12 | 98.97 | 87.50 | 11.47 | |||
| F15P2 | 107.00 | 8.87 | 2262 | 66.62 | 37.83 | 31.96 | 5.87 | |||
| 2018 | CK | 168.50 | 19.27 | 16231 | 774.98 | 314.00 | 272.52 | 41.48 | ||
| F5P1 | 170.75 | 19.32 | 18087 | 771.37 | 323.88 | 279.02 | 44.86 | |||
| F5P2 | 150.50 | 17.59 | 7161 | 295.32 | 178.94 | 146.77 | 32.18 | |||
| F10P1 | 136.75 | 14.49 | 6850 | 283.18 | 170.65 | 148.58 | 22.07 | |||
| F10P2 | 127.00 | 14.22 | 5113 | 257.11 | 201.34 | 177.34 | 24.01 | |||
| F15P1 | 127.50 | 11.64 | 5239 | 270.10 | 163.73 | 142.65 | 21.09 | |||
| F15P2 | 120.25 | 11.17 | 3762 | 210.65 | 135.79 | 122.42 | 13.37 |
Note: Y1–Y9: SER (%), VI; PLH (cm), BD (mm), LN, TFW (g), TDW (g), ADW (g), UDW (g).
Ej and Wj of Artemisia ordosica growth indices in 2016–2018.
| Year | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Ej | 0.538 | 0.6778 | 0.7397 | 0.662 | 0.7458 | 0.5518 | 0.6891 | 0.6861 | 0.6338 |
| Wj | 0.1502 | 0.1048 | 0.0846 | 0.1099 | 0.0827 | 0.1457 | 0.1011 | 0.102 | 0.1191 | |
| 2017 | Ej | 0.6663 | 0.6374 | 0.7981 | 0.618 | 0.5707 | 0.6035 | 0.5624 | ||
| Wj | 0.1312 | 0.1426 | 0.0794 | 0.1502 | 0.1688 | 0.1559 | 0.172 | |||
| 2018 | Ej | 0.6494 | 0.5623 | 0.6423 | 0.5125 | 0.6948 | 0.6479 | 0.7584 | ||
| Wj | 0.1385 | 0.1728 | 0.1413 | 0.1925 | 0.1205 | 0.139 | 0.0954 |
Note: Y1–Y9: SER (%), VI; PLH (cm), BD (mm), LN, TFW (g), TDW (g), ADW (g), UDW (g).
Comprehensive scores and rankings of Artemisia ordosica growth under different treatments in 2016–2018.
| Year | CK | F5P1 | F5P2 | F10P1 | F10P2 | F15P1 | F15P2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Fi | 166.19 | 131.68 | 98.77 | 69.56 | 66.45 | 45.87 | 41.33 |
| rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| 2017 | Fi | 933.37 | 1319.93 | 711.88 | 587.42 | 456.08 | 320.36 | 217.17 |
| rank | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| 2018 | Fi | 2548.12 | 2812.36 | 1137.19 | 1086.86 | 842.96 | 853.20 | 625.14 |
| rank | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | |
| 2016–2018 | Fi | 1145.51 | 1335.18 | 612.66 | 547.16 | 429.24 | 382.31 | 277.56 |
| rank | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Comprehensive scores and rankings of soil property and Artemisia ordosica growth in 2016–2018 under different treatments.
| CK | F5P1 | F5P2 | F10P1 | F10P2 | F15P1 | F15P2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fi | 835.18 | 973.04 | 448.73 | 401.08 | 315.55 | 281.91 | 205.87 |
| rank | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Correlation coefficient matrix of soil property and Artemisia ordosica growth parameters.
| 1 | −0.818 * | −0.798 * | −0.942 ** | −0.930 ** | −0.841 * | −0.974 ** | −0.937 ** | −0.454 | −0.371 | 0.833 * | 0.653 | 0.967 ** | 0.804 * | 0.938 ** | 0.801 * | 0.923 ** | 0.936 ** | 0.797 * | |
| 1 | 0.991 ** | 0.962 ** | 0.967 ** | 0.998 ** | 0.675 | 0.841 * | 0.251 | 0.583 | −0.852 * | −0.649 | −0.782 * | −0.912 ** | −0.751 | −0.736 | −0.771 * | −0.766 * | −0.75 | ||
| 1 | 0.945 ** | 0.962 ** | 0.983 ** | 0.652 | 0.807 * | 0.166 | 0.514 | −0.838 * | −0.566 | −0.761 * | −0.936 ** | −0.687 | −0.646 | −0.702 | −0.701 | −0.665 | |||
| 1 | 0.996 ** | 0.973 ** | 0.848 * | 0.936 ** | 0.374 | 0.517 | −0.901 ** | −0.703 | −0.901 ** | −0.898 ** | −0.880 ** | −0.807 * | −0.882 ** | −0.884 ** | −0.819 * | ||||
| 1 | 0.974 ** | 0.830 * | 0.918 ** | 0.319 | 0.485 | −0.898 ** | −0.656 | −0.889 ** | −0.921 ** | −0.841 * | −0.755 * | −0.841 * | −0.845 * | −0.771 * | |||||
| 1 | 0.705 | 0.865 * | 0.282 | 0.583 | −0.866 * | −0.68 | −0.806 * | −0.903 ** | −0.785 * | −0.767 * | −0.804 * | −0.799 * | −0.781 * | ||||||
| 1 | 0.868 * | 0.486 | 0.276 | −0.736 | −0.567 | −0.958 ** | −0.709 | −0.914 ** | −0.741 | −0.888 ** | −0.907 ** | −0.725 | |||||||
| 1 | 0.538 | 0.445 | −0.948 ** | −0.849 * | −0.840 * | −0.717 | −0.937 ** | −0.854 * | −0.920 ** | −0.913 ** | −0.900 ** | ||||||||
| 1 | 0.698 | −0.465 | −0.714 | −0.32 | −0.215 | −0.663 | −0.686 | −0.612 | −0.589 | −0.7 | |||||||||
| 1 | −0.455 | −0.616 | −0.304 | −0.529 | −0.529 | −0.675 | −0.535 | −0.506 | −0.656 | ||||||||||
| 1 | 0.813 * | 0.709 | 0.738 | 0.802 * | 0.716 | 0.772 * | 0.758 * | 0.801 * | |||||||||||
| 1 | 0.519 | 0.39 | 0.826 * | 0.890 ** | 0.821 * | 0.788 * | 0.953 ** | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.792 * | 0.887 ** | 0.753 | 0.890 ** | 0.912 ** | 0.715 | |||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.651 | 0.552 | 0.646 | 0.658 | 0.541 | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.946 ** | 0.993 ** | 0.991 ** | 0.940 ** | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.964 ** | 0.950 ** | 0.984 ** | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.998 ** | 0.948 ** | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.927 ** | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 |
Note: X1–X10: soil bulk density (g/cm3), total soil porosity (%), soil capillary porosity (%), saturated water content (%), field water-holding capacity (%), soil void ratio (%), pH, soil conductivity (dS/m), total nitrogen (g/kg), total phosphorous (g/kg). Y1–Y9: SER (%), VI; PLH (cm), BD (mm), LN, TFW (g), TDW (g), ADW (g), UDW (g). * and ** indicate significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 levels, respectively.