Evaluation of reclamation in Hequ open-pit coal mine dump: soil fertility restoration model
-
摘要: 以河曲旧县露天煤矿排土场为研究对象，采用模糊层次分析法(FAHP)和专家评分理论法建立了露天煤矿排土场土壤肥力综合评价模型，获得土壤结构稳定性、土壤保水能力、土壤保肥能力及土壤生物活性4项准则和25个因素，利用YAAHP计算软件确定了排土场土壤肥力恢复力各影响因素的权重。结果表明，评价体系准则层中土壤保肥能力权重最大(0.547 7)，其次分别是土壤保水能力(0.198 0)、土壤生物活性(0.140 8)和土壤结构稳定性(0.113 5)，因素层有机质F1权重最高(0.116 2)；根据现场抽样，已复垦区的土壤质量水平要高于未复垦区的土壤质量水平，整体来看土壤质量水平均处于中等偏下和较差水平，土壤恢复力的主要因素是土壤保肥能力，特别是土壤有机质含量。土壤肥力恢复力模型为提高排土场土壤质量、加快土壤重构、促进土壤生态系统恢复提供治理思路。Abstract: This study established a comprehensive evaluation model for soil fertility in an open-pit coal mine dump in Jiuxian County of Hequ by drawing on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and expert scoring theory. 4 criteria and 25 factors were applied for soil structural stability, water retention capacity, fertility retention capacity, and biological activity. Using the YAAHP calculation software, this study proposed the weights of various influencing factors on the soil fertility restoration ability of the waste dump. The results indicate that soil fertility retention ability bears the highest weight (0.547 7), followed by soil water retention ability (0.198 0), soil biological activity (0.140 8), and soil structural stability (0.113 5) in the evaluation rubric, while organic matter F1 bears the highest weight (0.116 2) among other factors; Based on on-site sampling, results showed that the soil quality in the reclaimed area outperformed the uncultivated area, but still persists at lower to medium levels. The main factor for soil resilience is soil fertility retention capacity, especially the content of soil organic matter. Soil fertility restoration model offers references for improving soil quality in waste dump, accelerating soil reconstruction, and promoting soil ecosystem restoration.
-
Key words:
- open-pit coal mine dump /
-
/ - reclaim /
- soil resilience /
- fuzzy analytic hierarchy process /
- soil fertility
-
图 1 露天煤矿排土场土壤恢复力影响因子评价体系
Figure 1. Evaluation of impact factors on soil resilience of open pit coal mine dump
表 1 常用土壤质量指标
Table 1. Common soil quality indicators
土壤质量指标分类 常见土壤质量指标 物理指标 有效土层厚度、土壤容重、土壤质地、含水率、砾石含量、孔隙度、渗透率、团聚体稳定性、温度、渗透阻力、土壤持水性、孔径分布、黏土矿物学性质等 化学指标 土壤有机质、pH值、电导率、土壤有机碳、全氮、碱解氮、磷和钾的全量和有效量、阳离子交换量、氧化还原率、微量元素等 生物指标 微生物生物量碳和氮、土壤呼吸量、土壤酶活性、有机碳、土壤动物、总生物量、潜在可矿化氮、微生物种类与数量等 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 1-9标度法
Table 2. 1-9 scale method
标度 含义 1 表示两个元素相比，具有相同重要性 3 表示两个元素相比，前者比后者稍重要 5 表示两个元素相比，前者比后者明显重要 7 表示两个元素相比，前者比后者强烈重要 9 表示两个元素相比，前者比后者极端重要 2，4，6，8，10 表示上述相邻判断的中间值 1~9倒数 若两个元素相比，前者的重要性弱于后者时，那么$a_{i j}=\frac{1}{a_{j i}} $
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 平均随机一致性指标标准值
Table 3. Standard values of average random consistency index
矩阵阶数 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 土壤养分分级指标
Table 4. Classification index of soil nutrients
养分指标 极低 低 中 中上 高 极高 pH值 < 4.5 4.5~5.5 5.5~6.5 6.5~7.5 7.5~ 8.5 >8.5 有机质含量/(g·kg-1) < 6 6~10 10~20 20~30 30~40 >40 碱解氮含量/(mg·kg-1) < 30 30~60 60~90 90~120 120~150 >150 有效磷含量/(mg·kg-1) < 3.0 3.00~5.00 5.00~10.00 10.00~20.00 20.00~40.00 >40.00 全氮含量/(g·kg-1) < 0.5 0.5~0.75 0.75 ~1.0 1.1~1.5 1.5~2.0 >2.0 全磷含量/(g·kg-1) < 0.5 0.5~0.75 0.75 ~1.0 1.1~1.5 1.5~2.0 >2.0 表层含水率/% < 15 15~17 19~21 21~23 23~25 >25 容重/(g·kg-1) < 0.6 0.6~0.8 0.8~1.0 1.0~1.2 1.2~1.4 1.4~1.6 注：极高、高、中上、中、低、极低主要指养分指标，对应pH值表征的土壤酸碱度分别为强碱、弱碱、中上、中、微酸强酸、强酸。
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 土壤肥力分级标准
Table 5. Soil fertility grading rubric
肥力等级 优 良 一般 中等 差 E值 >80 60~80 40~60 20~40 < 20
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 准则层和因素层判断矩阵一致性检验结果
Table 6. Consistency test results of criterion and factor judgment matrices
判断矩阵 λmax CI RI 是否通过一致性检验 A 4.201 9 0.067 3 0.075 6 是 A1 6.418 9 0.067 3 0.066 5 是 A2 4.123 2 0.067 3 0.046 1 是 A3 10.140 6 0.067 3 0.097 7 是 A4 4.582 6 0.067 3 0.092 5 是
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 复垦前后土壤指标平均值统计
Table 7. Average soil indicators before and after reclamation
排土场 pH值 有机质含量/(g·kg-1) 碱解氮含量/(mg·kg-1) 有效磷含量/(mg·kg-1) 全氮含量/(g·kg-1) 全磷含量/(g·kg-1) 容重/(g·cm-3) 表层含水率/% 4上 8.89 4.12 5.39 4.88 1.70 1.34 0.59 6.18 4下 8.27 12.28 11.35 9.13 2.80 2.31 0.89 10.28
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 程睿. 矿区土壤质量综合评价指标体系与评估方法[J]. 环境生态学, 2022, 4(4): 21-27.CHENG Rui. Comprehensive evaluation index system and method of soil quality in mining area[J]. Environmental Ecology, 2022, 4(4): 21-27. [2] DITZLERC A, TUGEL A J. Soil quality field tools: experiences of USDA-NRCS soil quality institute[J]. Agronomy Journal. 2002, 94(1): 33-38. [3] BOUYOUCOS G J. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils[J]. Agronomy Journal, 1962, 54(5): 464-465. doi: 10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x [4] 吕春花, 郑粉莉. 黄土高原子午岭地区植被恢复过程中的土壤质量评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2009, 7(3): 12-18, 29.LÜ Chunhua, ZHENG Fenli. Evaluation of soil quality during vegetation restoration in the Ziwuling Area of Loess Plateau[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009, 7(3): 12-18, 29. [5] 林卡, 李德成, 张甘霖. 土壤质量评价中文文献分析[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(3): 736-744.LIN Ka, LI Decheng, ZHANG Ganlin. Literature analysis on soil quality assessment in China based on CNKI database[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2017, 48(3): 736-744. [6] 刘占锋, 傅伯杰, 刘国华, 等. 土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(3): 901-913.LIU Zhanfeng, FU Bojie, LIU Guohua, et al. Soil quality: concept, indicators and its assessment[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26(3): 901-913 [7] 李鑫, 张文菊, 邬磊, 等. 土壤质量评价指标体系的构建及评价方法[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(14): 3043-3056.LI Xin, ZHANG Wenju, WU Lei, et al. Advance in indicator screening and methodologies of soil quality evaluation[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(14): 3043-3056. [8] 程睿. 金属矿山废弃地土壤质量综合评价指标体系初探[J]. 江西农业学报, 2021, 33(3): 106-112.CHENG Rui. Preliminary study on comprehensive evaluation index system of soil quality of metal mine wasteland[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2021, 33(3): 106-112. [9] 孙雪亮, 赵建港, 余勤飞, 等. 新疆某露天矿排土场土壤质量分级评价[J]. 金属矿山, 2021(8): 178-185.SUN Xueliang, ZHAO Jiangang, YU Qinfei, et al. Classification and evaluation of soil quality of an open-pit mine dump in Xinjiang[J]. Metal Mine, 2021(8): 178-185. [10] 骆正清, 杨善林. 层次分析法中几种标度的比较[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2004, 24(9): 51-60.LUO Zhengqing, YANG Shanlin. Comparative study on several scales in AHP[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2004, 24(9): 51-60. [11] 马骞, 于兴修. 水土流失生态修复生态效益评价指标体系研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2009, 28(11): 2381-2386.MA Qian, YU Xingxiu. Research advances on ecological benefit evaluation index system of ecological restoration for controlling water and soil loss[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2009, 28(11): 2381-2386. [12] 李强, 许明祥, 赵允格, 等. 黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(6): 1001-1012.LI Qiang, XU Mingxiang, ZHAO Yunge, et al. Gully erosion soil quality assessment on the cultivated slope land in the loess plateau region, China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27(6): 1001-1012. [13] 赵娜, 孟平, 张劲松, 等. 华北低丘山地不同退耕年限刺槐人工林土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2): 351-358.ZHAO Na, MENG Ping, ZHANG Jinsong, et al. Soil quality assessment of Robinia psedudoacia plantations with various ages in the Grain-for-Green Program in hilly area of North China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(2): 351-358. [14] 赵双全. 层次分析法在工作面底板突水影响因素分析的应用[J]. 现代矿业, 2020, 36(4): 200-203.ZHAO Shuangquan. Application of analytic hierarchy process in analysis of influencing factors of water inrush from floor of working face[J]. Modern Mining, 2020, 36(4): 200-203. [15] 徐银健, 贾汉森, 刘诗琦, 等. 基于模糊层次分析法的木质成型颗粒环境影响评价[J]. 太阳能学报, 2021, 42(9): 377-386.XU Yinjian, JIA Hansen, LIU Shiqi, et al. Life cycle based environmental impact assessment of wood fuels[J]. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 2021, 42(9): 377-386. [16] 金雷, 王银银, 傅惠, 等. 基于模糊层次分析法的机场陆侧智慧交通系统感知水平评价[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2022, 22(8): 3365-3372.JIN Lei, WANG Yinyin, FU Hui, et al. Perception level evaluation of airport land-side intelligent traffic system based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2022, 22(8): 3365-3372. [17] 刘彤杰, 宋洪庆, 张杰, 等. 模糊层次分析法在我国深空探测方案优选应用探究[J]. 工程科学学报, 2022, 44(8): 1433-1443.LIU Tongjie, SONG Hongqing, ZHANG Jie, et al. Application of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in deep space exploration program optimization in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2022, 44(8): 1433-1443. [18] 刘璐, 张文强, 胡飞超, 等. 基于群决策和层次分析法的长江中游地区农村污水处理技术评价及优选[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(2): 1191-1200.LIU Lu, ZHANG Wenqiang, HU Feichao, et al. Evaluation and optimization of rural sewage treatment technologies in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River based on group decision making and analytic hierarchy process[J]. Environmental Science, 2023, 44(2): 1191-1200. [19] RILEY S. Aspects of the differences in the erodibility of the waste rock dump and natural surfaces, Ranger Uranium Mine, Northern Territory, Australia[J]. Applied Geography, 1995, 15(4): 309-323. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(95)00014-U [20] 郭明明, 王文龙, 李建明, 等. 神府矿区弃土弃渣体侵蚀特征及预测[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(5): 1044-1057.GUO Mingming, WANG Wenlong, LI Jianming, et al. Erosion on dunes of overburden and waste slag in Shenfu Coalfield and prediction[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2015, 52(5): 1044-1057. [21] 侯春兰, 杨瑞, 杨宝勇, 等. 贵州威宁草海不同土地利用类型土壤理化性质研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2020(5): 138-143.HOU Chunlan, YANG Rui, YANG Baoyong, et al. Study on physiochemical properties of soil of different land use types in Caohai, Weining of Guizhou Province[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2020(5): 138-143. [22] 佘雕. 黄土高原水土保持型灌木林地土壤质量特征及评价[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2010.SHE Diao. The characteristics and assessment on soil quality of shrub lands in Loess Plateau[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2010. [23] 刘雨. 黄土高原丘陵沟壑区燕沟流域植被恢复对土壤质量的影响研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2008: 26-99.LIU Yu. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil quality in Yangou catchment in hilly-gully region of the Loess Plateau[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2008: 26-99. -
点击查看大图
图(8) / 表(7)
计量
- 文章访问数: 84
- HTML全文浏览量: 21
- PDF下载量: 42
- 被引次数: 0