Study on the Profile Distribution and Morphology of Soil Humic Substances in Karst Area of Zunyi City, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Collection and Pretreatment of Soil Samples
2.3. Extraction and Purification of Humus
2.4. Analysis and Determination of Soil Samples
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Content and Distribution of HA and FA
3.1.1. HA and FA Contents in Soil Samples
3.1.2. Vertical Distribution Characteristics of HA and FA
3.2. Elements and Functional Groups of Soil Humus
3.2.1. Elemental Content Analysis of HA, FA and HM
3.2.2. The Functional Group Contents of HA, FA, HM
- (1)
- HA
- (2)
- FA
- (3)
- HM
3.2.3. Degree of Humification of HA, FA and HM
3.3. Migration and Transformation of Soil Humus Components
3.3.1. Correlation Analysis of Different Functional Groups in the Same Humic Fractions
3.3.2. Correlation Analysis of Different Functional Groups in Different Humic Fractions
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- Compared with other soil types in China, the content of HA and FA in soil of Zunyi New Area was relatively low. The relative content of HA in the soil at the same depth was much lower than that of FA, and the contribution of FA to the total humus was greater than that of HA (HA/FA < 0.25). This indicated that the humus degree of the main types of soils in Guizhou were relatively low as a whole, and FA was dominant in humus with relatively simple molecules, which was directly related to the surface vegetation in this area. In this study, the change of soil humic fraction concentration showed that the contents of HA and FA decreased with the increase of soil depth, and the ratio of HA/FA decreased with the increase of soil depth. This indicated that the humification degree and molecular complexity of soil decreased with the increase of soil depth. In this study, it was shown that from 25 cm, the higher the HA/FA ratio, the smaller the increase of HA/FA ratio in XP1 profile, and the larger the increase of HA/FA ratio in XP2 profile. This was caused by the difference of litter forming humus. Pine needles were more likely to form FA, while shrub litter was more likely to form HA.
- (2)
- The content of Oalkyl C in HA samples was higher than that of Alkyl C. The FA exhibited higher Oalkyl C, however had higher Carboxyl C than Alkyl C, in contrast to HA and HM samples. The higher Carboxyl C content of FA indicated that FA was more oxidizing than HA and HM, which was consistent with the results of elemental content analysis. The unsaturated degree and aromatization of FA was higher, and mainly reflected in the higher Carboxyl C content and lower Alkyl C content of FA. The Alkyl C content of HM was higher than that of Carboxyl C, but the Alkyl C content of HM was higher than that of Aromatic C, which was different from HA. Comprehensive analysis showed that HA, FA, and HM samples from the two groups showed high Oalkyl C content.The aliphatic properties of various components in soil humus were as follows: HM > HA > FA, while the aromatic properties were as follows: FA > HA > HM. Soil HA, FA and HM showed a consistent trend of increasing aromatic properties with increasing soil depth.
- (3)
- Aliphatic C was negatively correlated with Aromatic C, aliphatic C was negatively correlated with Carboxyl C. It could be concluded that during the formation and transformation of functional groups in the same group of humus, aliphatic C and Aromatic C, aliphatic C and Carboxyl C had a decreasing relationship. There may be some genetic relationship between Aliphatic C and Aromatic C, aliphatic C and Carboxyl C in the same group of humus.
- (4)
- In the phylogenetic relationship between HA, FA, and HM, more transformations exist between HA and FA, and between HA and HM, while the transformations between FA and HM was very rare. Based on the “lignin theory”, it could be considered that HA and HM are formed in the first stage of humification, and there are a mutual transformation mechanisms between HA and FA, and then HA was split into FA in the second stage under the action of microorganisms. Based on the “polyphenol theory”, it could be inferred that FA was formed in the first stage of humification, and FA was further condensed into HA, and then transformed from HA to HM.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ozdoba, D.M.; Blyth, J.C.; Engler, R.F.; Dinel, H.; Schnitzer, M. Leonardite and Humified Organic Matter, 5th ed.; Humic Substances Seminar: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 309–314. [Google Scholar]
- Preston, C.M.; Hempfling, R.; Schulten, H.-R.; Schnitzer, M.; Trofymow, J.A.; Axelson, D.E. Characterization of organic matter in a forest soil of coastal British Columbia by NMR and pyrolysis-field ionization mass spectrometry. Plant Soil 1994, 158, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, M.H.B. Studies on Soil Humic Substances. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1985, 36, 272–274. [Google Scholar]
- Rice, J.A. Humin. Soil Sci. 2001, 166, 848–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banach-Szott, M.; Kondratowicz-Maciejewska, K.; Kobierski, M. Humic substances in Fluvisols of the Lower Vistula floodplain, North Poland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 23992–24002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, M.H.; Clapp, C.E. Humic substances: Considerations of compositions, aspects of structure, and environmental influences. Soil Sci. 2001, 166, 723–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zavarzina, A.G.; Danchenko, N.N.; Demin, V.V.; Artemyeva, Z.S.; Kogut, B.M. Humic Substances: Hypotheses and Reality (A Review). Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021, 54, 1826–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Zhao, B.; Li, Z.; Chu, W.; Mao, J.; Olk, D.C.; Zhang, J.; Xin, X.; Wei, W. Demonstration of Chemical Distinction among Soil Humic Fractions Using Quantitative Solid-State 13C NMR. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 8107–8118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, L.; Lv, J.-T.; Xu, C.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, S.-Z. Study on C-Functional Groups of Soil Humus Fractions Affected by Phosphate Using C 1s Near-edge X-ray Absorption Fine Structure Spectroscopy. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2013, 41, 1279–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.M.; Wu, J.G. Effects of the Different Organic Materials on the Structure and Elemental Composition of Humus in Black Soil. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 356–360, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collado, S.; Oulego, P.; Suárez-Iglesias, O.; Díaz, M. Biodegradation of dissolved humic substances by fungi. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 3497–3511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chagas, J.K.M.; de Figueiredo, C.C.; Ramos, M.L.G. Biochar increases soil carbon pools: Evidence from a global meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 305, 114403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, C.; Song, X.; Chang, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J. Chemical compositions and copper(II) adsorption properties of sequentially extracted humic substances, including different humin fractions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27, 6485–6499. [Google Scholar]
- Leal, O.d.A.; Vargas Castilhos, R.M.; Pauletto, E.A.; Spinelli Pinto, L.F.; Fernandes, F.F.; Penning, L.H.; da Rosa, C.M. Organic matter fractions and quality of the surface layer of a constructed and vegetated soil after coal mining. I—Humic substances and chemical characterization. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2015, 39, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, M.H.B.; Swift, R.S. An appreciation of the contribution of Frank Stevenson to the advancement of studies of soil organic matter and humic substances. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 18, 1212–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ukalska-Jaruga, A.; Bejger, R.; Debaene, G.; Smreczak, B. Characterization of Soil Organic Matter Individual Fractions (Fulvic Acids, Humic Acids, and Humins) by Spectroscopic and Electrochemical Techniques in Agricultural Soils. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, G.; Leenheer, J. Isolation and Chemical Characterization of Dissolved and Colloidal Organic Matter. Chem. Ecol. 1993, 8, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kononova, M.A. Soil Organic Matter: Its Nature, Its Role in Soil Formation and in Soil Fertility. Pergamon 1966, 544. [Google Scholar]
- Mengchang, H.E.; Yehong, S.H.I.; Chunye, L.I.N. Characterization of humic acids extracted from the sediments of the various rivers and lakes in China. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 1294–1299. [Google Scholar]
- da Silva, C.F.; Loss, A.; do Carmo, E.R.; Pereira, M.G.; Ribeiro da Silva, E.M.; Martins, M.A. Soil fertility and humic substances in an area of clay extraction revegetated with eucalypt and legumes in the north of Rio De Janeiro state. Cienc. Florest. 2015, 25, 547–561. [Google Scholar]
- Antunes, R.M.; Leal, O.D.A.; Castilhos, R.M.V.; Castilhos, D.D.; Andreazza, R.; Schwalbert, R.A. Humic Substances and Chemical Properties of an Acrisol Amended with Vermicomposted Vegetal and Animal Residues. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2019, 43, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rice, J.A.; MacCarthy, P. Statistical evaluation of the elemental composition of humic substances. Org. Geochem. 1991, 17, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldock, J.A.; Preston, C.M. Chemistry of carbon decomposition processes in forests as revealed by solid-state 13C NMR. Carbon Forms Funct. Forest Soils 1995, 89–117. [Google Scholar]
- Greenland, D.J. Soil Organic Matter: Developments in Soil Science; Schnitzer, M., Khan, S.U., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1980; Volume 8, ISBN 0-444-41610. [Google Scholar]
- Knicker, H.; Hilscher, A.; Martín, G.A.; Gonzálezvila, F.; Gonzálezpérez, J.; Polvillo, O. Characteristic Alterations of Quantity and Quality of Humic Substances in Forest Soils Caused by Wild-Fires; Universitaät Karlsruhe, International Humic Substances Society: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, R.; Yu, S.; Zhao, T.; Lin, S. NMR spectroscopy studies of humic acid:The T_1 values and the relative contents of various types of carbons in methylated humic acids. Henan Sci. 1986, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
- Keeler, C.; Maciel, G.E. Quantitation in the Solid-State 13C NMR Analysis of Soil and Organic Soil Fractions. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 2421–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, T.; Kaal, J.; Liang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, S.; Wang, D.; Green, N.W. Composition of dissolved organic matter (DOM) from periodically submerged soils in the Three Gorges Reservoir areas as determined by elemental and optical analysis, infrared spectroscopy, pyrolysis-GC–MS and thermally assisted hydrolysis and methylation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603–604, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaccheo, P.; Ricca, G.; Crippa, L. Organic Matter Characterization of Composts From Different Feedstocks. Compos. Sci. Util. 2002, 10, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Cai, H.; Zhang, C.; Ren, J.; Wang, L. First characterization of humic-like substances isolated from maize straw biochar. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2015, 24, 1815–1821. [Google Scholar]
- Hatcher, P.G.; Schnitzer, M.; Dennis, L.W.; Maciel, G.E. Aromaticity of Humic Substances in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1981, 45, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, T.-L.; Chen, J.-S.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Tian, G. 13C-NMR spectroscopy studies of humic substances in subtropical perhumid montane forest soil. J. For. Res. 2012, 17, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample | Depth (cm) | Geographic Coordinates | Land Vegetation | Colour | Soil Classification | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XP1-1 | 0–5 | N 27°40.417′ E 107°01.138′ H 947 m | coniferous forest | black brown | yellow brown soil | 6.23 |
XP1-2 | 5–10 | 7.27 | ||||
XP1-3 | 10–15 | 7.34 | ||||
XP1-4 | 15–20 | 7.16 | ||||
XP1-5 | 20–25 | 6.87 | ||||
XP1-6 | 25–30 | 6.82 | ||||
XP2-1 | 0–5 | N 27°40.412′ E 107°01.112′ H 918 m | shrub | yellow | yellow soil | 3.83 |
XP2-2 | 5–10 | 3.70 | ||||
XP2-3 | 10–15 | 3.66 | ||||
XP2-4 | 15–20 | 3.68 | ||||
XP2-5 | 20–25 | 3.70 | ||||
XP2-6 | 25–30 | 3.68 |
Sample | HA (mg/g) | FA (mg/g) | HA/FA |
---|---|---|---|
XP1-1 | 0.20 | 1.67 | 0.12 |
XP1-2 | 0.11 | 1.57 | 0.07 |
XP1-3 | 0.12 | 1.26 | 0.10 |
XP1-4 | 0.08 | 1.69 | 0.05 |
XP1-5 | 0.11 | 1.52 | 0.07 |
XP1-6 | 0.28 | 1.26 | 0.22 |
XP2-1 | 0.54 | 2.23 | 0.24 |
XP2-2 | 0.43 | 2.35 | 0.18 |
XP2-3 | 0.29 | 1.93 | 0.15 |
XP2-4 | 0.30 | 1.86 | 0.16 |
XP2-5 | 0.08 | 1.47 | 0.06 |
XP2-6 | 0.10 | 1.14 | 0.09 |
Sample | HA | FA | HM | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | C | H | S | N | C | H | S | N | C | H | S | |
XP1-1 | 3.32 | 37.38 | 3.54 | 0.3 | 1.95 | 40.62 | 3.66 | 0.36 | 0.87 | 12.16 | 1.3 | 0.03 |
XP1-2 | 3.11 | 36.99 | 3.61 | 0.4 | 1.84 | 40.31 | 4.05 | 0.34 | 0.67 | 9.14 | 0.86 | 0.03 |
XP1-3 | 3.01 | 36.96 | 3.74 | 0.36 | 2.14 | 40.17 | 3.59 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 6.04 | 0.59 | 0.02 |
XP1-4 | 2.94 | 35.12 | 3.7 | 0.32 | 2.03 | 39.97 | 3.53 | 0.4 | 0.35 | 4.82 | 0.46 | 0.01 |
XP1-5 | 2.47 | 35.78 | 3.31 | 0.29 | 1.63 | 37.08 | 4.29 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 3.78 | 0.34 | 0.01 |
XP1-6 | 2.33 | 35.79 | 3.3 | 0.24 | 2.08 | 39.32 | 3.53 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 2.41 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
XP2-1 | 4.33 | 37.96 | 4.08 | 0.38 | 1.12 | 28.75 | 2.73 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 2.98 | 0.33 | 0.01 |
XP2-2 | 4.25 | 36.7 | 3.76 | 0.33 | 1.02 | 27.17 | 2.66 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 2.97 | 0.32 | 0.02 |
XP2-3 | 4.42 | 37.38 | 3.96 | 0.28 | 1.57 | 39.28 | 3.68 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 2.93 | 0.31 | 0.02 |
XP2-4 | 4.14 | 37.33 | 3.65 | 0.26 | 1.6 | 39.89 | 3.67 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 2.21 | 0.25 | 0.02 |
XP2-5 | 4.14 | 36.71 | 3.65 | 0.22 | 1.47 | 40.43 | 3.61 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.55 | 0.18 | 0.02 |
XP2-6 | - | - | - | - | 1.32 | 40.6 | 3.72 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 2.05 | 0.21 | 0.03 |
Sample | HA | FA | HM | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C/N | H/C | C/N | H/C | C/N | H/C | |
XP1-1 | 13.13 | 1.14 | 24.35 | 1.08 | 16.35 | 1.29 |
XP1-2 | 13.88 | 1.17 | 25.6 | 1.21 | 16.03 | 1.13 |
XP1-3 | 14.32 | 1.21 | 21.92 | 1.07 | 15.7 | 1.17 |
XP1-4 | 13.94 | 1.26 | 22.98 | 1.06 | 16.17 | 1.14 |
XP1-5 | 16.92 | 1.11 | 26.49 | 1.39 | 16.85 | 1.08 |
XP1-6 | 17.9 | 1.11 | 22.1 | 1.08 | 16.55 | 1.43 |
XP2-1 | 10.23 | 1.29 | 29.84 | 1.14 | 19.39 | 1.31 |
XP2-2 | 10.07 | 1.23 | 30.97 | 1.17 | 19.12 | 1.29 |
XP2-3 | 9.87 | 1.27 | 29.26 | 1.12 | 22.45 | 1.27 |
XP2-4 | 10.51 | 1.17 | 29.17 | 1.1 | 19.96 | 1.37 |
XP2-5 | 10.35 | 1.19 | 32.06 | 1.07 | 18.13 | 1.42 |
XP2-6 | - | - | 35.97 | 1.1 | 18.05 | 1.25 |
Humus | Sample | HI a | Fa b | 73/105 | 73/130 | 172/130 | 56/130 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HA | XP1-1 | 0.59 | 0.28 | 4.08 | 1.66 | 1.19 | 0.75 |
XP1-2 | 0.58 | 0.31 | 3.36 | 1.17 | 1.14 | 0.52 | |
XP1-3 | 0.52 | 0.30 | 2.79 | 1.20 | 0.85 | 0.49 | |
XP1-4 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 1.62 | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.26 | |
XP1-5 | 0.63 | 0.36 | 2.71 | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.19 | |
XP1-6 | 0.54 | 0.37 | 2.08 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.24 | |
XP2-1 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 2.00 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.36 | |
XP2-2 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 2.95 | 1.20 | 1.27 | 0.73 | |
XP2-3 | 0.79 | 0.28 | 1.42 | 0.77 | 1.15 | 0.48 | |
XP2-4 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 1.89 | 0.44 | 0.73 | 0.21 | |
XP2-5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
XP2-6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
FA | XP1-1 | 0.56 | 0.33 | 1.91 | 0.67 | 0.94 | 0.07 |
XP1-2 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 3.04 | 1.21 | 1.08 | 0.02 | |
XP1-3 | 0.56 | 0.32 | 1.16 | 0.70 | 1.10 | 0.18 | |
XP1-4 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 2.29 | 0.71 | 1.04 | 0.12 | |
XP1-5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
XP1-6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
XP2-1 | 0.48 | 0.29 | 1.89 | 1.11 | 1.39 | 0.15 | |
XP2-2 | 0.54 | 0.27 | 2.47 | 1.14 | 1.21 | 0.03 | |
XP2-3 | 0.63 | 0.27 | 3.57 | 1.11 | 1.34 | 0.04 | |
XP2-4 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 2.99 | 0.93 | 1.67 | 0.05 | |
XP2-5 | 0.75 | 0.23 | 3.03 | 1.26 | 1.94 | 0.19 | |
XP2-6 | 0.78 | 0.23 | 3.61 | 1.10 | 1.86 | 0.06 | |
HM | XP1-1 | 0.62 | 0.24 | 2.30 | 1.29 | 0.64 | 0.34 |
XP1-2 | 0.59 | 0.28 | 2.11 | 0.90 | 0.59 | 0.13 | |
XP1-3 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 3.21 | 1.01 | 0.67 | 0.69 | |
XP1-4 | 0.49 | 0.29 | 2.15 | 0.78 | 0.51 | 0.50 | |
XP1-5 | 0.69 | 0.30 | 2.72 | 0.72 | 0.55 | 0.09 | |
XP1-6 | 0.51 | 0.32 | 3.77 | 0.87 | 0.41 | 0.24 | |
XP2-1 | 0.82 | 0.20 | 1.87 | 1.45 | 0.63 | 0.17 | |
XP2-2 | 0.91 | 0.19 | 2.81 | 1.44 | 0.95 | 0.05 | |
XP2-3 | 1.10 | 0.23 | 4.18 | 2.05 | 1.08 | 0.40 | |
XP2-4 | 0.99 | 0.22 | 2.19 | 1.10 | 0.97 | 0.14 | |
XP2-5 | 1.06 | 0.23 | 2.10 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.35 | |
XP2-6 | 0.69 | 0.22 | 2.11 | 1.01 | 0.76 | 0.06 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, J.-J.; Ji, H.-B.; Wang, W.-J.; Dong, F.; Yin, C.; Zhang, L.; Li, R.; Gao, J. Study on the Profile Distribution and Morphology of Soil Humic Substances in Karst Area of Zunyi City, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106145
Li J-J, Ji H-B, Wang W-J, Dong F, Yin C, Zhang L, Li R, Gao J. Study on the Profile Distribution and Morphology of Soil Humic Substances in Karst Area of Zunyi City, China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106145
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Jin-Jin, Hong-Bing Ji, Wei-Jie Wang, Fei Dong, Chuan Yin, Li Zhang, Rui Li, and Jie Gao. 2022. "Study on the Profile Distribution and Morphology of Soil Humic Substances in Karst Area of Zunyi City, China" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106145