Figure 1.
Distribution of the study area and sampling points.
Figure 1.
Distribution of the study area and sampling points.
Figure 2.
Changes in Soil Properties of Agricultural Land in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Bayin River Basin. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity. The box plots in the figure illustrate the distribution of soil properties across cropland, plantations, and marginal farmland. The upper and lower boundaries of the box represent the upper quartile and lower quartile, respectively. The horizontal line within the box indicates the median. The whiskers extend upward and downward to the maximum and minimum values within 1.5 times the interquartile range. Different letters (a, b) denote significant differences based on the Kruskal—Wallis test and post hoc multiple comparisons (Dunn’s test) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Figure 2.
Changes in Soil Properties of Agricultural Land in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Bayin River Basin. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity. The box plots in the figure illustrate the distribution of soil properties across cropland, plantations, and marginal farmland. The upper and lower boundaries of the box represent the upper quartile and lower quartile, respectively. The horizontal line within the box indicates the median. The whiskers extend upward and downward to the maximum and minimum values within 1.5 times the interquartile range. Different letters (a, b) denote significant differences based on the Kruskal—Wallis test and post hoc multiple comparisons (Dunn’s test) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Figure 3.
Spatial Distribution of Soil Properties in Agricultural Land in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Bayin River Basin. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity.
Figure 3.
Spatial Distribution of Soil Properties in Agricultural Land in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Bayin River Basin. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity.
Figure 4.
Redundancy Analysis of Land Use Types, Environmental Factors and Soil Properties. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, Land Use Types.
Figure 4.
Redundancy Analysis of Land Use Types, Environmental Factors and Soil Properties. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, Land Use Types.
Figure 5.
Correlation analysis of environmental factors and soil properties. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type. Here, * indicates a significance level of p < 0.05, and ** indicates a significance level of p < 0.01.
Figure 5.
Correlation analysis of environmental factors and soil properties. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type. Here, * indicates a significance level of p < 0.05, and ** indicates a significance level of p < 0.01.
Figure 6.
The relative importance of environmental factors on soil organic carbon. Note: TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type. Here, * indicates a significance level of p < 0.05, and ** indicates a significance level of p < 0.01.
Figure 6.
The relative importance of environmental factors on soil organic carbon. Note: TN, total nitrogen in soil; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type. Here, * indicates a significance level of p < 0.05, and ** indicates a significance level of p < 0.01.
Figure 7.
Structure diagram of soil organic carbon driving factors. Note: SOC, Soil Organic Carbon; TN, Total Soil Nitrogen; Sand, Soil Sand Content; NDVI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; LUT, land use type. R2 represents the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, and GOF indicates the goodness of fit of the entire model (GOF > 0.5). The significance levels for each predictor variable are *** p < 0.001.
Figure 7.
Structure diagram of soil organic carbon driving factors. Note: SOC, Soil Organic Carbon; TN, Total Soil Nitrogen; Sand, Soil Sand Content; NDVI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; LUT, land use type. R2 represents the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, and GOF indicates the goodness of fit of the entire model (GOF > 0.5). The significance levels for each predictor variable are *** p < 0.001.
Figure 8.
The relative importance of environmental factors on total nitrogen in soil. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type.
Figure 8.
The relative importance of environmental factors on total nitrogen in soil. Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TP, total phosphorus in soil; C/N, soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio; Clay, soil clay particles; Silt, soil silt particles; Sand, soil sand particles; EC, electrical conductivity; EL, altitude; ASP, aspect; SLP, slope; MAP, annual average rainfall; MAE, annual average evaporation; MAT, annual average temperature; NDVI, normalized vegetation index.; LUT, land use type.
Figure 9.
Structure diagram of the driving factors of total nitrogen in soil. Note: SOC, Soil Organic Carbon; TN, Total Soil Nitrogen; Sand, Soil Sand Content; NDVI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; LUT, land use type. R2 represents the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, and GOF indicates the goodness of fit of the entire model (GOF > 0.5). The significance levels for each predictor variable are ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 9.
Structure diagram of the driving factors of total nitrogen in soil. Note: SOC, Soil Organic Carbon; TN, Total Soil Nitrogen; Sand, Soil Sand Content; NDVI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; LUT, land use type. R2 represents the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables, and GOF indicates the goodness of fit of the entire model (GOF > 0.5). The significance levels for each predictor variable are ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of soil indicators.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of soil indicators.
| Norm | Total | Mean | SD | Max. | Min. | CV (%) | Skewness | Kurtosis | DT |
|---|
| SOC (g·kg−1) | 125 | 5.36 | 1.77 | 11.00 | 2.05 | 33.06 | 0.74 | 0.38 | N |
| TN (g·kg−1) | 125 | 0.94 | 0.37 | 1.83 | 0.31 | 39.24 | 0.35 | −0.66 | N |
| TP (g·kg−1) | 125 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 1.28 | 0.2 | 28.54 | 0.29 | 1.93 | N |
| C/N | 125 | 6.11 | 1.71 | 13.18 | 2.57 | 28.02 | 1.08 | 1.98 | NN |
| Clay (%) | 125 | 6.84 | 2.37 | 14.56 | 3.03 | 34.69 | 1.13 | 1.66 | NN |
| Silt (%) | 125 | 39.10 | 6.09 | 52.3 | 17.7 | 15.57 | −0.60 | 0.81 | N |
| Sand (%) | 125 | 54.05 | 7.50 | 78.82 | 33.47 | 13.88 | 0.14 | 0.71 | N |
| EC (dS m−1) | 125 | 1.05 | 1.40 | 9.32 | 0.12 | 133.30 | 3.14 | 12.16 | NN |
| pH | 125 | 7.96 | 0.31 | 8.74 | 6.87 | 3.88 | −0.98 | 1.42 | NN |
Table 2.
Statistical Parameters of Soil Indicators.
Table 2.
Statistical Parameters of Soil Indicators.
| Soil Property | Model | Nugget Value (C0) | Sill Value (C0 + C) | Nugget-to-Sill Ratio (C0/C0 + C)100% | Range (km) | Coefficient of Determination (R2) | Residual (RSS) |
|---|
| SOC | Linear | 0.1126 | 0.1725 | 0.374 | 29.98 | 0.905 | 2.79 × 10−4 |
| TN | Gaussian | 0.0239 | 0.0508 | 0.530 | 27.31 | 0.943 | 4.18 × 10−5 |
| TP | Exponential | 0.0008 | 0.0115 | 0.928 | 3.87 | 0.798 | 6.95 × 10−7 |
| C/N | Exponential | 0.0798 | 0.2676 | 0.702 | 21.33 | 0.659 | 2.63 × 10−3 |
| Clay | Exponential | 0.1330 | 0.4510 | 0.705 | 20.09 | 0.801 | 4.35 × 10−3 |
| Cilt | Exponential | 0.1840 | 0.5790 | 0.645 | 21.33 | 0.739 | 6.13 × 10−3 |
| Sand | Exponential | 0.1600 | 0.7160 | 0.777 | 21.33 | 0.795 | 6.96 × 10−3 |
| EC | Gaussian | 0.2110 | 1.5780 | 0.866 | 15.77 | 0.893 | 7.39 × 10−3 |
| pH | Spherical | 3.1 × 10−3 | 3.07 × 10−3 | 0.990 | 0.17 | 0.346 | 3.33 × 10−7 |
Table 3.
The RDA results of soil properties and environmental factors.
Table 3.
The RDA results of soil properties and environmental factors.
| Environmental Factors | EL | SLP | ASP | MAE | MAT | NDVI | LUT |
|---|
| f | 0.551 | 0.099 | 0.019 | 0.41 | 0.08 | 0.71 | 0.127 |
| P | 0.001 | 0.154 | 0.901 | 0.001 | 0.245 | 0.001 | 0.070 |
| VIF | 5.583 | 1.325 | 1.238 | 3.854 | 6.568 | 1.289 | 3.839 |
Table 4.
Bootstrap validation of the driving factor model of soil organic carbon.
Table 4.
Bootstrap validation of the driving factor model of soil organic carbon.
| Path | Mean. Boot | SE | Lower Limit of the 95% Confidence Interval | Upper Limit of the 95% Confidence Interval | p Value |
|---|
| Sand -> LUT | −0.297 | 0.085 | −0.452 | −0.123 | 0.0007 |
| Sand -> NDVI | −0.258 | 0.082 | −0.412 | −0.091 | 0.0021 |
| Sand -> TN | −0.408 | 0.059 | −0.523 | −0.293 | 7.71 × 10−8 |
| Sand -> SOC | −0.026 | 0.087 | −0.192 | 0.138 | 0.6904 |
| LUT -> NDVI | 0.348 | 0.068 | 0.217 | 0.493 | 5.03 × 10−5 |
| LUT -> SOC | 0.012 | 0.037 | −0.059 | 0.087 | 0.8341 |
| NDVI -> TN | 0.422 | 0.069 | 0.286 | 0.547 | 2.83 × 10−8 |
| NDVI -> SOC | −0.024 | 0.072 | −0.170 | 0.113 | 0.7051 |
| TN -> SOC | 0.793 | 0.086 | 0.625 | 0.946 | 7.62 × 10−19 |
Table 5.
The influence of different factors on soil organic carbon.
Table 5.
The influence of different factors on soil organic carbon.
| Latent Variable | Direct Impact | Indirect Influence | Overall Impact | Contribution (%) |
|---|
| TN | 0.79 | 0 | 0.79 | 46.75 |
| LUT | −0.03 | −0.44 | −0.47 | 27.81 |
| Sand | −0.03 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 18.34 |
| NDVI | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 7.10 |
Table 6.
Bootstrap validation of the soil total nitrogen driving factor model.
Table 6.
Bootstrap validation of the soil total nitrogen driving factor model.
| Path | Mean. Boot | SE | Lower Limit of the 95% Confidence Interval | Upper Limit of the 95% Confidence Interval | p Value |
|---|
| Sand -> LUT | −0.291 | 0.086 | −0.450 | −0.108 | 0.0007 |
| Sand -> NDVI | −0.259 | 0.084 | −0.419 | −0.098 | 0.0021 |
| Sand -> SOT | −0.352 | 0.079 | −0.503 | −0.194 | 0.31 × 10−4 |
| Sand -> TN | −0.191 | 0.054 | −0.293 | −0.086 | 0.0009 |
| LUT -> NDVI | 0.348 | 0.068 | 0.212 | 0.482 | 5.03 × 10−5 |
| LUT -> TN | 0.021 | 0.038 | −0.055 | 0.098 | 0.6826 |
| NDVI -> SOC | 0.316 | 0.073 | 0.167 | 0.447 | 0.0002 |
| NDVI -> TN | 0.227 | 0.060 | 0.116 | 0.346 | 0.0002 |
| SOC -> TN | 0.602 | 0.066 | 0.468 | 0.723 | 7.62 × 10−19 |
Table 7.
The influence of different factors on the total nitrogen content of the soil.
Table 7.
The influence of different factors on the total nitrogen content of the soil.
| Latent Variable | Direct Impact | Indirect Influence | Overall Impact | Contribution (%) |
|---|
| SOC | 0.61 | 0 | 0.61 | 34.75 |
| Sand | −0.19 | −0.37 | −0.56 | 32.05 |
| NDVI | 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 23.68 |
| LUT | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 9.52 |
Table 8.
Results of self-sampling sensitivity analysis.
Table 8.
Results of self-sampling sensitivity analysis.
| Soil Property | Comparable Group | Bootstrap Mean Difference | Lower Limit of 95% Confidence Interval | Upper Limit of the 95% Confidence Interval | CI Type | Significance |
|---|
| SOC (g·kg−1) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 1.77 | 2.84 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 1.17 | 2.37 | bca | YES |
| TN (g·kg−1) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 0.46 | 0.64 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 0.33 | 0.47 | bca | YES |
| TP (g·kg−1) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 0.23 | 0.39 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 0.02 | 0.19 | bca | YES |
| C/N | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −2.48 | −0.92 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −2.59 | −1.04 | bca | YES |
| Caly (%) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 1.61 | 3.72 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 1.02 | 3.15 | bca | YES |
| Silt (%) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 3.21 | 13.43 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | 1.65 | 12.31 | bca | YES |
| Sand (%) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −16.26 | −6.23 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −14.84 | −4.04 | bca | YES |
| EC (dS m−1) | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −5.84 | −0.55 | bca | YES |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −5.16 | 0.06 | bca | NO |
| pH | Cropland vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −0.29 | 0.51 | bca | NO |
| | Plantation vs. Marginal Farmland | NaN | −0.71 | 0.18 | bca | NO |