CC BY
11
Vestnik of Tuvan State University
Issue 2. Natural and agricultural sciences, №3 (49), 2019 УДК 631.415
doi 10.24411/2077-5326-2019-10013
ВЛИЯНИЕ РЕГУЛЯТОРА КИСЛОТНОСТИ НА ИЗВЕСТКОВЫЕ ПОЧВЫ С РАЗЛИЧНЫМИ БУФЕРНЫМИ СВОЙСТВАМИ
Тюлюш А-К.Ю., Ли П.Ш., Цюань И.С. Тувинский государственный университет», г. Кызыл Аграрный университет Внутренней Монголии, Хух-Хото, Китай
THE ACID REGULATING EFFECTS OF ACIDIC CONDITIONER BY ROW APPLICATION ON CALCAREOUS SOILS WITH DIFFERENT BUFFERING
PROPERTIES
Tyulyush A-K.U., Li P. Sh, Quanyi S. Tuvan State University, Kyzyl, Russia Agricultural University of Inner Mongolia, Hohhot, China
В статье изучается влияние микропористой модуляции на известняковую почву с различными буферными свойствами в регионе для снижения ее локальной щелочности (рН) в соответствии с требованиями роста некоторых культур, выращиваемых на открытом воздухе. Результаты показали, что кислотно-щелочная буферная пропускная способность почвы была связана с CaCO3, CEC по содержанию и текстуре почвы. Кислотно-щелочная буферная пропускная способность трех почв различной текстуры представлена в следующей последовательности: тяжелый суглинок (в = 3,07)> легкий суглинок (в = 2,41)> плотный песок (в = 2,12). Два регулятора кислотности уменьшили pH исследуемой почвы с различными буферными свойствами на 2 см. Как тип кислотного регулятора, так и буферные свойства почвы влияли на эффект кислотного регулирования в микрозоне. Ключевые слова: регулятор кислотности; влияние; буферное свойство; pH почвы
The article studies the effect of microporous modulation on the calcareous soil with the different buffering properties in the region to reduce its local alkalinity (pH) in accordance with the requirements of the growth of some outdoor cultivated crops. The results showed that the acid-alkaline buffer capacity of the soil was related to CaCO3, CEC in its content and soil texture. Acid-alkaline buffer capacity of three soils of different texture is presented in the following sequence: heavy loam (в=3,07) > light loam (в=2,41) > tight sand (в=2,12). Two of the acidic conditioners made pH of the tested soil with different buffering properties reduced in 2 cm. Both the type of acid regulator and soil buffering properties influenced the effect of acid regulation in the microzone.
The pH value of soil varies between 4 to 9 in China. Geographically it is shown in distribution of 'acidity of the south-east' and 'alkalinity of the north-west' which means that from the north
to the south the pH of soil gradually decreases. Calcareous soils are widespread in the highlands of Inner Mongolia - 7,5 ~ 8,5[1], or even higher. The overall growth of the crop corresponding to the pH range of 5,0 ~ 7,5, such as potato, grown in the inner Mongolia region, has a suitable pH range of 4,8 ~ 6,5 maize - 5,5 ~ 7,5 wheat - 5 ~ 7,5 soybean - 6,0 ~ 7,0 and sunflower - 6,0 ~ 8,0[2]. A high pH also effects on the efficiency of useful substance in the soil - the most useful soil substance exists at the level above pH 6,5.
The use of oxidizers in soil can reduce soil pH[3-4]. But there are oxidizers of different types, as well as methods of their application, the degrees of influence and the mechanism of soil pH, etc. which are not the same things. Studies have shown that low molecular weight of organic acids (citric acid), chemical acidic substances (phosphoric acid, sulfur, furfural residue, urea phosphate, etc.) and physiological acid fertilizers (ammonia nitrogen fertilizers) can reduce soil pH, which affects the efficiency of nutrients in the soil[5-11]. Local application of drip irrigation by the application of calcium nitrate, urea and ammonium sulfate compared to the application of calcareous soil acidification gives the higher effect than the acidification range[12-13]. The buffer effect of soil oxidizing can lead to soil passivation. For large-scale improvement of soil pH it is necessary to apply a large number of acidity regulators, which are not considered to be effective in cost. Thus, to increase the pH efficiency of the soil, lime should be applied alternatively in regulating the root zone of plants. Thus, the price and amount of the oxidizer is much cheaper. The study of the row application of acidic conditioner regards the effect of diffusion and acid regulating on calcareous soils with different buffering properties, which can provide a theoretical basis and technical support for the local oxidation technology of calcareous soils in production. Keyword: acidic conditioner, effect, buffering property, the pH of soil.
1. Materials and methods 1.1 Tested soil
Three different soil textures were chosen for the experiment, with the use of a hydrometer.
1.2 Experiment Scheme and Design In the test, a two-factor three-level fully combined device was used, these two factors determined the difference in the granulometric composition of the soil and the types of acidity
The results showed that they were dense sand, light loamy soils and heavy loamy soils. The main properties of the soils are given in the table below (Table 1).
regulators. The difference in soil texture was determined by on dense sandy, light loamy and heavy loamy soils, acidity regulator 1 and acidity regulator 2, not all types of acidity regulators fitted together. The norm application
Table 1. Basic properties of the tested soil
Soil texture pH Organic matter (g/kg) CaCO3 (%) CEC (cmol/kg)
Tight Sand(A) 8,89 2,3 7,15 4,28
Light Loam(B) 8,53 9,5 12,76 7,97
Heavy Loam (C) 8,41 5,5 17,06 12,63
of the acidity regulator is 675 kg / hm2. In total, 9 tests were carried out, each was repeated 6 times.
The study was carried out in a room without cultivations plants, natural air drying was carried out, the soil was sifted on a sieve of 2 mm and mixed in special laboratory cups. Plastic flower pots with holes in the bottom (Router=32cm, Rinner =27,9cm, Rbottom =18,5cm, H=20,9cm) were used, each pot with soil weighed 9kg. Before adding the oxidizer to the experimental pots, 10 sm deep and 2 cm wide furrows were made. After adding the oxidizing material, the soil was carefully watered. If the soil moisture was more than 70 %, then the plants were not planted. The pots were sealed with food package film, so that the water did not evaporate and holes on the film were left, so that gas exchange occured. During the entire test period of 10 days the soil was weighted once and watered to prevent dryness.
1.3 Sampling time
On the days 15, 30, 45, 60, 80 and 100 after the start of the test, a special soil drill with a diameter of 1 cm was taken in a distance of 2 cm on both sides of the material, and each distance point on each side was taken 5 times. Then the soil sample was mixed at the distance
point.
1.4 Determination method
Soil pH: pH meter with a water to soil ratio of 2,5:1.
Determination of soil acid-base buffer titration curve [14]: 11 beakers were taken and numbered separately, 4,00g test soil samples was put in each beaker, and then 0,5 ml was added according to the number in beakers 1-5. 1,0 ml, 2,0 ml, 3,0 ml, 4,0 ml of 0,1 mol/L HCl; in the 7 to 11 beakers, the same amount of NaOH with the same amount of HCl was added, and only the CO2-free distilled water in the No. 6 beaker was added. The volume of each beaker was 20 ml, which was shaken in sequence and was allowed to stand for 72 h, and then shaken 3 to 4 times a day to measure the pH. After the pH was measured, the linear equation was established by plotting the pH as the ordinate and the amount of acid and alkali was added as the abscissa.
1.5 Data analysis
The data was processed with Excel 2016 and plotted; statistical analysis was performed with SAS 9.2.
2. Results and analysis
2.1 Buffer performance of different texture soils
Fig. 1 Soil acid-base titration curve of different soil texture
In the Fig. 1 curves of acid-base titration of the studied soil sample are given. The results show that the acid-base titration curve of the soil has the shape of "S". A smoother curve indicates that the better the soil buffering properties, the stronger the soil resistance to acids and alkalis. These three soil curves show that the acidic environment does not change i.e. the pH of the soil with the addition of acid changes slowly. This indicates that the soil has a strong buffer property for acids, which may be related to CaCO3 in the content of the soil, i.e. that the higher the content of CaCO3, the slower its change. The 3 types of curves in the alkaline environment make it clear that this may be due to the higher pH content of the soil itself.
As it can be seen from the graph the curve of the acidic environment changes, the power of the buffer properties of the three types soil, of heavy loamy soil > loamy soil > dense sandy soil. In three types of soils tested, the curve shows that, heavy loamy soil is the most stable, which shows that its soil buffer properties are the best, then light loamy soil and, at the end, dense sandy soil. pH changes
on the chart curve, and P is the value of the amount of buffer properties of soils, therefore, the horizontal addition amount of the acid, P=AH(OH)/ ApH, quantitative expressions of 3 types of buffer properties of soils. If the value of P is greater, then the base acid-alkaline buffer capacity of the soil is powerful[15], so three species based on the acid-alkaline buffer capacity of soils show the following results: heavy loam (P=3,07) > light loam (P=2,41) > dense sandy soil(P=2,12).
The main difference is in the buffer property between different soils. It is clear from organic matter, soil pH, CaCO3 and other content CEC of the soil (table 2). Statistical analysis shows that the content of CEC and CaCO3 is the main factor affecting soil buffering, and the correlation coefficient between them and the value of P is 0,988 and 0,956; and after that soil pH, but pH and P show a very significant negative correlation (P<0,01), the correlation coefficient is -0,877; correlation coefficient containing organic substances and P value of 0,236, the correlation between them is not significant.
Table 2. Effects of acid-regulating agents on soil with different buffering properties
Physical and chemical indicators.
pH
Organic matter
CaCO,
CEC
P Value
-0,877*
0,236
0,956*
0,988
Note: " and * the difference P<0,01 and P<U,U5 the degree of importance
2.2 Acid regulating effect of different acidic conditioners
It can be seen from table 3 that applied to tight sand for 15 days, 45 days and 100 days, the acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner 1 is higher than that of the agent 2 which means that the soil pH drops greatly at this time point, and the two kinds of acidic
conditioners show a difference at a significant level of P < 0,1; while the acid-regulating effect after 30 days, 60 days and 80 days was that the acidic conditioner 2 was higher than the agent 1. When the acidic conditioners 1 was applied to the soil for 45 days, the pH value decreased by 0,44 units to 8,42 which was compared with the controlled one and reached the
maximum extent; when the acidic conditioner units which reached the maximum extent of 2 was applied to the soil for 60 days, the pH the decline. value decreased to 8,52, a decrease of 0,37
Table 3. Effects of acidic conditioners on soil with different buffering properties
Soil Type
Type of Acidic Conditioner
Times
15d
30d
45d
60d
80d
100d
A
Acidic Conditioner 1
0,32Aa
0,11Aa
0,44Aa
0,25Bb
0,20Bb
0,35Aa
Acidic Conditioner 2
0,12Bb
0,23Aa
0,29Ab
0,37Aa
0,26Aa
0,15Bb
B
Acidic Conditioner 1
0,15Aa
0,21Aa
0,30Aa
0,29Aa
0,28Aa
0,5Aa
Acidic Conditioner 2
0,01Bb
0,15Aa
0,27Aa
0,28Aa
0,17Ab
0,39Aa
C
Acidic Conditioner 1
0,17Aa
0,13Aa
0,22Aa
0,21Aa
0,15Aa
0,16Aa
Acidic Conditioner 2
0,08Bb
0,08Ab
0,15Aa
0,14Bb
0,09Aa
0,15Aa
Note: T he value is the difference between the pH Values of each time point and the control, indicating that the pH value of each soil sample decreases. Different uppercase and lowercase letters represent significant levels of P < 0,05 and P < 1,0m between different acid-regulating agents of the same soil at the same time.
After applying the acidic conditioner 1 to the light loam, the acid regulating effect was higher than that of the agent 2 at each time point, and the soil pH decreased by 0,45 units to 8,09 after 100 days, reaching the maximum extent; while the acidic conditioner 2 was applied to the soil for 100 days, the pH decreased by 0,39 units compared with the controlled one, and the decrease was lower than the agent 1. When the acidic conditioners were applied to the soil for 15 days and 80 days, the acid regulating effect of the two acidic conditioners showed a significant difference (P < 0,1), and there was no significant difference at other time points. The acid regulating effect reached its maximum in 100 days when the two acidic conditioners were applied to the light loam.
After the acidic conditioner 1 was applied to the heavy loam, the acid regulating effect was higher than that of agent 2 at each time point. The acidic conditioner 1 reached the maximum acid regulating effect after 45 days, at that time the soil pH decreased by 0,22 units to 8,17; the acidic conditioner 2 decreased the soil pH by 0,15 units in 45 days and 100 days,
and when the agent was applied to the soil for 100 days, its acid regulating effect reached the maximum; the effect of the two acidifiers was significantly different when the acidifier was applied to the soil for 15 days, 30 days and 60 days (P < 0,1).
In summary, the type of acid regulator is different, and the acid regulating effect on the soil is also different. For light loam and heavy loam, the acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner 1 is higher than that of the agent 2; for tight sand, the acid regulating effect of acid conditioner 1 is higher than that of the agent 2 in 15 days, 45 days and 100 days.
2.3 Acid regulating effect of acidic conditioner on soil with different buffering properties
Through the analysis of the acid regulating effect of different acidic conditioners it is clear that the acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner 1 is higher than that of agent 2, so we use the acidic conditioner 1 to analyze the acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner in different buffering soils. (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Acid regulating effect of acidifier 1 on soils with different buffering
properties
It can be seen in the Fig. 2 that the pH value of the tight sand reaches the maximum when the acidifier 1 is applied to the soil for 45 days. With the extension of time, the trend of the acid regulating effect of the agent 1 in tight sand tends to decrease, then increase, decrease and increase again. When the agent was applied to the light loam, the pH decreased gradually with the prolongation of time. The pH value reached the maximum in 100 days. After the acidifier was applied to the heavy loam, although the pH was decreasing, the reduction was not much different in time. When the acidifier 1 was applied to the soil for 15 days and 45 days, the acid-regulating effect of the tight sand was the largest; in 30 days, the acid-regulating effect of the three different buffering properties soils was not significant; and after 45 days, the acid regulating effect of the light loam was the largest, followed by tight sand, the smallest was of the heavy loam.
The acid regulating effect of the acidifier on the lime soil with different buffering properties was different at 2cm. The buffering performance of the three types of soils was:
heavy loam> light loam> tight sand. In the short term, the acid regulating effect of the tight sand was the best; but for a long time, the effect of the acidic conditioner on the micro-zone of the soil was following: light loam > tight sand > heavy loam.
3. Discussion
The acidic conditioner can lower the pH value of the soil, and the acid regulating effect is affected by the buffering performance of the soil in addition to the action of the acidic conditioner itself. In our study, the shape of the acid-base buffer curve of three different textures of calcareous soil is similar to the results of previous studies [16-18], but the degree of graduality is slightly different, which may be related to the tested soil (the pH is higher than 8) which are alkaline or even strong alkaline soil. Soil colloid type, soil texture, cation substitution, etc. are the main factors which can affect soil acid-base buffering[2]. The difference in buffer performance between different soils is related to the content of CaCO3 pH, CEC and texture of soil[19]. The results of this study indicated that the buffering performance of soil
was related to the content of CaCO3, CEC and texture of soil. The buffering properties of the three tested soils were: heavy loam > light loam > tight sand.
The sand has strong permeability, good ventilation and loose soil. The soil capillary acts strongly and the water runs fast. After the acidic conditioner is applied to the soil, it can spread quickly in the soil with the diffusion of water, which thereby reduce the pH value in a short time; the loam soil is loose, and the aeration and water permeability are also good. Because the clay content aeration in the light loam is low and the soil pH value is relatively obvious.
The acidic conditioner we applied was made of a mixture of cushioning, long-acting and organic materials. It had a low pH value and could lower the soil pH in a short period of time. The long-acting acid regulating material gradually produced hydrogen in the soil. The hydrogen ions were acid-regulated to achieve long-term acid regulating of the soil in the root zone during the crop growing season. The combination of the two properties can maintain the pH of the soil for a relatively long period of
References
1. Yao Xiao-Qin. Effects of different acidic materials on pH value of calcareous soil // Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture. - 2006. - (04):68-71. - Текст: непосредственный.
2. Lu Yi-Zhong. Soil science // Chinese Agriculture Press. - 2006. - Текст: непосредственный.
3. Yao Xiao-Qin. Effect of phosphoric acid on pH and micronutrient availability in calcareous soil // Soils and Fertilizers. -2005. - 14-20. - Yao Xiao-Qin
time, and the effect of long-term acid regulating can be achieved to promote the growth of crops. The pH of the later soil treated with the acidic conditioner 1 lower than that of the acidic conditioner 2, which is probably the result of the content of the buffering material and the self-buffering effect.
4. Conclusion
The buffering properties of the three different-texture tested soils was heavy loam> light loam> tight sand. Different kinds of acidic conditioners can reduce the pH value of calcareous soil in the range of 2 cm. However, the acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner 1 is more obvious than that of the acidic conditioner 2. The long-acting acid regulating effect of the acidic conditioner on the micro-region of the calcareous soil is light loam > tight sand > heavy loam. The row application of acidic conditioner formed by reasonable compounding of acidic materials in calcareous soils can create relatively low pH conditions for the entire growing season root zone and improve environmental factors for crop growth.
4. Zhang Shu-jie. Applying Soil Acidification Agents and Adjusting Sowing Date to Deal with Rice Chlorosis in Seedling Stage Caused by Iron Deficiency Under Drip Irrigation with Plastic Film Mulching // Chin J Rice Sci. - 2015. - 519-527. - Текст: непосредственный.
5. Xiao Yan. Effect of citrate on nutrient activation in calcareous soil and on P and Fe uptake by crops // Ecology and Environment. - 2004. - 638-640. - Текст: непосредственный.
6. Zhang Chong-yu. The effect of citric acid
on release of phosphorus in calcareous soils // Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas,. - 2004.- 17-19.- Текст: непосредственный.
7. Zhao Hong-hua. Acidic Materials on Mobilization of Phosphorus in Calcareous Soil and Its Impact on Phosphorus Uptake of Drip-irrigated Cotton. - Soils,2015. -847-852. - Текст: непосредственный.
8. Wu Xi. Effects of sulfur application on the growth of cole, soil pH and available P in alkaline soil // Nutrition and Fertilizer Science. - 2007. - 671-677. - Текст: непосредственный.
9. Zhang Ji-shi. Effects of different amendments on soil physical and chemical properties and wheat growth in a coastal saline soil // Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer. - 2017. - 704-711. - Текст: непосредственный.
10. Zhang Hao-yu. Effects of different acidifiers on pH and phosphorus availability in calcareous soil // Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China. - 2019. - 145-150. -Текст: непосредственный.
11. Thomson C. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer form on pH of the bulk soil and rhizosphere, and on the growth, phosphorus, and micronutrient uptake of bean // Journal of plant nutrition. - 1993. - 493-506. - Текст: непосредственный.
12. Haynes R. Effect of trickle fertigation with three forms of nitrogen on soil pH, levels of extractable nutrients below the emitter and plant growth // Plant and soil. - 1987. - 211221. - Текст: непосредственный.
13. Jing J. Localized application of phosphorus and ammonium improves growth of maize seedlings by stimulating root proliferation
and rhizosphere acidification // Field Crops Research. - 2010. - 355-364. - Текст: непосредственный.
14. Cheng Jie-min. New Method for Evaluating Buffering Capacity and Equilibrium pH of Paddy Soil with Simulation Parameter // Journal of Agro-Environment Science. -2004. - 569-573. - Текст: непосредственный.
15. Pan Gen-xing. Initial Buffering Capacity as a Parameter for Evaluating soil Sensitivity to Acid Rain // Tropical and Subtropical Soil Science. - 1993. - 137-140. - Текст: непосредственный.
16. Sun Yue. Effect of Different Crop Stubble on Soil Acidification Rate and Buffering Performance // Journal of Jilin Agricultural University. - 2016. - 302-306. - Текст: непосредственный.
17. Hu Bo. Acidic Buffering Capability and Its Influencing Factors of Typical Forests Soil in Jinyun Mountain, Chongqing // Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. - 2013. -77-83 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
18. Yu Tian-ren, Chen Zhi-cheng. Chemical processes in soil genesis //Beijing: Science Press, 1996. - Текст: непосредственный
Библиографический список
1. Яо Сяо-Цинь. Влияние различных кислот на pH известняковой почвы // Китайский журнал экологии сельского хозяйства. - 2006. - 20-23 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
2. Лу И-Чжун. Почвоведение // Китайская Сельскохозяйственная Пресса. - 2006. -12-15 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
3. Яо Сяо-Цинь. Влияние фосфорной кислоты на pH и внесение микроэлементов в известняковую почву // Почвы и удо-
брения. - 2005. - 14-20 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
4. Чжан Шуцзе. Применение агентов под-кисления почвы и определение даты посева для борьбы с рисовым хлорозом на стадии рассады, вызванной дефицитом железа при капельном орошении // Chin J Rice Sci. - 2015. - 29 (5): 519-527с.
- Текст: непосредственный.
5. Сяо Ян. Влияние цитрата на активацию питательных веществ в известковой почве и на усвоение P и Fe сельскохозяйственными культурами // Экология и окружающая среда. - 2004. - 638-640с.
- Текст: непосредственный.
6. Чжан Чон Ю. Влияние лимонной кислоты на известковые почвы // Сельскохозяйственные исследования в засушливых районах. - 2004. - 17-19 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
7. Чжао Хун-хуа. Химические материалы по мобилизации фосфора в известковой почве и его влияние на поглощение фосфора хлопком // Почвы. - 2015. - 847-852 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
8. Ву Си. Влияние серы на рост коралла, рН почвы и фосфор в щелочной почве // Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science.
- 2007. - 671-677 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
9. Чжан Цзи-ши. Влияние различных добавок на физико-химические свойства почвы и рост пшеницы в прибрежной засоленной почве // Журнал питания растений и удобрений. - 2017. - 704-711 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
10. Чжан Хао-ю. Влияние различных под-кислителей на рН и наличие фосфора в известковой почве // Почвоведение и
удобрения в Китае. - 2019. - 145-150 с. -Текст: непосредственный.
11. Томсон С. Влияние азотных удобрений на рН почвы и ризосферы, а также на рост растений, фосфор и поглощение микроэлементов бобами // Журнал питания растений. - 1993. - 493-506 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
12. Хейнс Р. Влияние струйного фертига-ции с тремя формами азота на рН почвы, уровни экстрагируемых питательных веществ ниже уровня эмиссии и рост растений // Растение и почва. - 1987. -211-221 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
13. Цзин J. Локальное применение фосфора и аммония на улучшение роста кукурузы и для стимулирование роста корней и подкисление ризосферы // Исследования полевых культур. - 2010. - 355-364 с. -Текст: непосредственный.
14. Чэн Цзе-мин. Новый метод оценки по буферному свойству и рН почвы рисовых полей с параметром моделирования // Журнал Агроэкология. - 2004. - 569573 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
15. Пан Ген-Син. Свойства буферных растворов как параметр для оценки чувствительности почвы к кислотному дождю // Тропическая и субтропическая почвоведение. - 1993. - 37-140 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
16. Сунь Юэ. Влияние различной стерни на урожайность и эффективность буферизации почвы // Журнал Цзилиньского сельскохозяйственного университета. - 2016. - 302-306 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
17. Ху Бо. Кислотно-основные буферные системы и ее влияющие факторы на се-
рые лесные почвы в горах Цзиньюнь, Чунцин // Журнал охраны почв и водных ресурсов. - 2013. - 77-83 с. - Текст: непосредственный.
18. Юй Тянь Рэнь. Химические процессы в почвенном генезисе. - Пекин: Science Press, 1996. - Текст: непосредственный.
Тюлюш Анай-Кыс Юрийевна - PhD, кандидат сельскохозяйственных наук, ассистент кафедры агрономии Тувинского государственного университета, Кызыл, e-mail: anaikys@ yandex.ru
Ши Ли Пин - аспирант, кафедра почвоведения, Аграрный университет Внутренней Монголии, Хух-Хото, Китай, e-mail: shuixiaoslp@163.com
Цюань И Су - доктор сельскохозяйственных наук, профессор кафедры почвоведения, Аграрный университет Внутренней Монголии, Хух-Хото, Китай, e-mail: paul98@sina. com
Anai-kys Tyulyush - Candidate of Agricultural Sciences, Assistant at the Department of Agronomy,Tuvan State University, Kyzyl, e-mail: anaikys@yandex.ru Li Ping Shi - Postgraduate student, Department of Soil Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, e-mail: shuixiaoslp@163.com
Quan Yi Suo - Doctor of Agricultural Sciences, Professor, Department of Soil Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, e-mail: paul98@sina.com
Дата поступления статьи в редакцию 31.08. 2019
