中文摘要：

[目的]通过分析评价广西甘蔗种植区的土壤肥力状况．为甘蔗科学合理种植及施肥提供理论依据．并进一步完善广西蔗地土壤肥力评价体系。[方法]对采自广西甘蔗种植区3006个样点的耕层土壤样品进行养分测定。并采用改进的Nemerow肥力综合指数法评价该基地土壤的肥力特征。[结果]试验结果表明．广西蔗区土壤质地粘重，绝大多数土壤偏酸性，平均值为4．94；土壤有效硼缺乏。平均含量为0．24mg／kg；土壤交换性镁含量偏低。平均值为62．34mg／kg：有机质含量一般．碱解N、速效P、速效K、有效铜、有效锌、有效锰、有效钙含量总体处于中等水平．但呈现养分区域不平衡现象与高产土壤条件相比仍有较大差距。改进的Nemerow肥力综合指数法评价结果显示．蔗地土壤肥力为Ⅲ级．即低肥力水平，综合肥力指数为O．56。单项肥力指数有效铜，有效锌，交换性镁．速效，有效锰。碱解氮处于贫瘠水平，其他指标处于一般肥力水平或较高肥力水平。[结论]广西甘蔗种植区土壤肥力总体属于较低水平：采用上述综合评价方法．可提高土壤肥力评价的定量化水平和科学性．从而可减少评价过程中主观因素的影响。

英文摘要：

[Objective] Soil fertility in Guangxi sugarcane-growing areas was evaluated to provide theoretical reference for sugarcane scientific planting and fertilization and further optimize evaluation system for soil fertility in Guangxi sugarcane-growing ar- eas. [Method] Nutrients of soil samples in 3 006 plots were measured, and fertility characters were evaluated based on the improved Nemerow composite index method. [Result] Soil in Guangxi sugarcane-growing area was sticky and acidic with an average pH value of 4.94. Available B was insufficient with an average content of 0.24 mg/kg. Exchangeable Mg was low with an average content of 62.34 mg/kg. Organic matter content was moderate. The contents of alkali N, rapidly available P, rapidly available K, available Cu, available Zn, available Mn and available Ca were moderate. However, unlike the soil in high-yield areas, there was unbalanced nutri- tion distribution. According to Nemerow integrated index method, soil fertility in sug- arcane-growing areas was grade lU, namely low fertility. The integrated fertility index was 0.56. Individual fertility indexes including rapid available Cu, rapidly available Zn, exchangeable Mg, available Mn, rapidly available manganese Mn and alkali N were at poor level. Other indexes were at medium or high level. [Conclusion] It could be concluded that soil fertility in Guangxi sugarcane-growing area was gener- ally low, The above-mentioned evaluation method could help to build a quantified and scientific soil fertility evaluation system and reduce the impacts of subjective factors during evaluation process.