Effects of N, P and K Application Time on Yield, Quality and Nutrient Uptake of Processing Tomato Under Chemical Fertilizer Reduction

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0157

Abstract

Abstract:

To provide technical support for reducing application and increasing efficiency of chemical fertilizers in processing tomato cultivation, the authors studied the effects of different application time of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilizer on the growth and nutritional status of processing tomato under the condition of reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer by 20%. A field experiment was employed with five treatments: (1) control treatment (CK), P and K were applied as basal fertilizer and N was applied in the whole growth season; (2) T1, N and P were reduced by 20%, P and K were basal applied with N was applied in the whole growth; (3) T2, N and P were reduced by 20%, N and P were applied before anthesis, while N and K were applied after anthesis; (4) T3, N and P were reduced by 20%, N and K were applied before anthesis, while N and P were applied after anthesis; (5) T4, N and P were reduced by 20%, and N, P and K were applied throughout the whole growth season. The results showed that: there was no significant difference of the quality of processed tomato among different treatments. Compared with those of CK, there was no significant difference of biomass, yield and NPK absorption of tomato of T2 and T4, but T2 was better than T4. Compared with those of CK, the yield of T1 and T3 decreased by 11 and 19 t/hm²; the biomass of T1 and T3 significantly decreased by 1.6 and 2.13 t/hm²; the N uptake significantly decreased by 49.43 and 60.0 kg/hm²; the P uptake significantly decreased by 8.47 and 12.37 kg/hm²; and the K uptake significantly decreased by 40.93 and 50.01 kg/hm², respectively. All reached significant difference level. The effects of T1 on the growth and nutrient uptake of processing tomato were slightly better than those of T3. In summary, under the condition of reducing 20% of N and P fertilizer, applying N and P before anthesis and N and K after anthesis can play the best role in improving the quality, yield and economic benefits of processing tomato.

Key words: processing tomato, NPK fertilizer, nutrient uptake, yield, quality

LI Yali, BAI Jing, WU Zhenghu, HALIHASH Yibati, LI Qingjun. Effects of N, P and K Application Time on Yield, Quality and Nutrient Uptake of Processing Tomato Under Chemical Fertilizer Reduction[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 58-63.

Figures/Tables 6

References 27

[1]	王振华, 陈潇洁, 吕德生, 等. 水肥耦合对加气滴灌加工番茄产量及品质的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(19):66-75.
[2]	宋方圆, 赵志永, 李冀新. 筛选品质优良的新疆主栽加工番茄品种[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(7):1267-1275. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2020.07.011
[3]	哈丽哈什·依巴提, 张炎, 李青军. 新型尿素对加工番茄的产量和氮素利用率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(2):278-287. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.02.009
[4]	桑文, 赵亚光, 张霁峰, 等. 化肥减量配施有机液体肥对加工番茄生长及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021, 2:53-60.
[5]	LIU X J, JU X T, ZHANG F S, et al. Nitrogen dynamics and budgets in a winter wheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain Field[J]. Crops res., 2003, 83(2):111-124.
[6]	VITOUSEK P M, NAYLOR R, CREWS T, et al. Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development[J]. Science, 2009, 324(5934):1519-1520. doi: 10.1126/science.1170261 URL
[7]	DAWSON C J, HILTON J. Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus[J]. Food policy, 2011: 36(1):14.
[8]	Kuscu H, Turhan A, Ozmen N, et al. Optimizing levels of water and nitrogen applied through drip irrigation for yield, quality, and water productivity of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)[J]. Horticulture environment & biotechnology, 2014, 55(2):103-114.
[9]	DU Y D, CAO H X, LIU S Q, et al. Response of yield, quality, water and nitrogen use effciency of tomato to different levels of water and nitrogen under drip irrigation in Northwestern China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2017, 16(5):1153-1161. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61371-0 URL
[10]	王新, 马富裕, 刁明, 等. 不同施氮水平下加工番茄植株生长和氮素积累与利用率的动态模拟[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(4):1043-1050.
[11]	聂大杭, 梁青, 张艳龙, 等. 不同氮肥用量对番茄养分含量、分布及产量的影响[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报, 2015, 36(2):31-34.
[12]	景博, 刁明, 张坤, 等. 基于临界氮浓度的加工番茄优化施肥效应研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020, 6:205-212.
[13]	雷成霞, 李文昊. 膜下滴灌水氮耦合对加工番茄耗水强度及氮素吸收分配的影响[J]. 石河子大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 39(1):54-61.
[14]	李亚莉, 陈雷, 张炎, 等. 缓释尿素与普通尿素配施对加工番茄产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(2):345-352. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.02.016
[15]	国世佳, 段玉, 张君, 等. 不同类型尿素配施对加工番茄产量,品质及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(6):96-103. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2017.0884
[16]	哈丽哈什·依巴提, 王金鑫, 李青军, 等. 钾肥品种对加工番茄生长发育及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021, 3:96-101.
[17]	马乔玲, 张炎, 李青军, 等. 钾肥施用对加工番茄产量及效益的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2013, 50(11):2046-2053.
[18]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M].3版北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[19]	赵光磊, 张雅奎, 吴凌娟, 等. 分期施肥对马铃薯新品种‘兴佳2号’产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(35):20-24.
[20]	窦允清, 王振华, 张金珠, 等. 水肥耦合对滴灌加工番茄生理生长及产量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(7):124-129.
[21]	张小玲, 马海刚, 赵黎, 等. 新疆加工番茄营养特性及专用肥最佳配方的研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2002, 39(5):278-282.
[22]	杨玉珍, 孟超然, 张新疆, 等. 氮、钾肥用量对膜下滴灌加工番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017, 1:61-67.
[23]	方馨妍, 周杨, 汪燕, 等. 不同氮、磷、钾用量对菊花生长及养分吸收和分配的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2020, 43(6):1015-1023.
[24]	王小晶, 蔡国, 王洋, 等. 氮磷钾分期施用对甘薯产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(7):188-192.
[25]	吕慧峰, 王小晶, 陈怡, 等. 氮磷钾分期施用对马铃薯产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(24):197-200.
[26]	董庆国. 氮肥分期调控对加工番茄产量的影响[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2017, 5:95-97.
[27]	李青军, 张炎, 胡伟, 等. 施肥方式对滴灌加工番茄干物质积累、养分吸收和产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017, 4:93-98.

年份	处理	可溶性固形物/%	Vc	色差	总酸/%	番茄红素/(mg/100 g)
2018	CK	5.74	29.2	2.59	0.41	12.6
	T1	5.15	28.09	2.55	0.39	12.15
	T2	5.96	30.37	2.54	0.39	12.79
	T3	5.44	27.37	2.56	0.4	11.94
	T4	5.67	28.34	2.61	0.41	12.44
	sig	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
2019	CK	5.75	28.25	2.65	0.41	12.79
	T1	5.13	26.64	2.58	0.39	12.19
	T2	5.91	29.89	2.66	0.4	13.89
	T3	5.32	27.77	2.57	0.39	12.27
	T4	5.68	29.28	2.63	0.41	13.52
	sig	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

年份	处理	可溶性固形物/%	Vc	色差	总酸/%	番茄红素/(mg/100 g)
2018	CK	5.74	29.2	2.59	0.41	12.6
	T1	5.15	28.09	2.55	0.39	12.15
	T2	5.96	30.37	2.54	0.39	12.79
	T3	5.44	27.37	2.56	0.4	11.94
	T4	5.67	28.34	2.61	0.41	12.44
	sig	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
2019	CK	5.75	28.25	2.65	0.41	12.79
	T1	5.13	26.64	2.58	0.39	12.19
	T2	5.91	29.89	2.66	0.4	13.89
	T3	5.32	27.77	2.57	0.39	12.27
	T4	5.68	29.28	2.63	0.41	13.52
	sig	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns