水稻梯田土壤速效氮、磷、钾的迁移与分布特征研究

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0302

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究水稻梯田氮、磷、钾速效成分迁移与分布规律,为实现精准配方施肥提供依据。选择白石村10个有水稻梯田分布的村民小组,每个村民小组为一个采样区,按照水流路径,每个采样区梯田分成6层,每层采用“S”形布点法采集5个土样,分别测定土壤的碱解氮、速效磷和速效钾含量,并建立与梯田层次间的函数关系式,研究其横向迁移分布情况与规律。结果表明：白石村土壤主要养分平均含量：碱解氮103.3±13.67 mg/kg、速效磷42.84±5.42 mg/kg、速效钾95.25±13.91 mg/kg,营养等级为中上;碱解氮、速效钾从上层梯田向下层梯田迁移,并有显著的指数回归趋势,平均相关系数分别为0.9719和0.9885,低洼地氮素含量偏高;速效磷纵向迁移不明显,但其含量与碱解氮含量呈负相关,拟合度为72.72%。白石村水稻梯田碱解氮、速效钾含量随着水流由上层向下层迁移,并具有明显的指数回归趋势;速效磷随水流迁移不明显,分布相对稳定,有富集倾向。

关键词: 水稻梯田, 土壤养分, 迁移, 分布, 配方施肥

Abstract:

To provide a basis for the realization of precision formula fertilization, the migration and distribution of available components of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in rice terraces were studied. Ten villagers’ groups with rice terraces in Baishi Village were selected. Each villagers’ group was a sampling area. According to the water flow path, the terraces in each sampling area were divided into six layers. Five soil samples were collected in each layer by serpentine distribution method. The contents of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium were measured respectively, and the functional relationship with the terraces was established to study the horizontal migration and distribution. The results showed that the average content of main nutrients in Baishi Village soil were alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen 103.3±13.67 mg/kg, available phosphorus 42.84±5.42 mg/kg, available potassium 95.25±13.91 mg/kg, and the nutritional grade was above average. Alkali- hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium migrated from upper terrace to lower terrace, and there was a significantly exponential regression trend. The average correlation coefficient was 0.9719 and 0.9885 respectively. The nitrogen content in low-lying land was high. The vertical migration of available phosphorus was not obvious, but its content was negatively correlated with the content of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, and the fitting degree was 72.72%. The contents of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium in rice terraces in Baishi Village migrated from the upper layer to the lower layer with the water flow, and had an obvious exponential regression trend. The migration of available phosphorus was not obvious with the flow, but the distribution was relatively stable and tended to be enriched.

Key words: rice terraces, soil nutrients, migration, distribution, formula fertilization

中图分类号:

S151.9

杨敏, 陈秀虎, 皮晓娟, 郭峰, 陈新苗, 胡结文. 水稻梯田土壤速效氮、磷、钾的迁移与分布特征研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(26): 50-55.

YANG Min, CHEN Xiuhu, PI Xiaojuan, GUO Feng, CHEN Xinmiao, HU Jiewen. Migration and Distribution Characteristics of Available Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in Rice Terrace Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(26): 50-55.

图/表 7

参考文献 25

[1]	杨秉庚, 蔡思源, 刘宇娟,等. 土壤供保氮能力决定稻田氮肥增产效果和利用率[J]. 土壤学报,DOI: 10.11766/trxb202104070181/2021-07-20. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/32.1119.P.20210720.0847.002.html. doi: 10.11766/trxb202104070181/2021-07-20 URL
[2]	彭显龙, 匡旭, 李鹏飞,等. 协调水稻产量和品质的植株临界氮浓度的确定[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(1):109-116.
[3]	刘晓伟, 王火焰, 朱德进,等. 氮肥施用方式对水稻产量以及氮、磷、钾养分吸收利用的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2017, 40(2):203-210.
[4]	李仁英, 李霖, 黄利东,等. 不同品种水稻的产量构成因素及其对氮磷吸收的差异研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(6):1418-1424.
[5]	VALANI G P, VEZZANI F M, MATIA K, et al. Soil quality: Evaluation of on-farm assessments in relation to analytical index[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2020, 198:104565. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104565 URL
[6]	杨文飞, 杜小凤, 顾大路,等. 长期施肥对根系及土壤微生态环境、养分和结构影响综述[J]. 江西农业学报, 2020, 32(12):37-44.
[7]	李发, 王农, 徐应明,等. 水稻土对磷的吸持能力及环境风险研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2017, 37(12):4724-4739.
[8]	ZHAO Z, LIU G, LIU Q, et al. Distribution Characteristics and Seasonal Variation of Soil Nutrients in the Mun River Basin, Thailand[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15(9):1818. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15091818 URL
[9]	BHUNIA G, Shit K P, POURGHASEMI H R. Soil organic carbon mapping using remote sensing techniques and multivariate regression model[J]. Geocarto International, 2019, 34(2):215-226. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2017.1381179 URL
[10]	李赛慧, 陈丽芬, 王会来,等. 施肥对稻田培肥及水稻浙优21产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(4):676-678.
[11]	黄昌勇, 徐建明. 土壤学(第3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012:8-9.
[12]	陈秀虎, 杨敏, 陆远宁,等. 常见叶菜测土配方施肥计算方法的研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2011(2):11-15.
[13]	刘智杰, 黄丽, 李峰,等. 秸秆还田对水稻土黏土矿物组成和钾素释放的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(6):1390-1396.
[14]	陈晓群, 孙玉芳, 赵营,等. 不同N、P肥比对水稻产量、养分吸收及稻田水环境的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2010, 19(7):173-180.
[15]	肖淑媛, 徐晓昂, 陈宗顺,等. 洞庭湖南岸南县水稻田土壤肥力因子空间变异特征[J]. 东北农业科学, 2021, 46(5):35-39.
[16]	陈防, 刘冬碧, 姜丽娜,等. 中亚热带两种水稻土土壤养分空间变异的对比研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2006, 43(4):687-691.
[17]	鲍士旦, 杨超光, 徐国华,等. 土壤农化分析, 第3版[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:33-91.
[18]	孙浩燕, 王森, 李小坤,等. 浅层施肥对水稻苗期养分吸收及土壤养分分布的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(6):1061-1067.
[19]	阿迪拉·阿布力米提, 王勇辉.艾比湖湿地不同水淹条件下土壤养分变化研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2020, 43(2):12-18.
[20]	李小坤, 鲁剑巍, 吴礼树. 土壤钾素固定和释放机制研究进展[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2008, 47(4):473-477.
[21]	胡雅, 张露, 刘金宝. 黄土丘陵沟壑区沟道土壤养分分布特征研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2018, 37(2):85-88.
[22]	詹秋丽, 张黎明, 周碧青,等. 福建耕地土壤磷素富集空间差异及其影响因素[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(2):274-283
[23]	杨敏, 陈秀虎, 陆远宁,等. 清远市郊菜地土壤营养和叶菜产量状况及施肥建议[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(23):287-290.
[24]	夏文建, 冀建华, 刘佳,等. 长期不同施肥红壤磷素特征和流失风险研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(12):1876-1886.
[25]	王艳玲, 章永辉, 何园球. 红壤基质组分对磷吸持指数的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(3):552-559.

营养成分	平均值/(mg/kg)	标准差/(mg/kg)	变异系数/%	极差/(mg/kg)	评定等级
有机质	21.20	3.16	14.91	10.09	中上
碱解氮	103.3	13.67	13.23	48.36	中上
速效磷	42.84	5.42	12.66	18.54	极高
速效钾	95.25	13.91	14.60	41.75	中等

营养成分	平均值/(mg/kg)	标准差/(mg/kg)	变异系数/%	极差/(mg/kg)	评定等级
有机质	21.20	3.16	14.91	10.09	中上
碱解氮	103.3	13.67	13.23	48.36	中上
速效磷	42.84	5.42	12.66	18.54	极高
速效钾	95.25	13.91	14.60	41.75	中等

采样点	各层次梯田土壤碱解氮含量/(mg/kg)						指数回归分析
采样点	1	2	3	4	5	6	回归方程	相关系数
李屋	70.74±1.07	72.12±0.34	78.28±0.39	75.30±0.29	80.12±0.52	82.10±0.38	y = 68.92e^0.0292^x	0.9233
谢屋	82.50±0.68	85.10±0.39	91.27±0.81	87.96±0.97	98.75±0.85	109.3±0.84	y = 76.77e^0.0519^x	0.9277
下坪	69.87±0.42	72.56±0.60	95.60±0.41	97.45±0.81	103.74±1.23	131.2±0.65	y = 60.78e^0.1213^x	0.9639
风冲口	78.60±1.02	82.50±0.75	90.54±0.51	94.68±0.97	96.24±0.41	156.8±1.30	y = 65.35e^0.1132^x	0.8548
三联	80.03±0.91	87.69±0.43	98.29±0.84	109.6±0.77	113.7±1.15	124.6±1.28	y = 74.18e^0.0886^x	0.9920
楼冲	85.32±0.56	87.60±0.67	90.87±0.57	102.9±0.64	128.3±0.52	123.4±0.72	y = 74.49e^0.089^x	0.9382
老寨	84.17±0.45	83.60±0.68	96.50±0.64	102.1±0.42	128.3±0.67	163.5±0.50	y = 66.78e^0.1332^x	0.9500
新楼	90.12±0.95	104.0±0.88	107.2±0.64	105.9±0.96	129.2±0.40	148.9±1.02	y = 82.24e^0.09^x	0.9437
胡屋	92.47±0.82	100.8±0.31	99.38±0.85	109.5±0.53	138.4±0.79	150.3±0.91	y = 79.99e^0.0993^x	0.9455
上坪	106.4±0.98	111.2±0.66	112.6±0.68	122.0±0.62	127.7±0.59	169.0±0.90	y = 93.08e^0.0802^x	0.8931
平均值	84.02	88.72	96.06	100.73	114.45	135.90	y = 73.9e^0.0919^x	0.9719
标准差	10.72	12.92	9.50	12.90	18.94	27.04

采样点	各层次梯田土壤碱解氮含量/(mg/kg)						指数回归分析
采样点	1	2	3	4	5	6	回归方程	相关系数
李屋	70.74±1.07	72.12±0.34	78.28±0.39	75.30±0.29	80.12±0.52	82.10±0.38	y = 68.92e^0.0292^x	0.9233
谢屋	82.50±0.68	85.10±0.39	91.27±0.81	87.96±0.97	98.75±0.85	109.3±0.84	y = 76.77e^0.0519^x	0.9277
下坪	69.87±0.42	72.56±0.60	95.60±0.41	97.45±0.81	103.74±1.23	131.2±0.65	y = 60.78e^0.1213^x	0.9639
风冲口	78.60±1.02	82.50±0.75	90.54±0.51	94.68±0.97	96.24±0.41	156.8±1.30	y = 65.35e^0.1132^x	0.8548
三联	80.03±0.91	87.69±0.43	98.29±0.84	109.6±0.77	113.7±1.15	124.6±1.28	y = 74.18e^0.0886^x	0.9920
楼冲	85.32±0.56	87.60±0.67	90.87±0.57	102.9±0.64	128.3±0.52	123.4±0.72	y = 74.49e^0.089^x	0.9382
老寨	84.17±0.45	83.60±0.68	96.50±0.64	102.1±0.42	128.3±0.67	163.5±0.50	y = 66.78e^0.1332^x	0.9500
新楼	90.12±0.95	104.0±0.88	107.2±0.64	105.9±0.96	129.2±0.40	148.9±1.02	y = 82.24e^0.09^x	0.9437
胡屋	92.47±0.82	100.8±0.31	99.38±0.85	109.5±0.53	138.4±0.79	150.3±0.91	y = 79.99e^0.0993^x	0.9455
上坪	106.4±0.98	111.2±0.66	112.6±0.68	122.0±0.62	127.7±0.59	169.0±0.90	y = 93.08e^0.0802^x	0.8931
平均值	84.02	88.72	96.06	100.73	114.45	135.90	y = 73.9e^0.0919^x	0.9719
标准差	10.72	12.92	9.50	12.90	18.94	27.04

采样点	各层次梯田土壤速效钾含量/(mg/kg)						指数回归分析
采样点	1	2	3	4	5	6	回归方程	相关系数
李屋	86.74±0.92	87.09±0.78	92.56±1.16	91.85±0.51	101.6±0.92	99.87±1.15	y = 82.92e^0.0331^x	0.9297
谢屋	80.81±0.48	86.59±0.78	93.65±0.77	112.6±0.55	125.8±0.94	163.1±0.93	y = 66.20e^0.1376^x	0.9760
下坪	61.98±0.77	80.12±0.59	85.17±0.72	84.65±0.55	98.71±0.94	99.78±0.93	y = 62.26e^0.0857^x	0.9242
风冲口	67.34±0.53	66.87±0.92	73.68±0.74	72.89±1.13	88.54±0.75	85.42±1.12	y = 61.56e^0.0577^x	0.9112
三联	71.43±0.95	77.67±0.43	96.62±0.40	137.8±1.04	142.9±1.17	143.3±1.01	y = 60.80e^0.1619^x	0.9488
楼冲	67.34±0.93	66.87±0.87	73.68±0.77	80.65±0.78	108.7±0.56	98.87±0.86	y = 57.44e^0.0991^x	0.9133
老寨	62.65±0.80	89.27±0.39	79.86±0.87	100.5±0.74	101.8±0.96	112.6±0.67	y = 62.74e^0.1015^x	0.8999
新楼	73.46±0.71	89.65±0.78	91.78±0.99	154.1±1.04	132.4±0.73	163.9±1.30	y = 63.59e^0.1628^x	0.9255
胡屋	63.49±1.02	61.72±0.72	80.67±0.82	79.60±0.75	112.7±0.69	121.6±0.74	y = 50.58e^0.1441^x	0.9750
上坪	63.04±0.79	68.49±0.57	64.24±0.65	123.5±0.97	123.8±0.65	146.9±0.85	y = 47.48e^0.1903^x	0.9176
平均值	69.83	77.43	83.19	103.81	113.70	123.53	y = 61.08e^0.1207^x	0.9885
标准差	8.39	10.67	10.61	27.38	17.07	28.75