北方地区土壤速效养分及容重对秸秆还田的响应

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0107

中国农学通报 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (5): 100-108.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0107

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

北方地区土壤速效养分及容重对秸秆还田的响应

孙力扬¹^,²(), 徐明岗²^,³(), 王晋峰², 李建华², 刘平¹, 孙楠³()

¹ 山西农业大学资源环境学院，山西太谷 030800
² 山西农业大学生态环境产业技术研究院/土壤环境与养分资源山西省重点实验室，太原 030031
³ 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所/农业农村部耕地质量监测与评价重点实验室，北京 100081

收稿日期:2022-02-21 修回日期:2022-04-28 出版日期:2023-02-15 发布日期:2023-02-06
作者简介:
孙力扬，男，1994年出生，山西运城人，硕士在读，主要从事农业资源与环境方面的研究。通信地址：030031 山西省太原市小店区龙城大街81号山西农业大学生态环境院，E-mail：75667267@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家科技基础资源调查专项“典型农区耕地质量演替数据整编与深加工”(2021YF100500); 山西省科技合作交流专项“健康土壤评价与保育技术研究”(202104041101002)

Response of Soil Available Nutrients and Bulk Density to Straw Returning in North China

SUN Liyang¹^,²(), XU Minggang²^,³(), WANG Jinfeng², LI Jianhua², LIU Ping¹, SUN Nan³()

¹ College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030800
² Academy of Eco-environment and Industrial Technology, Shanxi Agricultural University/Key Laboratory of Soil Environment and Nutrient Resources, Shanxi Province, Taiyuan 030031
³ Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Arable Land Quality Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100081

Received:2022-02-21 Revised:2022-04-28 Online:2023-02-15 Published:2023-02-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究旨在探明中国北方地区土壤速效养分及容重对秸秆还田的响应，选择秸秆还田为主要研究目标，通过设置“秸秆还田”、“理化性质”、“华北”、“东北”、“西北”等关键词在中国知网、万方等多个数据库中，筛选出60篇关于秸秆还田对作物产量和土壤改良影响效应和影响因素的文献。采用Meta分析法定量研究土壤速效养分和容重对秸秆还田的响应。结果表明：秸秆还田能够显著(P<0.05)提升土壤有机碳、碱解氮和速效钾的含量，一定程度上降低土壤容重。华北地区秸秆还田对土壤速效养分的提升效果显著优于东北和西北地区，而对西北地区容重降低效果低于华北和东北地区；中高量秸秆还田(5000~10000 kg/hm²和10000~15000 kg/hm²)能够显著提升土壤有机碳、碱解氮和速效钾的含量，低秸秆还田量(≤5000 kg/hm²)对土壤容重并无显著影响，而超高秸秆还田量(>15000 kg/hm²)则显著(P<0.05)降低了土壤容重；免耕相比旋耕、深耕、浅耕可以显著(P<0.05)提升土壤有机碳、碱解氮和速效钾的含量，深耕可显著(P<0.05)降低土壤容重；小麦和玉米秸秆均对土壤容重和速效养分的提升有显著效果，但两种作物秸秆间并无显著差异。北方地区推荐中高量秸秆还田配合免耕措施，不仅能够显著增加土壤养分含量，而且可改善土壤理化性质，从而达到培肥地力的效果。

关键词: 秸秆还田, 速效养分, 土壤容重, 中国北方, Meta分析

Abstract:

To explore the effects of straw returning on soil available nutrients and bulk density in north China, we set the keywords ‘straw returning’, ‘physical and chemical properties’, ‘north China’, ‘northeast China’ and ‘northwest China’ in databases such as CNKI and Wanfang. 60 literature about the effects of straw returning on crop yield and soil improvement and the influencing factors were screened. Meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively study the response of soil available nutrients and bulk density to straw returning and the influencing factors. The results showed that straw returning could significantly (P<0.05) increase the content of soil organic carbon, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium, and reduce soil bulk density to a certain extent. The improvement of soil available nutrients by straw returning in north China was significantly higher than that in northeast China and northwest China. The reduction effect on soil bulk density in northwest China was lower than that in north China and northeast China. Medium and high amounts of straw returning (5000-10000 kg/hm² and 10000-15000 kg/hm²) could significantly increase the content of soil organic carbon, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium. Low amount of straw returning (≤5000 kg/hm²) had no significant effect on soil bulk density, while ultra-high amount of straw returning (>15000 kg/hm²) significantly decreased soil bulk density (P<0.05). Compared with rotary tillage, deep tillage and shallow tillage, no tillage could significantly (P<0.05) increase the content of soil organic carbon, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium. In addition, deep tillage could significantly (P<0.05) decrease soil bulk density. Both wheat and corn straw had significant effects on the improvement of soil bulk density and available nutrients, but there was no significant difference between the two kinds of straw. Returning medium and high amounts of straw to field combined with no tillage could significantly increase soil basic nutrients’ contents and improve soil physical and chemical properties, which is a reasonable way to promote soil fertility in north China.

Key words: straw returning, available nutrients, soil bulk density, north China, Meta-analysis

孙力扬, 徐明岗, 王晋峰, 李建华, 刘平, 孙楠. 北方地区土壤速效养分及容重对秸秆还田的响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(5): 100-108.

SUN Liyang, XU Minggang, WANG Jinfeng, LI Jianhua, LIU Ping, SUN Nan. Response of Soil Available Nutrients and Bulk Density to Straw Returning in North China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(5): 100-108.

图/表 6

图1. 秸秆还田响应比的正态分布曲线代表响应比的频数分布，其呈显著的正态分布(P<0.05)；M代表响应比的平均值，SE代表均值的标准误

组数	地区	耕作方式	还田量/(kg/hm²)	秸秆类型
1	东北	浅耕	≤5000	玉米
2	华北	旋耕	5000~10000	小麦
3	西北	免耕	10000~15000
4		深耕	>15000

表1. 数据分组

图2. 不同地区、耕作方式、还田量、秸秆类型对土壤有机碳含量增幅的影响点和误差线分别代表响应比及其95%CI，如果误差线没有跨越零线表示处理与对照存在显著差异；括号内的前后数值分别代表样本数和秸秆还田的响应百分数。下同

图3. 不同地区、耕作方式、还田量、秸秆类型对土壤碱解氮含量增幅的影响

图4. 不同地区、耕作方式、还田量、秸秆类型对速效钾含量增幅的影响

图5. 不同地区、耕作方式、还田量、秸秆类型对土壤容重降幅的影响

参考文献 50

[1]	高忠坡, 倪嘉波, 李宁宁. 我国农作物秸秆资源量及利用问题研究[J]. 农机化研究, 2022, 44(4):1-6,25.
[2]	李荣. 我国耕地质量现状及提升建议[J]. 中国农业综合开发, 2020,(7):7-12.
[3]	刘晓永, 李书田. 中国秸秆养分资源及还田的时空分布特征[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(21):1-19.
[4]	李泽媛, 郑军. 我国农作物秸秆还田的研究脉络和趋势探析——基于CiteSpace知识图谱[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2021, 42(9):16-26.
[5]	董智, 解宏图, 张立军, 等. 东北玉米带秸秆覆盖免耕对土壤性状的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2013, 21(5):100-103,108.
[6]	HUANG W, WU J F, PAN X H, et al. Effects of long-term straw return on soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities in a double-cropped rice paddy in South China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2021, 20(1):236-247. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63347-0
[7]	蔡晓布, 钱成, 张元, 等. 西藏中部地区退化土壤秸秆还田的微生物变化特征及其影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004(3):463-468.
[8]	饶继翔, 陈昊, 吴兴国, 等. 不同秸秆还田方式对土壤线虫群落特征的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(10):2473-2480.
[9]	YANG H S, FANG C, MENG Y, et al. Long-term ditch-buried straw return increases functionality of soil microbial communities[J]. Catena, 2021,202.
[10]	田慎重, 宁堂原, 王瑜, 等. 不同耕作方式和秸秆还田对麦田土壤有机碳含量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(2):373-378.
[11]	强学彩. 秸秆还田量的农田生态效应研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2003.
[12]	王志明, 朱培立, 黄东迈, 等. 淹水土壤中秸秆氮素的转化[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2001, 17(4):236-240.
[13]	慕平, 张恩和, 王汉宁, 等. 连续多年秸秆还田对玉米耕层土壤理化性状及微生物量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(5):81-85.
[14]	劳秀荣, 吴子一, 高燕春. 长期秸秆还田改土培肥效应的研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2002(2):49-52.
[15]	MICHAEL B, LARRY V H, JULIAN P T, et al. Introduction to Meta-Analysis[M]. Chichester: John Wiley, 2009.
[16]	杨竣皓, 骆永丽, 陈金, 等. 秸秆还田对我国主要粮食作物产量效应的整合(Meta)分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(21):4415-4429.
[17]	杜杰, 王林林, 谢军红, 等. 耕作措施对黄土高原地区农田土壤碳排放影响的Meta分析[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2020, 55(3):45-53.
[18]	TAOVA S. Get data digitizing program code: Description, testing, training[M]. Vienna international atomic energy agency, international nuclear Data committee, 2013.
[19]	ROSENBERG M S, ADAMS D C, GUREVITCH J. Metawin: Statistical soft-ware for meta-analysis with resampling tests[M]. America: sinauer associates Inc,1997.
[20]	何寒青, 陈坤. Meta分析中的异质性检验方法[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2006, 23(6):486-487.
[21]	HEDGES L V, CURTIS GPS. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology[J]. Ecology, 1999, 80(4):1150-1156. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2 URL
[22]	PALLMANN P. Applied meta-analysis with R[J]. Journal of applied statistics, 2015, 42(4):914-915. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2014.989464 URL
[23]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986:274-338.
[24]	WANG R, DORODNIKOV M, YANG S, et al. Responses of enzymatic activities within soil aggregates to 9-year nitrogen and water addition in a semi-arid grassland[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2015.
[25]	王景, 陈曦, 张雅洁, 等. 好气和厌氧条件下小麦秸秆的腐解特征研究[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2015, 20(3):161-168.
[26]	陈尚洪. 还田秸秆腐解特征及其对稻田土壤碳库的影响研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2007.
[27]	叶文培, 谢小立, 王凯荣, 等. 不同时期秸秆还田对水稻生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2008(1):65-70.
[28]	WEN X X, CHEN X J, et al. A meta-analysis of soil extracellular enzyme activities in response to global change[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2018, 123:21-32. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.05.001 URL
[29]	DAVIDSON E A, VERCHOT L V, CATTANIO J H, et al. Effect of soil water Content on soil respiration in forests and cattle pastures of eastern Amazonia[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2000, 48:53-69. doi: 10.1023/A:1006204113917 URL
[30]	RASKIN I, KENDE H. How does deep water rice solve its aeration problem[J]. Plant physiol, 1983, 72:447-454. doi: 10.1104/pp.72.2.447 pmid: 16663023
[31]	徐虎, 蔡岸冬, 徐明岗, 等. 长期秸秆还田显著降低褐土底层有机碳储量[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(5):768-776.
[32]	CHEN Z M, WANG H Y, LIU X W, et al. Changes in soil microbial community and organic carbon fractions under short-term straw return in a rice-wheat cropping system[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2017, 165:121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.07.018 URL
[33]	XIAO L G, ZHOU S Q, ZHAO R Q, et al. Evaluating soil organic carbon stock changes induced by no-tillage based on fixed depth and equivalent soil mass approaches[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2020,300.
[34]	LIU E K, TECLEMARIAM S G, YAN C R, et al. Long-term effects of no-tillage management practice on soil organic carbon and its fractions in the Northern China[J]. Geoderma, 2014, 213:379-384. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.021 URL
[35]	LIU Z, GAO T, TIAN S, et al. Soil organic carbon increment sources and crop yields under long-term conservation tillage practices in wheat-maize systems[J]. Land degradation and development, 2020, 31(9):1138-1150. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3531 URL
[36]	彭文英. 免耕措施对土壤水分及利用效率的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2007(2):379-383.
[37]	胡立峰, 胡春胜, 安忠民, 等. 不同土壤耕作法对作物产量及土壤硝态氮淋失的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005(6):188-191.
[38]	杨杰瑞. 不同翻耕模式与秸秆还田对豫中区麦田土壤理化性状影响的研究[D]. 郑州: 河南师范大学, 2014.
[39]	张玉铭, 胡春胜, 陈素英, 等. 耕作与秸秆还田方式对碳氮在土壤团聚体中分布的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(9):1558-1570.
[40]	高盼, 刘玉涛, 徐莹莹, 等. 秸秆覆盖与翻埋两种还田模式对农田土壤物理性质及玉米产量的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2021(11):13-17.
[41]	丛萍, 逄焕成, 王婧, 等. 粉碎与颗粒秸秆高量还田对黑土亚耕层土壤有机碳的提升效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(4):811-823.
[42]	匡恩俊, 迟凤琴, 宿庆瑞, 等. 不同还田方式下玉米秸秆腐解规律的研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2012, 20(2):99-101,106.
[43]	徐蒋来, 胡乃娟, 朱利群. 周年秸秆还田量对麦田土壤养分及产量的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36(2):215-222.
[44]	李瑞平, 谭化, 谢瑞芝, 等. 东北玉米耕作制度存在的主要问题与新型耕作制度展望[J]. 玉米科学, 2021, 29(6):105-111.
[45]	FRANZLUEBBERS K, WEAVER R W, JUO A S R, et al. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization from cowpea plant parts decomposing in moist and in repeatedly dried and wetted soil[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 1994, 26(10):1379-1387. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90221-6 URL
[46]	WANG W J, BALDOCK J A, DALAL R C, et al. Decomposition of plant materials in relation to nitrogen availability and biochemistry determined by NMR and wet-chemical analysis[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2004, 36(12):2045-2058. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.05.023 URL
[47]	ZENG D H, MAO R, CHANG S, et al. Carbon mineralization of tree leaf litter and crop residues from poplar-based agroforestry systems in Northeast China: a laboratory study[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2010, 44(2):133-137. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.11.002 URL
[48]	顾炽明, 郑险峰, 黄婷苗, 等. 秸秆还田配施氮肥对冬小麦产量及氮素调控的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2013, 31(5):48-53,73.
[49]	PARNAS H. A theoretical explanation of the priming effect based on microbial growth with two limiting substrates[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 1976, 8(2):139-144. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(76)90079-1 URL
[50]	南雄雄, 田霄鸿, 张琳, 等. 小麦和玉米秸秆腐解特点及对土壤中碳、氮含量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(3):626-633.

北方地区土壤速效养分及容重对秸秆还田的响应

Response of Soil Available Nutrients and Bulk Density to Straw Returning in North China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 50

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	刘敏, 赵财, 范虹, 殷文, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 孙亚斌. 长期间作及免耕对土壤物理性状及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(2): 28-35.
[2]	胡雪纯, 解文艳, 马晓楠, 周怀平, 杨振兴, 刘志平. 长期秸秆还田对旱地玉米土壤有机碳及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(34): 8-13.
[3]	张楠, 潘仕球, 乔云发, 朱保国, 苗淑杰. 秸秆还田及添加生物炭对黑土玉米生长季N₂O排放的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(27): 79-85.
[4]	且天真, 李福, 厉雅华, 王丽芳, 张婷婷, 张佳倩, 王宏伟, 张德健. 秸秆还田条件下不同耕作方式对土壤化学性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(21): 58-69.
[5]	张奇, 刘海涛, 田静, 姚莉, 王宏, 林超文. 耕作方式对成都平原稻麦轮作系统吸收累积镉的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(19): 109-113.
[6]	马超. 黑龙江省黑土地保护性耕作实施基本情况及问题研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(17): 143-147.
[7]	李守华. 长期秸秆还田对提高小麦-玉米轮作耕层土壤养分及产量分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(14): 60-64.
[8]	闫童, 杨化恩, 刘凤华, 孙玉莹. 不同培肥措施对新增耕地养分变化及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(12): 74-78.
[9]	付梦雪, 吴名宇, 韩碧波, 张倩, 韩燕来, 谭金芳, 李培培, 张涛, 李慧. 秸秆还田与生物炭配施对麦-玉轮作体系产量和氮素利用率的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(8): 89-96.
[10]	林秀颜, 江赜伟, 陈曦, 张淑娜, 戴惠东, 杨士红. 稻田土壤微生物数量和酶活性对水碳调控的响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(7): 75-80.
[11]	聂良鹏, 郭利伟, 郑春风, 吕玉虎, 张梦, 李本银, 潘兹亮, 李杰. 种植翻压紫云英配施化肥对稻田土壤理化性状和水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(27): 65-69.
[12]	马和平, 屈兴乐, 王建科, 宋小广. 西藏尼洋河中上游流域不同土地利用方式土壤养分含量差异分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(25): 103-108.
[13]	陈婉华, 袁伟, 王子阳, 周正萍, 刘世平. 作物秸秆还田研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(21): 54-58.
[14]	康勇建, 赵宝平, 孙雯, 刘瑞芳, 刘景辉. 化肥减施配合生物有机肥对土壤特性和燕麦产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(11): 59-64.
[15]	邢东建, 杨卫君, 贺佳琪, 魏海鹏, 贾永红, 惠超, 李永昊. 减磷加炭对北疆灌区土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(11): 39-44.