Effect of Tillage Management Modes on Farmland Physical Properties in Black Soil Region

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18110065

Abstract

Abstract:

To understand the effects of different tillage modes on farmland physical properties in black soil region, a field experiment was conducted at the Arong Banner of Inner Mongolia from June to September, 2016. Three tillage modes included subsoiling (SS), no-tillage (MG) and conventional tillage (CK) were set up. By the collection of the soil samples from 0-10, 10-20 and 20-30 cm respectively, the soil bulk density, moisture and permeability were investigated. The results showed that the soil bulk density and moisture of the three tillage modes were in the order of SS>CK>MG; the eigenvalues of soil infiltration were in the order of initial infiltration rate> average infiltration rate> stable infiltration rate. The soil infiltration rate and cumulative infiltration were in the order of SS>CK>MG. Soil total porosity was the highest under SS treatment, and decreased with the increase of month. Principal component analysis showed that the initial infiltration rate and total infiltration amount were most sensitive to tillage modes, and could be used as evaluation indexes to investigate farmland tillage effect and mitigate black soil degradation in the black soil region of Northeast China. According to the comprehensive score, the performance of soil under different tillage modes was SS>MG>CK. In conclusion, subsoiling tillage could effectively reduce soil bulk density, increase soil water content, and promote soil permeability; no-tillage is more conducive to water conservation and reducing soil evaporation.

Key words: subsoiling, no-tillage, conventional tillage, soil bulk density, soil moisture, soil infiltration rate

CLC Number:

S154

Ping Cuizhi, Hong Mei, Wang Wendong, Zhao Bayinnamula, Mei Li, Liu Pengfei, Zhao Wuyingga. Effect of Tillage Management Modes on Farmland Physical Properties in Black Soil Region[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(7): 83-89.

Figures/Tables 9

References 24

[1]	徐演鹏, 卢萍, 谭飞 , 等. 外源C、N干扰下吉林黑土区农田土壤动物组成与结构[J]. 土壤学报, 2013,50(4):801-808.
[2]	王艳丽, 范世涛, 张强 , 等. 吉林省黑土地资源开发利用现状及保护对策[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2010,32(S):57-59.
[3]	孙利军, 张仁陟, 黄高宝 , 等. 保护性耕作对黄土高原旱地地表土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2007,25(6):207-211.
[4]	国家玉米产业技术研发中心. 我国玉米产业发展的技术需求[J]. 玉米科学, 2008,16(3):130-133.
[5]	孔晓民, 韩成卫, 曾苏明 , 等. 不同耕作方式对土壤物理性状及玉米产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2014,22(1):108-113.
[6]	黄高宝, 郭清毅, 张仁陟 , 等. 保护性耕作条件下旱地农田麦豆双序列轮作体系的水分动态及产量效应[J]. 生态学报, 2006(4):1176-1185.
[7]	吕巨智, 程伟东, 钟昌松 , 等. 不同耕作方式对土壤物理性状及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014,30(30):38-43.
[8]	李文凤, 张晓平, 梁爱珍 , 等. 不同耕作方式下黑土的渗透特性和优先流特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008(7):1506-1510.
[9]	李新举, 张志国, 赵美兰 , 等. 免耕对土壤养分的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2000,31(6):267-269.
[10]	丁昆仑, Ham M J . 深松耕作对土壤水分物理特性及作物生长的影响[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 1997,( 11):13-16.
[11]	李其昀 . 深松技术在机械化保护性耕作中的作用[J]. 农机化研究, 2006,( 2):222-222.
[12]	郑黎明, 孟长胜 . 深松耕法的产生与理论依据[J]. 农村牧区机械化, 2007(3):25-25.
[13]	张志国, 徐琪, Blevins R L , 等. 长期秸秆覆盖免耕对土壤某些理化性质及玉米产量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 1998,35(3):384-391.
[14]	郭瑞, 季书勤, 王汉芳 , 等. 保护性耕作研究进展及其应用探讨[J]. 河南农业科学, 2007(7):5-9.
[15]	廖萍, 黄国勤 . 红壤旱地保护性耕作对土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2006(5):31-32.
[16]	宫秀杰, 钱春荣, 于洋 , 等. 深松免耕技术对土壤物理性状及玉米产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2009,17(5):134-137.
[17]	Waddell J T. Weil R R . Water distribution in soil under ridge-till and no-till corn[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1996,60:230-237.
[18]	Kanwar R S . Effect of tillage systems on the variability of soil-water tensions and soil-water content[J]. Trans of the ASAE, 1989,32(2):605-610.
[19]	杨永辉, 赵世伟, 雷廷武 , 等. 宁南黄土丘陵区不同植被下土壤入渗性能[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008,19(5):1040-1045.
[20]	Chan K Y, Heenan D P, Oates A . Soil carbon fractions and relationship to soil quality under different tillage and stubble management[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2002,63(3/4):133-139.
[21]	王新建, 张仁陟, 毕冬梅 , 等. 保护性耕作对土壤有机碳组分的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2009,23(2):115-121.
[22]	刘中良, 宇万太 . 土壤团聚体中有机碳研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011,19(2):447-455.
[23]	杨永辉 . 土壤结构特征对坡地雨水转化的影响[D]. 咸阳:中国科学院水土保持与生态环境研究中心, 2006.
[24]	黄健, 王爱文, 张艳茹 , 等. 玉米宽窄行轮换种植、条带深松、留高茬新耕作制度对土壤性状的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2002,33(3):168-171.

取样时间	处理	土壤容重
取样时间	处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm
6月	常规	1.14±0.05ab	1.23±0.03ab	1.29±0.05a
	免耕	1.32±0.03a	1.34±0.04a	1.39±0.03a
	深松	1.05±0.03b	1.07±0.04b	1.23±0.05a
7月	常规	1.15±0.03ab	1.24±0.04a	1.27±0.03a
	免耕	1.32±0.02a	1.35±0.03a	1.41±0.03a
	深松	1.08±0.02b	1.19±0.02a	1.26±0.06a
8月	常规	1.20±0.03a	1.26±0.04a	1.28±0.03a
	免耕	1.34±0.03a	1.38±0.04a	1.42±0.04a
	深松	1.12±0.03a	1.25±0.03a	1.27±0.03a
9月	常规	1.22±0.04a	1.27±0.01a	1.32±0.03a
	免耕	1.33±0.03a	1.38±0.02a	1.43±0.04a
	深松	1.17±0.04a	1.26±0.04a	1.31±0.04a

取样时间	处理	土壤容重
取样时间	处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm
6月	常规	1.14±0.05ab	1.23±0.03ab	1.29±0.05a
	免耕	1.32±0.03a	1.34±0.04a	1.39±0.03a
	深松	1.05±0.03b	1.07±0.04b	1.23±0.05a
7月	常规	1.15±0.03ab	1.24±0.04a	1.27±0.03a
	免耕	1.32±0.02a	1.35±0.03a	1.41±0.03a
	深松	1.08±0.02b	1.19±0.02a	1.26±0.06a
8月	常规	1.20±0.03a	1.26±0.04a	1.28±0.03a
	免耕	1.34±0.03a	1.38±0.04a	1.42±0.04a
	深松	1.12±0.03a	1.25±0.03a	1.27±0.03a
9月	常规	1.22±0.04a	1.27±0.01a	1.32±0.03a
	免耕	1.33±0.03a	1.38±0.02a	1.43±0.04a
	深松	1.17±0.04a	1.26±0.04a	1.31±0.04a

主成分	特征根	方差贡献率/%	累计方差贡献率/%
主成分1	5.86	83.75	83.75
主成分2	1.01	11.87	95.62

主成分	特征根	方差贡献率/%	累计方差贡献率/%
主成分1	5.86	83.75	83.75
主成分2	1.01	11.87	95.62

参数	主成分1	主成分2	综合分值	排序
ɑ₁	-0.847	0.532	-0.623	7
ɑ₂	0.646	0.764	0.665	6
ɑ₃	0.893	-0.449	0.675	5
ɑ₄	0.992	0.764	0.955	1
ɑ₅	0.998	-0.070	0.825	4
ɑ₆	0.992	0.128	0.852	3
ɑ₇	0.984	0.532	0.911	2