Effect of Different Mulching Types on Soil Temperature and Moisture and Tobacco Growth

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19040046

Abstract

Abstract:

The effect of different mulching types on soil environment and growth of flue-cured tobacco was studied by field experiment. The no coverage, ordinary film mulching, three-dimensional film covering and straw mulching were carried out to clarify their ecological effect in tobacco field. The results showed that the soil temperature of different soil layers under different mulching types had similar trend, and the soil temperature decreased with the increase of soil depth, and the temperature changes of different soil layers under the same mulch type were consistent. The heat insulation effect of ordinary film mulching on soil temperature was the best, which could promote tobacco seedlings to grow quickly and early, but the high surface temperature at the rosette stage under mulching might affect the root growth. The effect of straw mulching on soil temperature during the growth period was relatively good, and the soil temperature of three-dimensional covering was the lowest of all during the early growth of flue-cured tobacco. Ordinary film mulching was not conducive to absorption the atmospheric rainfall into ridge soil, its soil water content was the lowest, meanwhile, it could avoid the soil nutrient leaching. Straw mulching had the best effect on soil moisture storage, followed by three-dimensional film covering. The ordinary film mulching was the most conducive to the growth of flue-cured tobacco at the rosette stage, followed by the straw mulching, and then the three-dimensional covering. The worst tobacco growth was found in the non-mulching treatment. And the straw mulching treatment had the highest root shoot ratio among all treatments. The results indicate that the effect of three-dimensional mulching on soil temperature and humidity and the growth and development of flue-cured tobacco at rosette stage is lower than that of ordinary film mulching. Further research should be carried out on the whole growth and development period of flue-cured tobacco, the characteristics of yield and quality, and the cost-benefit and environmental impact of mulching.

Key words: tobacco, ordinary film mulching, straw mulching, three-dimensional film covering, soil temperature, soil moisture content

CLC Number:

S513

Zheng Meiying, Zhang Jiguang, Cheng Sen, Zhu Qifa, Xue Lin, Huang Zhongjiang, Dong Yubing, Wang Shengcai, Xiao Yansong, Cai Xianjie. Effect of Different Mulching Types on Soil Temperature and Moisture and Tobacco Growth[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(16): 13-21.

Figures/Tables 8

References 35

[1]	隋红建, 曾德超 . 地面覆盖应用与研究的现状及发展方向[J]. 农业工程学报, 1990,6(4):26-34.
[2]	陈奇恩 . 中国塑料薄膜覆盖农业[J]. 中国工程科学, 2002,4(4):12-15.
[3]	刘国顺, 刘建利 . 中国烟叶生产实用技术指南[M]. 北京: 中国烟叶生产出版社, 2011: 24-25.
[4]	郭亮 . 地膜覆盖对烤烟的生长发育和产质量影响研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011,10:5755-5756,5760.
[5]	耿伟, 吴群, 焦枫 , 等. 覆盖栽培在烟草生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 河南农业科学, 2010,2:115-119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2010.02.034 URL
[6]	李集勤, 屠乃美, 易镇邪 , 等. 烟草覆盖栽培研究现状与展望[J]. 作物研究, 2009,5:349-354.
[7]	张德奇, 廖允成, 贾志宽 . 旱区地膜覆盖技术的研究进展及发展前景[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2005,1:208-213.
[8]	罗新斌, 宁尚辉, 徐坚强 . 烤烟覆盖栽培现状与展望[J]. 现代农业科技, 2010(24):47-49.
[9]	王笳, 周柏玲, 邓晓燕 , 等. 易降解淀粉膜在旱农区农业可持续发展中的评价[J]. 山西农业科学, 1997,25(2):4750.
[10]	杜社妮, 白岗栓 . 玉米地膜覆盖的土壤环境效应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2007,25(5):56-59.
[11]	黄泽春 . 覆盖方式和移栽深度对烤烟根系生长及烟叶品质的影响[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2010.
[12]	肖汉乾, 何录秋, 王国宝 . 烤烟地膜覆盖栽培的负效应及其调控措施[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2002(3):16-57.
[13]	郭仕平, 向金友, 曾淑华 , 等. 生物降解膜在烤烟地膜覆盖栽培中的应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015(28):50-54.
[14]	刘蕊 . 我国液体地膜覆盖技术发展现状及存在的问题[J]. 河南化工, 2011,11:31-33.
[15]	胡小曼, 李佛琳, 杨焕文 , 等. 覆盖对烟田土壤水热状况和烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011,32(5):34-38.
[16]	季学军, 王大州, 沈思灯 , 等. 安徽省宣城市特色烟种植潜力定量评价[J]. 土壤, 2010,4:648-651.
[17]	徐宜民, 申国明, 王程栋 , 等 .一种大田作物立体覆盖方法及其覆膜用具[P].中国专利:CN102715050A, 2012 -10-10.
[18]	Phillips Re, Phillips S H . No-tillage agriculture principles and practice[M]. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhoid Company Inc, 1984: 3-4.
[19]	胡广荣, 王琦, 宋兴阳 , 等. 沟覆盖材料对垄沟集雨种植土壤温度、作物产量和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国生态学报, 2016,24(5):590-599.
[20]	张金霞 . 秸秆覆盖免耕储水对春小麦耗水特征及灌溉水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2012,32(5):1501-1506.
[21]	王敏, 王海霞, 韩清芳 , 等. 不同材料覆盖的土壤水温效应及对玉米生长的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011,37(7):1249-1258. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01249 URL
[22]	姚健, 王丁, 张显松 , 等. 不同地表覆盖方式对土壤水分、温度及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2009(5):7-11.
[23]	Gan Y T , Kadambot H M S, Neil C T, et al. Ridge-furrow mulching systems- An innovative technique for boosting crop productivity in semiarid rain-fed environments[J]. Advances in Agronomy, 2013,18:429-457.
[24]	李辉 . 覆盖对旱地马铃薯土壤水分和温度的影响[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2018.
[25]	曹永慧, 周本智, 陈双林 , 等. 不同产地披针叶茴香光合特性对水分胁迫和复水的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2012,32(23):7421-7429. doi: 10.5846/stxb201203150348 URL
[26]	Porporato A , D'Odorico P, Laio F, et al. Ecohydrology of water-controlled ecosystems[J]. Advances in Water Resources, 2003,25(8/12):1335-1348.
[27]	李荣, 王敏, 贾志宽 , 等. 渭北旱塬区不同沟垄覆盖模式对春玉米土壤温度、水分及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012(2):106-113.
[28]	周凌云, 周刘宗, 徐梦雄 . 农田秸秆覆盖节水效应研究[J]. 生态农业研究, 1996,4(3):49-52.
[29]	杨青华, 韩锦峰, 贺德先 , 等. 液体地膜覆盖保水效应研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2004,4(18):29-32.
[30]	李彰, 徐国伟, 陈明灿 , 等. 不同覆盖方式对烤烟中烟100生育及生理特性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2010,4:76-79.
[31]	邹凯 . 不同覆盖栽培模式对烟田土壤环境和烤烟生长及产质量的影响[D]. 南宁:广西大学, 2008.
[32]	祖朝龙, 熊振敏, 强文化 . 烤烟地膜覆盖栽培关键技术分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 1997,25(3):21-222,292.
[33]	魏洪武 . 秸秆覆盖对烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 土壤肥料, 1995(4):25-26.
[34]	郑亚楠, 赵铭钦, 贺凡 , 等. 聚丙烯酸盐类改良剂对土壤理化性状及烤烟根系生长的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2017,38(2):39-44.
[35]	毛亚博, 赵喆, 赵东杰 , 等. 不同揭膜覆草时期对江西烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2017,45(9):1453-1457.

处理	变量	5 cm	10 cm	15 cm	20 cm	25 cm
T1	均值/℃	24.2a	22.6ab	21.5ab	20.0b	19.5b
	变异系数/%	24.07	22.64	22.04	21.07	21.74
	与CK比值	1.09	1.1	1.09	1.04	1.05
T2	均值/℃	22.0a	21.0a	19.6a	19.4a	19.3a
	变异系数/%	24.94	22.83	21.29	20.34	18.88
	与CK比值	0.99	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.04
T3	均值/℃	21.7a	20.2ab	19.1ab	18.6b	17.9b
	变异系数/%	21.06	22.82	24.38	20.96	20.46
	与CK比值	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.96

处理	变量	5 cm	10 cm	15 cm	20 cm	25 cm
T1	均值/℃	24.2a	22.6ab	21.5ab	20.0b	19.5b
	变异系数/%	24.07	22.64	22.04	21.07	21.74
	与CK比值	1.09	1.1	1.09	1.04	1.05
T2	均值/℃	22.0a	21.0a	19.6a	19.4a	19.3a
	变异系数/%	24.94	22.83	21.29	20.34	18.88
	与CK比值	0.99	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.04
T3	均值/℃	21.7a	20.2ab	19.1ab	18.6b	17.9b
	变异系数/%	21.06	22.82	24.38	20.96	20.46
	与CK比值	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.96

处理	株高/cm	有效叶片数	最大叶片长/cm	最大叶片宽/cm
CK	33.8b	9.2b	37.5b	15.5c
T1	35.6a	11.0a	38.8a	20.3a
T2	34.4a	10.4a	38.0a	18.6b
T3	34.8a	9.4b	36.8a	15.8c

处理	株高/cm	有效叶片数	最大叶片长/cm	最大叶片宽/cm
CK	33.8b	9.2b	37.5b	15.5c
T1	35.6a	11.0a	38.8a	20.3a
T2	34.4a	10.4a	38.0a	18.6b
T3	34.8a	9.4b	36.8a	15.8c

处理	总生物量（鲜）/(g/株)	地上部生物量（鲜）/(g/株)	地下部生物量（鲜）/(g/株)	根冠比
CK	88.0d	78.9d	6.9b	0.08a
T1	139.1a	129.3a	8.8a	0.07b
T2	102.4b	93.7b	8.2a	0.09a
T3	93.4c	85.5c	7.2b	0.08a