Forage Planting Patterns: Effects on Soil Nutrients in Degraded Farmland

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190700372

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen out the optimal forage planting pattern and provide theoretical and technical support for the improvement of degraded farmland and sustainable land use, taking Medicago sativa CV. Aohan and Elymus sibiricus L. as materials, we set 3 different planting patterns: single-seeding Medicago sativa CV. Aohan (Ms), single-seeding Elymus sibiricus L. (Es) and intercropping of these two forage (In), with fallow treatment as the control (CK). The results showed that: with the increase of planting years, the soil available phosphorus content first decreased and then increased; organic matter, available potassium, total nitrogen, total potassium content increased; compared with CK, in the first year, the contents of soil organic matter, available potassium, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen and total nitrogen increased under different planting patterns; and the contents of soil total phosphorus and total potassium increased under Ms and In groups; in the second year, the alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen content of Ms, Es and In decreased by 20.91%-40.05% in 10-20 cm soil layer, and the available phosphorus content decreased by 32.19%-39.65% in 20-40 cm soil layer; the contents of soil organic matter and total potassium increased overall, while the contents of available phosphorus and available potassium decreased; the total phosphorus content decreased significantly in the 20-40 cm soil layer.

Key words: forage, single-seeding, intercropping, degraded farmland, nutrients, planting years

CLC Number:

S816
S344.9

Wei Qing, Saijirihu , Wang Jing, Cheng Yucheng, Lu Zhanyuan, Zhang Xiangqian, Li Yahua, Sun Feng, Zhang Dejian. Forage Planting Patterns: Effects on Soil Nutrients in Degraded Farmland[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(24): 63-71.

Figures/Tables 9

References 26

[1]	路战远, 张向前, 程玉臣, 等. 北方农牧交错区农田退化现状及生态保育技术应用前景分析[J]. 北方农业学报, 2018,46(05):93-97.
[2]	德英, 王琴, 穆怀彬, 等. 老芒麦染色体核型研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2014,36(06):79-83.
[3]	张永超, 梁国玲, 刘文辉, 等. 高寒地区5份野生老芒麦种质资源生产性能比较[J]. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2017,47(06):1-4.
[4]	刘琳, 钟红银, 杨春华, 等. 不同刈割时期和强度对改良草地老芒麦产量、品质及再生植株生殖特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2017,25(05):1131-1137.
[5]	Pugnaire F I, Armas C, Valladares F. Soil as a mediator in plant-plant interactions in a semiarid community[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2004,15(01):85-92. doi: 10.1111/jvs.2004.15.issue-1 URL
[6]	程杰, 高亚军. 云雾山封育草地土壤养分变化特征[J]. 草地学报, 2007,15(3):273-277.
[7]	芦奕晓, 牟乐, 杨惠敏. 豆科与禾本科牧草混播改良土壤的研究进展[J]. 中国草地学报, 2019,1(41):94-100.
[8]	马玉珠, 钟全林, 靳冰洁, 等. 中国植物细根碳、氮、磷化学计量学的空间变化及其影响因子[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015,39(2):159-166. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0015 URL
[9]	包兴国, 杨文玉, 曹卫东, 等. 豆科与禾本科绿肥饲草作物混播增肥及改土效果研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2012,34(01):43-47.
[10]	潘多锋, 申忠宝, 王建丽, 等. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦混播对松嫩平原盐碱化草地土壤改良效果研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2012(10):127-131.
[11]	杨春华. 扁穗牛鞭草与混生种互作的生理生态机理研究[D]. 成都:四川农业大学, 2004.
[12]	郑伟, 加娜尔古丽, 唐高溶, 等. 混播种类与混播比例对豆禾混播草地浅层土壤养分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2015,32(3):329-339. doi: 10.11829\j.issn.1001-0629.2014-0303 URL
[13]	邰继承, 杨恒山, 范富, 等. 播种方式对紫花苜蓿+无芒雀麦草地土壤碳密度和组分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2010,27(06):102-107.
[14]	韩建国, 韩永伟, 孙铁军, 等. 农牧交错带退耕还草对土壤有机质和氮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2004,13(4):21-28.
[15]	韩永伟, 韩建国, 王堃, 等. 农牧交错带退耕还草对耕作层土壤磷、钾含量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2003,11(3):228-231.
[16]	韩永伟, 韩建国, 王堃, 等. 利用年限对农牧交错带退耕还草地土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2005,22(3):50-55.
[17]	杨恒山, 曹敏建, 范富, 等. 紫花苜蓿生长年限对土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2006,28(6):29-32.
[18]	王振, 王子煜, 韩清芳, 等. 黄土高原苜蓿草地土壤碳、氮变化特征研究[J]. 草地学报, 2013,21(06):1073-1079.
[19]	白龙, 陈雪, 王洲, 等. 苜蓿和老芒麦生草对苹果园土壤氮素矿化的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2015,42(12):2469-2477. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2015-0232 URL
[20]	万志强. 内蒙古典型草原区人工草地生产力和氮素分配对水分响应研究[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古大学, 2018.
[21]	Fu W, Tunney H, Zhang C. Spatial variation of soil nutrients in a dairy farm and its implications for site-specific fertilizer application[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2010,106(2):185-193.
[22]	陈春霏, 付洁, 梁鹏. 土壤中全氮分析方法的研究进展[J]. 中国环境监测, 2018(1):112-119.
[23]	Boucher D H, Espinosa M J. Cropping system and growth and nodulation responscs of bcans to nitrogen in Tabasco, Mexico[J]. Tropical Agriculture, 1982,59(4):279-282.
[24]	Zhu J J, Liang Y L, Tremblay N. Responses of Nitrogen Status Indicators to Nitrogen Rates and Soil Moisture in Corn (Zea mays L.)[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011,37(7):1259-1265. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01259 URL
[25]	史鑫蕊, 徐强, 胡克林, 等. 灌水次数对绿洲春玉米田氮素损失及水氮利用效率的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018,34(03):118-126.
[26]	贝美容, 罗雪华, 杨红竹, 等. 利用连续流动分析仪快速测定碱熔法土壤全磷[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018,39(11):2290-2295.

播种组合	播种方式及比例	播种量/(kg/hm²)
敖汉苜蓿	单播	22.5
老芒麦	单播	30
老芒麦+敖汉苜蓿	2:1同行混播	30
CK（休闲对照）

播种组合	播种方式及比例	播种量/(kg/hm²)
敖汉苜蓿	单播	22.5
老芒麦	单播	30
老芒麦+敖汉苜蓿	2:1同行混播	30
CK（休闲对照）

年份	时期	处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~40 cm
2017	播种前	均值	5.96±0.50	5.73±0.47	5.81±0.46
	收获期	CK	5.04±0.37b	5.43±0.39c	4.07±0.29c
		Ms	7.18±0.39a	9.10±0.11a	6.48±0.08b
		Es	8.10±0.39a	7.03±0.47b	6.59±0.29b
		In	7.11±0.56a	6.96±0.39b	7.45±0.35a
2018	收获期	CK	12.61±0.56c	11.01±0.50c	9.57±0.49c
		Ms	15.52±0.29ab	13.22±0.71b	11.58±0.53ab
		Es	15.13±0.37b	12.92±0.47b	10.89±0.66b
		In	16.13±0.22a	15.90±0.47a	13.36±0.29a

年份	时期	处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~40 cm
2017	播种前	均值	5.96±0.50	5.73±0.47	5.81±0.46
	收获期	CK	5.04±0.37b	5.43±0.39c	4.07±0.29c
		Ms	7.18±0.39a	9.10±0.11a	6.48±0.08b
		Es	8.10±0.39a	7.03±0.47b	6.59±0.29b
		In	7.11±0.56a	6.96±0.39b	7.45±0.35a
2018	收获期	CK	12.61±0.56c	11.01±0.50c	9.57±0.49c
		Ms	15.52±0.29ab	13.22±0.71b	11.58±0.53ab
		Es	15.13±0.37b	12.92±0.47b	10.89±0.66b
		In	16.13±0.22a	15.90±0.47a	13.36±0.29a

年份	时期	处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~40 cm
2017	播种前	均值	44.57±2.18	41.65±3.78	15.98±0.82
	收获期	CK	21.12±2.97 b	18.78±2.97b	24.62±1.65a
		Ms	21.70±3.78b	31.15±3.29a	24.03±3.60a
		Es	32.20±2.86a	28.70±2.86a	28.70±1.43a
		In	22.87±2.97b	31.03±2.97a	14.70±1.43b
2018	收获期	CK	27.07±0.82b	33.48±3.60a	21.23±2.18b
		Ms	36.40±3.14a	26.48±3.41ab	37.57±3.30a
		Es	32.90±3.43ab	25.32±2.18b	18.32±2.59b
		In	27.65±2.47b	20.07±2.97b	23.57±2.97b