The Improvement and Utilization of Bare Saline-alkali Soil in the Songnen Plain by Sand-covering

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0272

Abstract

Abstract:

The improvement and utilization of bare saline-alkali soil in the Songnen Plain were studied by different thickness of sand-covering and planting corps or forages. Two years results showed that SWC, pH and EC in sandy soil layer were significantly lower than that of saline-alkali soil layer, and increased with sandy soil depth. SWC, pH and EC in the same sandy soil layer decreased with the increase of sand-covering thickness. EC of surface saline-alkali soil was reduced from 621 μS/cm to 389-594 μS/cm under different sand-covering thickness treatments. The yield of maize with sand-covering of 30 cm in 2013 was 51.1% higher than that of 2012, and was 32.29% higher than that of sand-covering of 20 cm (P<0.05) and 8.9% lower than that of sand-covering of 40 cm (P>0.05), respectively. The yield and total root biomass of alfalfa with sand-covering of 30 cm in 2013 was 2.04 times and 3.65 times that of 2012, respectively. The yield of alfalfa with sand-covering of 30 cm was not significantly different from that of sand-covering of 20 cm and sand-covering of 40 cm, but the total root biomass of alfalfa increased by 55.9% and 106.3%, respectively. EC of alfalfa in sandy soil layer was decreased by 23.1% and 43.5% in 2012 and 2013 respectively under the sand-covering of 30 cm. Therefore, sand-covering has some improvement effects on saline-alkali soil, and planting maize and alfalfa under sand-covering of 30 cm has remarkable effects on yields.

Key words: saline-alkali soil, sand-covering thickness, crops, forages, EC, pH

CLC Number:

S156.4

Hu Juan, Zhou Daowei, Guan Shengchao, Zhang Dan. The Improvement and Utilization of Bare Saline-alkali Soil in the Songnen Plain by Sand-covering[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(9): 85-94.

Figures/Tables 10

References 22

[1]	Wang L, Seki K, Miyazaki T, et al. The causes of soil alkalinization in the Songnen Plain of Northeast China[J]. Paddy Water Environ, 2009,7:259-270. doi: 10.1007/s10333-009-0166-x URL
[2]	周道玮, 田雨, 王敏玲, 等. 覆沙改良科尔沁沙地-松辽平原交错区盐碱地与造田技术研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2011,26(6):1-9.
[3]	李秀军. 松嫩平原西部土地盐碱化与农业可持续发展[J]. 地理科学, 2000,20(1):51-55.
[4]	张哲寰, 马宏伟, 刘强, 等. 松嫩平原近20年土壤盐渍化动态变化及驱动力分析[J]. 地质与资源, 2007,2(16):120-124.
[5]	Qian Y L, Koski A J, Welton R. Amending sand with isolite and zeolite under saline conditions: Leachate composition and salt deposition[J]. Hort Science, 2001,36(4):717-720.
[6]	Wang Z C, Li Q S, Li X J, et al. Sustainble agriculture development in aline-alkali soil area of Songnen Plain, Northeast China[J]. Chin. Geogr. Sci., 2003,13(2):171-174. doi: 10.1007/s11769-003-0012-9 URL
[7]	姚丽, 刘廷玺. 科尔沁沙地土壤化学特性研究[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2005,26(2):35-38.
[8]	李玉山. 苜蓿生产力动态及其水分生态环境效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2002,3(39):404-411.
[9]	郝明德, 张春霞, 魏孝荣, 等. 黄土高原地区施肥对苜蓿生产力的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2004,3(12):195-198.
[10]	韩博, 张攀, 王卫栋, 等. 观众地区紫花苜蓿生产性能和利用年限的研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报, 2012,1(9):12-19.
[11]	赵学勇, 张春民, 左小安, 等. 科尔沁沙地沙漠化土地恢复面临的挑战[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009,20(7):1559-1564.
[12]	Ma Y J, Li X Y. Water accumulation in soil by gravel and sand mulches: Influence of textural composition and thickness of mulch layers[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2011(75):432-437.
[13]	Fekri M, Kasmaei L S. Effects of windy sand and LECA mulches on decreasing evaporation from soil surface[J]. Arab J Geosci, 2013(6):163-168.
[14]	郭治兴, 王静, 柴敏, 等. 近30年来广东省土壤pH的时空变化[J]. 应用生态学报. 2011,22(2):425-430.
[15]	杨秀娟, 韩瑞宏, 卢欣石, 等. 苗期紫花苜蓿品种抗旱性初步研究[J]. 草业科学, 2008,11(25):54-59.
[16]	Bakker D M, Hamilton M, Hetherington G J, et al. Salinity dynamics and the potential for improvement of waterlogged and saline land in a Mediterranean climate using permanent raised beds[J]. Soil Tillage Res., 2010,110(1):8-24. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2010.06.004 URL
[17]	李飞, 禹朴家, 神祥金, 等. 退化草地补播草木樨、黄花苜蓿的生产力和土壤碳截获潜力[J]. 草业科学, 2014,31(3):361-366. doi: 10.11829\j.issn.1001-0629.2013-0434 URL
[18]	贾倩民, 陈彦云, 刘秉儒, 等. 干旱区盐碱地不同栽培草地土壤理化性质及微生物数量[J]. 草业科学, 2014,31(7):1218-1225. doi: DOI:10.11829\j.issn.1001-0629.2013-0543 URL
	汤洁, 李月芬, 林年丰, 等. 应用生物技术改良退化土壤的效果-以黄花草木樨改良盐碱化土壤为例[J]. 生态环境, 2004,13(1):51-53,60.
[19]	王静. 盐碱对黑龙江省向日葵生产的影响及高产栽培技术[J]. 哈尔滨师范大学:自然科学学报, 2012,28(6):62-65.
[21]	Katerji N, Van Hoorn J W, Hamdy A, et al. Effect of salinity on water stress, growth, and yield of maize and sunflower[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 1996,30:237-249. doi: 10.1016/0378-3774(95)01228-1 URL
[22]	丛建民, 陈凤清, 孙春玲. 草木樨综合开发研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2012,40(5):2962-2963,2996.

测试项	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm	30~40 cm	40~60 cm
pH	9.80	10.00	9.95	9.94	9.87
电导率/(μS/cm)	561.8	746.2	695.4	679.6	543.4

测试项	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm	30~40 cm	40~60 cm
pH	9.80	10.00	9.95	9.94	9.87
电导率/(μS/cm)	561.8	746.2	695.4	679.6	543.4

年份	土层深度/cm	处理
年份	土层深度/cm	T10	T20	T30	T40
2012	0~10	10.17±2.13	8.10±1.71	7.75±1.28	7.76±1.08
	10~20	13.54±1.42	12.01±3.63	8.95±1.58	9.09±1.37
	20~30	12.59±1.07	12.42±2.69	12.10±1.57	10.93±2.02
	30~40	11.23±1.12	11.49±1.57	12.03±1.35	11.82±1.59
	40~60	10.03±2.14	10.13±1.49	10.81±1.77	11.23±1.12
2013	0~10	8.98±1.64	7.12±0.96	7.01±0.78	7.00±1.19
	10~20	12.26±1.85	9.19±1.28	8.16±0.78	7.02±1.18
	20~30	12.72±2.75	11.27±2.41	10.11±2.02	8.75±1.13
	30~40	12.20±1.56	11.58±2.71	11.01±2.13	10.77±2.18
	40~60	10.80±1.78	10.56±2.41	10.89±2.20	11.09±2.94

年份	土层深度/cm	处理
年份	土层深度/cm	T10	T20	T30	T40
2012	0~10	10.17±2.13	8.10±1.71	7.75±1.28	7.76±1.08
	10~20	13.54±1.42	12.01±3.63	8.95±1.58	9.09±1.37
	20~30	12.59±1.07	12.42±2.69	12.10±1.57	10.93±2.02
	30~40	11.23±1.12	11.49±1.57	12.03±1.35	11.82±1.59
	40~60	10.03±2.14	10.13±1.49	10.81±1.77	11.23±1.12
2013	0~10	8.98±1.64	7.12±0.96	7.01±0.78	7.00±1.19
	10~20	12.26±1.85	9.19±1.28	8.16±0.78	7.02±1.18
	20~30	12.72±2.75	11.27±2.41	10.11±2.02	8.75±1.13
	30~40	12.20±1.56	11.58±2.71	11.01±2.13	10.77±2.18
	40~60	10.80±1.78	10.56±2.41	10.89±2.20	11.09±2.94

主效应	含水量		pH		电导率		玉米产量		向日葵产量		紫花苜蓿产量		黄花草木樨产量
主效应	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.	F值	Sig.
处理	5.00	0.006^**	1.25	0.309^ns	0.81	0.496^ns	17.87	0.000^**	26.47	0.000^**	3.65	0.025^*	2.767	0.058^ns
年份	22.18	0.000^**	9.62	0.004^**	5.37	0.027^*	10.59	0.003^**	0.28	0.599^ns	78.79	0.000^**	72.77	0.000^**
处理×年份	2.09	0.122^ns	6.43	0.002^**	14.71	0.000^**	0.54	0.658^ns	3.74	0.021^*	0.08	0.969^ns	1.86	0.157^ns