Optimization of Fertilizing Scheme for Fast-growing Plantation of Black Locust Clones

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0365

Abstract

Abstract:

Control test was used to optimize fertilizing scheme and to improve fertilizer utilization efficiency in the management of black locust plantation forest. Through three-factor quadratic orthogonal regression test, fertilizer was applied to the juvenile narrow-crown black locust fast-growing and high-yield plantation forest for three consecutive years in Minquan forest farm of Henan Province. The results showed that fertilization could significantly promote diameter growth, and increasing range of the two consecutive years could reach 186.67% and 47.30% respectively, the diameter growth of 3 years could reach 7.6 cm. Regression test showed that after three years, quadratic model and total model reached significant levels, and lack of fit test was being invalid, and fitting equation was becoming significant. Converting mode to treat data was failed, which proved the attempt completely impossible. Conclusion is drawn that it is effective to fit regression equation by three factors quadratic orthogonal regression test, and it is possible to find the optimal fertilization scheme of black locust plantations forest.

Key words: black locust plantation forest, fertilizer allocated proportion, quadratic orthogonal regression, fitting equation, scheme optimization

CLC Number:

S725.5

Yu Zhenxu, Li Yifan, Qin Guanghua, Song Yumin, Qiao Yuling, Ma Ling. Optimization of Fertilizing Scheme for Fast-growing Plantation of Black Locust Clones[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(25): 35-40.

Figures/Tables 7

References 30

[1]	彭鸿, 陈晓荣, 余仲东. 刺槐人工林培育实践的认知[J]. 水土保持学报, 2003,5(17):11-15.
[2]	任宪威, 杨昌友, 黄普华, 等. 树木学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1997:349-350.
[3]	Burner D M, Pote H, Ares A. Management effects on biomass and foliar nutritive value of Robinia pseudoacacia and Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermisin Arkansas, USA[J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2005,65(3):207-214 doi: 10.1007/s10457-005-0923-9 URL
[4]	Danso S K A, Zapata F, Awonaike K O. Measurement of biological N₂ fixation in field-grown Robinia pseudoacacia L.[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 1995,27:415-419. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(95)98612-R URL
[5]	刘增文, 李雅素. 刺槐人工林养分利用效率[J]. 生态学报, 2003,(3):444-449.
[6]	潘瑞炽. 植物生理学(第五版)[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2004:51-53.
[7]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:192-207.
[8]	崔玉亭, 程序, 韩纯儒, 等. 苏南太湖流域水稻经济生态适宜施氮量研究[J]. 生态学报, 2007,4(20):660-662.
[9]	傅庆林, 陈英旭, 俞劲炎. 浙中水稻生长适宜施氮量研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2003,5(40):787-790.
[10]	Schwab G J, Whitney D A, Kilgore G L, et al. Tillage and Phosphorus Management Effects on Crop Production in Soils with Phosphorus Stratification[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2006,98(3):430-435. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005.0050 URL
[11]	Fusseder A. The longevity and activity of the primary root of maize[J]. Plant and Soil, 1987,101:257-265. doi: 10.1007/BF02370653 URL
[12]	谢建昌, 周健民. 我国土壤钾素研究和钾肥使用的进展[J]. 土壤, 1999,5:244-253.
[13]	Baule H, Fricker C. The fertilizer treatment of forest trees[M]. Die Dungung von Waldbaumen, 1967:231-259.
[14]	刘寿坡, 刘献忠, 南健德. 意大利214杨林地施肥效应研究[J]. 林业科学, 1990,26(6):484-494.
[15]	陈辉. 锥栗人工林营养补偿试验及配方的优化筛选—高产量类型林分的配方施肥试验[J]. 林业科学, 2001,37(1):61-66.
[16]	尹鹏达, 朱文旭, 赵丽娜, 等. 填充型烤烟栽培中氮磷钾肥与产量的施肥模型[J]. 土壤, 2011,43(6):924-929.
[17]	王兴仁, 陈新平, 张福锁, 等. 施肥模型在我国推荐施肥中的应用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1998,4(1):67-74.
[18]	王圣瑞, 陈新平, 高祥照, 等. “3414”肥料试验模型拟合的探讨[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2002,8(4):409-413.
[19]	加拿大钾磷研究所北京办事处. 土壤养分状况系统研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 1992:42-59.
[20]	Hunter A H. Laboratory and greenhouse techniques for nutrient survey to determine the soil amendments required for optimum plant growth[M]. Florida, USA: Agro Service International, 1980:54-72.
[21]	中国农业科学院土壤肥料研究所. 中国肥料[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1994:431-450.
[22]	Heckman J R, Jokela W, Morris T, et al. Soil test calibration for predicting corn response to phosphorus in the northeast USA[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2006,98(3/4):280-288. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005-0122 URL
[23]	Gascho G J, Parker M B. Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium fertilization of a coastal plain cotton-peanut rotation[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2006,37(10):1485-1499. doi: 10.1080/00103620600584347 URL
[24]	樊小林, 刘芳, 廖照源, 等. 我国控释肥料研究的现状和展望[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009,15(2):463-473.
[25]	谢亚斌. 不同配方施肥对闽楠幼林影响的研究[D]. 长沙:中南林业科技大学, 2019.
[26]	杨艳, 汤玉喜, 唐洁, 李永进, 等. 环洞庭湖区杨树人工林测土配方施肥及其与树体养分的相关性[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2018,38(12):103-107.
[27]	张敏, 杨浩瑜, 包立, 等. 氮、磷、钾配比施肥对辣木生长及叶片养分吸收的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 2019,32(5):114-120.
[28]	李贻铨. 林木施肥与营养诊断[J]. 林业科学, 1991,27(4):436-441.
[29]	杨建伟, 梁宗锁, 韩蕊莲. 不同土壤水分状况对刺槐的生长及水分利用特征的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2004,40(5):94-98.
[30]	吉增宝, 王进鑫, 李继文, 等. 不同季节干旱及复水对刺槐幼苗可溶性糖含量的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2009,29(7):1358-363.

排名	2015年	2016年		2017年
排名	胸径/cm	胸径/cm	生长率/%	胸径/cm	生长率/%
1	1.96±0.2500(15)	5.89±1.3243(5)	216.67	8.49±1.2481(15)	68.79
2	1.89±0.3771(10)	5.86±1.1009(14)	234.86	8.36±0.8666(16)	67.54
3	1.88±0.1241(9)	5.56±0.9804(10)	183.67	7.94±0.7188(9)	50.95
4	1.86±0.3554(14)	5.46±0.5203(6)	201.66	7.83±0.9103(7)	56.91
5	1.85±0.3144(8)	5.31±0.8290(12)	216.07	7.82±0.7240(11)	50.97
6	1.85±0.2679(13)	5.29±1.5839(1)	211.18	7.79±0.4614(14)	32.26
7	1.85±0.2410(11)	5.26±1.2946(9)	179.79	7.67±0.8026(12)	44.44
8	1.84±0.2619(2)	5.26±1.0006(2)	185.87	7.65±0.8377(10)	37.59
9	1.82±0.3228(16)	5.18±1.5700(11)	180.00	7.58±0.8847(1)	43.29
10	1.81±0.2993(6)	5.13±1.0257(3)	183.43	7.58±0.4813(6)	38.83
11	1.81±0.1430(3)	5.13±0.9215(13)	177.30	7.55±0.3993(3)	47.17
12	1.79±0.3073(7)	5.03±1.5979(15)	166.14	7.53±0.5658(5)	28.50
13	1.75±0.1927(5)	4.99±1.2738(16)	174.18	7.35±0.5852(4)	69.35
14	1.72±0.2765(4)	4.99±0.9584(7)	178.77	7.30±0.6534(13)	42.30
15	1.70±0.2169(1)	4.53±1.0027(8)	144.86	7.05±0.5632(2)	34.03
16	1.68±0.1847(12)	4.34±1.0935(4)	152.33	6.52±0.5790(8)	43.93
平均	1.82±0.2584	5.20±1.1298	186.67	7.63±0.7051	47.30

排名	2015年	2016年		2017年
排名	胸径/cm	胸径/cm	生长率/%	胸径/cm	生长率/%
1	1.96±0.2500(15)	5.89±1.3243(5)	216.67	8.49±1.2481(15)	68.79
2	1.89±0.3771(10)	5.86±1.1009(14)	234.86	8.36±0.8666(16)	67.54
3	1.88±0.1241(9)	5.56±0.9804(10)	183.67	7.94±0.7188(9)	50.95
4	1.86±0.3554(14)	5.46±0.5203(6)	201.66	7.83±0.9103(7)	56.91
5	1.85±0.3144(8)	5.31±0.8290(12)	216.07	7.82±0.7240(11)	50.97
6	1.85±0.2679(13)	5.29±1.5839(1)	211.18	7.79±0.4614(14)	32.26
7	1.85±0.2410(11)	5.26±1.2946(9)	179.79	7.67±0.8026(12)	44.44
8	1.84±0.2619(2)	5.26±1.0006(2)	185.87	7.65±0.8377(10)	37.59
9	1.82±0.3228(16)	5.18±1.5700(11)	180.00	7.58±0.8847(1)	43.29
10	1.81±0.2993(6)	5.13±1.0257(3)	183.43	7.58±0.4813(6)	38.83
11	1.81±0.1430(3)	5.13±0.9215(13)	177.30	7.55±0.3993(3)	47.17
12	1.79±0.3073(7)	5.03±1.5979(15)	166.14	7.53±0.5658(5)	28.50
13	1.75±0.1927(5)	4.99±1.2738(16)	174.18	7.35±0.5852(4)	69.35
14	1.72±0.2765(4)	4.99±0.9584(7)	178.77	7.30±0.6534(13)	42.30
15	1.70±0.2169(1)	4.53±1.0027(8)	144.86	7.05±0.5632(2)	34.03
16	1.68±0.1847(12)	4.34±1.0935(4)	152.33	6.52±0.5790(8)	43.93
平均	1.82±0.2584	5.20±1.1298	186.67	7.63±0.7051	47.30

编码水平	2015年			2016年			2017年
编码水平	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾
1.353	126	72	100	168	100	134	320	300	300
1	110	63	87	146	87	117	278	261	261
0	63	36	50	84	50	67	160	150	150
-1	16	9	13	22	13	17	42	39	39
-1.353	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

编码水平	2015年			2016年			2017年
编码水平	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾	尿素	钙镁磷肥	硫酸钾
1.353	126	72	100	168	100	134	320	300	300
1	110	63	87	146	87	117	278	261	261
0	63	36	50	84	50	67	160	150	150
-1	16	9	13	22	13	17	42	39	39
-1.353	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

来源	分析项	自由度	平方和	相关系数	F值	Pr>F
回归分析	线性项	3	0.552979	0.2217	0.75	0.5566
	平方项	3	0.068967	0.0277	0.09	0.9613
	交叉项	3	0.148937	0.0597	0.20	0.8930
	总回归项	9	0.770883	0.3091	0.35	0.9285
残差	失拟项	5	1.721898	0.344380	645.71	0.0015
	自然误差	2	0.001067	0.000533
	总误差	7	1.722964	0.246138