Microbial Fertilizers Application in Coastal Saline Wheat Field: The Salt-reducing Effect and the Growth Response of Winter Wheat

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0609

Abstract

Abstract:

This paper aims to explore the effects of microbial fertilizer application in coastal saline wheat field on reducing soil salt content and the growth response of winter wheat. Field experiments with different kinds of biological products and different amounts of microbial fertilizers were conducted in the coastal saline wheat field of the Yellow River Delta area. The data of soil salinity, wheat plant height, SPAD value, canopy NDVI and wheat yield were collected. The effects of microbial fertilizer on salt reduction and growth response of winter wheat were systematically analyzed by comparative analysis and variance analysis methods. The results showed that different kinds of biological product treatments had a certain salt reduction effect, and the salt contents of both the surface and the lower soil layers decreased with the range between 11.66% and 33.89%. The salt reduction effect of the microbial fertilizer was the most obvious. In each treatment, the increase of SPAD value of wheat was from 22.78% to 31.64%, the increase of NDVI value was 27.18%-44.74%, and the increase of wheat yield was 1.85%-20.49%. The effect of microbial fertilizer treatment was the best. When the application rate of microbial fertilizer was less than 7 kg/hm ², the salt-reducing effect increased with the increase of the application rate, and the growth and yield of winter wheat also increased significantly. While when the application rate exceeded 7 kg/hm², the effect decreased, so the best application rate was 7 kg/hm². Our results indicate that the application of microbial fertilizer in coastal saline wheat field has significant salt reduction effect and a positive impact on the growth and yield of winter wheat.

Key words: microbial fertilizer, soil salt content, saline wheat field, winter wheat growth, salt-reducing effect

CLC Number:

S156.4

Wang Qiyao, Zhao Gengxing, Li Tao, Li Jianwei, Pan Deng, Tu Qiang. Microbial Fertilizers Application in Coastal Saline Wheat Field: The Salt-reducing Effect and the Growth Response of Winter Wheat[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(24): 60-66.

Figures/Tables 7

References 29

[1]	景鑫鑫. 改良剂对盐碱土壤修复的研究进展[J]. 河南农业, 2020(1):17-19.
[2]	Xie X F, Pu L J, Zhu M, et al. Linkage between soil salinization indicators and physicochemical properties in a long-term intensive agricultural coastal reclamation area, Eastern China[J]. Journal of Soils and sediments, 2019, 19(11):3699-3707. doi: 10.1007/s11368-019-02333-3 URL
[3]	刘国利. 山东省滨海盐渍耕地改良与造林绿化及可持续利用对策[J]. 基层农技推广, 2020, 8(4):113-115.
[4]	徐成龙, 董奕岑, 卢家磊, 等. 我国滨海盐碱地土壤改良及资源化利用研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2020, 33(06):70-75.
[5]	Bian L, Wang J, Liu J, et al. Spatiotemporal Changes of Soil Salinization in the Yellow River Delta of China from 2015 to 2019[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(2):822. doi: 10.3390/su13020822 URL
[6]	王德领, 诸葛玉平, 杨全刚, 等. 3种改良剂对滨海盐渍耕地土壤理化性状及玉米生长的影响[J/OL]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2020:1-14.
[7]	张云, 张相柱. 磷石膏混合法对盐渍耕地的改良研究[J]. 内蒙古水利, 2018(12):19-20.
[8]	姜同轩, 陈虹, 张玉龙, 等. 脱硫石膏不同施用量对盐渍耕地改良安全性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(03):438-445.
[9]	赫臣, 郑桂萍, 赵海成, 等. 增施腐殖酸及减施化肥对盐渍耕地粳稻品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(9):106-112.
[10]	冯磊, 孙岩, 刘志良, 等. 微生物菌肥机械化撒施技术在盐渍耕地改良中的试验[J]. 南方农机, 2017, 48(21):18-21
[11]	王卓然, 赵庚星, 高明秀, 等. 黄河三角洲垦利县夏季土壤水盐空间变异及土壤盐分微域特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(4):1040-1049.
[12]	陈丽娜. 嗜盐/耐盐微生物在苏打盐碱土改良中的作用及机制研究[D]. 长春:吉林大学, 2020.
[13]	刘萧湘. 具有植物促生活性的耐盐菌的筛选及微生物法改良盐渍化土壤初探[D]. 上海:上海师范大学, 2016.
[14]	Yadav A N, Saxena A K. Biodiversity and biotechnological applications of halophilic microbes for sustainable agriculture[J]. Journal of Applied Biology & Biotechnology, 2018, 6(1):48-55.
[15]	祁彧, 张艳荣, 张弛, 等. 腐殖土与解磷微生物协同改良碱性土壤有效磷的研究[J]. 太原理工大学学报, 2020, 51(5):712-716.
[16]	窦敏娜. 环境微生物多样性研究方法进展[J]. 环境研究与监测, 2010, 23(1):60-63.
[17]	王丹, 赵亚光, 马蕊, 等. 微生物菌肥对盐渍耕地枸杞土壤改良及细菌群落的影响[J]. 农业生物技术学报, 2020, 28(8):1499-1510.
[18]	丁绍武, 张鹏. 盐渍耕地改良研究现状及微生物菌肥应用分析[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(07):175-176.
[19]	崔昆, 赵庚星, 王卓然, 等. 黄河三角洲夏季典型田块土壤盐分的多尺度空间变异[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(5):1451-1458.
[20]	孙佳, 夏江宝, 苏丽, 等. 黄河三角洲盐碱地不同植被模式的土壤改良效应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(4):1323-1332.
[21]	柴晓彤. 微生物菌剂对盐渍化土壤改良研究[D]. 上海:上海交通大学, 2016.
[22]	逄焕成, 李玉义, 严慧峻, 等. 微生物菌剂对盐碱土理化和生物性状影响的研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(5):951-955.
[23]	韩晓芳, 杨永利, 张敬智, 等. 微生物复合改良剂对滨海盐渍土细菌群落特征及理化性状的影响[A]. 中国环境科学学会环境工程分会.中国环境科学学会2019年科学技术年会——环境工程技术创新与应用分论坛论文集(二)[C]. 中国环境科学学会环境工程分会:《环境工程》编辑部, 2019: 7.
[24]	武志海, 刘晶晶, 付丽, 等. 溶磷菌对大豆根际土壤酶活性及微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2017, 22(11):58-67.
[25]	Yang C, Sun J. Soil Salinity Drives the Distribution Patterns and Ecological Functions of Fungi in Saline-Alkali Land in the Yellow River Delta, China[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11:3365.
[26]	张瑞福. 根际微生物:农业绿色发展中大有作为的植物第二基因组[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(9):1-2.
[27]	景宇鹏, 张建中, 李秀萍, 等. 种植绿肥作物对河套灌区盐碱土改良效果研究[J]. 北方农业学报, 2019, 47(6):42-46.
[28]	王苗, 齐树亭, 葛美丽. 盐生植物对滨海盐渍土生物改良的研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008(7):2898-2899.
[29]	景宇鹏, 林春野, 赵沛义, 等. 5种植物改良河套灌区盐渍化土壤的效果研究[J]. 土壤与作物, 2020, 9(2):114-125.

试验处理	根际电导率(EC)/(μS/cm)		含盐量(St)/(g/kg)		比对照降低幅度/%
试验处理	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm
T1 对照	1827.19 A	2212.56 A	4.06 A	4.90 A
T2 亿安登记产品	1473.53 C	1876.51 B	3.28 C	4.16 B	19.01	14.96
T3 微生物菌肥	1196.73 D	1550.80 C	2.68 D	3.45 C	33.89	29.46
T4 有机加无机辅料	1484.93 C	1903.28 B	3.31 C	4.22 B	18.40	13.77
T5 商品有机肥	1624.37 B	1996.78 B	3.61 B	4.43 B	10.90	9.61
T6微生物菌肥撒施划锄	1308.42 D	1950.69 B	2.93 D	4.33 B	27.88	11.66

试验处理	根际电导率(EC)/(μS/cm)		含盐量(St)/(g/kg)		比对照降低幅度/%
试验处理	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm
T1 对照	1827.19 A	2212.56 A	4.06 A	4.90 A
T2 亿安登记产品	1473.53 C	1876.51 B	3.28 C	4.16 B	19.01	14.96
T3 微生物菌肥	1196.73 D	1550.80 C	2.68 D	3.45 C	33.89	29.46
T4 有机加无机辅料	1484.93 C	1903.28 B	3.31 C	4.22 B	18.40	13.77
T5 商品有机肥	1624.37 B	1996.78 B	3.61 B	4.43 B	10.90	9.61
T6微生物菌肥撒施划锄	1308.42 D	1950.69 B	2.93 D	4.33 B	27.88	11.66

试验处理	根际电导率(EC)/(μS/cm)		含盐量(St)/(g/kg)		比对照降低幅度/%
试验处理	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm
T1 对照	1926.78 A	2164.35 A	4.27 A	4.79 A
T23.5 kg/hm²	1478.79 B	1784.38 B	3.30 B	3.96 B	22.85	17.29
T37 kg/hm²	1376.67 B	1578.33 B	3.07 B	3.51 B	28.06	26.67
T414 kg/hm²	1425.01 B	1652.42 B	3.18 B	3.67 B	25.6	23.29
T5 21 kg/hm²	1435.31 B	1716.51 B	3.20 B	3.81 B	25.07	20.38

试验处理	根际电导率(EC)/(μS/cm)		含盐量(St)/(g/kg)		比对照降低幅度/%
试验处理	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm
T1 对照	1926.78 A	2164.35 A	4.27 A	4.79 A
T23.5 kg/hm²	1478.79 B	1784.38 B	3.30 B	3.96 B	22.85	17.29
T37 kg/hm²	1376.67 B	1578.33 B	3.07 B	3.51 B	28.06	26.67
T414 kg/hm²	1425.01 B	1652.42 B	3.18 B	3.67 B	25.6	23.29
T5 21 kg/hm²	1435.31 B	1716.51 B	3.20 B	3.81 B	25.07	20.38

试验处理	株高		SPAD		NDVI
试验处理	均值/cm	比对照增幅/%	均值	比对照增幅/%	均值	比对照增幅/%
T1 对照	55.66		42.16		0.67
T2 亿安登记产品	63.00	13.19	52.93	25.55	0.86	29.82
T3微生物菌肥	65.50	17.68	55.50	31.64	0.96	44.74
T4 有机加无机辅料	62.00	11.39	52.23	23.89	0.85	27.63
T5 商品有机肥	61.50	10.49	51.77	23.17	0.88	32.13
T6微生物菌肥撒施划锄	62.00	11.39	51.93	22.78	0.85	27.18