Application Effects of New-type Fertilizers on Maize in Lime Concrete Black Soil of Southern Henan

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0790

Abstract

Abstract:

To further increase maize yield and improve a better environment condition in lime concrete black soil of Southern Henan, a 2-year field experiment was conducted to analyze the effects of conventional urea (CK), controlled release urea (CRU) and new-type urea containing biochar (BU), microelement (MU) and humic acid (HAU) on maize growth and nutrient absorption under the same fertilization rate. We also evaluated the changes of soil nitrate content and maize economic benefits under different new-type fertilizers. The results showed that the application of new-type fertilizers could increase maize grain yield compared with CK, by the range of 2.7%-10.9%. Among the new-type fertilizers, HAU had the highest increase rate (10.9%), followed by CRU (8.8%), but the increase rates under BU and MU were relatively low. Compared with CK, the number of grains per ear and 100-grain weight under HAU were increased by 9.7% and 9.2%, and the plant uptakes of nitrogen and phosphorus were increased by 20.6% and 27.5%, respectively, with a significant difference level; however, there was no significant difference in yield components or in nutrient uptakes between the other treatments and CK. Additionally, HAU significantly reduced the nitrate content at the 0-40 cm soil depth compared with CK, the nitrate contents were reduced by 26.4% and 32.4% at the 0-20 and 20-40 cm soil depths, respectively. The order of the output-input ratio among all treatments was HAU (2.14) > CRU (2.05) > MU (2.04) ≈ CK (2.04) > BU (2.03). Therefore, the application of humic acid urea could not only increase the maize yield and economic benefit, but also reduce the risk of nitrate pollution in soil, which has a broad application prospect in lime concrete black soil of Southern Henan.

Key words: lime concrete black soil, new-type fertilizer, humic acid urea, summer maize, nutrient uptakes, yield, soil environment

CLC Number:

S146

Liu Gaoyuan, He Ailing, Du Jun, Yang Zhanping, Pan Xiuyan, Xu Jidong, Zhang Yuting. Application Effects of New-type Fertilizers on Maize in Lime Concrete Black Soil of Southern Henan[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(29): 78-83.

Figures/Tables 7

References 33

[1]	Han X M, Hu C, Chen Y F, et al. Crop yield stability and sustainability in a rice-wheat cropping system based on 34-year field experiment[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 113:125965. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2019.125965 URL
[2]	国家统计局. 农用氮肥施用折纯量(万吨)[EB/OL]. (2020-02-28)[2021-01-03]. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01&zb=A0D06&sj=2019.
[3]	吴萍萍, 李录久, 耿言安, 等. 不同新型肥料对江淮地区水稻生长及氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(3):149-153.
[4]	向德明, 张明发, 彭曙光, 等. 连年施用新型肥料对土壤真菌群落及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019(2):156-163.
[5]	武志杰, 石元亮, 李东坡, 等. 新型高效肥料研究展望[J]. 土壤与作物, 2012, 1(1):4-11.
[6]	赵秉强, 张福锁, 廖宗文, 等. 我国新型肥料发展战略研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004, 10(5):90-99.
[7]	杨相东, 张民. 缓/控释和稳定性肥料技术创新驱动化肥行业科技发展-“新型肥料的研制与高效利用”专刊序言[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(12):2029-2031.
[8]	Geng J B, Chen J Q, Sun Y B, et al. Controlled release urea improved nitrogen use efficiency and yield of wheat and corn[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2016, 108(4):1666-1673. doi: 10.2134/agronj2015.0468 URL
[9]	韩蔚娟, 王寅, 陈海潇, 等. 黑土区玉米施用新型肥料的效果和环境效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(2):309-313.
[10]	卢艳艳, 宋付朋. 不同包膜控释尿素对农田土壤氨挥发的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(23):7133-7140.
[11]	李军, 袁亮, 赵秉强, 等. 腐植酸尿素对玉米生长及肥料氮利用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(2):524-530.
[12]	Abalos D, Jeffery S, Sanz-Cobena A, et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2014, 189:136-144. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.036 URL
[13]	Akiyama H, Yan X Y, Yagi K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N₂O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta‐analysis[J]. Global Change Biology, 2010, 16(6):1837-1846. doi: 10.1111/gcb.2010.16.issue-6 URL
[14]	李德成, 张甘霖, 龚子同. 我国砂姜黑土土种的系统分类归属研究[J]. 土壤, 2011, 43(4):623-629.
[15]	温云杰, 李桂花, 黄金莉, 等. 连续流动分析仪与自动凯氏定氮仪测定小麦秸秆全氮含量之比较[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(6):146-151.
[16]	史桂清, 石书亚, 赵颖佳, 等. 氮磷钾施用方式对夏玉米植株、产量和土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(13):23-30.
[17]	王晓娟, 贾志宽, 梁连友, 等. 旱地施有机肥对土壤水分和玉米经济效益影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012, 28(6):144-149.
[18]	刘艳丽, 丁方军, 谷端银, 等. 不同活化处理腐植酸-尿素对褐土小麦-玉米产量及有机碳氮矿化的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(1):42-48.
[19]	李兆君, 马国瑞, 王申贵, 等. 腐殖酸长效尿素在土壤中转化及其对玉米增产的效应研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2005, 13(4):121-123.
[20]	张瑜, 王若楠, 邱小倩, 等. 腐植酸对植物生长的促进作用[J]. 腐植酸, 2018, 181(2):11-15.
[21]	李伟. 控释掺混肥在小麦-玉米轮作体系中的应用效果研究[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2012.
[22]	Ji Y, Liu G, Ma J, et al. Effect of controlled-release fertilizer on mitigation of N₂O emission from paddy field in South China: a multi-year field observation[J]. Plant and Soil, 2013, 371(1-2):473-486. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1700-6 URL
[23]	任宁, 汪洋, 王改革, 等. 不同降雨年份控释尿素与普通尿素配施对夏玉米产量、氮素利用及经济效益的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(4):681-691.
[24]	张荣荣, 宁晓菊, 秦耀辰, 等. 1980年以来河南省主要粮食作物产量对气候变化的敏感性分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(1):137-149.
[25]	中国气象数据网. 中国地面气候资料月值数据集[EB/OL].(2020-11-01)[2020-12-11]. https://data.cma.cn/data/cdcdetail/dataCode/SURF_CLI_CHN_MUL_MON.html.
[26]	范星露, 易自力, 刘福来, 等. 炭基复混肥料对水稻氮磷钾吸收及产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(24):11-17.
[27]	康日峰, 张乃明, 史静, 等. 生物炭基肥料对小麦生长、养分吸收及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2014(6):33-38.
[28]	Zwieten L V, Kimber S, Morris S, et al. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility[J]. Plant and Soil, 2010, 327(s1-2):235-246. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x URL
[29]	刘红恩, 李金峰, 刘世亮, 等. 施用含锌尿素对夏玉米产量、氮素吸收及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(9):94-97.
[30]	盖霞普, 刘宏斌, 翟丽梅, 等. 长期增施有机肥/秸秆还田对土壤氮素淋失风险的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(12):2336-2347.
[31]	裴瑞杰, 袁天佑, 王俊忠, 等. 施用腐殖酸对夏玉米产量和氮效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(11):2189-2198.
[32]	陈心想, 何绪生, 张雯, 等. 生物炭用量对模拟土柱氮素淋失和田间土壤水分参数的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(1):110-114,139.
[33]	Xu N, Tan G C, Wang H Y, et al. Effect of biochar additions to soil on nitrogen leaching, microbial biomass and bacterial community structure[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2016, 74:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.02.004 URL

年份	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	穗长/cm	穗粗/cm	穗粒数/粒	百粒重/g
2018	CK	7093.0±342.9 b	20.0±0.7 a	4.9±0.4 a	513.5±13.4 b	32.3±1.2 b
	BU	7167.0±442.3 ab	20.5±1.4 a	4.8±0.7 a	520.8±18.7 ab	32.7±1.6 b
	MU	7342.9±338.4 ab	19.7±0.9 a	4.6±0.5 a	526.7±19.5 ab	33.6±1.5 ab
	HAU	7815.3±417.5 a	21.6±1.8 a	5.0±0.3 a	561.3±12.6 a	35.1±0.8 a
	CRU	7491.0±518.6 ab	20.2±0.6 a	4.7±0.6 a	532.6±19.3 ab	34.5±1.0 ab
2019	CK	6258.5±374.6 b	16.0±2.4 a	4.8±0.5 a	358.4±11.7 b	32.8±1.7 b
	BU	6495.4±397.2 ab	16.2±2.7 a	4.0±0.8 a	362.8±15.9 ab	33.0±1.4 ab
	MU	6776.6±295.4 ab	16.8±3.0 a	4.7±0.6 a	375.2±9.2 ab	32.6±1.2 b
	HAU	6964.1±273.3 a	17.3±3.4 a	4.9±0.4 a	388.7±18.2 a	35.9±1.3 a
	CRU	7009.5±325.7 a	17.8±2.9 a	4.8±0.5 a	392.0±16.8 a	35.7±1.1 a
平均值	CK	6675.8±358.7 b	18.0±1.6 a	4.9±0.5 a	436.0±12.6 b	32.6±1.4 b
	BU	6831.2±419.8 ab	18.4±2.1 a	4.4±0.7 a	441.8±17.3 ab	32.9±1.6 ab
	MU	7059.8±316.9 ab	18.3±2.0 a	4.7±0.5 a	450.9±26.9 ab	33.2±1.3 b
	HAU	7389.7±345.4 a	19.5±2.5 a	5.0±0.3 a	478.0±25.4 a	35.5±1.1 a
	CRU	7250.3±422.2 ab	19.0±1.8 a	4.8±0.5 a	462.3±18.1 ab	35.1±1.0 ab

年份	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	穗长/cm	穗粗/cm	穗粒数/粒	百粒重/g
2018	CK	7093.0±342.9 b	20.0±0.7 a	4.9±0.4 a	513.5±13.4 b	32.3±1.2 b
	BU	7167.0±442.3 ab	20.5±1.4 a	4.8±0.7 a	520.8±18.7 ab	32.7±1.6 b
	MU	7342.9±338.4 ab	19.7±0.9 a	4.6±0.5 a	526.7±19.5 ab	33.6±1.5 ab
	HAU	7815.3±417.5 a	21.6±1.8 a	5.0±0.3 a	561.3±12.6 a	35.1±0.8 a
	CRU	7491.0±518.6 ab	20.2±0.6 a	4.7±0.6 a	532.6±19.3 ab	34.5±1.0 ab
2019	CK	6258.5±374.6 b	16.0±2.4 a	4.8±0.5 a	358.4±11.7 b	32.8±1.7 b
	BU	6495.4±397.2 ab	16.2±2.7 a	4.0±0.8 a	362.8±15.9 ab	33.0±1.4 ab
	MU	6776.6±295.4 ab	16.8±3.0 a	4.7±0.6 a	375.2±9.2 ab	32.6±1.2 b
	HAU	6964.1±273.3 a	17.3±3.4 a	4.9±0.4 a	388.7±18.2 a	35.9±1.3 a
	CRU	7009.5±325.7 a	17.8±2.9 a	4.8±0.5 a	392.0±16.8 a	35.7±1.1 a
平均值	CK	6675.8±358.7 b	18.0±1.6 a	4.9±0.5 a	436.0±12.6 b	32.6±1.4 b
	BU	6831.2±419.8 ab	18.4±2.1 a	4.4±0.7 a	441.8±17.3 ab	32.9±1.6 ab
	MU	7059.8±316.9 ab	18.3±2.0 a	4.7±0.5 a	450.9±26.9 ab	33.2±1.3 b
	HAU	7389.7±345.4 a	19.5±2.5 a	5.0±0.3 a	478.0±25.4 a	35.5±1.1 a
	CRU	7250.3±422.2 ab	19.0±1.8 a	4.8±0.5 a	462.3±18.1 ab	35.1±1.0 ab

处理	年均总产出/ (元/hm²)	年均总投入/(元/hm²)		净收入/ (元/hm²)	产投比
处理	年均总产出/ (元/hm²)	肥料投入	其他投入	净收入/ (元/hm²)	产投比
CK	10994.1	1500	3890	5604.1	2.04
BU	11254.7	1650		5714.7	2.03
MU	11634.4	1800		5944.4	2.04
HAU	12171.7	1800		6481.7	2.14
CRU	11950.9	1950		6110.9	2.05

处理	年均总产出/ (元/hm²)	年均总投入/(元/hm²)		净收入/ (元/hm²)	产投比
处理	年均总产出/ (元/hm²)	肥料投入	其他投入	净收入/ (元/hm²)	产投比
CK	10994.1	1500	3890	5604.1	2.04
BU	11254.7	1650		5714.7	2.03
MU	11634.4	1800		5944.4	2.04
HAU	12171.7	1800		6481.7	2.14
CRU	11950.9	1950		6110.9	2.05