Technical Mode of Vibrating Pulp Extraction and Side-deep Fertilization: Effect on Yield Characteristics and Fertilizer and Water Efficiency of Rice in Cold Region

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20200200077

Abstract

Abstract:

To solve the problems of large amount of irrigation water in steeping paddy fields and low fertilizer use efficiency caused by traditional flatting and puddling paddy field farming mode in northern cold region, in 2018-2019, we selected vibrating pulper and side deep fertilizer for water paddy field preparation as materials, and conducted the orthogonal experiment design with 2 land preparation modes and 2 fertilization modes, including flatting and puddling field paddy preparation(WPF), vibrating pulp extraction(VEP), base fertilizer application (CFA), and side deep fertilization(SDF). The impact of vibrating slurry and lateral deep fertilization technology model on irrigation amount of watering field, dry matter accumulation, yield index and economic cost of bubble field was studied. The results showed that compared with the mode of traditional flatting and puddling field paddy preparation + base fertilizer application (WPF + CFA), the other 3 technical modes of traditional flatting and puddling paddy field preparation and side deep fertilization (WPF+SDF), vibrating pulp extraction and conventional fertilizer application (VEP+CFA) and vibrating pulp extraction and side deep fertilization (VEP+SDF) had significant influence on water field irrigation amount, yield characteristics, fertilizer use efficiency and economic benefit. Among them, VEP+SDF had the greatest increase rate, WPF+SDF came next and VEP+CFA was the last. Compared with WPF+CFA, VEP + SDF mode could significantly improve fertilizer and water use efficiency, which saved field irrigation water by 11.4%, reduced fertilizer application by 10%, increased yield and economic benefit by 7.3% and 1628.7yuan/hm², respectively. This study indicates that the VEP+SDF technical mode could significantly improve fertilizer and water efficiency, increase rice yield and economic benefit, which was an ideal technical mode of mechanized soil preparation and fertilization of rice in northern cold region.

Key words: cold region rice, vibrating pulp extraction field preparation, traditional flatting and puddling paddy field preparation, side deep fertilization, yield characteristics, water field irrigation

CLC Number:

S343.2

Huai Baodong, Sui Wenzhi, Li Peiran, Wang Andong, Lu Xianchun, Sun Xingrong. Technical Mode of Vibrating Pulp Extraction and Side-deep Fertilization: Effect on Yield Characteristics and Fertilizer and Water Efficiency of Rice in Cold Region[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(26): 69-76.

Figures/Tables 6

References 29

[1]	Huang M, Zou Y, Jiang P, et al. Effect of tillage on soil and crop properties of wet-seeded flooded rice[J]. Field Crops Research. 2012,129:28-38.
[2]	Roger estrade J, Anger C, Bertrand M, et al. Tillage and soil ecology:partners for sustainable agriculture[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2010,111(1):33-40.
[3]	Van den Putte A, Govers G, Diels J, et al. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth:a metaregression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2010,33(3):231-241.
[4]	李明金. 水田搅浆机平地装置的设计与试验研究[D]. 大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2014.
[5]	郑桂萍, 韩东来, 吕艳东, 等. 水稻旱平垄作双侧双深高效栽培新模式与技术规范[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2016,28(1):1-3,24.
[6]	佘玮, 黄璜, 郑华斌, 等. 垄作梯式栽培对水稻养分吸收利用和根区土壤养分的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2015,29(4):357-361.
[7]	黄国勤, 杨滨娟, 王淑彬. 稻田实行保护性耕作对水稻产量、土壤理化及生物学性状的影响. 生态学报, 2015,35(4):1225-1235.
[8]	张军, 丁启朔, 丁为民. 分层旋耕对水稻土耕层物理性状的影响. 南京农业大学学报, 2015,38(6):1016-1022.
[9]	魏海燕, 李宏亮, 程金秋. 缓释肥类型与运筹对不同穗型水稻产量的影响. 作物学报, 2017,43(5):730-740.
[10]	张运红, 杜君, 和爱玲. 海藻酸钠寡糖对水稻生长发育、产量及镉吸收分布的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017,29(6):1-6.
[11]	孙永健, 孙园园, 蒋明金. 施肥水平对不同氮效率水稻氮素利用特征及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016,49(24):4745-4756.
[12]	范立慧, 徐珊珊, 侯朋福, 等. 不同地力下基蘖肥运筹比例对水稻产量及氮肥吸收利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016,49(10):1872-1884.
[13]	张俊杰, 魏宇鹏. 水田振捣提浆技术应用效果浅析[J]. 农机使用与维修, 2018(1):34.
[14]	总局农机局水稻振捣提浆技术操作要点及注意事项[N]. 北大荒日报, 2017-04-29(002).
[15]	孙征权. 黑龙江省土壤耕作模式探讨[J]. 农业机械, 2010(7):120-122.
[16]	曾祥明, 韩宝吉, 徐芳森, 等. 不同基础地力土壤优化施肥对水稻产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012,45(14):2886-2894.
[17]	赵海成, 杜春影, 魏媛媛, 等. 施肥方式和氮肥运筹对寒地水稻产量与品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(3):76-86.
[18]	胡仁健. 机插水稻侧深施肥对肥料利用率的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2019,25(11):114-116.
[19]	杨成林, 王丽妍, 赵红玉. 侧深施肥对寒地水稻产量及肥料利用率的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2017,44(8):61-65.
[20]	裴祥喜, 李少华, 崔炳德, 等. 节水灌溉方式优选算法设计与实现[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2012(6):3801-3802.
[21]	徐飞, 隋文志, 怀宝东, 等. 井水增温灌溉对寒地水稻生物学特征及水肥利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2018,23(11):142-151.
[22]	赵红玉, 徐寿军, 杨成林, 等. 侧深施肥技术对寒地水稻生长及产量形成的影响[J]. 内蒙古民族大学学报:自然科学版, 2017,32(4):347-352.
[23]	杨成林, 王丽妍. 不同侧深施肥方式对寒地水稻生长、产量及肥料利用率的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2018,24(2):96-99.
[24]	马昕, 杨艳明, 刘智蕾, 等. 机械侧深施控释掺混肥提高寒地水稻的产量和效益[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(4):1095-1103.
[25]	季雅岚, 吴文革, 孙雪原, 等. 机插秧同步侧深施肥技术对水稻产量及肥料利用率的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2019,25(3):101-104.
[26]	白雪, 郑桂萍, 王宏宇, 等. 寒地水稻侧深施肥效果的研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2014(6):40-43.
[27]	解保胜, 刘海燕. 寒地水稻侧深施肥技术[J]. 现代化农业, 2000(12):9-11.
[28]	姜心禄, 池忠志, 郑家国. 不同耕作方式对水稻生产节水效应的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2011,17(5):44-46.
[29]	张焕跃, 代庆. 寒地水稻土特性及非充分泡田节水[J]. 东北水利水电, 2011,29(7):66-67.

年度	处理	第一次灌水量（整地前）/(t/hm²)	第二次灌水量（封闭前）/(t/hm²)	总灌溉量（泡田期）/(t/hm²)	节水率 (总灌溉量)/%	平均节水率/ %
2018	WPF+CFA	950.8±33.4a	880.2±30.2a	1831.0±26.8a	--	--
	WPF+SDF	925.9±27.8a	885.7±28.6a	1811.6±29.7a	1.1	--
	VEP+CFA	825.7±35.6b	810.6±30.9b	1636.3±28.4b	10.6	10.5
	VEP+SDF	800.4±25.4b	820.4±36.7b	1620.8±34.3b	11.5	10.5
2019	WPF+CFA	900.1±30.2a	900.0±31.6a	1795.6±33.5a	--	--
	WPF+SDF	850.1±38.6a	910.1±28.5a	1760.2±30.6a	2.0	--
	VEP+CFA	770.0±33.4b	800.1±35.4b	1555.1±31.4b	13.4	11.4
	VEP+SDF	760.1±30.8b	830.1±29.5b	1590.2±32.7b	11.4	11.4

年度	处理	第一次灌水量（整地前）/(t/hm²)	第二次灌水量（封闭前）/(t/hm²)	总灌溉量（泡田期）/(t/hm²)	节水率 (总灌溉量)/%	平均节水率/ %
2018	WPF+CFA	950.8±33.4a	880.2±30.2a	1831.0±26.8a	--	--
	WPF+SDF	925.9±27.8a	885.7±28.6a	1811.6±29.7a	1.1	--
	VEP+CFA	825.7±35.6b	810.6±30.9b	1636.3±28.4b	10.6	10.5
	VEP+SDF	800.4±25.4b	820.4±36.7b	1620.8±34.3b	11.5	10.5
2019	WPF+CFA	900.1±30.2a	900.0±31.6a	1795.6±33.5a	--	--
	WPF+SDF	850.1±38.6a	910.1±28.5a	1760.2±30.6a	2.0	--
	VEP+CFA	770.0±33.4b	800.1±35.4b	1555.1±31.4b	13.4	11.4
	VEP+SDF	760.1±30.8b	830.1±29.5b	1590.2±32.7b	11.4	11.4

年度	处理	返青期	分蘖期	孕穗拔节期	抽穗开花期	乳熟期	黄熟期
2018	WPF+CFA	5.20	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	WPF+SDF	5.20	6.9	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	VEP+CFA	5.18	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	VEP+SDF	5.19	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
2019	WPF+CFA	5.21	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10
	WPF+SDF	5.21	6.15	7.2	7.30	8.15	9.10
	VEP+CFA	5.20	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10
	VEP+SDF	5.20	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10

年度	处理	返青期	分蘖期	孕穗拔节期	抽穗开花期	乳熟期	黄熟期
2018	WPF+CFA	5.20	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	WPF+SDF	5.20	6.9	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	VEP+CFA	5.18	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
	VEP+SDF	5.19	6.8	6.30	7.26	8.10	9.3
2019	WPF+CFA	5.21	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10
	WPF+SDF	5.21	6.15	7.2	7.30	8.15	9.10
	VEP+CFA	5.20	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10
	VEP+SDF	5.20	6.10	7.2	7.31	8.15	9.10

年份	处理	地上物干物质积累量		地下物干物质积累量
年份	处理	分蘖末期	灌浆期	分蘖末期	灌浆期
2018	WPF+CFA	5.90±0.11c	38.33±0.48d	1.73±0.07b	2.54±0.25b
	WPF+SDF	6.46±0.17b	41.81±0.39b	1.88±0.09b	2.75±0.19b
	VEP+CFA	6.02±0.12c	39.63±0.44c	2.07±0.06a	3.16±0.28a
	VEP+SDF	6.81±0.15a	43.56±0.45a	2.18±0.09a	3.30±0.20a
2019	WPF+CFA	5.07±0.15c	37.24±0.51d	1.46±0.05b	2.63±0.24b
	WPF+SDF	5.50±0.12b	40.08±0.43b	1.52±0.07b	2.71±0.21b
	VEP+CFA	5.13±0.13c	38.49±0.38c	1.82±0.08a	3.08±0.26ab
	VEP+SDF	5.99±0.09a	41.13±0.46a	1.87±0.06a	3.14±0.19a