Improvement Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Secondary Salinized Soil in Protected Field

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0596

Abstract

Abstract:

To improve the fertility of the secondary salinized soil in the protected field and establish a suitable secondary salinized soil improvement model, the effects of applying organic fertilizer, soil conditioner and rice bran on soil organic matter, available nitrogen, available phosphorus and water-soluble salt were studied in Suyu. The results showed that all treatments could improve the secondary salinized soil and increase soil nutrients and reduce soil salt content. Compared with the control, the organic matter, available phosphorus and available potassium in the treatment of organic fertilizer were increased by 41.6%, 68.3% and 121.6%; the organic matter and available potassium in the treatment of rice bran were significantly increased by 41.4% and 48.6%; the organic matter, available nitrogen and available potassium were also increased in the treatment of soil conditioner. In addition, the treatments reduced the water-soluble salinity of soil as well. Compared with the control, the soil conductivity, total water-soluble salt, water-soluble calcium, water-soluble magnesium and sulfate ion in the treatment of rice bran were significantly reduced by 43.3%, 23.5%, 28.9%, 34.6% and 23.2%, respectively. The improvement effects of rice bran, organic fertilizer and soil conditioner on secondary salinized soil decrease successively, and the improvement effect of rice bran is more significant.

Key words: soil amendment, organic fertilizer, soil conditioner, rice bran, protected field, secondary salinized soil

CLC Number:

S156.4+3

Li Bin, Li Yuefei, Tao Jiale, Wang Weijin, Qi Shigang, Gao Xueshuang. Improvement Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Secondary Salinized Soil in Protected Field[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(32): 116-119.

Figures/Tables 6

References 26

[1]	高亮, 谭德星. 腐植酸生物菌肥对保护地次生盐渍化土壤改良效果研究[J]. 腐植酸, 2014(1):14-18.
[2]	刘森, 夏加宏, 刘裕岭. 蔬菜大棚土壤盐渍化的原因及对策[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2004(1):52.
[3]	龙卫国. 不同轮作作物对设施菜地次生盐渍化土壤改良效应研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2009.
[4]	施毅超, 胡正义, 龙为国, 等. 轮作对设施蔬菜大棚中次生盐渍化土壤盐分离子累积的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011(3):548-553.
[5]	李尚科, 沈根祥, 郭春霞, 等. 有机肥及秸秆对设施菜田次生盐渍化土壤修复效果研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012(2):60-62,73.
[6]	沈根祥, 杨建军, 黄沈发, 等. 塑料大棚盐渍化土壤灌水洗盐对水环境污染负荷的研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2005, 21(1):124-127.
[7]	孙凯文, 施凯峰, 时佩佩, 等. 碳调节剂对次生盐渍化土壤理化性质及白菜幼苗生长的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(2):206-208.
[8]	王雨沁, 阚雨晨, 苏受婷, 等. NCT-2土壤修复菌剂对次生盐渍化土壤的改良效果[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2019(6):73-77.
[9]	李跃飞, 陶加乐, 李彬. 宿迁市宿豫区保护地土壤盐分含量及组成特征[J]. 研究现代农业科技, 2020(2):167-169.
[10]	李丹, 王道泽, 赵玲玲, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对设施蔬菜土壤酸化的改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(27):112-116.
[11]	潘峰, 刘滨辉, 袁文涛, 等. 不同改良剂对紫花苜蓿生长和盐渍化土壤的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2011, 39(5):67-68,76.
[12]	杨军, 邵玉翠, 高伟, 等. 不同改良剂与培肥方式对咸灌土壤改良效果的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(36):113-118.
[13]	祁石刚, 高学双, 赵宇航, 等. 土壤改良剂对蔬菜作物产质量及设施土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2020(22):46-49.
[14]	杨滨娟, 黄国勤, 王超, 等. 稻田冬种绿肥对水稻产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(10):1209-1216.
[15]	杨园媛, 贾圣青, 贺晓燕, 等. 日光温室土壤养分变化及次生盐渍化程度与种植年限的关系[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(6):83-88.
[16]	郭世荣, 孙锦, 束胜, 等. 我国设施园艺概况及发展趋势[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2012(18):1-14.
[17]	王梅, 徐钰, 石璟, 等. 优化施肥及增施微生物菌剂对次生盐渍化土壤设施番茄生长和土壤微生物的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(11):111-114.
[18]	王帅, 杨阳, 郑伟, 等. 不同培肥方式对盐碱土壤肥力改良效果的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(33):172-176.
[19]	张绪美, 管永祥, 沈文忠, 等. 不同施肥方式对设施土壤次生盐渍化及蕹菜生产的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(23):137-142.
[20]	陆敏, 刘敏, 黄明蔚, 等. 大田条件下稻麦轮作土壤氮素流失研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2006, 25(5):1234-1239.
[21]	张丽娟, 巨晓棠, 刘辰琛, 等. 北方设施蔬菜种植区地下水硝酸盐来源分析—以山东省惠民县为例[J]. 中国农业科学, 2010, 43(21):4427-4436.
[22]	盛海君, 杜岩, 施凯峰, 等. 碳调节剂降低次生盐渍化土壤中可溶性盐含量的可行性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(1):192-200.
[23]	孙良斌, 刘盛林, 张少民, 等. 土壤总盐与电导率相关性分析[J]. 农村科技, 2016(9):30-31.
[24]	黄绍文, 高伟, 唐继伟, 等. 我国主要菜区耕层土壤盐分总量及离子组成[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016(4):965-977.
[25]	朱坤, 李小艳, 袁奇. 宿迁市宿城区设施土壤次生盐渍化状况调查研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2020(22):146-149.
[26]	沈建生, 余红, 孙萍, 等. 土壤调理剂对草莓及土壤次生盐渍化的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(2):236-238.

处理	改良剂名称	施用量/(kg/hm²)
CK	对照	0
1	商品有机肥	30000
2	土壤调理剂	12000
3	米糠	22500

处理	改良剂名称	施用量/(kg/hm²)
CK	对照	0
1	商品有机肥	30000
2	土壤调理剂	12000
3	米糠	22500

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
CK	20.13±1.32 b	152±9.63 a	27.2±3.58 a	18.0±2.69 b	37±3.61 c
1	28.50±1.71 a	152±11.78 a	23.7±2.75 a	30.3±2.93 a	82±12.17 a
2	20.40±2.57 b	156±13.88 a	24.2±2.72 a	17.6±2.27 b	42±4.58 bc
3	28.47±0.82 a	152±14.24 a	7.67±1.69 b	10.7±2.12 c	55±7.55 b

处理	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
CK	20.13±1.32 b	152±9.63 a	27.2±3.58 a	18.0±2.69 b	37±3.61 c
1	28.50±1.71 a	152±11.78 a	23.7±2.75 a	30.3±2.93 a	82±12.17 a
2	20.40±2.57 b	156±13.88 a	24.2±2.72 a	17.6±2.27 b	42±4.58 bc
3	28.47±0.82 a	152±14.24 a	7.67±1.69 b	10.7±2.12 c	55±7.55 b

处理	水溶性盐总量/%	Ca²⁺/(g/kg)	Mg²⁺/(g/kg)	SO₄^2-/(g/kg)
CK	1.70±0.14 ab	0.225±0.022 b	0.026±0.002 ab	0.328±0.028 b
1	1.50±0.10 bc	0.205±0.017 bc	0.021±0.002 bc	0.338±0.037 b
2	2.00±0.26 a	0.295±0.030 a	0.032±0.004 a	0.524±0.059 a
3	1.30±0.11 c	0.160±0.012 c	0.017±0.001 c	0.252±0.024 b