Influences of Biogas Slurry Instead of Chemical Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Radish in Open Field and Soil Physicochemical Properties

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0583

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to explore the optimal amount of alternative chemical fertilizer under the condition of radish biogas slurry returning to field in the hilly-brown soil area of western Henan, and provide scientific theoretical basis for the recycling of biogas slurry. Under field conditions, radish variety ‘Pingfeng 3’ was used as experimental material, and five treatments were set up, including low biogas slurry (22.5 t/hm², T₁), medium biogas slurry (45 t/hm², T₂), high biogas slurry (67.5 t/hm², T₃), conventional fertilization (600 kg/hm², T₄) and no fertilization (0, CK). The effects of biogas slurry replacing chemical fertilizer on the growth, yield and quality of open field radish and soil physicochemical properties were studied. The results showed that biogas slurry had no negative effect on the growth and development of radish, and ensured the yield of radish. The highest yield of T₃ treatment was 10.2% higher than that of T₄. The root weight, root transverse stem, root length and leaf length of radish were the best in T₃ treatment. The soluble solid content, protein and vitamin C content of radish treated with T₁, T₂ and T₃ were significantly higher than those of T₄ and CK (P<0.05). After biogas slurry was returned to the field, the soil nutrient content changed compared with that before returning to the field. Compared with T₄ treatment, the organic matter and alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen content in the biogas slurry treatment group were significantly increased (P<0.05), and the highest (T₃ treatment) increased by 7.2% and 8.6%, respectively. The available phosphorus decreased, and the pH and total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total potassium changed little. Under the experimental conditions, it is recommended to apply biogas slurry three times during the whole growth period of open field radish, and the total application amount is controlled at 70t/hm². The application periods are as basal fertilizer (50%) at the early sowing stage, seedling stage (30%) and rosette stage (20%).

Key words: biogas slurry replacement, radish, yield, quality, soil nutrient

HAN Xiaofei, LI Xiaoran, WANG Junwei. Influences of Biogas Slurry Instead of Chemical Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Radish in Open Field and Soil Physicochemical Properties[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(22): 34-39.

Figures/Tables 5

References 39

[1]	倪中应, 章明奎. 沼液中氮磷钾化学形态组成及其生物有效性评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(5):1114-1118.
[2]	宋成芳, 单胜道, 张妙仙, 等. 畜禽养殖废弃物沼液的浓缩及其成分[J]. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(12):256-259.
[3]	石吕, 刘建, 魏亚凤, 等. 沼液在农业领域的资源化利用现状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(35):109-117. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18080050
[4]	王志国, 李辉信, 岳明灿, 等. 中国畜禽粪尿资源及其替代化肥潜力分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(26):121-128. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18030147
[5]	黄继川, 徐培智, 彭智平, 等. 基于稻田土壤肥力及生物学活性的沼液适宜用量研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(2):362-371.
[6]	吴树彪, 崔畅, 张笑千, 等. 农田施用沼液增产提质效应及水土环境影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2013, 44(8):118-125,179.
[7]	李友强, 盛康, 彭思姣, 等. 沼液施用量对小麦产量及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(12):181-186.
[8]	高旭. 沼液水肥一体化替代化肥施用对温室作物和土壤性质的效应[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.
[9]	JIANG X, SOMMER S G, CHRISTENSEN K V. A review of the biogas industry in China[J]. Energy policy, 2011, 39(10):6073-6081. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.007 URL
[10]	SHEN L, LIU L, YAO Z, et al. Development potentials and policy options of biomass in China[J]. Environmental management, 2010, 46(4):539-554. doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9476-4 pmid: 20372892
[11]	杨乐, 张凤华, 庞玮, 等. 沼液灌溉对绿洲农田土壤养分的影响[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 29(5):542-545.
[12]	崔宇星, MUHAMMAD Azeem, 孙吉翠, 等. 沼液与化肥配施对耕层土壤化学性状及玉米产量品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(5):77-81.
[13]	徐坚, 张建斌, 吴玉勇, 等. 施用沼液对果桑产量与土壤养分的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(12):2501-2505.
[14]	高旭, 孔祥俊, 郭雨浓, 等. 沼液替代化肥对甜瓜产量品质及养分吸收的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(14):25-31.
[15]	HAGOS K, ZONG J, LI D, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives[J]. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 2017, 76:1485-1496. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184 URL
[16]	纪静雯, 纪立东, 杨洋, 等. 基于沼液微生物肥的长红枣水肥耦合效应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(2):114-119.
[17]	何梅, 江铮, 许建, 等. 沼液叶面喷施对设施甜瓜产量和植株生理的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(11):24-28. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17120089
[18]	袁怡. 沼液作为生菜,柑橘叶面肥的试验研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2010.
[19]	蔡跃台, 陈伟祥, 徐象华, 等. 西瓜叶面喷施沼液肥效果试验[J]. 北方园艺, 2009(10):95-97.
[20]	吴华山, 郭德杰, 马艳, 等. 猪粪沼液施用对土壤氨挥发及玉米产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(2):163-168.
[21]	孙国峰, 周炜, 何加骏, 等. 猪粪沼液施用后土壤理化性状及小麦产量的变化[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(5):1054-1060.
[22]	孙钦平, 李吉进, 刘本生, 等. 沼液滴灌技术的工艺探索与研究[J]. 中国沼气, 2011, 29(3):24-27.
[23]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2013:264-271.
[24]	曹建康, 姜微波, 赵玉梅. 果蔬采后生理生化实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2007:24-100.
[25]	张娥珍, 樊学军. 嫁接对薄皮甜瓜叶片生理效应及果实可溶性蛋白质,总糖含量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2009, 22(5):1310-1313.
[26]	郑贺云, 耿新丽, 姚军, 等. 甜瓜生长发育过程中品质动态变化规律[J]. 北方园艺, 2020(6):38-43.
[27]	曹易繁, 彭先进. 沼液施用对青贮小麦产量品质和土壤养分的影响[J]. 农业与技术, 2022, 42(10):90-93.
[28]	生态环境部南京环境科学研究所, 中国科学院南京土壤研究所, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所, 等. GB 15618—2018,土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准(试行)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018:2-3.
[29]	CELA S, SANTIVERI F, LLOVERAS J. Residual effects of pig slurry and mineral nitrogen fertilizer on irrigated wheat[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2011, 34(4):257-262. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.003 URL
[30]	王桂良, 张家宏, 王守红, 等. 沼液替代化肥氮对冬小麦产量,品质及生长发育的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2018, 35(5):467-475.
[31]	隋好林, 陈晓峰, 秦娜, 等. 沼液滴灌对番茄产量、品质和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(2):80-84.
[32]	沈中泉, 郭云桃, 袁家富. 有机肥料对改善农产品品质的作用及机理[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1995, 1(2):54-60.
[33]	赵京奇, 贾亮亮, 杨晨璐, 等. 施用沼肥对哈密瓜产量,品质及土壤养分的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2016, 25(8):1211-1217.
[34]	周静, 史向远, 王保平, 等. 沼液营养液对设施西瓜生长的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(3):78-82.
[35]	杨建霞, 王秀文, 宁海军, 等. 沼肥不同施肥量对大棚甜瓜生长发育及果实品质的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2020(22):60-65.
[36]	张再起, 张智, 杨丽娜, 等. 红心萝卜沼肥试验效果的分析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(S2):108-110.
[37]	周杰良, 王建湘, 李树战, 等. 沼液对有机基质栽培青椒果实产量及品质的影响[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2007, 28(2):254-256.
[38]	罗伟. 沼液对马铃薯产量、品质及土壤环境质量的影响研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2020.
[39]	杨诗贵, 洪宁, 李铸, 等. 沼液施用背景下稻田土壤养分的含量特征[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(2):239-244.

处理	根重/g	根长/cm	根横茎/cm	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm
T₁	857.3±25.1b	17.31±2.1a	6.97±0.12a	35.39±2.44a	8.21±0.71ab
T₂	920.2±21.5a	17.67±1.4a	7.45±0.24a	35.46±3.11a	10.51±0.66a
T₃	989.6±22.3a	18.66±1.6a	7.58±0.11a	36.38±2.42a	9.55±0.25a
T₄	845.4±18.9b	17.41±1.7a	6.04±0.31b	35.28±2.13a	8.44±0.29ab
CK	720.3±34.3c	16.22±2.5b	5.45±0.22b	34.32±2.45b	7.58±0.41b

处理	根重/g	根长/cm	根横茎/cm	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm
T₁	857.3±25.1b	17.31±2.1a	6.97±0.12a	35.39±2.44a	8.21±0.71ab
T₂	920.2±21.5a	17.67±1.4a	7.45±0.24a	35.46±3.11a	10.51±0.66a
T₃	989.6±22.3a	18.66±1.6a	7.58±0.11a	36.38±2.42a	9.55±0.25a
T₄	845.4±18.9b	17.41±1.7a	6.04±0.31b	35.28±2.13a	8.44±0.29ab
CK	720.3±34.3c	16.22±2.5b	5.45±0.22b	34.32±2.45b	7.58±0.41b

处理	水分/%	可溶性糖/%	可溶性固形物/%	纤维素/%	蛋白质/%	维生素C/(g/kg)
T₁	92.2±1.2a	2.83±0.01ab	6.3±0.3a	0.4±0.01a	1.15±0.02a	24.5±2.3a
T₂	91.1±1.3a	2.81±0.02ab	6.2±0.3a	0.4±0.02a	1.17±0.01a	25.4±1.4a
T₃	91.3±1.2a	3.12±0.04a	6.7±0.2a	0.5±0.01a	1.21±0.02a	26.1±2.4a
T₄	90.8±0.8a	2.51±0.02bc	5.8±0.1b	0.5±0.01a	1.04±0.01b	22.1±1.8b
CK	91.2±1.3a	2.35±0.01c	5.1±0.2b	0.4±0.02a	1.03±0.02b	21.2±2.2b

处理	水分/%	可溶性糖/%	可溶性固形物/%	纤维素/%	蛋白质/%	维生素C/(g/kg)
T₁	92.2±1.2a	2.83±0.01ab	6.3±0.3a	0.4±0.01a	1.15±0.02a	24.5±2.3a
T₂	91.1±1.3a	2.81±0.02ab	6.2±0.3a	0.4±0.02a	1.17±0.01a	25.4±1.4a
T₃	91.3±1.2a	3.12±0.04a	6.7±0.2a	0.5±0.01a	1.21±0.02a	26.1±2.4a
T₄	90.8±0.8a	2.51±0.02bc	5.8±0.1b	0.5±0.01a	1.04±0.01b	22.1±1.8b
CK	91.2±1.3a	2.35±0.01c	5.1±0.2b	0.4±0.02a	1.03±0.02b	21.2±2.2b

指标		关联系数	关联顺序
生长因子	根重	0.522	1
	叶长	0.201	4
	根横茎	0.423	2
	根长	0.319	3
	叶宽	0.143	5
品质因子	可溶性固形物	0.351	1
	可溶性糖	0.341	2
	纤维素	0.142	6
	维生素C	0.311	3
	蛋白质	0.265	4
	水分	0.223	5