Effects of Conditioner on Rice Yield and Acid Soil Properties

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0992

Abstract

Abstract:

To reveal the relationship between the application amounts of soil conditioners from different material sources and the change rules of rice yield, biomass, biological characteristics, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents, and soil nutrients under different dosages, three kinds of acid soil conditioner were prepared with calcium carbide waste slag, mine waste and lime as source materials, and three dosages of low-level (750 kg/hm²), medium-level (1125 kg/hm²) and high-level (1500 kg/hm²) were applied on the day before rice transplanting. Biological characteristics of crop yield, biomass and soil nutrient characteristics were observed during harvest period. The results showed that the effects of conditioners from different raw materials on rice yield increased first and then decreased with the increase of application amount. The yield and leaf length of each treatment showed a trend of increasing first and then decreasing, while the leaf width showed no obvious rule. The pH value of soil showed a trend of increasing generally, and there was no significant difference in the effects on organic matter and total nutrients. The content of available potassium decreased obviously, and the content of available phosphorus decreased significantly at the high dosage of the three conditioners. In general, with calcium carbide waste slag as raw material, the rice yield of medium dosage treatment (T₁M) was 8062.5 kg/hm², 11.2% higher than that of the control, the difference reached a significant level, and the effect was good. Rational application of acid soil conditioner can improve rice yield in acidified soil. Different sources and application dosages have great differences in the effects on rice yield and other physiological indexes. It is suggested that necessary exploration tests should be carried out before large-scale application of acid soil conditioner.

Key words: acid soil, conditioner, yield, biomass

WANG Ronghui, LI Yumiao, YAO Jianwu, ZENG Ruikun, LI Tong, TANG Mingdeng, NING Jianfeng. Effects of Conditioner on Rice Yield and Acid Soil Properties[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(29): 46-51.

Figures/Tables 9

References 21

[1]	徐仁扣, 李九玉, 周世伟, 等. 我国农田土壤酸化调控的科学问题与技术措施[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(2):160-167.
[2]	张桥, 张育灿, 郑超, 等. 广东粮食生产功能区土壤pH值的时空变化特征[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(4):775-783.
[3]	张玲玉, 赵学强, 沈仁芳. 土壤酸化及其生态效应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(6):1900-1908.
[4]	沈仁芳, 赵学强. 酸性土壤可持续利用[J]. 农学学报, 2019, 9(3):16-20.
[5]	冀建华, 李絮花, 刘秀梅, 等. 硅钙钾镁肥对南方稻田土壤酸性和盐基离子动态变化的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(2):583-592. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201902.024
[6]	杨慧豪, 郭秋萍, 黄帮裕, 等. 生物炭基土壤调理剂对酸性菜田土壤的改良效果[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2023, 40(1):15-24.
[7]	曾婕, 余浪, 达布希拉图, 等. 磷基土壤调理剂在低磷红壤上对小白菜生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9):81-87. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0441
[8]	解开治, 徐培智, 严超, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对南方酸性土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(20):160-165.
[9]	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. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16080008
[10]	李艳艳, 徐东昱, 高丽, 等. 三峡库区消落带土壤金属污染特征的研究进展[J]. 中国水利水电科学研究院学报, 2019, 17(2):152-160.
[11]	索琳娜, 马杰, 刘宝存, 等. 土壤调理剂应用现状及施用风险研究[J]. 农业环境科学报, 2021, 40(6):1141-1149.
[12]	白博文, 刘善江, 申俊峰, 等. 土壤调理剂研发及应用研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(3):14-18.
[13]	HUBER C. Changes in soil, seepage water and needle chemistry between 1984 and 2004 after liming an N-saturated Norway spruce stand at the Höglwald, Germany[J]. Forest ecology and management,2006, 233(1):11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.058 URL
[14]	王光火, 朱祖祥. pH对土壤吸持磷酸根的影响及其原因[J]. 土壤学报, 1991(1):1-6.
[15]	LIAO S H, PAN B, LI H, et al. Detecting free radicals in biochars and determining their ability to inhibit the germination and growth of corn, wheat and rice seedlings[J]. Environmental science & technology, 2014(15).
[16]	BRENNAN R F, BOLLAND M D A, BELL R W. Increased risk of zinc deficiency in wheat on soils limed to correct soil acidity[Z]. 2005.
[17]	易杰祥, 吕亮雪, 刘国道. 土壤酸化和酸性土壤改良研究[J]. 华南热带农业大学学报, 2006(1):23-28.
[18]	温权州, 冉露, 周富忠, 等. 土壤调理剂对降低土壤酸性和水稻镉含量的影响[J]. 湖北大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 44(2):184-189.
[19]	黎庆芬, 程健超. 不同土壤调理剂对酸性土壤的改良效果[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(15):140-142.
[20]	曾勇军, 周庆红, 吕伟生, 等. 土壤酸化对双季早、晚稻产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(5):899-907.
[21]	JASKULSKA I, JASKULSKI D, KOBIERSKI M. Effect of liming on the change of some agrochemical soil properties in a long-term fertilization experiment[J]. Plant, soil and environment, 2014:64.

pH	质地	容重/(g/cm³)	指标及含量/(g/kg)					指标及含量/(mg/kg)
pH	质地	容重/(g/cm³)	有机质	全氮	全磷	全钾		有效磷	速效钾
6.4	粉壤土	114.1	35.1	2.24	0.632	22.24		15.5	102

pH	质地	容重/(g/cm³)	指标及含量/(g/kg)					指标及含量/(mg/kg)
pH	质地	容重/(g/cm³)	有机质	全氮	全磷	全钾		有效磷	速效钾
6.4	粉壤土	114.1	35.1	2.24	0.632	22.24		15.5	102

调理剂	CaO/%	MgO/%	SiO₂/%	pH	加工材料
T₁	≥20.0	≥4.0	≥10.0	≥12	电石废渣
T₂	≥30.0	≥8.0	≥4.0	9.59	矿场废弃物
T₃	≥55	≥5.0	≥5.0	≥12	石灰

调理剂	CaO/%	MgO/%	SiO₂/%	pH	加工材料
T₁	≥20.0	≥4.0	≥10.0	≥12	电石废渣
T₂	≥30.0	≥8.0	≥4.0	9.59	矿场废弃物
T₃	≥55	≥5.0	≥5.0	≥12	石灰

处理	水稻产量	稻秆生物量
T₁L	7200 bc	17087 a
T₁M	8063 a	19724 a
T₁H	7662 abc	17978 a
T₂L	7679 abc	18951 a
T₂M	7868 ab	19463 a
T₂H	7089 c	16904 a
T₃L	7250 bc	18684 a
T₃M	7506 abc	17616 a
T₃H	7116 c	17649 a
CK	7250 bc	16547 a