Effect of Different Modified Materials on Improvement of Saline-alkali Soil in Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0189

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of different modified materials on the physical and chemical properties of saline-alkali soil and maize yield, the effects of desulfurized gypsum, new modifier and organic fertilizer on saline-alkali soil improvement and maize growth were studied on moderate saline-alkali soil in Tumote Right Banner, Inner Mongolia. The results showed that: (1) the application of the modified materials reduced the soil pH and the total salt content in 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm soil layers. Among them, T₄ treatment had the best effect on soil pH reduction, and soil pH in different soil layers decreased significantly by 8.38% and 6.65%, respectively, compared with the control. T₆ treatment had the best effect on salt inhibition in 0-20 cm soil layer, which was significantly decreased by 44.84% compared with the control. And T₄ treatment had the best effect on salt inhibition in the 20-40 cm soil layer, with significant decreases of 44.84% compared with the control. (2) The application of modified materials increased the content of available phosphorus, available potassium and available nitrogen in 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm soil layers, with an average increase of 15.8%-65.48%, 3.06%-19.07% and 3.45%-20.24%, respectively. (3) The application of modified materials increased maize height and stem diameter at different growth stages, and increased maize yield and yield components. T₇ treatment had better effect on maize growth and yield enhancement than other modified treatments, with maize plant height, stem diameter, 100-kernel weight, and yield significantly increased by 26.21%, 20.64%, 21.56% and 55.21%, respectively, compared with the control. In summary, the application of modified materials could improve the quality of saline-alkali soil, improve soil nutrients, promote maize growth and increase maize yield.

Key words: modified materials, saline-alkali, maize, soil, saline-alkali soil improvement, desulfurized gypsum

ZHANG En, WANG Bin, BAI Xiaolong, WU Jinmin, MA Donghai, ZHANG Zhi, TIAN Feng, ZHAO Hui. Effect of Different Modified Materials on Improvement of Saline-alkali Soil in Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(32): 44-49.

Figures/Tables 9

References 27

[1]	田野, 刘善江, 冯浩杰. 脱硫石膏配施聚马来酸酐对碱化土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(1):114-120.
[2]	张晓东, 李兵, 刘广明, 等. 复合改良物料对滨海盐土的改土降盐效果与综合评价[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(11):1744-1754.
[3]	LIU G, LI J, ZHANG X, et al. GIS-mapping spatial distribution of soil salinity for Eco-restoring the Yellow River Delta in combination with Electromagnetic Induction[J]. Ecological engineering, 2016, 94:306-314.
[4]	马贵仁, 王丽萍, 屈忠义, 等. 构建河套灌区大规模盐碱地改良效果评估指标体系[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(8):72-84.
[5]	郑普山, 郝保平, 冯悦晨, 等. 不同盐碱地改良剂对土壤理化性质、紫花苜蓿生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(9):1216-1221.
[6]	GU W, SUN W, LU Y, et al. Effect of Thiobacillus thioparus 1904 and sulphur addition on odour emission during aerobic composting[J]. Bioresource technology, 2018, 249:254-260. doi: S0960-8524(17)31844-8 pmid: 29049984
[7]	LI Y, CUI S, CHANG S X, et al. Liming effects on soil pH and crop yield depend on lime material type, application method and rate, and crop species: a global meta-analysis[J]. Journal of soils and sediments, 2019, 19(3):1393-1406.
[8]	郭耀东, 程曼, 赵秀峰, 等. 轮作绿肥对盐碱地土壤性质、后作青贮玉米产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(6):856-864.
[9]	胡一, 韩霁昌, 张扬. 盐碱地改良技术研究综述[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2015, 61(2):67-71.
[10]	赵英, 王丽, 赵惠丽, 等. 滨海盐碱地改良研究现状及展望[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(3):67-74. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0255
[11]	武鹏, 王玉凤, 张翼飞, 等. 不同氮素形态及配比对玉米生长、氮素利用及产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(2):123-132.
[12]	崔爱民, 张久刚, 张虎, 等. 我国玉米生产现状及发展变革[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(7):10-19. doi: doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0508
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[14]	屈忠义, 孙慧慧, 杨博, 等. 不同改良剂对盐碱地土壤微生物与加工番茄产量的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2021, 52(4):311-318,350.
[15]	王旭, 何俊, 孙兆军, 等. 脱硫石膏糠醛渣对碱化盐土入渗及盐分离子的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(5):1210-1217.
[16]	邵玉翠, 任顺荣, 廉晓娟, 等. 施用脱硫石膏与天然有机物混合改良剂对盐化潮土理化性质及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(7):285-289.
[17]	周先林, 覃琴, 孟永明, 等. 不同改良剂对新疆盐碱土壤改良及棉花生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(34):91-96. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1180
[18]	HÉNAULT C, BOURENNANE H, AYZAC A, et al. Management of soil pH promotes nitrous oxide reduction and thus mitigates soil emissions of this greenhouse gas[J]. Scientific reports, 2019, 9(1):20182. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56694-3 pmid: 31882900
[19]	吕轲彦, 陈志君, 李越, 等. 褐煤有机肥与脱硫石膏联合施用对盐碱土改良和向日葵产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2023, 39(11):77-86.
[20]	庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6):174-180.
[21]	刘敏, 纪立东, 王锐, 等. 有机无机肥配施对青贮玉米生长及土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2020, 61(7):18-21,24.
[22]	钟辉丽, 陆祥生, 刘兴成, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对滴灌模式下次生盐碱化土壤改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(32):89-95. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0006
[23]	冀拯宇, 周吉祥, 张贺, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对盐碱土壤化学性质和有机碳库的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(8):1759-1767.
[24]	王德领, 诸葛玉平, 杨全刚, 等. 3种改良剂对滨海盐碱地土壤理化性状及玉米生长的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(1):20-27.
[25]	田露, 郭晓霞, 苏文斌, 等. 不同改良材料对苏打盐碱化耕地甜菜叶片光合特性、干物质积累和分配的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(12):2461-2470.
[26]	王明华, 李明, 高祺, 等. 改良剂对苏打盐碱土玉米幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(11):2966-2973.
[27]	张伶波, 陈广锋, 田晓红, 等. 盐碱土石膏与有机物料组合对作物产量与籽粒养分含量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(12):12-17. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16050156

土层/cm	pH	全盐	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)
0~20	8.42	4.03	63.00	68.82	8.56
20~40	8.51	4.31	59.73	73.32	7.05

土层/cm	pH	全盐	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)
0~20	8.42	4.03	63.00	68.82	8.56
20~40	8.51	4.31	59.73	73.32	7.05

处理	改良物料及施用量
CK	空白对照
T₁	脱硫石膏(15 t/hm²)
T₂	新型改良剂(15 t/hm²)
T₃	有机肥(7.5 t/hm²)
T₄	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(15 t/hm²+15 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₅	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+15 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₆	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₇	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²+3.75 t/hm²)

处理	改良物料及施用量
CK	空白对照
T₁	脱硫石膏(15 t/hm²)
T₂	新型改良剂(15 t/hm²)
T₃	有机肥(7.5 t/hm²)
T₄	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(15 t/hm²+15 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₅	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+15 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₆	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²)
T₇	脱硫石膏 + 新型改良剂+有机肥(7.5 t/hm²+7.5 t/hm²+3.75 t/hm²)

处理	0~20 cm			20~40 cm
处理	速效磷	速效钾	碱解氮	速效磷	速效钾	碱解氮
CK	7.34±1.52c	78.74±5.03b	57.75±9.28c	6.26±0.55	68.45±3.21c	54.83±7.29c
T₁	9.31±1.52c	85.65±0.83ab	60.67±2.02c	6.99±3.93c	77.92±2.50b	64.17±5.35b
T₂	12.06±7.23bc	86.64±1.92ab	64.47±5.24a	7.42±1.09c	76.30±9.68b	60.67±5.25b
T₃	20.52±3.96b	98.33±9.01a	65.33±4.15b	10.47±1.60b	83.69±5.41a	56.00±6.06bc
T₄	16.88±2.62b	80.49±1.17b	62.16±2.91c	7.75±4.04bc	71.97±4.39c	57.67±8.81bc
T₅	22.36±8.60ab	86.29±6.39ab	66.50±6.04b	7.70±3.60bc	79.68±1.26b	54.33±7.27c
T₆	12.62±5.84bc	82.80±6.58b	58.33±2.29c	9.19±3.95bc	75.76±1.06ab	56.00±4.04bc
T₇	14.83±2.39bc	91.46±1.89ab	70.00±6.04a	17.29±7.19a	71.26±2.34c	71.17±1.69a