Research on Impact of Livestock and Poultry Manure on Nitrogen Budget in Agricultural Systems

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0301

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effects of different proportions of livestock manure and chemical fertilizer on nitrogen budget, soil fertility and crop growth in farmland system. Field experiments were conducted from May to November 2022 to collect soil, water, air and crop samples from farmland systems to study nitrogen migration and budget. The results showed that the application of livestock and poultry manure significantly increased the nitrogen surplus in the farmland. The CF0M10 treatment (0% chemical fertilizer applied with 100% manure) increased the nitrogen content in the plough layer by 43.46% to 96.64%, and the nitrogen surplus was 61.48 times that of the CF10M0 treatment (100% chemical fertilizer). The total nitrogen leaching loss of each test treatment was 0%-0.36% of the nitrogen application rate; the amount of ammonia volatilization accounted for 0.07%-0.18% of the nitrogen application rate, and there was a significant positive correlation with the amount of chemical fertilizer application. The highest nitrogen content of crops in CF10M0 treatment was 493.42 g/plot, which was 2.08 times that of CK treatment (no fertilization). The highest crop yield of CF₇M₃ treatment was 13113.00 kg/hm², an increase of 2.63%. In summary, CF7M3 treatment increased crop yield and quality, improved soil fertility and physical and chemical properties, and did not cause environmental risks such as ammonia volatilization, nitrogen and phosphorus leaching, which was suitable for popularization and application in the experimental area.

Key words: livestock and poultry manure, manure returning, nitrogen budget, soil fertility, crops

LIU Yuqi, LIU Guihua, ZHANG Ting, DAI Dongming, ZHANG Hongyu, XUE Peng, ZHANG Dongxu, CHE Lemuge, MEI Ying. Research on Impact of Livestock and Poultry Manure on Nitrogen Budget in Agricultural Systems[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(5): 84-94.

Figures/Tables 13

References 30

[1]	武淑霞, 刘宏斌, 黄宏坤, 等. 我国畜禽养殖粪污产生量及其资源化分析[J]. 中国工程科学, 2018, 20(5):103-111. doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2018.05.016
[2]	李彦明, 苑亚茹, 李国学, 等. 我国有机废物循环利用现状及管理建议[C]. 中国农学会耕作制度分会2008年会暨全国现代农作制度发展学术研讨会, 2008:8.
[3]	武星魁, 姜振萃, 陆志新, 等. 有机肥部分替代化肥氮对叶菜产量和环境效应的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(3):349-356.
[4]	张英, 武淑霞, 雷秋良, 等. 不同类型粪肥还田对土壤酶活性及微生物群落的影响[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(6):1175-1184.
[5]	朱利群. 粪肥还田对农田生态系统氮素的影响及径流流失风险评估[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010.
[6]	高佳凯. 化肥减量配施有机肥对稻田湿地碳氮磷淋溶转化及土壤微生物群落变化的影响研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.
[7]	陈洁, 梁国庆, 周卫, 等. 长期施用有机肥对稻麦轮作体系土壤有机碳氮组分的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(1):36-44.
[8]	赵易艺. 生物黑炭和有机肥对旱地作物生产\氮磷养分流失与利用的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2016.
[9]	李越, 李根东, 陈志君, 等. 基于氮收支平衡的河套灌区春小麦农田灌溉和施氮策略[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(17):61-72.
[10]	DUBROVSKY N M, HAMILTON P A. The quality of our nation's water: nutrients in the nation's streams and groundwater; national findings and implications[M]. US Geological Survey, National Water-quality assessment program, 2010.
[11]	JIANG J, STEVENSON D S, UWIZEYE A, et al. A climate-dependent global model of ammonia emissions from chicken farming[J]. Biogeosciences, 2021, 18(1):135-158.
[12]	MANISALIDIS I, STAVROPOULOU E, STAVROPOULOS A, et al. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review[J]. Frontiers in public health, 2020:14.
[13]	陈闻. 施肥对雷竹林土壤下渗水氮磷含量及土壤养分的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2011.
[14]	SOBOTA D J, COMPTON J E, HARRISON J A. Reactive nitrogen inputs to US lands and waterways: how certain are we about sources and fluxes[J]. Frontiers in ecology and the environment, 2013, 11(2):82-90.
[15]	马凡凡. 有机肥替代对稻-麦产量、土壤肥力及农田氮磷流失的影响[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2019.
[16]	徐兆廷, 芦倩, 吴彦霖, 等. 不同有机肥部分替代化肥对河西绿洲制种玉米生长动态和籽粒产量的影响[J]. 农业工程, 2021, 11(8):129-134.
[17]	吴志远, 马红宁, 李仁青, 等. 超高量有机肥施用对黄土高原旱作有机田首年玉米生长和产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2021, 53(2):57-63.
[18]	赵凯男, 吴金芝, 李俊红, 等. 秸秆和有机肥配合替代部分化肥提高作物水分利用率减少土壤硝态氮残留[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(10):1770-1781.
[19]	段英华, 徐明岗, 王伯仁, 等. 红壤长期不同施肥对玉米氮肥回收率的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(5):1108-1113.
[20]	LIU C A, LI F R, ZHOU L M, et al. Effect of organic manure and fertilizer on soil water and crop yields in newly-built terraces with loess soils in a semi-arid environment[J]. Agricultural water management, 2013,117:123-132.
[21]	LI Y, ZHU T, JIANG S. Nitrogen deposition in Leymus chinensis grasslands[J]. Grassland of China, 2000(2):24-27.
[22]	卞建民, 李育松, 胡昱欣, 等. 吉林西部农田生态系统氮平衡及其水环境影响研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2014, 34(7):1862-1868.
[23]	次仁旺珍. 土壤氮素循环及其对土壤氮损失的影响[J]. 中国农业信息, 2015(24):122-126.
[24]	郭小鸥, 崔晓辉. 有机农田杂草-主作物共生系统的氮素吸收及土壤肥力特征[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 53(1):52-59.
[25]	朱兆良. 中国土壤氮素研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2008(5):778-783.
[26]	周兰兰, 刘梅金, 李明军, 等. 不同施肥处理对青稞根际土壤铵态氮和硝态氮的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(30):85-90. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1063
[27]	刘朋召, 王旭敏, 宁芳, 等. 减量施氮对渭北旱地春玉米产量\氮素利用及土壤硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(8):2621-2629. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202008.025
[28]	孟超然, 白如霄, 候建伟, 等. 有机肥替代部分化肥对干旱区滴灌玉米养分吸收及产量影响[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(4):750-757.
[29]	慕君, 马旭东, 张丹丹, 等. 有机肥与化肥配施下土壤氮组分变化与氮素利用率研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(5):107-113.
[30]	刘思佳. 不同比例有机-无机肥配施对玉米生长和产量的影响[J]. 农业与技术, 2020, 40(13):45-46.

养分	含量
总氮/%	0.80
有机质/%	15.3
总磷（P₂O₅计）/%	0.3
总钾含量（K₂O计）/%	1.01
pH	7.61

养分	含量
总氮/%	0.80
有机质/%	15.3
总磷（P₂O₅计）/%	0.3
总钾含量（K₂O计）/%	1.01
pH	7.61

序号	处理	施肥比例/%		施肥量/(kg/小区)				施氮量/(kg/小区)
序号	处理	化肥	粪肥	基施肥	追肥		粪肥	施氮量/(kg/小区)
1	CK	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00	0.00
2	CF0M10	0	100	0.00	0	0	126.89	1.01
3	CF1M9	10	90	0.12	0.04	0.06	114.20	0.96
4	CF2M8	20	80	0.23	0.07	0.12	101.51	0.90
5	CF3M7	30	70	0.35	0.11	0.19	88.82	0.84
6	CF4M6	40	60	0.47	0.14	0.25	76.13	0.79
7	CF5M5	50	50	0.58	0.18	0.31	63.44	0.73
8	CF6M4	60	40	0.70	0.21	0.37	50.76	0.67
9	CF7M3	70	30	0.82	0.25	0.44	38.07	0.62
10	CF8M2	80	20	0.94	0.28	0.50	25.38	0.56
11	CF10M0	100	0	1.17	0.35	0.62	0.00	0.45

序号	处理	施肥比例/%		施肥量/(kg/小区)				施氮量/(kg/小区)
序号	处理	化肥	粪肥	基施肥	追肥		粪肥	施氮量/(kg/小区)
1	CK	0	0	0.00	0	0	0.00	0.00
2	CF0M10	0	100	0.00	0	0	126.89	1.01
3	CF1M9	10	90	0.12	0.04	0.06	114.20	0.96
4	CF2M8	20	80	0.23	0.07	0.12	101.51	0.90
5	CF3M7	30	70	0.35	0.11	0.19	88.82	0.84
6	CF4M6	40	60	0.47	0.14	0.25	76.13	0.79
7	CF5M5	50	50	0.58	0.18	0.31	63.44	0.73
8	CF6M4	60	40	0.70	0.21	0.37	50.76	0.67
9	CF7M3	70	30	0.82	0.25	0.44	38.07	0.62
10	CF8M2	80	20	0.94	0.28	0.50	25.38	0.56
11	CF10M0	100	0	1.17	0.35	0.62	0.00	0.45

序号	试验处理	氮输入				总输入	氮输出				总输出	盈余
序号	试验处理	生物固氮	种子携氮	大气沉降	肥料施氮	总输入	氨气挥发	淋失	植株吸收	反硝化脱氮	总输出	盈余
1	CK	39	67.34	38.69	0	145.03	0.65	1.13	237.77	87.46	327.01	-181.98
2	CF0M10	39	67.34	38.69	1010	1155.03	0.72	2.32	249.94	87.46	340.44	814.59
3	CF1M9	39	67.34	38.69	960	1105.03	0.75	0.88	374.34	87.46	463.43	641.601
4	CF2M8	39	67.34	38.69	900	1045.03	0.79	1.25	318.33	87.46	407.82	637.21
5	CF3M7	39	67.34	38.69	840	985.03	0.8	2.64	310.21	87.46	401.11	583.92
6	CF4M6	39	67.34	38.69	790	935.03	0.75	0.00	248.79	87.46	337.00	598.03
7	CF5M5	39	67.34	38.69	730	875.03	0.78	1.89	318.19	87.46	408.32	466.71
8	CF6M4	39	67.34	38.69	670	815.03	0.8	1.81	312.51	87.46	402.58	412.45
9	CF7M3	39	67.34	38.69	620	765.03	0.91	1.77	400.13	87.46	490.27	274.76
10	CF8M2	39	67.34	38.69	560	705.03	0.84	2.57	443.93	87.46	534.80	170.23
11	CF10M0	39	67.34	38.69	450	595.03	0.83	0.07	493.42	87.46	581.78	13.25