Study on Improvement Effect of Soil Conditioner Combined with Organic Fertilizer on Facility Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0173

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of soil conditioner combined with organic fertilizer on the physical and chemical properties of facility soil, as well as crop quality and yield, a study was conducted on the effects of different fertilization treatments (no fertilization CK, organic fertilizer OM, organic fertilizer combined with low dosage conditioner T₁, organic fertilizer combined with high dosage conditioner T₂) on soil physicochemical property and the quality and yield of spring tomato and autumn celery in facility soil. The results showed that: (1) the application of organic fertilizer combined with soil conditioner reduced the total salt content in the surface soil. Among them, the T₂ treatment had the best inhibitory effect on total salt, which decreased significantly by 36.14% compared with CK. (2) The combination of organic fertilizer and soil conditioner treatment increased the content of available phosphorus, available potassium, available ammonium nitrogen and available nitrate nitrogen in the 0-20 cm soil layer by 48.53%, 12.32%, 87.78% and 57.95%, respectively, compared to CK treatment. Compared with OM, T₂ treatment reduced the content of available potassium, available ammonium nitrogen and available nitrate nitrogen in the 0-20 cm soil layer by 23.69%, 45.31% and 56.04%, respectively. (3) The combination of organic fertilizer and soil conditioner treatment increased the quality and yield of tomato celery, with T₂ treatment showing the best effect. The soluble total sugar and yield of tomato and celery were significantly increased by 19.10%, 18.52%, 102.04% and 21.79%, respectively, compared to CK. The nitrate nitrogen content of tomato and celery was reduced by 16.05% and 16.15%, respectively, compared to CK. In summary, the application of organic fertilizers combined with high-dose conditioners in facility soil can significantly improve soil quality, enhance tomato and celery quality, and increase crop yield.

Key words: facility soil, soil conditioner, soil improvement, vegetable quality, yield

MA Liang, WU Rong, DU Ying, LIU Shanjiang, XUE Wentao, SUN Hao. Study on Improvement Effect of Soil Conditioner Combined with Organic Fertilizer on Facility Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(32): 54-60.

Figures/Tables 11

References 25

[1]	蒋卫杰, 邓杰, 余宏军. 设施园艺发展概况、存在问题与产业发展建议[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(17):3515-3523. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.17.017
[2]	农业农村部关于加快推进设施种植机械化发展的意见[J]. 中华人民共和国农业农村部公报, 2020(7):13-15.
[3]	CHARLES A S, THOMAS A D. Using nutrient uptake patterns to develop efficient nitrogen management strategies for vegetable[J]. Hort technology, 1999, 9(4):601-606.
[4]	吴雪玲, 左强, 吴建新, 等. 保护地菜田土壤氮素淋溶阻控措施及其效果研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(3):59-62.
[5]	LI W Q, ZHANG M S, VAN DE R ZEE. Salt contents in soils under plastic greenhouse gardening in China[J]. Pedosphere, 2001, 11(4):359-367.
[6]	WANG Z H, LI S X. Effects of N forms and rates on vegetable growth and nitrate accumulation[J]. Pedosphere, 2003, 13(4):309-316.
[7]	张乃明. 施肥对蔬菜中硝酸盐累积量的影响[J]. 土壤肥料, 2001(2):37-38.
[8]	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.
[9]	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. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-2120-2
[10]	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.
[11]	陈绍荣, 余根德, 白云飞, 等. 土壤酸化及酸性土壤调理剂应用概述[J]. 化肥工业, 2013, 40(2):66-68.
[12]	付崇毅, 张秀芳, 王玉静, 等. 施用有机肥和硫磺粉对北方日光温室南丰蜜橘生长及石灰性土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2013(2):7-21.
[13]	冯瑞云, 王慧杰, 郭峰, 等. 秸秆型土壤改良剂对土壤结构和水分特征的影响[J] .灌溉排水学报, 2019, 33(5):44-48,65.
[14]	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(20):168-173.
[15]	靖彦, 陈效民, 李秋霞, 等. 生物质炭对红壤这硝态氮和铵态氮的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013, 27(6):265-269.
[16]	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.
[17]	刘善江, 吴荣, 薛文涛. 等. 北京市农林科学院. ZL 2022 1 0621068.6[P].2023-08-25.
[18]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社,1999.
[19]	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.
[20]	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.
[21]	张恩, 王彬, 白小龙, 等. 不同改良物料对内蒙河套平原盐碱土壤改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(32):44-49. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0189
[22]	韦婉羚, 罗兴录, 李亮, 等. 土壤调理剂不同用量对木薯产量和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2017, 48(4):623-627.
[23]	龙明杰, 曾繁森. 高聚物土壤改良剂的研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2000, 31(5):199-202,223.
[24]	陈云峰, 蔡峰, 刘然, 等. 有机肥和土壤调理剂在蔬菜上的应用效果试验[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2016, 55(16):4107-4132.
[25]	柳瀛, 张龙, 王岩, 等. 土壤调理剂对柴胡产量和品质及土壤性状的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料[J], 2024(10):105-115.

	全氮/%	全磷/%	全钾/%	pH	水分/%	有机质/%	密度/(g/mL)
羊粪有机肥	1.30	0.83	1.61	7.62	26.2	37.4	—
果密乐水溶肥料	5.31	0.50	7.51	4.49	—	—	1.30

	全氮/%	全磷/%	全钾/%	pH	水分/%	有机质/%	密度/(g/mL)
羊粪有机肥	1.30	0.83	1.61	7.62	26.2	37.4	—
果密乐水溶肥料	5.31	0.50	7.51	4.49	—	—	1.30

代号	处理	春茬番茄	秋茬芹菜
CK	不施肥处理
OM	有机肥处理	有机肥(45 t/hm²)	有机肥(30 t/hm²)
T1	有机肥+低量调理剂	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (45 t/hm²+450 kg/hm²+2400 L/hm²)	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (30 t/hm²+225 kg/hm²+900 L/hm²)
T2	有机肥+高量调理剂	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (45 t/hm²+900 kg/hm²+2400 L/hm²)	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (30 t/hm²+450 kg/hm²+900 L/hm²)

代号	处理	春茬番茄	秋茬芹菜
CK	不施肥处理
OM	有机肥处理	有机肥(45 t/hm²)	有机肥(30 t/hm²)
T1	有机肥+低量调理剂	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (45 t/hm²+450 kg/hm²+2400 L/hm²)	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (30 t/hm²+225 kg/hm²+900 L/hm²)
T2	有机肥+高量调理剂	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (45 t/hm²+900 kg/hm²+2400 L/hm²)	有机肥+土壤调理剂+追肥水溶肥料 (30 t/hm²+450 kg/hm²+900 L/hm²)

	指标	测定方法
土壤指标	pH	酸度计法
	有效磷	碳酸氢钠浸提—钼锑抗分光光度法
	速效钾	火焰原子吸收分光光度法
	NH₄⁺-N、NO₃^--N	1 mol/L NaCl溶液浸提，连续流动分析仪测定法
	EC	电导率仪测定法
	全盐	重量法
果实指标	可溶性总糖	蒽酮比色法测定法
	还原型Vc	2,6-二氯靛酚滴定法
	硝态氮	紫外分光光度法
	粗纤维	酸洗涤法