Effects of Soil Conditioner on Fertility Restoration and Fruit Quality in Continuous Cropping Vineyards

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0546

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to address soil quality degradation and fruit quality decline in continuous cropping vineyards, this research investigated the effects of a soil conditioner (BGA), conventional fertilizer (NPK), and their reduced-rate combined application (H-BGA+NPK) on soil physicochemical properties, active organic carbon fractions, aggregate structure, and grape quality, while exploring the underlying mechanisms. Results showed that fertilization treatments exhibited significant temporal specificity in influencing soil parameters. During the fruit expansion stage, the H-BGA+NPK treatment synergistically enhanced soil organic matter (21.67% higher than NPK), total nitrogen (3.61% higher than NPK), and microbial biomass carbon (20.53% higher than NPK), optimizing early-stage nutrient supply through the combined effect of rapid nitrogen release from fertilizer and slow carbon input from the conditioner. In the maturity stage, sole BGA application promoted sustained mineralization of organic components, leading to substantial increases in soil organic matter (59.89% higher than NPK) and nitrate nitrogen (169.27% higher than NPK), significantly improving the soil carbon-nitrogen pool. Soil aggregate analysis revealed that H-BGA+NPK significantly promoted the formation of macro-aggregates (>0.25 mm), increasing their proportion by 45.90% compared to NPK, while sole NPK application increased the proportion of micro-aggregates (<0.053 mm), highlighting the structural optimization effect of conditioner-fertilizer combination. Regarding fruit quality, the H-BGA+NPK treatment achieved the highest soluble sugar content (12.46%), which was 5.68% and 1.71% higher than NPK and BGA alone, respectively, demonstrating optimal balance of the sugar-acid ratio. Sole BGA application significantly increased titratable acid (9.49% higher than NPK) and soluble solids (1.03%-4.08% higher than NPK), making it suitable for high-acid grape cultivation. Correlation analysis indicated that soluble sugar was negatively correlated with soil bulk density and dissolved organic carbon (P<0.05), while titratable acid showed strong negative correlations with soil pH, total nitrogen, and other nutrient indices (P<0.001), and positive correlations with bulk density and dissolved organic carbon (P<0.05), confirming that soil structure and carbon fractions are key regulators of fruit quality. This research confirms that precise integration of soil conditioner and fertilizer based on crop growth stages can balance short-term nutrient supply and long-term soil health, providing a theoretical and practical framework in sustainable high-yield and high-quality vineyard management.

Key words: continuous cropping vineyard, soil quality, fruit quality, soil conditioner, fertility restoration, active organic carbon components, aggregation composition

ZHAO Kegang, CAI Miao, MA Chang, WANG Dong, XIE Xiaomei, WANG Xinya. Effects of Soil Conditioner on Fertility Restoration and Fruit Quality in Continuous Cropping Vineyards[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(21): 96-106.

Figures/Tables 7

References 26

[1]	林蝉蝉, 何舟阳, 单文龙, 等. 基于主成分与聚类分析综合评价杨凌地区红色鲜食葡萄果实品质[J]. 果树学报, 2020, 37(4):520-532.
[2]	高文胜, 秦旭, 胡兆平, 等. 土壤调理剂在葡萄上的应用效果研究[J]. 农学学报, 2017, 7(6):63-66. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas16110002
[3]	肖占文, 赵致禧, 赵芸晨, 等. 化肥减量下有机肥配施土壤调理剂和生物菌肥对玉米连作土壤的生态修复效应[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(10):48-54.
[4]	范晓晖, 刘文婷, 谢星, 等. 酸化葡萄园施用牡蛎壳粉土壤调理剂后的效应[J]. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 2025, 20(1):175-182.
[5]	段治军. 新型土壤调理剂对土壤特性及沙棘生长影响的试验研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2022.
[6]	杨济达, 伏成秀, 张庆, 等. 不同土壤调理剂对白菜连作土壤耕层调控的影响研究[J]. 中国热带农业, 2025(2):48-55.
[7]	屠娟丽, 李彦彪, 付康, 等. 枝条生物炭对葡萄品质及葡萄园土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2025(1):18-23.
[8]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:14-114.
[9]	何小妹, 江昱琳, 张洛涵, 等. 生物炭施用量对砂姜黑土团聚体特征及有机碳分布的影响[J/OL]. 干旱地区农业研究,1-9[2025-07-21]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/61.1088.S.20250715.1312.004.html.
[10]	刘权. 果树试验设计及统计[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1994:46-48.
[11]	DISSANAYAKE D K R P L, DISSANAYAKA D M N S, UDUMANN S S, et al. Is biochar a promising soil amendment to enhance perennial crop yield and soil quality in the tropics?[J/OL]. Technology in agronomy, 2023, https://doi.org/10.48130/TIA-2023-0004.
[12]	RATHOR P, UPADHYAY P, ULLAH A, et al. The biostimulatory effect of humic-based soil amendment on plant growth, root nodulation, symbiotic nitrogen fixation and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.)[J]. Journal of sustainable agriculture & environment, 2024, 3(3):1.
[13]	MA X, HAN F, YANG G, et al. Enhanced soil ecosystem multifunctionality and microbial community shifts following spent mushroom substrate application in vineyards[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2025, 213:106230.
[14]	FERNANDO M, SCOTT N, SHRESTHA A, et al. A native plant species cover crop positively impacted vineyard water dynamics, soil health, and vine vigor[J]. Agriculture ecosystems and environment, 2024, 367:108972.
[15]	张宗勤, 杨和财, 张鹏, 等. 几种土壤调理剂对“户太8号”葡萄生长的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2021, 36(3):140-143.
[16]	杨建国, 纪立东, 樊丽琴, 等. BGA土壤调理剂在风沙土上的施用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(9):154-159.
[17]	杨金翰, 田小明, 胡晨阳, 等. 氮肥配施调理剂对土壤团聚体和有机碳及莜麦产量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2025, 33(1):147-156. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2025.01.017
[18]	熊荟菁, 张乃明, 赵学通, 等. 秸秆生物炭对葡萄园土壤改良效应及葡萄品质的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(4):936-941.
[19]	SONG R, LV B, HE Z, et al. Rhizosphere metabolite dynamics in continuous cropping of vineyards: impact on microflora diversity and co-occurrence networks[J]. Microbiological research, 2025, 296:128134.
[20]	秦彦林, 石称华, 丁振涛, 等. 土壤调理剂对设施辣椒土壤改良效果研究[J]. 农业工程技术, 2022, 42(34):79-81.
[21]	潘衍. 施肥结合土壤调理剂对酸化土壤改良及高粱生长的影响[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2024.
[22]	GU W, ZHANG W, XIU L, et al. Soil aggregate variation in two contrasting rice straw recycling systems for paddy soil amendment over two years[J]. Archives of agronomy and soil science, 2023, 69:3044-3059.
[23]	耿锦沼. 碳酸钙和有机物对强酸性菜地根际/非根际土壤有机碳组分及微生物群落结构的影响[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2024.
[24]	KERNER P, STRUHS E, MIRKOUEI A, et al. Microbial responses to biochar soil amendment and influential factors: a three-level meta-analysis[J]. Environmental science & technology, 2023, 57(48):11.
[25]	OUÉDRAOGO F, CORNU J Y, FANIN N, et al. Changes over time in organic matter dynamics and copper solubility in a vineyard soil after incorporation of cover crop residues: insights from a batch experiment[J]. Chemosphere, 2024, 350:141137.
[26]	朱立贺. 玖金土壤调理剂对甜瓜生长发育及根际土壤环境的影响[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2024.

处理编号	施肥次数	施肥时期	肥料种类	施肥量/(kg/hm²)
NPK	5	基肥	生物有机肥	15000
		基肥	复合微生物肥	600
		花前肥	复合微生物肥	15
		坐果肥	复合微生物肥	75
		膨果肥	水溶肥	75
		着色肥	水溶肥	75
BGA	5	基肥	土壤调理剂	15000
		花前肥	土壤调理剂	420
		坐果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		膨果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		着色肥	土壤调理剂	420
H-BGA+NPK	4	基肥	生物有机肥	15000
			复合微生物肥	600
			土壤调理剂	15000
		花前肥	复合微生物肥	15
		花前肥	土壤调理剂	420
		坐果肥	复合微生物肥	15
		坐果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		膨果肥	水溶肥	15
		膨果肥	土壤调理剂	420

处理编号	施肥次数	施肥时期	肥料种类	施肥量/(kg/hm²)
NPK	5	基肥	生物有机肥	15000
		基肥	复合微生物肥	600
		花前肥	复合微生物肥	15
		坐果肥	复合微生物肥	75
		膨果肥	水溶肥	75
		着色肥	水溶肥	75
BGA	5	基肥	土壤调理剂	15000
		花前肥	土壤调理剂	420
		坐果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		膨果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		着色肥	土壤调理剂	420
H-BGA+NPK	4	基肥	生物有机肥	15000
			复合微生物肥	600
			土壤调理剂	15000
		花前肥	复合微生物肥	15
		花前肥	土壤调理剂	420
		坐果肥	复合微生物肥	15
		坐果肥	土壤调理剂	420
		膨果肥	水溶肥	15
		膨果肥	土壤调理剂	420

处理	各粒径水稳性团聚体所占比例/%			平均重量直径/mm	>0.25 mm团聚体比例/%
处理	>0.25 mm	0.053~0.25 mm	<0.053 mm	平均重量直径/mm	>0.25 mm团聚体比例/%
NPK	46.88±6.54b	14.36±6.87a	38.76±12.24a	0.56±0.08b	46.88±6.54b
BGA	55.05±3.62b	20.61±14.39a	24.34±12.70ab	0.66±0.03b	55.05±3.62b
H-BGA+NPK	68.40±5.77a	16.33±4.63a	16.06±2.16b	0.80±0.06a	68.40±5.77a

处理	各粒径水稳性团聚体所占比例/%			平均重量直径/mm	>0.25 mm团聚体比例/%
处理	>0.25 mm	0.053~0.25 mm	<0.053 mm	平均重量直径/mm	>0.25 mm团聚体比例/%
NPK	46.88±6.54b	14.36±6.87a	38.76±12.24a	0.56±0.08b	46.88±6.54b
BGA	55.05±3.62b	20.61±14.39a	24.34±12.70ab	0.66±0.03b	55.05±3.62b
H-BGA+NPK	68.40±5.77a	16.33±4.63a	16.06±2.16b	0.80±0.06a	68.40±5.77a