Effects of Different Fish Protein Fertilizers on Growth of Bougainvillea and Soil Nutrients

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0660

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the issues of soil nutrient deficiency and restricted growth faced by Bougainvillea in urban bridge greening, this study aims to clarify the application effects and optimal fertilization strategy of fish protein fertilizer. Using the common urban bridge greening variety Bougainvillea ‘Miss Manila’ as the test material, five fertilization treatments were established: organic fertilizer (T1), seaweed fish protein fertilizer (T2), polypeptide fish protein fertilizer (T3), organic fertilizer + seaweed fish protein fertilizer (T4), and organic fertilizer + polypeptide fish protein fertilizer (T5), with no fertilization as the control (CK). A pot experiment was conducted to investigate their effects on the growth, root traits, soil nutrients, and enzyme activities of Bougainvillea. The results showed: (1) Fertilization treatments significantly promoted the plant height, ground diameter, crown width, and biomass accumulation of Bougainvillea. Compared with CK, T1 notably increased the north-south crown width (31.30%) and total root nitrogen content (97.79%). T2 exhibited the most pronounced promotion effect on underground biomass, with a remarkable increase of 221.12%. T3 significantly improved ground diameter (24.61%) and leaf SPAD values (13.68%), while T4 showed the most outstanding enhancement in plant height (44.67%) and aboveground fresh weight (80.65%). Additionally, T5 led to a 40.90% rise in total root phosphorus content. (2) All fertilization treatments markedly stimulated root system development. Specifically, T2 increased total root volume, whereas T4 outperformed in multiple root metrics, including total root length, root tip number, total volume, surface area, projected area, and average diameter. (3) Compared with CK, T1 significantly elevated soil organic matter (275.83%), available nitrogen (103.76%), and available potassium (133.09%). T2 boosted total soil potassium content by 53.21%, while T5 sharply increased total phosphorus (142.84%) and available phosphorus (109.82%). Furthermore, T1 enhanced soil neutral protease activity by 144.61%, and T2 improved neutral phosphatase and urease activities by 55.88% and 251.55%, respectively (P<0.05). (4) Principal component analysis and Mantel test results demonstrated that the growth-promoting effects of fish protein fertilizer on bougainvillea were significantly positively correlated with the improvement of soil physicochemical properties and the effective regulation of soil enzyme activities related to carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling. Compared with polypeptide fish protein fertilizer, the seaweed fish protein composite fertilizer exhibited superior comprehensive effects in enhancing Bougainvillea growth and improving soil fertility. This study provides a scientific basis for high-quality cultivation of plants used in urban three-dimensional greening, and future field trials can be conducted to further verify the fertilizer efficacy.

Key words: fish protein fertilizer, Bougainvillea spectabilis, root growth, soil enzyme activity, soil nutrient cycling

CLC Number:

S685.99

HUANG Yingmei, WU Jialong, LIANG Yongxin, LIANG Chunmei, ZHANG Juntao. Effects of Different Fish Protein Fertilizers on Growth of Bougainvillea and Soil Nutrients[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 48-58.

Figures/Tables 9

References 45

[1]	李艳梅. 智慧管养技术先行——广州三角梅营造城市“空中花廊[J]. 中国花卉园艺, 2020(Z1):24-25.
[2]	郝晓函, 关文灵, 李叶芳, 等. 三角梅主要品种表型性状分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2025, 46(1):70-82. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2025.01.008
[3]	周群, 黄克福, 丁印龙, 等. 中国引栽三角梅属观赏品种的调查与分类鉴定[J]. 江西农业学报, 2011, 23(5):53-56.
[4]	刘兴跃, 邱毅敏, 余铭杰, 等. 广州市桥梁绿化技术发展现状及对策[J]. 广东园林, 2013, 35(3):12-15.
[5]	ZHOU X, WANG J T, WANG W H, et al. Changes in bacterial and fungal microbiomes associated with tomatoes of healthy and infected by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici[J]. Microbial ecology, 2021, 81(4):1004-1017. doi: 10.1007/s00248-020-01535-4
[6]	LI J, XIAO X M, LYU J, et al. Integrating bio-organic fertilization increases twice-yearly cabbage crop production by modulating soil microbial community and biochemical properties in Northwest Plateau[J]. Environmental technology & innovation, 2024, 35: 103715.
[7]	BHARDWAJ D, ANSARI M W, SAHOO R K, et al. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity[J]. Microbial cell factories, 2014, 13(1):66. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-13-66
[8]	TAO C Y, LI R, XIONG W, et al. Bio-organic fertilizers stimulate indigenous soil Pseudomonas populations to enhance plant disease suppression[J]. Microbiome, 2020, 8(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00892-z pmid: 32962766
[9]	JIN X, BAI Y, MUHAMMAD K R, et al. Biochar stimulates tomato roots to recruit a bacterial assemblage contributing to disease resistance against Fusarium wilt[J]. iMeta, 2022, 1(3):e37. doi: 10.1002/imt2.v1.3 URL
[10]	CARRIÓN J V, JUAN P, VIVIANE C, et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome[J]. Science, 2019, 366:606-612. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9285 pmid: 31672892
[11]	苟先涛. 不同生物有机肥对夏季大棚速生小白菜生长的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2025(10):65-67.
[12]	崔田. 不同有机肥、播种量及采收时间对鸡毛菜生长及产量的影响[J]. 福建农业科技, 2025, 56(4):78-82.
[13]	吴素霞, 赵鹏, 范海荣, 等. 生物有机肥对谷子生长性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(8):19-24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0763
[14]	秦水花. 生物有机肥在红提葡萄上的应用效果研究[J]. 农业技术与装备, 2025(2):115-117.
[15]	田庆霞, 马起林, 陆永明. 鱼蛋白肥全面解读及其科学应用技术[J]. 烟台果树, 2024(3):42.
[16]	张莹雪, 刘文钰, 李超, 等. 海藻多肽鱼蛋白肥对茄子生长发育及品质的影响[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2024(1):64-66.
[17]	王升, 高树清, 王宏光, 等. 海藻鱼蛋白在蓝莓上的应用研究初报[J]. 北方果树, 2022(4):18-19.
[18]	刘麒, 王佳, 罗新宇, 等. 3种叶面肥对山楂品质及光合特性的影响[J]. 腐植酸, 2024(2):31-37.
[19]	黄英梅, 梁春梅, 许昌超, 等. 不同类型有机质对高山榕根系形态性状及土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2024, 36(12):46-57.
[20]	CHEN D D, LIU T X, LI X M, et al. Biological and chemical processes of microbially mediated nitrate-reducing Fe(II) oxidation by Pseudogulbenkiania sp. strain 2002[J]. Chemical geology, 2018, 476:59-69. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.11.004 URL
[21]	ZHANG Y F, WANG X Q, YANG Y, et al. Retention and transformation of exogenous Hg in acidic paddy soil under alternating anoxic and oxic conditions: kinetic and mechanistic insights[J]. Environmental pollution, 2023, 323:121335. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121335 URL
[22]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,2000:25-114.
[23]	WU J L, ZHANG C, XIAO L, et al. Impacts of earthworm species on soil acidification, Al fractions, and base cation release in a subtropical soil from China[J]. Environmental science and pollution research, 2020, 27(27):33446-33457. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05055-8
[24]	曾清苹, 陈丽洁, 李红艳, 等. 短期覆盖和轮休模式下雷竹林土壤有机碳固存及驱动因子分析[J]. 生态学报, 2025(15):1-11.
[25]	YANG J Y, LIU X, RONG X M, et al. Bio-organic fertilizer application improves cucumber growth, disease resistance, and soil fertility by regulating rhizosphere microbiomes[J]. Plant and soil, 2025, 514(1):1315-1329. doi: 10.1007/s11104-025-07460-0
[26]	SINGH S, TRIPATHI A, MAJI M, et al. Evaluating the potential of combined inoculation of Trichoderma harzianum and Brevibacterium halotolerans for increased growth and oil yield in Mentha arvensis under greenhouse and field conditions[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2019, 131:173-181. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.01.039 URL
[27]	CHEN M M, ZHANG S R, LIU L, et al. Combined organic amendments and mineral fertilizer application increase rice yield by improving soil structure, P availability and root growth in saline-alkaline soil[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2021, 212:105060. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105060 URL
[28]	张少康, 张至, 张应龙, 等. 生物有机肥对毛乌素沙地谷子及土壤质量的影响研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2025(6):139-149.
[29]	贺文员, 宋清晖, 杨尚霖, 等. 生物有机肥对水稻土壤酶活性及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(27):106-113. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18040010
[30]	WOOD S A, BLANKINSHIP J C. Making soil health science practical: guiding research for agronomic and environmental benefits[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2022, 172:108776. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108776 URL
[31]	WANG R, HOU T, SUN Q, et al. Organic fertilizers and soil conditioner recover chemical fertilizer-induced changes in soil bacterial community diversity in wine grape rhizosphere soil[J]. Polish journal of environmental studies, 2021, 30(2):1853-1863. doi: 10.15244/pjoes/126236 URL
[32]	LIU J A, SHU A P, SONG W F, et al. Long-term organic fertilizer substitution increases rice yield by improving soil properties and regulating soil bacteria[J]. Geoderma, 2021, 404:115287. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115287 URL
[33]	RANJAN B, BIRENDRA G, PRASANTA M, et al. Soil degradation in India: challenges and potential solutions[J]. Sustainability, 2015, 7(4):3528-3570. doi: 10.3390/su7043528 URL
[34]	ZHAO Y G, LU G X, JIN X, et al. Effects of microbial fertilizer on soil fertility and alfalfa rhizosphere microbiota in alpine grassland[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(7):1722. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12071722 URL
[35]	王静童, 王勇, 殷金忠, 等. 短期沼液还田对小麦产量和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 河南科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2019, 47(4):5-9.
[36]	BUCKING H, KAFLE A. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the nitrogen uptake of plants: current knowledge and research gaps[J]. Agronomy, 2015, 5(4):587-612. doi: 10.3390/agronomy5040587 URL
[37]	SCHIMEL J, BECERRA C A, BLANKINSHIP L J. Estimating decay dynamics for enzyme activities in soils from different ecosystems[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2017, 114:5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.06.023 URL
[38]	殷陶刚, 李玉泽. 土壤酶活性影响因素及测定方法的研究进展[J]. 矿产勘查, 2019, 10(6):1523-1528.
[39]	董艳, 董坤, 郑毅, 等. 种植年限和种植模式对设施土壤微生物区系和酶活性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(3):527-532.
[40]	李国雷, 刘勇, 甘敬, 等. 飞播油松林地土壤酶活性对间伐强度的季节响应[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2008(2):82-88.
[41]	GONG S W, ZHANG T, GUO R, et al. Response of soil enzyme activity to warming and nitrogen addition in a meadow steppe[J]. Soil research, 2015, 53(3):242-252. doi: 10.1071/SR14140 URL
[42]	DU E Z, TERRER C, PELLEGRINII A F, et al. Global patterns of terrestrial nitrogen and phosphorus limitation[J]. Nature geoscience, 2020, 13(3):221-226. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0530-4
[43]	孙文颖, 马维伟, 李广, 等. 尕海湿地植被退化过程中土壤蔗糖酶和淀粉酶活性的动态特征[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(1):88-96. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.01.012
[44]	荆瑞勇, 王丽艳, 郭永霞. 生物有机肥对盆栽小白菜土壤酶活性和微生物数量的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(2):79-83.
[45]	宋以玲, 于建, 肖承泽, 等. 生物菌水溶肥对土壤微生物、土壤酶活性及萝卜产量和品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2017, 49(11):74-81.

指标	测定值
容重/(g/cm³)	1.05±0.10
孔隙度/%	60.38±3.85
阳离子交换量/(cmol/kg)	12.28±0.58
pH	5.57±0.35
电导率/(μS/cm)	52.19±9.72
有机质/(g/kg)	79.47±9.52
全氮/(g/kg)	0.95±0.46
全磷/(g/kg)	3.76±1.92
全钾/(g/kg)	26.41±10.44
碱解氮/(mg/kg)	173.92±9.53
有效磷/(mg/kg)	203.37±24.98
速效钾/(mg/kg)	293.26±8.73

指标	测定值
容重/(g/cm³)	1.05±0.10
孔隙度/%	60.38±3.85
阳离子交换量/(cmol/kg)	12.28±0.58
pH	5.57±0.35
电导率/(μS/cm)	52.19±9.72
有机质/(g/kg)	79.47±9.52
全氮/(g/kg)	0.95±0.46
全磷/(g/kg)	3.76±1.92
全钾/(g/kg)	26.41±10.44
碱解氮/(mg/kg)	173.92±9.53
有效磷/(mg/kg)	203.37±24.98
速效钾/(mg/kg)	293.26±8.73

处理	中性磷酸酶	脲酶	淀粉酶	中性蛋白酶
CK	16892.33±3330.60a	101.78±37.57b	5.55±0.61a	0.28±0.05b
T1	17030.14±5422.76a	151.17±99.52b	1.99±0.23b	0.69±0.07a
T2	26332.54±3847.02a	357.81±83.91a	4.46±1.22a	0.40±0.14b
T3	17794.66±2643.30a	180.81±52.44b	1.69±0.28b	0.31±0.08b
T4	17438.64±10057.48a	222.73±7.64b	1.56±0.28b	0.40±0.01b
T5	19523.80±7092.95a	168.72±61.21b	2.25±1.17b	0.35±0.01b

处理	中性磷酸酶	脲酶	淀粉酶	中性蛋白酶
CK	16892.33±3330.60a	101.78±37.57b	5.55±0.61a	0.28±0.05b
T1	17030.14±5422.76a	151.17±99.52b	1.99±0.23b	0.69±0.07a
T2	26332.54±3847.02a	357.81±83.91a	4.46±1.22a	0.40±0.14b
T3	17794.66±2643.30a	180.81±52.44b	1.69±0.28b	0.31±0.08b
T4	17438.64±10057.48a	222.73±7.64b	1.56±0.28b	0.40±0.01b
T5	19523.80±7092.95a	168.72±61.21b	2.25±1.17b	0.35±0.01b

处理	pH	电导率/ (μS/cm)	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	全磷/ (g/kg)	全钾/ (g/kg)	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	有效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	铵态氮/ (μg/g)	硝态氮/ (μg/kg)
CK	5.56±0.60a	112.50±14.85a	23.92±3.68b	0.56±0.05ab	0.56±0.18b	13.64±4.07c	134.09±0.59cd	43.68±13.18b	117.70±76.60b	5.00±0.42d	4.38±1.16a
T1	6.03±0.81a	107.40±6.93a	89.88±15.35a	0.72±0.04a	1.18±0.38a	18.06±2.86b	273.22±38.06a	54.60±10.04b	274.35±54.93a	6.78±0.54b	1.54±0.35cd
T2	5.05±0.25a	67.60±5.52c	24.18±1.67b	0.29±0.04c	1.36±0.10a	20.90±0.80a	169.49±12.86b	90.64±15.12a	136.93±27.09b	5.92±0.30c	1.85±0.79bc
T3	5.19±0.04a	68.60±5.20c	22.33±1.23b	0.43±0.03bc	1.27±0.16a	19.96±0.71ab	144.59±6.18bcd	86.86±4.33a	142.75±36.80b	7.78±0.37a	1.78±0.00c
T4	5.07±0.04a	88.40±5.94b	18.75±0.59b	0.67±0.13a	1.25±0.10a	18.49±1.34ab	121.85±8.73d	78.46±2.75a	140.22±17.05b	8.12±0.57a	3.29±2.04ab
T5	5.12±0.19a	59.50±2.71c	18.13±1.66b	0.39±0.08c	1.41±0.06a	19.18±1.51ab	151.12±17.32bc	91.65±11.25a	146.39±5.88b	7.31±0.54b	0.39±0.01d