Effects of Chinese Medicine Residue Compost on Tomato Greenhouse Soils with High Nutrient Concentrations

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20200200110

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to explore the suitable organic fertilizer for eutrophic greenhouse soils. A field experiment was carried out in a solar greenhouse with high nutrient concentrations to study the effects of different dosages of Chinese medicine residue compost (CMR) instead of farm manure on soil properties and tomato yield. CMR application increased soil pH and significantly decreased electrical conductivity by 168.3-268.7 μS/cm, nitrate N content by 116.6-184.9 mg/kg and available K content by 87.0-128.3 mg/kg. CMR applied at dosages of 30 and 45 t/hm² was more effective than that of 60 t/hm². With increasing CMR dosage, the decreasing effect on fungal abundance gradually strengthened but the increasing effect on bacterial abundance weakened gradually. CMR applied at a dosage of 30 t/hm² significantly increased the bacterial abundance and applied at a dosage of 60 t/hm² significantly decreased the fungal abundance. In addition, CMR application had inhibitory effect on urease, invertase and phosphatase activities. Substrate utilization profiles of soil microbial community showed that CMR application could increase soil microbial activity and diversity. CMR applied at a dosage of 45 t/hm² significantly increased microbial activity and applied at dosages of 45 and 60 t/hm² significantly increased microbial diversity. CMR dosage correlated with the yield-increasing effect in an inverted U-shaped curve, with the optimal dosage of 45 t/hm². Principal component analysis indicated that CMR could reduce soil salt and nutrient content and improve soil microbial properties, thus effectively increase the yield. CMR applied at a dosage of 45 t/hm² has the best yield-increasing effect because of its best improving effect on soil chemical and microbial properties.

Key words: Chinese medicine residue compost, application rate, tomato, soil properties, yield

CLC Number:

S156

Wang Guangfei, Guo Dejie, Ma Yan, Luo Jia. Effects of Chinese Medicine Residue Compost on Tomato Greenhouse Soils with High Nutrient Concentrations[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(1): 84-89.

Figures/Tables 7

References 29

[1]	高杰云, 王丽英, 严正娟, 等. 设施土壤栽培番茄配方施肥策略与指标研究[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2014(1):7-12.
[2]	张怀志, 唐继伟, 袁硕, 等. 津冀设施蔬菜施肥调查分析[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018,274(2):60-66.
[3]	王秋君, 马艳, 郭德杰, 等. 设施蔬菜土壤养分状况分析及综合评价[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2019(3):624-630.
[4]	胡美美, 于世欣, 付乃鑫, 等. 日光温室番茄产量与土壤养分、植株养分的关系[J]. 土壤与作物, 2018(1):13-21.
[5]	刘兆辉, 江丽华, 张文君, 等. 山东省设施蔬菜施肥量演变及土壤养分变化规律[J]. 土壤学报, 2008,45(2):296-303.
[6]	宁川川, 王建武, 蔡昆争. 有机肥对土壤肥力和土壤环境质量的影响研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016(1):175-181.
[7]	李东坡, 武志杰, 梁成华, 等. 设施土壤生态环境特点与调控[J]. 生态学杂志2004, 23(5):192-197.
[8]	Min J, Zhao X, Shi W M. Nitrogen balance and loss in a greenhouse vegetable system in Southeastern China[J]. Pedosphere, 2011,21(4):464-472.
[9]	刘伟, 武美燕, 胡学玉, 等. 设施栽培地土壤富营养化及其潜在的环境影响[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2011,34(5):20-23.
[10]	潘霞, 陈励科, 卜元卿, 等. 畜禽有机肥对典型蔬果地土壤剖面重金属与抗生素分布的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2012,28(5):518-525.
[11]	茹淑华, 张国印, 杨军芳, 等. 鸡粪和猪粪对小麦生长及土壤重金属累积的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2015,30(S1):494-499. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2015.S1.089 URL
[12]	杨绪勤, 袁博, 蒋继宏. 中药渣资源综合再利用研究进展[J]. 江苏师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2015,33(3):40-44.
[13]	毕京芳, 黄钧, 关梦龙, 等. 微生物菌剂发酵中草药渣生产有机肥[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2014,20(5):840-845.
[14]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007:30-106.
[15]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986:275-313.
[16]	Wang Q, Ma Y, Wang G, et al. Integration of biofumigation with antagonistic microorganism can control Phytophthora blight of pepper plants by regulating soil bacterial community structure[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2014,61:58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2013.12.004 URL
[17]	张红, 吕家珑, 曹莹菲, 等. 不同植物秸秆腐解特性与土壤微生物功能多样研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2014,51(4):743-752.
[18]	李书田, 刘荣乐, 陕红. 我国主要畜禽粪便养分含量及变化分析[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009,28(1):179-184.
[19]	王婷婷, 王俊, 赵牧秋, 等. 有机肥对设施菜地土壤磷素状况的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2011(1):138-141.
[20]	闫实, 郭宁, 于跃跃, 等. 生物有机肥在设施番茄上的施用量研究[J]. 中国农技推广, 2016,32(7):50-53.
[21]	李尚科, 沈根祥, 郭春霞, 等. 有机肥及秸秆对设施菜田次生盐渍化土壤修复效果研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012(2):66-68.
[22]	李吉进, 宋东涛, 聂俊华, 等. 不同有机肥料对番茄生长及品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008,24(10):300-305.
[23]	宇万太, 姜子绍, 马强, 等. 施用有机肥对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009,15(5):1057-1064. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2009.0511 URL
[24]	唐玉姝, 魏朝富, 颜廷梅, 等. 土壤质量生物学指标研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2007,39(2):157-163.
[25]	Schloter M, Dill O, Munch J C. Indicators for evaluating soil quality[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 2003,98(1-3):255-262. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00085-9 URL
[26]	陈美兰, 申业, 杨光, 等. 中药渣有机肥对丹参的促生作用以及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国科学:生命科学, 2016,46(11):1296-1303.
[27]	冯龙, 张崇玉, 陶雯, 等. 不同施肥处理对大白菜土壤酶和微生物量碳、氮含量的影响[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2018,37(4):49-54.
[28]	于跃跃, 郭宁, 闫实, 等. 不同用量有机肥对土壤性质及番茄生长的影响[J]. 中国农技推广, 2015,31(11):36-38.
[29]	李恕艳, 李吉进, 张邦喜, 等. 施用有机肥对番茄品质风味的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(2):114-119.

供试肥料	pH	含水量/ %	EC/ (mS/cm)	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	全磷/ (g/kg)	全钾/ (g/kg)	速效氮/ (g/kg)	速效磷/ (g/kg)	速效钾/ (g/kg)
鸡粪稻壳	7.55	28.6	6.71	664.5	23.47	9.19	20.35	3.15	1.23	17.42
中药渣有机肥	7.21	30.9	4.75	461.7	24.32	8.99	18.94	1.32	0.99	12.32

供试肥料	pH	含水量/ %	EC/ (mS/cm)	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	全磷/ (g/kg)	全钾/ (g/kg)	速效氮/ (g/kg)	速效磷/ (g/kg)	速效钾/ (g/kg)
鸡粪稻壳	7.55	28.6	6.71	664.5	23.47	9.19	20.35	3.15	1.23	17.42
中药渣有机肥	7.21	30.9	4.75	461.7	24.32	8.99	18.94	1.32	0.99	12.32

处理	pH	EC/(μS/cm)	有机质/(g/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
CK	7.14±0.11a	1134.8±41.4a	35.1±4.1a	616.7±52.7a	316.0±23.5a	1228.4±75.9a
CMR30	7.25±0.09a	881.9±118.6b	33.1±2.7a	431.8±67.9b	307.5±25.2a	1119.1±17.5b
CMR45	7.18±0.12a	866.1±116.2b	34.0±2.5a	472.4±86.5b	297.8±28.5a	1100.2±26.6b
CMR60	7.20±0.09a	966.5±126.6ab	37.0±2.7a	500.1±21.2b	310.3±42.3a	1141.5±51.7ab

处理	pH	EC/(μS/cm)	有机质/(g/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
CK	7.14±0.11a	1134.8±41.4a	35.1±4.1a	616.7±52.7a	316.0±23.5a	1228.4±75.9a
CMR30	7.25±0.09a	881.9±118.6b	33.1±2.7a	431.8±67.9b	307.5±25.2a	1119.1±17.5b
CMR45	7.18±0.12a	866.1±116.2b	34.0±2.5a	472.4±86.5b	297.8±28.5a	1100.2±26.6b
CMR60	7.20±0.09a	966.5±126.6ab	37.0±2.7a	500.1±21.2b	310.3±42.3a	1141.5±51.7ab

处理	细菌数量/(×10¹⁴copies/g)	真菌数量/(×10⁹copies/g)	脲酶/[mg/(d·g)]	蔗糖酶/[mg/(d·g)]	碱性磷酸酶/ [nmol/(d·g)]
CK	1.86±0.22b	1.39±0.08a	1.27±0.18a	16.49±1.92a	0.55±0.08a
CMR30	2.28±0.10a	1.22±0.14ab	0.91±0.03b	13.20±3.10a	0.45±0.04ab
CMR45	2.13±0.26ab	1.22±0.15ab	0.81±0.18b	12.12±2.25a	0.37±0.11b
CMR60	2.10±0.15ab	1.14±0.09b	1.00±0.06b	14.07±2.76a	0.44±0.09ab