Yield Effect of Sweet Corn and Characteristics of Farmland Nitrogen and Phosphorus Runoff Losses Under Reduced Fertilizer Rate

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0278

Abstract

Abstract:

Starting from the source of farmland non-point source pollution, the yield effect of sweet corn (Zea mays) and nitrogen and phosphorus runoff losses from farmland under reduced fertilizer rate were studied, and the measures for fertilizer reduction and controlling the losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from sweet corn farmland were explored. Field experiments were conducted with treatments: (1) no fertilizer (CK); (2) conventional fertilization (CF); (3) formula fertilizer (FF); (4) FF + organic fertilizer (OFFF); (5) FF + biochar (BFF); (6) FF + controlled-release urea (CRUFF); (7) FF + controlled release BB fertilizer (UCRF). The results showed that under the condition of reducing nitrogen fertilizer by 20%, there was no significant difference between the treatments of CF and FF, BFF, CRUFF, but the difference between the treatments of OFFF and UCRF (P<0.05) were significant. The yield of sweet corn of OFFF and UCRF increased by 17.8% and 16.8% respectively compared with that of CF. During the growth period of sweet corn, the total nitrogen concentration of runoff showed a gradual downward trend, and the total amount of CF nitrogen loss was the largest, reached 3.54 kg/hm². The total amount of nitrogen loss in farmland was significantly reduced under the condition of reduced fertilization rate, with a decrease of 18.4%-45.5%, of which CRUFF was the most significant, followed by UCRF, OFFF and BFF. Under reduced fertilizer rate, the total phosphorus loss of OFFF, FF and UCRF were significantly reduced (P<0.05), with the decrease rate of 46.7%-60.0%, of which OFFF was the most significant. The concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in shallow groundwater could reflect the nitrogen and phosphorus leakage of farmland to a certain extent. The nitrogen and phosphorus concentration of shallow groundwater of CF during the growth period of sweet corn was the highest of 45.85 and 4.10 mg/L, respectively, while the total nitrogen concentration of CRUFF was 22.79 mg/L, which was 50.3% lower than that of CF. The highest phosphorus concentration was 2.73 mg/L, which was 33.4% lower than that of CF. The nitrogen in the shallow groundwater was mainly in the form of ammonium nitrogen. Compared with traditional fertilization, formula fertilizer (21.2-6.36-18.42) aiming to reduce nitrogen by 20% and its combining application with controlled-release urea, controlled-release bulk blending fertilizer and organic fertilizer respectively could not only achieve high yield, but also effectively prevent and control the losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from farmland, reducing the risk of non-point source pollution.

Key words: sweet corn, reduced fertilizer rate, nitrogen and phosphorus loss, surface runoff, shallow groundwater, yield

CLC Number:

Guo Qiuping, Liang Shan, Kan Yujing, Huang Bangyu, Lei Zexiang, Li Yongsheng, Du Jianjun. Yield Effect of Sweet Corn and Characteristics of Farmland Nitrogen and Phosphorus Runoff Losses Under Reduced Fertilizer Rate[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(9): 71-78.

Figures/Tables 9

References 34

[1]	刘蔚楠, 万忠, 甘阳英, 等. 2015年广东甜玉米产业发展形势与对策建议[J]. 广东农业科学, 2016,40(3):3-5.
[2]	张白鸽, 李强, 陈琼贤, 等. 广东甜玉米施肥指标体系研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2013,40(20):67-70.
[3]	黄巧义, 唐拴虎, 张发宝, 等. 控释尿素与常规尿素配施比例对甜玉米产量和氮肥利用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(3):622-631.
[4]	宁建凤, 姚建武, 艾绍英, 等. 广东典型稻田系统磷素径流流失特征[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2018,35(3):257-268.
[5]	吴金水, 李勇, 李裕元, 等. 亚热带区域农业面源污染流域源头防控机理与技术示范[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018,39(06):121-131.
[6]	Shou C G. Research Progress of Source and Mechanism of Agricultural Non-Poit Source Pollution in China[J]. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2019,17(5):58-64.
[7]	Wu S. Review of Current Situation of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution and Its Prevention and Control Technologies[J]. Strategic Study of Chinese Academy of Engineering, 2018,20(5):23-30.
[8]	薛鹏程, 庞燕, 项颂, 等. 模拟降雨条件下农田氮素径流流失特征研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017,36(07):1362-1368.
[9]	巨晓棠, 刘学军, 邹国元, 等. 冬小麦/夏玉米轮作体系中氮素的损失途径分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2002,35(12):1493-1499.
[10]	董稳军, 黄旭, 郑华平, 等. 广东省60年水稻肥料利用率综述[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012,39(07):76-79.
[11]	程炯, 王继增, 刘平, 等. 珠江三角洲地区水环境问题及其对策[J]. 水土保持通报, 2006(02):91-93.
[12]	刘晓南, 吴志峰, 程炯, 等. 珠江三角洲典型流域颗粒态氮磷负荷估算研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2008(04):1432-1436.
[13]	姚建武, 宁建凤, 李盟军, 等. 广东稻田氮素径流流失特征[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2015,34(04):728-737.
[14]	石宁, 李彦, 张英鹏, 等. 控释肥对小麦/玉米农田土壤硝态氮累积和迁移的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018,51(20):3920-3927. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.20.010 URL
[15]	隽英华, 汪仁, 孙文涛, 等. 基于土壤硝态氮测试的春玉米氮肥实时监控技术[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013,19(05):1248-1256.
[16]	高磊, 李余良, 李武, 等. 不同施氮水平对南方甜玉米氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(5):1215-1224.
[17]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 268-270.
[18]	焉莉, 操梦颖, 胡中强, 等. 施肥方式对东北玉米种植区氮磷流失的影响[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2018,40(02):170-175,180.
[19]	孙铖, 周华真, 陈磊, 等. 农田化肥氮磷地表径流污染风险评估[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017,36(07):1266-1273.
[20]	Hart M R, Quin B F, Nguyen M L. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects:A review[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2004,33(6):1954-1972. doi: 10.2134/jeq2004.1954 URL pmid: 15537918
[21]	张翼, 岳玉波, 赵峥, 等. 不同施肥方式下稻田氮磷流失特征[J]. 上海交通大学学报:农业科学版, 2015,33(1):1-7.
[22]	GarcíaRodeja I, Gil--Sotres F. Prediction of parameters describing phosphorus-desorption kinetics in soils of Galicia (northwest Spain)[J]. Journal of Environment Quality, 1997,26:1363-1369.
[23]	张林, 黄志霖, 肖文发, 等. 三峡库区兰陵溪小流域径流氮磷输出及其降雨径流过程特征[J]. 环境科学, 2018,39(02):792-799.
[24]	李波, 李晔, 韩惟怡, 等. 人工降雨条件下不同粒径泥沙中氮磷流失特征分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016,30(03):39-43.
[25]	Karimi R, Akinremi W, Flaten D. Nitrogen- or phosphorus-based pig manure application rates affect soil test phosphorus and phosphorus loss risk[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2018,24(5):217-230.
[26]	谭德水, 江丽华, 张骞, 等. 南四湖过水区不同施肥模式下农田养分径流特征初步研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011,17(02):464-471.
[27]	姜利红, 谭力彰, 田昌, 等. 不同施肥对双季稻田径流氮磷流失特征的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017,31(06):33-38,45.
[28]	李佳韵, 童菊秀, 夏传安, 等. 降雨条件下农田氮素地表径流流失特征研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2016,35(7):8-15.
[29]	Zhang G H, Liu G B, Wang G L, et al. Effects of vegetation cover and rainfall intensity on sediment-bound nutrient loss, size composition and volume fractal dimension of sediment particles[J]. Pedosphere, 2011,21:676-684.
[30]	Liu R M, Wang J W, Shi J H, et al. Runoff characteristics and nutrient loss mechanism from plain farmland under simulated rainfall conditions[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2014,468-469:1069-1077.
[31]	孙旭东, 孙浒, 董树亭, 等. 包膜尿素施用时期对夏玉米产量和氮素积累特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017,50(11):2179-2188. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.11.022 URL
[32]	斯林林, 周静杰, 吴良欢, 等. 生物炭配施缓控释肥对稻田田面水氮素动态变化及径流流失的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2018,39(12):5383-5390.
[33]	侯红乾, 冀建华, 刘益仁, 等. 缓/控释肥对双季稻产量、氮素吸收和平衡的影响[J]. 土壤, 2018,50(001):43-50.
[34]	田昌, 周旋, 谢桂先, 等. 控释尿素减施对双季稻田径流氮素变化、损失及产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(03):21-28.

编号	代码	处理	施肥量/(kg/hm²)
编号	代码	处理	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
1	CK	不施肥	0	0	0
2	CF	常规施肥	397.5	225	225
3	FF	配方肥	318	95.4	276.3
4	OFFF	配方肥+有机肥	318	95.4	276.3
5	BFF	配方肥+生物炭	318	95.4	276.3
6	CRUFF	配方肥+控释尿素	318	95.4	276.3
7	UCRF	尿素+控释BB肥	318	63	180

编号	代码	处理	施肥量/(kg/hm²)
编号	代码	处理	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
1	CK	不施肥	0	0	0
2	CF	常规施肥	397.5	225	225
3	FF	配方肥	318	95.4	276.3
4	OFFF	配方肥+有机肥	318	95.4	276.3
5	BFF	配方肥+生物炭	318	95.4	276.3
6	CRUFF	配方肥+控释尿素	318	95.4	276.3
7	UCRF	尿素+控释BB肥	318	63	180

处理	流失总量/(kg/hm²)	硝态氮占比/%	铵态氮占比/%
CK	1.05±0.03e	33.09	23.36
CF	3.54±0.09a	33.11	19.52
FF	2.89±0.12b	29.26	20.02
OFFF	2.41±0.13c	41.21	22.28
BFF	2.36±0.09c	30.24	24.31
CRUFF	1.93±0.14d	29.67	20.80
UCRF	2.34±0.03c	37.20	23.42

处理	流失总量/(kg/hm²)	硝态氮占比/%	铵态氮占比/%
CK	1.05±0.03e	33.09	23.36
CF	3.54±0.09a	33.11	19.52
FF	2.89±0.12b	29.26	20.02
OFFF	2.41±0.13c	41.21	22.28
BFF	2.36±0.09c	30.24	24.31
CRUFF	1.93±0.14d	29.67	20.80
UCRF	2.34±0.03c	37.20	23.42