Effects of Water-retaining Agent on Soil Physical Properties and Enzyme Activities, and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco Under Different Mulching Measures

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0446

Abstract

Abstract:

To determine the effect of water-retaining agent on the drought resistance of flue-cured tobacco under different mulching measures, we used the flue-cured tobacco ‘Honghua dajinyuan’ as material, to study the effects of straw mulching (T1), plastic film mulching + water-retaining agent (T2), straw mulching + water-retaining agent (T3), double mulching with straw and plastic film + water-retaining agent (T4) and plastic film mulching (CK) on soil physical properties and enzyme activity, and growth and development, economic characters and quality of flue-cured tobacco. The results showed that compared with CK, by applying water-retaining agent (T2, T3, T4) under different mulching measures, the water content of soil was increased and the bulk density of tobacco planting soil was reduced, the proportion of > 0.25 mm large aggregate structure in soil, especially the proportion of 2-5 mm and 0.5-1 mm water stable aggregate, was increased, the activities of soil sucrose and urease were improved, the agronomic properties of flue-cured tobacco were relatively good, the yield and output value of flue-cured tobacco was relatively high, and tobacco quality was slightly improved. The effect of water-retaining agent on the drought resistance of flue-cured tobacco under different mulching measures were different, the overall performance of T2 and T4 were better than that of T3, and T4 had the best economic characters, while T2 had better sensory quality.

Key words: water-retaining agent, mulching, soil physical properties, enzyme activity, economic characters, quality of flue-cured tobacco

CLC Number:

S572

LIU Jiuyu, WANG Zheng, WANG Zhushi, LI Faping, KAN Hongwei, LI Zhi, DENG Yong, XU Maohua. Effects of Water-retaining Agent on Soil Physical Properties and Enzyme Activities, and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco Under Different Mulching Measures[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(10): 78-84.

Figures/Tables 8

References 29

[1]	白林, 郭燕. 保山市烤烟气候资源分析[J]. 现代农业科技, 2012(21):251-252.
[2]	段德玉, 刘小京, 李伟强, 等. 夏玉米地膜覆盖栽培的生态效应研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2003, 21(4):6-9.
[3]	陈素英, 张喜英. 秸秆覆盖对夏玉米生长过程及水分利用的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2002, 20(4):55-57.
[4]	王彩绒. 覆膜集雨栽培对半湿润易旱地区作物水分养分吸收及产量的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2002.
[5]	林云红, 查永丽, 毛昆明, 等. 小麦秸秆覆盖量对不同植烟土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2012, 26(6):664-667.
[6]	王春芳, 李喜凤, 张晓莲, 等. 保水剂在农业生产应用上的研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(12):199.
[7]	王霞玲, 郭凯先, 黄佳盛, 等. 新型保水剂施用量对土壤水分和马铃薯生长特性的影响研究[J]. 节水灌溉, 2019(6):25-29.
[8]	纪冰祎, 李娜, 王云跃. 保水剂对土壤物理性质影响的研究进展[J]. 水土保持应用技术, 2018(5):29-31.
[9]	冉艳玲. 化学保水剂对土壤水分及物理特性的作用效应[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2014.
[10]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000:266-282.
[11]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究方法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986:274-329.
[12]	王彦亭, 谢剑平, 李志宏. 中国烟草种植区划[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:24-29,36-37.
[13]	李晓婷, 亚平, 何元胜, 等. 云南省临沧烟区烤烟化学成分特征及空间分布[J]. 烟草科技, 2013(1):53-57.
[14]	陈海丽, 吴霞, 刘明池. 不同保水剂的吸水保水特性[J]. 西北农业学报, 2010, 19(1):201-206.
[15]	宫辛玲, 高军侠, 尹光华, 等. 四种不同类型土壤保水剂保水性能的比较[J]. 生态学杂志, 2008, 27(4):652-656.
[16]	崔娜, 张玉龙, 白丽萍, 等. 不同粒径保水剂对土壤物理性质和番茄苗期生长的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2011, 25(1):127-130.
[17]	刘玲玲. 不同保水剂和覆盖措施对毕节烟区烤烟抗旱效果的影响[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2015.
[18]	黄震, 黄占斌, 李文颖, 等. 不同保水剂对土壤水分和氮素保持的比较研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(2):245-249.
[19]	陈帅, 陈强, 孙涛, 等. 黑土坡耕地秸秆覆盖对表层土壤结构和导气性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2016, 36(1):17-21.
[20]	王琰, 井大炜, 付修勇, 等. 保水剂施用量对杨树苗土壤物理性状与微生物活性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(3):53-58.
[21]	张丽华, 闫伟平, 谭国波, 等. 保水剂不同施用深度对玉米产量及土壤水分利用效率的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2016, 24(1):110-113.
[22]	曹婷婷, 郭振. 土壤酶活性与土壤肥力关系的研究进展[J]. 农业科学, 2019, 9(6):444-448.
[23]	车明超, 黄占斌, 王晓茜, 等. 施用保水剂对土壤氮素淋溶及脲酶活性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2010, 29(S1):93-97.
[24]	曲贵伟, AMARILIS de Varennes, 依艳丽. 聚丙烯酸盐对长期重金属污染的矿区土壤的修复研究(Ⅱ)--对土壤微生物数量和土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(4):653-657.
[25]	李倩, 巴图, 刘景辉, 等. 保水剂施用方式对土壤酶活性及马铃薯产量的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 45(5):116-122.
[26]	井大炜, 邢尚军, 刘方春, 等. 保水剂-尿素凝胶对侧柏裸根苗细根生长和氮素利用率的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(4):1046-1052.
[27]	李中阳, 吕谋超, 樊向阳, 等. 不同类型保水剂对冬小麦水分利用效率和根系形态的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(12):3753-3758.
[28]	井大炜, 邢尚军, 刘方春, 等. 保水剂施用方式对侧柏根际微生态环境的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2016, 47(5):146-154.
[29]	李小林, 李强, 金鑫, 等. 采收期松茸菌塘土壤理化特性及对细菌多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2016, 43(3):541-549.

试验号	处理
T1	秸秆覆盖(6000 kg/hm²)
T2	地膜覆盖+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
T3	秸秆覆盖(6000 kg/hm²)+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
T4	秸秆地膜双覆盖(秸秆6000 kg/hm²)+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
CK	试验对照,按当地常规进行地膜覆盖,不使用保水剂

试验号	处理
T1	秸秆覆盖(6000 kg/hm²)
T2	地膜覆盖+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
T3	秸秆覆盖(6000 kg/hm²)+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
T4	秸秆地膜双覆盖(秸秆6000 kg/hm²)+保水剂(90 kg/hm²)
CK	试验对照,按当地常规进行地膜覆盖,不使用保水剂

试验处理	移栽1周	移栽3周	移栽5周	移栽7周	移栽9周	移栽11周
T1	15.18a	12.03a	10.88a	17.08a	15.65a	24.71b
T2	18.94b	16.40b	15.58c	21.02b	19.24b	27.40c
T3	18.36b	15.61b	14.70b	20.36b	20.12c	27.79cd
T4	20.43c	17.81c	17.79d	22.72c	20.73c	28.60d
CK	15.79a	12.37a	11.65a	17.46a	15.42a	22.19a

试验处理	移栽1周	移栽3周	移栽5周	移栽7周	移栽9周	移栽11周
T1	15.18a	12.03a	10.88a	17.08a	15.65a	24.71b
T2	18.94b	16.40b	15.58c	21.02b	19.24b	27.40c
T3	18.36b	15.61b	14.70b	20.36b	20.12c	27.79cd
T4	20.43c	17.81c	17.79d	22.72c	20.73c	28.60d
CK	15.79a	12.37a	11.65a	17.46a	15.42a	22.19a

处理	胡敏酸和富里酸总碳/(g/kg)	富里酸碳/ (g/kg)	胡敏酸碳/ (g/kg)	容重/ (g/cm³)	比重/ (g/cm³)	总孔隙度/ %	水稳性团粒结构/%
处理	胡敏酸和富里酸总碳/(g/kg)	富里酸碳/ (g/kg)	胡敏酸碳/ (g/kg)	容重/ (g/cm³)	比重/ (g/cm³)	总孔隙度/ %	>5 mm	2~5 mm	1~2 mm	0.5~1 mm	0.25~0.5 mm	<0.25 mm
T1	7.80b	4.38c	3.42a	0.97bc	2.40a	62.24	11.24a	9.55a	7.14	8.56b	8.56	54.95c
T2	7.06a	3.30ab	3.76a	0.90ab	2.40a	59.25	11.95a	13.84bc	9.21	10.67c	8.8	45.54b
T3	7.15a	3.89bc	3.26a	0.94ab	2.34a	59.64	16.11ab	11.53ab	7.06	7.70a	8.19	49.42bc
T4	6.76a	3.06a	3.70a	0.89a	2.61ab	60.74	20.19b	16.59c	9.31	9.98c	9.23	34.70a
CK	7.96b	3.17ab	4.79b	1.02c	2.63ab	65.29	10.59a	10.63a	7.06	8.59b	9.34	53.78c