Effects of Straw Returning and Amendments on Chemical Properties and Nutrients of Saline-alkali Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0701

Abstract

Abstract:

The saline-alkali land area of Ulanqab City accounts for nearly one-fifth of the land area, and the low fertility of the saline-alkali soil leads to low crop yield. In this experiment, straw returning, Al₂(SO₄)₃ and FeSO₄ improvement treatments were designed in Pangjia Village of Baihaizi Town and Nan Village of Pingdiquan Town. The soil of saline-alkali field without straw returning to the field and without amendment was taken as the control. Soil pH, electrical conductivity, organic matter, total nitrogen and available nutrients in 0-40 cm soil layer were measured. The results showed that: (1) both straw returning and chemical amendments significantly reduced soil pH, electrical conductivity and soil salinity in 0-40 cm soil layer. (2) Both straw returning and chemical amendments significantly increased total nitrogen and organic matter in topsoil. (3) Both straw returning and chemical amendments significantly increased the available nutrients in topsoil. In conclusion, straw returning and chemical amendments significantly reduced the pH and electrical conductivity of soil in the topsoil and subsoil, and significantly increased soil organic matter, total nitrogen and available nutrients. The improvement effect of chemical amendments on saline-alkali fields was better than that of straw returning treatment. This study provided theoretical and technical support for salt-alkali field improvement and fertilizer cultivation and high-standard farmland construction in Ulanqab City to ensure stable grain yield and regional and national food security.

Key words: saline-alkali field, straw retuning, electric conductivity, soil organic matter, available nutrient, chemical amendments, soil ph, soil organic matter, total nitrogen

YU Bo, YANG Zhe, WANG Yuyan, MA Yang, GUO Yan, ZHANG Yibo, REN Qin, MU Junxiang, XU Songhe, ZHANG Xuefeng. Effects of Straw Returning and Amendments on Chemical Properties and Nutrients of Saline-alkali Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(32): 50-55.

Figures/Tables 9

References 27

[1]	程曼, 解文艳, 杨振, 等. 黄土旱塬长期秸秆还田对土壤养分、酶活性及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2019, 27(10):1528-1536.
[2]	LI H, DAI M W, DAI S L, et al. Current status and environment impact of direct straw return in China’s cropland: A review[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2018, 159:293-300.
[3]	王久臣, 戴林, 田宜水, 等. 中国生物质能产业发展现状及趋势分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2007(9):276-282.
[4]	连祎雯. 秸秆还田与化肥配合施用对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 南方农机, 2018, 49(16):95.
[5]	刘建国, 卞新民, 李彦斌, 等. 长期连作和秸秆还田对棉田土壤生物活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(5):1027-1032.
[6]	RATH K M, FIERER N, MURPHY D V, et al. Linking bacterial community composition to soil salinity along environmental gradients[J]. The ISME journal, 2019, 13(3):836-846.
[7]	SETIA R, GOTTSCHALK P, SMITH P, et al. Soil salinity decreases global soil organic carbon stocks[J]. The science of the total environment, 2013, 465:267-272. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.028 pmid: 22959898
[8]	杨劲松, 姚荣江, 王相平, 等. 中国盐渍土研究:历程、现状与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(1):10-27.
[9]	TRIVEDI P, SINGH B P, SINGH B K. Soil carbon:Introduction, importance, status, threat, and mitigation[M]. Soil Carbon Storage:Modulators, Mechanisms and Modeling. Pittsburgh: Academic Press, 2018:1-28.
[10]	ZHU W, YANG J S, YAO R J, et al. Buried layers change soil water flow and solute transport from the Yellow River Delta, China[J]. Journal of soils and sediments, 2021, 21(4):1-11.
[11]	闫治斌, 秦嘉海, 王爱勤, 等. 盐碱土改良材料对草甸盐土理化性质与玉米生产效益的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2011, 31(2):122-127.
[12]	吴鹏年, 王艳丽, 李培富, 等. 滴灌条件下秸秆还田配施氮肥对宁夏扬黄灌区春玉米产量和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(12):4177-4185. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201912.022
[13]	杨彩迪, 卢升高. 秸秆直接还田和炭化还田对红壤酸度、养分和交换性能的动态影响[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(9):4246-4252.
[14]	杨文娜, 余泺, 罗东海, 等. 土壤phoC和phoD微生物群落对化肥和有机肥配施生物炭的响应[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(2):1040-1049.
[15]	栾天浩, 刘云强, 高阳, 等. 不同秸秆还田方式对玉米产量及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 东北农业科学, 2020, 45(6):64-67,77.
[16]	陈军, 孙义祥. 全量秸秆还田下不同施氮量对水稻产量及土壤有机质含量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2020, 48(11):169-170.
[17]	TIAN J, LU S, FAN M, et al. Labile soil organic matter fractions as influenced by nonflooded mulching cultivation and cropping season in rice-wheat rotation[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2013, 56:19-25.
[18]	劳家柽. 土壤农化分析手册[M]. 北京: 农业出版社,1988.
[19]	庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6):174-180.
[20]	潘峰, 刘滨辉, 袁文涛, 等. 不同改良剂对紫花苜蓿生长和盐渍化土壤的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2011, 39(5):67-68,76.
[21]	李健, 郭颖杰, 王景立. 深松技术与化学改良剂在苏打盐碱地土壤改良中的应用[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2020, 42(6):699-702.
[22]	李学平, 刘萍. 深旋耕秸秆还田对内陆盐碱地土壤肥力和作物产量的效应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2016, 44(1):133-135.
[23]	韩剑宏, 王旭平, 张连科, 等. 发酵玉米秸秆对盐碱地土壤肥力指标的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2017, 36(12):56-61.
[24]	赵兴敏, 刘楠, 郭欣欣, 等. 秸秆和硫酸铝对淡黑钙土有机矿质复合体及有机碳分布的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017, 36(5):950-956.
[25]	李磊, 王晶, 朱志明, 等. 氮肥减施与有机肥/秸秆配施对盐碱地土壤肥力指标及玉米产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(4):928-935.
[26]	杨祥波. 改良剂与有机物料结合对新开碱地稻田土壤性状的优化[J]. 河南农业科学, 2020, 49(5):88-96.
[27]	王帅, 王楠, 陈殿元, 等. 菌糠搭载硫酸铝对盐碱地稻田养分状况的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(2):460-466.

试验地点	试验处理	土壤改良剂/ (kg/hm²)	种植密度/ (株/hm²)	玉米品种	施肥标准与方式
庞家村	CKB	0	37500	先玉335	磷钾肥全部作基肥，氮肥以3:6:1分别用作基肥和追肥，追肥于拔节期与灌浆前施用。
庞家村	HTB	7500
南村	CKN	0
	HTN	7500
	ALN	4500
	FEN	4500

试验地点	试验处理	土壤改良剂/ (kg/hm²)	种植密度/ (株/hm²)	玉米品种	施肥标准与方式
庞家村	CKB	0	37500	先玉335	磷钾肥全部作基肥，氮肥以3:6:1分别用作基肥和追肥，追肥于拔节期与灌浆前施用。
庞家村	HTB	7500
南村	CKN	0
	HTN	7500
	ALN	4500
	FEN	4500

取样地点	处理	全氮	有机质
庞家村	CKB	0.13±0.01b	2.06±0.06b
庞家村	HTB	0.18±0.03a	2.61±0.09a
南村	CKN	0.05±0.00c	1.53±0.12d
	HTN	0.14±0.01b	2.86±0.00b
	ALN	0.29±0.00a	3.40±0.10a
	FEN	0.31±0.02a	2.14±0.10c

取样地点	处理	全氮	有机质
庞家村	CKB	0.13±0.01b	2.06±0.06b
庞家村	HTB	0.18±0.03a	2.61±0.09a
南村	CKN	0.05±0.00c	1.53±0.12d
	HTN	0.14±0.01b	2.86±0.00b
	ALN	0.29±0.00a	3.40±0.10a
	FEN	0.31±0.02a	2.14±0.10c

取样地点	处理	全氮	有机质
庞家村	CKB	0.22±0.01a	2.49±0.01a
庞家村	HTB	0.14±0.02b	2.66±0.10a
南村	CKN	0.07±0.01c	1.97±0.03b
	HTN	0.11±0.00b	2.27±0.06a
	ALN	0.26±0.01a	1.84±0.03b
	FEN	0.08±0.00c	1.94±0.15b