Effects of Increased Application of Silicon Fertilizer on Soil Fertility in Coastal Tidal Flat and Yield and Quality of Bare Barley

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0443

Abstract

Abstract:

A bare barley planting experiment was carried out from November 2023 to May 2024 in the coastal reclamation area of Nantong, Jiangsu Province to study the effects of different amounts of silicon fertilizer on soil fertility and yield and quality of bare barley, with ‘Suluomai No.2’ as the test variety. Five different silicon fertilizer application rates were set up in the treatment, including CK, SiF1, SiF2, SiF3 and SiF4 (0, 75, 150 and 225 kg/hm²). The results showed that: (1) compared with CK, the soil available phosphorus concentration increased by 19.31%, 18.99%, 23.16% and 17.71% respectively under SiF1, SiF2, SiF3 and SiF4 (P<0.05). The concentrations of soil soluble organic carbon and easily oxidizable organic carbon increased by 11.46% and 11.61%, 11.77% and 8.39%, 14.21% and 9.03%, respectively under SiF2, SiF3, and SiF4 treatments (P<0.05); there were no significant differences in the concentrations of total carbon, organic carbon, microbial biomass carbon, total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen under different silicon fertilizer application treatments (P>0.05). (2) Compared with CK, the yield of bare barley in the coastal tidal flat area increased by 17.02% under SiF2 treatment (P<0.05), and the β-glucan content of bare barley under SiF2 treatment increased the most. In terms of yield components, the number of spikes increased significantly under SiF2 and SiF3 treatments, while there were no significant changes in thousand-grain weight and the number of grains per spike under different silicon fertilizer treatments. In conclusion, the soil fertility of coastal tidal flat was improved by increasing the application of silicon fertilizer, and the yield and β-glucan content of bare barley in coastal tidal flat area were increased by increasing the appropriate amount of silicon fertilizer (150 kg/hm²).

Key words: coastal tidal flat, silicon fertilizer, soil fertility, bare barley, yield and quality

ZHANG Jiao, MIAO Yuanqing, ZHANG Rui, HAN Jijun, CHEN Pengjun, CUI Shiyou. Effects of Increased Application of Silicon Fertilizer on Soil Fertility in Coastal Tidal Flat and Yield and Quality of Bare Barley[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(34): 7-12.

Figures/Tables 4

References 40

[1]	马同生, 张永春, 陈兴华, 等. 水稻与小麦吸硅规律与硅肥应用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1994(1):104-108.
[2]	蔡德龙. 国内外硅肥研究与应用进展[J]. 磷肥与复肥, 2017, 32(1):37-39.
[3]	MA J F, KAZUNORI T, MASAHIKO I, et al. A Rice mutant defective in Si uptake[J]. Plant physiology (Bethesda), 2002, 130(4):2111-2117. doi: 10.1104/pp.010348 URL
[4]	MA J F, KAZUNORI T, YAMAJI N, et al. A silicon transporter in rice[J]. Nature, 2006, 440:688-691. doi: 10.1038/nature04590
[5]	MA J F, YAMAJI N. A cooperative system of silicon transport in plants[J]. Trends in plant science, 2015, 20(7):435-442. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.04.007 pmid: 25983205
[6]	房江育, 马雪泷. 硅与植物抗逆性研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(11):304-306.
[7]	梁永超, 丁瑞兴, 刘谦. 硅对大麦耐盐性的影响及其机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 1999(6):75-83.
[8]	王志春. 硅肥运筹对小麦生产的影响[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2013(1):52-54.
[9]	林子鑫. 盐胁迫下硅对土壤理化性质及水稻叶片生理指标和产量的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2023.
[10]	韦海敏, 陶伟科, 周燕, 等. 硅素穗肥优化滨海盐碱地水稻矿质元素吸收分配提高耐盐性[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5):1339-1349. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.22031
[11]	梁胜贤, 刘春成, 胡超, 等. 叶面喷施硅肥对再生水灌溉水稻叶际细菌群落结构及功能基因的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2024, 45(1):555-566.
[12]	魏晓东, 宋雪梅, 赵凌, 等. 硅锌肥及其施用方式对南粳46产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(3):295-306. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2023.220805
[13]	孙颖, 王旭东, 王莺, 等. 硅磷配施对水稻土中速效养分和水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2015, 32(4):551-556.
[14]	娄金华, 陈猛猛, 张士荣, 等. 磷硅肥配施对盐渍土壤水稻生长及养分吸收的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(4):263-269.
[15]	闫金浩, 张浩天, 漆文静, 等. 不同土壤调理剂对盐碱环境下黑青稞光合特性的影响[J]. 种子科技, 2024, 42(21):18-21.
[16]	熊万英, 王建. 江苏沿海滩涂可持续发展研究[J]. 国土与自然资源研究, 2004(4):52-54.
[17]	石晓旭, 韩笑, 刘海翠, 等. 元麦β-葡聚糖含量的差异性及其影响因素的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(2):12-18. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0259
[18]	石晓旭, 石吕, 薛亚光, 等. 不同麦稻轮作模式产量、资源利用及经济效益分析[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2024, 41(1):57-67.
[19]	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.
[20]	KACHURINA O M, ZHANG H, RAUN W R, et al. Simultaneous determination of soil aluminum, ammonium and nitrate‐nitrogen using 1 M potassium chloride extraction[J]. Communications in soil science & plant analysis, 2000, 31(7-8):893-903.
[21]	WU J S, JIANG P K, CHANG S X, et al. Dissolved soil organic carbon and nitrogen were affected by conversion of native forests to plantations in subtropical China[J]. Canadian journal of soil science, 2010, 90(1):27-36. doi: 10.4141/CJSS09030 URL
[22]	VANCE E D. An extracted method for measuring soil microbial biomass C[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 1987, 19:703-707. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 URL
[23]	BLAIR G J, LEFROY R, LISLE L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems[J]. Australian journal of agricultural research, 1995, 46(7):393-406. doi: 10.1071/AR9950393 URL
[24]	吕耀昌, 王强, 赵炜, 等. 燕麦、大麦中β-葡聚糖的酶法测定[J]. 食品科学, 2005, 26(1):180-182.
[25]	张蛟, 崔士友, 冯芝祥, 等. 气候因子和地表覆盖对沿海滩涂土壤盐分动态的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(2):294-302.
[26]	贺文君, 韩广轩, 颜坤, 等. 微地形对滨海盐碱地土壤水盐分布和植物生物量的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(11):3585-3597.
[27]	赵永昶, 常春艳, 王卓然, 等. 滨海盐渍农田秋季土壤盐分含量微域变异特征[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(5):1009-1021.
[28]	韩继军, 张蛟, 陈澎军, 等. 江苏沿海滩涂垦区不同播种量对小麦产量的影响及小麦生长季土壤因子变化动态[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2024, 41(1):28-35.
[29]	张蛟, 崔士友, 冯芝祥, 等. 种植碱蓬和秸秆覆盖对沿海滩涂极重度盐土盐分动态与脱盐效果的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(5):1686-1694. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201805.034
[30]	李爽. 硅制剂对土壤养分有效性和水稻养分吸收及产量的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2016.
[31]	LIANG Y, LIAO M, FANG Z, et al. How silicon fertilizer improves nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient availability in paddy soil?[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University- Science B, 2021, 22(7):521-532. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B2000708
[32]	沈宏, 曹志洪, 胡正义. 土壤活性有机碳的表征及其生态效应[J]. 生态学杂志, 1999, 18(3):33-39.
[33]	SU Y Z, LIU T N, WANG X F, et al. Salinity effects on soil organic carbon and its labile fractions, and nematode communities in irrigated farmlands in an arid region, northwestern China[J]. Sciences in cold and arid regions, 2016, 8(1):46-53.
[34]	李亚林, 张旭博, 任凤玲, 等. 长期施肥对中国农田土壤溶解性有机碳氮含量影响的整合分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(6):1224-1233. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.014
[35]	史文竹, 孙禧, 邵旭升, 等. 外源钙添加对有机物料改良滨海盐碱土固碳潜力的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(2):32-41.
[36]	温雅欢. 不同浓度的硅制剂对土壤速效养分及植硅体、植硅体碳的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2023.
[37]	于粮. 硅肥对青稞抗倒伏特性的影响研究[D]. 拉萨: 西藏大学, 2019.
[38]	韦泽秀, 卓嘎, 边巴卓玛, 等. 奥本硅对13-5171-7青稞新品系茎秆抗倒伏特性及产量的影响[J]. 西藏农业科技, 2020, 42(3):5-8.
[39]	朱东顺, 宋晴晴, 何群, 等. 不同时期施用硅肥对啤大麦群体质量与产量效应的探讨[J]. 大麦科学, 2003(1):37-40.
[40]	那成龙, 陈建澍, 张玉红, 等. 大麦β-葡聚糖的提取及功能研究进展[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2012, 32(3):579-584.

处理	盐分/ (g/kg)	pH	总碳/ (g/kg)	总氮/ (g/kg)	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	铵态氮/ (mg/kg)	硝态氮/ (mg/kg)	有效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)
CK	1.06±0.21a	7.95±0.09a	12.90±0.10a	0.54±0.01a	79.03±6.61a	3.86±0.13a	54.90±8.39a	12.48±1.57b	163.42±3.50a
SiF1	1.08±0.17a	7.87±0.09a	12.87±0.21a	0.54±0.03a	83.93±4.96a	3.40±0.52a	55.63±2.43a	14.89±1.56a	164.95±5.00a
SiF2	1.09±0.18a	7.89±0.10a	13.00±0.46a	0.55±0.04a	79.13±0.70a	3.21±0.78a	59.67±7.52a	14.85±1.42a	165.29±11.01a
SiF3	1.21±0.09a	7.83±0.12a	12.93±0.40a	0.55±0.01a	79.80±1.40a	3.36±0.74a	58.14±0.33a	15.37±3.61a	161.42±6.50a
SiF4	1.23±0.23a	7.81±0.16a	13.03±0.15a	0.56±0.03a	81.80±8.30a	3.29±0.37a	60.19±8.51a	14.69±0.56a	170.15±13.23a

处理	盐分/ (g/kg)	pH	总碳/ (g/kg)	总氮/ (g/kg)	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	铵态氮/ (mg/kg)	硝态氮/ (mg/kg)	有效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)
CK	1.06±0.21a	7.95±0.09a	12.90±0.10a	0.54±0.01a	79.03±6.61a	3.86±0.13a	54.90±8.39a	12.48±1.57b	163.42±3.50a
SiF1	1.08±0.17a	7.87±0.09a	12.87±0.21a	0.54±0.03a	83.93±4.96a	3.40±0.52a	55.63±2.43a	14.89±1.56a	164.95±5.00a
SiF2	1.09±0.18a	7.89±0.10a	13.00±0.46a	0.55±0.04a	79.13±0.70a	3.21±0.78a	59.67±7.52a	14.85±1.42a	165.29±11.01a
SiF3	1.21±0.09a	7.83±0.12a	12.93±0.40a	0.55±0.01a	79.80±1.40a	3.36±0.74a	58.14±0.33a	15.37±3.61a	161.42±6.50a
SiF4	1.23±0.23a	7.81±0.16a	13.03±0.15a	0.56±0.03a	81.80±8.30a	3.29±0.37a	60.19±8.51a	14.69±0.56a	170.15±13.23a

处理	SOC/(g/kg)	DOC/(mg/kg)	MBC/(mg/kg)	ROC/(mg/kg)
CK	6.07±0.51a	22.52±1.17b	64.38±3.66a	1.55±0.04b
SiF1	6.31±0.33a	24.22±1.56ab	66.45±4.37a	1.57±0.07b
SiF2	6.30±0.75a	25.10±1.43a	62.17±5.77a	1.73±0.07a
SiF3	6.62±0.15a	25.17±0.73a	61.30±2.61a	1.68±0.03a
SiF4	6.40±0.27a	25.72±0.89a	64.25±3.47a	1.69±0.04a

处理	SOC/(g/kg)	DOC/(mg/kg)	MBC/(mg/kg)	ROC/(mg/kg)
CK	6.07±0.51a	22.52±1.17b	64.38±3.66a	1.55±0.04b
SiF1	6.31±0.33a	24.22±1.56ab	66.45±4.37a	1.57±0.07b
SiF2	6.30±0.75a	25.10±1.43a	62.17±5.77a	1.73±0.07a
SiF3	6.62±0.15a	25.17±0.73a	61.30±2.61a	1.68±0.03a
SiF4	6.40±0.27a	25.72±0.89a	64.25±3.47a	1.69±0.04a

处理	株高/cm	穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	每穗粒数/粒	穗长/cm	着粒密度/(粒/cm)	千粒重/g	产量/(kg/hm²)
CK	99.33±1.70a	543.2±32.4b	26.26±1.25a	6.69±0.21a	3.92±0.07a	36.08±0.21a	6286.3±598.5b
SiF1	99.60±0.87a	580.7±68.6ab	25.49±0.34ab	6.64±0.30a	3.84±0.15a	36.14±0.54a	6426.0±845.5ab
SiF2	98.93±1.92a	646.9±23.5a	25.38±0.53ab	6.50±0.15a	3.90±0.08a	36.10±0.66a	7356.2±900.9a
SiF3	99.87±1.21a	640.6±24.3a	25.03±0.95ab	6.69±0.16a	3.74±0.12a	35.83±0.34a	6125.7±423.8b
SiF4	100.20±2.75a	591.1±37.3ab	24.61±0.69b	6.44±0.04a	3.82±0.11a	36.36±0.43a	5777.7±322.3b