Effects of Mowing and Fertilization on Biomass in Various Organs and Stoichiometric Characteristics in Stems and Leaves of Alfalfa in Horqin Sandy Land

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0174

Abstract

Abstract:

By measuring the stem and leaf biomass, as well as the carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) contents in alfalfa, the effects of mowing frequency (three and four cuts, designated as C3 and C4, respectively) and fertilization level [the N:P₂O₅:K₂O application rates (kg/hm²) were 0:0:0(CK), 8.775:22.5:37.5(F1), 17.55:45:75(F2), 26.325:67.5:112.5(F3), and 35:90:150(F4), respectively] on organ biomass and the C, N, P stoichiometric characteristics of stems and leaves in the Horqin Sandy Land were investigated. The goal was to provide theoretical support for implementing high-yield cultivation practices in this region. The results showed that mowing frequency and fertilization level significantly affected alfalfa biomass and the C, N, P contents and stoichiometric characteristics in various organs (P<0.05). Under the condition of three mowings, aboveground biomass initially increased and then decreased with increasing fertilization levels, reaching a maximum value (1825.50 g/m²) under the F2 treatment, which was significantly higher than that under CK, F3, and F4 treatments (P<0.05). Under the condition of four mowings, aboveground biomass exhibited a ‘bimodal’ pattern, with the F1 and F3 treatments performing best. The C, N, P contents and stoichiometric ratios in different organs varied significantly among treatments. The highest carbon contents in new leaves, old leaves, reproductive stems, and vegetative stems were observed under treatments C3F1, C3F4, C3F2, and C3F2, respectively; the highest nitrogen contents were found under treatments C3F3, C3F1, C3F2, and C3F2, respectively; and the highest phosphorus contents were recorded under treatments C3F3, C3F1, C4F3, and C4F2, respectively. Within each organ, N and P contents were positively correlated, while stoichiometric ratios were mainly inversely regulated by the corresponding element contents, with C:N and C:P ratios negatively correlated with N and P contents. Comprehensive evaluation using the membership function method indicated that among the ten treatments, C3F2 had the highest comprehensive evaluation value (0.78), demonstrating the best effect on total biomass accumulation and element uptake in alfalfa.

Key words: alfalfa, biomass, stoichiometric characteristics, mowing, fertilization

CLC Number:

S541+.9其他

NIE Zhaoxu, JIA Chenxue, ZHU Tiexia, LI Tao, ZHANG Jiahui, NA Jiale, ZHAO Ruozhuang, ZHANG Qiuchi, GAO Kai. Effects of Mowing and Fertilization on Biomass in Various Organs and Stoichiometric Characteristics in Stems and Leaves of Alfalfa in Horqin Sandy Land[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(19): 163-171.

Figures/Tables 8

References 37

[1]	CAO W, LI Y, CHEN Y, et al. Grazing exclusion is more beneficial for restoring soil organic carbon and nutrient balance than afforestation on degraded sandy land[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2023, 14:1326244. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1326244 URL
[2]	杨利烨, 杨天辉, 常生华, 等. 不同刈割频率对黄土高原陇东苜蓿产量及其品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(1):117-125.
[3]	赵力兴, 高阳, 李天琦, 等. 施肥对科尔沁沙地苜蓿生长及产草量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(7):136-144. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0596
[4]	孔猛, 黄明镜, 张冬梅, 等. 黄土高原半干旱区覆膜和施磷对紫花苜蓿草地土壤磷组分的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2024, 32(8):1377-1388.
[5]	才璐, 罗珠珠, 王林林, 等. 施肥对苜蓿土壤水分、养分和产量的影响:基于定位试验数据的Meta分析[J]. 草业科学, 2021, 38(1):160-170.
[6]	余洋, 张志浩, 柴旭田, 等. 极端干旱区3种荒漠植物叶和根碳氮磷化学计量特征对氮添加的响应[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(11):2284-2296.
[7]	陈文燕, 张雪, 王奕璇, 等. 荒漠植物狭叶锦鸡儿不同地理居群叶片化学计量特征及其影响因子[J]. 应用生态学报, 2025, 36(1):31-38. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202501.002
[8]	苏宇航, 宋晓倩, 郑晶文, 等. 呼伦贝尔盐生藜科植物不同器官C、N、P生态化学计量特征及其与土壤因子的关系[J]. 植物研究, 2022, 42(5):910-920. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2022.05.022
[9]	陈壹铭, 单立山, 马静, 等. 西北干旱区荒漠植物叶片和细根碳、氮、磷化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(9):3648-3659.
[10]	萨仁其力莫格, 荆佳强, 秦洁, 等. 不同利用方式下贝加尔针茅草原植物和土壤的生态化学计量特征[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(1):20-29.
[11]	XIAO H, LI P, MONACO T A, et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus additions alter foliar nutrient concentrations of dominant grass species and regulate primary productivity in an Inner Mongolian meadow steppe[J]. Science of the total environment, 2024, 912:168791. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168791 URL
[12]	黄佳媛. 磷添加对紫花苜蓿生产性能、根系特性和化学计量特征的影响[D]. 通辽: 内蒙古民族大学, 2022.
[13]	KALLENBACH R L, NELSON C J, COUTTS J H. Yield, quality, and persistence of grazing- and hay- type alfalfa under three harvest frequencies[J]. Agronomy journal, 2002, 94(5):1094-1103. doi: 10.2134/agronj2002.1094 URL
[14]	杨秀芳, 梁庆伟, 娜日苏, 等. 年刈割次数对科尔沁沙地不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿品种产量、品质和越冬率的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(3):637-643. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.03.016
[15]	刘晓静, 张进霞, 李文卿, 等. 施肥及刈割对干旱地区紫花苜蓿产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2014, 34(6):1516-1526. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00131
[16]	袁银颍, 吴嘉华, 宋家兴, 等. 施氮和刈割对紫花苜蓿品质的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 53(8):125-136.
[17]	YANG Z, ZHANG C, CAO Q, et al. Response of growth and reproductive traits to mowing tolerance mechanism in Elymus species[J]. Journal of plant ecology, 2025, 18(6):rtaf096.
[18]	罗蓉, 曹国璠, 李金玲, 等. 草珊瑚不同部位碳氮磷化学计量特征研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(13):84-89. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0973
[19]	李冰月, 南丽丽, 温素军, 等. 刈割强度对不同根型苜蓿营养器官化学计量特征的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(1):114-120.
[20]	刘晓阳, 赵力兴, 朱铁霞, 等. 磷添加对科尔沁沙地紫花苜蓿生物量及化学计量特征的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2025, 47(3):10-19.
[21]	王凯, 高爽, 刘焕彬, 等. 施氮与增水对杨树幼苗不同器官碳氮磷化学计量的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(12):3870-3880.
[22]	陆姣云, 杨惠敏, 田宏, 等. 水分对不同生育时期紫花苜蓿茎叶碳、氮、磷含量及化学计量特征的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(6):25-34.
[23]	王振南, 赵梅, 杨燕, 等. 苜蓿叶片氮、磷和钾养分重吸收与化学计量比的偶联关系[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(11):177-183.
[24]	胡桂馨, 彭然, 崔晓宁, 等. 施磷对苜蓿光合产物在根茎叶的分配及抗蓟马的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(7):969-978.
[25]	符佩斌, 干友民, 张洪轩, 等. 施肥对高寒草甸产草量和品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2015, 32(7):1137-1142.
[26]	AVICE J C, OURRY A, LEMAIRE G, et al. Nitrogen and carbon flows estimated by ¹⁵N and ¹³C pulse-chase labeling during regrowth of alfalfa[J]. Plant physiology, 1996, 112(1):281-290. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.1.281 URL
[27]	丛龙丽, 高凯, 刘之浩, 等. 磷添加对紫花苜蓿生物量、根系特性及化学计量特征的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(11):66-73.
[28]	王岩, 韩苗, 熊子怡, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌对玉米锌、磷拮抗作用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(1):279-284.
[29]	王继周, 王栋琨, 谢微, 等. 武夷山不同茶区茶青生态化学计量学特征比较[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(20):74-79. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0003
[30]	余涵, 吴绍发, 蒋科毅, 等. 不同立地指数杉木人工林碳、氮、磷化学计量及养分重吸收特征[J]. 生态学报, 2025, 45(19):9606-9614.
[31]	谢军, 徐春丽, 陈轩敬, 等. 不同施肥模式对玉米各器官碳氮累积和分配的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(8):50-58. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017370
[32]	THORNTON B, MILLARD P. Increased defoliation frequency depletes remobilization of nitrogen for leaf growth in grasses[J]. Annals of botany, 1997, 80(1):89-95. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1997.0416 URL
[33]	尤炜, 王斌, 王腾飞, 等. 施磷肥对退化苜蓿草地生产性能及磷利用效率的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2025, 47(11):38-48.
[34]	GÜSEWELL S. N: P ratios in terrestrial plants: Variation and functional significance[J]. New phytologist, 2004, 164(2):243-266. doi: 10.1111/nph.2004.164.issue-2 URL
[35]	孙延亮, 赵宇哲, 魏孔钦, 等. 不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿茎和叶的碳、氮、磷化学计量特征[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(5):9-19.
[36]	王先之, 蒋海亮, 许可旺, 等. 磷添加对紫花苜蓿幼苗地上部及根系生长模式的影响[J]. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 49(1):87-91.
[37]	陆姣云, 段兵红, 杨梅, 等. 植物叶片氮磷养分重吸收规律及其调控机制研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2018, 27(4):178-188. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017223

刈割频次	施肥水平	紫花苜蓿总生物量/(g/m²)
C3	CK	1413.27±70.68Ad
	F1	1763.21±24.61Aab
	F2	1825.50±75.21Aa
	F3	1678.78±130.56Abc
	F4	1552.98±25.01Bc
C4	CK	1557.28±59.56Ac
	F1	1884.04±107.73Aa
	F2	1783.35±46.50Aab
	F3	1846.14±25.99Aa
	F4	1680.79±73.36Abc

刈割频次	施肥水平	紫花苜蓿总生物量/(g/m²)
C3	CK	1413.27±70.68Ad
	F1	1763.21±24.61Aab
	F2	1825.50±75.21Aa
	F3	1678.78±130.56Abc
	F4	1552.98±25.01Bc
C4	CK	1557.28±59.56Ac
	F1	1884.04±107.73Aa
	F2	1783.35±46.50Aab
	F3	1846.14±25.99Aa
	F4	1680.79±73.36Abc

刈割频次	施肥水平	新叶	老叶	生殖枝	营养枝
C3	CK	488.71±18.24Ab	246.70±15.86Bc	163.73±7.56Aa	514.13±58.07Ac
	F1	597.33±13.36Aa	305.29±27.19Aab	176.00±16.86Aa	684.59±19.88Bb
	F2	573.23±21.48Aa	268.80±4.65Bbc	194.13±31.45Aa	789.33±65.68Aa
	F3	493.16±37.87Bb	326.79±41.35Aa	154.40±40.46Aa	704.43±67.37Aab
	F4	511.62±29.70Ab	288.29±30.18Babc	173.87±12.01Aa	579.20±45.14Ac
C4	CK	502.25±37.28Aa	378.13±36.30Aa	145.71±27.06Aab	531.20±44.80Ad
	F1	576.84±45.52Aa	342.19±44.46Aa	188.48±63.15Aa	776.53±18.20Aa
	F2	583.35±22.11Aa	377.17±9.09Aa	113.49±12.25Bb	709.33±9.78Ab
	F3	586.04±27.58Aa	377.55±13.68Aa	103.89±7.05Ab	778.67±4.89Aa
	F4	538.87±75.17Aa	372.53±16.06Aa	127.25±9.14Bb	642.13±28.68Ac

刈割频次	施肥水平	新叶	老叶	生殖枝	营养枝
C3	CK	488.71±18.24Ab	246.70±15.86Bc	163.73±7.56Aa	514.13±58.07Ac
	F1	597.33±13.36Aa	305.29±27.19Aab	176.00±16.86Aa	684.59±19.88Bb
	F2	573.23±21.48Aa	268.80±4.65Bbc	194.13±31.45Aa	789.33±65.68Aa
	F3	493.16±37.87Bb	326.79±41.35Aa	154.40±40.46Aa	704.43±67.37Aab
	F4	511.62±29.70Ab	288.29±30.18Babc	173.87±12.01Aa	579.20±45.14Ac
C4	CK	502.25±37.28Aa	378.13±36.30Aa	145.71±27.06Aab	531.20±44.80Ad
	F1	576.84±45.52Aa	342.19±44.46Aa	188.48±63.15Aa	776.53±18.20Aa
	F2	583.35±22.11Aa	377.17±9.09Aa	113.49±12.25Bb	709.33±9.78Ab
	F3	586.04±27.58Aa	377.55±13.68Aa	103.89±7.05Ab	778.67±4.89Aa
	F4	538.87±75.17Aa	372.53±16.06Aa	127.25±9.14Bb	642.13±28.68Ac

刈割频次	施肥水平	碳		氮		磷
刈割频次	施肥水平	新叶	老叶	新叶	老叶	新叶	老叶
C3	CK	377.09±19.56Aab	378.07±14.03Aabc	44.31±2.87Ab	37.76±2.71Ad	2.88±0.21Ab	2.77±0.17Ab
	F1	395.93±13.71Aa	401.42±24.10Aab	52.03±2.98Aa	47.44±1.78Aa	3.26±0.13Aab	3.51±0.13Aa
	F2	350.69±12.91Ab	332.71±12.58Ac	53.64±0.89Aa	45.94±1.70Aab	3.62±0.41Aa	3.29±0.16Aa
	F3	367.11±25.73Aab	355.34±55.54Abc	54.90±2.93Aa	42.39±3.26Abc	3.78±0.35Aa	3.17±0.07Aa
	F4	356.16±23.72Ab	423.27±18.54Aa	47.43±1.07Ab	38.52±1.44Acd	3.34±0.12Aab	3.17±0.34Aa
C4	CK	359.06±8.10Aa	377.70±3.55Aa	42.40±2.59Ac	38.29±1.46Ac	3.14±0.09Abc	2.83±0.08Ab
	F1	354.16±7.43Ba	387.32±14.91Aa	48.37±0.29Ab	42.28±3.77Abc	3.67±0.24Aa	3.16±0.07Ba
	F2	362.50±9.02Aa	349.78±27.87Aab	51.67±2.65Aa	46.57±1.75Aa	3.62±0.29Aa	3.19±0.05Aa
	F3	353.15±16.14Aa	369.45±27.53Aa	48.52±0.22Bb	43.87±1.78Aab	3.44±0.11Aab	3.14±0.02Aa
	F4	366.11±12.21Aa	330.86±12.64Bb	44.40±0.77Bc	39.70±0.82Ac	2.98±0.24Ac	2.92±0.09Ab