Responses of Soil Enzyme Activities and Physicochemical Properties to Fertilization in Rice Field During Winter Fallow Period

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20200200104

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil enzymes play an important role in maintaining the function of soil ecosystem. Exploring the relationship between soil enzyme activities and soil physicochemical properties can clarify the changes of soil environment after fertilization, which is of significance to guide the rational fertilization in rice field. An experiment with three treatments, conventional fertilization (the control), application of controlled release fertilizer (ACRF), and combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizer (NPKM), was conducted. The variations of different fertilizer applications in rice field during winter fallow period on three soil enzymes (sucrase, urease and acid phosphatase) activities were studied, using the classical statistical analysis and redundancy analysis to explore the difference of soil enzymes activities in different treatments and their relationships with soil physicochemical properties. The classical statistical analysis showed that there were significant differences of rice yield, soil physicochemical properties and soil enzyme activities among different treatments at the two experimental sites. Taken as a whole, the rice yield of ACRF and NPKM treatments were higher than that of CF treatment, and the range was between 2.0% and 7.3%. The physicochemical properties of soil under NPKM treatment were improved to a large extent. And the activities of three enzymes were NPKM > CF, NPKM > ACRF. Redundancy analysis indicated that the seven physicochemical properties explained 90.81% of the variations in soil enzyme activities in the first two axes, showing that the first two axes could well reflect the relationship between soil enzyme activities and soil physicochemical properties. And an extremely obvious relationship existed between pH, SOC (soil organic corban) and soil enzyme activities. In these soil physicochemical properties, SOC was a key factor causing the difference of soil enzyme activities, followed by pH. Under the condition of this experiment, the application of controlled-release fertilizer or the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizer can better increase rice yield and soil quality.

Key words: fertilizer, rice, physicochemical properties, soil enzyme activities, redundancy analysis

CLC Number:

S153
S511

Zhu Shuhao, Liu Liyuan, Yuan Haoling, Xu Yan, Shi Rongguang. Responses of Soil Enzyme Activities and Physicochemical Properties to Fertilization in Rice Field During Winter Fallow Period[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(36): 50-57.

Figures/Tables 8

References 36

[1]	高强, 李德忠, 汪娟娟, 等. 春玉米一次性施肥效果研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2007,15(4):125-128.
[2]	Paramasivam S, Alva A K. Leaching of nitrogen forms from controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers[J]. Comm. Soil Sci. Plan, 1997,28(17,18):1663-1674. doi: 10.1080/00103629709369906 URL
[3]	王宇婷, 文祝友, 熊海蓉, 等. 包衣尿素研究现状及发展趋势[J]. 磷肥与复肥, 2015,30(01):17-20.
[4]	韩晓日. 新型缓/控释肥料研究现状与展望[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2006,37(01):3-8.
[5]	梁路, 马臣, 张然, 等. 有机无机肥配施提高旱地麦田土壤养分有效性及酶活性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019,25(04):544-554.
[6]	杨小东, 曾希柏, 文炯, 等. 猪粪施用量对红壤旱地理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 1-11.
[7]	王文锋, 李春花, 黄绍文, 等. 不同施肥模式对设施菜田土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016,27(3):873-882.
[8]	Hill B H, Elonen C M, Seifert L R, et al. Microbial enzyme stoichiometry and nutrient limitation in US streams and rivers[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2012,18:540-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.007 URL
[9]	罗攀, 陈浩, 肖孔操, 等. 地形、树种和土壤属性对喀斯特山区土壤胞外酶活性的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2017,38(6):2577-2585.
[10]	解雪峰, 濮励杰, 王琪琪, 等. 滨海滩涂围垦区不同围垦年限土壤酶活性变化及其与理化性质关系[J]. 环境科学, 2018,39(03):1404-1412.
[11]	Zhang X Y, Dong W Y, Dai X Q, et al. Responses of absolute and specific soil enzyme activities to long term additions of organic and mineral fertilizer[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2015,536:59-67. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.043 URL
[12]	李委涛, 李忠佩, 刘明, 等. 红壤水稻土累积酶活性及养分对长期不同施肥处理的响应[J]. 土壤, 2016,48(04):686-691.
[13]	冯爱青, 张民, 李成亮, 等. 秸秆及秸秆黑炭对小麦养分吸收及棕壤酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(15):5269-5277. doi: 10.5846/stxb201312313071 URL
[14]	吴际友, 叶道碧, 王旭军. 长沙市城郊森林土壤酶活性及其与土壤理化性质的相关性[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2010,38(03):97-99.
[15]	许莎莎, 孙国钧, 刘慧明, 等. 黑河河岸植被与环境因子间的相互作用[J]. 生态学报, 2011,31(9):2421-2429.
[16]	解丽娜, 贡璐, 朱美玲, 等. 塔里木盆地南缘绿洲土壤酶活性与理化因子相关性[J]. 环境科学研究, 2014,27(11):1306-1313.
[17]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[18]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1983.
[19]	Smilauer P, Leps J. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2014: 309-322.
[20]	Beyene A, Addis T, Kifle D, et al. Comparative study of diatoms and macroinvertebrates as indicators of severe water pollution: case study of the Kebena and Akaki rivers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2009,9(2):381-392. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.001 URL
[21]	陈明, 黄庆海, 余喜初等. 肥料运筹对晚稻产量及根系和叶片衰老进程的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012,28(33):139-143.
[22]	刘兴华. 黄河三角洲湿地植物与土壤C、N、P生态化学计量特征研究[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2013.
[23]	卢瑛, 冯宏, 甘海华. 广州城市公园绿地土壤肥力及酶活性特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2007,21(01):160-163.
[24]	沈冰涛, 张孝倩, 陈红, 等. 有机无机配施化肥对小麦产量及土壤养分和酶活性的影响[J]. 长江大学学报:自然科学版, 2019,16(05):46-52+7-8.
[25]	全国土壤普查办公室. 中国土壤[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998: 877-935.
[26]	杨锌. 水稻包膜控释尿素养分释放特性及其肥效研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2017.
[27]	陈磊, 郝明德, 张少民, 等. 黄土高原旱地长期施肥对小麦养分吸收和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007,13(2):230-235. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2007.0208 URL
[28]	Borjesson G, Menichetti L, Kirchmann H, et al. Soil microbial community structure a-ffected by 53 years of nitrogen fer-tilization and different organic amendments[J]. Biolog-y and Fertility of Soils, 2012,48(3):245-257.
[29]	Xu Z W, Yu G R, Zhanng X Y, et al. The variations in soil microbial communities, enzyme activities and their relatio-nships with soil organic matter decomposition along the northern slope of Changbai Mountain[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2015,86:19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.09.015 URL
[30]	杨榕, 李博文, 刘微. 胶质芽胞杆菌对印度芥菜根际土壤镉含量及土壤酶活性影响[J]. 环境科学, 2013,34(06):2436-2441.
[31]	徐丽丽, 王秋兵, 张心昱, 等. 不同肥料对稻田红壤碳、氮、磷循环相关酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013,24(04):909-914.
[32]	朱美玲, 贡璐, 张龙龙. 塔里木河上游典型绿洲土壤酶活性与环境因子相关分析[J]. 环境科学, 2015,36(7):2678-2685.
[33]	Liu E K, Yan C R, Mei X R, et al. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China[J]. Geoderma, 2010,158(3-4):173-180. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.04.029 URL
[34]	Zantua M I, Dumenil L C, Bremner J M. Relationships between soil urease activity and other soil properties[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1977,41(2):350-352. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100020036x URL
[35]	Kandeler E, Luxhel J, Tscherko M, et al. Xylanase, intertase and protease at the soil-litter interface of a loamy sand[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1999,31(8):1171-1179. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00035-8 URL
[36]	Taylor J P, Wilson B, Mills M S, et al. Comparison of microbial numbers and enzymatic activities in surface soils and subsoils using various techniques[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2002,34(3):387-401. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00199-7 URL

处理		复合肥	控释肥料	有机肥料	尿素	过磷酸钙	氯化钾
CF	基肥	450	─	─	─	─	─
CF	追肥	300	─	─	─	─	─
ACRF	基肥	─	630	─	─	100	─
ACRF	追肥	─	─	─	─	─	32
NPKM	基肥	─	─	3450	75	290	─
NPKM	追肥	─	─	─	130	─	50

处理		复合肥	控释肥料	有机肥料	尿素	过磷酸钙	氯化钾
CF	基肥	450	─	─	─	─	─
CF	追肥	300	─	─	─	─	─
ACRF	基肥	─	630	─	─	100	─
ACRF	追肥	─	─	─	─	─	32
NPKM	基肥	─	─	3450	75	290	─
NPKM	追肥	─	─	─	130	─	50

处理	CH	YY
处理	CH	早稻	晚稻
CF	9496.5±103.06 c	7171.5±19.05 c	7368±63.22 b
ACRF	10194±98.29 a	7687.5±84.00 a	7149±29.01 c
NPKM	9853.5±4.76 b	7396.5±64.95 b	7687.5±92.23 a

处理	CH	YY
处理	CH	早稻	晚稻
CF	9496.5±103.06 c	7171.5±19.05 c	7368±63.22 b
ACRF	10194±98.29 a	7687.5±84.00 a	7149±29.01 c
NPKM	9853.5±4.76 b	7396.5±64.95 b	7687.5±92.23 a

处理		pH	EC/(mS/cm)	SOC/(g/kg)	TN/(g/kg)	AN/(mg/kg)	TP/(g/kg)	AP/(mg/kg)
CH	CF	6.57±0.03 a	1.06±0.01 c	24.92±0.48 b	2.01±0.01 a	173.72±4.21 a	0.80±0.01 a	20.98±1.71 a
	ACRF	6.59±0.01 a	1.24±0.01 a	25.39±0.32 b	1.74±0.02 c	171.74±2.34 a	0.82±0.02 a	20.65±1.41 a
	NPKM	6.67±0.03 a	1.18±0.01 b	29.44±0.56 a	1.86±0.01b	173.72±1.17 a	0.90±0.06 a	24.75±1.03 a
YY	CF	5.40±0.03 c	0.86±0.01 c	22.92±0.58 c	2.02±0.01 a	175.35±2.14 b	0.89±0.04 a	20.74±1.90 a
	ACRF	5.73±0.02 b	1.02±0.01 a	23.63± 0.37 bc	1.77±0.02 c	184.68±3.03 a	0.86±0.02 a	21.11±0.97 a
	NPKM	6.14±0.01 a	0.95±0.01 b	25.12±0.44 a	1.87±0.02 b	167.18±1.02 b	0.87±0.01 a	21.43±0.41 a