Effects of Inhibitor NAM on Corn Yield and Agronomic Utilization Efficiency of Nitrogen Fertilizer in Saline-Alkali Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0038

Abstract

Abstract:

To improve the utilization rate of nitrogen fertilizer in saline-alkali soil, reduce nitrification and reduce the loss of nitrogen nutrition, a field plot test was conducted. The test was set as: no fertilization as control, conventional fertilization, conventional fertilization + NAM (long-acting compound fertilizer additive), conventional fertilization 80% + NAM. The changes of saline soil nutrients and corn yield in different treatments were studied. The results indicated that compared with conventional fertilization, conventional fertilization + NAM treatment increased soil nutrient content such as alkaline nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium and organic matter, and reduced soil alkalinity; increased soil CEC (cation exchange capacity) and water-soluble base ions K⁺, Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺.The soil pH did not change significantly, and the conductivity decreased to some extent. The yield of corn increased by 10.30%, and the agronomic utilization efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer increased by 34.38%.The corn yield of conventional fertilization 80% + NAM treatment is equivalent to that of conventional fertilization, however, it has higher partial fertilizer productivity and agronomic utilization efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer, and could be recommended for application in production.

Key words: NAM inhibitor, saline-alkali soil, corn, agronomic utilization efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer

CLC Number:

S513

Guo Yanchun, Sun Xianmin, Zeng Lusheng, Li Xulin, Song Xiangyun, Liu Xinwei, Cui Dejie. Effects of Inhibitor NAM on Corn Yield and Agronomic Utilization Efficiency of Nitrogen Fertilizer in Saline-Alkali Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(5): 43-48.

Figures/Tables 6

References 30

[1]	Di H J, Cameron K C. Reducing environmental impacts of agriculture by using a fine particle suspension nitrification inhibitor to decrease nitrate leaching from grazed pastures[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment, 2005,109(3/4):202-212 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.03.006 URL
[2]	Macadam X M B, Prado A d, Merino P, et al. Dicyandiamide and 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate decrease N₂O emissions from grassland but dicyandiamide produces deleterious effects in clover[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2003,160(12):1517-1523 doi: 10.1078/0176-1617-01006 URL pmid: 14717446
[3]	赵自超, 韩笑, 石岳峰, 等. 硝化和脲酶抑制剂对华北冬小麦-夏玉米轮作固碳减排效果评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016,32(6):254-262.
[4]	杨相东, 张民. 缓/控释和稳定性肥料技术创新驱动化肥行业科技发展——“新型肥料的研制与高效利用”专刊序言[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019,25(12):2029-2031.
[5]	我国启动稳定性缓释肥料及抑制剂行业标准制订[J]. 中国石油和化工标准与质量, 2008(3):41.
[6]	武炳明. 我国启动缓释肥行业标准制订[N]. 中国化工报, 2008-01-04(002).
[7]	武志杰, 石元亮, 李东坡, 等. 稳定性肥料发展与展望[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(6):1614-1621.
[8]	郝小雨, 马星竹, 高中超, 等. 氮肥管理措施对黑土春玉米产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2016,24(4):151-159.
[9]	孙志梅, 武志杰, 陈利军, 等. 硝化抑制剂的施用效果、影响因素及其评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008(7):1611-1618.
[10]	柯福来, 黄瑞冬, 马兴林, 等. 化学抑制型氮素释放延缓剂对玉米产量和品质的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2007(2):111-113.
[11]	刘垚, 李光华. 脲酶抑制剂(NBPT)对玉米产量及农艺性状的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2016(6):48-49.
[12]	丁芳, 曾路生, 石元亮, 等. 抑制剂NAM对盐渍土壤酶活性、微生物量和蔬菜品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2017,32(S1):296-301.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析第三版[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011.
[14]	姚云柯, 徐卫红, 周豪, 等. 脲酶/硝化抑制剂缓释肥对番茄养分吸收和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018,31(4):748-753.
[15]	Bhattacharyya R, Kundu S, Prakash V, et al. S.Sustainability under combined application of mineral and organic fertilizers in a rainfed soybean-wheat system of the Indian Himalayas.[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2008,25(8):19-22.
[16]	国艳春, 孙显旻, 曾路生, 等. 添加剂NAM对盐碱地棉花产量和氮肥农学利用效率的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2020,47(5):27-31,43.
[17]	孙艳, 张士荣, 丁效东, 等. 肥料添加剂NAM对盐渍土壤理化性质及水稻氮肥农学利用效率的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020,52(4):86-91.
[18]	俞巧钢, 殷建祯, 马军伟, 等. 硝化抑制剂DMPP应用研究进展及其影响因素[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2014,33(6):1057-1066.
[19]	章燕, 徐慧, 夏宗伟, 等. 硝化抑制剂DCD、DMPP对褐土氮总矿化速率和硝化速率的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012,23(1):166-172.
[20]	Antisari L V, Marzadori C, Gioacchini P, et al. Efects of the urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) phosphorothioie triamide in low concentrations on ammonia volatilization and evolution of mineral Nitrogen[J]. Biol Fertil Soils, 1996,22(3):196-201. doi: 10.1007/BF00382512 URL
[21]	Zhengping W, Cleemput O, Demeyer P, et al. Effect of urease inhibitors on urea hydrolysis and ammonia volatilization[J]. Biology & Fertility of Soils, 1991,11(1):43-47.
[22]	孙爱文, 石元亮, 张德生, 等. 硝化、脲酶抑制剂在农业中的应用[J]. 土壤通报. 2004,35(3):357-361.
[23]	尤洪星, 庄文明, 李秀芹, 等. 脲酶抑制剂NBPT的研究综述[J]. 河南化工, 2016,33(4):18-20.
[24]	王玲莉, 古慧娟, 石元亮, 等. 尿素配施添加剂NAM对三江平原白浆土氮素转化和玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2012(2):34-38.
[25]	倪秀菊. 几种抑制剂对尿素水解和土壤硝化作用的影响[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2010.
[26]	串丽敏, 赵同科, 安志装, 等. 土壤硝态氮淋溶及氮素利用研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010,26(11):200-205.
[27]	王长军, 李凤霞, 谭松伟, 等. 硝化/脲酶抑制剂对宁夏灌淤土土壤氮含量及其转化的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019,47(21):285-289.
[28]	张凤华, 廖文华, 刘建玲. 过量施用氮磷和有机肥对大白菜产量和氮磷吸收的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2009(4):60-63.
[29]	韩瑞芸, 刘志发, 杨世琦, 等. 氮肥减量对东北坡岗地土壤养分及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(24):63-68.
[30]	赵营, 同延安, 赵护兵. 不同施氮量对夏玉米产量、氮肥利用率及氮平衡的影响[J]. 土壤肥料, 2006(2):30-33.

土层深度/cm	处理	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg）	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	pH	电导率/ (μs/cm)
0~10	CK	16.14 b	0.75 c	80.50 b	11.39 c	222.00 b	8.06 a	550.00 b
	常规施肥	16.38 b	0.82 b	105.10 ab	17.48 b	252.50 b	8.07 a	586.00 a
	常规施肥+NAM	18.69 a	0.93 a	103.30 ab	19.45 a	272.30 a	8.25 a	559.20 b
	常规施肥80%+NAM	17.53 ab	0.87 b	108.50 a	16.58 b	249.90 ab	8.21 a	520.50 c
10~20	CK	15.93 b	0.70 b	84.00 b	4.91 c	155.90 c	8.17 a	517.40 ab
	常规施肥	15.98 b	0.78 ab	86.20 b	10.99 ab	173.70 b	8.22 a	540.10 a
	常规施肥+NAM	17.87 a	0.89 a	90.80 a	12.21 a	188.60 a	8.25 a	530.40 ab
	常规施肥80%+NAM	15.82 b	0.77 ab	85.30 b	9.37 b	173.70 b	8.35 a	506.40 b

土层深度/cm	处理	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg）	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	pH	电导率/ (μs/cm)
0~10	CK	16.14 b	0.75 c	80.50 b	11.39 c	222.00 b	8.06 a	550.00 b
	常规施肥	16.38 b	0.82 b	105.10 ab	17.48 b	252.50 b	8.07 a	586.00 a
	常规施肥+NAM	18.69 a	0.93 a	103.30 ab	19.45 a	272.30 a	8.25 a	559.20 b
	常规施肥80%+NAM	17.53 ab	0.87 b	108.50 a	16.58 b	249.90 ab	8.21 a	520.50 c
10~20	CK	15.93 b	0.70 b	84.00 b	4.91 c	155.90 c	8.17 a	517.40 ab
	常规施肥	15.98 b	0.78 ab	86.20 b	10.99 ab	173.70 b	8.22 a	540.10 a
	常规施肥+NAM	17.87 a	0.89 a	90.80 a	12.21 a	188.60 a	8.25 a	530.40 ab
	常规施肥80%+NAM	15.82 b	0.77 ab	85.30 b	9.37 b	173.70 b	8.35 a	506.40 b

土层深度/cm	处理	交换性Na⁺/(cmol/kg)	CEC/(cmol/kg)	ESP
0~10	CK	1.29 a	11.05 b	11.67%
	常规施肥	1.09 ab	11.35 ab	9.61%
	常规施肥+NAM	0.97 b	11.60 a	8.36%
	常规施肥80%+NAM	1.14 ab	11.28 ab	10.11%
10~20	CK	1.70 a	10.53 b	16.19%
	常规施肥	1.54 ab	10.90 b	14.13%
	常规施肥+NAM	1.45 b	11.35 a	12.78%
	常规施肥80%+NAM	1.49 b	10.98 b	13.57%

土层深度/cm	处理	交换性Na⁺/(cmol/kg)	CEC/(cmol/kg)	ESP
0~10	CK	1.29 a	11.05 b	11.67%
	常规施肥	1.09 ab	11.35 ab	9.61%
	常规施肥+NAM	0.97 b	11.60 a	8.36%
	常规施肥80%+NAM	1.14 ab	11.28 ab	10.11%
10~20	CK	1.70 a	10.53 b	16.19%
	常规施肥	1.54 ab	10.90 b	14.13%
	常规施肥+NAM	1.45 b	11.35 a	12.78%
	常规施肥80%+NAM	1.49 b	10.98 b	13.57%

处理	玉米产量/ (kg/hm²⁾	肥料偏生产力/ (kg/kg)	氮肥农学利用效率/ (kg/kg)
CK	4945.15 c	—	—
常规施肥	7064.85 b	23.14b	14.34b
常规施肥+NAM	7792.72 a	25.53 b	19.27 a
常规施肥80%+NAM	7173.29 b	29.37 a	18.85 a