Effects of Different Amendments on Soil Physic-chemical Properties and Melon Quality in Plastic Greenhouse

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0371

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil quality degradation has become a bottleneck restricting the sustainable development of facility agriculture and it is of significance to take appropriate measures to conduct soil improvement activities for the sustainable and healthy development of facility agriculture. A soil improvement experiment in plastic greenhouse was carried out to study the effect of Tuxiangxiang (T1), humic acid (T2), Fuhuosu (T3) and vermicompost (T4) on soil physic-chemical properties, soil salt ion composition, crop yield and quality. The results showed that: (1) compared with CK, all amendments could reduce soil bulk density, increase soil porosity, and slightly adjust the soil pH closer to neutral; among them, T1 and T4 treatments had better effects on soil bulk density and porosity, the soil pH was closer to 7.00 in T3 treatment; (2) compared with CK, all amendments could significantly reduce the amount of soil salt ions and electronic conductivity, the reduction of soil salt ions and electronic conductivity of T3 treatment could reach 68.21% and 75.89%, respectively; (3) compared with CK, all amendments had the effect of yield increase, T3 and T4 treatments had better yield increase effects with 14.37% and 21.01%, respectively; (4) compared with CK, all amendments could significantly improve soluble solid of melon, of which T3 treatment had the best effect, there was no significant difference on the titratable acid of melon among all treatments, the solid acid ratio and vitamin content of melon incresed in some treatments and decreased in others, of which T1 and T3 treatments had higher solid acid ratio of melon, and T3 treatment had significantly higher vitamin content of melon than others, reaching 146.21 mg/kg. In general, T3 treatment has the best effect in terms of soil improvement, soil salt reduction, crop quality improvement and yield increase.

Key words: amendment, plastic greenhouse, soil salt, quality, yield, melon

CLC Number:

S156.2

Gao Ying, Sun Xijun, Lv Shuang, Li Jianbin, Cai Miao, Sun Shengxue, Yu Jian, Cui Ning, Liu Tuo, Zhang Yajian. Effects of Different Amendments on Soil Physic-chemical Properties and Melon Quality in Plastic Greenhouse[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(11): 51-58.

Figures/Tables 8

References 41

[1]	陈为京, 陈建爱, 杨焕明. 土壤生态改良剂T1010对寿光日光温室土壤环境的改良效果[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009,17(2):399-401.
[2]	蔡祖聪. 我国设施栽培养分管理中待解的科学和技术问题[J]. 土壤学报, 2019,56(1):36-43.
[3]	张洁, 常婷婷, 邵孝侯. 暗管排水对大棚土壤次生盐渍化改良及番茄产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012,28(3):81-86.
[4]	文方芳. 种植年限对设施大棚土壤次生盐渍化与酸化的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2016(4):49-53.
[5]	张绪美, 沈文忠, 胡青青, 等. 太仓市郊大棚菜地土壤盐分累积与分布特征研究[J]. 土壤, 2017,49(5):987-991.
[6]	牛亚茹, 付祥峰, 邱良祝, 等. 施用生物质炭对大棚土壤特性、黄瓜品质和根结线虫病的影响[J]. 土壤, 2017,49(1):57-62.
[7]	李涛, 于蕾, 吴越, 等. 山东省设施菜地土壤次生盐渍化特征及影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2018,55(1):100-110.
[8]	杜连凤, 刘文科, 刘建玲. 河北省蔬菜大棚土壤盐分状况及其影响因素[J]. 土壤肥料, 2005(3):17-19,35.
[9]	唐冬, 毛亮, 支月娥, 等. 上海市郊设施大棚次生盐渍化土壤盐分含量调查及典型对应分析[J]. 环境科学, 2014,35(12):4705-4711.
[10]	赵风艳, 姚禾雨. 大棚菜地土壤理化特性的研究[J]. 土壤肥料, 2000(2):11-13.
[11]	史静, 张乃明, 包立. 我国设施农业土壤质量退化特征与调控研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013,21(7):787-794.
[12]	西安市第三次全国农业普查领导小组办公室, 西安市统计局. 西安市第三次全国农业普查主要数据公报[R]. 2018.
[13]	周建斌, 翟丙年, 陈竹君, 等. 西安市郊区日光温室大棚番茄施肥现状及土壤养分累积特性[J]. 土壤通报, 2006,37(2):287-290.
[14]	许安民, 张英利, 李紫燕, 等. 西安地区日光温室土壤养分与盐分累积状况研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2007,25(6):193-196.
[15]	冯武焕, 吕爽, 王虎, 等. 种植年限对西安菜田土壤肥力、盐渍化及酸碱度的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2017,7(3):24-30.
[16]	韩召强, 陈效民, 曲成闯, 等. 生物质炭对黄瓜连作土壤理化性状、酶活性及土壤质量的持续效应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018,24(5):1227-1236.
[17]	Gutié rrez-Miceli Federico A, Santiago-borraz Jorge, Montes Molina J A, et al. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum)[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2007,98(15):2781-2786. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.032 URL pmid: 17400447
[18]	张继舟, 袁磊, 马献发. 腐植酸对设施土壤的养分、盐分及番茄产量和品质的影响研究[J]. 腐植酸, 2008(3):19-22.
[19]	王虎, 吕爽, 王富荣, 等. 西安市耕地地力及适宜性评价[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2017: 72.
[20]	冯武焕, 吕爽, 王虎, 等. 西安市菜田施肥现状与土壤肥力状况[J]. 西北农业学报, 2016,25(12):1004-1389.
[21]	黄昌勇, 徐建明. 土壤学(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011, 32-49.
[22]	张绪美, 曹亚茹, 沈文忠, 等. 微生物肥对设施土壤次生盐渍化和番茄生产的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(5):119-126.
[23]	农明英, 张乃明, 史静, 等. 外源有机物料对次生盐渍化大棚土壤的改良效果[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2013(6):6-10.
[24]	张济世, 于波涛, 张金凤, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质和小麦生长的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017(3):704-711.
[25]	代立兰, 张怀山, 夏曾润, 等. 有机废弃物菌糠和醋糟对次生盐渍化土壤修复效果研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014,32(1):218-222.
[26]	康利允, 常高正, 高宁宁, 等. 不同氮、钾肥施用量对甜瓜产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2018,35(8):95-103.
[27]	Davey, Mark W, Montagu, et al. Plant-ascorbic acid: chemistry, function, metabolism, bioavailability and effects of processing[J]. Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture, 2000,80(7):825-860.
[28]	Nele Horemans, Christine H F, Geert Potters, et al. Ascorbate function and associated transport systems in plants[J]. Plant Physiology & Biochemistry, 2000,38(7-8):531-540.
[29]	李显月, 闫玉珍, 雷瑛, 等. 环保酵素对生活污水中氨氮和总氮的净化效果探究[J]. 环境保护前沿, 2019,9(2):122-128.
[30]	王金龙, 阮维斌. 4种填闲作物对天津黄瓜温室土壤次生盐渍化改良作用的初步研究[J]. 农业环境保护, 2009,28(9):1849-1854.
[31]	蔺海明, 贾恢先, 张有福, 等. 毛苕子对次生盐碱地抑盐效应的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2003,12(4):58-62.
[32]	邢鹏飞, 高圣超, 马鸣超, 等. 有机肥替代部分无机肥对华北农田土壤理化性质、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2016(3):98-104.
[33]	谢文军, 张衍鹏, 张淼, 等. 滨海盐渍化土壤理化性质与小麦生产间的关系[J]. 土壤学报, 2015,52(2):461-466.
[34]	余海英, 李廷轩, 周健民. 设施土壤次生盐渍化及其对土壤性质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2005,37(6):581-586.
[35]	张金锦, 段增强. 设施菜地土壤次生盐渍化的成因、危害及其分类与分级标准的研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2011,43(3):361-366.
[36]	成绍鑫. 腐植酸类物质概论[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2007: 129-158.
[37]	闫淑霞, 刘春花, 等. 腐殖酸的结构特性与应用研究进展[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2017,29(3):145-150.
[38]	高婧, 杨劲松, 姚荣江, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海重度盐渍土质量和肥料利用效率的影响[J]. 土壤, 2019,51(3):524-529.
[39]	王晓洋, 陈效民, 李孝良, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海盐渍土水盐特性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2013,33(1):261-264.
[40]	Christl I, Milne C J, Kinniburgh D G, et al. Relating Ion Binding by Fulvic and Humic Acids to Chemical Composition and Molecular Size. 2. Metal Binding[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2001,35(12):2512-2517. URL pmid: 11432556
[41]	赵征宇, 孙永红, 赵明, 等. 有机无机肥配施对土壤氮素转化和番茄产量品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2013,28(1):208-212.

处理	改良剂	施用量/(t/hm²)	施用方法
T1	土香香	0.6	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T2	腐殖酸原液	0.3	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T3	富活素	0.6	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T4	蚯蚓粪	60	均匀洒施
CK	—	—	—

处理	改良剂	施用量/(t/hm²)	施用方法
T1	土香香	0.6	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T2	腐殖酸原液	0.3	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T3	富活素	0.6	稀释200倍后用洒水壶洒施
T4	蚯蚓粪	60	均匀洒施
CK	—	—	—

处理	阳离子					阴离子					离子总量
处理	K⁺	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	合计	HCO₃^-	Cl^-	SO₄^2-	NO^3-	合计	离子总量
T1	10.87 bc	71.50 ab	123.68 d	18.84 b	224.89 d	103.27 a	14.42 bc	161.13 c	53.41 b	332.22 b	557.12 d
T2	9.49 c	77.42 ab	243.01 b	18.68 b	348.60 b	70.57 b	20.26 ab	322.80 a	71.24 b	484.86 a	833.46 b
T3	7.10 c	58.38 b	57.20 e	9.50 c	132.18 e	92.94 ab	6.98 c	84.38 d	17.41 c	201.71 c	333.89 e
T4	13.94 b	80.64 a	138.20 c	28.97 ab	261.75 c	88.16 ab	19.97 ab	292.53 a	73.17 b	473.82 a	735.58 c
CK	19.54 a	73.73 ab	404.42 a	42.24 a	539.93 a	96.38 a	23.35 a	247.03 b	143.69 a	510.44 a	1050.37 a

处理	阳离子					阴离子					离子总量
处理	K⁺	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	合计	HCO₃^-	Cl^-	SO₄^2-	NO^3-	合计	离子总量
T1	10.87 bc	71.50 ab	123.68 d	18.84 b	224.89 d	103.27 a	14.42 bc	161.13 c	53.41 b	332.22 b	557.12 d
T2	9.49 c	77.42 ab	243.01 b	18.68 b	348.60 b	70.57 b	20.26 ab	322.80 a	71.24 b	484.86 a	833.46 b
T3	7.10 c	58.38 b	57.20 e	9.50 c	132.18 e	92.94 ab	6.98 c	84.38 d	17.41 c	201.71 c	333.89 e
T4	13.94 b	80.64 a	138.20 c	28.97 ab	261.75 c	88.16 ab	19.97 ab	292.53 a	73.17 b	473.82 a	735.58 c
CK	19.54 a	73.73 ab	404.42 a	42.24 a	539.93 a	96.38 a	23.35 a	247.03 b	143.69 a	510.44 a	1050.37 a

处理	果形指数	单果重/g	产量/(t/hm²)
T1	1.33 a	422.47 c	56.71 c
T2	1.34 a	424.92 c	55.46 c
T3	1.32 a	432.69 b	60.34 b
T4	1.31 a	449.10 a	63.84 a
CK	1.30 a	403.48 d	52.76 d