The Technology of Reducing Chemical Fertilizer and Increasing Economic Benefit of Protected Peach in Sandy Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0140

Abstract

Abstract:

Excessive use of chemical fertilizers is common in protected cultivation of peach in sandy soil. It is necessary to explore the technology of reducing chemical fertilizer and increasing economic benefit. A field experiment was carried out in a greenhouse to study the effects of commercial organic fertilizer (OF), bio-organic fertilizer (BOF), balanced fertilization (BF) and integrated mode of fertilization technology (MF) under the condition of reducing chemical fertilizer nutrients by 30% on peach yield, fruit quality and soil properties. Compared with conventional fertilization (CK), OF, BOF, BF and MF treatments increased peach yield by 4.5%, 3.4%, 1.5% and 9.1%, respectively. MF treatment significantly increased yield. OF and MF treatments improved fruit soluble sugar and nitrate, while BF treatment significantly improved fruit nitrate. BF and BOF treatments significantly reduced the excess available P, available K and salt content in soil. OF and MF treatments decreased available P and K content but slightly increased nitrate N content and significantly increased organic matter content. MF treatment had the best improving effect on soil microbial abundance, activity, and diversity, followed by BOF and OF treatments, and finally was BF treatment. Correlation analysis showed that the improvement of fruit yield and quality was mainly attributed to the decrease of soil available P, available K, and salt content and the significant improvement of soil biological fertility. According to fertilizer costs and economic benefits, MF treatment increased income by 8300 yuan/hm², followed by BOF treatment (5400 yuan/hm²) and BF treatment (5300 yuan/hm²), and finally OF treatment (2000 yuan/hm²). Therefore, the integrated mode of organic fertilizer, bio-organic fertilizer, and balanced fertilization is suitable for protected cultivation of peach in sandy soil.

Key words: greenhouse, peach, fertilizer, soil properties, yield

CLC Number:

S146S662.1

Qiu Meihua, Guo Dejie, Ma Yan, Wang Guangfei, Liang Yonghong. The Technology of Reducing Chemical Fertilizer and Increasing Economic Benefit of Protected Peach in Sandy Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(17): 58-64.

Figures/Tables 10

References 27

[1]	董亮, 王学君, 孙泽强, 等. 东营市农高区果树产地土壤环境状况分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(1):178-182.
[2]	柴全喜, 宋素智, 张彦武, 等. 果树设施栽培土壤盐渍化的原因及预防[J]. 西北园艺, 2002(4):26-27.
[3]	倪志华, 李晶, 廖娇, 等. 果树根际微生态研究现状及展望[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2010,12(4):34-38.
[4]	汪吉东, 曹云, 常志州, 等. 沼液配施化肥对太湖地区水蜜桃品质及土壤氮素累积的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013,19(2):379-386.
[5]	刘亚柏, 刘伟忠, 郭建, 等. 几种有机肥在有机桃树(拂晓)上的应用效果[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2014,30(6):1531-1533.
[6]	党祝庆, 王娜娜, 张亚飞, 等. 不同施肥模式对桃幼树根系生长与氮素吸收分配的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015,29(4):171-176.
[7]	孔祥银, 李艳萍, 王胜涛, 等. 京郊桃园养分投入对土壤养分和桃果品质的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2010,41(2):355-361.
[8]	王金云, 程宪国, 郭继斌, 等. 设施桃园土壤养分变化规律及评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2017(3):96-103.
[9]	Niederholzer F J A, DeJong T M, Saenz J L, et al. Effectiveness of fall versus spring soil fertilization of field-grown peach trees[J]. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2001,126(5):644-648. doi: 10.21273/JASHS.126.5.644 URL
[10]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007: 30-106.
[11]	Wang Q, Ma Y, Wang G, et al. Integration of biofumigation with antagonistic microorganism can control Phytophthora blight of pepper plants by regulating soil bacterial community structure[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2014,61:58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2013.12.004 URL
[12]	张红, 吕家珑, 曹莹菲, 等. 不同植物秸秆腐解特性与土壤微生物功能多样研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2014,51(4):743-752.
[13]	王学奎, 黄见良. 植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M]. 高等教育出版社, 2006.
[14]	王艳萍, 高吉喜, 刘尚华, 等. 有机肥对桃园土壤硝态氮分布的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008,19(7):1501-1505.
[15]	宁川川, 王建武, 蔡昆争. 有机肥对土壤肥力和土壤环境质量的影响研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016(1):175-181.
[16]	高伟, 陈岩, 严长安, 等. 长江经济带氮淋溶流失空间格局及其水环境影响评估[J]. 环境科学学报, 2020,40(1):325-333.
[17]	吴月燕, 刘秀莲. 氮磷钾对南方设施油桃生长和结果的影响[J]. 上海农业学报, 2007,23(2):85-89.
[18]	蔡海洋, 陈雪芸, 易江婷, 等. 施用不同磷肥对植烟土壤中磷的淋失和有效磷的影响[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2009,9(6):6-9.
[19]	Kristoffersen A V, Krogstad T, Gaard A F. Prediction of available phosphorus in soil: Combined use for crop production and water quality protection[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2020(4):1575-1584.
[20]	唐玉姝, 魏朝富, 颜廷梅, 等. 土壤质量生物学指标研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2007,39(2):157-163.
[21]	Sharma S K, Ramesh A, Sharma M P, et al. Microbial community structure and diversity as indicators for evaluating soil quality[M]// Biodiversity, biofuels, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. Springer,Dordrecht, 2010: 317-358.
[22]	张姗姗, 赵凡, 邓岚, 等. 不同微生物肥料对西藏桃品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2016,6(11):27-31.
[23]	刘春燕, 周龙, 陈冬立, 等. 生物菌肥对桃土壤肥力及地上部的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2020,54(4):597-603.
[24]	付丽军, 张爱敏, 王向东, 等. 生物有机肥改良设施蔬菜土壤的研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(3):1-5.
[25]	王艳廷, 冀晓昊, 吴玉森, 等. 我国果园生草的研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015,26(6):1892-1900.
[26]	李传友, 熊波, 张莉, 等. 桃园残枝粉碎还田改善土壤理化性状提高桃品质[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016,32(14):161-167.
[27]	张亚飞, 罗静静, 彭福田, 等. 肥料袋控缓释对桃树根系生长、氮素吸收利用及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017,50(24):4769-4778.

供试有机肥	pH	含水量/%	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)
干牛粪	7.85	21.4	595.9	18.40	10.21	19.69
商品有机肥	7.94	29.3	484.3	13.87	11.89	26.61

供试有机肥	pH	含水量/%	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)
干牛粪	7.85	21.4	595.9	18.40	10.21	19.69
商品有机肥	7.94	29.3	484.3	13.87	11.89	26.61

处理	底肥				花前期追肥	膨大前期追肥	膨大后期追肥		化肥投入养分	有机肥投入养分	总投入养分
处理	干牛粪	商品有机肥	生物有机肥	15-15-15	25-13-7	16-6-24	12-8-40	16-8-34	化肥投入养分	有机肥投入养分	总投入养分
CK	12000			1800		840	210		1318	456	1774
OF		24000		1260		588	147		923	889	1811
BOF	12000		6000	1260		588	147		923	678	1600
BF	12000			900	360	600		135	921	456	1377
MF		18000	6000	900	360	600		135	921	889	1810

处理	底肥				花前期追肥	膨大前期追肥	膨大后期追肥		化肥投入养分	有机肥投入养分	总投入养分
处理	干牛粪	商品有机肥	生物有机肥	15-15-15	25-13-7	16-6-24	12-8-40	16-8-34	化肥投入养分	有机肥投入养分	总投入养分
CK	12000			1800		840	210		1318	456	1774
OF		24000		1260		588	147		923	889	1811
BOF	12000		6000	1260		588	147		923	678	1600
BF	12000			900	360	600		135	921	456	1377
MF		18000	6000	900	360	600		135	921	889	1810

处理	可溶性糖/%	可滴定酸/%	硝酸盐/(mg/kg)
CK	7.97±1.20a	0.224±0.010a	138.9±14.3a
OF	8.62±1.10a	0.218±0.017a	116.1±12.7ab
BOF	7.85±0.44a	0.218±0.015a	90.3±20.3bc
BF	7.36±0.75a	0.227±0.017a	80.4±13.0c
MF	8.75±0.76a	0.215±0.020a	101.4±18.1bc