Effects of Plastic Film Mulching on Soil Carbon Fixation Capacity and Fertility Level in Eastern Qinghai

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0007

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effect of single application of chemical fertilizer on soil carbon fixation capacity and soil fertility under plastic film mulching in eastern Qinghai, and provide a theoretical basis for the sustainable development of plastic film mulching cultivation mode in this area, the effects of single application of chemical fertilizer under film mulching on soil organic carbon (SOC), labile organic carbon (LOC), carbon pool management index (CMI), extractable humus carbon (C_HE), humic acid carbon (C_HA) and fulvic acid carbon (C_FA) in the cultivated layer (0-20 cm) were studied in dryland maize field for three consecutive years. The results showed that SOC, LOC and CMI of the treatment group were lower than those of the open field control group; C_HE, C_HA and C_FA increased with the increase of planting years, but the increase degree was generally less than that of the open field control. With the increase of planting years, by 2020, the LOC/SOC value of plastic film mulched soil decreased by 4.97%, while that of open field control increased by 1.11%; meanwhile, the organic carbon oxidation stability coefficient (KOS) of plastic film mulching group was higher than that of open field control; the C_HA/C_FA value and PQ value of soil were higher than that of open field control. Under the single fertilizer application, the continuous plastic film mulching cultivation mode could reduce soil carbon fixation capacity and and soil organic carbon tends to be stable, which is not conducive to biological utilization and could reduce the soil fertility and degrade the soil quality, causing adverse effects on the stability of crop yield and sustainable production in the long run．

Key words: soil, carbon fixation capacity, fertility level, organic carbon, humus, plastic film mulching

CLC Number:

S157

Yang Kai, Hu Qinglan, Wang Jingui. Effects of Plastic Film Mulching on Soil Carbon Fixation Capacity and Fertility Level in Eastern Qinghai[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(33): 105-111.

Figures/Tables 5

References 43

[1]	褚慧, 宗良纲, 汪张懿, 等. 不同种植模式下菜地土壤腐殖质组分特性的动态变化[J]. 土壤学报, 2013, 50(5):931-939.
[2]	Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change[J]. Geoderma, 2004, 123(1-2):1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032 URL
[3]	Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z C, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture[J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 2008, 363:789-813. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2184 URL
[4]	Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security[J]. Science, 2004, 304:1623-1627. pmid: 15192216
[5]	龚伟, 颜晓元, 王景燕, 等. 长期施肥对小麦-玉米作物系统土壤腐殖质组分碳和氮的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009, 15(6):1245-1252.
[6]	陈兰, 唐晓红, 魏朝富. 土壤腐殖质结构的光谱学研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(8):233-239.
[7]	钱成, 彭岳林, 贾钧彦, 等. 西藏高原退化土壤的生物学肥力及其变化特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2006, 17(7):1185-1190.
[8]	于淑芳, 杨力, 张玉兰, 等. 长期施肥对土壤腐殖质组成的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2002, 33(3):165-167.
[9]	Xing B. Sorption of naphthalene and phenanthrene by soil humic acids[J]. Environmental Pollution,200, 111:303-309. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00065-8 URL
[10]	李默隐. 地膜覆盖栽培对土壤温度、容重、水分及烟叶产量的效应[J]. 土壤通报, 1983, 14(1):27-29.
[11]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005:30-172.
[12]	Logninow W, Wisniewski W, Strong W M. Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation[J]. Polish Journal of Soil Science, 1987, 20(1):47-52.
[13]	Kumada K, Sato O, Ohsumi Y, et al. Humus composition of mountain soils in central Japan with special reference to the distribution of P type humic acid[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1967, 13(5):151-158. doi: 10.1080/00380768.1967.10431990 URL
[14]	邱莉萍, 张兴昌, 程积民. 土地利用方式对土壤有机质及其碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国环境科学, 2009, 29(1):84-89.
[15]	徐明岗, 于荣, 孙小凤, 等. 长期施肥对我国典型土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006, 12(4):459-465.
[16]	Blair G J, Lefroy R D B, Lisle L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation,and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46:1459-1466. doi: 10.1071/AR9951459 URL
[17]	佟小刚, 韩新辉, 杨改河, 等. 碳库管理指数对退耕还林土壤有机碳库变化的指示作用[J]. 中国环境科学, 2013, 33(3):466-473.
[18]	Haynes R J. Labile organic matter as an indicator of organic matter quality in arable and pastoral soils in New Zealand[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2000, 32:211-219. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00148-0 URL
[19]	Luan J W, Xiang C H, Liu S R, et al. Assessments of the impacts of Chinese fir plantation and natural regenerated forest on soil organic matter quality at Longmen mountain, Sichuan, China[J]. Geoderma, 2010, 156:228-236. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.02.021 URL
[20]	Lefroy R D B, Blair G J, Strong W M, Changes in soil organic matter with cropping as measure by organic carbon fractions and 13C natural isotope abundance[J]. Plant and Soil, 1993, 155/156:399-402. doi: 10.1007/BF00025067 URL
[21]	Lefroy R D B, Lisle L. Soil organic carbon changes in cracking clay soils under cotton production as studied by carbon fractionation[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 48:1049-1058. doi: 10.1071/A96177 URL
[22]	沈宏, 曹志洪, 徐志红. 施肥对土壤不同碳形态及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2000, 37(5):166-173.
[23]	于树. 长期不同施肥处理及地膜覆盖对棕壤有机碳组分及微生物多样性的影响[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2009.
[24]	Leifeld J, Kögel-Knabner I. Soil organic matter fractions as early indicators for carbon stock changes under different land use[J]. Geoderma, 2005, 124:143-155. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.04.009 URL
[25]	孟安华, 吴景贵. 不同处理牛粪对植菜土壤腐殖质结构特征的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(4):223-228,266.
[26]	江泽普, 黄绍民, 韦广泼, 等. 不同免耕模式对水稻产量及土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(12):362-365.
[27]	曹正梅, 董树亭. 覆膜栽培玉米的土壤生态效应研究进展[J]. 山东农业大学学报, 1999, 30(4)489-492.
[28]	汪景宽, 张继宏, 须湘成. 地膜覆盖对土壤有机质转化的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 1990, 21(4):189-193.
[29]	刘颖川, 杨凯, 叶哲隆, 等. 青海东部地区地膜覆盖条件下土壤有机碳矿化对温度变化的响应[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(11):143-148.
[30]	钦绳武, 顾益初, 朱兆良. 潮土肥力演变与施肥作用的长期定位试验初报[J]. 土壤学报, 1998, 35(3):367-375.
[31]	史吉平, 张夫道, 林葆. 长期施肥对土壤有机质及生物学特性的影响[J]. 土壤肥料, 1998,(3):7-11.
[32]	王薇, 李絮花, 章燕平, 等. 长期定位施肥对盐化潮土土壤腐殖质组分的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2008,(3):65-67.
[33]	姚铁, 李俊华, 池静波, 等. 不同培肥条件下土壤腐殖质的变化研究[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2001, 24(3):32-38.
[34]	张夫道. 长期施肥条件下土壤养分的动态和平衡Ⅰ.对土壤腐殖质积累及其品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1995, 1(3-4):10-21.
[35]	吕家珑, 张一平, 王旭东, 等. 长期单施化肥对土壤性状及作物产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2001, 12(4):569-572.
[36]	张春霞, 郝明德, 谢佰承. 不同化肥用量对土壤碳库的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2006, 37(5):861-864.
[37]	陈立新, 宋志韬, 纪萱. 红松人工林腐殖质组成及其结合形态研究[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2007, 5(3):39-44.
[38]	Davies G, Ghabbour E A. Humic substances:structures, properties and uses[M]. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1998,1113-1221.
[39]	李楠, 吴景贵, 夏海丰. 傅立叶变换红外光谱法表征玉米秆茬培肥土壤胡敏酸的变化[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007, 13(5):974-978.
[40]	窦森, 于水强, 张晋京. 不同CO₂浓度对玉米秸秆分解期间土壤腐殖质形成的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2007, 44(3):458-466.
[41]	Stevenson J. Humus chemistry[M]. Chichester, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 1982:195-220.
[42]	李海波, 韩晓增, 王风, 等. 不同土地利用下黑土密度分组中碳、氮的分配变化[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(1):112-119.
[43]	古小治, 章钢娅, 俞元春, 等. 滨海水稻土腐殖质的组成及随种稻时间演变的研究初报[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(4):635-640.

栽培模式	土壤有机碳含量
栽培模式	2018 年	2019年	2020 年
OF	10.23±0.13a	10.24±0.26a	10.26±0.17a
FM	10.22±0.12a	10.20±0.19a	10.15±0.20a

栽培模式	土壤有机碳含量
栽培模式	2018 年	2019年	2020 年
OF	10.23±0.13a	10.24±0.26a	10.26±0.17a
FM	10.22±0.12a	10.20±0.19a	10.15±0.20a

处理	SOC/(g/kg)	LOC/(g/kg)	CPI	L	LI	CMI
CK	10.23	3.10	1.000	0.430	1.000	100.00
FM2018	10.22	2.98	0.999	0.412	0.957	95.63
FM2019	10.20	2.96	0.997	0.409	0.951	94.80
FM2020	10.15	2.93	0.992	0.406	0.944	93.64
OF2018	10.23	3.10	1.000	0.435	1.011	101.11
OF2019	10.24	3.11	1.001	0.436	1.014	101.54
OF2020	10.26	3.13	1.003	0.439	1.021	102.39

处理	SOC/(g/kg)	LOC/(g/kg)	CPI	L	LI	CMI
CK	10.23	3.10	1.000	0.430	1.000	100.00
FM2018	10.22	2.98	0.999	0.412	0.957	95.63
FM2019	10.20	2.96	0.997	0.409	0.951	94.80
FM2020	10.15	2.93	0.992	0.406	0.944	93.64
OF2018	10.23	3.10	1.000	0.435	1.011	101.11
OF2019	10.24	3.11	1.001	0.436	1.014	101.54
OF2020	10.26	3.13	1.003	0.439	1.021	102.39

年份	栽培模式	可提取腐殖质碳	胡敏酸碳	富里酸碳
2018	OF	3.79±0.22b	1.28±0.25a	2.51±0.21ab
2018	FM	3.62±0.18b	1.35±0.13a	2.27±0.22b
2019	OF	3.91±0.19ab	1.33±0.15a	2.58±0.22ab
2019	FM	3.76±0.21b	1.37±0.19a	2.39±0.14b
2020	OF	4.15±0.15a	1.35±0.16a	2.80±0.17a
2020	FM	3.85±0.12ab	1.42±0.15a	2.43±0.20ab