The Effects of Chemical Fertilizer and Pig Manure on Winter Wheat Yield and Quality

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0225

Abstract

Abstract:

The effects of pig manure and chemical fertilizer of different amounts on wheat grain yield and quality were comprehensively analyzed to provide a scientific nutrient management basis for improving wheat nutrition and procession quality. Winter wheat cultivar ‘Yannong 19’ was used as the test material in a field experiment. Pig manure and chemical fertilizer were applied at the N rate of 0, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, 500 and 600 kg/hm ². The results showed that the type and rate of nitrogen had significant effects on the yield and quality of wheat. Pig manure N and chemical fertilizer N could significantly improve the yield and quality, and the promotion effect was similar. There were significant correlations between the nitrogen rate and crude protein, wet gluten, sedimentation value, 1000-grain weight, falling number, formation time, stable time, weakening degree, farinograph quality index, the maximum tensile resistance and tensile area, and there was significant correlation among these quality indexes. There was no significant correlation between the nitrogen rate and gluten index, hardness index, bulk density, water absorption, 50 mm tensile resistance and elongation, and there was significant correlation between these indexes and other quality indexes. According to cluster analysis, the 19 fertilization treatments were divided into 2 categories. The yield and quality were poor when the pig manure N was lower than 240 kg/hm² or the chemical fertilizer N was lower than 180 kg/hm². When the pig manure N was ≥240 kg/hm ² or the chemical fertilizer N was ≥180 kg/hm ², the wheat yield and quality were high. Therefore, when the pig manure N was 240 kg/hm² or the chemical fertilizer N was 180 kg/hm², the yield and quality could increase together.

Key words: chemical fertilizer, pig manure, winter wheat, yield, quality

CLC Number:

SUN Wenyan, YIN Hongjuan, TIAN Changyu, XU Jiukai, ZHAO Bingqiang, TANG Jiwei. The Effects of Chemical Fertilizer and Pig Manure on Winter Wheat Yield and Quality[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(3): 1-10.

Figures/Tables 8

References 26

[1]	王美芳, 雷振生, 吴政卿, 等. 黄淮冬麦区小麦产量及品质改良现状分析[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2013, 33(2):290-295.
[2]	曹卫星, 郭文善, 王龙俊, 等. 小麦品质生理生态及调优技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[3]	朱兆良. 中国土壤氮素研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):778-782.
[4]	王晓婧. 不同小麦品种氮素吸收利用特性和品质差异分析[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2017.
[5]	杨延兵, 高荣岐, 尹燕枰, 等. 不同品质类型冬小麦籽粒产量和品质性状对氮肥的响应[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2004, 24(2):97-102.
[6]	张秀. 施氮量对不同强筋小麦品种产量氮素吸收利用和品质的影响[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2018.
[7]	徐凤娇, 赵广才, 田奇卓, 等. 施氮量对不同品质类型小麦产量和加工品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18(2):300-306.
[8]	刘霞, 李青常, 王振林, 等. 施氮水平对小麦子粒蛋白质组分和加工品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007, 13(1):70-76.
[9]	赵广才, 常旭虹, 杨玉双, 等. 追氮量对不同品质类型小麦产量和品质的调节效应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(4):859-865.
[10]	赵广才, 常旭虹, 刘利华, 等. 施氮量对不同强筋小麦产量和加工品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2006, 32(5):723-727.
[11]	Lin Z A, Chang, X H, Wang D M, et al. Long-term fertilization effects on processing quality of wheat grain in the North China Plain[J]. Field Crops Research, 2015, 174:55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.01.008 URL
[12]	孙文彦, 赵秉强, 田昌玉, 等. 氮肥类型和用量对冬小麦品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013(6):1297-1311.
[13]	李燕青, 林治安, 温延臣, 等. 不同类型有机肥与化肥配施对小麦品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(6):1513-1522.
[14]	林治安, 赵秉强, 袁亮, 等. 长期定位施肥对土壤养分与作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42(8):2809-2819.
[15]	刘守龙, 童成立, 吴金水, 等. 等氮条件下有机无机肥配比对水稻产量的影响探讨[J]. 土壤学报, 2007, 44(1):106-112.
[16]	ZHANG H, XU M, ZHANG F. Long-term effects of manure application on grain yield under different cropping systems and ecological conditions in China[J]. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2009, 147(1):31-42. doi: 10.1017/S0021859608008265 URL
[17]	CAI Z C, QIN S W. Dynamics of crop yields and soil organic carbon in a long-term fertilization experiment in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China[J]. Geoderma, 2006, 136(3):708-715. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.05.008 URL
[18]	田昌玉, 唐继伟, 李建华, 等. 有机无机肥料氮结合的环境安全阈值[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(22):69-77.
[19]	李玲玲. 有机肥氮素有效性和替代化肥氮比例研究[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2011.
[20]	李燕青. 不同类型有机肥与化肥配施的农学和环境效应研究[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2016.
[21]	赵明, 陈雪辉, 赵征宇, 等. 鸡粪等有机肥料的养分释放及对土壤有效铜锌铁锰含量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007, 15(2):47-50.
[22]	唐继伟, 徐久凯, 温延臣, 等. 长期单施有机肥和化肥对土壤养分和小麦产量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(11):1827-1834.
[23]	周羊梅, 顾正中, 王安邦, 等. 播期、密度和氮肥运筹对高产品种淮麦33产量和品质的调控[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(19):1-5.
[24]	王月福, 于振文, 李尚霞, 等. 施氮量对小麦籽粒蛋白质组分含量及加工品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2002, 35(9):1071-1078.
[25]	葛鑫, 戴其根, 张洪程, 等. 施氮方式对强筋小麦济南17产量和品质的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2003(4):104-108.
[26]	李晓航, 王映红. 基于秩相关和聚类分析的小麦品质分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(19):141-144.

	粗蛋白	湿面筋	面筋指数	沉降值	硬度指数	容重	千粒重	降落数值	吸水率	形成时间	稳定时间	弱化度	粉质质量指数	50 mm 拉伸阻力	最大拉伸阻力	延伸度	拉伸面积
粗蛋白	1
湿面筋	0.997^***	1
面筋指数	-0.284 ns	-0.276 ns	1
沉降值	0.837^***	0.851^***	-0.332ns	1
硬度指数	-0.070ns	-0.039ns	0.095 ns	0.061ns	1
容重	-0.158ns	-0.176ns	-0.025ns	-0.111ns	0.145ns	1
千粒重	-0.819^**	-0.830^**	0.147ns	-0.780^**	-0.184ns	0.502^*	1
降落数值	0.497^*	0.527^*	0.077ns	0.480^*	0.164ns	-0.452ns	-0.702^**	1
吸水率	-0.271ns	-0.256ns	-0.215ns	-0.073 ns	0.168ns	0.217ns	0.268ns	-0.116ns	1
形成时间	0.732^***	0.732^***	-0.064ns	0.708^***	-0.196ns	-0.564^*	-0.757^**	0.472^*	-0.391 ns	1
稳定时间	0.842^***	0.843^***	-0.190ns	0.844^***	0.066ns	-0.311ns	-0.872^**	0.504^*	-0.459^*	0.822^***	1
弱化度	-0.882^***	-0.886^***	0.185ns	-0.805^***	-0.173ns	0.259ns	0.892^**	-0.537^*	0.424ns	-0.740^***	-0.951^***	1
粉质质量指数	0.834^***	0.840^***	-0.145ns	0.818^***	0.098ns	-0.328ns	-0.877^**	0.520^*	-0.469^*	0.809^***	0.987^***	-0.955^***	1
50 mm拉伸阻力	0.151 ns	0.176 ns	0.115ns	0.194ns	-0.014ns	-0.147ns	-0.301ns	0.563^*	0.022ns	0.179 ns	0.156 ns	-0.179 ns	0.188 ns	1
最大拉伸阻力	0.583^**	0.603^**	-0.132ns	0.583^**	-0.040ns	-0.210ns	-0.660^**	0.669^*	-0.241ns	0.496^*	0.629^**	-0.635^**	0.646^**	0.799^***	1
延伸度	0.467^*	0.446^*	-0.342ns	0.348ns	-0.069 ns	-0.033ns	-0.301ns	-0.081ns	-0.411ns	0.293 ns	0.513^*	-0.493^*	0.481^*	-0.643^**	-0.071ns	1
拉伸面积	0.793^***	0.800^***	-0.299ns	0.723^***	-0.062 ns	-0.192 ns	-0.753^**	0.553^*	-0.444ns	0.592^**	0.840^***	-0.840^***	0.840^***	0.322ns	0.818^***	0.508^*	1

	粗蛋白	湿面筋	面筋指数	沉降值	硬度指数	容重	千粒重	降落数值	吸水率	形成时间	稳定时间	弱化度	粉质质量指数	50 mm 拉伸阻力	最大拉伸阻力	延伸度	拉伸面积
粗蛋白	1
湿面筋	0.997^***	1
面筋指数	-0.284 ns	-0.276 ns	1
沉降值	0.837^***	0.851^***	-0.332ns	1
硬度指数	-0.070ns	-0.039ns	0.095 ns	0.061ns	1
容重	-0.158ns	-0.176ns	-0.025ns	-0.111ns	0.145ns	1
千粒重	-0.819^**	-0.830^**	0.147ns	-0.780^**	-0.184ns	0.502^*	1
降落数值	0.497^*	0.527^*	0.077ns	0.480^*	0.164ns	-0.452ns	-0.702^**	1
吸水率	-0.271ns	-0.256ns	-0.215ns	-0.073 ns	0.168ns	0.217ns	0.268ns	-0.116ns	1
形成时间	0.732^***	0.732^***	-0.064ns	0.708^***	-0.196ns	-0.564^*	-0.757^**	0.472^*	-0.391 ns	1
稳定时间	0.842^***	0.843^***	-0.190ns	0.844^***	0.066ns	-0.311ns	-0.872^**	0.504^*	-0.459^*	0.822^***	1
弱化度	-0.882^***	-0.886^***	0.185ns	-0.805^***	-0.173ns	0.259ns	0.892^**	-0.537^*	0.424ns	-0.740^***	-0.951^***	1
粉质质量指数	0.834^***	0.840^***	-0.145ns	0.818^***	0.098ns	-0.328ns	-0.877^**	0.520^*	-0.469^*	0.809^***	0.987^***	-0.955^***	1
50 mm拉伸阻力	0.151 ns	0.176 ns	0.115ns	0.194ns	-0.014ns	-0.147ns	-0.301ns	0.563^*	0.022ns	0.179 ns	0.156 ns	-0.179 ns	0.188 ns	1
最大拉伸阻力	0.583^**	0.603^**	-0.132ns	0.583^**	-0.040ns	-0.210ns	-0.660^**	0.669^*	-0.241ns	0.496^*	0.629^**	-0.635^**	0.646^**	0.799^***	1
延伸度	0.467^*	0.446^*	-0.342ns	0.348ns	-0.069 ns	-0.033ns	-0.301ns	-0.081ns	-0.411ns	0.293 ns	0.513^*	-0.493^*	0.481^*	-0.643^**	-0.071ns	1
拉伸面积	0.793^***	0.800^***	-0.299ns	0.723^***	-0.062 ns	-0.192 ns	-0.753^**	0.553^*	-0.444ns	0.592^**	0.840^***	-0.840^***	0.840^***	0.322ns	0.818^***	0.508^*	1

氮肥类型	粗蛋白质	湿面筋	面筋指数	沉降值	硬度指数	容重	千粒重	降落数值	吸水率	形成时间	稳定时间	弱化度	粉质质量指数	50 mm拉伸阻力	最大拉伸阻力	延伸度	拉伸面积
猪粪氮	0.977^***	0.976^***	-0.082ns	0.898^***	0.039ns	-0.365ns	-0.842^**	0.826^**	-0.344ns	0.852^**	0.841^**	-0.856^**	0.864^**	0.444ns	0.806^**	0.370ns	0.884^***
化肥氮	0.895^***	0.878^***	-0.120ns	0.659^*	-0.103ns	0.452ns	-0.595^*	0.367 ns	-0.443ns	0.782^**	0.815^**	-0.779^**	0.732^*	-0.189ns	0.274^*	0.582ns	0.655^*

氮肥类型	粗蛋白质	湿面筋	面筋指数	沉降值	硬度指数	容重	千粒重	降落数值	吸水率	形成时间	稳定时间	弱化度	粉质质量指数	50 mm拉伸阻力	最大拉伸阻力	延伸度	拉伸面积
猪粪氮	0.977^***	0.976^***	-0.082ns	0.898^***	0.039ns	-0.365ns	-0.842^**	0.826^**	-0.344ns	0.852^**	0.841^**	-0.856^**	0.864^**	0.444ns	0.806^**	0.370ns	0.884^***
化肥氮	0.895^***	0.878^***	-0.120ns	0.659^*	-0.103ns	0.452ns	-0.595^*	0.367 ns	-0.443ns	0.782^**	0.815^**	-0.779^**	0.732^*	-0.189ns	0.274^*	0.582ns	0.655^*