Two Soil Compound Amendments: Improvement and Fertility Effect on Coastal Saline Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0486

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the improvement and fertility effects of two soil compound amendments (composed of microbial agents and decomposed garden wastes) on saline soil, this study used the 60-day indoor constant temperature (30℃) cultivation method to study the physical and chemical properties of saline-alkali soil with different treatments. The results showed that: decomposed garden wastes could improve the conductivity and soil alkalinity of saline-alkaline soil, while adding different concentrations of microbial agents on the basis of decomposed garden wastes had no significant effect on the conductivity and soil alkalinity of saline-alkaline soil, indicating that the two compound amendments had no significant effect on improving the conductivity and soil alkalinity of saline-alkali soil. Adding decomposed garden wastes and two compound amendments could increase the total nitrogen, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, available phosphorus and organic matter content of saline-alkali soil, of which, A3 compound amendment had the largest increase range and the best effect. Adding decomposed garden wastes and two compound amendments all could reduce the available iron, available manganese and available copper content, and increase the available zinc content. Among them, compound amendment A had a significant effect, and A1 had the best effect. From the perspective of the number of soil bacteria, the two compound amendments could significantly increase the content of soil bacteria, and the content order was A3>B2>A2>B1>A1 and B3. The correlation analysis of soil indicators and bacteria content showed that bacterial content had a very significantly positive correlation with soil total nitrogen, available phosphorus and organic matter, and a significantly positive correlation with available potassium. In summary, the two compound amendments could significantly increase the nutrient indexes and bacterial content of saline soil, and could be applied to the improvement and remediation of saline soil, the compound modifier A3 (LX3 and decomposed garden wastes) has the best effect.

Key words: soil compound amendments, coastal saline soil, soil physical and chemical properties, soil improvement, soil fertility, microbial agents

CLC Number:

210.5045

HAN Xiaofang, TIAN Xiaoming, YANG Yongli, ZHANG Jingzhi, ZHANG Qing, ZHANG Kai, ZHANG Tao, JIA Lin. Two Soil Compound Amendments: Improvement and Fertility Effect on Coastal Saline Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(5): 54-59.

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

[1]	杨真, 王宝山. 中国盐渍土资源现状及改良利用对策[J]. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(4):131-136.
[2]	吕真真, 刘广明, 杨劲松, 等. 黄河三角洲滨海盐渍土区土壤质量综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015(6):93-97.
[3]	王洪义, 王智慧, 杨凤军, 等. 浅密式暗管排盐技术改良苏打盐碱地效应研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2013, 20(3):269-272.
[4]	张金龙, 王振宇, 张清, 等. 天津滨海新区盐碱土绿化综合治理技术研究[J]. 天津农业科学, 2012(6):153-157.
[5]	毛文娟, 李新平, 安东, 等. 不同改良剂对宁夏地区盐碱土土壤结构的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2010, 30(4):190-192.
[6]	潘峰, 刘滨辉, 袁文涛, 等. 不同改良剂对紫花苜蓿生长和盐渍化土壤的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2011, 39(5):67-68.
[7]	王金满, 杨培岭, 张建国, 等. 脱硫石膏改良碱化土壤过程中的向日葵苗期盐响应研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2005, 21(9):33-37.
[8]	黄菊莹, 余海龙, 张俊华, 等. 脱硫废弃物和专用改良剂在碱化土壤改良中的效果[J]. 土壤通报, 2011, 42(6):1467-1471.
[9]	CHEN L, RAMSIER C, BIGHAM J, et al. Oxidation of FGD-CaSO₃ and effect on soil chemical properties when applied to the soil surface[J]. Fuel, 2009, 88(7):1167-1172. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2008.07.015 URL
[10]	朱福军, 吴钦泉, 谷端银, 等. 不同腐殖酸配施钙、镁的土壤调理剂对盐碱土淋洗的影响[J]. 化肥工业, 2016, 43(5):20-26.
[11]	张伟华. 风化煤、泥炭等腐植酸物质在改良盐碱土中的应用及前景[J]. 腐植酸, 2010(1):29.
[12]	王金满, 白中科, 叶驰驱, 等. 脱硫石膏与微生物菌剂联合施用对盐碱化土壤特性的影响[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2015, 23(6):1080-1087.
[13]	逄焕成, 李玉义, 于天一, 等. 不同盐胁迫条件下微生物菌剂对土壤盐分及苜蓿生长的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011, 17(6):1403-1408.
[14]	吴卫红, 米锋, 张大红, 等. 园林绿化废弃物资源化利用产业发展模式——以北京市为例[J]. 世界林业研究, 2010, 23(5):79-82.
[15]	孙健, 罗文邃, 汪洋. 园林植物废弃物资源化利用现状与展望[C]. 2013中国环境科学学会学术年会. 2013.
[16]	李桥. 园林废弃物堆肥对绿地土壤的改良研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2009.
[17]	李国梁. 柏木低效林不同改造模式土壤微生物和土壤酶活性研究[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2012.
[18]	周文志, 孙向阳, 李素艳, 等. 生物有机材料对滨海盐碱土的改良效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(4):100-108.
[19]	吴晓卫, 付瑞敏, 郭彦钊, 等. 耐盐碱微生物复合菌剂的选育、复配及其对盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015(6):358-361.
[20]	汪立梅, 桂丕, 李化山, 等. 改良剂与微生物菌剂联合施用对盐碱地土壤和耐盐植物的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(17):264-269.
[21]	顾兵, 吕子文, 方海兰, 等. 绿化植物废弃物堆肥对城市绿地土壤的改良效果[J]. 土壤, 2009, 41(6):940-946.
[22]	严慧峻, 逄焕成, 李玉义, 等. 微生物复混肥对盐碱土及白菜品质改良的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(12):270-273.
[23]	张桂玲. 施用中度嗜盐菌盐碱地棉田细菌群落结构研究[D]. 石河子:石河子大学, 2010.
[24]	张建峰, 张嘉旭, 朱学军, 等. 微生物复合菌剂CAMP对砂质土壤改良及白菜生长的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(12):112-118.
[25]	吴左娜. 培肥方式对盐碱土壤化学指标和生物学指标的影响[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2010.
[26]	DIACONO M, MONTEMURRO F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A Review[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2010, 30(2).

处理	EC/(mS/cm)	ESP/%	SAR
CK₁	9.1±1.2 a	4.57±0.92 a	0.17±0.01a
CK₂	6.5±1.5 b	3.23±0.52 b	0.16±0.04a
A₁	8.8±0.3 a	4.79±0.79 a	0.2±0.02a
A₂	8.8±0.7 a	4.04±0.33 ab	0.15±0.02a
A₃	8.7±0.3 a	3.33±0.49 b	0.15±0.01a
B₁	8.4±0.5 ab	4.34±1.43 ab	0.16±0.05a
B₂	7±1.4 b	3.41±0.5 b	0.15±0.02a
B₃	6.5±1.2 b	4.03±0.88 a	0.15±0.03a

处理	EC/(mS/cm)	ESP/%	SAR
CK₁	9.1±1.2 a	4.57±0.92 a	0.17±0.01a
CK₂	6.5±1.5 b	3.23±0.52 b	0.16±0.04a
A₁	8.8±0.3 a	4.79±0.79 a	0.2±0.02a
A₂	8.8±0.7 a	4.04±0.33 ab	0.15±0.02a
A₃	8.7±0.3 a	3.33±0.49 b	0.15±0.01a
B₁	8.4±0.5 ab	4.34±1.43 ab	0.16±0.05a
B₂	7±1.4 b	3.41±0.5 b	0.15±0.02a
B₃	6.5±1.2 b	4.03±0.88 a	0.15±0.03a

处理	全氮/(mg/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质含量/(g/kg)
CK₁	200.3±13.26b	32.55±9.92c	140.95±3.5b	1090.8±33.19a	35.23±2.14b
CK₂	114.46±9.55c	38.15±3.85b	129.5±6.56c	664.4±14.11b	23.89±2.22c
A₁	199.06±11.24b	43.5±18.15b	161.01±6.98a	1078±18.79a	38.1±0.3a
A₂	212.58±19.44a	48.15±12.25ab	166.52±10.91a	1054.2±10.28a	39.6±1.86a
A₃	229±22.88a	45.97±17.68b	168.11±4.25a	1048.2±16.34a	42.81±3.87a
B₁	201.73±16.01b	44.92±15.46b	156.8±6.59a	1055.6±12.69a	39.52±5.4a
B₂	208.39±13.88ab	53.43±7.01a	157.4±1.56a	1036.6±13.36a	40.39±0.93a
B₃	226.21±33.61a	44.65±18.59b	151.96±7.54a	1071.7±16.5a	41.57±5.94a

处理	全氮/(mg/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质含量/(g/kg)
CK₁	200.3±13.26b	32.55±9.92c	140.95±3.5b	1090.8±33.19a	35.23±2.14b
CK₂	114.46±9.55c	38.15±3.85b	129.5±6.56c	664.4±14.11b	23.89±2.22c
A₁	199.06±11.24b	43.5±18.15b	161.01±6.98a	1078±18.79a	38.1±0.3a
A₂	212.58±19.44a	48.15±12.25ab	166.52±10.91a	1054.2±10.28a	39.6±1.86a
A₃	229±22.88a	45.97±17.68b	168.11±4.25a	1048.2±16.34a	42.81±3.87a
B₁	201.73±16.01b	44.92±15.46b	156.8±6.59a	1055.6±12.69a	39.52±5.4a
B₂	208.39±13.88ab	53.43±7.01a	157.4±1.56a	1036.6±13.36a	40.39±0.93a
B₃	226.21±33.61a	44.65±18.59b	151.96±7.54a	1071.7±16.5a	41.57±5.94a

处理	有效铁	有效锰	有效铜	有效锌
CK₁	22.77±2.92a	10.43±0.78a	2.61±0.1a	3.23±0.48a
CK₂	24.87±1.1a	9.05±0.28b	2.69±0.14a	2.35±0.08b
A₁	18.17±3.06b	9.98±0.45b	2.46±0.34b	3.07±0.42a
A₂	19±2.34b	9.47±0.9b	2.53±0.22ab	2.96±0.21a
A₃	18.4±0.56b	9.17±0.13b	2.4±0.07b	2.79±0.2ab
B₁	20.4±0.96ab	10.7±1.35a	2.67±0.12a	3.2±0.11a
B₂	22.9±0.4a	10.21±0.61ab	2.87±0.11a	3.19±0.2a
B₃	22.43±1.31a	10.78±0.94a	2.74±0.07a	3.08±0.05a