Assessment of Physical Quality of Farmland Soil on the Eastern Loess Plateau Under Different Summer Crops-Winter Wheat Farming Systems

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0488

Abstract

Abstract:

The degradation of farmland soil physical quality is one of the important factors limiting agricultural production on the eastern Loess Plateau. A reasonable farming system could improve soil physical quality. This experiment was carried out with three different farming systems since 2016, including continuous summer mung bean-winter wheat (MB-WW, T₁), 2 years’ summer maize-winter wheat + 2 years’ summer mung bean-winter wheat (2a SC-WW+2a MB-WW, T₂) and continuous summer fallow-winter wheat (SF-WW, T₃). In the 3^rd and 4^th year of the experiment, soil physical quality was assessed to find a potential farming system for improving soil quality in this region. The results showed that under T₁, the capillary porosity in the 0-30 cm of soil profile after harvest of winter wheat increased significantly by 19.20%-28.49% and 18.86%-31.86% compared with that under T₂ and T₃, respectively. In addition, compared with those of T₂, soil water storage of T₁ significantly increased by 6.37% in the 10-20 cm soil layer after harvest of summer crops, soil mass water content increased by 7.87% and soil water storage increased by 4.70% in the 20-30 cm soil layer. However, compared with T₃, there was no significant improvement of soil bulk density, total porosity, and the deviation values of soil solid-liquid-gas phases of T₁ and T₂ after harvest of winter wheat and summer crops. In conclusion, the farming system of mung bean-winter wheat could improve soil physical quality to a certain extent, and the adoption of continuous summer mung bean-winter wheat cropping system might be one of the potential measures to improve soil physical quality of farmland on the eastern Loess Plateau.

Key words: soil degradation, farming system, summer crops, winter wheat, soil physical quality, the eastern Loess Plateau

CLC Number:

LIU Changbin, QI Zewei, MA Ru, XU Wei, ZHANG Zeyan, ZHENG Haize, XUE Jianfu. Assessment of Physical Quality of Farmland Soil on the Eastern Loess Plateau Under Different Summer Crops-Winter Wheat Farming Systems[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(11): 30-37.

Figures/Tables 6

References 29

[1]	俄胜哲, 丁宁平, 李利利, 等. 黄土高原黑垆土施肥的作物累积产量及土壤肥力贡献[J]. 土壤学报, 2018, 59(1):1-13.
[2]	WANG M, ZHANG S Q, FANG B T, et al. Effect of nitrogen applications on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of winter wheat in limited water supply[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2007, 23(7):349-353.
[3]	LI S X, WANG Z H, LI S Q, et al. Effect of plastic sheet mulch, wheat straw mulch, and maize growth on water loss by evaporation in dryland areas of China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2013, 116(2):39-49. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.004 URL
[4]	ELCIO L B, MIRIAM K, ARNALDO C F, et al. Soil enzyme activities under long-term tillage and crop rotation systems in subtropical agro-ecosystems[J]. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 2004, 35:300-306. doi: 10.1590/S1517-83822004000300006 URL
[5]	GOURANGA K, VERMA H N, RAVENDER, et al. Singh effects of winter crop and supplemental irrigation on crop yield,water use efficiency and profitability in rainfed rice based cropping system of eastern India[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2006, 79:280-292. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2005.03.001 URL
[6]	宋丽萍, 罗珠珠, 李玲玲, 等. 陇中黄土高原半干旱区苜蓿-作物轮作对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(7):12-20.
[7]	秦舒浩, 曹莉, 张俊莲, 等. 轮作豆科植物对马铃薯连作田土壤速效养分及理化性质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(8):1452-1458.
[8]	ZUAZO V H D, PLEGUEZUELO C R R, FLANAGAN D, et al. Sustainable land use and agricultural soil[M]. Springer Netherlands, 2011, 6:107-192.
[9]	马雪华. 森林水文学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1993.
[10]	刘国顺, 罗贞宝, 王岩, 等. 绿肥翻压对烟田土壤理化性状及土壤微生物量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(1):95-98.
[11]	刘莹, 李洁, 等. 黄河故道区域不同种植模式及秸秆还田方式对土壤的改良效果[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(6):109-115.
[12]	杨曾平. 长期冬种绿肥对红壤性水稻土质量和生产力可持续性影响的研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2011.
[13]	陈丹梅, 陈晓明, 梁永江, 等. 轮作对土壤养分、微生物活性及细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(12):56-65.
[14]	杨磊, 冯青郁, 陈利顶. 黄土高原水土保持工程措施的生态系统服务[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(1):87-95.
[15]	柏炜霞, 李军, 王玉玲, 等. 渭北旱塬小麦玉米轮作区不同耕作方式对土壤水分和作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(5):880-894.
[16]	何如, 王立, 杨彩红, 等. 绿洲灌区种植模式对土壤物理性质与有机碳的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(4):96-102.
[17]	傅子洹, 王云强, 安芷生. 黄土区小流域土壤容重和饱和导水率的时空动态特征[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015(13):128-134.
[18]	谭雪莲, 郭天文, 张平良, 等. 不同复种油菜-轮作模式对马铃薯耗水特征及产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021(2):137-142,149.
[19]	蔡雪梅, 罗珠珠, 李玲玲, 等. 黄土高原旱作农田土壤水分对苜蓿种植年限和后茬春小麦的响应[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(9):1833-1844.
[20]	孙进, 王义炳. 稻草覆盖对旱地小麦产量与土壤环境的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 200l, 17(6):53-55.
[21]	司梦可, 曹建生, 阳辉, 等. 太行山区不同植被条件下土壤水分动态变化特征研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(11):1766-1777.
[22]	李玮, 乔玉强, 陈欢, 等. 秸秆还田和施肥对砂姜黑土理化性质及小麦-玉米产量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(17):5052-5061.
[23]	郝科栋, 郝建平, 杜天庆, 等. 回归等值线图在分析旱地蔬菜全生育期土壤水分动态变化规律中的应用[J]. 山西农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2014, 34(6):488-493.
[24]	王恩姮, 陈祥伟. 大机械作业对黑土区耕地土壤三相比与速效养分的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2007(4):98-102.
[25]	梁海, 陈宝成, 韩惠芳, 等. 深松35cm可改善潮棕壤理化性质并提高小麦和玉米产量[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(11):1879-1886.
[26]	姜雨林, 陈中督, 遆晋松, 等. 华北平原不同轮作模式固碳减排模拟研究[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2018, 23(1):19-26.
[27]	王发刚, 王启基, 王文颖, 等. 土壤有机碳研究进展[J]. 草业科学, 2008(2):48-54.
[28]	蔡进军, 张源润, 潘占兵, 等. 宁夏黄土丘陵区苜蓿土壤水分的时空变异特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2016, 23(1):75-79.
[29]	DAVID J C. Designing cropping systems for efficient use of limited water in southern Australia[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2004, 21(4):419-431. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2004.07.004 URL

土层/cm	处理	固相/%	液相/%	气相/%	R
0~10	T₁	51.44±4.16 a	32.39±1.20 a	16.16±3.59 b	10.55±1.60 a
	T₂	52.33±3.20 a	31.39±1.13 a	16.28±2.31 b	9.68±0.97 a
	T₃	45.32±0.73 b	30.37±2.39 a	24.31±3.05 a	6.63±1.57 b
10~20	T₁	56.77±0.32 a	31.32±1.19 a	11.91±1.50 b	12.70±1.59 a
	T₂	54.89±2.67 a	29.44±0.47 b	15.66±2.32 a	9.13±1.90 b
	T₃	56.39±1.46 a	31.53±0.54 a	12.07±1.72 ab	12.64±1.51 a
20~30	T₁	57.33±0.12 a	30.76±0.40 a	11.90±0.33 a	12.56±0.37 a
	T₂	59.16±2.61 a	29.38±0.27 b	11.46±2.35 a	12.79±2.17 a
	T₃	57.55±1.01 a	30.73±0.51 a	11.73±1.29 a	12.71±1.20 a

土层/cm	处理	固相/%	液相/%	气相/%	R
0~10	T₁	51.44±4.16 a	32.39±1.20 a	16.16±3.59 b	10.55±1.60 a
	T₂	52.33±3.20 a	31.39±1.13 a	16.28±2.31 b	9.68±0.97 a
	T₃	45.32±0.73 b	30.37±2.39 a	24.31±3.05 a	6.63±1.57 b
10~20	T₁	56.77±0.32 a	31.32±1.19 a	11.91±1.50 b	12.70±1.59 a
	T₂	54.89±2.67 a	29.44±0.47 b	15.66±2.32 a	9.13±1.90 b
	T₃	56.39±1.46 a	31.53±0.54 a	12.07±1.72 ab	12.64±1.51 a
20~30	T₁	57.33±0.12 a	30.76±0.40 a	11.90±0.33 a	12.56±0.37 a
	T₂	59.16±2.61 a	29.38±0.27 b	11.46±2.35 a	12.79±2.17 a
	T₃	57.55±1.01 a	30.73±0.51 a	11.73±1.29 a	12.71±1.20 a