Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction on Growth Characteristics and Fertilizer Use Efficiency of Tomato

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0233

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with bio-fertilizer and fulvic acid on tomato growth and fertilizer use efficiency under the condition of facility cultivation, tomato variety ‘Yuanyi 504’ was used as the experimental material. The experiment adopted randomized block design. Five treatments were set as: conventional fertilization (CK), base fertilizer reduction by 40%, top dressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20%, top dressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 40%, and no fertilizer application (blank). The results showed that the plant height of tomato decreased with the fertilizer application reduction. There was no significant difference among CK, base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment and topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% treatment. The base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment had little effect on tomato stem diameter. There was no significant difference in the number of leaf nodes and panicles among CK, base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment and topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% treatment. The fertilizer use efficiency of tomato was improved by reducing fertilizer application. The fertilizer use efficiency of base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment was the highest, which was not significantly different from that of topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% treatment. The partial productivity of base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment was higher than that of CK, top dressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% treatment and topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment by 17.1%, 9.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The yield of CK was the highest, but was not significantly different from that of base fertilizer reduction by 40% treatment and topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% treatment. To sum up, under the condition of appropriate application of bio-fertilizer and fulvic acid, base fertilizer reduction by 40% or topdressing soluble fertilizer reduction by 20% had little effect on the growth and yield of facility tomato.

Key words: tomato, chemical fertilizer reduction, production development, fertilizer use efficiency, bio-fertilizer, fulvic acid

ZHENG Jianchao, DONG Fei. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction on Growth Characteristics and Fertilizer Use Efficiency of Tomato[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 52-57.

Figures/Tables 8

References 16

[1]	张洋, 李旺雄, 刘晓奇, 等. 施钾量对设施基质栽培番茄生长生理及其产量和品质的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2021, 41(10):1725-1735.
[2]	孙晓, 姜学玲, 崔玉明, 等. 有机肥替代对设施番茄产量、品质与土壤性质的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜 2021, 34(4):46-52.
[3]	张丽丽, 李继蕊, 毕焕改, 等. 不同土壤pH和磷水平下黄腐酸对番茄产量和根际土壤微生态的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2021(11):45-52.
[4]	BRUULSEMA T, LEMUNYON J, HERZ B. Know your fertilizer rights[J]. Crops & soils, 2009, 42(2):13-18.
[5]	巨晓棠, 谷保静. 我国农田氮肥施用现状、问题及趋势[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(4):783-795.
[6]	JOHNSTON A E, POULTON P R. Nitrogen in agriculture: An overview and definitions of nitrogen use efficiency[A]. Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Society[C] .York, UK, 2009:2-49.
[7]	陈防, 张过师. 农业可持续发展中的“4R”养分管理研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(23):245-250.
[8]	王兴龙, 朱敏, 杨帆, 等. 配施有机肥减氮对川中丘区土壤微生物量与酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(3):271-276.
[9]	刘小媛, 杨劲松, 姚荣江. 化肥减量配施黄腐酸降低盐渍农田NaCl 含量提高氮磷养分有效性的协同效应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(8):1339-1350.
[10]	洪瑜, 王芳, 刘汝亮, 等. 长期配施有机肥对灌淤土春玉米产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(2):248-252,261.
[11]	张国龙, 陈婷, 于海利, 等. 化肥减量有机替代对茄子生长及土壤养分的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(14):46-50.
[12]	唐宇, 包慧芳, 詹发强, 等. 化肥减施条件下配施生物有机肥对番茄生长及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(5):841-854. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.05.007
[13]	刘金平, 孙菲菲, 王夏, 等. 减量施肥对番茄生长和品质的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(8):52-56.
[14]	杨岩, 肖建军, 徐钰, 等. 化肥优化条件下设施蔬菜适宜堆肥用量研究[J]. 河北农业科学, 2020, 24(4):67-70.
[15]	刘长旭, 张静, 张云霞, 等. 化肥减量条件下配施有机肥对设施番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2021, 53(2):79-82.
[16]	宋以玲, 于建, 陈士更, 等. 化肥减量配施生物有机肥对油菜生长及土壤微生物和酶活性影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(1):352-360.

处理	茎粗/cm	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm	根长/cm	叶节数	果穗数
CK	0.70±0.01 a	29.80±0.52 a	26.30±0.64 a	32.00±1.42 b	34.40±1.21 a	9.80±0.45 a
基肥减40%	0.70±0.02 a	28.20±0.58 a	25.30±0.51 a	35.60±2.41 a	35.00±2.54 a	9.08±0.31 a
追肥减20%	0.67±0.01 b	27.90±0.76 a	25.01±0.71 a	30.20±1.84 b	35.80±2.11 a	9.20±0.51 a
追肥减40%	0.66±0.01 b	26.80±1.92 c	24.81±0.31 b	28.00±2.41 c	31.80±1.98 b	8.60±0.57 b
空白	0.61±0.03 c	25.07±0.45 c	23.61±0.24 b	26.40±3.01 d	30.20±2.85 b	7.00±0.27 b

处理	茎粗/cm	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm	根长/cm	叶节数	果穗数
CK	0.70±0.01 a	29.80±0.52 a	26.30±0.64 a	32.00±1.42 b	34.40±1.21 a	9.80±0.45 a
基肥减40%	0.70±0.02 a	28.20±0.58 a	25.30±0.51 a	35.60±2.41 a	35.00±2.54 a	9.08±0.31 a
追肥减20%	0.67±0.01 b	27.90±0.76 a	25.01±0.71 a	30.20±1.84 b	35.80±2.11 a	9.20±0.51 a
追肥减40%	0.66±0.01 b	26.80±1.92 c	24.81±0.31 b	28.00±2.41 c	31.80±1.98 b	8.60±0.57 b
空白	0.61±0.03 c	25.07±0.45 c	23.61±0.24 b	26.40±3.01 d	30.20±2.85 b	7.00±0.27 b

处理	SPAD值	N含量/(mg/g)
CK	59.28±3.14 a	4.47±0.24 a
基肥减40%	57.18±1.51 a	3.94±0.12 a
追肥减20%	58.68±3.84 a	4.15±0.21 a
追肥减40%	54.24±2.41 b	3.39±0.27 b
空白	43.49±2.17 c	3.06±0.15 c

处理	SPAD值	N含量/(mg/g)
CK	59.28±3.14 a	4.47±0.24 a
基肥减40%	57.18±1.51 a	3.94±0.12 a
追肥减20%	58.68±3.84 a	4.15±0.21 a
追肥减40%	54.24±2.41 b	3.39±0.27 b
空白	43.49±2.17 c	3.06±0.15 c

处理	水解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	有效钾/(mg/kg)	有机质/(g/kg)
CK	291.12±8.41 a	431.14±2.94 a	1940.25±24.24 a	11.04±0.54 b
基肥减40%	313.24±2.87 a	447.25±6.78 a	2180.61±35.14 a	13.51±0.67 a
追肥减20%	292.14±7.84 a	434.17±9.14 a	2080.14±64.74 a	12.95±1.42 a
追肥减40%	269.35±5.21 b	421.96±1.92 b	1910.24±15.94 a	13.04±0.15 a
空白	237.27±3.24 c	207.51±26.78 c	799.34±51.4 b	10.45±1.12 b