Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (25): 89-93.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0704
Previous Articles Next Articles
CHEN Jianfeng(), YIN Mei, CHEN Hua, WANG Zhiyuan, WANG Wei, WANG Yingxue, YANG Yanxian, FU Libo(
)
Received:
2022-08-22
Revised:
2023-05-26
Online:
2023-09-05
Published:
2023-08-28
CHEN Jianfeng, YIN Mei, CHEN Hua, WANG Zhiyuan, WANG Wei, WANG Yingxue, YANG Yanxian, FU Libo. Study on Fertilization System of Nutrient Critical Value for High Yield of Asparagus Lettuce in Yunnan[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(25): 89-93.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0704
试验名称 | 海拔/m | 土壤类型 | 全氮/(g/kg) | 全磷/(g/kg) | 全钾/(g/kg) | 碱解氮/(mg/kg) | 有效磷/(mg/kg) | 速效钾/(mg/kg) | 有机质/(g/kg) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
嵩明试验点 | 1914 | 红壤 | 1.36 | 1.42 | 7.50 | 100 | 24.0 | 208 | 24.7 | 7.82 |
祥云试验点 | 1944 | 红壤 | 2.27 | 0.83 | 11.12 | 166 | 122.0 | 291 | 36.3 | 7.50 |
通海试验点 | 1817 | 红壤 | 1.84 | 0.75 | 7.70 | 148 | 45.8 | 210 | 26.5 | 6.80 |
试验名称 | 海拔/m | 土壤类型 | 全氮/(g/kg) | 全磷/(g/kg) | 全钾/(g/kg) | 碱解氮/(mg/kg) | 有效磷/(mg/kg) | 速效钾/(mg/kg) | 有机质/(g/kg) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
嵩明试验点 | 1914 | 红壤 | 1.36 | 1.42 | 7.50 | 100 | 24.0 | 208 | 24.7 | 7.82 |
祥云试验点 | 1944 | 红壤 | 2.27 | 0.83 | 11.12 | 166 | 122.0 | 291 | 36.3 | 7.50 |
通海试验点 | 1817 | 红壤 | 1.84 | 0.75 | 7.70 | 148 | 45.8 | 210 | 26.5 | 6.80 |
处理 | N | P2O5 | K2O | 处理 | N | P2O5 | K2O |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0P2K2 | 0 | 135 | 300 | N2P1K2 | 240 | 67.5 | 300 |
N1P2K2 | 120 | 135 | 300 | N2P3K2 | 240 | 202.5 | 300 |
N2P2K2 | 240 | 135 | 300 | N2P2K0 | 240 | 135 | 0 |
N3P2K2 | 360 | 135 | 300 | N2P2K1 | 240 | 135 | 150 |
N2P0K2 | 240 | 0 | 300 | N2P2K3 | 240 | 135 | 450 |
处理 | N | P2O5 | K2O | 处理 | N | P2O5 | K2O |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0P2K2 | 0 | 135 | 300 | N2P1K2 | 240 | 67.5 | 300 |
N1P2K2 | 120 | 135 | 300 | N2P3K2 | 240 | 202.5 | 300 |
N2P2K2 | 240 | 135 | 300 | N2P2K0 | 240 | 135 | 0 |
N3P2K2 | 360 | 135 | 300 | N2P2K1 | 240 | 135 | 150 |
N2P0K2 | 240 | 0 | 300 | N2P2K3 | 240 | 135 | 450 |
处理 | 嵩明 | 祥云 | 通海 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | |||
N0P2K2 | 17604.9Cd | 32042.19 | -57.7 | 20244.2Dd | 37320.93 | -49.7 | 18530.0Cd | 33892.47 | -54.7 | ||
N1P2K2 | 21142.2Cd | 38237.19 | -49.5 | 25550.2Cc | 47053.23 | -36.6 | 22285.0Cd | 40522.83 | -45.8 | ||
N2P2K2 | 40352.4Aa | 75778.11 | 39590.6Aa | 74254.35 | 39835.4Aa | 74744.13 | |||||
N3P2K2 | 31400.3Bbc | 56994.33 | -24.8 | 30529.6BCb | 55252.89 | -25.6 | 31019.4Bbc | 56232.45 | -24.8 | ||
N2P0K2 | 18366.8Cd | 32904.30 | -56.6 | 20815.7Dd | 37802.10 | -49.1 | 19264.7Cd | 34700.16 | -53.6 | ||
N2P1K2 | 27264.4Bc | 50150.86 | -33.8 | 28080.7BCbc | 51783.47 | -30.3 | 29713.3Bbc | 55048.67 | -26.4 | ||
N2P3K2 | 29114.7Bbc | 52753.88 | -30.4 | 30692.9BCb | 55910.24 | -24.7 | 30039.8Bbc | 54604.16 | -26.9 | ||
N2P2K0 | 25577.4BC | 48298.05 | -36.3 | 28733.8BCbc | 54610.77 | -26.5 | 25958.3BCc | 49059.93 | -34.4 | ||
N2P2K1 | 33196.2Bb | 62500.65 | -17.5 | 33631.6BCb | 63371.37 | -14.7 | 32407.1Bb | 60922.47 | -18.5 | ||
N2P2K3 | 35373.0ABb | 64784.25 | -14.5 | 35917.2Bb | 65872.65 | -11.3 | 33713.2Bb | 61464.63 | -17.8 |
处理 | 嵩明 | 祥云 | 通海 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | 净产值/ (元/hm2) | 与N2P2K2相比/ % | |||
N0P2K2 | 17604.9Cd | 32042.19 | -57.7 | 20244.2Dd | 37320.93 | -49.7 | 18530.0Cd | 33892.47 | -54.7 | ||
N1P2K2 | 21142.2Cd | 38237.19 | -49.5 | 25550.2Cc | 47053.23 | -36.6 | 22285.0Cd | 40522.83 | -45.8 | ||
N2P2K2 | 40352.4Aa | 75778.11 | 39590.6Aa | 74254.35 | 39835.4Aa | 74744.13 | |||||
N3P2K2 | 31400.3Bbc | 56994.33 | -24.8 | 30529.6BCb | 55252.89 | -25.6 | 31019.4Bbc | 56232.45 | -24.8 | ||
N2P0K2 | 18366.8Cd | 32904.30 | -56.6 | 20815.7Dd | 37802.10 | -49.1 | 19264.7Cd | 34700.16 | -53.6 | ||
N2P1K2 | 27264.4Bc | 50150.86 | -33.8 | 28080.7BCbc | 51783.47 | -30.3 | 29713.3Bbc | 55048.67 | -26.4 | ||
N2P3K2 | 29114.7Bbc | 52753.88 | -30.4 | 30692.9BCb | 55910.24 | -24.7 | 30039.8Bbc | 54604.16 | -26.9 | ||
N2P2K0 | 25577.4BC | 48298.05 | -36.3 | 28733.8BCbc | 54610.77 | -26.5 | 25958.3BCc | 49059.93 | -34.4 | ||
N2P2K1 | 33196.2Bb | 62500.65 | -17.5 | 33631.6BCb | 63371.37 | -14.7 | 32407.1Bb | 60922.47 | -18.5 | ||
N2P2K3 | 35373.0ABb | 64784.25 | -14.5 | 35917.2Bb | 65872.65 | -11.3 | 33713.2Bb | 61464.63 | -17.8 |
试验点 | 土壤速效养分测定值/(mg/kg) | 试验处理产量/(kg/hm2) | 土壤养分校正系数 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
碱解氮 | 有效磷 | 速效钾 | N0P2K2 | N2P0K2 | N2P2K0 | 氮 | 磷 | 钾 | |||
嵩明 | 100 | 24.0 | 208 | 17604.9 | 18366.8 | 25577.4 | 0.057 | 0.099 | 0.19 | ||
祥云 | 166 | 122.0 | 291 | 20244.2 | 20815.7 | 28733.8 | 0.049 | 0.020 | 0.14 | ||
通海 | 148 | 45.8 | 210 | 18530.0 | 19264.7 | 25958.3 | 0.051 | 0.056 | 0.16 |
试验点 | 土壤速效养分测定值/(mg/kg) | 试验处理产量/(kg/hm2) | 土壤养分校正系数 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
碱解氮 | 有效磷 | 速效钾 | N0P2K2 | N2P0K2 | N2P2K0 | 氮 | 磷 | 钾 | |||
嵩明 | 100 | 24.0 | 208 | 17604.9 | 18366.8 | 25577.4 | 0.057 | 0.099 | 0.19 | ||
祥云 | 166 | 122.0 | 291 | 20244.2 | 20815.7 | 28733.8 | 0.049 | 0.020 | 0.14 | ||
通海 | 148 | 45.8 | 210 | 18530.0 | 19264.7 | 25958.3 | 0.051 | 0.056 | 0.16 |
试验点 | 因素 | 肥料效应函数 | R2 | 推荐施肥量/ (kg/hm2) | 与N2P2K2处理 相比增加施肥量/ (kg/hm2) | 耕作层(0~20 cm)土壤 养分含量/(kg/hm2) | 土壤养分 校正系数 | 高产养分临界值/ (kg/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
嵩明 | N | y=-0.4337x2+249.78x+27659 | 0.67 | 288.0 | 48 | 225 | 0.057 | 300.8 |
P2O5 | y=-2.2096x2+573.64x+30053 | 0.83 | 129.8 | -5.2 | 54 | 0.094 | 134.9 | |
K2O | y=-0.28x2+167.81x+47131 | 0.93 | 299.7 | -0.3 | 468 | 0.18 | 382.1 | |
祥云 | N | y=-0.4989x2+247.08x+34137 | 0.73 | 247.6 | 7.6 | 373.5 | 0.049 | 266.0 |
P2O5 | y=-1.7737x2+472.94x+35337 | 0.82 | 133.3 | -1.7 | 274.5 | 0.017 | 137.9 | |
K2O | y=-0.2905x2+115.49x+53541 | 0.88 | 198.8 | -101.2 | 654.75 | 0.14 | 288.2 | |
通海 | N | y=-0.4365x2+241.51x+29876 | 0.68 | 276.6 | 36.6 | 333 | 0.051 | 293.6 |
P2O5 | y=-2.2216x2+567.51x+32741 | 0.90 | 127.7 | -7.3 | 103.05 | 0.063 | 134.2 | |
K2O | y=-0.2794x2+159.73x+47607 | 0.87 | 285.8 | -14.2 | 472.5 | 0.18 | 368.5 |
试验点 | 因素 | 肥料效应函数 | R2 | 推荐施肥量/ (kg/hm2) | 与N2P2K2处理 相比增加施肥量/ (kg/hm2) | 耕作层(0~20 cm)土壤 养分含量/(kg/hm2) | 土壤养分 校正系数 | 高产养分临界值/ (kg/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
嵩明 | N | y=-0.4337x2+249.78x+27659 | 0.67 | 288.0 | 48 | 225 | 0.057 | 300.8 |
P2O5 | y=-2.2096x2+573.64x+30053 | 0.83 | 129.8 | -5.2 | 54 | 0.094 | 134.9 | |
K2O | y=-0.28x2+167.81x+47131 | 0.93 | 299.7 | -0.3 | 468 | 0.18 | 382.1 | |
祥云 | N | y=-0.4989x2+247.08x+34137 | 0.73 | 247.6 | 7.6 | 373.5 | 0.049 | 266.0 |
P2O5 | y=-1.7737x2+472.94x+35337 | 0.82 | 133.3 | -1.7 | 274.5 | 0.017 | 137.9 | |
K2O | y=-0.2905x2+115.49x+53541 | 0.88 | 198.8 | -101.2 | 654.75 | 0.14 | 288.2 | |
通海 | N | y=-0.4365x2+241.51x+29876 | 0.68 | 276.6 | 36.6 | 333 | 0.051 | 293.6 |
P2O5 | y=-2.2216x2+567.51x+32741 | 0.90 | 127.7 | -7.3 | 103.05 | 0.063 | 134.2 | |
K2O | y=-0.2794x2+159.73x+47607 | 0.87 | 285.8 | -14.2 | 472.5 | 0.18 | 368.5 |
[1] |
云南省统计局. 云南统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2020:135-136.
|
[2] |
李书田, 刘晓永, 何萍. 当前我国农业生产中的养分需求分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6):1416-1432.
|
[3] |
陈伦寿, 陆景陵. 蔬菜营养与施肥技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2002:23-25,115-121.
|
[4] |
黄绍文, 唐继伟, 李春花, 等. 我国蔬菜化肥减施潜力与科学施用对策[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6):1480-1493.
|
[5] |
刘发伦, 李清云, 张爱, 等. 云南通海县夏秋蔬菜生产概况及发展建议[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2016(14):76-78.
|
[6] |
蒋丽萍, 陈雄鹰, 张杨珠. 我国蔬菜测土配方施肥的研究进展[J]. 河北农业科学, 2009, 13(3):64-67.
|
[7] |
张福锁, 崔振岭, 陈新平. 高产高效养分管理技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2012:35-37.
|
[8] |
谷守宽, 陈益, 袁婷, 等. 不同土壤氮钾肥配施对莴笋产量和品质的效应研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(3):177-183.
|
[9] |
苟亚妮, 何志学, 马宁, 等. 不同施肥模式对莴笋养分利用和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2021, 34(11):94-99.
|
[10] |
陈玉佳, 姜波, 阮传志. 基于肥料效应函数法的加工番茄施肥模型研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2015, 10:2500-2502.
|
[11] |
章明清, 李娟, 孔庆波, 等. 作物肥料效应函数模型研究进展与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(6):1343-1356.
|
[12] |
杨俊兰, 范富, 侯迷红, 等. 玉米优化施肥模型的建立和施肥参数的确定[J]. 内蒙古民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 32(6):503-509.
|
[13] |
田茁. 回归分析法测定土壤有效养分校正系数相关性研究[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2017, 38(1):120-123.
|
[14] |
doi: 10.1080/00103624.2012.662563 URL |
[15] |
鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005:56-58,80-84,106-108.
|
[16] |
鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000:127-129,146-149,302-311.
|
[17] |
蒯佳琳, 马彦霞, 侯栋, 等. 稳定性肥料配施微生物菌剂对莴笋生长及品质的影响研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(2):24-30.
|
[18] |
郑盛华, 万柯均, 陈尚洪, 等. 氮肥有机替减对成都平原稻菜轮作区莴笋产量和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2021, 34(5):1042-1046.
|
[19] |
陈检锋, 陈华, 尹梅, 等. 玉溪烤烟适产养分临界值施肥体系研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(11):43-48.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18120083 |
[20] |
陈检锋, 刘俊, 何正海, 等. 滇南茶园适产养分临界值施肥体系研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(8):79-83.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0271 |
[21] |
张迎春, 颉建明, 郁继华, 等. 生物有机肥部分替代化肥对莴笋生长,产量及品质的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(1):66-73.
|
[22] |
陈艺易, 颉建明, 马宁, 等. 缓释肥替代普通化肥对大棚莴笋产量及品质的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2021, 56(1):50-57.
|
[23] |
邱正明. 我国高山蔬菜产业发展现状与产业技术需求[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2017(7):9-12.
|
[24] |
王菲, 李会合, 王正银. 缓释复合肥对不同品种莴笋光合特性和品质性状的影响[J]. 西南大学学报, 2017, 28(7):56-59.
|
[25] |
付斌, 胡万里, 刘宏斌, 等. 不同施氮量与施肥方式对洱海周边露地蔬菜青笋的生长性状、产量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报,2009,22(1):126-129.
|
[26] |
万永全, 刘永明. 泸西县玉米肥料利用率试验[J]. 云南农业科技, 2022(1):18-20.
|
[27] |
侯萌瑶, 张丽, 王知文, 等. 中国主要农作物化肥用量估算[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2017, 34(4):360-367.
|
[1] | HU Baigeng, LI Xueyang, KONG Haiming, SUN Shasha, WANG Kexiu, HU Jianjun, HE Wei, TANG Mingxia. Different Calcium Concentrations Under Aeroponics: Effects on Growth and Yield of Potato [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(9): 33-39. |
[2] | QIAN Shuanghong, CAI Shikun, ZHU Hanyong, WANG Shaobin, LI Zhengrun, WANG Yingmei, LI Shaoyun. Maize Varieties (Strains) in Different Ecological Regions in Yunnan Province: Analysis of High Yield Potential, Yield Stability and Variety Adaptability [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(9): 7-15. |
[3] | CHEN Shujian, CHEN Jingdu, YANG Chengqin, XU Meigang, GAO Jianbo. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rates on Yield and Quality of Rice with Mechanical Sowing in Line Under Water [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(9): 1-6. |
[4] | LIU Yu, LI Ping, ZHAO Kaili, YAN Shi, LIU Jipei, LIU Lei, GUO Ning. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction Combined with Application of Bio-organic Fertilizer on Yield, Quality and Soil Nutrients of Celery [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(8): 63-68. |
[5] | JIANG Wanyue, HU Xiaohang, MA Yahuai, LI Yanli. GGE-biplot Based on R Language: Application in Regional Trial of Sugar Beet Varieties [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(8): 7-14. |
[6] | ZHANG Zihao, LI Xiangcheng, WU Haotian, FU Penghao, GAO Chunbao, ZHANG Yunbo, ZOU Juan. The Appropriate Sowing Rate of Wheat Under the Climate Conditions of Jianghan Plain [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(7): 1-9. |
[7] | JIA Limin, ZHAO Xiaoyu, WANG Xuejiao, SU Erhu, LI Qiang, GUO Jiahua. Changes of Agronomic Characters, Quality and Yield of Soybean Varieties Approved in Different Years in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(7): 10-18. |
[8] | ZUO Hongjuan, CAO Hui, ZHANG Hongrui, WANG Feng, ZHANG Xiaoshen. Effects of Planting Date and Number of Topping Times on the Yield of Chrysanthemum morifolium ‘Gongju’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(7): 51-54. |
[9] | LI Yali, BAI Jing, WU Zhenghu, HALIHASH Yibati, LI Qingjun. Effects of N, P and K Application Time on Yield, Quality and Nutrient Uptake of Processing Tomato Under Chemical Fertilizer Reduction [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 58-63. |
[10] | ZHANG Kexin, YU Xiao, ZHANG Moucao. Effects of Sowing Date on Growth and Yield of Spring Maize in East Gansu [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 6-12. |
[11] | YIN Liping, LIU Siyuan, CAI Chengmei, SHI Xiaoli, ZHU Xiaojuan, YUAN Guoming, WANG Jidong, ZHANG Hui, XU Cong, MA Hongbo. Effects of Jiabowen Soil Conditioner on Radish Yield and Quality and Soil Physical and Chemical Properties [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 64-71. |
[12] | ZHOU Jie, QI Chuandong, TANG Chun, GUO Fengling, QIN Zhushan, CAI Xiaodong, WU Jinping. Application Effect of Ethephon, Medium Trace Element and Functional Fertilizer on Ginger [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 72-76. |
[13] | BAI Yulin, WANG Chengqiang, DU Bin, LIU Lu, LIU Xia. The Response of Sea-island Cotton Strains to the Spraying Time and Frequency of Defoliants [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 26-34. |
[14] | MENG Zhanying, CAI Haixia, YANG Haozhe, WANG Yueqing, GUO Dang, LI Lifeng. Variety Adaptability of Silage Maize in Terms of Photosynthesis and Yield in Western Henan [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(5): 28-32. |
[15] | KAN Jianluan, WANG Xiaoyun, SU Jianping, ZHANG Yongchun, WANG Jidong, MA Hongbo, CAI Yuntong. Effects of Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Inhibitors on Wheat Yield, Soil Fertility and Nitrogen Use Efficiency [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(5): 69-74. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||