Effects of Exogenous Additives on Soil Fertility Under Different Land Use Type

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0569

Abstract

Abstract:

To clarify the effects of exogenous additives on soil fertility under different land uses types (forest land, paddy field and dry field) and to provide reference for the use of exogenous additives in agricultural production and environmental management. Four exogenous additives including quicklime (1 g/kg), fulvic acid (10 g/kg), fish pond sediment (250 g/kg) and biochar (15 g/kg), were added to soil samples from forest land, paddy field and dry field to study the effects of quicklime, fulvic acid, fish pond sediment and biochar on the content of available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium of the soil. The results showed that, under the same exogenous additives, the content of soil available nitrogen in different land uses showed the trend of dry field>forest land>paddy field, the content of soil available phosphorus showed the trend of cultivated layer paddy field>dry field>forest land and plow bottom dry field>paddy field>forest land, and the content of soil available potassium did not have any obvious pattern. Quicklime had no significant effect on the content of soil available nitrogen, which would increase the content of soil available phosphorus by 14.87% on average and reduce the content of soil available potassium by 6.19% on average; fulvic acid had no significant effect on the content of soil available nitrogen, and it would reduce the content of soil available phosphorus by 16.36% and available potassium by 12.94% on average; fish pond sediment had significant effect on soil available nutrients in the cultivated layer and plow bottom of forest land, paddy field and dry field, which would increase the average content of the soil available nitrogen by 57.68%, available phosphorus by 170.16% and available potassium by 20.05%. In addition to the increase of available nutrients brought by the fish pond sediment, it could promote the growth of soil microorganisms and thus indirectly increasing the available nutrients of the soil; biochar had no significant effect on the content of soil available nitrogen, and it would increase the content of available phosphorus and available potassium of the soil significantly, with the content of available phosphorus increasing by 89.80% and available potassium by 65.02% on average. The effects of the four exogenous additives on soil fertility under different land use types varied considerably, and the application of biochar and fish pond sediment was beneficial to improving soil fertility under different land types.

Key words: exogenous additives, soil available nutrients, land use type, soil fertility, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium

DENG Bo, GUO Peng, WEI Leijia, CHEN Shangmao, MA Ze, CHEN Dan, BI Lidong. Effects of Exogenous Additives on Soil Fertility Under Different Land Use Type[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(8): 91-100.

Figures/Tables 6

References 43

[1]	赵伟霞, 栗岩峰, 张宝忠, 等. 土壤肥力提升原理与技术研究进展[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2022, 41(9):1-5.
[2]	CLAUDIO O D. The consequences of soil degradation in China: a review[J]. Geoscape, 2018, 12(2):92-103. doi: 10.2478/geosc-2018-0010 URL
[3]	GOPINATH K A, SAHA S, MINA B L, et al. Influence of organic amendments on growth, yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during transition to organic production[J]. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 2008, 82(1):51-60. doi: 10.1007/s10705-008-9168-0 URL
[4]	MIN X, XIULI H, ZHENQIAN X, et al. Soil amendments change bacterial functional genes more than taxonomic structure in a cadmium-contaminated soil[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2020(154):108126.
[5]	李赟, 刘迪, 范如芹, 等. 土壤改良剂的研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(10):63-69.
[6]	SAING Z, IBRAHIM M H, IRIANTO. Experimental investigation on strength improvement of lateritic Halmahera soil using quicklime stabilization[J]. Iop conference series earth and environmental science, 2020(419):012013.
[7]	柴有忠, 张圆圆, 马军伟, 等. 不同酸性改良剂对葡萄园土壤及葡萄品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(2):102-107.
[8]	PENG Y, CHEN S, ZHENHAO Z, et al. Biochar stimulates tea growth by improving nutrients in acidic soil[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2021(283):110078.
[9]	MANDAL S, THANGARAJAN R, BOLAN S N, et al. Biochar-induced concomitant decrease in ammonia volatilization and increase in nitrogen use efficiency by wheat[J]. Chemosphere, 2016, 142(1):120-127. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.086 URL
[10]	SERENELLA N A, DIEGO P A, ADELE M B. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2002(11):1527-1536.
[11]	李志鹏, 刘浩, 于晓娜, 等. 黄腐酸对植烟土壤改良及烟叶品质的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(4):914-920.
[12]	罗玉兰, 罗国峰, 倪竹君, 等. 鱼塘废弃地土壤特征调查及改良措施[J]. 土壤通报, 2015, 46(1):14-18.
[13]	张义杰, 徐杰, 陆仁窗, 等. 生石灰对林下酸化土壤的调控作用及三七生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(4):972-980. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.018
[14]	李静, 李世莹, 李青松. 黄腐酸用量对番茄产量及品质的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2022, 12(2):54-59. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2020-0002
[15]	王欢欢, 元野, 任天宝, 等. 生物炭对东北黑土理化性质影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(35):67-71. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18060099
[16]	THANH D T, TY N M, HIEN N V, et al. Effects of organic fertilizers produced from fish pond sediment on growth performances and yield of Malabar and Amaranthus vegetables[J]. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 2023(02):01-14.
[17]	包耀贤, 徐明岗, 吕粉桃, 等. 长期施肥下土壤肥力变化的评价方法[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(20):4197-4204. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.20.009
[18]	褚琳琳, 黄荣玉, 赵燕, 等. 低山丘陵区不同土地利用方式田内-田埂土壤优先流特征[J]. 农业工程学报, 2023, 39(4):115-123.
[19]	李春英, 刘添毅, 刘奕平, 等. 酸性植烟土壤施用石灰的后效探讨[J]. 烟草科技, 2001(7):38-41.
[20]	刘佳欢, 王倩, 罗人杰, 等. 黄腐酸肥料对小麦根际土壤微生物多样性和酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(10):1808-1816.
[21]	胡敏, 向永生, 鲁剑巍. 石灰用量对酸性土壤pH值及有效养分含量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(04):72-77.
[22]	潘兴兵, 张宗锦, 庞良玉, 等. 攀枝花烟区生石灰施用量与土壤养分及烤烟质量的关系(英文)[J]. Agricultural science & technology, 2015, 16(12):2707-2710.
[23]	唐莉娜, 熊德中. 酸性土壤施石灰对土壤性质与烤烟品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2003(3):87-89.
[24]	JASKULSKA I, JASKULSKI D, KOBIERSKI M. Effect of liming on the change of some agrochemical soil properties in a long-term fertilization experiment[J]. Plant soil and environment, 2014(64):146-150.
[25]	梅旭阳, 高菊生, 杨学云, 等. 红壤酸化及石灰改良影响冬小麦根际土壤钾的有效性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(6):1568-1577.
[26]	赵满兴, 刘慧, 白二磊, 等. 腐殖酸肥或生物有机肥替代部分化肥对土壤肥力、红枣产量和品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(6):981-987.
[27]	邢尚军, 刘方春, 杜振宇, 等. 腐殖酸肥料对杨树生长及土壤性质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2009, 23(4):126-129,135.
[28]	ABDELHAFEZ A A, ABBAS H M, ATTIA M T, et al. Mineralization of organic carbon and nitrogen in semi-arid soils under organic and inorganic fertilization[J]. Environmental technology & innovation, 2018(9):243-253.
[29]	朱梓弘, 朱同彬, 杨霖, 等. 中国土壤碱解氮含量与影响因子的空间关系研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(11):2199-2207. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.11.008
[30]	刘世全, 高丽丽, 蒲玉琳, 等. 西藏土壤有机质和氮素状况及其影响因素分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2004(6):54-57,67.
[31]	陈绩, 赵科理, 柳丹, 等. 有机肥料联合东南景天修复重金属污染土壤的研究[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2019, 41(11):1346-1351.
[32]	陈朝阳, 吴平, 陈星峰, 等. 南平市植烟土壤氮、磷、钾养分状况与演变趋势[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(25):68-76.
[33]	HALIM M, CONTE P, PICCOLO A. Potential availability of heavy metals to phytoextraction from contaminated soils induced by exogenous humic substances[J]. Chemosphere, 2003, 52(1):265-275. pmid: 12729711
[34]	ALEXANDRE G S PRADO, CLAUDIO AIROLDI, ZHANG ZHIGUO. Humic acid-divalent cation interactions[J]. Humic acid, 2013(5):33-36.
[35]	吕波, 王宇函, 夏浩, 等. 不同改良剂对黄棕壤和红壤上白菜生长及土壤肥力影响的差异[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(22):4306-4315. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.22.009
[36]	ZHAI L, CAIJI Z, LIU J, et al. Short-term effects of maize residue biochar on phosphorus availability in two soils with different phosphorus sorption capacities[J]. Biology & fertility of soils, 2015, 51(1):113-122.
[37]	李九玉, 赵安珍, 袁金华, 等. 农业废弃物制备的生物质炭对红壤酸度和油菜产量的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2):334-339.
[38]	MANYA J J. Pyrolysis for biochar purposes: A Review to establish current knowledge gaps and research needs[J]. Environmental science & technology, 2012, 46(15):7939-7954. doi: 10.1021/es301029g URL
[39]	张祥, 王典, 姜存仓, 等. 生物炭对我国南方红壤和黄棕壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(8):979-984.
[40]	ZHANG L, SUN X Y. Addition of fish pond sediment and rock phosphate enhances the composting of green waste[J]. Bioresource technology, 2017(233):116-126.
[41]	D DRÓŻDŻ, K MALIŃSKA, M KACPRZAK, et al. Potential of Fish Pond Sediments Composts as Organic Fertilizers[J]. Waste and biomass valorization, 2020(11):5151-5163.
[42]	AL-HARBI, AHMED H, M N UDDIN. Seasonal Changes in Bacterial Flora of Fish Pond Sediments in Saudi Arabia[J]. Journal of applied aquaculture, 2006, 18(2):35-45. doi: 10.1300/J028v18n02_03 URL
[43]	ZHANG K K, ZHENG X F, HE Z L, et al. Fish growth enhances microbial sulfur cycling in aquaculture pond sediments[J]. Microbial biotechnology, 2020, 13(5):1597-1610. doi: 10.1111/mbt2.v13.5 URL

用地类型	土样类别	发生层次	土层深度/cm	采样地点
林地	普通铁聚水耕人为土	耕作层	0~20	板栗树林地 (31°55′10″ N，118°58′44″ E)
林地	普通铁聚水耕人为土	犁底层	20~40	板栗树林地 (31°55′10″ N，118°58′44″ E)
水田	普通铁聚水耕人为土	耕作层	0~15	水稻田地 (31°55′11″ N，118°58′45″ E)
水田	普通铁聚水耕人为土	犁底层	15~30	水稻田地 (31°55′11″ N，118°58′45″ E)
旱田	普通土垫旱耕人为土	耕作层	0~15	菜园 (31°55′17″ N，118°58′51″ E)
旱田	普通土垫旱耕人为土	犁底层	15~30	菜园 (31°55′17″ N，118°58′51″ E)

用地类型	土样类别	发生层次	土层深度/cm	采样地点
林地	普通铁聚水耕人为土	耕作层	0~20	板栗树林地 (31°55′10″ N，118°58′44″ E)
林地	普通铁聚水耕人为土	犁底层	20~40	板栗树林地 (31°55′10″ N，118°58′44″ E)
水田	普通铁聚水耕人为土	耕作层	0~15	水稻田地 (31°55′11″ N，118°58′45″ E)
水田	普通铁聚水耕人为土	犁底层	15~30	水稻田地 (31°55′11″ N，118°58′45″ E)
旱田	普通土垫旱耕人为土	耕作层	0~15	菜园 (31°55′17″ N，118°58′51″ E)
旱田	普通土垫旱耕人为土	犁底层	15~30	菜园 (31°55′17″ N，118°58′51″ E)

用地类型	发生层次	土层深度/cm	土壤容重/(g/kg)	土壤孔隙度/%	pH	粘粒含量/%	有机质含量/(g/kg)
林地	耕作层	0~20	1.28±0.05	51.84±1.80	5.27	20.0±0.33	16.44±0.66
林地	犁底层	20~40	1.49±0.06	43.77±2.17	6.40	22.6±0.55	8.26±0.49
水田	耕作层	0~15	1.21±0.08	54.44±3.03	6.27	27.9±0.27	23.10±0.89
水田	犁底层	15~30	1.41±0.05	46.87±1.98	7.62	34.3±0.48	6.76±0.83
旱田	耕作层	0~15	1.31±0.06	50.63±2.22	6.58	22.3±0.32	18.35±0.46
旱田	犁底层	15~30	1.63±0.04	38.57±1.63	7.45	23.1±0.60	8.50±0.69

用地类型	发生层次	土层深度/cm	土壤容重/(g/kg)	土壤孔隙度/%	pH	粘粒含量/%	有机质含量/(g/kg)
林地	耕作层	0~20	1.28±0.05	51.84±1.80	5.27	20.0±0.33	16.44±0.66
林地	犁底层	20~40	1.49±0.06	43.77±2.17	6.40	22.6±0.55	8.26±0.49
水田	耕作层	0~15	1.21±0.08	54.44±3.03	6.27	27.9±0.27	23.10±0.89
水田	犁底层	15~30	1.41±0.05	46.87±1.98	7.62	34.3±0.48	6.76±0.83
旱田	耕作层	0~15	1.31±0.06	50.63±2.22	6.58	22.3±0.32	18.35±0.46
旱田	犁底层	15~30	1.63±0.04	38.57±1.63	7.45	23.1±0.60	8.50±0.69