Effects of Combined Application of Bio-organic Fertilizer with Reduced Chemical Fertilizer on Growth, Yield and Quality of Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0279

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of combined application of bio-organic fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer on growth, yield and quality of Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis, two fertilizer types F₁ (N-P₂O₅-K₂O=15-15-15), F₂ (N-P₂O₅-K₂O=26-9-9) and 7 application amounts, N₁ (pure compound fertilizer 525 kg/hm²), N₂ (F reduced by 10%+ bio-organic fertilizer 400 kg/hm²), N₃ (F reduced by 10%+ bio-organic fertilizer 600 kg/hm²), N₄ (F reduced by 10%+ bio-organic fertilizer 750 kg/hm²), N₅ (F reduced by 20%+ bio-organic fertilizer 400 kg/hm²), N₆ (F reduced by 20%+ bio-organic fertilizer 600 kg/hm²), N₇ (F reduced by 20%+ bio-organic fertilizer 750 kg/hm²) were set up in the experiment. And no fertilization (CK) was also set as the blank control. The agronomic characters, yield, mineral elements and quality characters of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis were investigated and analyzed according to the two factors of fertilizer type and fertilizer method. The results were as follows. (1) The interaction between the type of fertilizer and the application amounts had extremely significant effects on most agronomic traits and plant weight (P<0.01). Under different fertilizer treatments, the petiole length, petiole width, leaf weight, petiole weight and weight per plant were all showed as F₂>F₁. The weight per plant was significantly different between the two treatments (P<0.05). The combination of bio-organic fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer F₂ were more conducive to the growth and yield increase of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis. Under F₁ and F₂ treatments, the weight per plant was significantly correlated with the degree of development, leaf weight and petiole weight, but there was no correlation between plant weight and petiole thickness. Compared with N₁, chemical fertilizer reduced by 10% and 20% combined with rational bio-organic fertilizer didn’t affect the growth of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis, and could promote their growth to a certain extent. The maximum increase of weight per plant was 15.24%. (2) Compared with N₁, chemical fertilizer reduced by 10% and 20% combined with rational bio-organic fertilizer didn’t affect the content of mineral elements in the edible part of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis, and had beneficial effect on the accumulation of mineral elements. However, when the fertilizer were reduced too much, the activation ability of bio-organic fertilizer on soil elements such as P, Mg, K, Ca and other elements would be reduced by different degrees. (3) The type of fertilizer had extremely significant effect on the nitrate nitrogen content of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis, and the interaction between the type of fertilizer and the application amounts had extremely significant effect on the coarse fiber of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis (P<0.01). The combination of rational bio-organic fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer could increase the content of soluble sugar, soluble protein and vitamin C, and reduce the nitrate nitrogen content. Under different fertilizer treatments, the contents of soluble sugar, vitamin C and soluble protein of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis were all showed as F₁>F₂, while the content of coarse fiber, total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were all showed as F₂>F₁, and the contents of vitamin C and soluble protein were significantly different between the two treatments (P<0.01). The combination of bio-organic fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer F₁ were more conducive to improve the quality of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis. The combination of rational bio-organic fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer could not only promote the growth, increase the yield, but also improve the quality of B. campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis. Based on yield and quality factors, F₁N₆ and F₂N₆ could be used as suitable fertilization methods under the experimental conditions.

Key words: Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis, bio-organic fertilizer, application amount, yield, quality

ZHAI Caijiao, CHENG Yujing, QIU Liang, WANG Xiaoqiu, GE Lijiao. Effects of Combined Application of Bio-organic Fertilizer with Reduced Chemical Fertilizer on Growth, Yield and Quality of Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis var. rosularis[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(10): 35-43.

Figures/Tables 6

References 22

[1]	PARKS S E, IRVING D E, MILHAM P J. A critical evaluation of on-farm rapid tests for measuring nitrate in leafy vegetables[J]. Scientia horticulture, 2012, 134(2):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.10.015 URL
[2]	孔跃. 生物有机肥对番茄及小白菜生长与品质影响效应的研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2007.
[3]	胡清宏. 不同化肥减施措施对连作设施小白菜生长及土壤质量的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2019.
[4]	FEI L, ZHAO M, CHEN X, et al. Effect of phosphorus accumulation in soil with the utilization ages of the vegetable greenhouses in the suburb of Shenyang[J]. Procedia environmental sciences, 2011, 8:16-20. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2011.10.005 URL
[5]	SHEN W, LIN X, SHI W, et al. Higher rates of nitrogen fertilization decrease soil enzyme activities, microbial functional diversity and nitrification capacity in a Chinese polytuanel greenhouse vegetable land[J]. Plant and soil, 2010, 337(1-2):137-150. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0511-2 URL
[6]	HARADA H, YOSHIMURA Y, SUNAGA Y. Variations in nitrogen uptake and nitrate-nitrogen concentration among sorghum groups[J]. Soil science and plant nutrition, 2000, 46(1):97-104. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2000.10408766 URL
[7]	魏晓兰. 生物有机肥对土壤氮、磷、钾供应及小白菜养分吸收的影响[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2016.
[8]	肖时运. 化学氮肥用量及有机无机复混肥对蔬菜产量和品质的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2006.
[9]	农业部微生物肥料和食用菌菌种质量监督检验测试中心, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所. NY 884—2012,生物有机肥[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012:9.
[10]	薛峰, 颜廷梅, 杨林章, 等. 施用有机肥对土壤生物性状影响的研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 6:1372-1377.
[11]	孔涛, 马瑜, 刘民, 等. 生物有机肥对土壤养分和土壤微生物的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2016, 33(4):884-891.
[12]	巩子毓, 高旭, 黄炎, 等. 连续施用生物有机肥提高设施黄瓜产量和品质的研究[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(5):777-783.
[13]	王宗抗, 阚学飞, 宋钊, 等. 新型生物有机肥对小白菜生长和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 磷肥与复肥, 2016, 31(3):49-52.
[14]	黄东风, 王果, 李卫华, 等. 不同施肥模式对小白菜生长、营养累积及菜地氮、磷流失的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(4):619-624.
[15]	石其伟. 稻草快腐菌剂的筛选及稻草型生物有机肥在小白菜上的应用效果研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2006.
[16]	于恩晶, 高丽红, 陈青云. 微生物菌剂与有机肥配施对日光温室小白菜产量和品质的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2010(7):57-59.
[17]	付文杰. 不同施肥处理对小白菜生长、产量和品质的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2019.
[18]	黄俊, 吴震, 郭世荣, 等. 固体肥种类与施肥量对穴盘小白菜生长及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007, 15(1):45-48.
[19]	张迪, 魏自民, 李淑芹, 等. 生物有机肥对土壤中磷的吸附和解吸特性的影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2005, 36(5):571-575.
[20]	刘秀梅, 张夫道, 冯兆滨, 等. 风化煤腐殖酸对氮、磷、钾的吸附和解吸特性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2005, 11(5):641-646.
[21]	李素霞, 韦司棋, 刘云霞. 3种改良剂对氮镉互作下小白菜产量和品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2015, 28(4):1709-1712.
[22]	孙旭, 刘臣炜, 张龙江, 等. 农业废弃物制备生物有机肥及其在小白菜栽培上的应用[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017, 33(6):1333-1341.

肥料类型	施肥方式	开展度/ cm	最大叶长/ cm	最大叶宽/ cm	叶柄长/ cm	叶柄宽/ cm	叶柄厚/ mm	叶片重/ g	叶柄重/ g	叶片数	单株重/ g
F₁	CK	21.90c	7.97d	7.17c	3.91d	2.55c	3.84e	40.25e	28.50d	19.56a	88.17e
	N₁	27.38ab	9.74ab	8.96ab	4.76bc	3.25ab	5.08cd	71.00abc	51.58ab	20.78a	142.50ab
	N₂	26.31ab	9.51abc	8.92ab	5.12ab	3.15ab	5.34bcd	63.75c	44.92bc	20.00a	121.38c
	N₃	26.73ab	9.08bc	8.42ab	5.17ab	3.12ab	5.54bc	69.25bc	48.33ab	22.11a	134.17b
	N₄	28.18a	10.09a	9.04a	5.20ab	3.13ab	4.39de	69.83abc	55.17a	21.11a	146.75a
	N₅	25.33b	8.93c	7.92bc	4.32cd	2.93bc	5.07cd	55.42d	40.92c	20.56a	104.58d
	N₆	27.86ab	9.57abc	8.80ab	5.56a	3.38a	7.62a	71.25ab	50.67ab	22.11a	136.83ab
	N₇	28.28a	9.49abc	9.13a	4.93abc	3.15ab	6.41b	77.08a	51.50ab	20.89a	148.42a
F₂	CK	21.90d	7.97c	7.17c	3.91d	2.55c	3.84c	40.25d	28.50d	19.56a	88.17d
	N₁	24.30cd	8.42bc	7.83bc	4.76c	2.81bc	5.39ab	63.08c	45.00c	20.33a	131.83c
	N₂	27.57ab	9.25ab	9.75a	5.00bc	3.24ab	5.69a	68.92abc	47.92bc	20.56a	136.25bc
	N₃	27.68ab	9.21ab	8.92ab	5.75a	3.35a	5.93a	75.83a	56.75a	20.78a	151.92a
	N₄	26.25abc	9.13ab	8.38abc	5.54ab	3.07ab	5.79a	68.42abc	47.00c	20.89a	135.75bc
	N₅	28.63a	9.53a	9.05ab	5.97a	3.43a	5.75a	70.25abc	53.08abc	20.22a	140.25bc
	N₆	27.47ab	8.98ab	8.58abc	4.98bc	3.17ab	5.84a	71.92ab	56.00ab	22.33a	146.25ab
	N₇	25.68bc	8.95ab	8.54abc	5.05bc	3.30ab	4.69b	65.42bc	44.83c	21.33a	137.42bc

肥料类型	施肥方式	开展度/ cm	最大叶长/ cm	最大叶宽/ cm	叶柄长/ cm	叶柄宽/ cm	叶柄厚/ mm	叶片重/ g	叶柄重/ g	叶片数	单株重/ g
F₁	CK	21.90c	7.97d	7.17c	3.91d	2.55c	3.84e	40.25e	28.50d	19.56a	88.17e
	N₁	27.38ab	9.74ab	8.96ab	4.76bc	3.25ab	5.08cd	71.00abc	51.58ab	20.78a	142.50ab
	N₂	26.31ab	9.51abc	8.92ab	5.12ab	3.15ab	5.34bcd	63.75c	44.92bc	20.00a	121.38c
	N₃	26.73ab	9.08bc	8.42ab	5.17ab	3.12ab	5.54bc	69.25bc	48.33ab	22.11a	134.17b
	N₄	28.18a	10.09a	9.04a	5.20ab	3.13ab	4.39de	69.83abc	55.17a	21.11a	146.75a
	N₅	25.33b	8.93c	7.92bc	4.32cd	2.93bc	5.07cd	55.42d	40.92c	20.56a	104.58d
	N₆	27.86ab	9.57abc	8.80ab	5.56a	3.38a	7.62a	71.25ab	50.67ab	22.11a	136.83ab
	N₇	28.28a	9.49abc	9.13a	4.93abc	3.15ab	6.41b	77.08a	51.50ab	20.89a	148.42a
F₂	CK	21.90d	7.97c	7.17c	3.91d	2.55c	3.84c	40.25d	28.50d	19.56a	88.17d
	N₁	24.30cd	8.42bc	7.83bc	4.76c	2.81bc	5.39ab	63.08c	45.00c	20.33a	131.83c
	N₂	27.57ab	9.25ab	9.75a	5.00bc	3.24ab	5.69a	68.92abc	47.92bc	20.56a	136.25bc
	N₃	27.68ab	9.21ab	8.92ab	5.75a	3.35a	5.93a	75.83a	56.75a	20.78a	151.92a
	N₄	26.25abc	9.13ab	8.38abc	5.54ab	3.07ab	5.79a	68.42abc	47.00c	20.89a	135.75bc
	N₅	28.63a	9.53a	9.05ab	5.97a	3.43a	5.75a	70.25abc	53.08abc	20.22a	140.25bc
	N₆	27.47ab	8.98ab	8.58abc	4.98bc	3.17ab	5.84a	71.92ab	56.00ab	22.33a	146.25ab
	N₇	25.68bc	8.95ab	8.54abc	5.05bc	3.30ab	4.69b	65.42bc	44.83c	21.33a	137.42bc

项目	处理	开展度/ cm	最大叶长/ cm	最大叶宽/ cm	叶柄长/ cm	叶柄宽/ cm	叶柄厚/ mm	叶片重/ g	叶柄重/ g	叶片数	单株重/ g
平均	F₁	27.15a	9.49a	8.74a	5.01b	3.16a	5.64a	68.23a	49.01a	21.08a	133.52b
平均	F₂	26.79a	9.07b	8.72a	5.29a	3.19a	5.58a	69.12a	50.08a	20.92a	139.95a
F值	F	0.16	2.96	0.003	1.15	0.10	0.01	0.07	0.12	0.42	0.89
	N	0.23	0.29	0.51	0.46	0.30	0.77	0.60	0.45	4.45^*	0.79
	F×N	5.58^**	3.16^*	1.85	5.80^**	2.17	8.24^**	4.80^**	4.55^**	0.11	9.10**

项目	处理	开展度/ cm	最大叶长/ cm	最大叶宽/ cm	叶柄长/ cm	叶柄宽/ cm	叶柄厚/ mm	叶片重/ g	叶柄重/ g	叶片数	单株重/ g
平均	F₁	27.15a	9.49a	8.74a	5.01b	3.16a	5.64a	68.23a	49.01a	21.08a	133.52b
平均	F₂	26.79a	9.07b	8.72a	5.29a	3.19a	5.58a	69.12a	50.08a	20.92a	139.95a
F值	F	0.16	2.96	0.003	1.15	0.10	0.01	0.07	0.12	0.42	0.89
	N	0.23	0.29	0.51	0.46	0.30	0.77	0.60	0.45	4.45^*	0.79
	F×N	5.58^**	3.16^*	1.85	5.80^**	2.17	8.24^**	4.80^**	4.55^**	0.11	9.10**

处理	开展度	最大叶长	最大叶宽	叶柄长	叶柄宽	叶柄厚	叶片重	叶柄重	叶片数
F₁	0.60^**	0.52^*	0.58^**	0.43^*	0.49^*	0.12	0.90^**	0.75^**	0.12
F₂	0.59^**	0.35	0.14	0.35	0.56^**	0.38	0.86^**	0.69^**	0.28