Effects of Different Planting Years and Planting Methods on Soil Characteristics and Wheat Yield in Tidal Flat Cultivation Reclamation Area

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0028

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effects of different planting years and planting methods on the yield and component factors of shoal wheat, and clarify the dynamic changes of soil salinity, pH and moisture during the growth of shoal wheat, the wheat planting experiment with planting years and planting methods were carried out from November 2021 to June 2022 in the cultivation reclamation area of tidal flats. Two planting years including wheat planting in the first year (1Y) and the second year (2Y), and two planting methods including 25 cm continuous row spacing conventional tillage (N) and 30 cm+15 cm wide and narrow row tillage (T) were set up in the experiment. The results showed that (1) the dynamic changes of soil salinity of 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm under 1Y-T, 1Y-N, 2Y-T and 2Y-N treatments were relatively stable from December to February of the next year. The salinity reached the lowest value in late March, and then the salinity returned with the increase of temperature. At the same time, the salinity of 0-40 cm soil layer under T treatment was higher than that under N treatment, and the salinity of 0-40 cm soil layer under 1Y treatment was higher than that under 2Y treatment. (2) Soil pH values of 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm soil layer under each treatment had similar seasonal variation characteristics during wheat planting. At the same time, the pH value of 0-20 cm soil layer was lower than that in 20-40 cm soil layer, and the moisture content of 0-20 cm soil layer was higher than that in 20-40 cm soil layer. (3) Overall, the wheat yield under 2Y treatment was increased by 2.68% compared with that under 1Y treatment. The plot yield and theoretical yield under T treatment were decreased by 6.71% and 8.03% compared with that under N treatment (P<0.05). From the analysis of yield components, the panicle number of wheat under 2Y treatment was increased by 5.29% (P<0.05) compared with that under 1Y treatment, and the panicle number of wheat under T treatment was decreased by 9.67% (P<0.05) compared with that under N treatment. However, there were no significant differences in the number of grains per ear and 1000-grain weight under different planting years or planting methods. The wheat yield will increase with the decrease of soil salinity in the reclamation area, and the main reason for the increase of wheat yield is the increase of the number of ears in tidal flat cultivation reclamation area.

Key words: tidal flat culture reclamation area, soil salinity, beach utilization, salt-tolerant wheat, food security

ZHANG Jiao, CHEN Pengjun, CUI Shiyou, JIANG Xiaye, HAN Jijun, LONG Xien, MIAO Yuanqing. Effects of Different Planting Years and Planting Methods on Soil Characteristics and Wheat Yield in Tidal Flat Cultivation Reclamation Area[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(29): 45-51.

Figures/Tables 5

References 35

[1]	LI X, CHANG S X, SALIFU K F. Soil texture and layering effects on water and salt dynamics in the presence of a water table: a review[J]. Environmental reviews, 2014, 22(1):41-50.
[2]	DUAN H, ZHANG H, HUANG Q, et al. Characterization and environmental impact analysis of sea land reclamation activities in China[J]. Ocean & coastal management, 2016, 130(sep.):128-137.
[3]	姚云长, 任春颖, 王宗明, 等. 1985年和2010年中国沿海盐田和养殖池遥感监测[J]. 湿地科学, 2016, 14(6):874-882.
[4]	张卫. 农业部印发《养殖水域滩涂规划编制工作规范》[J]. 中国食品, 2017(2):1.
[5]	熊万英, 王建. 江苏沿海滩涂可持续发展研究[J]. 国土与自然资源研究, 2004(4):3.
[6]	张义凯, 向镜, 朱德峰, 等. 盐碱地耕作及洗盐对水稻根系生长和形态特性的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(3):67-70. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2017.03.015
[7]	向镜, 张义凯, 朱德峰, 等. 盐碱地耕作和洗盐方式对水稻生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2018, 24(4):68-71. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2018.04.016
[8]	吕小红, 付立东, 王宇, 等. 氮肥运筹对滨海稻区钵苗机插水稻产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 福建农业学报, 2018, 33(2):125-130.
[9]	严凯, 蒋玉兰, 唐纪元, 等. 盐碱地条件下施氮量和栽插密度对水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(2):67-74.
[10]	张蛟, 翟彩娇, 崔士友. 微咸水灌溉滩涂稻田盐分动态及其水稻产量表现[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(4):799-803.
[11]	翟彩娇, 张蛟, 崔士友, 等. 盐逆境下缓/控释肥对水稻生长发育、产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2023(1):143-151.
[12]	韩冉, 解树斌, 李欣, 等. 耐盐小麦种质筛选、鉴定与评价[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(9):12-18.
[13]	李媛媛, 陈博, 姚立蓉, 等. 283份小麦品种(系)萌发期耐盐碱性评价及种质筛选[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(3):25-33. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2020.0203
[14]	刘彤彤, 李宁, 魏良迪, 等. 山西省主推小麦品种芽期及苗期耐盐性的综合评价[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(2):22-33.
[15]	孙现军, 姜奇彦, 胡正, 等. 小麦种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定评价[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4):1132-1139. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.21021
[16]	石吕, 薛亚光, 魏亚凤, 等. 基于宽窄行种植模式下稻秸非均匀性覆盖对土壤特性及小麦产量的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(7):1668-1677. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.07.1668
[17]	薛亚光, 石吕, 韩笑, 等. 不同机械耕播方式对稻茬小麦产量形成及经济效益的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22):94-98.
[18]	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.
[19]	苏春利, 纪倩楠, 陶彦臻, 等. 河套灌区西部土壤盐渍化分异特征及其主控因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3):916-923. doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2022.03.25
[20]	张蛟, 崔士友, 胡帅栋, 等. 水稻种植对沿海滩涂土壤有机碳及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(3):107-112.
[21]	张蛟, 崔士友, 陈澎军, 等. 沿海滩涂水稻种植对土壤微生物量碳和水溶性有机碳的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(17):222-228.
[22]	张蛟, 崔士友, 冯芝祥, 等. 气候因子和地表覆盖对沿海滩涂土壤盐分动态的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(2):294-302.
[23]	张蛟, 崔士友, 冯芝祥. 种植碱蓬和秸秆覆盖对沿海滩涂极重度盐土盐分动态与脱盐效果的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(5):1686-1694. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201805.034
[24]	李中昊, 陈阜, 文新亚, 等. 气温上升对河套义长灌域土壤盐分含量的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2013, 18(1):61-68.
[25]	CUI S Y, ZHANG J J, SUN M F, et al. Leaching effectiveness of desalinization by rainfall combined with wheat straw mulching on heavy saline soil[J]. Archives of agronomy and soil science, 2017, 64(7):891-902.
[26]	张蛟, 陈澎军, 陈艳, 等. 滩涂水产养殖池复垦种稻短期内土壤特性变化及水稻产量表现[J]. 作物杂志, 2023(4):118-125.
[27]	张蛟, 冯芝祥, 崔世友, 等. 滩涂垦区不同盐分水平土壤的盐分动态及土壤因子变化[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017, 33(4):836-842.
[28]	张蛟, 崔士友. 秸秆和植被覆盖对滩涂围垦区土壤盐分和肥力性质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(3):128-135.
[29]	李芙荣, 杨劲松, 吴亚坤, 等. 不同秸秆埋深对苏北滩涂盐渍土水盐动态变化的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(6):1101-1107.
[30]	胡琴, 陈为峰, 宋希亮, 等. 开垦年限对黄河三角洲盐碱地土壤质量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(4):824-833.
[31]	张乾, 赵德明, 朱有虎, 等. 秸秆带状覆盖对旱地冬小麦土壤温度及产量的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2023, 43(8):1056-1065.
[32]	张蛟, 崔士友, 翟彩娇, 等. 盐胁迫下缓释肥和氮减量对水稻生长、产量及土壤特性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(3):94-100.
[33]	刘春增, 常单娜, 李本银, 等. 种植翻压紫云英配施化肥对稻田土壤活性有机碳氮的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2017, 54(3):657-669.
[34]	许梦璐, 吴炜, 颜铮明, 等. 滨海滩涂不同土地利用类型土壤活性有机碳含量与垂直分布[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(4):167-175. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.202001021
[35]	SU Y Z, LIU T N, WANG X F, et al. Salinity effects on soil organic carbon and its labile fractions, and nematode communities in irrigated farmlands in an arid region, northwestern China[J]. Sciences in cold and arid regions, 2016, 8(1):46-53.

种植年限		1Y	2Y
基本理化性质	有机碳SOC/(g/kg)	3.31±0.43b	5.14±0.52a
	总氮/(g/kg)	0.43±0.05b	0.63±0.05a
	全钾/(g/kg)	10.86±1.21a	10.85±0.36a
	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	25.10±0.82b	34.69±4.58a
	有效磷/(mg/kg)	26.88±7.48a	36.86±8.53a
	速效钾/(mg/kg)	250.48±25.73a	236.00±22.89a
	EC/(dS/m)	0.41±0.07a	0.38±0.03a
	pH	8.19±0.04a	8.22±0.03a
	容重/(g/cm³)	1.42±0.01a	1.43±0.02a
	孔隙度/%	46.60±0.55b	45.89±0.84b
土壤颗粒组成SPC/%	砂粒	9.74±1.55a	9.69±1.00a
	粉粒	79.08±1.11a	79.10±2.14a
	黏粒	11.19±0.64a	11.21±1.22a

种植年限		1Y	2Y
基本理化性质	有机碳SOC/(g/kg)	3.31±0.43b	5.14±0.52a
	总氮/(g/kg)	0.43±0.05b	0.63±0.05a
	全钾/(g/kg)	10.86±1.21a	10.85±0.36a
	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	25.10±0.82b	34.69±4.58a
	有效磷/(mg/kg)	26.88±7.48a	36.86±8.53a
	速效钾/(mg/kg)	250.48±25.73a	236.00±22.89a
	EC/(dS/m)	0.41±0.07a	0.38±0.03a
	pH	8.19±0.04a	8.22±0.03a
	容重/(g/cm³)	1.42±0.01a	1.43±0.02a
	孔隙度/%	46.60±0.55b	45.89±0.84b
土壤颗粒组成SPC/%	砂粒	9.74±1.55a	9.69±1.00a
	粉粒	79.08±1.11a	79.10±2.14a
	黏粒	11.19±0.64a	11.21±1.22a

处理			穗数/ (万穗/hm²)	穗粒数/ 粒	千粒重/ g	小区产量/ (kg/hm²)	理论产量/ (kg/hm²)
产量	1Y	T	401.64±13.40b	31.92±0.57a	43.42±0.48a	4641.19±78.27a	4729.50±93.53b
	1Y	N	446.89±11.52a	31.24±0.49a	43.13±0.42a	4949.36±286.76a	5116.55±121.15a
	2Y	T	429.19±9.60b	31.18±0.57a	43.08±0.44a	4740.53±150.09a	4899.99±17.83b
	2Y	N	464.18±20.35a	31.45±0.61a	43.14±0.15a	5107.16±307.66a	5353.95±294.70a
均值	1Y		424.27±26.81B	31.58±0.61A	43.27±0.45A	4795.28±254.96A	4923.03±229.87A
	2Y		446.69±23.81A	31.31±0.56A	43.11±0.31A	4923.84±297.71A	5126.97±330.23A
	T		415.42±18.26b	31.55±0.66a	43.25±0.46a	4690.86±122.88b	4814.74±158.12b
	N		455.54±17.88a	31.34±0.52a	43.13±0.30a	5028.26±287.97a	5235.25±244.16a
F值	Y		8.39	0.96	1.05	0.99	4.53
	T		26.87**	0.59	0.49	6.83*	19.26**
	Y×T		0.43	0.62	3.07	1.18	0.12

处理			穗数/ (万穗/hm²)	穗粒数/ 粒	千粒重/ g	小区产量/ (kg/hm²)	理论产量/ (kg/hm²)
产量	1Y	T	401.64±13.40b	31.92±0.57a	43.42±0.48a	4641.19±78.27a	4729.50±93.53b
	1Y	N	446.89±11.52a	31.24±0.49a	43.13±0.42a	4949.36±286.76a	5116.55±121.15a
	2Y	T	429.19±9.60b	31.18±0.57a	43.08±0.44a	4740.53±150.09a	4899.99±17.83b
	2Y	N	464.18±20.35a	31.45±0.61a	43.14±0.15a	5107.16±307.66a	5353.95±294.70a
均值	1Y		424.27±26.81B	31.58±0.61A	43.27±0.45A	4795.28±254.96A	4923.03±229.87A
	2Y		446.69±23.81A	31.31±0.56A	43.11±0.31A	4923.84±297.71A	5126.97±330.23A
	T		415.42±18.26b	31.55±0.66a	43.25±0.46a	4690.86±122.88b	4814.74±158.12b
	N		455.54±17.88a	31.34±0.52a	43.13±0.30a	5028.26±287.97a	5235.25±244.16a
F值	Y		8.39	0.96	1.05	0.99	4.53
	T		26.87**	0.59	0.49	6.83*	19.26**
	Y×T		0.43	0.62	3.07	1.18	0.12