Effects of Brackish Water Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Types on Growth and Yield of Rice in Coastal Saline Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0545

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigates the effects of brackish water irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer types on the growth and yield of rice, providing a theoretical basis and practical guidance for integrated management of water and fertilizer as well as the improvement of crop yield in coastal saline farmlands. Taking moderately coastal saline soil (salt content=2.2 g/kg) as the test soil, a four-month field column experiment was conducted using ‘Y-Liangyou-911’ rice variety as material. The experiment was designed with two factors: the salinity of irrigation water [freshwater (W₁), mixed irrigation of freshwater and brackish water (W₂), and brackish water (W₃) alone] and nitrogen fertilizer types [urea (N₁), polyurethane-coated urea (N₂), and urea formaldehyde (N₃)]. The tillering number, plant height, leaf area as well as yield and its components of rice were analyzed. The results showed that, under the same nitrogen fertilizer type treatment, compared with fresh water irrigation (W₁), brackish water irrigation (W₂ and W₃) significantly promoted the tillering of rice, but reduced the plant height and leaf area. The nitrogen fertilizer type only significantly affected tillering number under fresh water irrigation. Specifically, the tillering number under W₁N₃ treatment was significantly higher than that under W₁N₂ and W₁N₁ treatments. However, nitrogen fertilizer type had no significant effect on plant height and leaf area. Regarding rice yield and its components, brackish water irrigation had no significant effect on the panicle number and grains per panicle, but significantly reduced the thousand-grain weight, consequently resulting in a decrease in yield. Compared with W₁ treatment, the yield under W₂ and W₃ treatments decreased by 17%-28% and 22%-35%, respectively. The nitrogen fertilizer type had no significant effect on panicle number and thousand-grain weight, but significantly increased grains per panicle and yield. Notably, compared with three treatments under fresh water irrigation, the rice yield under W₂N₂ treatment showed no significant decrease. In coastal saline areas, appropriate brackish water irrigation can promote rice tillering but inhibits plant height and leaf growth, thereby significantly reducing thousand-grain weight and causing yield reduction. Polyurethane-coated urea can effectively mitigate the negative impact of brackish water irrigation on rice yield. Overall, the practice combining the mixed irrigation with freshwater and brackish water (<1.50 g/L) and the application of polyurethane-coated urea as a basal fertilizer is an effective management strategy of water and fertilizer. This approach efficiently facilitates the utilization of brackish water resources and the stabilization of crop yield in coastal saline areas.

Key words: brackish water, nitrogen fertilizer type, coastal saline soil, rice

HU Yiting, DONG Yue, SONG Xiuchao, GUO Shiwei, MA Yan, HOU Pengfu, WANG Hong, WANG Jidong. Effects of Brackish Water Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Types on Growth and Yield of Rice in Coastal Saline Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(21): 114-122.

Figures/Tables 7

References 55

[1]	杨劲松, 姚荣江, 王相平, 等. 中国盐渍土研究:历程、现状与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(1):10-27.
[2]	胡炎, 杨帆, 杨宁, 等. 盐碱地资源分析及利用研究展望[J]. 土壤通报, 2023, 54(2):489-494.
[3]	曹晓风, 孙波, 陈化榜, 等. 我国边际土地产能扩增和生态效益提升的途径与研究进展[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2021, 36(3):336-348.
[4]	DING C, DU S, MA Y, et al. Changes in the pH of paddy soils after flooding and drainage: modeling and validation[J]. Geoderma, 2019, 337:511-513.
[5]	陈凯文, 俞双恩, 李倩倩, 等. 不同水文年型下水稻节水灌溉技术方案模拟与评价[J]. 农业机械学报, 2019, 50(12):268-277.
[6]	李博, 王洪德, 丁继辉, 等. 不同微咸水灌溉模式下盐碱土脱盐效率及水稻生长效应[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2025(3):187-193.
[7]	ISLAM M A, WARWICK N, KOECH R, et al. The importance of farmers' perceptions of salinity and adaptation strategies for ensuring food security: evidence from the coastal rice growing areas of Bangladesh[J]. Science of the total environment, 2020, 727:138674.
[8]	GREGORIO G B, SENADHIRA D, MENDOZA R D, et al. Progress in breeding for salinity tolerance and associated abiotic stresses in rice[J]. Field crops research, 2002, 76(2):91-101.
[9]	ISMAIL A M, HEUER S, THOMSON M J, et al. Genetic and genomic approaches to develop rice germplasm for problem soils[J]. Plant molecular biology, 2007, 65(4):547-570. doi: 10.1007/s11103-007-9215-2 pmid: 17703278
[10]	NAKHODA B, LEUNG H, MENDIORO M S, et al. Isolation, characterization, and field evaluation of rice (Oryza Sativa L., Var.IR64) mutants with altered responses to salt stress[J]. Field crops research, 2012, 127:191-202.
[11]	王才林, 张亚东, 赵凌, 等. 耐盐碱水稻研究现状、问题与建议[J]. 中国稻米, 2019, 25(1):1-6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2019.01.001
[12]	王相平, 杨劲松, 姚荣江, 等. 微咸水灌溉对苏北海涂水稻产量及土壤盐分分布的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2014, 33(2):107-109.
[13]	倪刚, 贺晨, 曾溢, 等. 盐碱地咸水/微咸水农业安全与高效利用研究进展与展望[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2023, 42(12):149-156.
[14]	高聪帅, 邵立威, 闫宗正, 等. 不同矿化度微咸水灌溉冬小麦对下季作物产量和周年土壤盐分平衡的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(5):809-820.
[15]	PANPAN Z, SHEN J L. Effect of brackish water irrigation on the movement of water and salt in salinized soil[J]. Open geosciences, 2022, 14(1):404-413.
[16]	CHENG M H, WANG H D, FAN J L, et al. Crop yield and water productivity under salty water irrigation: a global meta-analysis[J]. Agricultural water management, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107105.
[17]	ZHANG D, LI W, XIN C, et al. Lint yield and nitrogen use efficiency of field-grown cotton vary with soil salinity and nitrogen application rate[J]. Field crops research, 2012, 138:63-70.
[18]	FENG Z Z, WANG X K, FENG Z W. Soil N and salinity leaching after the autumn irrigation and its impact on groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, China[J]. Agricultural water management, 2004, 71(2):131-143.
[19]	MERCHÁN D, CAUSAPÉ J, ABRAHÃO R, et al. Assessment of a newly implemented irrigated area (Lerma Basin, Spain) over a 10-year period. I: water balances and irrigation performance[J]. Agricultural water management, 2015, 158:277-287.
[20]	ZHU W, YANG J S, YAO R J, et al. Nitrate leaching and NH₃ volatilization during soil reclamation in the Yellow River Delta, China[J]. Environmental pollution, 2021, 286:117330.
[21]	ZHU H, YANG J, YAO R, et al. Interactive effects of soil amendments (biochar and gypsum) and salinity on ammonia volatilization in coastal saline soil[J]. Catena, 2020, 190:104527.
[22]	GU B J, ZHANG X M, LAM S K, et al. Cost-effective mitigation of nitrogen pollution from global croplands[J]. Nature, 2023, 613(7942):77-84.
[23]	MOHAMED E K T, MOHAMED W F, ALI D M, et al. Algal amendment improved yield and grain quality of rice with alleviation of the impacts of salt stress and water stress[J]. Heliyon, 2021, 7(9):e07911.
[24]	孙秀红, 胡波. 影响水稻分蘖发生的主要栽培措施和环境因素研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2020(7):6-8.
[25]	赵丽君, 黄影华, 张善炫, 等. 不同氮肥梯度处理水稻茎蘖数及株高变化规律[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2020, 59(12):13-16.
[26]	马梦影, 巩文靓, 康雪蒙, 等. 水稻理想株型改良的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(29):1-6. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190900610
[27]	徐浩聪, 姚波, 王权, 等. 基于叶片反射光谱估测水稻氮营养指数[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(21):4525-4539. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.21.004
[28]	郑崇珂, 戴南平, 周冠华, 等. 黄河三角洲微咸水灌溉对水稻产量的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2023(3):17-23. doi: 10.12396/jsgg.2022294
[29]	王璐, 侯红燕, 胡鑫慧, 等. 微咸水灌溉与施肥方式对盐碱地水稻生理特性、产量及品质的互作效应[J]. 节水灌溉, 2025, 3:84-90.
[30]	WANG X N, LI Y N, LI Y Y, et al. Metabolomic analysis of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings under saline-alkali stress[J]. Polish journal of environmental studies, 2024, 33(4):4375-4385.
[31]	GUO Y, WANG Q J, ZHAO X, et al. Field irrigation using magnetized brackish water affects the growth and water consumption of Haloxylon ammodendron seedlings in an arid area[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2022, 13:929021.
[32]	王旭明, 赵夏夏, 周鸿凯, 等. NaCl胁迫对不同耐盐性水稻某些生理特性和光合特性的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(5):882-890. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.05.008
[33]	WEI H, GENG X, ZHU W, et al. Individual and combined influences of salinity and drought stress on the agro-physiological traits and grain yield of rice[J]. Field crops research, 2023, 304:109172.
[34]	HORIE T, KARAHARA I, KATSUHARA M. Salinity tolerance mechanisms in glycophytes: an overview with the central focus on rice plants[J]. Rice, 2012, 5(1):11. doi: 10.1186/1939-8433-5-11 pmid: 27234237
[35]	ZUO G, FENG N, WANG S, et al. Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) exhibits differential responses to salt stress and salt shock in electron transfer efficiency[J]. Plant stress, 2024, 12:100481.
[36]	LIU C, MAO B, YUAN D, et al. Salt tolerance in rice: physiological responses and molecular mechanisms[J]. The crop journal, 2022, 10(1):13-25.
[37]	WANG X, DU T, HUANG J, et al. Leaf hydraulic vulnerability triggers the decline in stomatal and mesophyll conductance during drought in rice[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2018, 69(16):4033-4045. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery188 pmid: 29788146
[38]	RADANIELSON A M, ANGELES O, LI T, et al. Describing the physiological responses of different rice genotypes to salt stress using sigmoid and piecewise linear functions[J]. Field crops research, 2018, 220:46-56. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.05.001 pmid: 29725160
[39]	SCHRÖDER N, LAZAROVITCH N, VANDERBORGHT J, et al. Linking transpiration reduction to rhizosphere salinity using a 3D coupled soil-plant model[J]. Plant and soil, 2014, 377(1):277-293.
[40]	MITSUYA S, KAWASAKI M, TANIGUCHI M, et al. Relationship between salinity-induced damages and aging in rice leaf tissues[J]. Plant production science, 2003, 6:213-218.
[41]	梁晓红, 曹雄, 张瑞栋, 等. 不同类型缓控释尿素一次性基施对高粱产量、氮素利用的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2024, 53(9):28-36.
[42]	唐拴虎, 徐培智, 张发宝, 等. 一次性全层施用控释肥对水稻根系形态发育及抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006(1):63-69.
[43]	杨辉, 白天亮, 朱春艳, 等. 盐胁迫下水稻种质资源Na⁺、K⁺平衡和SKC1单倍型分析[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2023, 24(4):1085-1096. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20221231003
[44]	YANG Y, GUO Y. Elucidating the molecular mechanisms mediating plant salt-stress responses[J]. New phytologist, 2017, 217:523-539.
[45]	HAZMAN M, HAUSE B, EICHE E, et al. Increased tolerance to salt stress in opda-deficient rice allene oxide cyclase mutants is linked to an increased ROS-scavenging activity[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2015, 66(11):3339-3352. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv142 pmid: 25873666
[46]	李红宇, 潘世驹, 钱永德, 等. 混合盐碱胁迫对寒地水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2015, 46(12):2100-2105.
[47]	KHAN M A, ABDULLAH Z. Salinity-sodicity induced changes in reproductive physiology of rice (Oryza Sativa) under dense soil conditions[J]. Environmental and experimental botany, 2003, 49(2):145-157.
[48]	杨福, 梁正伟, 王志春, 等. 水稻耐盐碱品种(系)筛选试验与省区域试验产量性状的比较[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2007, 6:596-600.
[49]	步金宝, 赵宏伟, 刘化龙, 等. 盐碱胁迫对寒地粳稻产量形成机理的研究[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2012, 33(4):485-488.
[50]	SAID F N B, YUSOP M K, OAD F C. Nutrient uptake, pH changes and yield of rice under slow release sulfur-coated urea fertilizers[J]. Australian journal of crop science, 2014, 8:1359-1366.
[51]	CHEN Y, TU P, YANG Y, et al. Diversity of rice rhizosphere microorganisms under different fertilization modes of slow-release fertilizer[J]. Scientific reports, 2022, 12(1):2694. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06155-1 pmid: 35177664
[52]	KARKI S, POUDEL N S, BHUSAL G, et al. Growth parameter and yield attributes of rice (Oryza Sativa) as influenced by different combination of nitrogen sources[J]. World journal of agricultural research, 2018, 6(2):58-64.
[53]	王云翔, 咸云宇, 赵灿, 等. 缓控释氮肥施用技术在水稻上应用研究进展与展望[J]. 中国稻米, 2023, 4:1-7.
[54]	聂军, 郑圣先, 戴平安, 等. 控释氮肥调控水稻光合功能和叶片衰老的生理基础[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2005, 3:255-261.
[55]	杨明达, 马守臣, 杨慎骄, 等. 氮肥后移对抽穗后水分胁迫下冬小麦光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(11):3315-3321.

处理	灌溉水矿化度	氮肥类型（基肥）
CK	淡水，0.15 g/L	/
W₁N₁	淡水，0.15 g/L	尿素
W₂N₁	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	尿素
W₃N₁	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	尿素
W₁N₂	淡水，0.15 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₂N₂	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₃N₂	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₁N₃	淡水，0.15 g/L	脲醛
W₂N₃	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	脲醛
W₃N₃	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	脲醛

处理	灌溉水矿化度	氮肥类型（基肥）
CK	淡水，0.15 g/L	/
W₁N₁	淡水，0.15 g/L	尿素
W₂N₁	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	尿素
W₃N₁	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	尿素
W₁N₂	淡水，0.15 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₂N₂	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₃N₂	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	聚氨酯包膜尿素
W₁N₃	淡水，0.15 g/L	脲醛
W₂N₃	淡水、微咸水混灌，1.00~1.50 g/L	脲醛
W₃N₃	田间微咸水，1.35~2.00 g/L	脲醛

处理	穗数/（穗/穴）	穗粒数/粒	千粒重/g	产量/(g/株)
CK	5 ± 0 b	172 ± 15 b	25 ± 1 bc	21 ± 3 e
W₁N₁	12 ± 2 a	209 ± 31 ab	26 ± 3 ab	64 ± 13 ab
W₂N₁	12 ± 2 a	201 ± 29 a	29 ± 3 ab	71 ± 7 a
W₃N₁	11 ± 1 a	230 ± 25 a	25 ± 2 bc	65± 10 ab
W₁N₂	13 ± 1 a	179 ± 14 b	20 ± 1 de	45 ± 2 d
W₂N₂	14 ± 2 a	174 ± 35 b	24 ± 3 cde	59 ± 5 abc
W₃N₂	11 ± 1 a	196 ± 17 a	22 ± 2 cde	47 ± 5 cd
W₁N₃	12 ± 2 a	172 ± 7 b	19 ± 1 e	41 ± 7 d
W₂N₃	13 ± 0 a	179 ± 20 b	21 ± 1 bcd	52 ± 7 bcd
W₃N₃	12 ± 1 a	199 ± 40 a	20 ± 2 de	48 ± 9 cd

处理	穗数/（穗/穴）	穗粒数/粒	千粒重/g	产量/(g/株)
CK	5 ± 0 b	172 ± 15 b	25 ± 1 bc	21 ± 3 e
W₁N₁	12 ± 2 a	209 ± 31 ab	26 ± 3 ab	64 ± 13 ab
W₂N₁	12 ± 2 a	201 ± 29 a	29 ± 3 ab	71 ± 7 a
W₃N₁	11 ± 1 a	230 ± 25 a	25 ± 2 bc	65± 10 ab
W₁N₂	13 ± 1 a	179 ± 14 b	20 ± 1 de	45 ± 2 d
W₂N₂	14 ± 2 a	174 ± 35 b	24 ± 3 cde	59 ± 5 abc
W₃N₂	11 ± 1 a	196 ± 17 a	22 ± 2 cde	47 ± 5 cd
W₁N₃	12 ± 2 a	172 ± 7 b	19 ± 1 e	41 ± 7 d
W₂N₃	13 ± 0 a	179 ± 20 b	21 ± 1 bcd	52 ± 7 bcd
W₃N₃	12 ± 1 a	199 ± 40 a	20 ± 2 de	48 ± 9 cd