Effect of Yellow River Water Drip Irrigation Coordinated with Soil Regulation Technology on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Maize Yield

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0456

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigates the effects of various soil conditioning techniques on soil physicochemical properties and maize yield under drip irrigation with Yellow River water under plastic film in the Hetao Irrigation District of Inner Mongolia, and screens optimal water-saving and soil-improving yield-increasing mode. Maize was used as the test crop, and single application of SAP, single application of PAM, mixed application of SAP + PAM ( S + P ), CK₁ ( film mulching control ) and CK₂ ( no film control ) were set up. Three irrigation quota gradients of 2376 m³/hm², 2673 m³/hm² and 2970 m³/hm² were used to carry out field experiments by drip irrigation under the Yellow River water film. The soil bulk density, organic matter content, water content, total salt content, maize yield and irrigation water production efficiency were measured. The results indicate that, compared to the control group, both water-retaining agents and soil amendments reduced soil bulk density to varying degrees. The combined application of water-retaining agents and soil amendments resulted in the most significant reduction in soil bulk density, with an average decrease of 0.13 g/cm³ compared to pre-sowing levels. The soil organic matter content under plastic film in all treatments was generally higher than that of the control, with the combined treatment yielding the highest soil organic matter content at an average of 49.47 g/kg. Under the various treatment conditions, the combined application of water-retaining agents and soil amendments produced the highest maize yield and irrigation water productivity, reaching 15.6 t/hm² and 17.58 kg/m³ respectively. For the same conditioning treatment, an irrigation quota of 2376 m³/hm² was found to be most conducive to enhancing irrigation water productivity. Overall, the combined application of water-retaining agents and soil amendments demonstrated considerable advantages in improving soil physicochemical properties, increasing maize yield, and enhancing irrigation water productivity, offering valuable insights for similar agricultural production studies.

Key words: water-retaining agent, soil amendment, drip irrigation with Yellow River water, conditioning technology, physicochemical properties, maize yield, Hetao Irrigation District

LI Zhengkui, XIA Yuhong, ZHAO Sha, HAN Tiankai, SUN Long, LIU Jiaxin, CHEN Min. Effect of Yellow River Water Drip Irrigation Coordinated with Soil Regulation Technology on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Maize Yield[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(6): 102-110.

Figures/Tables 6

References 31

[1]	姚建武, 王艳红, 唐明灯, 等. 施用保水剂对旱地赤红壤持水能力及氮肥淋失的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2010, 24(5):191-194.
[2]	白文波, 王春艳, 李茂松, 等. 不同灌溉条件下保水剂对新疆棉花生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(10):69-76.
[3]	李华, 闫沛玉. 保水剂对土壤性质及含水量的影响研究[J]. 农业与技术, 2023, 43(18):19-21.
[4]	吴娜, 赵宝平, 曾昭海, 等. 两种灌溉方式下保水剂用量对裸燕麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2009, 35(8):1552-1557.
[5]	WOODHOUSE J, JOHNSON M S. Effect of super absorbent polymers on survival and growth of crop seedling[J]. Agricultural water management, 1991, 20(1):63-70. doi: 10.1016/0378-3774(91)90035-H URL
[6]	夏茂林, 李洪臣. 不同粒径保水剂对土壤水分特性及干旱胁迫下烟苗生长发育的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2022, 41(11):14-21.
[7]	马征, 董晓霞, 张柏松. 不同保水剂对土壤团聚体组成及微生物量碳、氮的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(5):122-128.
[8]	李鹏, 田苗, 任安, 等. 土壤改良剂对松嫩平原盐碱土壤理化性状,水稻生长及产量的影响[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2023(5):48-52.
[9]	陆绍娟, 王占礼. 土壤改良剂聚丙烯酰胺的研究进展[J]. 人民黄河, 2016, 38(7):73-77.
[10]	SHOCK C C, FEIBERT B G, SAUNDERS L D. A comparison of straw mulching and PAM for potato production[R]. O SU, Malheyr Experiment Station Special Report, 1997, 978:71-78.
[11]	党秀丽, 黄毅. 超吸水性多聚物对作物幼苗存活和生长的影响[J]. 水土保持科技情报, 2001(3):17-19.
[12]	SHOCK C, FEIBERT E, SAUNDERS M, et al. Treatment of soil with bright sum soil booster and polyacrylam ide as soil conditioners for improved seeding emergence[J]. Agronomy journal, 1992, 84:160-165.
[13]	杜社妮, 白岗栓, 赵世伟, 等. 沃特和PAM保水剂对土壤水分及马铃薯生长的影响研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2007, 23(8):72-79.
[14]	张扬, 赵世伟, 梁向锋, 等. 保水剂对宁南山区马铃薯产量及土壤水分利用的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(3):27-32.
[15]	刘纪霜, 罗兴录, 樊吴静, 等. 保水剂对土壤理化性状和木薯产量影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(33):253-258.
[16]	宋海燕, 汪有科, 汪星, 等. 保水剂用量对土壤水分的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(3):33-36
[17]	李中阳, 吕谋超, 樊向阳, 等. 不同类型保水剂对冬小麦水分利用效率和根系形态的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(12):6.
[18]	王以兵, 丁林, 张新民. 免储水灌注水播种条件下保水剂使用对玉米生长发育的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2010, 30(4):152-156.
[19]	杨永辉, 武继承, 吴普特, 等. 保水剂对小麦生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 29(3):133-137.
[20]	耿桂俊, 白岗栓, 杜社妮, 等. 保水剂施用方式对土壤水盐及番茄生长的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2011, 9(3):65-70.
[21]	张淑芬. 坡耕地施用聚丙烯酰胺防治水土流失试验研究[J]. 水土保持科技情报, 2001(2):18-19.
[22]	TERRY R E, NELSON S D. Effect of polyacrylamide and irrigation method on il physical properties[J]. Soil science, 1986, 141:317-320. doi: 10.1097/00010694-198605000-00003 URL
[23]	介石磊, 李有田. 保水剂对上壤持水特性的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2000(1):22-24.
[24]	安东, 李新平, 张永宏, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对碱积盐成土改良效果研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(5):115-118.
[25]	解开治, 徐培智, 严超, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对南方酸性土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009(20):6.
[26]	谢伯承, 薛绪掌, 王纪华, 等. 保水剂对土壤持水性状的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2003, 23(6):44-46.
[27]	耿桂俊. 地表覆盖及保水剂与PAM对河套灌区土壤水热盐和番茄生长的影响[D]. 北京: 中国科学院研究生院(教育部水土保持与生态环境研究中心), 2011.
[28]	申丽霞, 兰印超, 李若帆. 不同降解膜覆盖对土壤水热与玉米生长的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018, 36(1):200-206.
[29]	胡敏, 苗庆丰, 史海滨, 等. 不同地膜覆盖对春玉米生长发育及水分利用效率的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(2):173-177.
[30]	李婷, 李世清, 占爱, 等. 地膜覆盖、氮肥与密度及其互作对黄土旱塬春玉米氮素吸收、转运及生产效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(8):1504-1517. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.08.008
[31]	王富, 魏占民, 付晨星, 等. PAM与SAP联合施用对旱作坡耕地的水分保蓄影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2020(8):55-58.

序号	处理	调理剂种类	施用数量/(kg/hm²)	种植方式	灌水定额/[m³/(hm²·次)]	灌溉定额/(m³/hm²)
1	SAP-1-1	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	270	2970
2	SAP-1-2	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	243	2673
3	SAP-1-3	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	216	2376
4	S+P-1-1	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	270	2970
5	S+P-1-2	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	243	2673
6	S+P-1-3	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	216	2376
7	PAM-1-1	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	270	2970
8	PAM-1-2	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	243	2673
9	PAM-1-3	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	216	2376
10	CK-2-1	无	0	无膜	270	2970
11	CK-1-1	无	0	覆膜	270	2970

序号	处理	调理剂种类	施用数量/(kg/hm²)	种植方式	灌水定额/[m³/(hm²·次)]	灌溉定额/(m³/hm²)
1	SAP-1-1	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	270	2970
2	SAP-1-2	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	243	2673
3	SAP-1-3	单施SAP	45.0	覆膜	216	2376
4	S+P-1-1	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	270	2970
5	S+P-1-2	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	243	2673
6	S+P-1-3	混施S+P	45.0+22.5	覆膜	216	2376
7	PAM-1-1	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	270	2970
8	PAM-1-2	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	243	2673
9	PAM-1-3	单施PAM	22.5	覆膜	216	2376
10	CK-2-1	无	0	无膜	270	2970
11	CK-1-1	无	0	覆膜	270	2970