不同调理剂组合对浙江红壤土壤肥力、微生物群落多样性和水稻产量的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.06.16

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6): 1258-1267.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.06.16

不同调理剂组合对浙江红壤土壤肥力、微生物群落多样性和水稻产量的影响

朱铭¹^,²(), 刘琛², 林义成², 郭彬², 李华², 傅庆林²^,^*()

1.西北农林科技大学资源环境学院,陕西杨凌 712100
2.浙江省农业科学院环境资源与土壤肥料研究所,浙江杭州 310021

收稿日期:2021-07-03 出版日期:2022-06-25 发布日期:2022-06-30
通讯作者: 傅庆林
作者简介:*傅庆林,E-mail： fuql161@aliyun.com
朱铭（1995—）,男,浙江湖州人,硕士研究生,主要从事土壤改良研究。E-mail: 794450108@qq.com
基金资助:
浙江省重点研发计划(2019C02008)

Effects of conditioning agents on soil fertility, microbial community diversity and rice yield in red soil

ZHU Ming¹^,²(), LIU Chen², LIN Yicheng², GUO Bin², LI Hua², FU Qinglin²^,^*()

1. College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
2. Institute of Environment, Resource, Soil and Fertilizer, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China

Received:2021-07-03 Online:2022-06-25 Published:2022-06-30
Contact: FU Qinglin

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

浙江省中低产稻田土壤大多属于红壤,普遍存在土壤酸化、缺肥严重的问题。为提升红壤肥力进而获得水稻高产,以浙江省兰溪市红壤为对象,采用石灰石粉、腐殖酸和秸秆3种调理剂为材料,开展包含CK（不施肥且不施调理剂）、N（常规施肥）、NS（常规施肥+石灰石粉）、NSJ（常规施肥+石灰石粉+秸秆还田）、NSF（常规施肥+石灰石粉+腐殖酸）5个处理的水稻田间试验。结果表明,石灰石粉的施用能迅速提升土壤pH值,NS、NSJ和NSF处理的土壤pH值相较于CK显著（P<0.05）提高了1.17~1.60个单位。与CK和N处理相比,腐殖酸的施用显著（P<0.05）提高了土壤有机质量含量;秸秆还田或腐殖酸的施用均显著（P<0.05）提高了土壤速效钾含量。调理剂的施用提高了土壤微生物群落利用碳源的能力,还增加了土壤微生物磷脂脂肪酸（PLFA）含量,其中,以NSF处理的AWCD值和PLFA含量相较于CK提升最多。高通量测序结果表明,调理剂的施用显著改变了土壤微生物群落结构,增强了群落丰富度和群落多样性。石灰石粉、秸秆还田和腐殖酸均能显著（P<0.05）提高水稻产量,其中,以NSF处理的产量最高,较CK处理在水稻籽粒产量上提高了11.02%。综合来看,在试验条件下,NSF处理是改良红壤、提高水稻产量的最佳组合。。

关键词: 中低产田, 石灰石粉, 腐殖酸, 秸秆还田, 土壤肥力, 水稻产量

Abstract:

The majority of low- and medium-yielding fields in Zhejiang Province are typical acidified and fertile-deficient soils. To increase rice yield via improvement of soil fertility, a field experiment was conducted with five treatments, including CK (no fertilization and no conditioning agents), N (conventional fertilization), NS (conventional fertilization +limestone powder), NSJ (conventional fertilization + limestone powder + straw return), and NSF (conventional fertilization + limestone powder + humic acid) on the low-yield red soil in Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province. The results showed that the application of limestone powder could quickly increase the soil pH, and the soil pH under NS, NSJ and NSF treatments was significantly (P<0.05) increased by 1.17-1.60 compared with CK. Compared with CK and N treatments, application of humic acid significantly (P<0.05) increased soil organic matter content, while straw return or application of humic acid significantly (P<0.05) increased soil available potassium content. The application of conditioning agents could improve the ability of soil microbial communities to utilize carbon sources, and increase the content of phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA). Among all the treatments, the highest AWCD value and FLPA contents were found under NSF treatment. The high-throughput sequencing results showed that application of conditioning agents changed the composition of the microbial community and enhanced the richness and diversity of the soil microbial community. Application of conditioning agents could significantly (P<0.05) increase crop yield, and NSF treatment showed the best performance on yield improvement, as its yield was 11.02% higher than that of CK. In general, under experimental conditions, NSF was the best combination to improve soil fertility and rice yield in red soil.

Key words: low- and medium-yielding field, limestone powder, humic acid, straw returning to field, soil fertility, rice yield

中图分类号:

S153
S154

朱铭, 刘琛, 林义成, 郭彬, 李华, 傅庆林. 不同调理剂组合对浙江红壤土壤肥力、微生物群落多样性和水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(6): 1258-1267.

ZHU Ming, LIU Chen, LIN Yicheng, GUO Bin, LI Hua, FU Qinglin. Effects of conditioning agents on soil fertility, microbial community diversity and rice yield in red soil[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(6): 1258-1267.

图/表 10

参考文献 26

[1]	周镕基, 皮修平. 供给侧视角下农业“悖论”的成因及其对策[J]. 湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2017, 46(1): 97-102.
	ZHOU R J, PI X P. Causes and solutions of agricultural “paradox” in the perspective of supply side[J]. Journal of Social Science of Hunan Normal University, 2017, 46(1): 97-102. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	2019年全国耕地质量等级情况公报[EB/OL]. (2020-05-06) [2021-07-03]. http://www.moa.gov.cn/nybgb/2020/202004/202005/t20200506_6343095.htm .
[3]	冯书珍, 陈香碧, 何寻阳, 等. 不同土地利用方式及施肥措施对红壤木质素积累特性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2015, 34(9): 1761-1768.
	FENG S Z, CHEN X B, HE X Y, et al. Effects of land use and fertilization on lignin accumulation in red soil[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2015, 34(9): 1761-1768. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	沈仁芳, 王超, 孙波. “藏粮于地、藏粮于技”战略实施中的土壤科学与技术问题[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(2): 135-144.
	SHEN R F, WANG C, SUN B. Soil related scientific and technological problems in implementing strategy of “storing grain in land and technology”[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33(2): 135-144. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	冯兆滨, 王萍, 刘秀梅, 等. 我国红壤改良利用技术研究现状与展望[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017, 29(8): 57-61.
	FENG Z B, WANG P, LIU X M, et al. Research progress and perspective of red soil improvement and utilization technologies in China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2017, 29(8): 57-61. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	杨永森, 段雷, 靳腾, 等. 石灰石和菱镁矿对酸化森林土壤修复作用的研究[J]. 环境科学, 2006, 27(9): 1878-1883.
	YANG Y S, DUAN L, JIN T, et al. Effect of limestone and magnesite application on remediation of acidified forest soil in Chongqing, China[J]. Environmental Science, 2006, 27(9): 1878-1883. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	JANNIN L, ARKOUN M, OURRY A, et al. Microarray analysis of humic acid effects on Brassica napus growth: involvement of N, C and S metabolisms[J]. Plant and Soil, 2012, 359(1/2): 297-319. DOI URL
[8]	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.
	LÜ B, WANG Y H, XIA H, et al. Effects of biochar and other amendments on the cabbage growth and soil fertility in yellow-brown soil and red soil[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(22): 4306-4315. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	裴瑞杰, 袁天佑, 王俊忠, 等. 施用腐殖酸对夏玉米产量和氮效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(11): 2189-2198.
	PEI R J, YUAN T Y, WANG J Z, et al. Effects of application of humic acid on yield, nitrogen use efficiency of summer maize[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(11): 2189-2198. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	王宇函, 姜存仓, 吕波, 等. 腐植酸钾对小白菜产量、生理特性及养分利用效率的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2018, 37(1): 58-63.
	WANG Y H, JIANG C C, LYU B, et al. Effects of potassium humate on yield, physiological characteristics and nutrient use efficiency of pakchoi[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2018, 37(1): 58-63. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	潘剑玲, 代万安, 尚占环, 等. 秸秆还田对土壤有机质和氮素有效性影响及机制研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(5): 526-535.
	PAN J L, DAI W N, SHANG Z H, et al. Review of research progress on the influence and mechanism of field straw residue incorporation on soil organic matter and nitrogen availability[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(5): 526-535. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
[12]	于美婷, 李春雅, 李华泰, 等. 秸秆还田对土壤理化性质影响的研究进展[J]. 江西农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 33-39.
	YU M T, LI C Y, LI H T, et al. Research progress in effect of straw returning on soil physical and chemical properties[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2021, 33(1): 33-39. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	BLAZIER M A, PATTERSON W B, HOTARD S L. Straw harvesting, fertilization, and fertilizer type alter soil microbiological and physical properties in a loblolly pine plantation in the mid-south USA[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2008, 45(2): 145-153. DOI URL
[14]	张静, 温晓霞, 廖允成, 等. 不同玉米秸秆还田量对土壤肥力及冬小麦产量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(3): 612-619.
	ZHANG J, WEN X X, LIAO Y C, et al. Effects of different amount of maize straw returning on soil fertility and yield of winter wheat[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2010, 16(3): 612-619. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	吴梦洁, 严建立, 章明奎, 等. 肥料与调理剂配施对新垦红壤性状综合改良及大豆产量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2020, 32(9): 68-72.
	WU M J, YAN J L, ZHANG M K, et al. Effects of fertilizer and conditioner on properties of newly cultivated red soil and soybean yield[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2020, 32(9): 68-72. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	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.
[17]	GARLAND J L, MILLS A L. Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1991, 57(8): 2351-2359. DOI URL
[18]	BLIGH E G, DYER W J. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification[J]. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology, 1959, 37(8): 911-917. DOI PMID
[19]	QASWAR M, DONGCHU L, JING H, et al. Interaction of liming and long-term fertilization increased crop yield and phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) through mediating exchangeable cations in acidic soil under wheat-maize cropping system[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10: 19828.
[20]	张晶晶. 不同团聚体土壤秸秆降解及其微生物过程研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2020.
	ZHANG J J. Study on the straw degradation and microbial process of different aggregates soil[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2020. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	CAI Z J, WANG B R, ZHANG L, et al. Striking a balance between N sources: mitigating soil acidification and accumulation of phosphorous and heavy metals from manure[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 754: 142189.
[22]	HOWELL D M, MACKENZIE M D. Using bioavailable nutrients and microbial dynamics to assess soil type and placement depth in reclamation[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2017, 116: 87-95. DOI URL
[23]	MACDONALD E, QUIDEAU S, LANDHÄUSSER S. Rebuilding boreal forest ecosystems after industrial disturbance[M]//VITT D, BHATTI J. Restoration and reclamation of boreal ecosystems: attaining sustainable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. DOI URL
	XIANG J L, JIN J, LIU Q, et al. Alkalinity gradients in grasslands alter soil bacterial community composition and function[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2021, 85(2): 286-298.
[24]	PENG C J, LAI S S, LUO X S, et al. Effects of long term rice straw application on the microbial communities of rapeseed rhizosphere in a paddy-upland rotation system[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 557/558: 231-239. DOI URL
[25]	李涛, 何春娥, 葛晓颖, 等. 秸秆还田施氮调节碳氮比对土壤无机氮、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(12): 1633-1642.
	LI T, HE C E, GE X Y, et al. Responses of soil mineral N contents, enzyme activities and crop yield to different C/N ratio mediated by straw retention and N fertilization[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2016, 24(12): 1633-1642. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	ZHANG M Y, MUHAMMAD R, ZHANG L, et al. Investigating the effect of biochar and fertilizer on the composition and function of bacteria in red soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2019, 139: 107-116. DOI URL

处理 Treatment	pH	OM/(g∙kg^-1)	TN/(g∙kg^-1)	AN/(mg∙kg^-1)	AP/(mg∙kg^-1)	AK/(mg∙kg^-1)
CK	5.18±0.05 b	29.60±0.90 b	1.99±0.13 a	154.44±7.10 a	5.18±1.79 c	97.26±1.44 c
N	5.32±0.05 b	30.00±1.37 b	2.03±0.10 a	151.41±8.61 a	11.48±5.15 ab	98.35±3.04 c
NS	6.35±0.66 a	30.72±0.58 b	2.00±0.06 a	155.96±9.32 a	8.75±0.73 bc	104.24±5.68 bc
NSJ	6.42±0.52 a	30.37±2.75 b	2.02±0.12 a	151.41±9.46 a	13.19±5.58 a	114.33±3.42 a
NSF	6.78±0.21 a	36.74±4.90 a	2.07±0.06 a	149.22±1.62 a	13.18±2.30 a	111.73±2.58 ab

处理 Treatment	pH	OM/(g∙kg^-1)	TN/(g∙kg^-1)	AN/(mg∙kg^-1)	AP/(mg∙kg^-1)	AK/(mg∙kg^-1)
CK	5.18±0.05 b	29.60±0.90 b	1.99±0.13 a	154.44±7.10 a	5.18±1.79 c	97.26±1.44 c
N	5.32±0.05 b	30.00±1.37 b	2.03±0.10 a	151.41±8.61 a	11.48±5.15 ab	98.35±3.04 c
NS	6.35±0.66 a	30.72±0.58 b	2.00±0.06 a	155.96±9.32 a	8.75±0.73 bc	104.24±5.68 bc
NSJ	6.42±0.52 a	30.37±2.75 b	2.02±0.12 a	151.41±9.46 a	13.19±5.58 a	114.33±3.42 a
NSF	6.78±0.21 a	36.74±4.90 a	2.07±0.06 a	149.22±1.62 a	13.18±2.30 a	111.73±2.58 ab

处理 Treatment	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	革兰氏阴性菌 Gram-negative bacteria	革兰氏阳性菌 Gram-positive bacteria	合计 Total
CK	14.49±0.28 c	1.22±0.20 a	10.44±0.46 d	7.91±0.42 d	34.06±0.06 e
N	18.21±0.54 b	1.56±0.46 a	13.99±0.91 c	9.30±0.67 c	43.07±0.21 d
NS	21.55±0.30 a	1.43±0.20 a	16.77±0.33 ab	10.51±0.18 b	50.26±0.14 c
NSJ	22.20±0.63 a	1.79±0.64 a	17.71±0.77 a	10.54±0.70 b	52.24±0.08 b
NSF	23.64±0.26 a	1.84±0.67 a	16.02±0.47 b	12.66±0.08 a	53.99±0.11 a

处理 Treatment	细菌 Bacteria	真菌 Fungi	革兰氏阴性菌 Gram-negative bacteria	革兰氏阳性菌 Gram-positive bacteria	合计 Total
CK	14.49±0.28 c	1.22±0.20 a	10.44±0.46 d	7.91±0.42 d	34.06±0.06 e
N	18.21±0.54 b	1.56±0.46 a	13.99±0.91 c	9.30±0.67 c	43.07±0.21 d
NS	21.55±0.30 a	1.43±0.20 a	16.77±0.33 ab	10.51±0.18 b	50.26±0.14 c
NSJ	22.20±0.63 a	1.79±0.64 a	17.71±0.77 a	10.54±0.70 b	52.24±0.08 b
NSF	23.64±0.26 a	1.84±0.67 a	16.02±0.47 b	12.66±0.08 a	53.99±0.11 a

处理	穗数	穗粒数	结实率	千粒重	产量
Treatment	Ear number/(10⁴ hm^-2)	Grains per spike	Filled-grain percentage/%	1 000-kernel weigh/g	Yield/(kg∙hm^-2）
CK	368.85±3.41 ab	123.52±5.29 a	81.33±3.16 a	24.43±0.52 a	8 351±150 c
N	351.50±12.51 b	124.33±2.52 a	82.48±2.86 a	25.68±1.31 a	858 571±64 c
NS	353.17±12.86 b	126.00±4.00 a	84.93±3.81 a	24.86±1.24 a	8 944±144 b
NSJ	382.19±9.02 a	128.14±3.61 a	82.97±1.95 a	24.63±0.34 a	8 998±90 ab
NSF	352.50±13.26 b	125.67±2.52 a	88.87±1.85 a	24.54±0.23 a	9 271±169 a

不同调理剂组合对浙江红壤土壤肥力、微生物群落多样性和水稻产量的影响

Effects of conditioning agents on soil fertility, microbial community diversity and rice yield in red soil

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	贾生强, 范惠珊, 陈喜靖, 喻曼, 沈阿林, 苏瑶. 长期秸秆还田下土壤反硝化细菌群落的有机碳驱动机制[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(9): 1686-1699.
[2]	刘根红, 薛银鑫, 张倩, 周佳瑞, 买小凤. 滴灌条件下不同耕深及秸秆还田量对玉米生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 8-17.
[3]	潘俊峰, 钟旭华, 黄农荣, 刘彦卓, 田卡, 梁开明, 彭碧琳, 傅友强, 胡香玉. 不同栽培模式对华南双季晚稻产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(6): 857-868.
[4]	邹传, 郭彬, 林义成, 傅庆林, 刘琛, 丁能飞, 李凝玉, 李华. 不同粒径腐殖酸颗粒对土壤有效态镉的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(4): 616-623.
[5]	王保君, 程旺大, 陈贵, 沈亚强, 张红梅. 秸秆还田配合氮肥减量对稻田土壤养分、碳库及水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(4): 624-630.
[6]	王青霞, 陈喜靖, 喻曼, 沈阿林. 秸秆还田对稻田氮循环微生物及功能基因影响研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(2): 333-342.
[7]	汪峰, 谌江华, 孙梅梅, 柴伟纲, 姚红燕, 戴瑶璐, 张玉屏, 朱德峰, 陈若霞. 甬优系列籼粳杂交稻株高变化对氮素利用率的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(1): 1-10.
[8]	罗原骏, 蒲玉琳, 龙高飞, 叶春, 朱波. 施肥方式对土壤活性有机碳及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(8): 1389-1397.
[9]	胡心意, 傅庆林, 刘琛, 丁能飞, 林义成. 秸秆还田和耕作深度对稻田耕层土壤的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(7): 1202-1210.
[10]	赵越, 罗志军, 赵杰, 江春燕, 曹丽萍. 南方丘陵区耕地土壤养分空间特征及其影响因素[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(6): 1035-1043.
[11]	王桂跃, 苏婷, 韩海亮, 谭禾平, 包斐, 赵福成. 长期施肥对水田和旱地土壤微生物群落结构、活性碳氮及酶活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(5): 817-824.
[12]	萨如拉, 杨恒山, 高聚林, 范富, 张瑞富, 刘晶, 吴帅. 玉米秸秆还田模式对土壤肥力和玉米产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(2): 268-274.
[13]	陈喜靖, 喻曼, 王强, 李华, 苏瑶, 高佳, 李国安, 李建强, 沈阿林. 浙江省稻田系统秸秆还田问题及对策[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(10): 1765-1774.
[14]	王宏燕, 孙岩, 于军, 李思萌, 袁佳慧, 孟雨田, 赵伟, 李晓庆. 有机种植对盐碱土主要理化性质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(9): 1544-1548.
[15]	刘芳, 韩丹, 赵铭钦, 李小勇, 管成伟. 微生物菌剂配施腐殖酸钾对植烟土壤改良及烤烟经济效益的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(7): 1064-1069.