不同种类有机肥配施化肥对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20220956

浙江农业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (8): 1844-1852.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20220956

不同种类有机肥配施化肥对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响

张宁¹(), 陶荣浩¹, 刘佩诗², 胡含秀¹, 高琳琳³, 郭龙¹, 祝尊友⁴, 马友华¹^,^*()

1.安徽农业大学资源与环境学院,农田生态保育与污染防控安徽省重点实验室,安徽合肥 230036
2.安徽省清析检测技术有限公司,安徽合肥 231131
3.北京博瑞环境工程有限公司,北京 102612
4.金寨县农业技术推广服务中心,安徽金寨 237300

收稿日期:2022-06-25 出版日期:2023-08-25 发布日期:2023-08-29
作者简介:张宁(1994—),女,安徽六安人,硕士,主要从事土壤培肥与改良修复研究。E-mail: e652579920@qq.com
通讯作者: *马友华,E-mail: yhma@ahau.edu.cn
基金资助:
2017农业部果蔬茶有机肥替代化肥试点项目(皖农土函2017-651)

Effects of organic fertilizer coupled with chemical fertilizer on growth and quality of tea and soil fertility

ZHANG Ning¹(), TAO Ronghao¹, LIU Peishi², HU Hanxiu¹, GAO Linlin³, GUO Long¹, ZHU Zunyou⁴, MA Youhua¹^,^*()

1. Anhui Province Key Lab of Farmland Ecological Conservation and Pollution Prevention, College of Resources and Environment, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China
2. Anhui Qingxi Analysis Testing Co., Ltd., Hefei 231131, China
3. Beijing Borui Environmental Engineering Co., Ltd., Beijing 102612, China
4. Jinzhai County Agricultural Technology Extension Service Center, Jinzhai 237300, Anhui, China

Received:2022-06-25 Online:2023-08-25 Published:2023-08-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为缓解长期单施化肥对茶园土壤肥力带来的不良影响,提升茶叶产量和品质,在六安瓜片茶园开展连续2年的田间试验,研究菜籽饼肥、秸秆有机肥、猪粪有机肥、牛粪有机肥、沼渣有机肥、生物有机肥分别与化肥配施(有机肥替代70%的养分)对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响。结果表明,与纯施化肥的CK相比,秸秆有机肥配施化肥下,茶树的百芽质量和芽茶密度显著(P<0.05)增加,且增幅最大,其次是猪粪有机肥。从茶叶内含成分(茶多酚、游离氨基酸、酚氨比、咖啡碱、水浸出物)判断,秸秆有机肥、猪粪有机肥和生物有机肥的效果较好。秸秆有机肥和猪粪有机肥对茶园土壤理化性状的提升效果较好,土壤养分含量和酶活性明显提高。综合2年试验结果,秸秆有机肥配施化肥促进茶树生长、改善茶叶品质、提升土壤肥力的效果最好。

关键词: 有机肥, 茶叶, 六安瓜片, 生长, 品质, 土壤肥力

Abstract:

In order to alleviate the adverse effects of long-term single application of chemical fertilizer on tea garden soil,and improve the yield and quality of tea, a field experiment was carried out in Lu’an Guapian tea garden for two consecutive years to study the effects of organic fertilizers made from rapeseed cake, straw, pig manure, cow manure, biogas residue, biomass (denoted as RCO, SO, PO, CO, BRO, BO, respectively) combined with chemical fertilizer (70% nutrient substituted by organic fertilizer)on tea growth, quality and soil fertility.The results showed that SO or PO combined with chemical fertilizer significantly (P<0.05) increased the 100-bud weight and bud density of tea as compared with the control (CK, all nutrients were input by chemical fertilizer). For chemical components of tea (tea polyphenol, free amino acid, ratio of phenol to amino acid, caffeine, aqueous extract), the highest contents were recoreded when SO or PO or BO was applied with chemical fertilizer. SO or PO application coupled with chemical fertilizer could improve soil fertility, as the nutrients contents and soil enzymes activities were elevated. Given the 2-year results, application of SO and chemical fertilizers had the best effect on promoting tea plant growth, improving tea quality and soil fertility under the experiment conditoins.

Key words: organic fertilizer, tea, Lu’an Guapian, growth, quality, soil fertility

中图分类号:

张宁, 陶荣浩, 刘佩诗, 胡含秀, 高琳琳, 郭龙, 祝尊友, 马友华. 不同种类有机肥配施化肥对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1844-1852.

ZHANG Ning, TAO Ronghao, LIU Peishi, HU Hanxiu, GAO Linlin, GUO Long, ZHU Zunyou, MA Youhua. Effects of organic fertilizer coupled with chemical fertilizer on growth and quality of tea and soil fertility[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(8): 1844-1852.

图/表 6

参考文献 33

[1]	江俞蓉, 刘思彤, 高静, 等. 六安瓜片拉老火“起霜”的形成机制及其对茶叶品质的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2018, 38(5): 487-495.
	JIANG Y R, LIU S T, GAO J, et al. The mechanism of frost-like powder and its effects on Lu’anguapian tea quality[J]. Journal of Tea Science, 2018, 38(5): 487-495. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	HIRONO Y, NONAKA K. Effects of application of lime nitrogen and dicyandiamide on nitrous oxide emissions from green tea fields[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2014, 60(2): 276-285.
[3]	XIE S W, FENG H X, YANG F, et al. Does dual reduction in chemical fertilizer and pesticides improve nutrient loss and tea yield and quality?: a pilot study in a green tea garden in Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(3): 2464-2476.
[4]	LIU Z A, YANG J P, YANG Z C, et al. Effects of rainfall and fertilizer types on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in surface runoff from subtropical tea fields in Zhejiang, China[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2012, 93(3): 297-307.
[5]	尹荣秀, 王文华, 郭灿, 等. 有机肥对茶园土壤及茶叶产量与品质的影响研究进展[J]. 茶叶通讯, 2020, 47(1): 6-12.
	YIN R X, WANG W H, GUO C, et al. Research progress on the effects of organic fertilizer on tea garden soil, tea yield and quality[J]. Journal of Tea Communication, 2020, 47(1): 6-12. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	张昆, 孙永明, 万雅静, 等. 江西茶园有机肥化肥配施对茶叶产量品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017, 29(5): 57-61.
	ZHANG K, SUN Y M, WAN Y J, et al. Effects of combined application of organic manure and chemical fertilizer on tea yield and quality, and soil fertility in Jiangxi Province[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2017, 29(5): 57-61. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[8]	邱子健, 申卫收, 林先贵. 化肥减量增效技术及其农学、生态环境效应[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(4): 237-248.
	QIU Z J, SHEN W S, LIN X G. Chemical fertilizer reduction technology and its agronomic and ecological environment effects[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2022(4): 237-248. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	王金林, 闻禄, 陈平, 等. 长期不同施肥对茶园土壤pH、茶叶产量可持续性和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(8): 84-88.
	WANG J L, WEN L, CHEN P, et al. Effects of long-term fertilization on soil pH, yield sustainability and quality of tea[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(8): 84-88. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	李昌娟, 杨文浩, 周碧青, 等. 生物炭基肥对酸化茶园土壤养分及茶叶产质量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(2): 387-397.
	LI C J, YANG W H, ZHOU B Q, et al. Effects of biochar-based fertilizer on soil nutrients, tea output and quality in an acidified tea field[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2021, 52(2): 387-397. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	杨胜玲, 黄兴成, 李渝, 等. 长期有机无机肥配施对水稻生长、干物质积累及产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1815-1825.
	YANG S L, HUANG X C, LI Y, et al. Effects of long-term organic and inorganic fertilizer application on growth, dry matter accumulation and yield of rice[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(9): 1815-1825. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	赵洋, 刘振, 杨培迪, 等. 黄金茶种质资源生化成分的多样性分析[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2021, 37(5): 1285-1291.
	ZHAO Y, LIU Z, YANG P D, et al. Diversity analysis of biochemical components in Huangjincha (Camellia sinensis) germplasm resources[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 37(5): 1285-1291. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	于然, 李晔, 金丽华, 等. 高效液相色谱法同时测定茶叶中6种茶多酚含量[J]. 中国食品添加剂, 2021, 32(5): 74-82.
	YU R, LI Y, JIN L H, et al. Simultaneous determination of 6 kinds of polyphenols in tea by HPLC[J]. China Food Additives, 2021, 32(5): 74-82. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	全彦涛, 李建, 张华南, 等. 化肥减量配施有机肥对信阳茶园土壤养分及春茶品质的影响[J]. 河南科学, 2020, 38(11): 1781-1785.
	QUAN Y T, LI J, ZHANG H N, et al. Effects of reduction of chemical fertilizer and organic manure supplement on soil nutrients in Xinyang tea gargen and the quality of spring tea[J]. Henan Science, 2020, 38(11): 1781-1785. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	杨转, 莫海珍, 郭桂义. 不同产地信阳毛尖茶中游离氨基酸指纹图谱特征分析[J]. 茶叶通讯, 2021, 48(2): 306-310.
	YANG Z, MO H Z, GUO G Y. Fingerprint analysis of free amino acids in Xinyang Maojian tea from different producing areas[J]. Journal of Tea Communication, 2021, 48(2): 306-310. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	王海利, 黄海铃, 崔燕, 等. 不同品种绿茶的酚氨值与茶滋味相关性分析[J]. 食品工业科技, 2018, 39(16): 208-212.
	WANG H L, HUANG H L, CUI Y, et al. Correlation between the phenolic ammonia ratio and taste of different kinds of green tea[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2018, 39(16): 208-212. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	王治会, 岳翠男, 李琛, 等. 江西省茶树种质化学特性多样性分析与鉴定评价[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2020, 36(1): 172-179.
	WANG Z H, YUE C N, LI C, et al. Diversity analysis and evaluation of chemical characteristics of tea germplasms in Jiangxi Province[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 36(1): 172-179. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	刘术新, 丁枫华, 刘巧玲. 不同肥源有机肥对茶叶产量、品质及安全性的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2016, 45(12): 45-48.
	LIU S X, DING F H, LIU Q L. Effects of different organic fertilizers on yield, quality and safety of tea[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 45(12): 45-48. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	ANIŢEI M, SCHUHFRIED G, CHRAIF M. The influence of energy drinks and caffeine on time reaction and cognitive processes in young Romanian students[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011, 30: 662-670.
[20]	辛董董, 葛兰英, 张浩. 茶园施用豆粕发酵肥对土壤理化性质与茶叶品质的影响[J]. 河南科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(3): 22-30.
	XIN D D, GE L Y, ZHANG H. Effect of fermented soybean meal fertilizer on physicochemical properties of tea garden soil and tea quality[J]. Journal of Henan Institute of Science and Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 49(3): 22-30. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	陈美丽, 唐德松, 龚淑英, 等. 绿茶滋味品质的定量分析及其相关性评价[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2014, 40(6): 670-678.
	CHEN M L, TANG D S, GONG S Y, et al. Quantitative analysis and correlation evaluation on taste quality of green tea[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture and Life Sciences), 2014, 40(6): 670-678. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	ABE S S, HASHI I, MASUNAGA T, et al. Soil profile alteration in a brown forest soil under high-input tea cultivation[J]. Plant Production Science, 2006, 9(4): 457-461.
[23]	郝小雨, 高伟, 王玉军, 等. 有机无机肥料配合施用对设施番茄产量、品质及土壤硝态氮淋失的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2012, 31(3): 538-547.
	HAO X Y, GAO W, WANG Y J, et al. Effects of combined application of organic manure and chemical fertilizers on yield and quality of tomato and soil nitrate leaching loss under greenhouse condition[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2012, 31(3): 538-547. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	周晓天, 刘佩诗, 常珺枫, 等. 猪粪替代化肥对茶叶产量、品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(2): 413-420.
	ZHOU X T, LIU P S, CHANG J F, et al. Effects of substitution of pig manure for chemical fertilizer on yield and quality of tea and soil fertility[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2022, 53(2): 413-420. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	宁川川, 王建武, 蔡昆争. 有机肥对土壤肥力和土壤环境质量的影响研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(1): 175-181.
	NING C C, WANG J W, CAI K Z. The effects of organic fertilizers on soil fertility and soil environmental quality: a review[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 25(1): 175-181. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	李倩, 王玉, 侯君合, 等. 崂山绿茶品质及其与土壤肥力关系的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2010, 41(5): 1101-1104.
	LI Q, WANG Y, HOU J H, et al. Quality of Laoshan green tea and its relationship with soil fertility factor[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 41(5): 1101-1104. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	杨会玲, 黄仁华, 陈珂, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌(AMF)对铯胁迫宿根高粱生长及根际土壤酶的影响[J]. 环境化学, 2015, 34(4): 712-717.
	YANG H L, HUANG R H, CHEN K, et al. The effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi(AMF) on growth of Sorghum haipense and rhizosphere soil enzymes activities under Cs stress[J]. Environmental Chemistry, 2015, 34(4): 712-717. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	陶荣浩, 袁旭峰, 吴新德, 等. 修复肥料和紫云英对水稻吸收积累镉的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2023, 42(1): 76-86.
	TAO R H, YUAN X F, WU X D, et al. Effects of repair fertilizer and milk vetch (Astragalus sinicus L.) on cadmium uptake and accumulation in rice[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2023, 42(1): 76-86. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	LIU E K, YAN C R, MEI X R, et al. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China[J]. Geoderma, 2010, 158(3/4): 173-180.
[30]	KAUR T, BRAR B S. Organic matter, microbial biomass and enzyme activity of soils under maize-wheat cropping system[J]. Journal of Soils and Crops, 2008, 18: 24-30.
[31]	付智丹, 周丽, 陈平, 等. 施氮量对玉米/大豆套作系统土壤微生物数量及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(10): 1463-1474.
	FU Z D, ZHOU L, CHEN P, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate on soil microbial quantity and soil enzymes activities in maize/soybean intercropping systems[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(10): 1463-1474. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	于德良, 雷泽勇, 赵国军, 等. 土壤酶活性对沙地樟子松人工林衰退的响应[J]. 环境化学, 2019, 38(1): 97-105.
	YU D L, LEI Z Y, ZHAO G J, et al. Response of soil enzyme activity to the decline of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantations on sand land[J]. Environmental Chemistry, 2019, 38(1): 97-105. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	王兴龙, 朱敏, 杨帆, 等. 配施有机肥减氮对川中丘区土壤微生物量与酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(3): 271-276.
	WANG X L, ZHU M, YANG F, et al. Effects of reducing nitrogen and applying organic fertilizers on soil microbial biomass carbon and enzyme activity in the hilly area of central Sichuan Basin[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 31(3): 271-276. (in Chinese with English abstract)

处理 Treatment	肥料投入量 Fertilizer input				养分折纯量Nutrients input
	肥料投入量 Fertilizer input				无机肥Inorganic fertilizer			有机肥Organic fertilizer
	尿素 Urea	磷酸一铵 Monoammonium phosphate	硫酸钾 Potassium sulfate	有机肥 Organic fertilizer	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
CK	270.0	334.0	240	0	165	90	120	0	0	0
T1	67.2	152.8	178.6	1 967.7	49.5	41.2	89.3	115.5	48.8	30.7
T2	97.8	37.2	97.8	4 442.3	49.5	10.0	48.9	115.5	80.0	71.1
T3	107.6	0	0	5 274.0	49.5	0	0	115.5	222.0	123.9
T4	107.6	0	0	6 452.6	49.5	0	0	115.5	119.4	134.2
T5	107.6	0	7.7	6 638.0	49.5	0	3.8	115.5	132.8	116.2
T6	107.6	0	0	6 277.2	49.5	0	0	115.5	92.3	119.9

处理 Treatment	肥料投入量 Fertilizer input				养分折纯量Nutrients input
	肥料投入量 Fertilizer input				无机肥Inorganic fertilizer			有机肥Organic fertilizer
	尿素 Urea	磷酸一铵 Monoammonium phosphate	硫酸钾 Potassium sulfate	有机肥 Organic fertilizer	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
CK	270.0	334.0	240	0	165	90	120	0	0	0
T1	67.2	152.8	178.6	1 967.7	49.5	41.2	89.3	115.5	48.8	30.7
T2	97.8	37.2	97.8	4 442.3	49.5	10.0	48.9	115.5	80.0	71.1
T3	107.6	0	0	5 274.0	49.5	0	0	115.5	222.0	123.9
T4	107.6	0	0	6 452.6	49.5	0	0	115.5	119.4	134.2
T5	107.6	0	7.7	6 638.0	49.5	0	3.8	115.5	132.8	116.2
T6	107.6	0	0	6 277.2	49.5	0	0	115.5	92.3	119.9

年份Year	处理Treatment	pH	TN/(g·kg^-1)	OM/(g·kg^-1)	OP/(mg·kg^-1)	AK/(mg·kg^-1)
2019	CK	4.47±0.04 b	1.21±0.08 d	17.36±0.19 c	17.24±0.24 c	125.00±5.00 d
	T1	4.79±0.17 a	1.24±0.14 d	22.23±3.04 b	17.54±0.75 c	143.00±3.00 c
	T2	4.77±0.14 a	2.43±0.12 a	26.63±1.08 a	34.27±1.79 a	201.00±8.54 a
	T3	4.78±0.07 a	2.39±0.01 ab	25.93±0.73 a	32.65±0.44 a	143.33±6.03 c
	T4	4.87±0.14 a	2.31±0.02 abc	18.81±1.33 c	25.04±0.97 b	133.33±7.51 cd
	T5	4.82±0.14 a	2.16±0.03 c	20.39±1.59 bc	13.79±0.25 d	165.00±5.57 b
	T6	4.48±0.12 b	2.25±0.04 bc	25.94±2.29 a	17.03±1.61 c	126.00±3.61 d
2020	CK	4.41±0.04 b	2.15±0.03 bc	24.85±0.57 e	22.69±1.06 d	151.67±1.53 e
	T1	4.75±0.12 a	2.22±0.03 abc	31.65±2.85 cd	23.54±1.20 d	178.33±7.64 cd
	T2	4.81±0.10 a	2.61±0.04 ab	42.58±3.43 a	37.97±1.64 a	191.67±7.64 b
	T3	4.84±0.24 a	2.70±0.05 a	37.36±1.56 b	35.57±1.42 b	190.00±8.66 b
	T4	4.67±0.09 a	2.31±0.69 abc	34.26±1.65 bc	26.54±0.92 c	170.33±2.52 d
	T5	4.79±0.11 a	2.20±0.05 abc	28.44±2.22 de	21.70±0.65 de	204.00±3.61 a
	T6	4.45±0.07 b	1.85±0.16 c	38.03±1.11 b	20.38±0.87 e	186.67±3.51 bc

年份Year	处理Treatment	pH	TN/(g·kg^-1)	OM/(g·kg^-1)	OP/(mg·kg^-1)	AK/(mg·kg^-1)
2019	CK	4.47±0.04 b	1.21±0.08 d	17.36±0.19 c	17.24±0.24 c	125.00±5.00 d
	T1	4.79±0.17 a	1.24±0.14 d	22.23±3.04 b	17.54±0.75 c	143.00±3.00 c
	T2	4.77±0.14 a	2.43±0.12 a	26.63±1.08 a	34.27±1.79 a	201.00±8.54 a
	T3	4.78±0.07 a	2.39±0.01 ab	25.93±0.73 a	32.65±0.44 a	143.33±6.03 c
	T4	4.87±0.14 a	2.31±0.02 abc	18.81±1.33 c	25.04±0.97 b	133.33±7.51 cd
	T5	4.82±0.14 a	2.16±0.03 c	20.39±1.59 bc	13.79±0.25 d	165.00±5.57 b
	T6	4.48±0.12 b	2.25±0.04 bc	25.94±2.29 a	17.03±1.61 c	126.00±3.61 d
2020	CK	4.41±0.04 b	2.15±0.03 bc	24.85±0.57 e	22.69±1.06 d	151.67±1.53 e
	T1	4.75±0.12 a	2.22±0.03 abc	31.65±2.85 cd	23.54±1.20 d	178.33±7.64 cd
	T2	4.81±0.10 a	2.61±0.04 ab	42.58±3.43 a	37.97±1.64 a	191.67±7.64 b
	T3	4.84±0.24 a	2.70±0.05 a	37.36±1.56 b	35.57±1.42 b	190.00±8.66 b
	T4	4.67±0.09 a	2.31±0.69 abc	34.26±1.65 bc	26.54±0.92 c	170.33±2.52 d
	T5	4.79±0.11 a	2.20±0.05 abc	28.44±2.22 de	21.70±0.65 de	204.00±3.61 a
	T6	4.45±0.07 b	1.85±0.16 c	38.03±1.11 b	20.38±0.87 e	186.67±3.51 bc

年份Year	处理Treatment	URE/(mg·g^-1·d^-1)	AP/(mg·g^-1·d^-1)	SUR/(mg·g^-1·d^-1)	PRO/(μg·g^-1·d^-1)
2019	CK	0.06±0.01 e	0.73±0.09 b	5.69±0.17 c	0.75±0.05 c
	T1	0.08±0.01 e	0.89±0.04 a	4.40±0.11 d	0.87±0.05 ab
	T2	0.17±0.01 b	0.89±0.09 a	6.76±0.16 b	0.81±0.02 bc
	T3	0.18±0.02 ab	0.97±0.07 a	7.85±0.81 a	0.88±0.10 ab
	T4	0.14±0.01 c	0.72±0.01 b	5.68±0.25 c	0.92±0.04 a
	T5	0.11±0.01 d	0.72±0.02 b	4.22±0.24 d	0.76±0.03 c
	T6	0.19±0.01 a	0.95±0.06 a	7.84±0.10 a	0.76±0.04 c
2020	CK	0.18±0.02 d	1.26±0.04 f	8.35±0.78 cd	1.67±0.04 cd
	T1	0.16±0.01 de	1.44±0.02 e	13.70±0.58 a	1.57±0.41 d
	T2	0.36±0.02 b	2.11±0.06 b	11.23±0.41 b	2.52±0.22 a
	T3	0.35±0.02 b	2.47±0.14 a	8.77±0.23 c	2.23±0.19 ab
	T4	0.31±0.01 c	1.60±0.06 d	7.65±0.14 d	1.95±0.11 bc
	T5	0.13±0.02 e	1.51±0.11 de	6.49±0.28 e	1.37±0.07 d
	T6	0.39±0.02 a	1.75±0.07 c	13.97±0.16 a	1.98±0.07 bc

不同种类有机肥配施化肥对茶叶生长、品质和土壤肥力的影响

Effects of organic fertilizer coupled with chemical fertilizer on growth and quality of tea and soil fertility

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 33

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	许卫猛, 徐妍, 陈国立. 基于多种分析方法的糯玉米品质综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1840-1848.
[2]	朱为静, 吴佳, 洪春来, 朱凤香, 洪磊东, 张涛, 张硕, 诸惠芬. 秸秆覆盖对土壤水热肥及蟠桃产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1924-1932.
[3]	刘睿, 王丽娟, 王秋皓, 林旭东, 郭启航, 许多霖, 李文妍. 基于改进YOLOv8s的茶叶病虫害检测[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1933-1942.
[4]	贺世雄, 杨蕾, 齐安民, 程籍, 王敏, 李英奎, 洪林. 中间砧对3种杂柑叶片光合特性、理化指标和果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1680-1693.
[5]	张顺昌, 徐继根, 符成悦, 蒲占湑, 胡丽鹏, 吴昊, 李俊兵, 辛亮, 雷元军. 喷施氨基酸钙对红美人杂柑果皮龟裂与品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1706-1715.
[6]	高扬, 张瑜昕, 卜爱爱, 徐佳怡, 马嘉伟, 叶正钱, 柳丹, 方先芝. 基于改进的内梅罗综合指数法的浙江省典型“非粮化”土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1755-1765.
[7]	严福林, 郎云虎, 简应权, 陈雄飞, 魏巍, 王志威, 安江勇, 任得强, 丁宁, 魏升华. 八爪金龙药材产量与品质对土壤理化性状的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1766-1775.
[8]	王呈阳, 刘洁雅, 吴敏怡, 谢博伊, 洪德成, 冷锋, 吴国泉. 钙处理对涝害下寒香蜜葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(7): 1451-1458.
[9]	张若楠, 门小明, 秦凯鹏, 王彬彬, 吴杰, 丁向彬, 徐子伟, 齐珂珂. 绿嘉黑猪的不同杂交组合生长性能、胴体品质、产肉性能和收益比较研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1203-1211.
[10]	项缨, 丛建民, 潘丹红, 陶永刚. 春大棚有机种植不同品种番茄的生育进程分析和综合评价研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1252-1261.
[11]	刘文琦, 胡齐赞, 岳智臣, 陶鹏, 雷娟利, 李必元, 赵彦婷, 王华森. 夏季高温对叶用芥菜外观与营养品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1262-1271.
[12]	张程程, 范涛, 章检明, 赵风亮, 忻晓庭, 牛海月, 刘大群. 缙云梅干菜腌制过程中细菌群落与品质的变化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1336-1343.
[13]	邹俊燕, 王筠竹, 赵婉秋, 尹志浩, 杜建科, 孙崇波. 兰科植物原球茎和类原球茎研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1372-1389.
[14]	岳丽, 庄红梅, 祖力皮牙·买买提, 王佳敏, 毛红艳, 张英仙, 尼格尔热依·亚迪卡尔, 于明. 基于主成分分析与聚类分析的芜菁肉质根质地品质综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(5): 1057-1071.
[15]	苏扬, 商小兰, 钱忠明, 吴林根, 黄佳琦, 庄海峰, 赵宇飞, 党洪阳, 徐立军. 腐熟剂与生物炭协同强化秸秆还田对土壤质量和水稻生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(5): 1139-1148.

处理 Treatment	外形Appearance		汤色Infusion color		香气Aroma		滋味Taste		叶底Infused leaf		总分Total
处理 Treatment	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CK	87	77	88	87	90	83	85	83	86	78	87.20	81.40
T1	90	78	90	90	89	85	87	78	90	77	88.85	80.85
T2	88	76	86	90	90	80	84	81	89	77	87.20	80.00
T3	86	76	88	88	88	78	87	79	88	77	87.20	78.70
T4	86	76	89	89	88	80	87	87	88	80	87.30	82.00
T5	84	78	87	89	86	83	84	87	88	80	85.20	83.25
T6	89	77	87	88	88	80	86	85	89	80	87.65	81.55

处理 Treatment	外形Appearance		汤色Infusion color		香气Aroma		滋味Taste		叶底Infused leaf		总分Total
处理 Treatment	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
CK	87	77	88	87	90	83	85	83	86	78	87.20	81.40
T1	90	78	90	90	89	85	87	78	90	77	88.85	80.85
T2	88	76	86	90	90	80	84	81	89	77	87.20	80.00
T3	86	76	88	88	88	78	87	79	88	77	87.20	78.70
T4	86	76	89	89	88	80	87	87	88	80	87.30	82.00
T5	84	78	87	89	86	83	84	87	88	80	85.20	83.25
T6	89	77	87	88	88	80	86	85	89	80	87.65	81.55