Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250681

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 1636-1647.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250681

• Environmental Science • Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality

ZHANG Yuanyuan¹(), SHENG Wenqing¹, ZHANG Qiaosong¹, HUANG Qiaoqiao¹, WANG Feng², CHEN Litian², LIU Yuxue²^,³^,^*()

¹ Agricultural Technology Extension Center of Pujiang County, Pujiang 322200, Zhejiang China
² State Key Laboratory for Quality and Safety of Agro-Products, Institute of Soil, Fertilizer and Environmental Resources, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China
³ Engineering Research Center of Biochar of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310021, China

Received:2025-11-04 Online:2026-08-25 Published:2026-09-14

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different soil amendments on soil quality and grape quality in acidified vineyards, a field experiment was conducted in a vineyard of Pujiang area with five treatments, including control (CK), quicklime (QL), bamboo charcoal (BC), pig manure biochar (MB), and carbon-based fertilizer (CF). The results showed that compared with CK, all four amendment treatments significantly (p<0.05) increased soil pH value and reduced total exchangeable acidity of acidified soil, with the MB treatment exhibiting the highest reduction rate of 48.6%. The QL, BC, and MB treatments significantly decreased soil exchangeable H⁺ content by 28.9% to 55.1% than that of CK, while the QL, MB, and CF treatments significantly reduced soil exchangeable Al³⁺ content by 37.4% to 44.1%. Compared with CK, the four soil amendment treatments significantly increased the contents of soil exchangeable Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺, as well as the cation exchange capacity, and the total base cations content and base saturation were significantly enhanced with increase ranges of 34.2%-80.5% and 18.2%-60.3%, respectively. In addition, the application of the four amendments significantly improved soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and available potassium contents, with increase rates of 13.8%-39.4%, 10.4%-30.1%, and 19.2%-67.1%, respectively. Obvious differences were observed in the β-diversity and community composition of soil bacteria and fungi among different treatments. In comparison with CK, the BC, MB, and CF treatments significantly increased the soluble solid content and solid-acid ratio of grape fruits by 1.91%-2.55% and 4.96-12.92 percentage points, respectively, significantly decreased titratable acid content by 14.6%-28.5%, and all four amendment treatments significantly elevated the contents of total sugar, total anthocyanins, and vitamin C in grape fruits, with increase ranges of 28.97%-34.99%, 8.63%-21.01%, and 57.50%-152.50%, respectively. In conclusion, pig manure biochar can effectively reduce soil acidity, increase the contents of soil exchangeable base cations, organic matter, and major soil nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), and improve grape quality, presenting the optimal comprehensive improvement effect on acidified vineyard soil.

Key words: soil amendment, vineyard, acidified soil, grape quality, exchangeable acidity, base cation

CLC Number:

S663.1
S156

ZHANG Yuanyuan, SHENG Wenqing, ZHANG Qiaosong, HUANG Qiaoqiao, WANG Feng, CHEN Litian, LIU Yuxue. Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(8): 1636-1647.

Figures/Tables 10

References 38

[1]	Lin J, Massonnet M, Cantu D. The genetic basis of grape and wine aroma[J]. Horticulture Research, 2019, 6: 81.
[2]	赵斌, 张莲晓, 王红, 等. 控水条件下不同肥料配比对葡萄生长的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2023(13): 36-44.
	Zhao B, Zhang L X, Wang H, et al. Effects of fertilizer ratio on grape growth under water control condition[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2023(13): 36-44.
[3]	Yu Z P, Chen H Y H, Searle E B, et al. Whole soil acidification and base cation reduction across subtropical China[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 361: 114107.
[4]	Zhao F J, Ma Y B, Zhu Y G, et al. Soil contamination in China: current status and mitigation strategies[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(2): 750-759.
[5]	Puissant J, Jones B, Goodall T, et al. The pH optimum of soil exoenzymes adapt to long term changes in soil pH[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2019, 138: 107601.
[6]	Zhang S W, Zhu Q C, De Vries W, et al. Effects of soil amendments on soil acidity and crop yields in acidic soils: a world-wide meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 345: 118531.
[7]	胡仁, 龙巧玲, 王力敏, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良效果及机制的研究进展[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2025, 44(4): 11-21.
	Hu R, Long Q L, Wang L M, et al. Progress on effects and mechanism of biochar on amelioration of acidified soils[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2025, 44(4): 11-21.
[8]	Li S N, Ji X H, Chao C, et al. Effects of increasing lime application rates on microbial diversity and community structure in paddy soils[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 161: 103837.
[9]	陈立天, 刘玉学, 何莉莉, 等. 水稻秸秆生物炭对南方稻田土壤的固碳减排效应[J]. 土壤通报, 2024, 55(3): 686-694.
	Chen L T, Liu Y X, He L L, et al. Effects of rice straw biochar on soil carbon sequestration and emission reduction in southern paddy fields[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2024, 55(3): 686-694.
[10]	Meng J, Tao M M, Wang L L, et al. Changes in heavy metal bioavailability and speciation from a Pb-Zn mining soil amended with biochars from co-pyrolysis of rice straw and swine manure[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 633: 300-307.
[11]	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.
[12]	赵琳, 刘桂珍, 钱笑杰, 等. 炭基肥添加对蜜柚果园酸性土壤pH和交换性能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(3): 244-251.
	Zhao L, Liu G Z, Qian X J, et al. Effects of biochar-based fertilizer on pH and exchange capacity of acidic soil in pomelo orchard[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(3): 244-251.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 56-271.
[14]	Yang W H, Li C J, Wang S S, et al. Influence of biochar and biochar-based fertilizer on yield, quality of tea and microbial community in an acid tea orchard soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 166: 104005.
[15]	申梦雪, 郝芮, 刘新伟, 等. 化肥减量配施秸秆和有机肥对酸化土壤改良及侵蚀阻控的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2024, 38(6): 333-342.
	Shen M X, Hao R, Liu X W, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with straw and organic fertilizer application on soil acidification mitigation and erosion control[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2024, 38(6): 333-342.
[16]	王其选, 范贝贝, 王巍翰, 等. 土壤改良剂对强酸性土壤中菠菜生长和镉累积的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2024, 56(4): 111-117.
	Wang Q X, Fan B B, Wang W H, et al. Effects of soil amendments on spinach growth and cadmium accumulation in strongly acidic soil[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 56(4): 111-117.
[17]	范贝贝, 彭宇涛, 潘成杰, 等. 矿物调理剂对酸性土壤酸度降低和菠菜镉累积的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(5): 96-105.
	Fan B B, Peng Y T, Pan C J, et al. Effects of mineral amendments on acidic soil acidity reduction and spinach cadmium accumulation[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2023, 28(5): 96-105.
[18]	王其选, 陈海宁, 王巍翰, 等. 酸性农田土壤改良材料的选择与应用研究进展[J]. 山东农业科学, 2024, 56(5): 171-180.
	Wang Q X, Chen H N, Wang W H, et al. Progress in selection and application of soil improvement materials for acidic farmland[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 56(5): 171-180.
[19]	Hass A, Gonzalez J M, Lima I M, et al. Chicken manure biochar as liming and nutrient source for acid Appalachian soil[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2012, 41(4): 1096-1106.
[20]	石晓芸, 夏尚光, 孙庆业, 等. 皖南山区不同类型森林土壤阳离子交换性能差异[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2024, 51(2): 284-290.
	Shi X Y, Xia S G, Sun Q Y, et al. Differences in soil cation exchange properties among different forests in the southern mountainous area of Anhui Province[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 2024, 51(2): 284-290.
[21]	张智, 何豪豪, 郁妙, 等. 化肥减量配施土壤改良剂对土壤酸度、土壤养分和水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1301-1308.
	Zhang Z, He H H, Yu M, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with soil conditioner on soil acidity, soil nutrients and rice yield[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(6): 1301-1308.
[22]	秦书琪, 房凯, 王冠钦, 等. 高寒草原土壤交换性盐基离子对氮添加的响应: 以紫花针茅草原为例[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(1): 95-104.
	Qin S Q, Fang K, Wang G Q, et al. Responses of exchangeable base cations to continuously increasing nitrogen addition in alpine steppe: a case study of Stipa purpurea steppe[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018, 42(1): 95-104.
[23]	谢洪梅, 倪伟, 关亚菲, 等. 连续多年施用有机肥替代施用化肥对苹果园土壤酸碱度和交换性能的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2025(2): 14-21.
	Xie H M, Ni W, Guan Y F, et al. Effects of continuous years organic fertilizer replacing chemical fertilizer on soil pH and exchange capacity in apple orchard[J]. China Fruits, 2025(2): 14-21.
[24]	冀建华, 李絮花, 刘秀梅, 等. 硅钙钾镁肥对南方稻田土壤酸度的改良作用[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(4): 895-906.
	Ji J H, Li X H, Liu X M, et al. Effect of Si-Ca-K-Mg fertil-izer remedying acid paddy soil in South China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 56(4): 895-906.
[25]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 304-311.
[26]	郜礼阳, 林威鹏, 张风姬, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良的研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(1): 35-44.
	Gao L Y, Lin W P, Zhang F J, et al. Research progress of biochar in improving soil acidification[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 48(1): 35-44.
[27]	郭实荣, 胡昆, 邱孺, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良研究进展[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2017, 40(4): 92-94.
	Guo S R, Hu K, Qiu R, et al. Research progress of biochar in improving acidic soil[J]. Inner Mongolia Forestry Investigation and Design, 2017, 40(4): 92-94.
[28]	Hu Y L, Chen J, Hui D F, et al. Soil acidification suppresses phosphorus supply through enhancing organomineral association[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 905: 167105.
[29]	Li L, Hu B M, Hu M. Research on the strengthening mechanism of potassium leaching process to potassium feldspar[J]. Minerals Engineering, 2023, 191: 107941.
[30]	Wang T T, Cao X X, Chen M M, et al. Effects of soil acidification on bacterial and fungal communities in the Jiaodong Peninsula, northern China[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(4): 927.
[31]	林舜贤, 刘芷君, 王钰超, 等. 土壤酸化对茶园土壤氮形态转化和微生物群落的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 54(4): 544-554.
	Lin S X, Liu Z J, Wang Y C, et al. Effect of soil acidification on nitrogen form transformation and microbial community of soils in tea plantations[J]. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University(Natural Science Edition), 2025, 54(4): 544-554.
[32]	高欣雨, 李丹丹, 李子旭, 等. 土壤酸化胁迫下细菌和真菌的多样性差异与群落重构[J]. 环境科学, 2026, 47(4): 2701-2712.
	Gao X Y, Li D D, Li Z X, et al. Community diversity differences and community reconstruction of bacteria and fungi under soil acidification stress[J]. Environmental Science, 2026, 47(4): 2701-2712.
[33]	Li X G, Chen D L, Carrión V J, et al. Acidification suppresses the natural capacity of soil microbiome to fight pathogenic Fusarium infections[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14: 5090.
[34]	满百膺, 向兴, 罗洋, 等. 黄山典型植被类型土壤真菌群落特征及其影响因素[J]. 菌物学报, 2021, 40(10): 2735-2751.
	Man B Y, Xiang X, Luo Y, et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of soil fungal community of typical vegetation types in Mount Huangshan, East China[J]. Mycosystema, 2021, 40(10): 2735-2751.
[35]	高宁, 邢意警, 熊瑞, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌和溶磷细菌协调植物获取磷素的机制[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2023, 40(6): 1167-1180.
	Gao N, Xing Y J, Xiong R, et al. Mechanisms of plant P acquisition coordinated by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(6): 1167-1180.
[36]	任俊鹏, 李小红, 董瑞奇, 等. 环剥和脱落酸处理对‘夏黑’葡萄果实着色及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2013, 30(6): 968-974.
	Ren J P, Li X H, Dong R Q, et al. Effect of girdling and ABA treatment on fruit quality and peel coloring of ‘Summer Black’ grape[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2013, 30(6): 968-974.
[37]	李文静, 刘一心, 陈明堃, 等. 14种海棠果实品质分析及综合评价[J]. 食品科学, 2024, 45(16): 121-130.
	Li W J, Liu Y X, Chen M K, et al. Quality analysis and comprehensive evaluation of 14 varieties of crabapples[J]. Food Science, 2024, 45(16): 121-130.
[38]	梁银池, 李栋皓, 刘国勇, 等. 不同加气灌溉时期对温室'弗雷'葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2025, 34(10): 1813-1821.
	Liang Y C, Li D H, Liu G Y, et al. Effect of different aerated irrigation periods on fruit quality of greenhouse grown ‘Flame Seedless’ grapes[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 2025, 34(10): 1813-1821.

处理 Treatment	交换性K⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable K⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Na⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Na⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Ca²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Ca²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Mg²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Mg²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	CEC/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性盐基离子总量/(cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable base cations content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	盐基饱和度/% Base saturation/%
CK	1.27±0.03 c	0.78±0.07 c	3.56±0.36 c	1.31±0.07 d	13.27±0.17 d	6.93±0.36 d	52.20±3.31 c
QL	1.45±0.25 bc	1.02±0.08 bc	8.50±0.40 a	1.55±0.11 c	14.96±0.21 c	12.51±0.53 a	83.66±3.50 a
BC	1.65±0.04 b	0.96±0.07 c	5.10±0.47 b	1.59±0.12 bc	15.08±0.07 c	9.30±0.34 c	61.68±2.45 b
MB	2.10±0.07 a	1.26±0.24 ab	5.93±0.62 b	1.83±0.10 a	17.75±0.63 a	11.13±0.52 b	62.70±2.69 b
CF	2.19±0.08 a	1.30±0.15 a	5.71±0.34 b	1.75±0.11 ab	16.46±0.51 b	10.95±0.46 b	66.57±3.12 b

处理 Treatment	交换性K⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable K⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Na⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Na⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Ca²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Ca²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Mg²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Mg²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	CEC/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性盐基离子总量/(cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable base cations content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	盐基饱和度/% Base saturation/%
CK	1.27±0.03 c	0.78±0.07 c	3.56±0.36 c	1.31±0.07 d	13.27±0.17 d	6.93±0.36 d	52.20±3.31 c
QL	1.45±0.25 bc	1.02±0.08 bc	8.50±0.40 a	1.55±0.11 c	14.96±0.21 c	12.51±0.53 a	83.66±3.50 a
BC	1.65±0.04 b	0.96±0.07 c	5.10±0.47 b	1.59±0.12 bc	15.08±0.07 c	9.30±0.34 c	61.68±2.45 b
MB	2.10±0.07 a	1.26±0.24 ab	5.93±0.62 b	1.83±0.10 a	17.75±0.63 a	11.13±0.52 b	62.70±2.69 b
CF	2.19±0.08 a	1.30±0.15 a	5.71±0.34 b	1.75±0.11 ab	16.46±0.51 b	10.95±0.46 b	66.57±3.12 b

处理 Treatment	可溶性固形物含量/% Soluble solid content/%	可滴定酸含量/ (mmol·kg^-1) Titratable acidity/ (mmol·kg^-1)	固酸比/% Soluble solids-acid ratio/%	总糖含量/% Total sugar content/%	维生素C含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Vitamin C content/ (mg·kg^-1)	游离氨基酸总量/(g·kg^-1) Total free amino acids content/ (g·kg^-1)	总花色苷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Anthocyanin content/(mg·kg^-1)
CK	15.67±0.06 b	66.4±2.0 a	32.00±0.87 d	31.58±1.46 b	12.0±1.4 d	0.204±0.010 a	53.3±0.6 d
QL	15.70±0.10 b	61.8±3.6 a	33.80±1.85 cd	41.44±0.43 a	18.9±0.9 c	0.206±0.014 a	57.9±0.8 c
BC	15.97±0.06 a	56.7±3.4 b	36.96±2.28 bc	40.73±1.45 a	19.4±0.8 c	0.223±0.016 a	58.9±3.4 bc
MB	16.00±0.10 a	47.5±3.0 c	44.92±2.84 a	42.19±1.92 a	23.0±1.0 b	0.226±0.012 a	64.5±1.2 a
CF	16.07±0.15 a	55.8±1.4 b	38.21±1.15 b	42.63±1.14 a	30.3±1.3 a	0.215±0.023 a	61.5±1.4 ab

处理 Treatment	可溶性固形物含量/% Soluble solid content/%	可滴定酸含量/ (mmol·kg^-1) Titratable acidity/ (mmol·kg^-1)	固酸比/% Soluble solids-acid ratio/%	总糖含量/% Total sugar content/%	维生素C含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Vitamin C content/ (mg·kg^-1)	游离氨基酸总量/(g·kg^-1) Total free amino acids content/ (g·kg^-1)	总花色苷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Anthocyanin content/(mg·kg^-1)
CK	15.67±0.06 b	66.4±2.0 a	32.00±0.87 d	31.58±1.46 b	12.0±1.4 d	0.204±0.010 a	53.3±0.6 d
QL	15.70±0.10 b	61.8±3.6 a	33.80±1.85 cd	41.44±0.43 a	18.9±0.9 c	0.206±0.014 a	57.9±0.8 c
BC	15.97±0.06 a	56.7±3.4 b	36.96±2.28 bc	40.73±1.45 a	19.4±0.8 c	0.223±0.016 a	58.9±3.4 bc
MB	16.00±0.10 a	47.5±3.0 c	44.92±2.84 a	42.19±1.92 a	23.0±1.0 b	0.226±0.012 a	64.5±1.2 a
CF	16.07±0.15 a	55.8±1.4 b	38.21±1.15 b	42.63±1.14 a	30.3±1.3 a	0.215±0.023 a	61.5±1.4 ab

Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 38

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	WU Shaofu, NI Yuanjun, ZHAN Lichuan, PENG Lu, WU Yingjie. Effects of different soil amendments on safe production and iron and zinc contents of rice in cadmium and mercury compound polluted soil [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(2): 417-424.
[2]	CHEN Gui, ZHOU Jiewen, LI Haiping, ZHANG Faming, LI Chunshun, LIU Li, ZHANG Y. Effects of soil conditioner application on pH value of acidified soil and root characteristics of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(7): 1275-1282.
[3]	HAN Kefeng, CHEN Yuping, HU Tiejun, ZHANG Feng, ZHOU Fei, CHENG Jianqiu, WU Lianghuan. Effects of silicon, calcium, potassium and magnesium fertilizer on acid paddy soil improvement in Zhejiang Province [J]. , 2018, 30(1): 117-122.
[4]	YANG Haijiang, ZHONG Yanxia, ZHAO Yafeng, TIAN Xin. Chemical metrological characteristics of soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in vineyards at east piedmont of Helan Mountains in Xixia District, Yinchuan City [J]. , 2018, 30(1): 144-149.
[5]	LIANG Lin-lin;LIU Qi-zhi*;XIE Na;LI Xing-yue;YANG Duan;BIAN Yong;XIE De-yan. Nematode trophic group structure in wilted turf soil and its regulation factors [J]. , 2011, 23(5): 0-954.