首页 > 分享 > 一种专用土壤调理剂改良滨海盐渍土效果研究

一种专用土壤调理剂改良滨海盐渍土效果研究

花匠小妙招
2024-12-15 10:08

摘要:

目的

滨海盐渍土存在的土壤盐分高、结构差、钠含量高、返盐频繁等问题，为促进沿海地区滩涂资源的高效开发和利用，探究一种专用的土壤调理剂对于滨海盐渍土的改良效果。

方法

以专用土壤调理剂“盐怕”（ZL 201810961893.4）为试验材料，以滨海地区盐渍土为研究对象，通过室内模拟实验的方法，测定不同用量（0、3000、6000 kg hm−2）的“盐怕”处理下0 ~ 20 cm土层土壤基本理化性质及土壤酶活性，从而分析并评估该环境友好型的多功能土壤调理剂对滨海盐渍土的改良效果。

结果

土壤调理剂的施用能够降低土壤含盐量及pH，增加土壤碱解氮和速效钾含量，降低土壤Na + 离子含量，同时提升土壤中Ca2 + 、Mg2 + 和K + 含量，并使土壤蔗糖酶和脲酶活性提升，但超过某一用量范围后调理剂用量继续增加其效果提升不再明显。

结论

该专用的土壤调理剂可以有效且高效地改良滨海盐渍土，推荐调理剂施用量为3000 kg hm-2。

Abstract:

Objective

Coastal saline soil has such problems as high salinity, poor structure, high sodium content and frequent water-salt interaction. In order to promote the development and utilization of saline-alkali land resources in coastal areas, this paper mainly studies the improvement effect of a patented soil conditioner on coastal saline soil.

Method

The patented soil conditioner “Salt Fear” (ZL 201810961893.4) was used as the experimental material and coastal saline soil was used as the research object. Laboratory simulation experiments were carried out to study the physical and chemical properties of soil and soil enzyme activities in 0-20 cm soil layer treated with different amounts (0, 3000, 6000 kg hm−2) of “Salt Fear”, so as to analyze and evaluate the improvement effect of this environment-friendly multifunctional soil conditioner on coastal saline land.

Result

The results showed that the application of “Salt Fear” could reduce soil salt content, pH value and toxic Na + ion content, and increase the content of alkali hydrolyzed nitrogen and other available nutrients, as well as the contents of Ca2 + , Mg2 + and K + . The activities of soil sucrase and soil urease were also improved. And the improvement effect did not significantly improve with the increase of the dosage of “Salt Fear”.

Conclusion

These results indicated that this patented soil amendment for saline soil can effectively and efficiently improve coastal saline soil, and by considering various factors, it is recommended to apply 3000 kg/hm2 of this amendment.

图 1 土壤盐分淋出装置

Figure 1. A device that simulates soil salt leaching caused by rainfall

图 2 PVC柱与喷头

Figure 2. PVC column and spray head

图 3 各处理组对不同深度土壤酶活性的影响

CK-空白对照组，A-盐怕用量3000 kg hm–2，B-盐怕用量6000 kg hm–2。不同小写字母表示在同一深度不同处理间差异显著（P ≤ 0.05）。

Figure 3. Effects of different treatment groups on soil enzyme activities at different depths

表 1 调理剂“盐怕”的主要成分

Table 1 Main components of the soil amendment "Salt Fear"

原料名称
Material主要作用
Main function 麦饭石多孔海绵状结构，本身含多种营养元素，具较强的吸附和离子交换能力，调理土壤理化性质腐殖酸自身可作为有机肥，增强土壤肥力；促进团粒结构形成，增加土壤通透性，活化土壤磷素有机硅提升作物对于氮磷的吸收量，活化土壤养分，促进土壤团粒结构形成有机质提升土壤肥力，改良土壤结构，增加土壤通气性，促进土壤中微生物活动生物酶参与和促进土壤中的各类反应，提高肥料及营养物质的利用率

表 2 各处理组对不同深度土壤理化性质的影响

Table 2 Physical and chemical properties of soil at different depths

深度
Depth
（cm）处理
Treatment含盐量
Salt content
（g kg–1）土壤酸碱度
pH含水率
Moisture content
（%）容重
Bulk density
（g cm–3） 0 ~ 10 CK 25.7 ± 0.27 a 8.46 ± 0.02 a 18.1 ± 0.10 a 1.11 ± 0.03 a A 18.8 ± 0.68 b 8.09 ± 0.04 b 17.5 ± 0.34 a 1.20 ± 0.07 a B 20.4 ± 0.29 b 7.98 ± 0.03 b 16.7 ± 0.46 a 1.12 ± 0.08 a10 ~ 20 CK 28.1 ± 0.45 a 8.20 ± 0.10 a 17.4 ± 1.36 a 1.23 ± 0.06 a A 19.3 ± 0.48 b 7.95 ± 0.06 a 16.0 ± 0.10 a 1.28 ± 0.11 a B 19.7 ± 0.39 b 7.55 ± 0.05 b 15.0 ± 0.51 a 1.11 ± 0.02 a 　　注：CK-空白对照组，A-盐怕用量3000 kg hm–2，B-盐怕用量6000 kg hm–2。不同小写字母表示在同一深度不同处理间差异显著（P ≤ 0.05）。

表 3 各处理土壤速效养分含量

Table 3 Effects of different treatments to the soil available nutrients in different depths

土层深度(cm)
Depth处理
Treatment碱解氮(mg kg−1)
Available-nitrogen有效磷(mg kg−1)
Available-phosphorus速效钾(mg kg−1)
Available-potassium 0 ~ 10 CK 33.6±2.42 c 46.6±1.45 ab 102.9±6.57 b A 227±3.52 b 63.9±18.9 a 114.8±6.43 ab B 361±4.04 a 30.9±7.67 b 117.3±3.93 a 10 ~ 20 CK 34.1±1.68 c 49.0±18.4 a 106.6±6.96 b A 104±1.68 b 67.5±22.0 a 113.0±4.01 ab B 221±1.23 a 55.7±2.17 a 119.5±7.06 a 　　注：CK-空白对照组，A-盐怕用量3000 kg hm−2，B-盐怕用量6000 kg hm−2。不同小写字母表示在同一深度不同处理间内差异显著（P ≤ 0.05）。

表 4 各处理土壤Ca2 + 、Mg2 + 、K + 和Na + 离子含量

Table 4 Effects of different treatments to the water-soluble Ca2 + , Mg2 + , K + , Na + in different depths

深度（cm）
Depth 处理
TreatmentCa2 +
（g kg–1）Mg2 +
（g kg–1）K +
（g kg–1）Na +
（g kg–1） 0 ~ 10 CK 0.26 ± 0.01 b 0.32 ± 0.01 b 0.21 ± 0.01 a 6.98 ± 0.15 a A 0.40 ± 0.02 a 0.39 ± 0.02 a 0.22 ± 0.01 a 6.09 ± 0.18 b B 0.40 ± 0.01 a 0.41 ± 0.01 a 0.23 ± 0.01 a 5.79 ± 0.14 b10 ~ 20 CK 0.20 ± 0.02 b 0.28 ± 0.02 b 0.19 ± 0.01 b 7.36 ± 0.22 a A 0.39 ± 0.03 a 0.37 ± 0.02 a 0.22 ± 0.01 a 6.03 ± 0.28 b B 0.44 ± 0.02 a 0.40 ± 0.01 a 0.24 ± 0.01 a 5.94 ± 0.15 b 　　注：CK-空白对照组，A-盐怕用量3000 kg hm–2，B-盐怕用量6000 kg hm–2。不同小写字母表示在同一深度不同处理间差异显著（P ≤ 0.05）。 [1] 王遵亲. 中国盐渍土[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1993. [2]

Shao T Y, Long X H, Liu YQ, et al. Effect of industrial crop Jerusalem artichoke on the micro-ecological rhizosphere environment in saline soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 166: 104080. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104080

[3]

Amini S, Ghadiri H, Chen C, et al. Salt-affected soils, reclamation, carbon dynamics, and biochar: a review[J]. Journal of Soils & Sediments, 2016, 16(3): 939 − 953.

[4] 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. doi: 10.11766/trxb202110270578 [5] 庄舜尧, 钟敏, 孙晓, 等. 滨海盐碱地中垄作模式对菊芋生长及养分吸收的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(24): 197 − 201. [6] 王德领, 诸葛玉平, 杨全刚, 等. 3种改良剂对滨海盐碱地土壤理化性状及玉米生长的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(1): 20 − 27. doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2020.0143 [7] 刘莉萍. 不同盐碱土改良剂对江苏大丰滨海盐碱地改良效应[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015. [8]

Landgraf D, Klose S. Mobile and readily available C and N fractions and their relationship to microbial biomass and selected enzyme activities in a sandy soil under different management systems[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2002, 165(1): 9 − 16. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200202)165:1<9::AID-JPLN9>3.0.CO;2-O

[9]

Lakhdar A, Rabhi M, Ghnaya T, et al. Effectiveness of compost use in salt-affected soil[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 171(1-3): 29 − 37. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.132

[10] 杨劲松, 姚荣江, 王相平, 等. 防止土壤盐渍化, 提高土壤生产力[J]. 科学, 2021, 73(6): 30 − 34 + 2 + 4. [11] 尹万伟, 黄本波, 汪凤玲, 等. 土壤调理剂的研究现状与进展[J]. 磷肥与复肥, 2019, 34(2): 19 − 23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6220.2019.02.008 [12]

Yue Y, Shao T Y, Long X H, et al. Microbiome structure and function in rhizosphere of Jerusalem artichoke grown in saline land[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 724: 138259. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138259

[13] 柴晓彤, 顾金凤, 毛亮, 等. 微生物菌肥对盐渍化土壤中盐分离子及有机质含量的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2017, 35(1): 78 − 84. [14] 于晓东, 郭新送, 洪丕征, 等. 不同配方腐植酸型土壤调理剂对滨海盐碱地土壤性质及小麦产量的影响[J]. 腐植酸, 2019, (5): 52 − 57. doi: 10.19451/j.cnki.issn1671-9212.2019.05.004 [15] 郭赋涵. 化肥配施土壤改良剂对盐碱地改良及水稻产量的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2020. [16] 张振华. 麦饭石作为土壤调理剂在不同作物上的应用效果研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2012. [17] 王倩姿, 王玉, 孙志梅, 等. 腐植酸类物质的施用对盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(4): 1227 − 1234. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201904.001 [18] 倪海峰, 朱尤东, 刘树堂, 等. 保水剂及有机酸土壤调理剂对盐碱地的改良效果及小麦产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(4): 121 − 125. doi: 10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2020.04.021 [19] 王涵, 张忠庆, 刘金华, 等. 不同改良剂对苏打盐碱土的改良效果[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2020, 42(5): 569 − 575. doi: 10.13327/j.jjlau.2020.4510 [20] 汪久翔, 邹冬生, 王华, 等. 不同土壤湿度下平菇菌渣施用对土壤酶活性和温室气体排放的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2023, 54(1): 151 − 160. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2021070204 [21]

Garcia-Ruiz R, Ochoa V, Hinojosa MB, et al. suitability of enzyme activities for the monitoring of soil quality improvement in organic agricultural systems[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008, 40: 2137 − 2145. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.03.023

[22] 张体彬, 展小云, 冯浩. 盐碱地土壤酶活性研究进展和展望[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(2): 495 − 500. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2017.02.35 [23]

Yao X H, Min H, Lu Z H, et al. Influence of acetamiprid on soil enzymatic activities and respiration[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2006, 42(2): 120 − 126. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2005.12.001

[24] 宋鹏, 杨振中, 万祖梁, 等. 水稻秸秆秋季湿耙还田对土壤酶活性和养分的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(3): 569 − 576. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202302.024 [25] 王秀梅, 安毅, 秦莉, 等. 镉胁迫下土壤理化因子与过氧化氢酶活性的通径分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(11): 59 − 65. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17040022