Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties， Rice Yield and Economic Benefits in Low-lying Saline Alkali Land in Northern Shaanxi

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0780

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the effects of different soil amendments on the improvement of low-lying saline alkali land in Northern Shaanxi， the effects of three soil amendments （desulfurization gypsum， “Jinfufeng” and humic acid） on soil physical and chemical properties， rice yield and economic benefits were studied and compared by means of field experiment and indoor analysis. The results showed that the 3 soil amendents could effectively reduce soil bulk density， improve soil physical properties and reduce soil pH. Humic acid could also significantly reduce the salt content of surface soil. In addition， “Jinfufeng” soil amendents and humic acid had significant effects on the content of soil organic matter and total nitrogen， but had no significant effects on the available potassium and available phosphorus. Desulfurized gypsum had a significant effect on the content of soil available potassium， but had no significant effects on the organic matter， total nitrogen and available phosphorus. The application of soil conditioner could significantly improve the 1 000 grain weight and yield of rice， which increased by 10.19%～13.59% and 13.54%～27.95%， respectively， compared with the control. The 1 000 grain weight and yield of humic acid amendments treatment were the highest， reaching 23.4 g and 7 380 kg·hm^-2， respectively. Through the analysis of economic benefits， it was found that the application of modifier could significantly improve the output value and net profit of rice. Among them， the application of humic acid modifier could obtain the maximum output value， net profit and yield investment ratio. Considering the rice quality， rice yield and economic benefits， it was suggested to give priority to humic acid soil to improve the low-lying saline alkali land in Northern Shaanxi.

Key words: desulfurized gypsum, soil amendments, humic acid, physical and chemical properties of soil, yield

摘要：

为探究不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地的改良效果，采用田间试验和室内分析相结合的方法，比较了3种土壤改良剂（脱硫石膏、“金阜丰”和腐殖酸）对土壤理化性质、水稻产量及经济效益的影响。结果表明，3种土壤改良剂均可有效降低土壤容重、改善土壤物理性质，降低土壤酸碱度。其中，腐殖酸可显著降低表层土壤含盐量；“金阜丰”土壤改良剂和腐殖酸对土壤有机质、全氮含量的影响达到显著水平，对速效钾、有效磷含量影响不显著；脱硫石膏对土壤速效钾含量的影响达到显著水平，对有机质、全氮、有效磷含量影响不显著。此外，施加土壤改良剂可以显著提升水稻千粒重和产量，与对照相比千粒重和产量分别增加10.19%~13.59%和13.54%~27.95%，其中，施加腐殖酸改良剂处理的水稻千粒重和产量最大，分别达到23.4 g和7 380 kg·hm^-2；通过经济效益分析发现，施加改良剂可以显著提升水稻产值和纯利润，其中，施加腐殖酸处理获得了最大的产值、纯利润和产投比，综合考虑稻米质量、水稻产量和经济效益，建议优先选用腐殖酸土壤改良剂改良陕北低洼盐碱地。

关键词: 脱硫石膏, 土壤改良剂, 腐殖酸, 土壤理化性质, 产量

CLC Number:

S156.4

PANG Zhe, WANG Qilong, LI Juan. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties， Rice Yield and Economic Benefits in Low-lying Saline Alkali Land in Northern Shaanxi[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.

庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.

Figures/Tables 6

References 25

1	杨阳.盐碱地中国潜在的耕地资源[J].中国农村科技,2018(11):8-13.
	YANG Y. Saline alkali land potential cultivated land resources in China [J]. China Rural Sci. Technol., 2018(11):8-13.
2	宁松瑞,韩霁昌,郝起礼,等.新增耕地土壤盐渍化调查及改良措施分析[J]. 北方园艺, 2017(8): 172-178.
	NING S R, HAN J C, HAO Q L, et al.. Survey and discuss of saline-alkali new farmland and soil improvement measures [J]. Northern Hortic., 2017(8):172-178.
3	STAMFORD N P, SILVA A J N, FREITAS A D S, et al.. Effect of sulphur inoculated with Thiobacillus on soil salinity and growth of tropical tree legumes [J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2002, 81(1): 53-59.
4	BROWN T T, KOENIG R T, HUGGINS D R, et al.. Lime effects on soil acidity, crop yield, and aluminum chemistry in direct-seeded cropping systems [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 2008, 72(3): 634-640.
5	周道玮, 田雨, 王敏玲, 等. 覆沙改良科尔沁沙地-松辽平原交错区盐碱地与造田技术研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2011,26(6): 910-918.
	ZHOU D W, TIAN Y, WANG M L, et al.. Research on "sand-covered reclaimed crop land" of alkali-saline soil [J]. J. Nat. Resour., 2011,26(6): 910-918.
6	肖国举, 秦萍, 罗成科, 等. 犁翻与旋耕施用脱硫石膏对改良碱化土壤的效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(2): 433-437.
	XIAO G J, QIN P, LUO C K, et al.. Study on effects of plowing and rotary tillage on improved solonetzic soil with desulfurized gypsum [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2010, 19(2): 433-437.
7	郑普山, 郝保平, 冯悦晨, 等. 不同盐碱地改良剂对土壤理化性质、紫花苜蓿生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(9): 1216-1221.
	ZHENG P S, HAO B P, FENG Y C, et al.. Effects of different saline-alkali land amendments on soil physicochemical properties and alfalfa growth and yield [J]. Chin. J. Eco-Agric, 2013, 20(9):1216-1221.
8	姜增明,费云鹏,陈佳, 等.土壤调理剂在盐碱地改良中的作用[J].北方园艺,2014(20):174-177.
	JIANG Z M, FEI Y P, CHEN J, et al.. Effect of soil conditioners on modifying saline-alkali soil [J]. Northern Hortic.,2014(20):174-177.
9	吴志强,蔡书春,伍昀, 等.不同土壤改良剂在水稻上的应用效果[J].中国农技推广,2021,37(2):69-71.
10	王红,张淑辉,彭福田, 等.不同土壤改良剂对土壤理化性质、微生物及桃植株生长的影响[J].山东农业科学,2020,52(12):59-65, 70.
	WANG H, ZHANG S H, PENG F T, et al.. Effects of different soil amendments on soil properties, microorganisms and peach plant growth [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci.,2020,52(12):59-65, 70.
11	舒锟,曹源,王波, 等.土壤调理剂对陕北盐碱地土体化学性质及水稻生长的影响[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(6):175-180.
	SHU K, CAO Y, WANG B, et al.. Effects of conditioner on soil chemical properties and rice growth in saline alkali soil of Northern Shaanxi [J]. Bull. Soil Water Conserv.,2020,40(6):175-180.
12	王启龙,卢楠,魏样.不同改良措施对定边盐碱地土壤理化性质、黑麦草生长及产量的影响[J].江苏农业科学,2019,47(11):282-286.
	WANG Q L, LU N, WEI Y. Effects of different improvement measures on soil physicochemical properties and ryegrass growth and yield in Dingbian [J]. Jiangsu Agric. Sci.,2019,47(11):282-286.
13	于晓东,郭新送,陈士更, 等.腐殖酸土壤调理剂对黄河三角洲盐碱土化学性状及小麦产量的影响[J].农学学报,2020,10(11):25-31.
	YU X D, GUO X S, CHEN S G, et al.. Effects of humic acid soil conditioner on chemical properties and wheat yield of saline alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta [J]. J. Agric.,2020,10(11):25-31.
14	黄艳飞,陈君梅,辛亚宁, 等.石膏对苏打盐碱土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国农业科技导报,2021,23(11):139-146.
	HUANG Y F, CHEN J M, XIN Y N, et al.. Effects of gypsum application on soil physical and chemical properties of soda saline-alkali soil [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021,23(11):139-146.
15	何振嘉,范王涛,杜宜春, 等.基于土体有机重构的水肥耦合对土壤理化性质和水稻产量的影响[J].中国农业科技导报,2022,24(3):176-185.
	HE Z J, FAN W T, DU Y C, et al.. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on the physical and chemical properties of rice soil and yield based on soil organic reconstruction [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2022,24(3):176-185.
16	韩剑宏,孙一博,张连科, 等.生物炭与腐殖酸配施对盐碱土理化性质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2020,38(6):121-127.
	HAN J H, SUN Y B, ZHANG L K, et al.. Effect of biochar and humic acid on physical and chemical properties of saline-alkali soil [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas,2020,38(6):121-127.
17	HÉNAULT C, BOURENNANE H, AYZAC A, et al.. Management of soil pH promotes nitrous oxide reduction and thus mitigates soil emissions of this greenhouse gas [J]. Sci. Rep., 2019, 9(1):12-17.
18	HAJIBOLAND R, CHERAGHVAREH L, POSCHENRIEDER C. Improvement of drought tolerance in tobacco (Nicotiana rustica L.) plants by silicon [J]. J. Plant Nutr., 2017,40(12):1661-1676.
19	李常亮, 张富仓. 保水剂与氮肥混施对土壤持水特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(2): 172-176.
	LI C L, ZHANG F C. Effects of super absorbent polymer application to soil mixed with nitrogenous fertilizer on soil water retention properties [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas,2010, 28(2): 172-176.
20	周阳. 脱硫石膏与腐殖酸改良盐碱土效果研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2016.
	ZHOU Y. Research on effects of desulfurization gypsum and humic acid on saline soil improvement [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2016.
21	皮婧婧,肖兰,赵硕祎, 等.腐殖酸辅助解盐促生菌改良克拉玛依盐碱地土壤技术[J].浙江农业科学,2021,62(3):600-602, 607.
	PI J J, XIAO L, ZHAO S Y, et al.. Technology of improving Karamay saline alkali soil by humic acid assisted salt hydrolysis and growth promoting bacteria [J]. Zhejiang Agric. Sci.,2021,62(3):600-602, 607.
22	王燕. 不同改良措施对盐渍化草甸土改良效果研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2016.
	WANG Y. Improvement effect of different improvement measures on the salinized meadow soil [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2016.
23	谢仕祺,林正全,陈玉蓝, 等.不同土壤调理剂对植烟土壤养分及细菌群落的影响[J].河南农业大学学报,2021,55(3):523-530.
	XIE S Q, LIN Z Q, CHEN Y L, et al.. Effects of different soil conditioners on soil nutrients and bacterial communities in tobacco soil [J]. J. Henan Agric. Univ.,2021,55(3):523-530.
24	王立志, 陈明昌, 张强, 等. 脱硫石膏及改良盐碱地效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(20): 241-245.
	WANG L Z, CHEN M C, ZHANG Q, et al.. Effects of desulfurised gypsum form coal power station on improvement of saline-alkali soil [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2011, 27(20): 241-245.
25	张玉凤,林海涛,王江涛, 等.盐碱土壤调理剂对玉米生长及土壤的改良效果[J].中国土壤与肥料,2017(1):134-138.
	ZHANG Y F, LIN H T, WANG J T, et al.. Effects of saline-alkaline soil conditioner on growth of maize and improvement of soil [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2017(1):134-138.

处理 Treatment	土层 Layer
处理 Treatment	0—20 cm	20—40 cm	40—60 cm
对照 CK	1.49±0.04 a	1.53±0.03 a	1.52±0.06 a
脱硫石膏 FGD	1.45±0.11 b	1.46±0.05 b	1.51±0.04 a
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC	1.42±0.05 c	1.43±0.02 c	1.52±0.02 a
腐殖酸 HA	1.41±0.03 c	1.42±0.09 c	1.50±0.05 a

处理 Treatment	土层 Layer
处理 Treatment	0—20 cm	20—40 cm	40—60 cm
对照 CK	1.49±0.04 a	1.53±0.03 a	1.52±0.06 a
脱硫石膏 FGD	1.45±0.11 b	1.46±0.05 b	1.51±0.04 a
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC	1.42±0.05 c	1.43±0.02 c	1.52±0.02 a
腐殖酸 HA	1.41±0.03 c	1.42±0.09 c	1.50±0.05 a

处理 Treatment	土层 Layer/cm	有机质 Organic matter/ （g·kg^-1）	全氮 Total nitrogen/%	有效磷 Available phosphorus/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 Available potassium/ （mg·kg^-1）
对照 CK	0—20	8.72±0.96 a	0.72±0.24 a	8.6±1.54 a	121±3.68 a
	20—40	8.34±1.06 b	0.71±0.32 b	8.5±1.74 a	106±4.87 b
	40—60	7.61±0.55 c	0.73±0.33 a	7.6±1.56 b	86±5.74 c
脱硫石膏 FGD	0—20	8.83±0.96 a	0.84±0.27 a	8.5±1.19 a	138±6.77 a
	20—40	8.41±0.84 ab	0.71±0.21 b	8.3±1.62 b	115±4.59 b
	40—60	7.85±1.21 b	0.66±0.26 c	8.1±1.54 c	85±5.78 c
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC	0—20	11.8±0.95 a	0.93±0.32 a	8.4±2.02 a	124±9.61 a
	20—40	9.58±1.07 b	0.82±0.31 ab	6.2±1.26 b	105±6.45 b
	40—60	8.62±1.36 c	0.81±0.24 b	6.8±1.30 b	83±5.64 c
腐殖酸 HA	0—20	11.3±1.08 a	1.13±0.41 a	8.5±1.68 a	113±8.35 a
	20—40	9.37±1.14 b	0.95±0.38 b	8.1±1.69 ab	106±7.67 b
	40—60	8.35±1.01 b	0.84±0.42 c	7.5±1.58 b	92±8.21 c

处理 Treatment	土层 Layer/cm	有机质 Organic matter/ （g·kg^-1）	全氮 Total nitrogen/%	有效磷 Available phosphorus/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 Available potassium/ （mg·kg^-1）
对照 CK	0—20	8.72±0.96 a	0.72±0.24 a	8.6±1.54 a	121±3.68 a
	20—40	8.34±1.06 b	0.71±0.32 b	8.5±1.74 a	106±4.87 b
	40—60	7.61±0.55 c	0.73±0.33 a	7.6±1.56 b	86±5.74 c
脱硫石膏 FGD	0—20	8.83±0.96 a	0.84±0.27 a	8.5±1.19 a	138±6.77 a
	20—40	8.41±0.84 ab	0.71±0.21 b	8.3±1.62 b	115±4.59 b
	40—60	7.85±1.21 b	0.66±0.26 c	8.1±1.54 c	85±5.78 c
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC	0—20	11.8±0.95 a	0.93±0.32 a	8.4±2.02 a	124±9.61 a
	20—40	9.58±1.07 b	0.82±0.31 ab	6.2±1.26 b	105±6.45 b
	40—60	8.62±1.36 c	0.81±0.24 b	6.8±1.30 b	83±5.64 c
腐殖酸 HA	0—20	11.3±1.08 a	1.13±0.41 a	8.5±1.68 a	113±8.35 a
	20—40	9.37±1.14 b	0.95±0.38 b	8.1±1.69 ab	106±7.67 b
	40—60	8.35±1.01 b	0.84±0.42 c	7.5±1.58 b	92±8.21 c

处理 Treatment	千粒重 1 000 grain weight/g	产量Yield （kg·hm^-2）	产值/（元·hm^-2）Output value/ （yuan·hm^-2）	投入/（元·hm^-2）Investment/ （yuan·hm^-2）	纯利润/（元·hm^-2） Net profit/ （yuan·hm^-2）	产投比 Production investment ratio
对照 CK	20.6	4 076	14 266.0	—	—	—
脱硫石膏 FGD	22.7	6 450	22 575.0	6 000	2 309.0	1.38
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC	23.1	7 215	25 252.5	5 400	5 586.5	2.03
腐殖酸 HA	23.4	7 380	25 830.0	5 000	6 564.0	2.31