Effect of Addition Several Kinds of Amendment on the Water-retaining Properties of Gangue Matrix and the Germination of Setaria viridis （L.） Beauv.

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0520

Abstract

Abstract:

Poor water retention of coal gangue substrate is the primary obstacle to plant settlement， so the L（3⁴） orthogonal experiment was conducted to study the effects of different ratios of loess， water retention agent， biochar and bio-fertilizer on the moisture characteristics of the gangue substrate and the germination of Setaria viridis （L.） Beauv.. The experimental results showed that， except for bio-fertilizer， three other kinds of amendment significantly reduced the capacity and cumulative infiltration rate of gangue matrix（P<0.01）， and the treatment effect was soil to gangue ratio > water retention agent > biochar > bio-fertilizer. Furthermore， water retention agent， biochar and bio-fertilizer significantly increased the field capacity of gangue matrix， and the treatment effects were soil-to-gangue ratio > water retention agent > biochar > bio-fertilizer（P<0.05）. Finally， application of four kinds of amendment had no significant effects on the germination rate， but advanced the germination start time from 14 d to 7～12 d， and significantly increased the dry weight accumulation of S. viridis（P<0.05）， because the dry weight of S. viridis in CK was only 19.7 mg·pot^-1， but the dry weight of S. viridis in treatment group ranged from 28.3～71.2 mg·pot^-1， with the highest increase of 2.61 times. The results of the orthogonal experiments showed that the best suitable ratio of amendment was soil-to-gangue ratio 2∶1 + water retention agent 0.1% + biochar 1% + bio-fertilizer 1%， in which， the water retention of gangue matrix and the sprouting and early growth of S. viridis were significantly improved，which could provide theoretical reference for coal gangue matrix improvement.

Key words: coal gangue matrix, amendment, water-holding capacity, Setaria viridis （L.） Beauv., sprouting

摘要：

煤矸石基质保水性差是影响植物定居的主要障碍因子，为提高煤矸石基质的保水性，以土壤（土矸比）、保水剂、生物炭和生物菌肥为改良剂，采用四因素三水平L（3⁴）正交试验，研究4者不同配比对煤矸石基质水分特征及狗尾草萌发和早期生长的影响。结果表明，土壤、保水剂、生物炭的施用极显著地降低了煤矸石基质的容重和累积入渗速率（P<0.01），而生物菌肥对二者的影响不显著，4种改良剂的处理效果依次为土矸比>保水剂>生物炭>生物菌肥；土壤、保水剂、生物炭和生物菌肥显著提高了煤矸石基质的田间持水量（P<0.05），处理效果表现为土矸比>保水剂>生物炭>生物菌肥；施用改良剂后，狗尾草萌发数量差异不明显，但狗尾草的萌发开始时间由14 d提前到7～12 d，且狗尾草的干重积累显著增长（P<0.05），对照组的狗尾草干重仅为19.7 mg·盆^-1，施用改良剂后狗尾草干重在28.3～71.2 mg·盆^-1，最高增加2.61倍。正交试验统计分析结果表明，适宜的改良剂配合比例为土矸比2∶1+保水剂0.1%+生物炭1%+生物菌肥1%，该比例可显著提高煤矸石基质的保水性，促进狗尾草萌发与早期生长，结果可为煤矸石基质改良提供理论参考。

关键词: 煤矸石基质, 改良剂, 保水性, 狗尾草, 萌发

CLC Number:

Haiyu SHEN, Hao ZHANG, Zilong WU, Chao HAN, Wei SONG, Xiaofei MA. Effect of Addition Several Kinds of Amendment on the Water-retaining Properties of Gangue Matrix and the Germination of Setaria viridis （L.） Beauv.[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(3): 161-168.

申海玉, 张浩, 吴子龙, 韩超, 宋炜, 马晓斐. 几种改良剂对煤矸石基质水分特征及狗尾草萌发的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 161-168.

Figures/Tables 5

References 19

1	叶吉文, 沈国栋, 路露. 煤矸石的危害与综合利用[J]. 中国资源综合利用, 2010, 28(5): 32-34.
	YE J W, SHEN G D, LU L. Hazards and comprehensive utilization of coal gangue [J]. Chin. Resour. Comprehensive Utilization, 2010, 28(5): 32-34.
2	LING N, DENG K Y, SONG Y, et al.. Variation of rhizosphere bacterial community in watermelon continuous mono-cropping soil by long-term application of a novel bioorganic fertilizer [J]. Microbiol. Res., 2014, 169(7): 570-578.
3	张超英, 陈艳鑫, 耿玉清, 等. 生物炭和保水剂对煤矸石基质水分物理特征的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(9): 122-128.
	ZHANG C Y, CHEN Y X, GENG Y Q, et al.. Effect of biochar and super water absorbents on water physical characteristics of coal gangue matrix [J]. J. Arid Land Res. Environ., 2020, 34(9): 122-128.
4	张乃明. 环境土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2013: 30-37.
	ZHANG N M. Environmental Pedology [M]. BeiJing: China Agricultural Publishing House, 2013: 30-37.
5	杨慧豪, 郭秋萍, 黄帮裕, 等. 生物炭基土壤调理剂对酸性菜田土壤的改良效果[J/OL]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2022[2022-05-23]. .
	YANG H H, GUO Q P, HUANG B Y, et al.. Effects of biochar-based soil conditioners on ameliorating acid soil in vegetable field [J/OL]. J. Agric. Res. Environ., 2022 [2022-05-23]. .
6	庞碧琳. 不同复垦植被类型煤矸石山土壤微生物、酶活性及其影响因素[D]. 太原: 山西师范大学, 2018.
	PANG B L. Analysis on soil microbe, enzyme activity and its influencing factors under different vegetation type in coal waste pile [D]. Taiyuan: Shanxi Normal University, 2018.
7	王幼奇, 包维斌, 白一茹, 等. 生物炭对黑垆土土壤水分运移特征参数影响[J].排灌机械工程学报, 2020, 38(3): 292-297.
	WANG Y Q, BAO W B, BAI Y R, et al.. Effects of biochar on soil water transport characteristics of Heilu soil [J]. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng., 2020, 38(3): 292-297.
8	陈艳鑫. 生物炭和保水剂对矸石土壤基质水分特征和酶活性的影响[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2019.
	CHEN Y X. Effects of biochar and water retaining agent on water characteristics and enzyme activities of gangue soil matrix [D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2019.
9	张汝翀. 煤矸石基质改良措施对植物生长及重金属富集影响研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2018.
	ZHANG R C. Effects of the improvement measures of coal gangue matrix on plant growth and heavy metal enrichment [D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2018.
10	陈怀满, 朱永官, 董元华, 等. 环境土壤学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2016: 68, 70-71.
	CHEN H M, ZHU Y G, DONG Y H, et al.. Environmental Pedology [M]. BeiJing: Science Press, 2016: 68, 70-71.
11	CHENG W, BIAN Z F, DONG J H, et al.. Soil properties in reclaimed farmland by filling subsidence basin due to underground coal mining with mineral wastes in China [J]. Nonferr. Metal. Soc. Chin., 2014, 24(8): 2627-2630.
12	CHEN M, CHEN X Y, HUANG H, et al.. Effects of fly ash, silty clay loam and loamy sand on the hydraulic conductivity and air permeability of coal gangue [J]. Fresen. Environ. Bull., 2018, 27(4): 2035-2038.
13	董颖, 李娜, 耿玉清, 等. 添加保水剂对煤矸石基质保水性能的影响[J]. 中国水土保持学报, 2020, 33(6): 114-123.
	DONG Y, LI N, GENG Y Q, et al.. Effect of addition of water-retaining agent on the water-retaining properties of coal gangue matrix [J]. Sci. Soil Water Conserv., 2020, 33(6): 114-123.
14	赵陟峰, 王冬梅, 赵延宁. 保水剂对煤矸石基质上高羊茅生长及营养吸收的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 18(3): 5101-5106.
	ZHAO Z F, WANG D M, ZHAO Y N. The effect of super absorbent polymer on the growth and nutrition absorption of Festuca arundinacea L. on an improved gangue matrix [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2013, 18(3): 5101-5106.
15	马保国, 王健, 刘婧然, 等. 煤矸石基质土壤的水分入渗试验研究[J]. 煤炭学报, 2014, 39(12): 2501-2506.
	MA B G, WANG J, LIU J R, et al.. Experimental study on water infiltration of soil weathering coal gangue [J]. J. Chin. Coal Soc., 2014, 39(12): 2501-2506.
16	姬强, 马媛媛, 刘永刚, 等. 秸秆生物质炭对土壤结构体与活性碳分布转化酶动力学参数及小麦生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(12): 4366-4375.
	JI Q, MA Y Y, LIU Y G, et al.. Effects of straw biochar on soil structure and active carbon distribution invertase kinetic parameters and wheat growth [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2019, 39(12): 4366-4375.
17	纪磊, 岳鑫, 陈磊, 等. 生物质炭和秸秆对土壤团聚体腐殖物质组成的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019, 51(1): 91-97.
	JI L, YUE X, CHEN L, et al.. The effect of biomass charcoal and straw on the humus composition of soil aggregates [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci., 2019, 51(1): 91-97.
18	孟祥天, 蒋瑀霁, 王晓玥, 等. 生物质炭和秸秆长期还田对红壤团聚体和有机碳的影响[J]. 土壤, 2018, 50(2): 326-332.
	MENG X T, JIANG Y J, WANG X Y, et al.. Effects of long-term return of biomass charcoal and straw into the field on red soil aggregates and organic carbon distribution [J]. Soil, 2018, 50(2): 326-332.
19	王涛, 辛世杰, 乔卫花, 等. 几种微生物菌肥对连作黄瓜生长及土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2011(18): 52-57.
	WANG T, XIN S J, QIAO W H, et al.. Effects of different microbial fertilizers on continuous cropping cucumber growth and soil physiochemical properties [J]. Chin. Veget., 2011 (18): 52-57.

处理 Treatment	A：土∶矸 Soil∶coal gangue	B：保水剂 Water-retaining agent	C：生物炭 Biochar	D：生物菌肥 Bio-fertilizer
1	1（2∶1）	1（0.0%）	1（0%）	1（0%）
2	1	2（0.1%）	2（1%）	2（1%）
3	1	3（0.2%）	3（2%）	3（2%）
4	2（1∶1）	1	2	3
5	2	2	3	1
6	2	3	1	2
7	3（1∶2）	1	3	2
8	3	2	1	3
9	3	3	2	1

处理 Treatment	A：土∶矸 Soil∶coal gangue	B：保水剂 Water-retaining agent	C：生物炭 Biochar	D：生物菌肥 Bio-fertilizer
1	1（2∶1）	1（0.0%）	1（0%）	1（0%）
2	1	2（0.1%）	2（1%）	2（1%）
3	1	3（0.2%）	3（2%）	3（2%）
4	2（1∶1）	1	2	3
5	2	2	3	1
6	2	3	1	2
7	3（1∶2）	1	3	2
8	3	2	1	3
9	3	3	2	1

处理 Treatment	土∶矸 Soil∶coal gangue	保水剂 Water-retaining agent/%	生物炭 Biochar/%	生物菌肥 Bio-fertilizer/%	萌发开始时间 Origin sprouting time/d	萌发数/（株·盆^-1） Sprouting number/（plant·pot^-1）	干重/（mg·盆^-1） Dry weight/ （mg·pot^-1）
1	2∶1	0.0	0	0	8	11	60.5±3.2 b
2	2∶1	0.1	1	1	7	13	71.2±3.7 a
3	2∶1	0.2	2	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
4	1∶1	0.0	1	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
5	1∶1	0.1	2	0	10	10	42.7±6.7 c
6	1∶1	0.2	0	1	9	12	53.4±4.1 b
7	1∶2	0.0	2	1	10	8	32.6±3.0 d
8	1∶2	0.1	0	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
9	1∶2	0.2	1	0	12	10	28.3±4.6 d
CK	0	0.0	0	0	14	12	19.7±5.2 e

处理 Treatment	土∶矸 Soil∶coal gangue	保水剂 Water-retaining agent/%	生物炭 Biochar/%	生物菌肥 Bio-fertilizer/%	萌发开始时间 Origin sprouting time/d	萌发数/（株·盆^-1） Sprouting number/（plant·pot^-1）	干重/（mg·盆^-1） Dry weight/ （mg·pot^-1）
1	2∶1	0.0	0	0	8	11	60.5±3.2 b
2	2∶1	0.1	1	1	7	13	71.2±3.7 a
3	2∶1	0.2	2	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
4	1∶1	0.0	1	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
5	1∶1	0.1	2	0	10	10	42.7±6.7 c
6	1∶1	0.2	0	1	9	12	53.4±4.1 b
7	1∶2	0.0	2	1	10	8	32.6±3.0 d
8	1∶2	0.1	0	2	—	—	0.0±0.0 f
9	1∶2	0.2	1	0	12	10	28.3±4.6 d
CK	0	0.0	0	0	14	12	19.7±5.2 e

指标 Index	因素水平 Factor level	A：土∶矸 Soil∶coal gangue	B：保水剂 Water-retaining agent	C：生物炭 Biochar	D：生物菌肥 Bio-fertilizer
干重/（mg·盆^-1） Dry weight/（mg·pot^-1）	K1	131.7	93.1	113.9	131.5
	K2	96.1	113.9	99.5	157.2
	K3	60.9	81.7	75.3	0.0
	k1	43.9	31.0	38.0	43.8
	k2	32.0	38.0	33.2	52.4
	k3	20.3	27.2	25.1	0.0
	R	23.6	10.7	12.9	52.4
	方差显著性Variance significance	0.00	0.07	0.06	0.00