Growth and Soil Fertility Characteristics of Rubber Seedlings in Different Biogas Slurry Irrigation

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.09.028

Abstract

Abstract:

The growth of rubber seedlings and the main soil fertility factors were measured by the soil culture method with seven different biogas slurry treatments to clarify the growth status and soil fertility characteristics of rubber seedlings in different quantity of biogas slurry irrigation and to guide its fertilization scientifically. The total amount of biogas liquid irrigation was 0 mL (T0), 471 mL (T1), 942 mL (T2), 1413 mL (T3), 1884 mL (T4), 2355 mL (T5) and 2826 mL (T6) respectively. Biogas slurry irrigation was beneficial to the growth of rubber seedlings with the order of quality index (QI) of rubber seedlings in different treatments T4 (1884 mL)>T3 (1413 mL), T5 (2355 mL)>T2 (942 mL)>T0 (0 mL), T1 (471 mL)>T6 (2826 mL). The plant height and ground diameter of treatment T4 were better, and the survival rate of the seedlings was higher after planting. Biogas slurry irrigation was beneficial to the increase of soil nutrient content and the activities of urease, catalase, acid phosphatase and polyphenol oxidase. Using principal component analysis and membership function to calculate the comprehensive index of soil quality in the experimental group, the comprehensive index of soil quality in the experimental group was T3 (0.933)>T5 (0.906)>T4 (0.855)>T2 (0.826)>T6 (0.794)>T1 (0.742). The results showed that the chemical properties of soil could be improved by biogas slurry irrigation, but the quality index of seedlings might be decreased by over irrigation, and the optimal irrigation amount was when the biogas slurry was 1413-1884 mL.

Key words: amount of biogas slurry, rubber seedlings, growth parameter, soil fertility

CLC Number:

S794.1

SUN Fengxia,WANG Xinyao,TANG Peng,WANG Xu,WU Shuhua,LI Chao,CHENG Yikang,REN Haotian. Growth and Soil Fertility Characteristics of Rubber Seedlings in Different Biogas Slurry Irrigation[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(9): 1918-1927.

Figures/Tables 9

References 31

[1]	Wang Q F, Jiang X, Guan D W, et al. Long-term fertilization changes bacterial diversity and bacterial communities in the maize rhizosphere of Chinese mollisols[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2018,125:88-96. DOI URL
[2]	Sorensen P, Amato M. Remineralisation and residual effects of N after application of pig slurry to soil[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2002,16(2):81-95. DOI URL
[3]	赵麒淋. 旱旱轮作模式下沼液连续施用对土壤质量和玉米产量及品质的影响研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2012.
[4]	何康, 黄宗道. 热带北缘橡胶树栽培[M]. 广州: 广东科技出版社, 1987: 141-196.
[5]	张永发, 邝继云, 符少怀. “猪-沼-橡胶”能源生态模式浅析[J]. 农业工程技术(新能源产业), 2013(5):35-37.
[6]	赵兴, 刘卫群, 张维理, 等. 中国烟草平衡施肥技术研究现状与展望[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2003,9(B11):30-35
[7]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008.
[8]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000: 12-282.
[9]	邵芳丽, 宫渊波, 关灵, 等. 不同水氮条件对岷江柏幼苗生长的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2012,32(1):45-49, 53.
[10]	贡璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015,52(3):682-689.
[11]	刘伟玮, 刘某承, 李文华, 等. 辽东山区林参复合经营土壤质量评价[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(8):2631-2641. DOI URL
[12]	孙时轩. 造林学[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1990.
[13]	周东兴, 李磊, 李晶, 等. 玉米/大豆轮作下不同施肥处理对土壤微生物生物量及酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018,37(6):1856-1864.
[14]	魏猛. 施肥对土壤养分及文冠果生长和养分吸收的影响研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2010.
[15]	李文涛. 沼液对土壤改良作用研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2013.
[16]	王桂芳. 沼液配施钾肥对苹果园土壤酶活性和土壤微生物数量及果实品质的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2009.
[17]	刘斌, 王松标, 李鑫, 等. 攀枝花市成龄芒果园土壤肥力评价[J]. 热带作物学报, 2020,41(1):1-6.
[18]	管涛, 冯伟, 王化岑, 等. 追施沼液对冬小麦根际土壤生物活性的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2010,30(4):721-726. DOI URL
[19]	吴春生, 刘高焕, 黄翀, 等. 基于MDS和模糊逻辑的黄河三角洲土壤质量评估[J]. 资源科学, 2016,38(7):1275-1286. DOI URL
[20]	Morari F, Lugato E, Giardini L. Olsen phosphorus, exchangeable cations and salinity in two long-term experiments of north-eastern Italy and assessment of soil quality evolution[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2008,124(1/2):85-96.
[21]	Sadet-Bourgeteau S, Houot S, Dequiedt S, et al. Lasting effect of repeated application of organic waste products on microbial communities in arable soils[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2018,125:278-287. DOI URL
[22]	陈永杏. 猪场沼液农用生态环境效应研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2012.
[23]	Islamm R, Rahman S M E, Rahnan M M, et al. The effects of biogas slurry on the production and quality of maize fodder[J]. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2010,34:91-99.
[24]	王昊川, 史秋萍, 陈玉成. 模拟沼液灌溉对紫色土土壤环境的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013,27(3):174-177.
[25]	黄继川, 徐培智, 彭智平, 等. 基于稻田土壤肥力及生物学活性的沼液适宜用量研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016,22(2):362-371.
[26]	邱莉萍, 刘军, 王益权, 等. 土壤酶活性与土壤肥力的关系研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004,10(3):277-280. DOI URL
[27]	唐华, 郭彦军, 李智燕. 沼液灌溉对黑麦草生长及土壤性质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2011,19(6):939-942.
[28]	王建国, 杨林章, 单艳红. 模糊数学在土壤质量评价中的应用研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2001,38(2):176-183.
[29]	张无敌, 尹芳, 李建昌, 等. 沼液对土壤有机质含量和肥效的影响[J]. 可再生能源, 2008,26(6):45-47.
[30]	柴仲平, 王雪梅, 孙霞, 等. 沼肥施用方式对灰枣中矿质元素含量的影响[J]. 农业系统科学与综合研究, 2011,27(4):449-452.
[31]	郑定华, 袁淑娜, 陈俊明, 等. 橡胶林下间作广金钱草地上部碳氮磷钾生态化学计量特征研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2017,38(11):1997-2002.

项目Item	pH	含水量 Water content/%	总孔隙度 Total porosity/%	有机质 Organic matter/(g·kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen/(g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total phosphorus/(g·kg^-1)
	5.20	22.21	35.19	23.50	3.70	0.74
项目Item	碱解氮Hydrolyzable nitrogen/(mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus/(mg·kg^-1)	脲酶 Urease /(mg·g^-1)	过氧化氢酶 Catalase /(mL·g^-1)	酸性磷酸酶 Acid phosphatase /(mg·g^-1)	多酚氧化酶 Polyphenol oxidase /(mL·g^-1)
	103.15	16.73	0.12	0.85	0.98	4.69

项目Item	pH	含水量 Water content/%	总孔隙度 Total porosity/%	有机质 Organic matter/(g·kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen/(g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total phosphorus/(g·kg^-1)
	5.20	22.21	35.19	23.50	3.70	0.74
项目Item	碱解氮Hydrolyzable nitrogen/(mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus/(mg·kg^-1)	脲酶 Urease /(mg·g^-1)	过氧化氢酶 Catalase /(mL·g^-1)	酸性磷酸酶 Acid phosphatase /(mg·g^-1)	多酚氧化酶 Polyphenol oxidase /(mL·g^-1)
	103.15	16.73	0.12	0.85	0.98	4.69

处理 Treatments	株高Plant height/cm		地径Ground diameter/cm		高径比Height diameter ratio
处理 Treatments	3月	11月	3月	11月	3月	11月
T0	39.54±0.05^a	62.63±0.72^d	2.03±0.03^a	2.61±0.03^f	19.45±0.27^a	24.00±0.36^e
T1	39.30±0.26^a	87.98±0.48^c	2.05±0.04^a	2.77±0.25^e	19.18±0.49^a	31.80±0.13^c
T2	39.47±0.13^a	89.93±1.65^c	2.06±0.06^a	2.93±0.26^d	19.21±0.64^a	30.69±0.30^c
T3	39.30±0.26^a	98.29±2.37^b	2.04±0.06^a	3.04±0.05^c	19.28±0.50^a	32.31±1.32^c
T4	39.47±0.13^a	101.59±2.16^b	2.02±0.13^a	3.56±0.06^a	19.18±1.23^a	28.52±1.06^d
T5	39.30±0.26^a	121.00±1.34^a	2.03±0.09^a	3.20±0.05^b	19.52±0.92^a	37.78±0.87^b
T6	39.41±0.07^a	123.67±3.80^a	2.04±0.06^a	2.64±0.12^f	19.46±0.64^a	47.00±3.43^a

处理 Treatments	株高Plant height/cm		地径Ground diameter/cm		高径比Height diameter ratio
处理 Treatments	3月	11月	3月	11月	3月	11月
T0	39.54±0.05^a	62.63±0.72^d	2.03±0.03^a	2.61±0.03^f	19.45±0.27^a	24.00±0.36^e
T1	39.30±0.26^a	87.98±0.48^c	2.05±0.04^a	2.77±0.25^e	19.18±0.49^a	31.80±0.13^c
T2	39.47±0.13^a	89.93±1.65^c	2.06±0.06^a	2.93±0.26^d	19.21±0.64^a	30.69±0.30^c
T3	39.30±0.26^a	98.29±2.37^b	2.04±0.06^a	3.04±0.05^c	19.28±0.50^a	32.31±1.32^c
T4	39.47±0.13^a	101.59±2.16^b	2.02±0.13^a	3.56±0.06^a	19.18±1.23^a	28.52±1.06^d
T5	39.30±0.26^a	121.00±1.34^a	2.03±0.09^a	3.20±0.05^b	19.52±0.92^a	37.78±0.87^b
T6	39.41±0.07^a	123.67±3.80^a	2.04±0.06^a	2.64±0.12^f	19.46±0.64^a	47.00±3.43^a

处理 Treatments	地上部分Aerial part		地下部分Underground part		总干物质累积量Total dry matter accumulation
处理 Treatments	3月	11月	3月	11月	3月	11月
T0	30.25±0.35^a	68.21±0.28^g	31.89±0.04^a	74.11±1.88^g	62.13±0.37^a	142.32±1.92^g
T1	30.46±0.30^a	91.81±0.42^f	32.11±0.58^a	89.06±0.56^f	62.57±0.87^a	180.87±0.24^f
T2	31.05±0.05^a	106.98±1.08^e	32.49±0.62^a	98.658±0.53^e	63.54±0.58^a	205.63±1.54^e
T3	29.18±0.47^a	128.51±0.61^c	32.24±3.80^a	137.01±0.49^c	63.43±3.34^a	265.52±0.99^c
T4	29.94±0.23^a	141.77±1.03^b	32.30±0.49^a	147.32±1.89^b	62.24±0.64^a	289.10±1.30^b
T5	30.31±0.06^a	146.34±0.52^a	31.26±1.05^a	156.98±1.80^a	61.57±1.00^a	303.32±1.28^a
T6	30.43±0.25^a	124.46±0.92^d	31.20±0.92^a	126.48±0.54^d	61.63±0.83^a	250.94±1.01^d