Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Root Traits of Foxtail Millet

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0145

Abstract

Abstract:

To alleviate the obstacles of continuous cropping of foxtail millet, the effects of different soil conditioners on the root characteristics of foxtail millet planted in continuous cropping soil were investigated. The test was conducted with 4 soil conditioners and 1 non-fertilized control treatment. Four soil improvers include self-developed formula treatment (including seaweed essence, polyglutamic acid and EDTA chelated trace elements), earthworm polysaccharide treatment, microbial agent treatment and chitooligosaccharides treatment. For each soil conditioner treatment, two fertilization gradients were set as the common dose in agriculture and the equivalent dose, a total of 9 treatments. The experiment measured the plant height, dry and fresh weight, root traits, and other related indicators of different treatments during the 7-leaf stage and booting stage. The results showed that compared to the unfertilized control (CK), all soil conditioners improved the growth of foxtail millet in continuous cropping soil. Among them, chitooligosaccharides and earthworm polysaccharides had the best effect on promoting the growth of foxtail millet roots. After treatment with chitooligosaccharides, the total length of roots increased by 87.4% to 120%, the average diameter of roots increased by 21.7%, and the total number of root tips increased by 93.8% to 144%. During the booting stage after treatment with earthworm polysaccharides, the total length of roots increased by 128% to 161.3%, the average diameter of roots increased by 4.3% to 8.6%, and the total number of root tips increased by 151.4% to 183%. In summary, chitooligosaccharides and earthworm polysaccharide could promote the growth of foxtail millet roots and alleviate obstacles to continuous cropping. This study provided a certain scientific basis for alleviating continuous cropping obstacles in production.

Key words: foxtail millet, soil conditioner, continuous cropping obstacles, continuous crop improvement, root traits, chitooligosaccharides, earthworm polysaccharides

CUI Jihan, WANG Peiyi, ZHAO Yu, XIA Xueyan, LI Jingjing, WANG Ning, LIU Feng, LIU Jianjun, JIAO Haitao. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Root Traits of Foxtail Millet[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(1): 29-35.

Figures/Tables 8

References 24

[1]	妙佳源, 李夏, 周达, 等. 连作对谷子土壤酶活性及养分的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2016, 34(3):123-126,152.
[2]	李小霞, 李丹, 李万星, 等. 不同轮作模式对谷子灌浆期生理特性、产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(7):1499-1510. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221110
[3]	郝晓芬, 王根全, 郭二虎, 等. 连作、轮作对谷子根际细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(3):585-596.
[4]	刘亚军, 逯昀, 王文静, 等. 有机肥与调理剂对连作甘薯生长发育及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2024(3):168-174.
[5]	孙蓟锋, 王旭. 土壤调理剂的研究和应用进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2013(1):1-7.
[6]	戴黎, 杜延全, 朱建强. 几种土壤调理剂改良大棚种植草莓土壤的效果[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(2):276-282.
[7]	王瑞. 碳基土壤调理剂改良退化土壤的作用效果[D]. 太原: 山西师范大学, 2018.
[8]	宋如荻, 彭晓英, 王亦豪, 等. 微生物炭基土壤调理剂对水稻生长生理和镉吸收的影响[J]. 激光生物学报, 2020, 29(6):561-569.
[9]	陈闺, 周杰文, 李海平, 等. 土壤调理剂施用对植烟酸化土壤pH值和烤烟根系特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(7):1275-1282. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.07.13
[10]	杨韬. 大豆重组自交系根系性状及菌根侵染性状的QTL定位分析[D]. 广州: 华南农业大学, 2016.
[11]	赵海燕, 赵丽洁, 韩根兰, 等. 氮锌配施对谷子根系形态及锌含量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2023(4):152-158.
[12]	陈玉香, 周道玮. 玉米-苜蓿间作的生态效应[J]. 生态环境, 2003(4):467-468.
[13]	杜文盼, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 等. 根系分隔方式对燕麦/豌豆间作地上生物量、土壤养分及根系性状的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(8):25-36. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023370
[14]	SUN B R, GAO Y Z, YANG H J, et al. Performance of alfalfa rather than maize stimulates system phosphorus uptake and overyielding of maize/alfalfa intercropping via changes in soil water balance and root morphology and distribution in a light chernozemic soil[J]. Plant and soil, 2019, 439(1-2):145-161.
[15]	李敏, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 施肥方式对连作甘薯田土壤团聚体稳定性及酶活性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(13):252-260.
[16]	张蕾, 吴文强, 王维瑞, 等. 土壤调理剂及其配施微生物菌肥对设施菜田次生盐渍化土壤改良效果研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3):264-271.
[17]	王静, 王磊, 刘耀斌, 等. 长期施用不同有机肥对甘薯产量和土壤生物性状的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2):184-192.
[18]	任立军, 赵文琪, 陈松岭, 等. 有机肥和土壤调理剂组合对设施土壤氮素和番茄产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2021, 40(12):70-77.
[19]	张萌, 刘彦伶, 魏全全, 等. 酒糟生物炭短期施用对贵州黄壤氮素有效性及细菌群落结构多样性的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(10):4690-4700.
[20]	翟建军. “加乐多”土壤调理剂对连作黄瓜生长的影响试验[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2020, 26(15):89-90.
[21]	崔恒, 张久东, 宝林, 等. 不同用量有机酸土壤调理剂对土壤养分和作物生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(12):4411-4418. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202112.016
[22]	张蕾, 李萍, 王维瑞, 等. 轻度盐胁迫下土壤调理剂对设施黄瓜土壤肥力及生长发育的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(9):50-60.
[23]	刘弘, 汪小伟, 吴琼, 等. 壳寡糖在晚熟甜橙塔罗科血橙新系生产中的应用研究[J]. 中国南方果树, 2011, 40(4):4-7.
[24]	毛小涛, 陈凯, 杨安, 等. 不同乙酰度壳寡糖对马家柚幼苗光合特性及根系的影[J]. 中国南方果树, 2023, 52(1):36-41.

处理	土壤调理剂类型	用量/(kg/hm²)
CK	无	0
T₁	海藻精、聚谷氨酸、EDTA螯合微量元素	分别15、90、15
T₂	海藻精、聚谷氨酸、EDTA螯合微量元素	各30
T₃	蚓多糖	300
T₄	蚓多糖	30
T₅	微生物菌剂	15
T₆	微生物菌剂	30
T₇	壳寡糖	15
T₈	壳寡糖	30

处理	土壤调理剂类型	用量/(kg/hm²)
CK	无	0
T₁	海藻精、聚谷氨酸、EDTA螯合微量元素	分别15、90、15
T₂	海藻精、聚谷氨酸、EDTA螯合微量元素	各30
T₃	蚓多糖	300
T₄	蚓多糖	30
T₅	微生物菌剂	15
T₆	微生物菌剂	30
T₇	壳寡糖	15
T₈	壳寡糖	30

生育时期	处理	根总长度/cm	投影总面积/cm²	总表面积/cm²	平均直径/mm	总根尖数目
7叶期	CK	25.0±1.3 f	0.7±0.2 e	2.0±0.3 f	0.065±0.002 e	149.9±2.2 e
	T₁	67.9±1.7 d	1.4±0.3 cd	4.4±0.8 d	0.074±0 bcd	310.5±9.5 d
	T₂	71.9±3.4 d	2.0±0.3 a	5.7±0.4 abc	0.081±0.006 abc	419.3±15 c
	T₃	61.4±3.7 e	1.1±0.1 d	3.4±0.3 e	0.07±0.004 e	405.1±25.2 c
	T₄	67.5±3.7 de	1.2±0 d	3.7±0.1 de	0.073±0.007 de	487.3±13.3 a
	T₅	83.1±7.8 c	2.0±0.2 ab	6.0±0.6 ab	0.084±0.001 ab	465.5±12.9 a
	T₆	83.9±1.8 c	1.6±0.1 cd	5.1±0.5 c	0.08±0.006 c	430.9±27.8 bc
	T₇	104.1±4.2 a	1.9±0.2 ab	6.3±0.5 a	0.082±0.005 a	468.5±14.7 a
	T₈	91.8±4.3 b	1.7±0.2 bc	5.5±0.3 bc	0.081±0.004 bc	457.1±38.8 ab
孕穗期	CK	109.87±3.47 g	2.42±0.13 d	7.61±0.41 f	0.23±0.03 b	597.22±11.74 d
	T₁	245.54±5.31 c	6.54±0.19 ab	21.61±1.34 bc	0.25±0.03 ab	997.11±575.53 c
	T₂	271.70±10.75 b	6.51±0.66 ab	22.96±1.58 b	0.24±0.02 ab	1369.11±49.24 ab
	T₃	250.57±1.82 c	6.57±0.39 ab	23.13±0.70 b	0.25±0.03 ab	1501.22±27.54 a
	T₄	287.20±4.14 a	7.10±0.46 a	25.24±0.28 a	0.24±0.02 ab	1690.56±70.67 a
	T₅	218.84±5.35 e	4.46±0.43 c	18.55±0.79 d	0.24±0.02 ab	1028.17±74.85 c
	T₆	235.97±3.02 d	6.22±0.32 b	20.82±0.70 c	0.23±0.01 b	1425.00±35.56 ab
	T₇	205.90±8.25 f	5.08±1.17 c	13.87±0.12 e	0.21±0.02 b	1158.44±29.06 bc
	T₈	241.64±6.02 cd	6.50±0.47 ab	23.19±1.40 b	0.28±0.03 a	1457.67±25.42 a

生育时期	处理	根总长度/cm	投影总面积/cm²	总表面积/cm²	平均直径/mm	总根尖数目
7叶期	CK	25.0±1.3 f	0.7±0.2 e	2.0±0.3 f	0.065±0.002 e	149.9±2.2 e
	T₁	67.9±1.7 d	1.4±0.3 cd	4.4±0.8 d	0.074±0 bcd	310.5±9.5 d
	T₂	71.9±3.4 d	2.0±0.3 a	5.7±0.4 abc	0.081±0.006 abc	419.3±15 c
	T₃	61.4±3.7 e	1.1±0.1 d	3.4±0.3 e	0.07±0.004 e	405.1±25.2 c
	T₄	67.5±3.7 de	1.2±0 d	3.7±0.1 de	0.073±0.007 de	487.3±13.3 a
	T₅	83.1±7.8 c	2.0±0.2 ab	6.0±0.6 ab	0.084±0.001 ab	465.5±12.9 a
	T₆	83.9±1.8 c	1.6±0.1 cd	5.1±0.5 c	0.08±0.006 c	430.9±27.8 bc
	T₇	104.1±4.2 a	1.9±0.2 ab	6.3±0.5 a	0.082±0.005 a	468.5±14.7 a
	T₈	91.8±4.3 b	1.7±0.2 bc	5.5±0.3 bc	0.081±0.004 bc	457.1±38.8 ab
孕穗期	CK	109.87±3.47 g	2.42±0.13 d	7.61±0.41 f	0.23±0.03 b	597.22±11.74 d
	T₁	245.54±5.31 c	6.54±0.19 ab	21.61±1.34 bc	0.25±0.03 ab	997.11±575.53 c
	T₂	271.70±10.75 b	6.51±0.66 ab	22.96±1.58 b	0.24±0.02 ab	1369.11±49.24 ab
	T₃	250.57±1.82 c	6.57±0.39 ab	23.13±0.70 b	0.25±0.03 ab	1501.22±27.54 a
	T₄	287.20±4.14 a	7.10±0.46 a	25.24±0.28 a	0.24±0.02 ab	1690.56±70.67 a
	T₅	218.84±5.35 e	4.46±0.43 c	18.55±0.79 d	0.24±0.02 ab	1028.17±74.85 c
	T₆	235.97±3.02 d	6.22±0.32 b	20.82±0.70 c	0.23±0.01 b	1425.00±35.56 ab
	T₇	205.90±8.25 f	5.08±1.17 c	13.87±0.12 e	0.21±0.02 b	1158.44±29.06 bc
	T₈	241.64±6.02 cd	6.50±0.47 ab	23.19±1.40 b	0.28±0.03 a	1457.67±25.42 a