Effects of Continuous Straw Returning on Rice Yield and Nitrogen Utilization

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2022-0113

Abstract

Abstract:

To clarify the impact of straw returning ratio on rice yield and nitrogen utilization, a field plot positioning experiment was conducted in Tangtou Town, Sinan County of Guizhou Province during the rice growing season from 2019 to 2021. Six treatments were set up in the experiment: CK was no fertilizer, S₀ was conventional fertilizer, S₁ was conventional fertilizer + straw returning 5 t/hm², S₂ was conventional fertilizer + straw returning 10 t/hm², S₃ was conventional fertilizer + straw returning 15 t/hm², and S₄ was conventional fertilizer + straw returning 20 t/hm². The results showed that from 2019 to 2021, the yield of S₃ treatment was the highest, increased by 20.16%, 8.66% and 14.40% respectively compared with that of S₀ treatment, and the yield increase in 2019 was the highest. The reason for the yield difference was that straw returning to field improved the number of effective panicles, the number of grains per panicle, 1000-grain weight and seed setting rate of rice, and then significantly increase the yield. The fitting analysis of straw returning and rice grain yield showed that the highest grain yield was achieved by straw returning amount of 15.43 t/hm². Straw returning could improve the nitrogen partial factor productivity and nitrogen harvest index between years. In 2019, the nitrogen partial factor productivity of S₃ treatment was the highest, while the nitrogen harvest index of S₄ treatment was the highest, which were 42.81% and 24.30% higher than those of S₀ respectively. In 2020, the nitrogen partial factor productivity and nitrogen harvest index of S₃ treatment were the highest, with an increase of 55.98% and 22.61% over those of S₀ treatment respectively; and in 2021, the nitrogen partial factor productivity and nitrogen harvest index of S₃ treatment were also the highest, with an increase of 21.75% and 15.88% over those of S₀ treatment, respectively. Straw returning increased the physiological utilization rate of nitrogen between years, and S₃ treatment had the best effect, with an increase of 72.97%, 76.14% and 52.98% respectively compared with that of S₀ treatment from 2019 to 2021. Moreover, year and straw returning treatment significantly improved the physiological utilization rate of nitrogen and agricultural efficiency of nitrogen. Therefore, considering rice yield, straw returning fitting results and nitrogen utilization rate, S₃ treatment is more suitable for straw returning.

Key words: rice, straw returning, yield components, nitrogen utilization

MENG Ruoxi, WANG Xiaoli, DUAN Jianjun, XU Bin, YANG Hongwei, MEI Tingting. Effects of Continuous Straw Returning on Rice Yield and Nitrogen Utilization[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2023, 13(8): 37-45.

Figures/Tables 6

References 43

[1]	李书田, 金继运. 中国不同区域农田养分输入、输出与平衡[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(20):4207-4229. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.20.009
[2]	孙小祥, 常志州, 靳红梅, 等. 太湖地区不同秸秆还田方式对作物产量与经济效益的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2017, 33(1):94-99.
[3]	管方圆, 刘琛, 傅庆林, 等. 添加秸秆对水稻产量和土壤碳氮及微生物群落的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(2):223-230.
[4]	郭瑞华, 靳红梅, 常志州, 等. 秸秆还田模式对土壤有机碳及腐植酸含量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017, 36(4):727-733.
[5]	CHEN Z M, WANG H Y, LIU X W, et al. Changes in soil microbial community and organic carbon fractions under short-term straw return in a rice-wheat cropping system[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2017, 165:121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.07.018 URL
[6]	MI W H, WU L H, BROOKES P C, et al. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions under integrated management systems in a low-productivity paddy soil given different organic amendments and chemical fertilizers[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2016, 163:64-70. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.05.009 URL
[7]	邹文秀, 韩晓增, 陆欣春, 等. 施入不同土层的秸秆腐殖化特征及对玉米产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(2):563-570.
[8]	SUN L M, LI C J, HE P, et al. Long-term application of K fertilizer and straw returning improve crop yield, absorptive capacity of K, and soil nutrient natural supplying capacity in North China[J]. Frontiers of agriculture in China, 2011, 5(4):563-569. doi: 10.1007/s11703-011-1140-0 URL
[9]	陈尚洪, 朱钟麟, 吴婕, 等. 紫色土丘陵区秸秆还田的腐解特征及对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006(6):141-144.
[10]	朱杰, 牛永志, 高文玲, 等. 秸秆还田和土壤耕作深度对直播稻田土壤及产量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2006(6):388-391.
[11]	白重阳, 秦猛, 崔士泽, 等. 膨化秸秆还田对寒地水稻产量、品质及氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2022, 28(2):38-40. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2022.02.007
[12]	郝建华, 丁艳锋, 王强盛, 等. 麦秸还田对水稻群体质量和土壤特性的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2010, 33(3):13-18.
[13]	刘世平, 聂新涛, 戴其根, 等. 免耕套种与秸秆还田对水稻生长和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2007(1):71-76.
[14]	马宗国, 卢绪奎, 万丽, 等. 小麦秸秆还田对水稻生长及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2003(5):37-38.
[15]	钱玉婷, 张应鹏, 杜静, 等. 江苏省秸秆综合利用途径利弊分析及收储运对策研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(22):154-160.
[16]	张慧玲, 王志伟, 周中凯. 不同汽爆处理对藜麦秸秆化学组成及纤维结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(7):105-112. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2017.0428
[17]	谢志煌, 李彦生, 于镇华, 等. 秸秆还田与作物氮素利用关系研究[J]. 土壤与作物, 2016, 5(4):261-268.
[18]	张满利, 陈盈, 侯守贵, 等. 氮肥运筹对水稻产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2010(6):46-50.
[19]	周江明, 赵琳, 董越勇, 等. 氮肥和栽植密度对水稻产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(2):274-281.
[20]	杨国涛, 谢崇华, 张玲, 等. 杂交水稻主要农艺性状配合力遗传力分析[J]. 植物研究, 2011, 31(6):716-721,728. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2011.06.014
[21]	袁伟玲, 曹凑贵, 程建平. 水稻产量及构成因素的灰色关联度分析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2005(2):24-25.
[22]	李树杏, 向关伦, 杨占烈, 等. 杂交水稻‘协优385'主要产量构成因子与产量的相关分析和通径分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(18):15-19. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15010048
[23]	肖佳雷, 王俊河, 冯延江, 等. 黑龙江省不同积温带水稻产量构成因素主成分分析[J]. 中国稻米, 2010, 16(2):19-21.
[24]	吴斌, 马静, 安永平, 等. 水稻新品种宁粳41号的产量构成因素分析[J]. 中国种业, 2011(4):41-43.
[25]	陈新红, 叶玉秀, 许仁良, 等. 小麦秸秆还田量对水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2009(1):54-57.
[26]	袁玲, 张宣, 杨静, 等. 不同栽培方式和秸秆还田对水稻产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(2):350-359.
[27]	刘禹池, 曾祥忠, 冯文强, 等. 稻-油轮作下长期秸秆还田与施肥对作物产量和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(6):1450-1459.
[28]	陆强, 王继琛, 李静, 等. 秸秆还田与有机无机肥配施在稻麦轮作体系下对籽粒产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2014, 37(6):66-74.
[29]	程曼, 解文艳, 杨振兴, 等. 黄土旱塬长期秸秆还田对土壤养分、酶活性及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(10):1528-1536.
[30]	伍佳, 王忍, 吕广动, 等. 不同秸秆还田方式对水稻产量及土壤养分的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(6):177-183. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751760
[31]	黄巧义, 黄建凤, 黄旭, 等. 早稻秸秆还田和减钾对晚稻产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2022:1-13.
[32]	王嘉豪, 李廷亮, 黄璐, 等. 秸秆还田替代化肥对黄土旱塬小麦产量及水肥利用的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022:1-9.
[33]	高亚军, 李生秀. 旱地秸秆覆盖条件下作物减产的原因及作用机制分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2005(7):15-19.
[34]	TAKAHASHI S, UENOSONO S, ONO S. Short- and long-term effects of rice straw application on nitrogen uptake by crops and nitrogen mineralization under flooded and upland conditions[J]. Plant and soil, 2003, 251(2):291-301. doi: 10.1023/A:1023006304935 URL
[35]	HUANG S, ZENG Y J, WU J F, et al. Effect of crop residue retention on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis[J]. Field crops research, 2013, 154:188-194. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.013 URL
[36]	ZHAO P. Effects of straw mulching plus nitrogen fertilizer on nitrogen efficiency and grain yield in winter wheat[J]. ACTA Agronomica SINICA, 2008, 34(6):1014-1018. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.01014 URL
[37]	严奉君, 孙永健, 马均, 等. 不同土壤肥力条件下麦秆还田与氮肥运筹对杂交稻氮素利用、产量及米质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2015, 29(1):56-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7216.2015.01.007
[38]	赵锋, 程建平, 张国忠, 等. 氮肥运筹和秸秆还田对直播稻氮素利用和产量的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2011, 50(18):3701-3704.
[39]	李贵桐, 赵紫娟, 黄元仿, 等. 秸秆还田对土壤氮素转化的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2002(2):162-167.
[40]	王改玲, 郝明德, 陈德立. 秸秆还田对灌溉玉米田土壤反硝化及N₂O排放的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006(6):840-844.
[41]	柴娟娟, 廖敏, 徐培智, 等. 我国主要低产水稻冷浸田养分障碍因子特征分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(2):284-288.
[42]	李思平, 曾路生, 吴立鹏, 等. 氮肥水平与栽植密度对植稻土壤养分含量变化与氮肥利用效率的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(1):69-79. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2020.9045
[43]	CAO Y SH, SUN H F, ZHANG J, et al. Effects of wheat straw addition on dynamics and fate of nitrogen applied to paddy soils[J]. Soil & tillage research, 2018,178.

年份	处理	有效穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	穗粒数/粒	结实率/%	千粒重/g	产量/(t/hm²)
2019	CK	201.44±12.37c	198.00±9.17d	71.67±0.05c	21.78±1.05d	5.17±0.08e
	S₀	205.80±11.78c	202.67±6.03cd	77.33±0.02b	23.71±1.14bc	6.23±0.04d
	S₁	216.69±8.22bc	221.00±0.00ab	77.67±0.02b	23.86±0.00bc	7.17±0.00b
	S₂	231.93±6.54ab	208.67±13.05bcd	79.67±0.04ab	24.82±0.49ab	6.83±0.00c
	S₃	248.27±9.80a	226.00±0.00a	84.00±0.02a	25.14±0.29a	7.49±0.14a
	S₄	222.13±18.19bc	216.33±5.86abc	82.00±0.02ab	23.30±0.00c	6.74±0.18c
2020	CK	140.00±0.00d	218.00±27.87d	74.33±0.04d	23.11±0.10c	5.17±0.03d
	S₀	189.78±0.00c	246.00±3.61c	81.67±0.02c	24.06±0.59b	7.74±0.00c
	S₁	205.33±9.34b	274.67±11.59ab	82.00±0.03bc	24.26±0.92b	7.96±0.00bc
	S₂	212.59±7.19b	295.67±3.51a	86.00±0.01ab	25.78±0.11a	8.09±0.12b
	S₃	232.30±7.83a	292.67±6.66a	87.67±0.02a	26.19±0.51a	8.41±0.00a
	S₄	211.56±9.34b	258.33±7.23bc	84.67±0.01abc	25.43±0.10a	8.40±0.32a
2021	CK	150.99±10.96e	166.00±0.00b	74.33±0.04d	25.53±0.31d	5.65±0.03d
	S₀	164.79±5.48d	239.67±50.50a	84.00±0.02c	26.18±0.15cd	8.15±0.05c
	S₁	185.84±1.26c	225.67±43.47a	86.67±0.03bc	26.49±0.84bc	9.19±0.17ab
	S₂	192.37±1.26bc	259.00±18.68a	85.67±0.01ab	27.09±0.55b	8.77±0.15b
	S₃	217.78±2.18a	269.33±27.74a	88.67±0.02a	28.99±0.00a	9.32±0.27a
	S₄	180.76±2.18c	240.00±31.76a	86.00±0.01abc	27.10±0.00b	9.11±0.44ab
方差分析
年份		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
秸秆还田处理		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Year x S treatment		^*	ns	ns	^*	ns

年份	处理	有效穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)	穗粒数/粒	结实率/%	千粒重/g	产量/(t/hm²)
2019	CK	201.44±12.37c	198.00±9.17d	71.67±0.05c	21.78±1.05d	5.17±0.08e
	S₀	205.80±11.78c	202.67±6.03cd	77.33±0.02b	23.71±1.14bc	6.23±0.04d
	S₁	216.69±8.22bc	221.00±0.00ab	77.67±0.02b	23.86±0.00bc	7.17±0.00b
	S₂	231.93±6.54ab	208.67±13.05bcd	79.67±0.04ab	24.82±0.49ab	6.83±0.00c
	S₃	248.27±9.80a	226.00±0.00a	84.00±0.02a	25.14±0.29a	7.49±0.14a
	S₄	222.13±18.19bc	216.33±5.86abc	82.00±0.02ab	23.30±0.00c	6.74±0.18c
2020	CK	140.00±0.00d	218.00±27.87d	74.33±0.04d	23.11±0.10c	5.17±0.03d
	S₀	189.78±0.00c	246.00±3.61c	81.67±0.02c	24.06±0.59b	7.74±0.00c
	S₁	205.33±9.34b	274.67±11.59ab	82.00±0.03bc	24.26±0.92b	7.96±0.00bc
	S₂	212.59±7.19b	295.67±3.51a	86.00±0.01ab	25.78±0.11a	8.09±0.12b
	S₃	232.30±7.83a	292.67±6.66a	87.67±0.02a	26.19±0.51a	8.41±0.00a
	S₄	211.56±9.34b	258.33±7.23bc	84.67±0.01abc	25.43±0.10a	8.40±0.32a
2021	CK	150.99±10.96e	166.00±0.00b	74.33±0.04d	25.53±0.31d	5.65±0.03d
	S₀	164.79±5.48d	239.67±50.50a	84.00±0.02c	26.18±0.15cd	8.15±0.05c
	S₁	185.84±1.26c	225.67±43.47a	86.67±0.03bc	26.49±0.84bc	9.19±0.17ab
	S₂	192.37±1.26bc	259.00±18.68a	85.67±0.01ab	27.09±0.55b	8.77±0.15b
	S₃	217.78±2.18a	269.33±27.74a	88.67±0.02a	28.99±0.00a	9.32±0.27a
	S₄	180.76±2.18c	240.00±31.76a	86.00±0.01abc	27.10±0.00b	9.11±0.44ab
方差分析
年份		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
秸秆还田处理		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Year x S treatment		^*	ns	ns	^*	ns