Humic Acid Soil Conditioner: Effects on Chemical Properties of Saline-alkali Soil and Wheat Yield in the Yellow River Delta

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas20190700100

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the improving effect of humic acid soil conditioner on saline-alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta, humic acid soil conditioner was combined with conventional fertilizer, and a 3-year wheat positioning test on saline-alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta was carried out. The results showed that: the humic acid soil conditioner could improve soil chemical properties; compared with conventional fertilization, the soil organic matter, alkali-hydrolyzed N, available P and available K was increased by 3.8%-5.0%, 8.6%-12.0%, 16.4%-29.2% and 27.3%-30.7%, respectively, in soil treated by humic acid soil conditioner; compared with conventional fertilization, humic acid soil conditioner could improve soil salinity barrier, the soil pH was reduced by 0.30-0.43 units, soil exchangeable sodium percentage was reduced by 4.6%-27.2%, the desalination rate was 17.28%-23.53%, the content of soil Na⁺ and Cl^- was reduced by 15.4%-42.7% and 20.7%-37.6%, respectively; there was no significant difference between humic acid soil conditioner application of 2250 kg/hm²and 3000 kg/hm²; compared with conventional fertilization, the wheat yield of soil applied with humic acid soil conditioner could increase by 7.47%-25.83%. In conclusion, humic acid soil conditioner of 2250 kg/hm² is regarded as the optimum dosage to improve the saline-alkali soil and increase wheat yield in the Yellow River Delta.

Key words: Humic Acid, Soil Conditioner, Saline-alkali Soil, Wheat, Yield

Yu Xiaodong, Guo Xinsong, Chen Shigeng, Zhang Li, Fan Zhongqing, Ding Fangjun. Humic Acid Soil Conditioner: Effects on Chemical Properties of Saline-alkali Soil and Wheat Yield in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2020, 10(11): 25-31.

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

[1]	Ding J L, Yu D L. Monitoring and evaluating spatial varia-bility of soil salinity in dry and wet seasons in the Werigan-Kuqa Oasis, China, using remote sensing and electromagnetic induction instruments[J]. Geoderma, 2014,235/236:31-322.
[2]	Zhang F, Chen X, Vitousek P. Chinese agriculture: An experiment for the world[J]. Nature, 2013,497:33-35. doi: 10.1038/497033a URL pmid: 23636381
[3]	Yuan J H, Xu R K, Zhang H. The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011,102(3):88-97. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.021 URL
[4]	Laird D A, Fleming P, Davis D D, et al. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil[J]. Geoderma, 2010,158(s3/4):443-449. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013 URL
[5]	杨军, 邵玉翠, 高伟, 等. 不同改良剂与培肥方式对咸灌土壤改良效果的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012,28(36):113-118.
[6]	Saifullsh, Saad D, Asif N, et al. Biochar application for the remediation of salt-affected soils: challenges and opportunities[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018,625(1):320-335. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.257 URL
[7]	张济世, 于波涛, 张金凤, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质和小麦生长的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(3):704-711.
[8]	李北齐, 王倡宪, 孟瑶, 等. 生物有机肥对盐碱土壤养分及玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011,27(21):182-186.
[9]	杨静, 杨明欣, 董宝梯, 等. 咸水灌概下土壤水盐动态和作物生长研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011,19(4):976-981.
[10]	李杰, 姬景红, 李玉影, 等. 施用改良剂对大庆盐碱土的改良效果研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2016(2):50-54.
[11]	孟赐福, 水建国, 傅庆林, 等. 浙江中部红壤施用石灰对土壤交换性钙、镁及土壤酸度的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1999,5(2):129-36. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.1999.0205 URL
[12]	Nair R, Mohamed M S, Gao W, et al. Effect of carbon nanomaterials on the germination and growth of rice plants[J]. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 2012,12(3):2212-2220. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2012.5775 URL
[13]	廖宗文, 刘可星, 毛小云. 腐植酸的三大作用—有机营养、活化、微生态调控及其技术开发[J]. 腐植酸, 2012(6):1-4.
[14]	杜振宇, 王清华, 刘方春, 等. 腐植酸对钾在褐土中迁移和转化的影响[J]. 土壤, 2012,44(5):822-826.
[15]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008.
[16]	杨海波, 陈运, 侯宪文, 等. 生物腐植酸对土壤碳组分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(20):137-141.
[17]	陈士更, 张民, 丁方军, 等. 腐植酸土壤调理剂对酸化果园土壤理化性状及苹果产量和品质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2019,51(1):83-89.
[18]	陈振德, 何金明, 李祥云, 等. 施用腐植酸对提高夏玉米氮肥利用率的研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007,15(1):52-54.
[19]	林枫, 李艳梅, 孙笑梅, 等. 腐植酸与氮肥配施对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(23):80-85.
[20]	段佳丽, 薛泉宏, 舒志明, 等. 放线菌Act12与腐植酸钾配施对丹参生长及其根域微生态的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(6):1807-1819. doi: 10.5846/stxb201305231154 URL
[21]	刘兰兰, 史春余, 梁太波, 等. 腐植酸肥料对生姜土壤微生物量和酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(11):6136-6141.
[22]	刘秀梅, 张夫道, 冯兆滨, 等. 风化煤腐殖酸对氮、磷、钾的吸附和解吸特性[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2005,11(5):641-646. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2005.0512 URL
[23]	曾维爱, 曾敏, 周航, 等. 腐植酸和硫酸铁配施改良偏碱烟田土壤的研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013,27(3):170-173.
[24]	李鹏程, 苏学德, 王晶晶, 等. 腐植酸肥与菌肥配施对果园土壤性质及葡萄产量、品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(1):121-126.
[25]	徐胜光, 李淑仪, 蓝佩玲, 等. 燃煤烟气脱硫副产物对花生作物营养效应及其机理[J]. 生态环境, 2003,12(4):415-418.
[26]	毛建华, 陆文龙, 潘洁, 等. 天津滨海盐土的脱盐碱化及其防治[J]. 华北农学报, 1996,11(1):87-92. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.1996.01.016 URL
[27]	邵玉翠, 任顺荣, 廉晓娟, 等. 盐渍化土壤施用有机物-脱硫石膏改良剂效果的研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2009,23(5):175-178,183.
[28]	孙在金, 黄占斌, 陆兆华. 不同环境材料对黄河三角洲滨海盐碱化土壤的改良效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013,27(4):186-190.
[29]	李旭霖, 刘庆花, 柳新伟, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015,35(2):219-224.
[30]	孙在金. 脱硫石膏与腐植酸改良滨海盐碱土的效应及机理研究[D]. 北京:中国矿业大学, 2013.

编号	处理
T1	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂3000 kg/hm²
T2	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂2250 kg/hm²
T3	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂1500 kg/hm²
T4	常规施肥
T5	空白

编号	处理
T1	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂3000 kg/hm²
T2	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂2250 kg/hm²
T3	常规施肥+施用腐植酸土壤调理剂1500 kg/hm²
T4	常规施肥
T5	空白

测定时间(年.月.日)	处理	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
2017.6.14	T1	10.35b	36.15b	14.26c	157.09d
	T2	10.34b	35.89b	13.23b	156.20d
	T3	10.34b	35.93b	13.45b	152.54c
	T4	10.25a	32.64a	12.46a	129.56b
	T5	10.22 a	32.06a	12.49a	116.99a
2018.6.7	T1	10.45b	36.43b	14.37c	158.19d
	T2	10.42 b	35.74b	14.30c	157.10d
	T3	10.41b	35.14b	13.72b	152.33c
	T4	10.27a	31.88a	12.47a	128.85b
	T5	10.25a	31.39a	12.36a	114.55a
2017.9.10	T1	10.94b	36.95b	16.26d	159.98d
	T2	10.84b	36.52b	15.46c	157.44cd
	T3	10.82b	35.80 b	14.66b	155.73c
	T4	10.42a	32.98a	12.59a	122.38b
	T5	10.41a	32.92a	12.28a	113.70a

测定时间(年.月.日)	处理	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
2017.6.14	T1	10.35b	36.15b	14.26c	157.09d
	T2	10.34b	35.89b	13.23b	156.20d
	T3	10.34b	35.93b	13.45b	152.54c
	T4	10.25a	32.64a	12.46a	129.56b
	T5	10.22 a	32.06a	12.49a	116.99a
2018.6.7	T1	10.45b	36.43b	14.37c	158.19d
	T2	10.42 b	35.74b	14.30c	157.10d
	T3	10.41b	35.14b	13.72b	152.33c
	T4	10.27a	31.88a	12.47a	128.85b
	T5	10.25a	31.39a	12.36a	114.55a
2017.9.10	T1	10.94b	36.95b	16.26d	159.98d
	T2	10.84b	36.52b	15.46c	157.44cd
	T3	10.82b	35.80 b	14.66b	155.73c
	T4	10.42a	32.98a	12.59a	122.38b
	T5	10.41a	32.92a	12.28a	113.70a

试验处理	2017.6.14	2018.6.7	2019.6.10
T1	8.46a	8.33a	7.92a
T2	8.62a	8.39a	7.98a
T3	8.65b	8.46a	8.05b
T4	8.78c	8.52b	8.14c
T5	8.75c	8.76c	8.35d