Impact of Different Cultivation Modes on Soil Active Organic Matter and Carbon Storage Management Index in Yellow River Irrigation Area

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0219

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effects of different tillage measures on soil active organic matter and carbon pool management index, five treatments were set up through field positioning test, including rotary tillage (RT), no-tillage (NT), deep loosening of 35 cm, deep loosening once every 2 years in the fall, and no tillage and tillage alternately (ST₂), deep loosening of 35 cm, deep loosening once every 3 years in the fall, no tillage and tilling alternately (ST₃), deep loosening 35 cm, deep loosening once a year, deep loosening + tilling, and all the straw returning to the field when tilling (STS), with rotary tillage (RT) as the control to compare and analyze the content of high active organic matter (H-LOM), medium active organic matter (M-LOM), low active organic matter (M-LOM) and none-active organic matter (N-LOM), and the variation characteristics of carbon pool management index (CMI) of different soil layers (0-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40 cm). The results showed that the STS treatment increased the total soil organic matter (TOM) by 19.73% on average compared with the RT treatment; rotational tillage and straw return significantly affected the percentage of active organic matter fractions, and the STS treatment increased the content of H-LOM, M-LOM and L-LOM by 20.65%, 34.52% and 32.69% on average, respectively compared with the RT treatment; the carbon pool index (CPI) of the NT, ST2, ST3 and STS treatments was higher than that of RT treatment and with different degrees of increase in organic matter content; compared with RT treatment, the carbon pool management indexes of NT, ST2, ST3 and STS treatments with high, medium and low active organic matter were greater than 100, and STS treatment had the highest CPI up to 421.21. Comprehensive analysis, the STS treatments could be used as an effective tillage method to increase soil organic matter content on a large scale.

Key words: cultivation mode, active organic matter, active organic matter components, carbon pool management index

YU Zhuo, WANG Chengbao, YANG Sicun, LUO Zhuzhu, HUO Lin, WEN Meijuan. Impact of Different Cultivation Modes on Soil Active Organic Matter and Carbon Storage Management Index in Yellow River Irrigation Area[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2026, 16(3): 65-72.

Figures/Tables 4

References 28

[1]	杨思存, 王成宝, 霍琳, 等. 不同耕作措施对甘肃引黄灌区耕地土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(2):114-121.
[2]	李晓丽, 王成宝, 杨思存, 等. 深松深度对灌耕灰钙土团聚体分布及稳定性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3):9-17.
[3]	周萌, 肖扬, 刘晓冰. 土壤活性有机质组分的分类方法及其研究进展[J]. 土壤与作物, 2019, 8(4):349-360.
[4]	徐明岗, 于荣, 王伯仁. 土壤活性有机质的研究进展[J]. 土壤肥料, 2000(6):3-7.
[5]	LOGNINOW W, WISNIEWSKI W, STRONY W M, et al. Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation[J]. Polish journal of soil science, 1987, 20:47-52.
[6]	LEFROY R D B, BLAIR G, STRONG W M. Changes in soil organic matter with cropping as measured by organic carbon fractions and 13C natural isotope abundance[J]. Plant and soil, 1993,155-156:399-402.
[7]	张玉军, 黄绍敏, 李斌, 等. 长期施肥对潮土不同层次活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(3):160-165.
[8]	张玉军, 董士刚, 刘世亮, 等. 有机物替代部分化肥对土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2018, 47(1):43-47.
[9]	HU P L, LIU S J, YE Y Y, et al. Effects of environmental factors on soil organic carbon under natural or managed vegetation restoration[J]. Land degradation and development, 2018, 29(3):387. doi: 10.1002/ldr.v29.3 URL
[10]	王仁杰. 长期施肥对黄土高原旱地土壤有机碳库的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2020.
[11]	闫德智, 王德建. 长期施用化肥和秸秆对活性有机质组分的影响[J]. 土壤, 2008,(3):407-411.
[12]	王改玲, 李立科, 郝明德. 长期施肥和秸秆覆盖土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数变化[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(1):20-26.
[13]	罗澜, 席源, 华仲臣, 等. 河南省典型土壤类型及土地利用方式对土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学(中英文), 2023, 21(5):29-37.
[14]	李小磊, 张玉军, 申凤敏, 等. 长期施肥对红壤性水稻土不同土层活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(6):1189-1201. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.011
[15]	罗友进, 王子芳, 高明, 等. 不同耕作制度对紫色水稻土活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2007(5):55-58,81.
[16]	徐明岗, 于荣, 孙小凤, 等. 长期施肥对我国典型土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006(4):459-465.
[17]	王成宝, 温美娟, 杨思存, 等. 耕作方式对灌耕灰钙土耕层物理性质和玉米产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(3):170-177.
[18]	SHAO Y H, XIE Y X, WANG C Y, et al. Effects of different soil conservation tillage approaches on soil nutrients, water use and wheat-maize yield in rained dry-land regions of North China[J]. European journal of agronomy, 2016, 81:37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.08.014 URL
[19]	HALVORSON A D, WIENHOLD B J, BLACK A L. Tillage, Ni trogen, and cropping system effects on soil carbon sequestration[J]. Soil science society of American journal, 2002, 66(3):906-912. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.9060 URL
[20]	张旭博, 李雄, 徐梦, 等. 不同土地利用方式下我国北方土壤有机、无机碳库的变化趋势及原因分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(8):1440-1450.
[21]	TUNSISA T HURISSO, JAY B, et al. Labile soil organic carbon and nitrogen within a gradient of dryland agricultural land-use intensity in Wyoming, USA[J]. Geoderma, 2014, 226:1-7
[22]	李玲, 赵秀兰, 魏世强, 等. 重庆典型烟区土壤有机质及其活性组分的分布特征[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(3):51-56.
[23]	杨永辉, 武继承, 丁晋利, 等. 长期免耕对不同土层土壤结构与有机碳分布的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2017, 48(9):173-182.
[24]	黄肖, 王龙兴, 徐添靖, 等. 基于Meta分析的不同耕作措施对黄土高原旱地麦田土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(10):2725-2732. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202410.011
[25]	刘雅杰, 张天娇, 张向前, 等. 秸秆还田下耕作方式对黑土活性有机碳组分及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(17):3408-3423. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.17.008
[26]	张玉军, 郭风民, 姜桂英, 等. 不同生长年限对月季土壤不同层次活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(3):120-125.
[27]	乔赵崇, 王炯琪, 赵海超, 等. 种植模式对冀西北坝上土壤活性有机质和碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(6):1139-1146. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.06.009
[28]	田慎重, 王瑜, 宁堂原, 等. 转变耕作方式对长期旋免耕农田土壤有机碳库的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(17):98-105.

处理	土壤总有机质含量
处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm	30~40 cm
RT	14.09±0.36c	14.10±0.20d	12.63±0.25c	11.63±0.40c
NT	14.27±0.15bc	14.47±0.31cd	13.03±0.25bc	12.07±0.32bc
ST2	14.56±0.32bc	14.59±0.13bc	13.21±0.38bc	12.13±0.17bc
ST3	14.87±0.35b	14.90±0.20b	13.27±0.24b	12.49±0.24b
STS	16.10±0.17a	16.67±0.25a	15.27±0.32a	14.60±0.26a

处理	土壤总有机质含量
处理	0~10 cm	10~20 cm	20~30 cm	30~40 cm
RT	14.09±0.36c	14.10±0.20d	12.63±0.25c	11.63±0.40c
NT	14.27±0.15bc	14.47±0.31cd	13.03±0.25bc	12.07±0.32bc
ST2	14.56±0.32bc	14.59±0.13bc	13.21±0.38bc	12.13±0.17bc
ST3	14.87±0.35b	14.90±0.20b	13.27±0.24b	12.49±0.24b
STS	16.10±0.17a	16.67±0.25a	15.27±0.32a	14.60±0.26a

土层深度/ cm	处理	碳库指数 CPI	高活性有机质H-LOM			中活性有机质M-LOM			低活性有机质L-LOM
土层深度/ cm	处理	碳库指数 CPI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI
0~10	RT	1	0.19	1	100	0.37	1	100	0.6	1	100
	NT	1.01	0.22	1.15	116.48	0.46	1.23	124.5	0.72	1.21	122.9
	ST2	1.03	0.24	1.22	126.39	0.5	1.34	138.63	0.86	1.43	148.22
	ST3	1.06	0.24	1.26	132.77	0.54	1.45	152.58	0.93	1.55	163.9
	STS	1.14	0.34	1.74	198.79	0.78	2.09	238.99	1.25	2.09	239.26
10~20	RT	1	0.22	1	100	0.42	1	100	0.66	1	100
	NT	1.03	0.24	1.09	111.67	0.48	1.16	119.18	0.76	1.16	118.78
	ST2	1.03	0.27	1.26	130.55	0.58	1.41	145.52	1	1.52	156.77
	ST3	1.06	0.28	1.3	137.68	0.6	1.44	151.95	1.01	1.53	161.63
	STS	1.18	0.38	1.76	208.07	0.89	2.13	251.79	1.35	2.05	242.59
20~30	RT	1	0.17	1	100	0.31	1	100	0.36	1	100
20~30	NT	1.03	0.17	1.04	107.38	0.34	1.1	112.99	0.44	1.21	125.1
	ST2	1.05	0.23	1.37	143.5	0.46	1.46	153.69	0.69	1.89	198.79
	ST3	1.05	0.27	1.6	167.59	0.53	1.69	177.08	0.88	2.42	252.9
	STS	1.21	0.29	1.75	211.66	0.66	2.13	257.06	1.11	3.05	368.79
30~40	RT	1	0.12	1	100	0.25	1	100	0.3	1	100
	NT	1.04	0.13	1.05	108.94	0.26	1.04	107.82	0.34	1.11	115.19
	ST2	1.07	0.21	1.7	182.34	0.4	1.56	167.72	0.66	2.18	234.13
	ST3	1.04	0.28	2.28	237.73	0.52	2.05	214.06	0.86	2.85	296.99
	STS	1.26	0.27	2.26	283.3	0.6	2.38	298.68	1.01	3.36	421.21

土层深度/ cm	处理	碳库指数 CPI	高活性有机质H-LOM			中活性有机质M-LOM			低活性有机质L-LOM
土层深度/ cm	处理	碳库指数 CPI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI	碳库活度L	活度指数LI	碳库管理指数CMI
0~10	RT	1	0.19	1	100	0.37	1	100	0.6	1	100
	NT	1.01	0.22	1.15	116.48	0.46	1.23	124.5	0.72	1.21	122.9
	ST2	1.03	0.24	1.22	126.39	0.5	1.34	138.63	0.86	1.43	148.22
	ST3	1.06	0.24	1.26	132.77	0.54	1.45	152.58	0.93	1.55	163.9
	STS	1.14	0.34	1.74	198.79	0.78	2.09	238.99	1.25	2.09	239.26
10~20	RT	1	0.22	1	100	0.42	1	100	0.66	1	100
	NT	1.03	0.24	1.09	111.67	0.48	1.16	119.18	0.76	1.16	118.78
	ST2	1.03	0.27	1.26	130.55	0.58	1.41	145.52	1	1.52	156.77
	ST3	1.06	0.28	1.3	137.68	0.6	1.44	151.95	1.01	1.53	161.63
	STS	1.18	0.38	1.76	208.07	0.89	2.13	251.79	1.35	2.05	242.59
20~30	RT	1	0.17	1	100	0.31	1	100	0.36	1	100
20~30	NT	1.03	0.17	1.04	107.38	0.34	1.1	112.99	0.44	1.21	125.1
	ST2	1.05	0.23	1.37	143.5	0.46	1.46	153.69	0.69	1.89	198.79
	ST3	1.05	0.27	1.6	167.59	0.53	1.69	177.08	0.88	2.42	252.9
	STS	1.21	0.29	1.75	211.66	0.66	2.13	257.06	1.11	3.05	368.79
30~40	RT	1	0.12	1	100	0.25	1	100	0.3	1	100
	NT	1.04	0.13	1.05	108.94	0.26	1.04	107.82	0.34	1.11	115.19
	ST2	1.07	0.21	1.7	182.34	0.4	1.56	167.72	0.66	2.18	234.13
	ST3	1.04	0.28	2.28	237.73	0.52	2.05	214.06	0.86	2.85	296.99
	STS	1.26	0.27	2.26	283.3	0.6	2.38	298.68	1.01	3.36	421.21