Effects of combined application of nitrogen and organic fertilizer on soil bulk density, pH and carbon and nitrogen metabolism in ratooning rice field
-
摘要: 再生稻模式在湖北省粮食生产调结构转方式中具有重要作用, 研究氮肥与有机肥配施对再生稻稻田土壤肥力性状的影响, 可为土壤肥力维持和再生稻高效生产提供科学依据。大田试验于2020—2021年进行, 各试验处理磷(P2O5)、钾(K2O)养分施用量分别为75 kg∙hm−2和150 kg∙hm−2, 氮(N)施用量200 kg∙hm−2 (不包括不施氮处理N0)。按氮肥与有机肥施用情况分为5种基肥处理: 不施氮肥(N0); 基肥氮(N 75 kg∙hm−2)全部来自常规尿素(CK); 两种物料配施时, 基肥氮由2种物料各提供一半, 2种物料配施包括缓释尿素与常规尿素(T1)、生物炭与常规尿素(T2)、畜牧粪便与常规尿素(T3)。T2处理区在2021年不再施入生物炭, 施肥与CK处理相同。结果表明: 施入生物炭和畜牧粪便都能降低土壤容重, 以前者效果更佳; 施入生物炭后第1年, 土壤pH、有机碳和全氮明显提高, 第2年的效果与畜牧粪便无明显差异; 在头季稻分蘖期、抽穗期和再生稻抽穗期, 土壤无机氮含量分别以施常规尿素、缓释尿素和畜牧粪便最高; 畜牧粪便和生物炭可提高土壤微生物量碳和微生物量氮含量, 其中在头季稻拔节期前生物炭的施用效果较好, 拔节期后以畜牧粪便的施用效果较好。此外, 在畜牧粪便处理下, β-葡萄糖苷酶和脲酶活性较高。比较而言, 畜牧粪便在降低土壤容重、提高有机碳和全氮的效果上次于生物炭, 在提高无机氮、微生物生物量和土壤酶活性上效果优于生物炭, 因此, 建议基肥采用畜牧粪便与化肥配施, 由畜牧粪便取代其中50%的化肥氮。Abstract: Ratooning rice has the advantages of saving production costs and improving grain yield, but there is no report on the effect of the combination of nitrogen fertilizer and organic materials on the soil in ratooning rice mode. This paper compared the effects of different nitrogen fertilizer combinations and nitrogen fertilizer combined with organic materials on the soil properties of ratooning rice paddy field, so as to provide reference for the sustainable development of ratooning rice model. A two-year (2020−2021) single-factor experiment was conducted in Jingzhou, Hubei, China. The experiment included five base fertilizer treatments: no nitrogen fertilizer (N0), base fertilizer nitrogen is all from conventional urea (CK), 50% of base fertilizer nitrogen comes from conventional urea, 50% from slow-release urea (T1) or biochar (T2) and or animal manure (T3), respectively. The fertilization mode of T2 was only carried out in 2020. The fertilization mode of T2 was the same as that of CK in 2021, and the fertilization mode of other treatments is the same for two years. The results showed that compared with N0, the bulk density (BD) at 0−20 cm soil layer at the heading stage of the main season rice and at the heading stage of ratooning season rice decreased by 3.92%−6.15% in CK and by 4.38%−6.74% in T1, BD at 0~40 cm soil layer during the whole growth period decreased by 9.82%−17.87% in T2 and decreased by 9.48%−14.21% in T3. The order of soil pH in 2020 was T2>T3>N0>T1>CK. Compared with CK, pH in 2020 increased by 0.51−0.68 in T2. The order of soil pH in 2021 was T3>T2>N0>T1>CK. Compared with CK, pH in 2021 increased by 0.14−0.32 in T3. The order of the content of soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (TN) at 0−20 cm and 20-40 cm soil layers were T2>T3>T1>CK>N0. Compared with N0, other treatments increased the content of SOC and TN at 0−20 cm soil layer by 4.79%−29.12% and 11.36%−28.49%, and increased the content of SOC and TN at 20−40 cm soil layer by 5.43%−30.79% and 6.08%−20.02%, respectively. The contents of NH4+ and NO3− in the tillering stage and heading stage of the main season rice and heading stage of ratooning season rice were the highest under CK, T1 and T3 treatments, respectively. Compared with N0, the content of NH4+ and NO3− in the tillering stage of the main season rice increased by 131.26% and 153.59% under CK treatment, the content of NH4+ and NO3− in the heading stage of the main season rice increased by 217.15% and 153.91% under T1 treatment, and the content of NH4+ and NO3− in the heading stage of ratooning season rice increased by 246.76% and 126.70% under T3 treatment. The microbial biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) content and urease (UR) activity in T2 and T were higher than those of other treatments. Compared with N0, MBC content increased by 18.29%−45.18% in T2 and 21.46%−46.10% in T3, MBN content increased by 49.25%−140.37% in T2 and 59.62%−142.57% in T3, and UR activity increased by 31.45%−225.04% in T2 and 60.83%−246.65% in T3, respectively. The activity of β-glucosidase (BG) was the highest under T3 treatment. Compared with N0, the activity of BG increased by 21.26%−44.87% under T3 treatment. In this experiment, the effect of nitrogen fertilizer and organic material on soil improvement was studied through field experiment, and the effect of the combination of nitrogen fertilizer and organic material on the main physical and chemical properties of soil in ratooning rice paddy field was quantified. Comparative analysis shows that, the effect of animal manure on reducing BD, improving SOC and TN is next to that of biochar, and the effect on improving inorganic nitrogen, microbial biomass and soil enzyme activity is better than that of biochar. Therefore, it is suggested that animal manure and chemical fertilizer should be used as the base fertilizer, and animal manure should replace 50% of the chemical fertilizer nitrogen.
-
图 1 不同施肥处理下各生育期土壤pH
不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。“ns”和“**”分别表示无差异和P<0.01水平下有显著差异S1~S7分别表示头季稻分蘖期、头季稻拔节期、头季稻抽穗期、头季稻灌浆期、再生稻拔节期、再生稻抽穗期和再生稻灌浆期。Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (P<0.05). “ns”, “**” indicate no difference and significant difference at P<0.01 level, respectively. S1−S7 indicate the tillering stage, jointing stage, heading stage and filling stage of main season rice, and jointing stage, heading stage and filling stage of ratooning season rice, respectively.
Figure 1. Soil pH at different growth stages of the rice under different fertilization treatments
图 2 不同施肥处理下各生育期不同土层有机碳和总氮含量
不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。S1~S5分别表示2020年头季稻收获期、2020年再生稻收获期, 2021年头季稻移栽前, 2021年头季稻收获期和2021年再生稻收获期。Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (P<0.05). S1−S5 represents the main season rice harvest period in 2020, the ratooning rice harvest period in 2020, before the main season rice transplanting in 2021, the main season rice harvest period in 2021 and the ratooning rice harvest period in 2021, respectively.
Figure 2. SOC and TN in different soil layers in different growth stages of the rice under different fertilization treatments
图 3 不同施肥处理下各生育期土壤无机氮含量
不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。“ns”、“*”和“**”分别表示无差异、P<0.05和P<0.01水平下有显著差异。S1~S3分别表示头季稻分蘖期、头季稻抽穗期和再生稻抽穗期。Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (P<0.05). “ns”, “*” and “**” indicate no difference and significant difference at P<0.05 and P<0.01 level, respectively. S1−S3 indicate the tillering stag and heading stage of main season rice and heading stage of ratooning season rice, respectively.
Figure 3. Soil inorganic nitrogen content in different growth stages of the rice under different fertilization treatments
图 4 不同施肥处理下各生育期土壤微生物生物量含量
不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。“ns”、“*”和“**”分别表示无差异、P<0.05和P<0.01水平下有显著差异。S1~S3分别表示头季稻分蘖期、头季稻抽穗期和再生稻抽穗期。Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (P<0.05). “ns”, “*” and “**” indicate no difference and significant difference at P<0.05 and P<0.01 level, respectively. S1−S3 indicate the tillering stag and heading stage of main season rice and heading stage of ratooning season rice, respectively.
Figure 4. Soil microbial biomass in different growth stages of the rice under different fertilization treatments
图 5 不同施肥处理下各生育期土壤酶活性量
不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。“ns”、“*”和“**”分别表示无差异、P<0.05和P<0.01水平下有显著差异。S1~S3分别表示头季稻分蘖期、头季稻抽穗期和再生稻抽穗期。Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (P<0.05). “ns”, “*” and “**” indicate no difference and significant difference at P<0.05 and P<0.01 level, respectively. S1−S3 indicate the tillering stag and heading stage of main season rice and heading stage of ratooning season rice, respectively.
Figure 5. Soil enzyme activity in different growth stages of the rice under different fertilization treatments
表 1 2020年肥料施用方式
Table 1. Application method of fertilizer in 2020
处理
Treatment肥料类型
Type of fertilizer头季稻基肥
Based fertilizer for main season rice (kg∙hm−2)头季稻分蘖肥
Tiller fertilizer for main season rice (kg∙hm−2)头季稻穗肥
Spike fertilizer for main season rice (kg∙hm−2)再生稻促芽肥
Shoot fertilizer for ratoon season rice (kg∙hm−2)未施氮肥
No nitrogen fertilizer applied (N0)过磷酸钙
Superphosphate625 (P2O5 75) — — — 氯化钾
Potassium chloride125 (K2O 75) — 125 (K2O 75) — 常规尿素
Conventional urea (CK)常规尿素
Conventional urea163 (N 75) 98 (N 45) 65 (N 30) 108 (N 50) 过磷酸钙
Superphosphate625 (P2O5 75 ) — — — 氯化钾
Potassium chloride125 (K2O 75) — 125 (K2O 75) — 缓释尿素
Slow-release urea (T1)缓释尿素
Slow-release urea89 (N 37.5 ) — — — 常规尿素
Conventional urea82 (N 37.5) 98 (N 45) 65 (N 30) 108 (N 50) 过磷酸钙
Superphosphate625 (P2O5 75) — — — 氯化钾
Potassium chloride125 (K2O 75) — 125 (K2O 75) — 生物炭
Biochar (T2)生物炭
Biochar5000 (N 37.5, P2O5 17.5,K2O 76) — — — 常规尿素
Conventional urea82 (N 37.5) 98 (N 45) 65 (N 30) 108 (N 50) 过磷酸钙
Superphosphate478 (57.5) — — — 氯化钾
Potassium chloride— — 125 (K2O 75) — 畜牧粪便有机肥
Livestock manure organic fertilizer (T3)畜牧粪便
Livestock manure2450 (N 37.5, P2O5 29,K2O 31) — — — 常规尿素
Conventional urea82 (N 37.5) 98 (N 45) 65 (N 30) 108 (N 50) 过磷酸钙
Superphosphate383 (P2O5 46) — — — 氯化钾
Potassium chloride73 (K2O 44) — 125 (K2O 75) — 2021年N0、CK、T1和T3处理与2020年一致, 2021年T2处理与CK一致。The treatment of N0, CK, T1 and T3 in 2021 is consistent with that in 2020, and the treatment of T2 in 2021 is consistent with that of CK. 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同施肥处理下再生稻模式不同生育期土壤不同土层的容重变化
Table 2. Variation of soil bulk densities of different layers at different growth stage of ratoon rice system under different fertilization treatments
g cm−3 年份
Year处理
Treatment头季稻分蘖期
Tillering stage of main season rice头季稻抽穗期
Heading stage of main season rice再生稻抽穗期
Heading stage of ratoon rice0~20 cm 20~40 cm 0~20 cm 20~40 cm 0~20 cm 20~40 cm 2020 N0 1.003±0.016a 1.301±0.042a 1.063±0.014a 1.344±0.024a 1.092±0.015a 1.374±0.017a CK 0.993±0.009a 1.296±0.010a 1.013±0.006b 1.317±0.024a 1.027±0.008b 1.392±0.039a T1 1.013±0.011a 1.311±0.029a 1.008±0.033b 1.308±0.027a 1.016±0.017b 1.363±0.028a T2 0.829±0.009c 1.161±0.033c 0.876±0.012c 1.152±0.021c 0.916±0.015d 1.191±0.026b T3 0.896±0.023b 1.226±0.045b 0.952±0.030c 1.217±0.021b 0.970±0.010c 1.208±0.022b 2021 N0 1.014±0.013a 1.293±0.058a 1.061±0.014a 1.371±0.025a 1.104±0.019a 1.428±0.023a CK 1.030±0.028a 1.290±0.047a 1.028±0.016b 1.338±0.029ab 1.034±0.038b 1.411±0.013a T1 0.999±0.015a 1.308±0.035a 1.023±0.024b 1.302±0.011b 1.032±0.013b 1.390±0.067a T2 0.865±0.007c 1.178±0.014c 0.869±0.009d 1.180±0.012d 0.940±0.001c 1.179±0.037b T3 0.928±0.017b 1.217±0.010b 0.971±0.016c 1.223±0.015c 0.955±0.006c 1.194±0.026b 年份 Year (Y) ns ns ns ns ns ns 处理 Treatment (T) ** ** ** ** ** ** 年份×处理 Y×T ns ns ns ns ns ns 不同字母表示同列同年不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。“ns”和“**”分别表示无差异和P<0.01水平下有显著差异。Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). “ns” and “**” indicate no difference and significant difference at P<0.01 level, respectively.
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] CHU G, WANG Z Q, ZHANG H, et al. Alternate wetting and moderate drying increases rice yield and reduces methane emission in paddy field with wheat straw residue incorporation[J]. Food and Energy Security, 2015, 4(3): 238−254 doi: 10.1002/fes3.66 [2] WANG W Q, HE A B, JIANG G L, et al. Ratoon rice technology: a green and resource-efficient way for rice production[J]. Advances in Agronomy, 2020, 159: 135−167 [3] FIROUZI S, NIKKHAH A, AMINPANAH H. Rice single cropping or ratooning agro-system: which one is more environment-friendly?[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(32): 32246−32256 doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-3076-x [4] ZHENG C, WANG Y C, YUAN S, et al. Heavy soil drying during mid-to-late grain filling stage of the main crop to reduce yield loss of the ratoon crop in a mechanized rice ratooning system[J]. The Crop Journal, 2022, 10(1): 280−285 doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2021.06.003 [5] ZHANG S L, HUANG G F, ZHANG J, et al. Genotype by environment interactions for performance of perennial rice genotypes (Oryza sativa L./Oryza longistaminata) relative to annual rice genotypes over regrowth cycles and locations in Southern China[J]. Field Crops Research, 2019, 241: 107556 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107556 [6] CHEN J, SUN X, LI L, et al. Change in active microbial community structure, abundance and carbon cycling in an acid rice paddy soil with the addition of biochar[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2016, 67(6): 857−867 doi: 10.1111/ejss.12388 [7] SUN J L, LI H B, WANG Y N, et al. Biochar and nitrogen fertilizer promote rice yield by altering soil enzyme activity and microbial community structure[J]. GCB Bioenergy, 2022, 14(12): 1266−1280 doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12995 [8] XIAO M, ZANG H, GE T, et al. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on rice photosynthate allocation and carbon input in paddy soil[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2019: ejss. 12811 [9] OLADELE S, ADEYEMO A, AWODUN M, et al. Effects of biochar and nitrogen fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties, nitrogen use efficiency and upland rice (Oryza sativa) yield grown on an Alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria[J]. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 2019, 8(3): 295−308 doi: 10.1007/s40093-019-0251-0 [10] YANG Y, LIU B M, YU L X, et al. Nitrogen loss and rice profits with matrix-based slow-release urea[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2018, 110(2): 213−225 doi: 10.1007/s10705-017-9892-4 [11] JI M Y, WANG X X, USMAN M, et al. Effects of different feedstocks-based biochar on soil remediation: a review[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2022, 294: 118655 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118655 [12] YANG Z B, YU Y, HU R J, et al. Effect of rice straw and swine manure biochar on N2O emission from paddy soil[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1): 1−11 doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56847-4 [13] 黄国勤, 杨滨娟, 王淑彬, 等. 稻田实行保护性耕作对水稻产量、土壤理化及生物学性状的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(4): 1225−1234HUANG G Q, YANG B J, WANG S B, et al. Effects of 8 years of conservational tillage on rice yield and soil physical, chemical and biological properties[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(4): 1225−1234 [14] 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, 2000LU R K. Methods of Soil Agrochemical Analysis[M]. China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 2000 [15] LUO J L, ZHAO Y H, YU J G, et al. Effects of wheat straw and nitrogen fertilizer application on the soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in the rhizosphere of rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2021, 29(9): 1582−1591 [16] 宋鹏, 杨振中, 万祖梁, 等. 水稻秸秆秋季湿耙还田对土壤酶活性和养分的影响[J/OL]. 生态学杂志, 2022, https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=STXZ20220929004&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQSONG P, YANG Z Z, WAN Z L, et al. Effects of rice straw returned to the fields by wet harrow in autumn on soil enzyme activities and nutrients[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2022, https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=STXZ20220929004&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ [17] 孟祥宇, 冉成, 刘宝龙, 等. 秸秆还田配施氮肥对东北黑土稻区土壤养分及水稻产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(3): 167−172 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2021.03.025MENG X Y, RAN C, LIU B L, et al. Effects of straw returning to field and nitrogen application on soil nutrients and rice yield in black soil areas of northeast China[J]. Crops, 2021(3): 167−172 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2021.03.025 [18] IQBAL A, HE L, KHAN A, et al. Organic manure coupled with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for the sustainable production of rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency[J]. Agronomy, 2019, 9(10): 651 doi: 10.3390/agronomy9100651 [19] CARLOS F S, SCHAFFER N, MARCOLIN E, et al. A long-term no-tillage system can increase enzymatic activity and maintain bacterial richness in paddy fields[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2021, 32(6): 2257−2268 [20] WANG X, QI J Y, ZHANG X Z, et al. Effects of tillage and residue management on soil aggregates and associated carbon storage in a double paddy cropping system[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2019, 194: 104339 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104339 [21] BU R Y, REN T, LEI M J, et al. Tillage and straw-returning practices effect on soil dissolved organic matter, aggregate fraction and bacteria community under rice-rice-rapeseed rotation system[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2020, 287: 106681 [22] JIANG X, WRIGHT A L, WANG J, et al. Long-term tillage effects on the distribution patterns of microbial biomass and activities within soil aggregates[J]. Catena, 2011, 87(2): 276−280 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.06.011 [23] 曹巧滢, 詹曜玮, 丁尔全, 等. 分次施用碱性肥料对土壤pH及土壤镉有效性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(7): 1483−1489 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2021-0252CAO Q Y, ZHAN Y W, DING E Q, et al. Influences of alkaline fertilizer application on soil pH and soil available cadmium[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2022, 41(7): 1483−1489 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2021-0252 [24] DING C F, DU S Y, MA Y B, et al. Changes in the pH of paddy soils after flooding and drainage: modeling and validation[J]. Geoderma, 2019, 337: 511−513 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.012 [25] 刘杰云, 张文正, 沈健林, 等. 水分管理及生物质炭对稻田土壤含水率及pH值的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2021, 40(7): 44−50 doi: 10.13522/j.cnki.ggps.2020385LIU J Y, ZHANG W Z, SHEN J L, et al. The combined effects of water management and biochar amendment on soil water content and pH of paddy soil[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2021, 40(7): 44−50 doi: 10.13522/j.cnki.ggps.2020385 [26] XIAO W D, YE X Z, ZHU Z Q, et al. Continuous flooding stimulates root iron plaque formation and reduces chromium accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 788: 147786 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147786 [27] LI H L, YU Y, GUO J X, et al. Dynamics of the rice rhizosphere microbial community under continuous and intermittent flooding treatment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 249: 109326 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109326 [28] LUO W X, MA J W, AMAN KHAN M, et al. Cadmium accumulation in rice and its bioavailability in paddy soil with application of silicon fertilizer under different water management regimes[J]. Soil Use and Management, 2021, 37(2): 299−306 doi: 10.1111/sum.12679 [29] SEYFFERTH A L, AMARAL D, LIMMER M A, et al. Combined impacts of Si-rich rice residues and flooding extent on grain As and Cd in rice[J]. Environment International, 2019, 128: 301−309 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.060 [30] DAS S, JEONG S T, DAS S, et al. Composted cattle manure increases microbial activity and soil fertility more than composted swine manure in a submerged rice paddy[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8: 1702 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01702 [31] BENBI D K, BRAR K, TOOR A S, et al. Sensitivity of labile soil organic carbon pools to long-term fertilizer, straw and manure management in rice-wheat system[J]. Pedosphere, 2015, 25(4): 534−545 doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(15)30034-5 [32] DONG D, FENG Q B, MCGROUTHER K, et al. Effects of biochar amendment on rice growth and nitrogen retention in a waterlogged paddy field[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2015, 15(1): 153−162 doi: 10.1007/s11368-014-0984-3 [33] LIU Y X, YAO S, WANG Y Y, et al. Bio- and hydrochars from rice straw and pig manure: inter-comparison[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 235: 332−337 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.103 [34] 潘剑玲, 代万安, 尚占环, 等. 秸秆还田对土壤有机质和氮素有效性影响及机制研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(5): 526−535 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00526PAN J L, DAI W A, SHANG Z H, et al. Review of research progress on the influence and mechanism of field straw residue incorporation on soil organic matter and nitrogen availability[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(5): 526−535 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00526 [35] SUN X, ZHONG T, ZHANG L, et al. Reducing ammonia volatilization from paddy field with rice straw derived biochar[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 660: 512−518 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.450 [36] OLADELE S O, ADEYEMO A J, AWODUN M A. Influence of rice husk biochar and inorganic fertilizer on soil nutrients availability and rain-fed rice yield in two contrasting soils[J]. Geoderma, 2019, 336: 1−11 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.025 [37] NGUYEN T T N, XU C Y, TAHMASBIAN I, et al. Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic nitrogen: a review and meta-analysis[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 288: 79−96 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.004 [38] SINGH C, TIWARI S, GUPTA V K, et al. The effect of rice husk biochar on soil nutrient status, microbial biomass and paddy productivity of nutrient poor agriculture soils[J]. Catena, 2018, 171: 485−493 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.07.042 [39] WEI L, GE T D, ZHU Z K, et al. Paddy soils have a much higher microbial biomass content than upland soils: a review of the origin, mechanisms, and drivers[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2022, 326: 107798 [40] PANDEY D, AGRAWAL M, BOHRA J S. Effects of conventional tillage and no tillage permutations on extracellular soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass under rice cultivation[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2014, 136: 51−60 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.09.013 [41] ZHANG J, HANG X N, LAMINE S M, et al. Interactive effects of straw incorporation and tillage on crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions in double rice cropping system[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2017, 250: 37−43 [42] ZHAO Z H, GAO S F, LU C Y, et al. Effects of different tillage and fertilization management practices on soil organic carbon and aggregates under the rice–wheat rotation system[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 212: 105071 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105071 [43] YUAN G Y, HUAN W W, SONG H, et al. Effects of straw incorporation and potassium fertilizer on crop yields, soil organic carbon, and active carbon in the rice–wheat system[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 209: 104958 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.104958 [44] YANG X C, LIU D P, FU Q, et al. Characteristics of greenhouse gas emissions from farmland soils based on a structural equation model: regulation mechanism of biochar[J]. Environmental Research, 2022, 206: 112303 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112303 [45] WANG M H, FU Y X, WANG Y, et al. Pathways and mechanisms by which biochar application reduces nitrogen and phosphorus runoff losses from a rice agroecosystem[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 797: 149193 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149193 [46] OLADELE S, ADEYEMO A, ADEGAIYE A, et al. Effects of biochar amendment and nitrogen fertilization on soil microbial biomass pools in an Alfisol under rain-fed rice cultivation[J]. Biochar, 2019, 1(2): 163−176 doi: 10.1007/s42773-019-00017-2 [47] IQBAL A, LIANG H, MCBRIDE S G, et al. Manure applications combined with chemical fertilizer improves soil functionality, microbial biomass and rice production in a paddy field[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2022, 114(2): 1431−1446 doi: 10.1002/agj2.20990 [48] 刘杰云, 邱虎森, 汤宏, 等. 生物质炭对双季稻水稻土微生物生物量碳、氮及可溶性有机碳氮的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(8): 3799−3807 doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201901182LIU J Y, QIU H S, TANG H, et al. Effects of biochar amendment on soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and dissolved organic carbon, nitrogen in paddy soils[J]. Environmental Science, 2019, 40(8): 3799−3807 doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201901182 [49] HOU Q, NI Y M, HUANG S, et al. Effects of substituting chemical fertilizers with manure on rice yield and soil labile nitrogen in paddy fields of China: a meta-analysis[J]. Pedosphere, 2023, 33(1): 172−184 doi: 10.1016/j.pedsph.2022.09.003 [50] XIA Y H, CHEN X B, ZHENG S M, et al. Manure application accumulates more nitrogen in paddy soils than rice straw but less from fungal necromass[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2021, 319: 107575 [51] HOU Q, LIN S, NI Y M, et al. Assembly of functional microbial communities in paddy soil with long-term application of pig manure under rice-rape cropping system[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 305: 114374 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114374 [52] DOTANIYA M L, APARNA K, DOTANIYA C K, et al. Role of soil enzymes in sustainable crop production[M]//Enzymes in Food Biotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019: 569–589 [53] SAIKIA R, SHARMA S, THIND H S, et al. Temporal changes in biochemical indicators of soil quality in response to tillage, crop residue and green manure management in a rice-wheat system[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019, 103: 383−394 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.035 [54] BHATTACHARJYA S, CHANDRA R, PAREEK N, et al. Biochar and crop residue application to soil: effect on soil biochemical properties, nutrient availability and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2016, 62(8): 1095−1108 [55] ZHENG J F, CHEN J H, PAN G X, et al. Biochar decreased microbial metabolic quotient and shifted community composition four years after a single incorporation in a slightly acid rice paddy from southwest China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 571: 206−217 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.135 [56] ALI I, ADNAN M, ULLAH S, et al. Biochar combined with nitrogen fertilizer: a practical approach for increasing the biomass digestibility and yield of rice and promoting food and energy security[J]. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2022, 16(5): 1304−1318 doi: 10.1002/bbb.2334 [57] GÜNAL E, ERDEM H, DEMIRBAŞ A. Effects of three biochar types on activity of β-glucosidase enzyme in two agricultural soils of different textures[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2018, 64(14): 1963−1974 doi: 10.1080/03650340.2018.1471205 [58] WANG Y D, HU N, GE T D, et al. Soil aggregation regulates distributions of carbon, microbial community and enzyme activities after 23-year manure amendment[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2017, 111: 65−72 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.11.015 [59] YANG X, LIU J J, MCGROUTHER K, et al. Effect of biochar on the extractability of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn) and enzyme activity in soil[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2016, 23(2): 974−984 doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4233-0 [60] HUANG D L, LIU L S, ZENG G M, et al. The effects of rice straw biochar on indigenous microbial community and enzymes activity in heavy metal-contaminated sediment[J]. Chemosphere, 2017, 174: 545−553 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.130 [61] KHAN M N, LI D C, SHAH A, et al. The impact of pristine and modified rice straw biochar on the emission of greenhouse gases from a red acidic soil[J]. Environmental Research, 2022, 208: 112676 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.112676 [62] DU Y D, CUI B J, ZHANG Q, et al. Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: a meta-analysis[J]. CATENA, 2020, 193: 104617 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104617 -
下载:
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 32
- HTML全文浏览量: 28
- PDF下载量: 7
- 被引次数: 0
