Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and conditioner on soil carbon and nitrogen content and yield of oat
-
摘要: 为探究减氮下调理剂对土壤养分及莜麦产量的调控作用, 以自主研发的新型液态调理剂为研究对象, 设置不施肥(CK)、80%氮肥(N80)、常规施氮(N100)、调理剂+80%氮肥(PN80)、调理剂+常规施氮(PN100) 5个处理, 分析不同氮肥用量添加调理剂对冀西北地区土壤物理性状、不同土层碳氮组分含量及莜麦产量的影响。结果表明, 与常规施氮(N100)处理相比, PN80处理的土壤含水量、田间持水量、孔隙度分别显著提高8.72%、8.22%、17.68% (P<0.05), 土壤容重显著降低9.06% (P<0.05)。对土壤有机碳、全氮及其组分研究表明, PN80处理较N100显著提高0~60 cm土层的有机碳、全氮、硝态氮和20~60 cm土层活性有机碳、微生物量碳, 分别提高4.97%~20.06%、8.43%~11.66%、23.10%~44.96%和11.95%~40.49%、11.43%~40.42% (P<0.05)。不同处理对莜麦养分及产量的影响差异较大, 其中PN80处理效果最为显著。与N100相比, PN80的莜麦全氮、全磷、全钾含量及作物产量分别显著提高12.93%、15.16%、3.69%、18.73% (P<0.05)。同时, 与N100相比, N80在减氮20%的情况下显著降低了莜麦NPK吸收量, 但并未造成莜麦减产。综上所述, 较常规施肥措施, 减氮(80%氮肥)添加调理剂可以改良土壤性状, 增加土壤碳组分含量, 减少硝态氮淋溶的风险, 进而提高莜麦植株的养分及产量, 这对实现农业绿色发展, 减少肥料投入对环境产生的影响, 提高氮肥利用率具有重要意义。Abstract: For the current situation of backward cultivation methods in northwest Hebei region that lead to oat's wide planting and thin crop, by introducing a new type of liquid conditioner, analyzing the changes in soil physical properties, organic carbon and total nitrogen and their components with the addition of conditioner, determining the influence mechanism of conditioner on soil quality, and combining the interaction between soil and crop, analyzing the change characteristics of nutrient uptake and yield of oat with different N dosage of added conditioner. To explore the driving mechanism of N reduction with conditioners on crop yield. In order to investigate the effect of conditioner on soil nutrients and yield of oat under N reduction, the new liquid conditioner developed by ourselves was used as the research object, and five treatments were set: no fertilizer (CK), 80% N fertilizer (N80), regular N application (N100), conditioner + 80% N fertilizer (PN80), and conditioner + regular N application (PN100). The results showed that the fertilizer treatments were different from the single fertilizer treatments in terms of the physical properties, the content of carbon and nitrogen components and the yield of oat. The results showed that the treatments with conditioner (PN80 and PN100) significantly increased soil water content, field water holding capacity, porosity and reduced soil bulk density compared with the treatments with single fertilizer application, and the nitrogen reduction of 20% (N80) significantly increased soil porosity and reduced soil bulk density compared with the conventional nitrogen application. The study on soil organic carbon, total nitrogen and its components showed that the 20% N reduction had different degrees of inhibition on organic carbon, total nitrogen and its components in different soil layers, and the addition of conditioner significantly increased organic carbon, total nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and active organic carbon and microbial carbon in 0−60 cm soil layer and 20−60 cm soil layer compared with the treatment of N fertilizer alone. The effect of PN100 treatment was the most significant. The effect of different treatments on nutrients and yield of oat varied greatly, among which PN80 treatment had the most significant effect. Compared with N100, the total N, total P, total K contents and crop yield of oat in PN80 were significantly increased by 12.93%, 15.16%, 3.69% and 18.73%, respectively (P<0.05). Meanwhile, compared with N100, N80 significantly reduced nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake in oat at 20% N reduction, but did not cause yield reduction in oat. In conclusion, compared with conventional fertilization, N80 (80% N fertilizer) with soil conditioner could improve soil properties, increase soil carbon content, reduce the risk of nitrate N leaching, and significantly increase the nutrient uptake and yield of oat plants. The effect of 80% N fertilizer + soil conditioner on the nutrient content and yield of oat was the most significant, while the treatment with 100% N fertilizer + soil conditioner was the most effective in terms of improving soil nutrient content. This is important to realize the green development of agriculture, reduce the environmental impact of fertilizer input, and improve the utilization rate of nitrogen fertilizer.
-
图 2 不同氮用量添加调理剂对土壤碳组分的变化
TOC: 土壤有机碳; LOC: 土壤活性有机碳; SMBC: 土壤微生物量碳; CPMI: 土壤碳库管理指数. 图中不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。TOC: soil organic carbon content; LOC: soil active organic carbon content; SMBC: soil microbial quantitative carbon content; CPMI: soil carbon reservoir management index. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments in the same soil layer at P<0.05 level.
Figure 2. Changes in contents of soil carbon compositions under different treatments of soil conditioner addition and nitrogen dosage
图 3 不同氮用量添加调理剂对土壤氮组分的变化
TN: 土壤全氮; NO3−-N: 土壤硝态氮; NH4+-N: 土壤铵态氮. 图中不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。TN: soil total nitrogen; NO3−-N: soil nitrate nitrogen; NH4+-N: soil ammonium nitrogen. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments in the same soil layer at P<0.05 level.
Figure 3. Changes in contents of soil nitrogen compositions under different treatments of soil conditioner addition and nitrogen dosage
图 4 土壤碳氮组分及理化性状与作物养分及产量的相关关系
TOC: 土壤有机碳含量; LOC: 土壤活性有机碳含量; SMBC: 土壤微生物量碳含量; CPMI: 土壤碳库管理指数; TN: 土壤全氮含量; NN: 土壤硝态氮含量; AN: 土壤铵态氮含量; BD: 土壤容重; EC: 土壤电导率; FC: 田间持水量; Por: 土壤孔隙度; MC: 土壤含水量; N: 作物全氮含量; P: 作物全磷含量; K: 作物全钾含量; Yield: 作物产量。TOC: soil organic carbon content; LOC: soil active organic carbon content; SMBC: soil microbial biomass carbon content; CPMI: soil carbon sink management index; TN: soil total nitrogen content; NN: soil nitrate nitrogen content; AN: soil ammonium nitrogen content; BD: soil bulk density; EC: electrical conductivity; FC: soil field capacity; Por: soil porosity; MC: soil water content; N: crop nitrogen content; P: crop phosphorus content; K: crop potassium content; Yield: crop yield.
Figure 4. Correlation between soil carbon and nitrogen components and physicochemical traits and crop nutrients and yield
表 1 各处理和施肥量
Table 1. Treatments and fertilization rates
处理
Treatment施氮量
N (kg∙hm−2)调理剂
Conditioner ingredients (kg∙hm−2)CK 不施氮肥和调理剂
No nitrogen fertilizer and conditioning machines— — N80 80%氮肥
80% nitrogen fertilizer240 — N100 100%氮肥
100% nitrogen fertilizer300 — PN80 调理剂+80%氮肥
Conditioner+80% nitrogen fertilizer240 12 PN100 调理剂+100%氮肥
Conditioner+100% nitrogen fertilizer300 12 表 2 不同处理对土壤物理及化学性质的变化
Table 2. Changes in soil physical and chemical properties under different treatments of soil conditioner addition and nitrogen dosage
处理
Treatment容重
Bulk density
(g∙cm−3)含水量
Moisture
(%)孔隙度
Porosity
(%)田间持水量
Field capacity
(%)电导率
Electrical conductivity
(dS∙m−1)pH CK 1.333±0.019b 16.2±0.5b 50.0±0.4b 36.1±0.5c 120.5±0.3a 8.49±0.01a N80 1.257±0.012c 15.4±0.5c 52.6±0.6a 39.8±0.7b 109.5±0.7c 8.35±0.01c N100 1.360±0.016a 15.5±0.8c 48.7±0.7c 38.1±0.6bc 112.3±0.4b 8.42±0.01b PN80 1.247±0.005c 16.8±0.4a 52.7±0.5a 44.9±2.3a 113.7±1.0b 8.47±0.01a PN100 1.277±0.029c 17.0±0.6a 51.8±1.0a 43.7±2.4a 120.3±1.0a 8.43±0.01b 表中数据为平均数±标准偏差, 同列不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。The data in the table is the average ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level. 表 3 不同氮用量添加调理剂对莜麦养分及产量的变化特征
Table 3. Changes of nutrient and yield of naked oats under different treatments of soil conditioner addition and nitrogen dosage
处理
Treatment全氮
Total nitrogen (g∙kg−1)全磷
Total phosphorus (g∙kg−1)全钾
Total potassium (g∙kg−1)产量
Yield (kg∙hm−2)CK 9.36±0.24d 2.26±0.06c 2.85±0.05d 2115.64±153.11c N80 11.05±0.70c 2.02±0.00d 2.98±0.08c 2595.40±98.52b N100 12.53±0.35b 2.44±0.01b 3.25±0.02b 2762.73±148.34b PN80 14.15±0.06a 2.81±0.14a 3.37±0.02a 3280.11±69.94a PN100 12.59±0.20b 2.29±0.15bc 3.32±0.07ab 3270.94±70.35a 表中数据为平均数±标准偏差, 同列不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。The data in the table is the average ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level. -
[1] 蒋小董, 郑嗣蕊, 杨咪咪, 等. 毛乌素沙地固沙林发育过程中土壤有机碳库稳定性特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(8): 2567−2574JIANG X D, ZHENG S R, YANG M M, et al. Stability characteristics of soil organic carbon reservoir during the development of sand fixation forest in MaUs sandy land[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(8): 2567−2574 [2] 李玉梅, 王根林, 孟祥海, 等. 秸秆还田方式对旱地草甸士活性有机碳组分的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(2): 268−276LI Y M, WANG G L, MENG X H, et al. Effect of straw returning to the field on the active organic carbon components of dry land meadow people[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2021, 38(2): 268−276 [3] SUSEELA V, CONANT R T, WALLENSTEIN M D, et al. Effects of soil moisture on the temperature sensitivity of heterotrophic respiration vary seasonally in an old-field climate change experiment[J]. Global Change Biology, 2012, 18(1): 336−348 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02516.x [4] YANG D S, HUANG G J, LI Y, et al. Progress in the efficient nitrogen cultivation technology, variety improvement and physiological mechanism of rice[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2012, 18(1): 336−348 [5] 佘映军, 李平, 白芳芳, 等. 地下水埋深与施氮水平对夏玉米生长及硝态氮量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2021, 40(4): 22−28YU Y J, Li P, BAI F F, et al. Effects of groundwater burial depth and nitrogen application level on growth and nitrate nitrogen content of summer maize[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2021, 40(4): 22−28 [6] 毛妍婷, 刘宏斌, 陈安强, 等. 长期施用有机肥对减缓菜田耕层土壤酸化的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(9): 1784−1791MAO Y T, LIU H B, CHEN A Q, et al. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer on slowing soil acidification in vegetable field tillage[J]. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 2020, 29(9): 1784−1791 [7] 肖广敏, 茹淑华, 孙世友, 等. 基于文献分析的氮肥用量对小麦玉米轮作体系硝态氮淋溶的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(1): 116−125XIAO G M, RU S H, SUN S Y, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer dosage on nitrate nitrogen leaching in wheat-maize rotation system based on literature analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2022, 30(1): 116−125 [8] 胡丹丹, 李浩, 宋惠洁, 等. 长期施肥条件下红壤有机碳化学结构与团聚体稳定性的关系[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(1): 152−159HU D D, LI H, SONG H J, et al. Relationship between organic carbon chemical structure and aggregate stability of red soil under long-term fertilization[J]. Soil Bulletin, 2022, 53(1): 152−159 [9] 王朝辉, 李生秀, 王西娜, 等. 旱地土壤硝态氮残留淋溶及影响因素研究[J]. 土壤, 2006, 38(6): 676−681 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9829.2006.06.002WANG Z H, LI S X, WANG X N, et al. Study on nitronitrogen leaching and influencing factors in dry land soil[J]. Soil, 2006, 38(6): 676−681 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9829.2006.06.002 [10] 管秀娟, 武继承. 保水剂在农业上的应用及发展趋势[J]. 河南农业科学, 2007(7): 13−17 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2007.07.003GUAN X J, WU J C. Application and development trend of water-retaining agent in agriculture[J]. Henan Agricultural Science, 2007(7): 13−17 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2007.07.003 [11] 索琳娜, 马杰, 刘宝存, 等. 土壤调理剂应用现状及施用风险研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(6): 1141−1149 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2021-0364SUO L N, MA J, LIU B C, et al. Study on the application status and application risk of soil conditioner[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 40(6): 1141−1149 doi: 10.11654/jaes.2021-0364 [12] 刘慧军, 刘景辉, 于健, 等. 土壤改良剂对燕麦土壤理化性状及微生物量碳的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(5): 68−72+77LIU H J, LIU J H, YU J, et al. Effect of soil amendments on soil physiochemical traits and microbial carbon content in oats[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 26(5): 68−72+77 [13] 李晨昱, 卢树昌. 北方冬小麦-夏玉米复种区生物炭与明矾配施对土壤碳氮状况影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(18): 97−103LI C Y, LU S C. Effect of biochar and alum blending on soil carbon and nitrogen in winter wheat-summer maize in North China[J]. China Agriculture Bulletin, 2020, 36(18): 97−103 [14] 白文波, 王春艳, 李茂松, 等. 不同灌溉条件下保水剂对新疆棉花生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(10): 69−76 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.10.011BAI W B, WANG C Y, LI M S, et al. Effects of water retention agent on cotton growth and yield in Xinjiang under different irrigation conditions[J]. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2010, 26(10): 69−76 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.10.011 [15] 司徒艳结, 卫尤明, 杨俊颖, 等. 保水剂对作物生长的 不利影响及发生机制[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(7): 1318−1328SI T Y J, WEI Y M, YANG J Y, et al. The verse effects of water retaining agent on crop growth and occurrence mechanism[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2022, 28(7): 1318−1328 [16] 吴琳杰, 张志铭, 赵勇, 等. 土壤水分条件及保水剂用量对侧柏、栓皮栎种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 西部林业科学, 2016, 45(1): 112−116,130WU L J, ZHANG Z M, ZHAO Y, et al. Effect of soil moisture conditions and water retention dosage on seed germination and seedling growth of P. lateral and oak[J]. Western Forestry Science, 2016, 45(1): 112−116,130 [17] 马友华, 王广海, 程焱, 等. 多功能保水剂对作物抗旱效应的初步研究[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2001(2): 129−132 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-352X.2001.02.005MA Y H, WANG G H, CHENG Y, et al. Preliminary study on the effect of multifunctional water retaining agent on crop drought resistance[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 2001(2): 129−132 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-352X.2001.02.005 [18] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 56- 57, 81- 82.BAO S D. Soil agrochemical analysis[M]. Bei Jing: China Agriculture Press, 2000: 56-57, 81-82. [19] RANJAN B, SAMARESH K, ANIL K S, et al. Long term fertilization effects on soil organic carbon pools in a sandy loam soil of the Indian sub-Himalayas[J]. Plant and Soil, 2011, 341(1-2): 109−124 [20] BLAIR G J, LEFORY R D B, LISLE L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46(7): 1459−1466 doi: 10.1071/AR9951459 [21] 林先贵. 土壤微生物研究原理与方法[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010.LIN X G. Principles and Methods for Soil Microbiology Research [M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2010. [22] 肖占文, 闫治斌, 王学, 等. 有机碳土壤改良剂对风沙土改土效应的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(3): 35−42 doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.03.006XIAO Z W, YAN Z B, WANG X, et al. Effect of organic carbon soil modification on the effect of sand-sandy soil[J]. Water and soil Conservation bulletin, 2017, 37(3): 35−42 doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.03.006 [23] 顾旭东. 马铃薯间作蚕豆对土壤养分和作物生长的影响[D]. 宁夏大学, 2017.GU X D. Effect of potato beans on soil nutrients and crop growth [D]. Ningxia University, 2017. [24] 陶林. 土壤调理剂对土壤理化性状与木薯产量效应研究[D]. 广西大学, 2018.TAO L. Effect of soil conditioners on soil physicochemical traits and cassava yield[D]. Guangxi University, 2018. [25] 廉晓娟, 路遥, 王艳, 等. 土壤调理剂对日光温室土壤理化性质和蔬菜产量、品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(5): 56−60 doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20150510LIAN X J, LU Y, WANG Y, et al. Effects of soil conditioners on soil physicochemical properties and vegetable yield and quality in solar greenhouses[J]. Soil and Fertilizer, China, 2015(5): 56−60 doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20150510 [26] 员学锋, 汪有科, 吴普特, 等. PAM对土壤物理性状影响的试验研究及机理分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005(2): 37−40 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2005.02.010YUAN X F, WANG Y K, WU P T, et al. Experimental study and mechanism analysis of PAM influence on soil physical properties[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005(2): 37−40 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2005.02.010 [27] 黄寅玲, 雷忠顺, 郑涛, 等. 不同施氮量对冬小麦产量、效益及土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(1): 130−135HUANG Y L, LEI Z S, ZHENG T, et al. Effects of different nitrogen application on yield, benefit and soil physicochemical traits of winter wheat[J]. Crop magazine, 2020(1): 130−135 [28] 孙天晴, 张文, 于家伊. 长期施用有机源土壤调理剂对果园土壤的影响−以草莓和苹果种植区为例[J]. 现代农业科技, 2022(5): 142−146+ 158SUN T Q, ZHANG W, YU J Y. Effects of long-term application of organic source soil conditioner on orchard soil − Take strawberry and apple growing areas as an example[J]. Modern agricultural science and technology, 2022(5): 142−146+ 158 [29] 田露, 刘景辉, 赵宝平, 等. 保水剂和微生物菌肥配施对旱作燕麦土壤微生物生物量碳、氮含量及酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5): 361−368TIAN L, LIU J H, ZHAO B P, et al. Effect of water-retaining agent and microbial fertilizer application on microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen content and enzyme activity of dry-farming oat soil[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 34(5): 361−368 [30] 李倩, 巴图, 李玉龙, 等. 保水剂施用方式对土壤含水量和微生物生物量及马铃薯产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2017, 26(10): 1453−1460 doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2017.10.006LI Q, BA T, LI Y L, et al. Effect of water retention agent application method on soil water content, microbial biomass and potato yield[J]. Northwest Journal of Agriculture, 2017, 26(10): 1453−1460 doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2017.10.006 [31] 冯慧琳, 何欢辉, 徐茜, 等. 生物炭与氮肥配施对植烟土壤微生物及碳氮含量特征的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(6): 48−56 doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20414FENG H L, HE H H, XU X, et al. Effect of biochar and nitrogen fertilizer on microbial and carbon and nitrogen content in soil[J]. Chinese soil and fertilizer, 2021(6): 48−56 doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20414 [32] 曲晓晶, 孙大雁, 吴南, 等. 添加剂对不同还田深度秸秆腐解及周际土壤环境的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(2): 261−268 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.02.037QU X J, SUN D Y, WU N, et al. Effects of additives on decomposition and peri-soil environment of straw at different returning depths[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 34(2): 261−268 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.02.037 [33] 李皓, 甄怡铭, 张子旋, 等. 减氮配施有机物质对麦田土壤性质和小麦产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(2): 166−172LI H, ZHEN Y M, ZHANG Z X, et al. The effect of organic substances on soil properties and wheat yield in wheat fields[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(2): 166−172 [34] 裴瑞杰, 王俊忠, 冀建华, 等. 腐殖酸肥料与氮肥配施对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(19): 331−334 doi: 10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2018.19.084PEI R J, WANG J Z, JI J H, et al. Effects of combined application of humic acid fertilizer and nitrogen fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(19): 331−334 doi: 10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2018.19.084 [35] 褚继登, 闫慧峰, 王树声, 等. 化肥减量配施生物炭对植烟土壤氮素淋失的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(4): 40−47CHU J D, YAN H F, WANG S S, et al. Effect of biochar reduction on nitrogen leaching in tobacco soil[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2022, 43(4): 40−47 [36] 吴德丰, 王春颖, 韩宇平, 等. 不同质地土壤铵态氮吸附/解吸特征[J]. 华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 41(6): 18−25 doi: 10.19760/j.ncwu.zk.2020071WU D F, WANG C Y, HAN Y P, et al. Characteristics of ammonium nitrogen adsorption / desorption in different soil textures[J]. Journal of North China University of Water Resources and Hydropower Power (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 41(6): 18−25 doi: 10.19760/j.ncwu.zk.2020071 [37] 曾招兵, 李盟军, 姚建武, 等. 习惯施肥对菜地氮磷径流流失的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(5): 34−38+43 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2012.05.003ZENG Z B, LI M J, YAO J W, et al. Effect of habitual fertilization on the loss of nitrogen-phosphorus runoff in vegetable fields[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 26(5): 34−38+43 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2012.05.003 [38] 刘晶, 郑利芳, 王颖, 等. 控释尿素施用比例对旱地春玉米产量及土壤硝态氮残留量的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 50(11): 127−134LIU J, ZHENG L F, WANG Y, et al. Effect of controlled release urea application ratio on spring corn yield and soil nitrate nitrogen residues in dry land[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 50(11): 127−134 [39] 彭正萍, 刘亚男, 李迎春, 等. 持续氮素调控对小麦/玉米轮作系统氮素利用和表观损失的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(6): 74−79 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2015.06.014PENG Z P, LIU Y N, LI Y C, et al. Effect of continuous N regulation on N utilization and apparent loss in the wheat/maize rotation system[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29(6): 74−79 doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2015.06.014 [40] 刘世亮, 寇太记, 介晓磊, 等. 保水剂对玉米生长和土壤养分转化供应的影响研究[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2005(2): 146−150 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2340.2005.02.006LIU S L, KOU T J, JIE X L, et al. Effect of water-retaining agent on maize growth and soil nutrient conversion supply[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 2005(2): 146−150 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2340.2005.02.006 [41] 马力. 保水剂与氮肥对青燕1号燕麦生长发育的影响[D]. 青海大学, 2014.MA L. Effect of water retention agent and nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and development of Qingyan No. 1 oat [D]. Qinghai University, 2014.