Effect of Biomass on Amelioration of Acidic Soils at Tea Plantations
-
摘要: 通过室内培养试验，研究稻秸、麦秸、生物质炭、羊粪等4种生物质材料对茶园土壤酸度的改良效果。结果表明，在茶园土壤中施入稻秸、麦秸、生物质炭、羊粪等4种物料培养90 d后，土壤pH值分别比对照显著提高了0.72、0.53、0.77、0.72个单位（2%添加量）和0.89、0.76、1.16、1.32个单位（4%添加量）。4种生物质材料均能显著降低土壤交换性酸和交换性铝含量、增加土壤盐基离子量以及提高土壤盐基饱和度，且改良效果随着施用量的增加而提高。只有羊粪处理能够显著提升土壤阳离子交换量和硝态氮含量，生物质炭处理对土壤硝态氮含量的影响不显著，麦秸和稻秸反而降低了土壤硝态氮含量。综合比较，羊粪改良茶园酸化土壤的效果最佳，生物质炭次之。Abstract: This indoor incubation study aimed to evaluate the ameliorating effects of four biomass materials, including rice straw, wheat straw, biochar and sheep manure, on acidic soil at a tea plantation. The results showed that the pH of the soil incorporated with rice straw, wheat straw, biochar, and sheep manure increased by 0.72, 0.53, 0.77, and 0.72 units, respectively, at 2% addition level, and 0.89, 0.76, 1.16, and 1.32 units, respectively, at 4% addition level over control. In addition, the applications significantly decreased the contents of exchangeable acidity and exchangeable aluminum, while increased the exchangeable and saturation on cations in the soil. The amelioration of the soil was enhanced with increasing biomass addition. Different from the other materials, sheep manure significantly increased the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and nitrate nitrogen (NO3 -N) content in soil, biochar exerted no significant effect on NO3 -N, and rice or wheat straws significantly decreased NO3 -N. Consequently, sheep manure followed by biochar were considered the choice materials for acid alleviation on tea plantation soil.
-
Key words:
- biomass materials /
- tea plantation /
- acidic soil /
- amelioration effect
-
图 2 不同生物质材料添加对茶园土壤硝态氮含量的影响
Figure 2. Effects of biomass incorporation on nitrate nitrogen content
表 1 生物质材料的化学成分
Table 1. Chemical composition of biomass materials
生物质材料 pH 灰化碱/(cmol·kg-1) K/(cmol·kg-1) Ca/(cmol·kg-1) Mg/(cmol·kg-1) 有机C/% 全N/% 全P/% C/N 稻秸 6.58c 32.00c 70.91c 37.86b 5.36d 41.64c 0.62c 0.18c 67.16 麦秸 8.30a 23.83c 75.49b 28.96c 6.18c 47.17b 0.35d 0.11c 134.77 生物质炭 8.43a 97.33b 23.77d 97.60a 9.28b 57.57a 1.27b 0.35b 45.33 羊粪 8.03b 124.50a 101.04a 98.85a 10.34a 35.74d 2.53a 0.58a 14.13 注：同列数据后不同小写字母表示差异显著(P < 0.05)。表 2、3同。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同生物质材料添加对茶园土壤交换性酸的影响
Table 2. Effect of biomass incorporation on soil exchangeable acidity
处理 交换性H+/(cmol·kg-1) 交换性Al3+/(cmol·kg-1) 交换性酸/(cmol·kg-1) 对照 0.60d 7.47a 8.07a 稻秸(2%) 0.62cd 5.18b 5.80bc 稻秸(4%) 0.62cd 4.00cd 4.61d 麦秸(2%) 1.13b 5.01bc 6.14b 麦秸(4%) 0.87bc 4.40c 5.27c 生物质炭(2%) 0.40d 4.80bc 5.21c 生物质炭(4%) 1.83a 0.90e 2.73e 羊粪(2%) 0.60d 3.52d 4.12d 羊粪(4%) 0.52d 0.76e 1.28f
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同生物质材料添加对茶园土壤交换性能的影响
Table 3. Effect of biomass incorporation on soil exchange properties
处理 交换性盐基离子总量/ (cmol·kg-1) CEC/ (cmol·kg-1) 盐基饱和度/% 1/2Ca2+ 1/2Mg2+ K+ 总量 对照 1.28e 0.09f 0.07f 1.44e 9.31d 15.47e 稻秸(2%) 1.74d 0.15e 1.37d 3.26d 9.64cd 33.82d 稻秸(4%) 2.17d 0.21de 3.09b 5.47bc 8.90d 61.46b 麦秸(2%) 2.17d 0.18de 1.59d 3.93d 8.27e 47.52c 麦秸(4%) 1.86d 0.25d 2.86b 4.98c 10.02c 49.70c 生物质炭(2%) 2.90c 0.23d 0.36e 3.48d 9.58cd 36.33d 生物质炭(4%) 4.28b 0.35c 1.21d 5.84bc 9.10d 64.18b 羊粪(2%) 3.71b 0.61b 2.04c 6.36b 10.83b 58.73bc 羊粪(4%) 5.37a 0.86a 3.82a 10.05a 11.59a 86.71a
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 土壤酸度指标与物料性质的相关性分析
Table 4. Correlation between soil acidity indices and biomass properties
酸度指标 灰化碱 物料pH Ca Mg K 有机C 全N 全磷 C/N 土壤pH 0.99* 0.28 0.96* 0.94 0.06 -0.17 0.95* 0.98* -0.17 交换性铝 -0.98* -0.46 -0.99** -0.96* 0.17 -0.09 -0.96 -0.90 -0.09 交换性酸 -0.99** -0.31 -0.95 -0.95 -0.13 0.22 -0.97* -0.99** 0.22 注：*表示差异显著(P < 0.05)，**表示差异极显著(P < 0.01)。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 马立峰.重视茶园土壤的急速酸化和改良[J].中国茶叶, 2001, 23(4):30-31. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3150.2001.04.010 [2] 谢少华, 宗良纲, 褚慧, 等.不同类型生物质材料对酸化茶园土壤的改良效果[J].茶叶科学, 2013, 33(3):279-288. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/cykx201303017 [3] POCKNEE S, SUMMER M E. Cation and nitrogen contents of organic matter determine its liming potential[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1997, 61(1):86-92. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010014x [4] WONG M T F, NORTCLIFF S, SWIFT R S. Method for determining the acid ameliorating capacity of plant residue compost, urban waste compost, farmyard manure and peat applied to tropical soils[J]. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 1998, 29(19-20):2927-2937. doi: 10.1080/00103629809370166 [5] MOKOLOBATE M S, HAYNES R J. Comparative liming effect of four organic residues applied to an acid soil[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2002, 35(2):79-85. doi: 10.1007/s00374-001-0439-z [6] YUAN J H, XU R K, QIAN W, et al. Comparison of the ameliorating effects on an acidic ultisol between four crop straws and their biochars[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2011(11):741-750. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=3394b7d1be18e16dda75b6dc269e774a [7] 王宁, 李九玉, 徐仁扣.三种植物物料对两种茶园土壤酸度的改良效果[J].土壤, 2009, 41(5):764-771. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/tr200905014 [8] 鲁如坤.土壤农业化学分析方法[M].北京:中国农业科学技术出版社, 2000. [9] 韩永俊, 尹大庆, 赵艳忠.秸秆还田的研究现状[J].农机化研究, 2003(2):39-40. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-188X.2003.02.016 [10] XU R K, COVENTRY D R. Soil pH changes associated with lupin and wheat plant materials incorporated in a red-brown earth soil[J]. Plant and soil, 2003, 250(1):113-119. doi: 10.1023/A:1022882408133 [11] XU J M, TANG C, CHEN Z L. The role of plant residues in pH change of acid soils differing in initial pH[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2006, 38(4):709-719. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.06.022 [12] 鲁彩艳, 陈欣.有机碳源添加对不同C/N比有机物料氮矿化进程的影响[J].中国科学院研究生院学报, 2004, 21(1):108-112. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1175.2004.01.017 [13] 于天仁, 季国亮, 丁昌璞.可变电荷土壤的电化学[M].北京:科学出版社, 1996:226-251. [14] 袁金华, 徐仁扣.生物质炭对酸性土壤改良作用的研究进展[J].土壤, 2012, 44(4):541-547. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9829.2012.04.003 [15] 索龙, 潘凤娥, 胡俊鹏, 等.秸秆及生物质炭对砖红壤酸度及交换性能的影响[J].土壤, 2015, 47(6):115-1162. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TURA201506021.htm [16] 马宗国, 卢绪奎, 方丽, 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. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2003.05.018 -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1256
- HTML全文浏览量: 267
- PDF下载量: 16
- 被引次数: 0
