Effect of Carbon Replacement Organic Fertilizers Such as Humic Acid on Grape Yield,Quality and Soil Nutrients

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20192787

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the application method of humic acid on grapes and find out the optimal proportion of carbon such as humic acid instead of organic fertilizer,the plot experiment was carried out with simple chemical fertilizer fertilization mode as control(CK treatment)for two consecutive years.Based on farmers' fertilizer practice(FFP treatment),3 ratios of carbon such as humic acid instead of organic fertilizer were set:10% carbon substitution(T1 treatment),20% carbon substitution(T2 treatment)and 30% carbon substitution(T3 treatment).Their effects on grape yield,quality and soil nutrients were studied,and the optimal substitution ratio was screened by principal factor analysis.The results showed that the yield of T2 treatment was the highest for two consecutive years,but there was no significant difference between T2 and T3 treatment.Single cluster weight and single fruit weight in T1,T2,T3 treatments were significantly higher than those in CK treatment,but there was no significant difference between FFP treatment and T1,T2,T3 treatments;on the whole,the contents of soluble solids,soluble sugar,titratable acid and vitamin C in humic acid treatment instead of organic fertilizer were better than those in other treatments.Through correlation analysis,soil available potassium,organic matter and acid phosphatase were positively correlated with grape yield.Available phosphorus,available potassium,organic matter and acid phosphatase in soil were very significantly correlated with soluble solids,soluble sugar and vitamin C content of grape.Regulation of these soil indexes was the way to increase grape yield and quality by replacing organic fertilizer with humic acid;through principal factor analysis,there were 2 principal factors with eigenvalue greater than 1 in 2019 and 2020,the cumulative contribution rate of variance of 2 principal factors reached 88.864%-91.470%,and T2 treatment was the highest comprehensive score for two consecutive years.On the whole,carbon such as humic acid instead of 20% organic fertilizer was the optimal proportion.

Key words: Grapes, Humic acid, Organic fertilizer, Yield, Quality, Soil nutrients

SONG Zhi, GUO Xinsong, FAN Zhongqing, HONG Pizheng, CHEN Shigeng, LIU Tongxin, ZHANG Jing, ZHANG Hong, DING Fangjun, ZHAO Jinbiao. Effect of Carbon Replacement Organic Fertilizers Such as Humic Acid on Grape Yield,Quality and Soil Nutrients[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37(3): 158-167. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20192787.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/10.7668/hbnxb.20192787

http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/Y2022/V37/I3/158

Figures/Tables 7

References 48

[1]	田淑芬. 中国葡萄产业与科技发展[J]. 农学学报, 2018, 8(1):143-147.
	Tian S F. The development of grape industry and technology in China[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2018, 8(1):143-147.
[2]	李宝鑫, 杨俐苹, 卢艳丽, 师校欣, 杜国强. 我国葡萄主产区的土壤养分丰缺状况[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(17):3553-3566.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.17.012. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.17.012
	Li B X, Yang L P, Lu Y L, Shi X X, Du G Q. Status of soil fertility in main grape producing areas of China[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(17):3553-3566.
[3]	冯静静, 许英梅, 何德民, 王欢, 张秋民. 腐植酸的提取方法及其应用性能研究进展[J]. 辽宁化工, 2018, 47(11):1131-1133,1137.doi: 10.14029/j.cnki.issn1004-0935.2018.11.019. doi: 10.14029/j.cnki.issn1004-0935.2018.11.019
	Feng J J, Xu Y M, He D M, Wang H, Zhang Q M. Research progress in extraction methods and application performance of humic acid[J]. Liaoning Chemical Industry, 2018, 47(11):1131-1133,1137.
[4]	张水勤, 袁亮, 林治安, 李燕婷, 胡树文, 赵秉强. 腐植酸促进植物生长的机理研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(4):1065-1076.doi: 10.11674/zwyf.16255. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.16255
	Zhang S Q, Yuan L, Lin Z A, Li Y T, Hu S W, Zhao B Q. Advances in humic acid for promoting plant growth and its mechanism[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2017, 23(4):1065-1076.
[5]	Trubetskaya O E, Trubetskoi O A. The effect of low concentrations of stable electrophoretic fractions of soil humic acids on stimulation/inhibition of the root length of radish seedlings[J]. Eurasian Soil Science, 2021, 54(7):1089-1096.doi: 10.1134/S1064229321060156. doi: 10.1134/S1064229321060156 URL
[6]	Oktem A G, Oktem A. Effect of humic acid application methods on yield and some yield characteristics of corn plant(Zea mays L.indentata)[J]. Journal of Applied Life Sciences International, 2020, 23(11):31-37.doi: 10.9734/jalsi/2020/v23i1130196. doi: 10.9734/jalsi/2020/v23i1130196
[7]	Rosa S D, Silva C A, Maluf H J G M. Wheat nutrition and growth as affected by humic acid-phosphate interaction[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2018, 181(6):870-877.doi: 10.1002/jpln.201700532. doi: 10.1002/jpln.201700532 URL
[8]	王倩姿, 王玉, 孙志梅, 刘佳, 牛劭斌, 薛澄, 马文奇. 腐植酸类物质的施用对盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(4):1227-1234.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201904.001. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201904.001
	Wang Q Z, Wang Y, Sun Z M, Liu J, Niu S B, Xue C, Ma W Q. Amelioration effect of humic acid on saline-alkali soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(4):1227-1234.
[9]	付丽军, 张爱敏, 王向东, 周国顺. 生物有机肥改良设施蔬菜土壤的研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(3):1-5.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20170301. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20170301
	Fu L J, Zhang A M, Wang X D, Zhou G S. Advances on application of bio organic fertilizer for restoring facility vegetable soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2017(3):1-5.
[10]	张迎春, 颉建明, 李静, 牛天航, 夏国栋, 毛振宇, 王庆玲, 陈艺易. 生物有机肥部分替代化肥对莴笋及土壤理化性质和微生物的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(4):196-205.doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.028. doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.028
	Zhang Y C, Xie J M, Li J, Niu T H, Xia G D, Mao Z Y, Wang Q L, Chen Y Y. Effects of partial substitution of chemical fertilizer by bio-organic fertilizer on Asparagus lettuce and soil physical-chemical properties and microorganisms[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(4):196-205.
[11]	韩建, 尹兴, 郭景丽, 吉艳芝, 张杰, 张丽娟, 马文奇. 有机肥施用对红地球葡萄产量、品质及土壤环境的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(1):131-142.doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19202. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19202
	Han J, Yin X, Guo J L, Ji Y Z, Zhang J, Zhang L J, Ma W Q. Effects of manure application on yield and quality of Red globe grape and soil environment[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2020, 26(1):131-142.
[12]	王小龙, 刘凤之, 史祥宾, 王孝娣, 冀晓昊, 王志强, 王宝亮, 郑晓翠, 王海波. 不同有机肥对葡萄根系生长和土壤养分状况的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(5):177-184.doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751420. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751420
	Wang X L, Liu F Z, Shi X B, Wang X D, Ji X H, Wang Z Q, Wang B L, Zheng X C, Wang H B. Effects of organic fertilizers on root growth and soil nutrition of grape[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2019, 34(5):177-184.
[13]	周喜荣, 张丽萍, 孙权, 王锐, 马蕾, 郭鹏飞, 左达, 焦敏娜. 有机肥与化肥配施对果园土壤肥力及鲜食葡萄产量与品质的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2019, 53(6):861-868.doi: 10.16445/j.cnki.1000-2340.20191120.018. doi: 10.16445/j.cnki.1000-2340.20191120.018
	Zhou X R, Zhang L P, Sun Q, Wang R, Ma L, Guo P F, Zuo D, Jiao M N. Effects of combined organic fertilizer with chemical fertilizer on soil fertility in orchard and yield and quality of table grape[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 2019, 53(6):861-868.
[14]	曹洪宇, 纪小辉, 张昀, 刘文璐, 尹丽华, 邹德乙. 不同含量腐植酸复合肥对葡萄产量和品质的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(3):670-674.doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2019.03.23. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2019.03.23
	Cao H Y, Ji X H, Zhang Y, Liu W L, Yin L H, Zou D Y. The effects of compound fertilizers containing different humicacid(HA)contents on yield and quality of grape[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2019, 50(3):670-674.
[15]	杜会英, 薛世川, 孙忠富, 王艳群. 腐植酸复混肥对葡萄养分吸收利用的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2006, 37(3):546-549.doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2006.03.031. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2006.03.031
	Du H Y, Xue S C, Sun Z F, Wang Y Q. Effects of different application rates of humic acid compound fertilizer on nutrients absorption of grape[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2006, 37(3):546-549.
[16]	杨净云, 杨霞. 几种新型水溶肥料对葡萄产量、品质及经济效益影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2012(7):156-158.
	Yang J Y, Yang X. Analysis on several new water soluble fertilizers' effect on grape's output,quality and ecnomic benefits[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2012(7):156-158.
[17]	贾明方, 王辉, 高玉录, 翟衡. 生物炭对赤霞珠葡萄根域环境及根系构型的影响[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2018(6):39-43.doi: 10.13414/j.cnki.zwpp.2018.06.007. doi: 10.13414/j.cnki.zwpp.2018.06.007
	Jia M F, Wang H, Gao Y L, Zhai H. Effects of biochar on root-zone environment and root development of Cabernet sauvignon grapevine[J]. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine, 2018(6):39-43.
[18]	熊荟菁, 张乃明, 赵学通, 包立, 段红平. 秸秆生物炭对葡萄园土壤改良效应及葡萄品质的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(4):936-941.doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2018.04.25. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2018.04.25
	Xiong H J, Zhang N M, Zhao X T, Bao L, Duan H P. Influence of straw biochar on vineyard soil improvement and grape quality[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2018, 49(4):936-941.
[19]	赵学通, 包立, 康宏宇, 张乃明. 秸秆生物炭对亚热带葡萄园土壤性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(6):104-108.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2638. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2638
	Zhao X T, Bao L, Kang H Y, Zhang N M. Straw biochar influence on soil properties quality for subtropical vineyards[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2015, 31(6):104-108.
[20]	刘继培, 刘唯一, 周婕, 李桐, 赵跃, 张蒙. 施用腐植酸和生物肥对草莓品质、产量及土壤农化性状的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2015, 32(1):54-59.doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2014.0205. doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2014.0205
	Liu J P, Liu W Y, Zhou J, Li T, Zhao Y, Zhang M. Effects of applying humic acids and bio-fertilizer on the qualities and yields of strawberry and soil agrochemical characters[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2015, 32(1):54-59.
[21]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	Bao S D. Soil agrochemical analysis[M]. 3rd Edition. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[22]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1986.
	Guan S M. Soil enzyme and its research method[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1986.
[23]	王学奎. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
	Wang X K. Principles and techniques of plant physiological and biochemical experiments[M]. 2nd Edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006.
[24]	范晓晖, 陈慕松, 刘文婷, 林旭, 翁琳琳, 吴寿华, 谢星. 化肥减量配施有机肥对葡萄产量、品质及土壤质量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3):46-51.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-62547.20741. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-62547.20741
	Fan X H, Chen M S, Liu W T, Lin X, Weng L L, Wu S H, Xie X. Effect of combined chemical fertilizer reduction with organic fertilizer on yield and quality of grape and soil quality[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2022(3):46-51.
[25]	马忠明, 陈娟, 牛小霞, 罗双龙. 减施化肥和配施有机肥对酿酒葡萄梅鹿辄产量和品质的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2021, 41(2):188-193,200.doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2021.02.025. doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2021.02.025
	Ma Z M, Chen J, Niu X X, Luo S L. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and chemical fertilizer applied with organic fertilizer on yield and quality of Vitis vinifera merlot[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 41(2):188-193,200.
[26]	孙海高, 王海波, 史祥宾, 王孝娣, 王小龙, 刘凤之. 有机无机肥配施对巨峰葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2020(5):65-70.doi: 10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2020.05.012. doi: 10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2020.05.012
	Sun H G, Wang H B, Shi X B, Wang X D, Wang X L, Liu F Z. Effect of combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fruit quality of Kyoho grape[J]. China Fruits, 2020(5):65-70.
[27]	田益华, 王倩, 奚晓军, 蒋爱丽, 查倩. 有机肥施肥量对夏黑葡萄生长和果实品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(31):125-129.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15050135. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15050135
	Tian Y H, Wang Q, Xi X J, Jiang A L, Zha Q. Effects of different organic fertilizer application levels on the growth and fruit quality of Xiahei grapes[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2015, 31(31):125-129.
[28]	Sharif M, Khattak R A, Sarir M S. Effect of different levels of lignitic coal derived humic acid on growth of maize plants[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2002, 33(19/20):3567-3580.doi: 10.1081/CSS-120015906. doi: 10.1081/CSS-120015906 URL
[29]	李鹏程, 苏学德, 王晶晶, 郭绍杰, 李铭, 袁余, 丁俊杰. 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.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20180120. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20180120
	Li P C, Su X D, Wang J J, Guo S J, Li M, Yuan Y, Ding J J. Effects of humic acid fertilizer and biological fertilizer on soil properties and grape yield and quality[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2018(1):121-126.
[30]	高树清, 王宝申, 韩英群. 腐植酸及不同原料对土壤脲酶活性及氮素的影响研究[J]. 腐植酸, 2004(6):32-36.doi: 10.19451/j.cnki.issn1671-9212.2004.06.010. doi: 10.19451/j.cnki.issn1671-9212.2004.06.010
	Gao S Q, Wang B S, Han Y Q. Study on influence of humic acid and its precursor on activity of urease and nitrogen in soil[J]. Humic Acid, 2004(6):32-36.
[31]	孙倩, 刘建龙, 霍连飞, 李允聪, 李雪, 夏礼如, 周忠凯, 张美娜, 李彬. 褐煤提取腐植酸对土壤酶活性和养分的生物利用度的影响[J]. 农业工程技术, 2020, 40(30):95.
	Sun Q, Liu J L, Huo L F, Li Y Q, Li X, Xia L R, Zhou Z K, Zhang M N, Li B. Humic acids derived from leonardite to improve enzymatic activities and bioavailability of nutrients in a calcareous soil[J]. Agricultural Engineering Technology, 2020, 40(30):95.
[32]	刘丹, 黄占斌, 李柯, 王芮. 腐植酸对氮、磷肥的增效机理研究综述[J]. 腐植酸, 2016(2):1-5.doi: 10.19451/j.cnki.issn1671-9212.2016.02.003. doi: 10.19451/j.cnki.issn1671-9212.2016.02.003
	Liu D, Huang Z B, Li K, Wang R. Summary on synergistic mechanism of humic acid to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer[J]. Humic Acid, 2016(2):1-5.
[33]	袁川舟. 胜利褐煤腐植酸的氧化提取、组成结构及吸附K⁺性能研究[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2019.doi: 10.27623/d.cnki.gzkyu.2019.000184. doi: 10.27623/d.cnki.gzkyu.2019.000184
	Yuan C Z. Oxidative extraction,composition structure and adsorption K⁺ performance of Shengli brown coal humic acid[D]. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology, 2019.
[34]	Yang F, Tian J, Fang H J, Gao Y, Xu M G, Lou Y L, Zhou B K, Kuzyakov Y. Functional soil organic matter fractions,microbial community,and enzyme activities in a mollisol under 35 years manure and mineral fertilization[J]. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2019, 19(2):430-439.doi: 10.1007/s42729-019-00047-6. doi: 10.1007/s42729-019-00047-6
[35]	关天霞, 马国泰, 马志录, 刘芝妨, 张芬琴, 张有富, 邓江霞, 马小华, 韩雨思. 连续施用鸡粪对露地黄瓜产量、品质和土壤性质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(8):1351-1360.doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2021024. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2021024
	Guan T X, Ma G T, Ma Z L, Liu Z F, Zhang F Q, Zhang Y F, Deng J X, Ma X H, Han Y S. Effects of continuous application of chicken manure on field-grown cucumber yield,quality,and soil properties[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2021, 27(8):1351-1360.
[36]	杨文娜, 余泺, 罗东海, 熊子怡, 王蓥燕, 徐曼, 王子芳, 高明. 化肥和有机肥配施生物炭对土壤磷酸酶活性和微生物群落的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(1):540-549.doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202105279. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202105279
	Yang W N, Yu L, Luo D H, Xiong Z Y, Wang Y Y, Xu M, Wang Z F, Gao M. Effect of combined application of biochar with chemical fertilizer and organic fertilizer on soil phosphatase activity and microbial community[J]. Environmental Science, 2022, 43(1):540-549.
[37]	刘兰兰, 史春余, 梁太波, 于海静, 刘凤娟. 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.doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.11.047. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.11.047
	Liu L L, Shi C Y, Liang T B, Yu H J, Liu F J. Microbial and enzyme activity in response to humic acid in soil with a ginger crop[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(11):6136-6141.
[38]	孙海燕, 杜丹凤, 马倩, 郭伟. 秸秆还田条件下尿素与腐植酸配施对玉米养分吸收、土壤养分及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3):102-109.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20123. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20123
	Sun H Y, Du D F, Ma Q, Guo W. Effects of urea and humic acid on nutrient absorption and soil nutrient,enzymatic activity in maize under straw returning[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2021(3):102-109.
[39]	Dong L H, Yang J S, Yuan H L, Wang E T, Chen W X. Chemical characteristics and influences of two fractions of Chinese lignite humic acids on urease[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2008, 44(2):166-171.doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.07.002. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.07.002 URL
[40]	王平, 付战勇, 李絮花, 刘敏, 刘文博. 腐植酸对土壤氮素转化及氨挥发损失的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(4):28-33.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20180405. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20180405
	Wang P, Fu Z Y, Li X H, Liu M, Liu W B. The influence of humic acid on soil nitrogen transformation and ammonia volatilization losses[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2018(4):28-33.
[41]	孙启祥, 张建锋, Franz Makeschin. 不同土地利用方式土壤化学性状与酶学指标分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(4):98-101,159.doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2006.04.023. doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2006.04.023
	Sun Q X, Zhang J F, Makeschin F. Evaluation of soil chemical properties and enzymes activity under different land use systems[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20(4):98-101,159.
[42]	Goldstein A H, Baertlein D A, McDaniel R G. Phosphate starvation inducible metabolism in Lycopersicon esculentum[J]. Plant Physiology, 1988, 87(3):711-715.doi: 10.1104/pp.87.3.711. doi: 10.1104/pp.87.3.711 pmid: 16666212
[43]	郑慧芬, 吴红慧, 翁伯琦, 叶菁, 曾玉荣, 王义祥. 施用生物炭提高酸性红壤茶园土壤的微生物特征及酶活性[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(2):68-74.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.18244. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.18244
	Zheng H F, Wu H H, Weng B Q, Ye J, Zeng Y R, Wang Y X. Improved soil microbial characteristics and enzyme activities with wheat straw biochar addition to an acid tea plantation in red soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2019(2):68-74.
[44]	巩闪闪, 刘晓静, 张志勇, 马新明, 孔玉华. 不同施氮措施对冬小麦农田土壤酶活性和氮转化的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(11):2215-2222.doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.11.009. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.11.009
	Gong S S, Liu X J, Zhang Z Y, Ma X M, Kong Y H. Effect of different nitrogen application measures on soil enzyme activities and nitrogen turnover in winter wheat cropland[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 29(11):2215-2222.
[45]	朱长伟, 龙潜, 董士刚, 石柯, 姜桂英, 李小磊, 张崇洋, 刘芳, 申凤敏, 刘世亮. 小麦-玉米轮作体系不同旋耕和深耕管理对潮土微生物量碳氮与酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(1):51-63.doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19358. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19358
	Zhu C W, Long Q, Dong S G, Shi K, Jiang G Y, Li X L, Zhang C Y, Liu F, Shen F M, Liu S L. Effects of rotary and deep tillage modes on soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen and enzyme activities in fluvo-aquic soil under wheat-maize rotation system[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2020, 26(1):51-63.
[46]	李建和, 刘淑欣, 陈克文, 林允钦. 氮钾营养与葡萄植株生长、产量及品质的关系[J]. 福建农业大学学报, 1995, 24(1):58-62.
	Li J H, Liu S X, Chen K W, Lin Y Q. Relationship between nitrogen and potassium nutrition and the yield,quality and growth of grape[J]. Journal of Fujian Agricultural University, 1995, 24(1):58-62.
[47]	史祥宾, 王孝娣, 王宝亮, 王志强, 冀晓昊, 王小龙, 刘凤之, 王海波. 红地球葡萄氮磷钾钙镁的年需求特性研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2021, 48(11):2146-2160.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0785. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0785
	Shi X B, Wang X T, Wang B L, Wang Z Q, Ji X H, Wang X L, Liu F Z, Wang H B. The requirement rule of nitrogen,phosphorus,potassium,calcium and magnesium of Vitis vinifera Red globe grapevine[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2021, 48(11):2146-2160.
[48]	谢洪宝, 于贺, 陈一民, 隋跃宇, 焦晓光. 秸秆深埋对不同氮肥水平土壤蔗糖酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(24):79-83.
	Xie H B, Yu H, Chen Y M, Sui Y Y, Jiao X G. Effects of straw buried deep on invertase activity in soil with different nitrogen fertilizer levels[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(24):79-83.

处理 Treatment	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	生物有机肥 Biological organic fertilizer	腐植酸钾 Potassium humate
CK	160	300	220
FFP	160	300	220	7 655
T1	160	300	220	6 890	496
T2	160	300	220	6 124	992
T3	160	300	220	5 359	1 487

处理 Treatment	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	生物有机肥 Biological organic fertilizer	腐植酸钾 Potassium humate
CK	160	300	220
FFP	160	300	220	7 655
T1	160	300	220	6 890	496
T2	160	300	220	6 124	992
T3	160	300	220	5 359	1 487

年份 Years	处理 Treatment	单穗质量/g Single ear weight	单粒质量/g Average fruit weight	果粒纵径/mm Longitudinal diameter of fruit	果粒横径/mm Transverse diameter of fruit	产量/(kg/hm²) Yield
2019	CK	478.48±11.12b	5.08±0.35b	20.68±0.42b	18.45±0.24a	14 925.50±143.37c
	FFP	555.13±30.50a	5.83±0.97ab	21.76±0.48a	19.85±0.48a	17 087.48±1 403.34b
	T1	564.21±5.36a	5.93±0.30ab	20.61±0.78ab	19.05±0.61a	17 985.73±61.59b
	T2	585.50±3.76a	6.81±0.70a	20.89±0.43ab	18.98±0.42a	19 347.64±162.62a
	T3	557.43±20.12a	6.31±0.21ab	20.93±0.88ab	19.01±0.87a	18 974.28±364.51a
2020	CK	379.10±15.99c	4.81±0.24b	21.08±0.67a	18.35±0.07a	14 480.82±406.49c
	FFP	485.76±13.80ab	5.57±0.16a	21.91±0.19a	18.81±0.12a	16 686.02±310.36b
	T1	486.13±13.48ab	5.62±0.24a	20.87±0.80a	18.60±0.35a	17 098.39±317.38ab
	T2	497.32±9.10a	5.82±0.34a	21.20±0.24a	18.63±0.08a	17 525.09±363.09a
	T3	466.41±10.20b	5.87±0.24a	21.24±0.87a	18.50±0.62a	17 508.41±310.50a

年份 Years	处理 Treatment	单穗质量/g Single ear weight	单粒质量/g Average fruit weight	果粒纵径/mm Longitudinal diameter of fruit	果粒横径/mm Transverse diameter of fruit	产量/(kg/hm²) Yield
2019	CK	478.48±11.12b	5.08±0.35b	20.68±0.42b	18.45±0.24a	14 925.50±143.37c
	FFP	555.13±30.50a	5.83±0.97ab	21.76±0.48a	19.85±0.48a	17 087.48±1 403.34b
	T1	564.21±5.36a	5.93±0.30ab	20.61±0.78ab	19.05±0.61a	17 985.73±61.59b
	T2	585.50±3.76a	6.81±0.70a	20.89±0.43ab	18.98±0.42a	19 347.64±162.62a
	T3	557.43±20.12a	6.31±0.21ab	20.93±0.88ab	19.01±0.87a	18 974.28±364.51a
2020	CK	379.10±15.99c	4.81±0.24b	21.08±0.67a	18.35±0.07a	14 480.82±406.49c
	FFP	485.76±13.80ab	5.57±0.16a	21.91±0.19a	18.81±0.12a	16 686.02±310.36b
	T1	486.13±13.48ab	5.62±0.24a	20.87±0.80a	18.60±0.35a	17 098.39±317.38ab
	T2	497.32±9.10a	5.82±0.34a	21.20±0.24a	18.63±0.08a	17 525.09±363.09a
	T3	466.41±10.20b	5.87±0.24a	21.24±0.87a	18.50±0.62a	17 508.41±310.50a

年份 Years	处理 Treatment	碱解氮/(mg/kg) Hydrolysis nitrogen	有效磷/(mg/kg) Available phosphorus	速效钾/(mg/kg) Available potassium	有机质/(g/kg) Organic matter	pH	脲酶/ (mg/(g·d)) Urease	过氧化氢酶/ (mL/(g·h)) Catalase	蔗糖酶/ (mg/(g·h)) Sucrase	酸性磷酸酶/ (mg/(g·d)) Acid phosphatase
2019	CK	64.32±0.18c	72.06±1.50b	139.87±4.49c	15.39±0.58b	6.31±0.06a	1.28±0.06a	1.05±0.03b	0.46±0.03a	12.28±0.92b
	FFP	73.59±0.84b	74.24±0.90b	175.39±14.19b	21.75±1.36a	6.73±0.35a	1.30±0.04a	1.28±0.12a	0.45±0.07a	14.19±0.66b
	T1	74.34±0.83b	73.29±1.23b	197.62±16.16ab	21.26±0.70a	6.71±0.05a	1.22±0.24a	1.36±0.09a	0.65±0.15a	14.48±2.30b
	T2	84.49±1.63a	96.86±4.89a	235.20±9.56a	21.49±1.25a	6.24±0.38a	1.20±0.11a	1.24±0.07ab	0.68±0.07a	19.10±2.91a
	T3	86.55±4.18a	98.87±0.96a	221.63±32.46a	23.53±3.03a	6.45±0.52a	0.99±0.11a	1.20±0.11ab	0.67±0.11a	19.01±3.36a
2020	CK	88.60±8.54c	84.64±3.97b	144.97±17.76c	14.21±1.54b	6.30±0.22a	1.30±0.24a	1.23±0.03a	0.42±0.10a	11.20±0.85c
	FFP	104.76±6.32b	92.20±1.60a	203.54±14.82b	22.18±0.79a	6.50±0.09a	1.25±0.11a	1.48±0.34a	0.56±0.06a	17.11±1.52b
	T1	108.22±3.13b	93.75±2.88a	246.08±5.68a	21.71±2.81a	6.46±0.43a	1.23±0.10a	1.50±0.26a	0.53±0.08a	17.14±0.56b
	T2	114.68±9.18a	99.76±3.31a	254.76±19.10a	22.44±1.55a	6.43±0.15a	1.13±0.20a	1.38±0.06a	0.64±0.11a	18.09±0.67b
	T3	117.77±9.76a	98.74±5.46a	260.48±27.12a	25.10±0.59a	6.47±0.14a	1.11±0.04a	1.43±0.09a	0.53±0.14a	20.43±0.91a

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export