Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer on soil available phosphorus content and leaching risk in greenhouse tomato cultivation
-
摘要: 探讨设施蔬菜长期施用有机肥的土壤有效磷含量及磷素淋失风险, 可为设施蔬菜栽培合理施肥提供重要参考。以连续8 a设施番茄栽培田间定位施肥试验为依托, 选择不施肥(CK)、单施化肥(NPK)及与低、中、高量有机肥配施(M1NPK、M2NPK、M3NPK) 5个处理, 研究各施肥处理土壤全磷(Total-P)、有效磷(Olsen-P)和可溶性磷(CaCl2-P)含量及其剖面分布特征, 分析了土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值随剖面分布的变化以及设施番茄栽培适宜的磷素施用量。结果表明: 在0~50 cm土层, 各处理土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均随土层深度的增加呈逐渐下降趋势, 其含量均表现为0~10 cm土层显著高于30~50 cm土层(P<0.05); 与CK相比, 各施肥处理土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均有所增加, 且随有机肥施用量的增加而增加, 且施用中量(M2)和高量(M3)有机肥对0~20 cm土层土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量的影响显著(P<0.05)。在0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm、30~40 cm和40~50 cm土层, 土壤磷素环境阈值随土层深度的增加呈先上升后下降趋势, 其数值依次为139.6 mg·kg−1、152.4 mg·kg−1、133.5 mg·kg−1、86.1 mg·kg−1和42.3 mg·kg−1; 在0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm和30~40 cm土层, 土壤磷素农学阈值随土层深度的增加而逐渐降低, 依次为185.1 mg·kg−1、120.5 mg·kg−1、92.8 mg·kg−1和56.0 mg·kg−1。以土壤磷素农学阈值所对应的土壤Olsen-P含量作为磷素淋失风险评价标准, 通过土壤Olsen-P含量与施磷量(P2O5)之间的相关关系, 求出设施番茄栽培适宜磷素(P2O5)用量为344.9~530.3 kg∙hm−2, 其中有机肥供应的磷素(P2O5)用量为119.9~305.3 kg·hm−2。综上, 连续8 a设施番茄栽培定位施肥条件下, 在施用化学氮磷钾肥(N 375 kg·hm−2、P2O5 225 kg·hm−2和K2O 450 kg·hm−2)的基础上配施低量有机肥(15 000 kg·hm−2), 不仅可以提高0~20 cm土壤有效磷含量, 使番茄产量显著增加, 而且可以有效控制土壤磷素淋失风险。Abstract: This study explored the soil available phosphorus content and leaching risk of long-term application of organic fertilizers under greenhouse tomato cultivation to provide an important reference for rational fertilization in greenhouse tomato cultivation. Based on a field experiment of located fertilization in greenhouse tomato cultivation over eight years, five treatments were selected: no fertilization (CK), application of chemical fertilizers (NPK), and combined application of low, medium, and high amounts of organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers (M1NPK, M2NPK, M3NPK). The contents and profile distribution of soil total phosphorus (Total-P), available phosphorus (Olsen-P), and soluble phosphorus (CaCl2-P) in each fertilization treatment were studied. The changes in the soil phosphorus environmental and agricultural thresholds with profile distribution, and appropriate phosphorus application amount in greenhouse tomato cultivation were analyzed. The results showed that the contents of Total-P, Olsen-P, and CaCl2-P in all treatments decreased gradually with increasing soil depth in the 0–50 cm soil layer, and their contents in the 0–10 cm soil layer were significantly higher than those in the 30–50 cm soil layer (P<0.05). Total-P, Olsen-P, and CaCl2-P contents increased in all fertilizer treatments compared with CK, and they increased with the amount of organic fertilizer applied, and the effect of medium (M2) and high (M3) organic fertilizer application on Total-P, Olsen-P, and CaCl2-P contents in the 0–20 cm soil layer was significant (P<0.05). In the 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, 20–30 cm, 30–40 cm, and 40–50 cm soil layers, the environmental thresholds of soil phosphorus increased first and then decreased with increasing soil depth, which were 139.6 mg·kg−1, 152.4 mg·kg−1, 133.5 mg·kg−1, 86.1 mg·kg−1 and 42.3 mg·kg−1, respectively. In the 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, 20–30 cm, and 30–40 cm soil layers, the agriculture thresholds of soil phosphorus decreased gradually with increasing soil depth, which were 185.1 mg·kg−1, 120.5 mg·kg−1, 92.8 mg·kg−1, and 56.0 mg·kg−1, respectively. Taking the soil Olsen-P content corresponding to the soil phosphorus agriculture threshold as the risk assessment criterion of phosphorus leaching, through the relationship between soil Olsen-P content and phosphorus application rate (P2O5), it was inferred that the suitable amount of phosphorus (P2O5) for greenhouse tomato cultivation was 344.9−530.3 kg·hm−2, and the amount of P2O5 supplied by organic fertilizer was 119.9−305.3 kg·hm−2. Under the condition of located fertilization in greenhouse tomato cultivation for 8 years, on the basis of chemical nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers (N 375 kg∙hm−2, P2O5 225 kg∙hm−2, and K2O 450 kg∙hm−2), the application of a low amount of organic fertilizer (15 000 kg·hm−2) could not only improve the available soil phosphorus content at 0–20 cm and significantly increase the tomato yield but also effectively control the risk of soil phosphorus leaching.
-
近年来, 我国蔬菜种植总面积已迅速增加到2420万hm2, 占全球蔬菜生产面积的42%[1]。其中, 设施蔬菜栽培面积超过370万hm2 [2]。然而, 在设施栽培过程中, 农户为了追求蔬菜高产, 往往会投入大量养分[3], 导致盲目过量施肥现象日益严重, 突出表现为磷肥的过量施用, 仅单季化学磷肥投入量就可达蔬菜需磷量的13倍之多[2,4], 并且还会在投入过量化学磷肥的基础上施用大量有机肥[5-6]。有机肥已成为代替化学磷肥补充土壤磷素的重要来源[7], 但是, 有机肥施用量为60 t·hm−2时, 就容易造成设施土壤耕层磷素积累[5]。土壤磷素的过量积累将导致磷素利用率降低, 无法持续增加作物产量[8-9]。长期过量施用有机肥不仅会增加土壤磷素的移动性, 而且会带来土壤磷素淋失风险[10-11], 不利于设施蔬菜生产的健康可持续发展。因此, 开展长期施用有机肥对设施土壤有效磷含量及磷素淋失风险影响的研究, 对于设施生产合理施肥具有重要意义。
土壤磷素是参与植物生长的主要营养元素, 在作物生产中起着重要作用[12]。许多研究已表明, 有机肥中含有大量有机质, 养分含量综合, 肥效长, 可通过施用有机肥来改善土壤结构和肥力, 降低土壤对磷素的吸附[13], 增加土壤中磷酸酶活性, 并通过提高微生物活性促进磷素生物转化[14], 进而提高土壤磷素有效性[15-16]。土壤有效磷是能够被作物直接吸收利用的主要磷素形态[17], 单独施用化学磷肥或磷肥与有机肥、氮肥、钾肥配施均会提高设施土壤全磷和有效磷含量, 其含量随有机肥施用量的增加而增加[18-19], 但是, 有机肥带入土壤的有机态和胶体态磷更容易在土壤中发生移动[20], 过量施用有机肥容易引起磷素向土壤深层淋失, 产生环境风险[21-22]。土壤磷素环境阈值是预测磷素淋失风险的重要指标, 露地土壤磷素环境阈值分布范围为20~120 mg·kg−1[23-24], 设施土壤磷素环境阈值普遍高于露地土壤[25]。黄绍敏等[26]研究发现露地土壤磷素环境阈值为40 mg·kg−1。牛君仿等[18]研究发现设施土壤中施用化学磷肥和有机肥的磷素环境阈值分别为198.7 mg·kg−1和87.8 mg·kg−1。土壤磷素农学阈值是指当土壤有效磷含量低于某一临界值时, 作物产量随有效磷含量的增加而显著增加, 当高于该值时, 作物产量对土壤有效磷的响应作用降低, 甚至引发环境风险, 这一临界点对应的有效磷含量就是土壤磷素农学阈值[8,27]。在提出适当的磷肥施用建议时, 确定这一临界值对于确定适宜磷肥施用量至关重要。沈浦[28]研究表明小麦(Triticum aestivum)、玉米(Zea mays)和水稻(Oryza sativa)土壤的磷素农学阈值分别为4.3~14.9 mg·kg−1、7.5~23.5 mg·kg−1和5.7~15.2 mg·kg−1。露地土壤的磷素农学阈值范围为12.0~20.0 mg·kg−1, 约为磷素环境阈值的1/4~1/2[29]。土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值因土壤类型、种植区域、作物种类和管理水平的不同存在较大差异[30-31]。
综上, 目前关于设施土壤长期施用有机肥对土壤有效磷含量和淋失风险影响的研究多集中于研究露地以及表层土壤。然而, 在设施栽培生产中高温、高湿的特殊环境条件下, 长期施用化肥及与不同用量有机肥配施对土壤有效磷含量及磷素环境风险的影响, 土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值的关系及其剖面变化情况, 还缺乏深入系统的研究。本文以连续8 a设施番茄(Solanum lycopersicum)栽培田间定位施肥试验为依托, 研究长期施用化肥及与不同用量有机肥配施土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量的剖面分布特征, 确定土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值, 进一步分析土壤有效磷含量与施磷量之间的相关关系, 综合考虑土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值的关系, 确定长期设施番茄栽培适宜的磷素投入量, 以期为设施蔬菜生产合理施肥与环境保护提供科学依据。
1. 材料与方法
1.1 研究区概况
本研究在沈阳农业大学设施生产试验基地(41°49′N, 123°34′E)进行, 该地区为温带湿润-半湿润季风气候, 年平均气温7.0~8.1 ℃, 年降雨量为730 mm。试验地土壤类型为棕壤。试验基地设施大棚于2012年建成使用, 于2012年和2013年连续两年对土壤进行基础地力培肥, 每年施入了等量牛粪(22 500 kg·hm−2, 鲜重)和鸡粪(37 500 kg·hm−2, 鲜重), 2012年春季整地前土壤基本理化性质如表1所示。
表 1 2012年试验前土壤理化性质Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of soil before the experiment in 2012土层
Soil layer
(cm)有机质
Organic matter
(g·kg−1)全氮
Total N
(g·kg−1)碱解氮
Alkaline N
(mg·kg−1)全磷
Total P
(g·kg−1)有效磷
Olsen P
(mg·kg−1)全钾
Total K
(g·kg−1)速效钾
Available K
(mg·kg−1)pH 容重
Soil bulk density
(g·cm−3)0~10 25.2 2.1 58.5 0.8 13.5 19.3 29.7 7.1 1.3 10~20 8.4 1.2 53.2 0.7 11.3 18.5 42.5 7.0 1.6 20~40 9.8 1.5 34.2 0.4 8.5 18.6 35.5 7.0 1.8 40~60 12.0 1.5 26.6 0.3 9.2 17.2 63.3 7.0 1.9 1.2 田间定位施肥试验设计
田间定位施肥试验于2013年春季开始。本研究选择了不施肥(CK)、单施化肥(NPK)和低量(M1)、中量(M2)、高量(M3)有机肥与化肥配施(M1NPK、M2NPK、M3NPK) 5个处理, 每个处理3次重复, 共计15个试验小区。各施肥处理每年施用化学氮(N)、磷(P2O5)和钾(K2O)用量相同, 分别为375 kg·hm−2、225 kg·hm−2和450 kg·hm−2; M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK处理中每年施用的有机肥均为腐熟鸡粪, 施用量分别为15 000 kg·hm−2、45 000 kg·hm−2和75 000 kg·hm−2。辽宁省设施蔬菜生产中有机肥(鸡粪)施用量在30 000~120 000 kg·hm−2[32], 但是, 有机肥施用量达60 t·hm−2时, 就容易造成设施土壤耕层磷素积累[5], 所以本研究将M1、M2和M3处理的有机肥施用量分别作为低、中和高量。每年施用的有机肥为同一厂家生产, 有机肥的年均养分含量(以干基计)为: 有机碳217.0 g·kg−1, 全氮31.0 g·kg−1, 全磷4.4 g·kg−1, 无机氮9.0 mg·kg−1, 有效磷448.1 mg·kg−1, 可溶性磷48.9 mg·kg−1。M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK处理中每年施用的P2O5总量分别为375.1 kg·hm−2、675.3 kg·hm−2和975.6 kg·hm−2。有机肥于每年春季翻地前作为基肥均匀撒施地表, 然后翻地, 深度15~20 cm。全部化学磷肥作为底肥施入, 化学氮肥和钾肥的1/3作为底肥施入, 2/3分2次进行滴灌追施, 每次追肥量相同。
每个试验小区面积为3.8 m2, 各小区间用60 cm深塑料膜隔开, 以防止水分和养分在各小区之间发生横向迁移。每年种植作物为番茄, 每年4月中下旬移栽定植, 8月上旬采收结束, 其余时间为土壤休闲。各试验小区3条垄, 行距为0.6 m, 每条垄移栽8株番茄, 株距为0.3 m, 每个小区共定植24株番茄, 每株番茄留4穗花, 每穗花留4个果。在番茄移栽时灌溉缓苗水, 缓苗后, 采用滴灌系统每隔3~5 d灌水, 各处理灌溉水量相同, 单次灌水量约94 m3·hm−2。各处理其他田间管理措施相同, 每年收获期进行番茄测产, 于8月初采收结束。
1.3 土壤样品采集与测定
本研究于2020年9月初在连续8 a田间定位施肥试验后采集土壤样品。各小区按“S”形随机布设5点, 取样深度为0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm、30~40 cm和40~50 cm, 同一土层5点土样混合为一个样品。土壤样品进行风干、研磨、过60目和10目筛后, 密封保存。
土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量分别采用硫酸-高氯酸消煮0.5 mol·L−1 NaHCO3 溶液浸提和0.01 mol·L−1 CaCl2 溶液浸提, 钼锑抗比色法测定[24,33-34]; 土壤pH采用玻璃电极法测定(水土比2.5∶1)[33]; 有机碳采用重铬酸钾外加热容量法测定[33]; 土壤活性铁(Feox)和活性铝(Alox)含量采用0.2 mol·L−1草酸铵缓冲液(pH 3.0~3.2)浸提, 分别采用邻菲罗啉比色法和铝试剂法测定[33]。2020年土壤基本性质如表2所示。
表 2 不同长期施肥处理土壤有机碳、活性铁和活性铝含量及pHTable 2. Soil organic carbon (SOC) and active Fe and Al contents, and pH under different long-term fertilization treatments土层
Soil depth (cm)处理
TreatmentpH 有机碳
SOC (g·kg−1)活性铁
Active Fe (g·kg−1)活性铝
Active Al (g·kg−1)0~10 CK 6.84±0.07a 11.17±0.27cd 0.56±0.11b 0.50±0.04a NPK 5.87±0.03c 9.47±0.29d 0.65±0.04b 0.51±0.02a M1NPK 6.44±0.08b 15.54±0.14bc 0.65±0.00b 0.55±0.06a M2NPK 6.48±0.19b 18.83±2.81b 0.68±0.03b 0.56±0.01a M3NPK 6.39±0.03b 26.02±1.43a 0.98±0.17a 0.64±0.10a 10~20 CK 6.92±0.09a 10.01±0.82c 0.64±0.03b 0.65±0.04a NPK 6.00±0.07c 8.85±0.58c 0.64±0.03b 0.62±0.00a M1NPK 6.45±0.07b 12.82±0.50bc 0.69±0.01ab 0.53±0.09a M2NPK 6.63±0.13b 16.63±2.49ab 0.72±0.02ab 0.61±0.07a M3NPK 6.47±0.02b 20.52±1.98a 0.77±0.05a 0.48±0.14a 20~30 CK 6.92±0.11a 8.48±0.47b 0.60±0.01b 0.61±0.00a NPK 5.66±0.09c 8.43±0.93b 0.60±0.01b 0.62±0.02a M1NPK 6.41±0.18b 10.02±0.59ab 0.65±0.01a 0.58±0.04a M2NPK 6.56±0.02ab 13.39±2.12a 0.67±0.01a 0.62±0.03a M3NPK 5.86±0.15c 10.96±1.37ab 0.65±0.01a 0.56±0.04a 30~40 CK 6.40±0.12a 8.71±0.37a 0.64±0.02b 0.57±0.04a NPK 5.28±0.01d 9.07±0.97a 0.67±0.02ab 0.52±0.04a M1NPK 5.93±0.10bc 9.31±0.28a 0.70±0.02a 0.44±0.09a M2NPK 6.10±0.08b 11.76±1.57a 0.71±0.00a 0.46±0.04a M3NPK 5.70±0.08c 10.07±0.93a 0.71±0.02a 0.39±0.10a 40~50 CK 5.73±0.11a 8.66±0.67a 0.73±0.06a 0.44±0.09a NPK 5.27±0.09b 7.67±0.72a 0.69±0.03a 0.56±0.01a M1NPK 5.62±0.08ab 9.56±0.52a 0.69±0.02a 0.65±0.04a M2NPK 5.71±0.08a 10.41±1.50a 0.70±0.01a 0.54±0.06a M3NPK 5.35±0.21ab 9.38±0.28a 0.59±0.10a 0.49±0.12a 同列不同小写字母表示相同土层不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施处理。Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences among different treatments of the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively. 1.4 计算
1.4.1 番茄相对产量
各处理番茄产量为2019—2021年实际产量。由于连续田间施肥试验条件下番茄产量受年际间的田间管理措施、番茄品种和气候条件等因素影响, 所以采用相对产量(Yr, %)进行研究, 由公式(1)计算番茄相对产量[35]。
$$ {Y}_{\mathrm{r}}={Y}_{i}/{Y}_{\mathrm{m}}\times 100 $$ (1) 式中:
$ {Y}_{\mathrm{r}} $ 为某一处理在2019—2021年番茄平均相对产量(%),$ {Y}_{i} $ 为某一处理在2019—2021年番茄平均产量(kg·hm−2),$ {Y}_{\mathrm{m}} $ 为各处理中在2019—2021年番茄平均最大产量(kg·hm−2)。1.4.2 土壤磷素环境和农学阈值
以土壤Olsen-P为横坐标(x), CaCl2-P含量或番茄相对产量为纵坐标(y), 以不偏离突变点为基础, 采用两段式线性回归方程(2)和方程(3)进行拟合。
$$ y_{1}={a}_{1}x+{b}_{1}\;\;x < T $$ (2) $$ y_{2}={a}_{2}x+{b}_{2}\;\;x \geqslant T $$ (3) 式中: a1、a2、b1和b2均为线性回归系数; T为两条直线相交时对应的横坐标土壤Olsen-P含量, 当使a1最大、a2最小, 并且两方程线性相关最高时, 两条直线相交, 则此时交点对应的土壤Olsen-P含量即为所求的土壤磷素环境阈值或农学阈值[23]。
1.5 数据统计分析
采用Excel 2016进行数据整理计算, SPSS 26.0进行单、双因素方差分析, 使用Sigma plot 14.0和Origin 26.0软件绘制图表。土壤磷素环境阈值和农学阈值均采用Sigma plot 14.0的双线性模型进行分析拟合[31]。
2. 结果与分析
2.1 不同施肥处理的土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量剖面分布特征
在0~50 cm土层, 各处理土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均随土层深度增加呈逐渐下降趋势, 相同土层, Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均随有机肥施用量的增加逐渐增加; 施肥处理、土层深度对Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均有显著影响(P<0.01), 但二者之间没有显著的交互作用(图1)。
![]()
图 1 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量Figure 1. Contents of total phosphorus (Total-P), Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) and calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatmentsT表示施肥处理, D表示土层深度; *、**和ns分别表示在P<0.05、P<0.01水平显著和不显著。不同大写字母表示相同处理不同土层间的差异在 P<0.05水平显著; 不同小写字母表示相同土层不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。“T” indicates fertilization treatment, “D” indicates soil depth. * and ** indicate significant differences at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively; “ns” indicate no significant difference. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different soil depths for the same treatment at P<0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments in the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.通过单因素方差分析可知, 与CK处理相比, NPK处理土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量在各土层的增加均不显著, 而M1NPK处理在0~10 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05), M2NPK和M3NPK处理在0~20 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05)。与NPK处理相比, M1NPK处理土壤CaCl2-P含量在0~10 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05), M2NPK处理土壤Total-P含量在0~20 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05)、Olsen-P含量在10~20 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05)、CaCl2-P含量在0~10 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05), M3NPK处理土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量在0~20 cm土层增加显著(P<0.05)。总体上, 各处理0~10 cm土层土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均显著高于30~50 cm土层(P<0.05), 0~20 cm土层土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量受施肥影响较大, 有机肥用量越大其含量越高。从各处理土壤Olsen-P/Total-P和CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率来看(图2), 在0~50 cm土层, 各处理Olsen-P/Total-P的比率明显大于CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率。CK、NPK和M1NPK处理Olsen-P/Total-P的比率在0~30 cm土层显著高于40~50 cm土层, 所有处理CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率在0~10 cm土层显著高于30~50 cm土层, 表层土壤Olsen-P和CaCl2-P积累严重。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK处理Olsen-P/Total-P的比率分别为3.8%~9.4%、5.4%~12.1%、5.6%~13.8%、8.6%~13.3%和7.0%~15.5%, CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率分别为0.1%~0.9%、0.3%~1.1%、0.6%~2.3%、0.58%~2.2%、0.5%~2.1%。除M2NPK和M3NPK处理Olsen-P/Total-P的比率随土层深度增加呈先增加后下降趋势外, 其他处理Olsen-P/Total-P和CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率均随土层深度的增加呈下降趋势。总体上, 单施化肥、有机肥与化肥配施均明显提升了土壤Olsen-P/Total-P和CaCl2-P/Total-P的比率, 且以M3NPK处理提升最为明显。
![]()
图 2 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷、可溶性磷与全磷的比率T表示施肥处理, D表示土层深度; *和**分别表示在P<0.05、P<0.01水平显著, ns表示不显著。不同大写字母表示相同处理不同土层间差异在P<0.05水平显著; 不同小写字母表示相同土层不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。“T” indicates fertilization treatment, “D” indicates soil depth. * and ** indicate significant differences at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively; “ns” indicates no significant difference. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different soil depths for the same treatment at P<0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments in the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.Figure 2. Ratios of Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) and calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) contents to total phosphorus (Total-P) content in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments2.2 土壤磷素环境阈值的剖面变化
从土壤CaCl2-P与Olsen-P含量的关系发现(图3), 在0~50 cm土层, 土壤Olsen-P含量低于某一临界值时, 土壤CaCl2-P含量增加缓慢, 土壤磷素淋失风险较低; Olsen-P含量超过该临界值时, CaCl2-P快速增加, 土壤磷素淋失风险增加。因此利用两段式线性方程拟合土壤CaCl2-P与Olsen-P之间的关系, 求得0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm、30~40 cm和40~50 cm土层土壤磷素环境阈值依次为139.6 mg·kg−1、152.4 mg·kg−1、133.5 mg·kg−1、86.1 mg·kg−1和42.3 mg·kg−1。土壤磷素环境阈值随土层深度增加呈先增加后逐渐降低的趋势, 且在10~20 cm土层最大。总体来看, M2NPK和M3NPK处理土壤磷素向深层迁移较大, 磷素淋失风险较大。
![]()
图 3 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤可溶性磷与有效磷含量关系的拟合曲线Figure 3. Fitted curves of relationship between contents of calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) and Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments2.3 土壤磷素的农学阈值的剖面变化
与CK处理相比, NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NKP处理番茄平均产量(2019—2021年)增幅分别为17.7%、39.9%、33.0%和14.7%, 其中M1NPK处理番茄产量增加显著(P<0.05) (图4)。从番茄相对产量与土壤Olsen-P含量的关系发现(图5), 在0~40 cm土层, 当土壤Olsen-P含量低于某一临界值时, 番茄相对产量随土壤Olsen-P含量的增加逐渐增加, 当Olsen-P含量超过这一临界值时, 番茄相对产量随土壤Olsen-P含量的增加逐渐降低, 而在40~50 cm土层则没有临界农学阈值。因此利用两段式线性方程拟合番茄相对产量与土壤Olsen-P含量的关系, 求得0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm和30~40 cm土层土壤磷素农学阈值依次为185.1 mg·kg−1、120.5 mg·kg−1、92.8 mg·kg−1和56.0 mg·kg−1, 其农学阈值随土层深度增加呈逐渐降低趋势。另外, 0~10 cm土壤磷素农学阈值大于环境阈值, 10~40 cm土壤磷素农学阈值均小于环境阈值。
![]()
图 4 不同长期施肥处理下番茄产量不同小写字母表示不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.Figure 4. Tomato yields under different long-term fertilization treatments![]()
图 5 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷含量与番茄相对产量的关系拟合曲线Figure 5. Fitted curve of relationship between soil Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) content and tomato relative yield in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments2.4 设施番茄栽培适宜磷素投入量
为获得既满足供应番茄高产的需求, 又降低磷素淋失风险的适宜磷素投入量, 对土壤磷素农学阈值所对应的有效磷含量与磷素投入量进行相关分析, 获得磷素投入量(P2O5)为344.9~530.3 kg·hm−2 (图6)。当施磷量为530.3 kg·hm−2时, 0~50 cm土壤有效磷含量由上至下分别为206.2 mg·kg−1、164.2 mg·kg−1、93.6 mg·kg−1、56.0 mg·kg−1和36.5 mg·kg−1, 其中0~20 cm土壤有效磷含量高于土壤磷素环境阈值(图3), 20~50 cm土壤有效磷含量则低于土壤磷素环境阈值, 这表明0~20 cm土壤有效磷含量维持较高水平有利于番茄高产稳产, 20~50 cm土壤有效磷含量维持较低水平则可降低磷素淋失风险。因此, 本研究中在施用225 kg·hm−2化学磷(P2O5)量的基础上, 施用有机肥供应的磷(P2O5)量为119.9~305.3 kg·hm−2, 折合本研究中有机肥用量为11 886.4~30 295.5 kg·hm−2。
![]()
图 6 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷含量与施磷量的相关关系Figure 6. Relationship between soil Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) content and P2O5 application amount in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments3. 讨论
3.1 长期施用有机肥对设施土壤有效磷和可溶性磷含量的影响
土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量分别可以表征土壤的供磷能力、磷素有效性和磷素的淋失潜力[36-38]。本研究中连续8 a施用化肥及与不同用量有机肥配施明显增加了土壤Total-P含量, 增加了土壤磷库容量以及供磷能力, 且以中、高量有机肥与化肥配施处理增加显著(图1), 这与李媛等[7]的研究结果基本一致。施用化肥及与不同用量有机肥配施也显著增加了土壤Olsen-P含量, 且随有机肥施入量的增加而增加; 土壤磷素主要积累在0~20 cm土层, 土壤Total-P、Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量均随土层深度的增加呈下降趋势(图1), 这一研究结果与张田等[39]的研究结果大致相同。这一方面是由于有机肥以基肥撒施并随人为翻地混入地表土层(0~20 cm); 另一方面是由于施入的有机肥本身的含磷量很高, 并且含有较高浓度的Olsen-P, 施用量越高对土壤Total-P和Olsen-P含量的增加幅度就越大, 同时有机肥的施用可以增加土壤磷酸酶活性和微生物活性, 加速有机磷的转化, 进而提高土壤磷素有效性, 提高土壤供磷强度[40-41]。另外, 本研究还发现, 有机肥施入土壤后会大幅度增加土壤有机质(碳)含量, 土壤有机质(碳)与Olsen-P含量具有显著正相关关系(R=0.95, P<0.01), 与土壤CaCl2-P含量也具有显著正相关关系(R=0.93, P<0.01), 高有机质(碳)含量是设施土壤施用有机肥后Olsen-P含量快速增加的原因之一[18]。有机质在转化过程中会产生有机酸等物质, 可减少Ca2+对有效磷酸盐的固定, 从而促进无机磷的溶解[10,42], 提高土壤有效磷含量, 同时也增加了磷素淋失的风险。另外, 本研究中不同用量有机肥与化肥配施对土壤CaCl2-P和Olsen-P含量及其占Total-P比率的影响大致相同, 高量有机肥与化肥配施(M3NPK)处理显著提高了土壤CaCl2-P和Olsen-P含量(图1, 图2), 这说明有机肥用量越大, 土壤磷素的供应强度越大, 但有机肥投入量过多, 土壤磷素的淋失也将随之变大。因此, 在施入一定比例化学磷肥的基础上控制有机肥投入量对于增加设施土壤磷素有效性, 减小磷素淋失风险具有重要意义。
3.2 长期施用有机肥对设施土壤磷素淋失风险的影响
土壤可溶性磷随有效磷含量增加而增加, 当有效磷含量超过某一临界点时, 土壤可溶性磷含量明显变大, 该点的土壤有效磷含量称为土壤磷素的环境阈值[23-24,43]。不同地区、不同类型土壤磷素环境阈值差异很大, 磷肥种类及投入量、种植模式等因素通过影响土壤磷素的数量、形态以及吸附与解吸, 也会影响土壤CaCl2-P和Olsen-P含量之间的关系。Heckrath等[44]在英国洛桑试验站长期观测发现, 土壤磷素环境阈值为60 mg·kg−1。Hesketh等[24]对英国不同地区8个性质差异较大的土壤进行研究, 发现磷素环境阈值为10~119 mg·kg−1。常会庆等[45]通过盆栽试验初步确定, 石灰性土壤的环境阈值为28.57 mg·kg−1。汪玉等[46]研究表明, 土壤Olsen-P含量超过30 mg·kg−1时, 太湖流域水稻土磷素淋失风险大大增加。刘畅等[47]研究表明, 连续设施番茄栽培3种灌溉方式下土壤磷素在0~40 cm土层中存在环境阈值, 滴灌的环境阈值(68.6~70.6 mg·kg−1)大于渗灌(65.4~66.8 mg·kg−1)和沟灌(59.4 ~60.6 mg·kg−1)。本研究发现, 连续8 a番茄栽培条件下不同用量有机肥与化肥配施, 土壤磷素在0~50 cm土层中存在环境阈值, 由上至下依次为139.6 mg·kg−1、152.4 mg·kg−1、133.5 mg·kg−1、86.1 mg·kg−1和42.3 mg·kg−1, 以10~20 cm土层为最大(图3), 其环境阈值高于上述前人的研究结果。这可能是因为本研究中连续8 a番茄栽培采用滴灌系统进行灌溉, 设施内高温、高湿、无雨水淋洗的条件会导致土壤盐渍化和板结[48], 进而会抑制CaCl2-P向下迁移; 并且当土壤处于酸性状态时, 固定磷的能力比较高, 这导致土壤中的磷素向下迁移比较困难。另外, 本研究中土壤活性铁与Olsen-P含量呈显著正相关关系(R=0.62, P<0.01), 与CaCl2-P含量也呈显著正相关关系(R=0.93, P<0.01), 土壤活性铝与Olsen-P和CaCl2-P含量无显著相关关系, 土壤中活性铁含量的增加会增加土壤吸附磷的能力[49]; 但有机肥的长期施用对磷素的活化作用要强于活性铁对磷的吸附作用。本研究中, 中、高量有机肥与化肥配施处理土壤Olsen-P含量在0~20 cm土层要高于环境阈值。这主要是因为长期施用有机肥会增加土壤活性有机磷含量, 进而增加这部分磷在土壤中的移动性带来磷素的淋失风险; 同时, 有机肥分解产生的有机酸可以与磷酸根离子竞争吸附点位, 取代结合力弱的磷酸根离子, 减弱土壤胶体对磷素的吸附作用, 间接增加了磷素的淋失风险[7]; 另外, 中、高量有机肥的施用减缓了土壤酸化(表2), 可释放一部分土壤固定的磷素, 进而也会增加磷素的淋失风险[50]。
本研究番茄产量在低量有机肥与化肥配施的处理最高, 随有机肥施用量的增加逐渐降低。许俊香等[51]研究发现, 高量有机肥的施用对番茄产量的增加不明显, 在浪费资源的同时, 也增加了土壤磷素淋失风险, 这与本研究结果基本一致。土壤磷素农学阈值既可反映作物产量对土壤有效磷响应的大小, 也可以反映土壤磷素的环境风险[8,27], 对于农业生产中确定适宜磷素投入量非常关键。有机与无机肥合理配施, 既可提高番茄产量, 也能使土壤养分含量更适宜作物生长, 维持土壤生产力[52]。本研究中连续8 a番茄栽培土壤磷素在0~40 cm土层中存在农学阈值(56.0~185.1 mg·kg−1), 且随土层深度的增加逐渐降低(图5), 这一结果明显高于前人通过对露地土壤(12.0~20.0 mg·kg−1)[29]和菜地土壤(40.0~76.2 mg·kg−1)[25,53]的研究结果。说明设施番茄栽培生产中番茄对磷素的需求比较高。本研究中0~10 cm土壤磷素的农学阈值大于环境阈值, 这意味着表层土壤较高的磷素和Olsen-P含量积累有利于磷素的长期供应以及保证番茄生长发育对磷素的较高需求。在10~40 cm土壤磷素农学阈值低于环境阈值, 说明当蔬菜达到高产时土壤中Olsen-P向深层淋失的环境风险相对较低。因此, 综合考虑土壤磷素的充足供应和较低的淋失环境风险, 根据0~40 cm土壤磷素的农学阈值, 推出设施番茄连续栽培条件下适宜的磷素投入量(P2O5)为344.9~530.3 kg·hm−2。在本试验条件下, 在施用化学磷肥用量(P2O5) 225 kg·hm−2的基础上, 有机肥的磷素投入量(P2O5)为119.9~305.3 kg·hm−2, 折合本研究中有机肥用量为11 886.4~30 295.5 kg·hm−2。因此本研究中在长期连续番茄栽培中化肥(NPK)与低用量有机肥(M1)配施措施对于维持番茄生产能力和降低土壤磷素的淋失风险具有良好效果。
4. 结论
1)连续8 a设施番茄栽培生产中, 长期施用不同用量有机肥可增加0~50 cm土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量, 其含量随着有机肥施用量的增加呈逐渐增加趋势, 在表层土壤以M2NPK和M3NPK处理增加显著(P<0.05)。
2)连续8 a设施番茄栽培土壤在0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm、30~40 cm、40~50 cm土层存在磷素环境阈值, 依次为139.6 mg·kg−1、152.4 mg·kg−1、133.5 mg·kg−1、86.1 mg·kg−1和42.3 mg·kg−1, 其阈值随土层深度增加呈先增加后逐渐降低的趋势; 0~40 cm土层存在磷素农学阈值, 依次为185.1 mg·kg−1、120.5 mg·kg−1、92.8 mg·kg−1和56.0 mg·kg−1, 其阈值随土层深度的增加呈逐渐降低趋势。
3)综合考虑土壤磷素的环境阈值和农学阈值, 推荐长期设施番茄栽培土壤适宜磷素投入量(P2O5)为344.9~530.3 kg·hm−2, 其中施用有机肥投入量(P2O5)为119.9~305.3 kg·hm−2。本试验在连续8 a设施番茄栽培条件下, 在施用化学氮(N 375 kg·hm−2)、磷(P2O5 225 kg·hm−2)和钾(K2O 450 kg·hm−2)肥的基础上配施低量有机肥(15 000 kg·hm−2), 可较好地维持番茄可持续生产能力和有效控制土壤磷素的淋失风险。
-
![]()
图 1 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤全磷、有效磷和可溶性磷含量
Figure 1. Contents of total phosphorus (Total-P), Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) and calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments
T表示施肥处理, D表示土层深度; *、**和ns分别表示在P<0.05、P<0.01水平显著和不显著。不同大写字母表示相同处理不同土层间的差异在 P<0.05水平显著; 不同小写字母表示相同土层不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。“T” indicates fertilization treatment, “D” indicates soil depth. * and ** indicate significant differences at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively; “ns” indicate no significant difference. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different soil depths for the same treatment at P<0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments in the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.
![]()
图 2 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷、可溶性磷与全磷的比率
T表示施肥处理, D表示土层深度; *和**分别表示在P<0.05、P<0.01水平显著, ns表示不显著。不同大写字母表示相同处理不同土层间差异在P<0.05水平显著; 不同小写字母表示相同土层不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。“T” indicates fertilization treatment, “D” indicates soil depth. * and ** indicate significant differences at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively; “ns” indicates no significant difference. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among different soil depths for the same treatment at P<0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments in the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.
Figure 2. Ratios of Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) and calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) contents to total phosphorus (Total-P) content in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments
![]()
图 3 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤可溶性磷与有效磷含量关系的拟合曲线
Figure 3. Fitted curves of relationship between contents of calcium chloride leaching phosphorus (CaCl2-P) and Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments
![]()
图 4 不同长期施肥处理下番茄产量
不同小写字母表示不同施肥处理间差异在P<0.05水平显著。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施5个处理。Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different fertilization treatments at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.
Figure 4. Tomato yields under different long-term fertilization treatments
![]()
图 5 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷含量与番茄相对产量的关系拟合曲线
Figure 5. Fitted curve of relationship between soil Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) content and tomato relative yield in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments
![]()
图 6 不同长期施肥处理下不同深度土壤有效磷含量与施磷量的相关关系
Figure 6. Relationship between soil Olsen phosphorus (Olsen-P) content and P2O5 application amount in different soil depths under different long-term fertilization treatments
表 1 2012年试验前土壤理化性质
Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of soil before the experiment in 2012
土层
Soil layer
(cm)有机质
Organic matter
(g·kg−1)全氮
Total N
(g·kg−1)碱解氮
Alkaline N
(mg·kg−1)全磷
Total P
(g·kg−1)有效磷
Olsen P
(mg·kg−1)全钾
Total K
(g·kg−1)速效钾
Available K
(mg·kg−1)pH 容重
Soil bulk density
(g·cm−3)0~10 25.2 2.1 58.5 0.8 13.5 19.3 29.7 7.1 1.3 10~20 8.4 1.2 53.2 0.7 11.3 18.5 42.5 7.0 1.6 20~40 9.8 1.5 34.2 0.4 8.5 18.6 35.5 7.0 1.8 40~60 12.0 1.5 26.6 0.3 9.2 17.2 63.3 7.0 1.9 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同长期施肥处理土壤有机碳、活性铁和活性铝含量及pH
Table 2 Soil organic carbon (SOC) and active Fe and Al contents, and pH under different long-term fertilization treatments
土层
Soil depth (cm)处理
TreatmentpH 有机碳
SOC (g·kg−1)活性铁
Active Fe (g·kg−1)活性铝
Active Al (g·kg−1)0~10 CK 6.84±0.07a 11.17±0.27cd 0.56±0.11b 0.50±0.04a NPK 5.87±0.03c 9.47±0.29d 0.65±0.04b 0.51±0.02a M1NPK 6.44±0.08b 15.54±0.14bc 0.65±0.00b 0.55±0.06a M2NPK 6.48±0.19b 18.83±2.81b 0.68±0.03b 0.56±0.01a M3NPK 6.39±0.03b 26.02±1.43a 0.98±0.17a 0.64±0.10a 10~20 CK 6.92±0.09a 10.01±0.82c 0.64±0.03b 0.65±0.04a NPK 6.00±0.07c 8.85±0.58c 0.64±0.03b 0.62±0.00a M1NPK 6.45±0.07b 12.82±0.50bc 0.69±0.01ab 0.53±0.09a M2NPK 6.63±0.13b 16.63±2.49ab 0.72±0.02ab 0.61±0.07a M3NPK 6.47±0.02b 20.52±1.98a 0.77±0.05a 0.48±0.14a 20~30 CK 6.92±0.11a 8.48±0.47b 0.60±0.01b 0.61±0.00a NPK 5.66±0.09c 8.43±0.93b 0.60±0.01b 0.62±0.02a M1NPK 6.41±0.18b 10.02±0.59ab 0.65±0.01a 0.58±0.04a M2NPK 6.56±0.02ab 13.39±2.12a 0.67±0.01a 0.62±0.03a M3NPK 5.86±0.15c 10.96±1.37ab 0.65±0.01a 0.56±0.04a 30~40 CK 6.40±0.12a 8.71±0.37a 0.64±0.02b 0.57±0.04a NPK 5.28±0.01d 9.07±0.97a 0.67±0.02ab 0.52±0.04a M1NPK 5.93±0.10bc 9.31±0.28a 0.70±0.02a 0.44±0.09a M2NPK 6.10±0.08b 11.76±1.57a 0.71±0.00a 0.46±0.04a M3NPK 5.70±0.08c 10.07±0.93a 0.71±0.02a 0.39±0.10a 40~50 CK 5.73±0.11a 8.66±0.67a 0.73±0.06a 0.44±0.09a NPK 5.27±0.09b 7.67±0.72a 0.69±0.03a 0.56±0.01a M1NPK 5.62±0.08ab 9.56±0.52a 0.69±0.02a 0.65±0.04a M2NPK 5.71±0.08a 10.41±1.50a 0.70±0.01a 0.54±0.06a M3NPK 5.35±0.21ab 9.38±0.28a 0.59±0.10a 0.49±0.12a 同列不同小写字母表示相同土层不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。CK、NPK、M1NPK、M2NPK和M3NPK分别表示不施肥、单施化肥以及低、中和高量有机肥与化肥配施处理。Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences among different treatments of the same soil depth at P<0.05 level. CK, NPK, M1NPK, M2NPK and M3NPK are five treatments of no fertilization, chemical fertilizers application, and combined applicaiton of low, medium and high organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizers, respectively.
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] ZHANG Y J, GAO W, LUAN H A, et al. Effects of a decade of organic fertilizer substitution on vegetable yield and soil phosphorus pools, phosphatase activities, and the microbial community in a greenhouse vegetable production system[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2022, 21(7): 2119−2133 doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63715-2
[2] 蔡祖聪. 我国设施栽培养分管理中待解的科学和技术问题[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(1): 36−43 CAI Z C. Scientific and technological issues of nutrient management under greenhouse cultivation in China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 56(1): 36−43
[3] FAN Y N, ZHANG Y X, HESS F, et al. Nutrient balance and soil changes in plastic greenhouse vegetable production[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2020, 117(1): 77−92 doi: 10.1007/s10705-020-10057-x
[4] YAN Z J, LIU P P, LI Y H, et al. Phosphorus in China’s intensive vegetable production systems: overfertilization, soil enrichment, and environmental implications[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2013, 42(4): 982−989 doi: 10.2134/jeq2012.0463
[5] 王婷婷, 王俊, 赵牧秋, 等. 有机肥对设施菜地土壤磷素累积及有效性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(1): 95−100 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-2043.2009.01.018 WANG T T, WANG J, ZHAO M Q, et al. Effects of organic manure on phosphorus accumulating and its availability in a greenhouse soil in Shenyang suburb[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2009, 28(1): 95−100 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-2043.2009.01.018
[6] 段鹏鹏, 丛耀辉, 徐文静, 等. 氮肥与有机肥配施对设施土壤可溶性氮动态变化的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(23): 4717−4727 DUAN P P, CONG Y H, XU W J, et al. Effect of combined application of nitrogen fertilizer and manure on the dynamic of soil soluble N in greenhouse cultivation[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(23): 4717−4727
[7] 李媛, 郝鲜俊, 高文俊, 等. 不同有机肥对矿区复垦土壤磷素累积及淋失风险研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(2): 344−351 LI Y, HAO X J, GAO W J, et al. Effects of different organic fertilizers on phosphorus accumulation and leaching risk of reclaimed soil in mining area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(2): 344−351
[8] 刘建玲, 廖文华, 王新军, 等. 大量施用磷肥和有机肥对白菜产量和土壤磷积累的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2006, 39(10): 2147−2153 LIU J L, LIAO W H, WANG X J, et al. Effects of phosphate fertilizer and organic manure to the yield of Chinese cabbage and soil phosphorus accumulation[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2006, 39(10): 2147−2153
[9] SUN B, ZHANG L X, YANG L Z, et al. Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: causes and mitigation measures[J]. AMBIO, 2012, 41(4): 370−379 doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0249-6
[10] SHARPLEY A N, MCDOWELL R W, KLEINMAN P J A. Amounts, forms, and solubility of phosphorus in soils receiving manure[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2004, 68(6): 2048−2057 doi: 10.2136/sssaj2004.2048
[11] DE JAGER P C, CLAASSENS A S. Long-term phosphate desorption kinetics of an acid sandy clay soil from mpumalanga, South Africa[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2005, 36(1/2/3): 309−319
[12] ZICKER T, VON TUCHER S, KAVKA M, et al. Soil test phosphorus as affected by phosphorus budgets in two long-term field experiments in Germany[J]. Field Crops Research, 2018, 218: 158−170 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.008
[13] XAVIER F A D S, OLIVEIRA T S D, ANDRADE F V, et al. Phosphorus fractionation in a sandy soil under organic agriculture in Northeastern Brazil[J]. Geoderma, 2009, 151(3/4): 417−423
[14] GARG S, BAHL G S. Phosphorus availability to maize as influenced by organic manures and fertilizer P associated phosphatase activity in soils[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(13): 5773−5777 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.063
[15] 吕鉴于, 高文俊, 郝鲜俊, 等. 不同有机肥对矿区复垦土壤磷素矿化特征研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(4): 59−67 LYU J Y, GAO W J, HAO X J, et al. Study of phosphorus mineralization characteristics in a mine reclaimed soil under different organic fertilizers[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2020, 39(4): 59−67
[16] 戴佩彬. 模拟条件下磷肥配施有机肥对土壤磷素转化迁移及水稻吸收利用的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2016 DAI P B. Effects of phosphate fertilizer combined with organic fertilizer on soil phosphorus transformation and migration and rice absorption and utilization under simulated conditions[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2016
[17] 章爱群, 贺立源, 赵会娥, 等. 有机酸对土壤无机态磷转化和速效磷的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(8): 4061−4069 ZHANG A Q, HE L Y, ZHAO H E, et al. Effect of organic acids on inorganic phosphorus transformation in soils and its readily available phosphate[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(8): 4061−4069
[18] 牛君仿, 冯俊霞, 张喜英. 不同磷源对设施菜田土壤速效磷及其淋溶阈值的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(5): 686−693 NIU J F, FENG J X, ZHANG X Y. Available phosphorus status and critical threshold for leaching in greenhouse soils influenced by different fertilizer sources[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(5): 686−693
[19] SU D C, YANG F H, ZHANG F S. Profile characteristics and potential environmental effect of accumulated phosphorus in soils of vegetable fields in Beijing[J]. Pedosphere, 2002, 12(2): 179−184
[20] CREWS T E, BROOKES P C. Changes in soil phosphorus forms through time in perennial versus annual agroecosystems[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2014, 184: 168−181
[21] LOURENZI C R, CERETTA C A, CERINI J B, et al. Available content, surface runoff and leaching of phosphorus forms in a typic hapludalf treated with organic and mineral nutrient sources[J]. Revista Brasileira De Ciência Do Solo, 2014, 38(2): 544−556
[22] EGHBALL B, BINFORD G D, BALTENSPERGER D D. Phosphorus movement and adsorption in a soil receiving long-term manure and fertilizer application[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1996, 25(6): 1339−1343
[23] ZHAO X R, ZHONG X Y, BAO H J, et al. Relating soil P concentrations at which P movement occurs to soil properties in Chinese agricultural soils[J]. Geoderma, 2007, 142(3/4): 237−244
[24] HESKETH N, BROOKES P C. Development of an indicator for risk of phosphorus leaching[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2000, 29(1): 105−110
[25] 王瑞, 仲月明, 李慧敏, 等. 高投入菜地土壤磷素环境与农学阈值研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(1): 1−8 WANG R, ZHONG Y M, LI H M, et al. Research progresses on environmental and agriculture thresholds of soil phosphorus in high-input vegetable fields[J]. Soils, 2022, 54(1): 1−8
[26] 黄绍敏, 郭斗斗, 张水清. 长期施用有机肥和过磷酸钙对潮土有效磷积累与淋溶的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(1): 93−98 HUANG S M, GUO D D, ZHANG S Q. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer and superphosphate on accumulation and leaching of Olsen-P in Fluvo-aquic soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 22(1): 93−98
[27] POULTON P R, JOHNSTON A E, WHITE R P. Plant-available soil phosphorus. Part I: the response of winter wheat and spring barley to Olsen-P on a silty clay loam[J]. Soil Use and Management, 2013, 29(1): 4−11 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00450.x
[28] 沈浦. 长期施肥下典型农田土壤有效磷的演变特征及机制[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2014 SHEN P. Evolution characteristics and mechanism of available phosphorus in typical farmland soil under long-term fertilization[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2014
[29] 席雪琴. 土壤磷素环境阈值与农学阈值研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2015 XI X Q. Study on environmental threshold and agronomic threshold of soil phosphorus[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2015
[30] QIN H L, QUAN Z, LIU X L, et al. Phosphorus status and risk of phosphate leaching loss from vegetable soils of different planting years in suburbs of Changsha, China[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2010, 9(11): 1641−1649 doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60261-3
[31] BAI Z H, LI H G, YANG X Y, et al. The critical soil P levels for crop yield, soil fertility and environmental safety in different soil types[J]. Plant and Soil, 2013, 372(1): 27−37
[32] 王颖. 辽宁省设施蔬菜施肥现状及建议[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2015(3): 49−50 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1728.2015.03.013 WANG Y. Present situation and suggestions on fertilization of protected vegetables in Liaoning Province[J]. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences, 2015(3): 49−50 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1728.2015.03.013
[33] 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 and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000
[34] OLSEN S R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate[M]. Washington, D. C.: US Deparptment of Agriculture, 1954
[35] 徐孟泽, 王磊, 卢艳丽, 等. 砂质潮土长期施磷的农学效应及有效性演变[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(2): 205−215 XU M Z, WANG L, LU Y L, et al. Agronomic effect and variation of P availability under long-term phosphorus application in sandy fluvo-aquic soil[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2022, 28(2): 205−215
[36] WANG J, LIU W Z, MU H F, et al. Inorganic phosphorus fractions and phosphorus availability in a calcareous soil receiving 21-year superphosphate application[J]. Pedosphere, 2010, 20(3): 304−310 doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(10)60018-5
[37] MA B, ZHOU Z Y, ZHANG C P, et al. Inorganic phosphorus fractions in the rhizosphere of xerophytic shrubs in the Alxa Desert[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2009, 73(1): 55−61 doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.08.006
[38] MOODY P W. Environmental risk indicators for soil phosphorus status[J]. Soil Research, 2011, 49(3): 247 doi: 10.1071/SR10140
[39] 张田, 许浩, 茹淑华, 等. 不同有机肥中磷在土壤剖面中累积迁移特征与有效性差异[J]. 环境科学, 2017, 38(12): 5247−5255 ZHANG T, XU H, RU S H, et al. Distribution of phosphorus in soil profiles after continuous application of different fertilizers[J]. Environmental Science, 2017, 38(12): 5247−5255
[40] 李清华. 畜禽有机肥磷的形态、养分矿化及流失潜力评价研究进展[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2013, 19(3): 73−75 LI Q H. Research progress on forms, nutrient mineralization and loss potential evaluation of phosphorus in livestock and poultry organic fertilizer[J]. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2013, 19(3): 73−75
[41] 王敏锋, 严正娟, 陈硕, 等. 施用粪肥和沼液对设施菜田土壤磷素累积与迁移的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2016, 35(7): 1351−1359 WANG M F, YAN Z J, CHEN S, et al. Effects of manure and biogas slurry applications on phosphorus accumulation and mobility in organic vegetable soil under greenhouse[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2016, 35(7): 1351−1359
[42] 谢林花, 吕家珑, 张一平, 等. 长期施肥对石灰性土壤磷素肥力的影响Ⅱ. 无机磷和有机磷[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004, 15(5): 790−794 XIE L H, LYU J L, ZHANG Y P, et al. Influence of long-term fertilization on phosphorus fertility of calcareous soil Ⅱ. Inorganic and organic phosphorus[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2004, 15(5): 790−794
[43] 牛明芬, 温林钦, 赵牧秋, 等. 可溶性磷损失与径流时间关系模拟研究[J]. 环境科学, 2008, 29(9): 2580−2585 NIU M F, WEN L Q, ZHAO M Q, et al. Simulation of relationship between dissoluble phosphorus loss and runoff time[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Science, 2008, 29(9): 2580−2585
[44] HECKRATH G, BROOKES P C, POULTON P R, et al. Phosphorus leaching from soils containing different phosphorus concentrations in the broadbalk experiment[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1995, 24(5): 904−910
[45] 常会庆, 吴杰, 王启震, 等. 石灰性土壤添加污泥后土壤的肥力特征及磷素淋失临界值[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(6): 231−238 CHANG H Q, WU J, WANG Q Z, et al. Fertility property and phosphorus leaching risk threshold of calcareous soil with sludge[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(6): 231−238
[46] 汪玉, 袁佳慧, 陈浩, 等. 太湖流域典型农田土壤磷库演变特征及环境风险预测[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(6): 1640−1649 WANG Y, YUAN J H, CHEN H, et al. Soil phosphorus pool evolution and environmental risk prediction of paddy soil in the Taihu Lake Region[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2022, 59(6): 1640−1649
[47] 刘畅, 张玉龙, 孙伟. 灌溉方式对保护地土壤磷素淋失风险的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2012, 43(4): 923−928 LIU C, ZHANG Y L, SUN W. Effect of irrigation methods on risk of phosphorus leaching loss in protected field[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2012, 43(4): 923−928
[48] 史静, 张乃明, 包立. 我国设施农业土壤质量退化特征与调控研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(7): 787−794 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00787 SHI J, ZHANG N M, BAO L. Research progress on soil degradation and regulation of facility agriculture in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(7): 787−794 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00787
[49] 宋春丽, 樊剑波, 何园球, 等. 不同母质发育的红壤性水稻土磷素吸附特性及其影响因素的研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(3): 607−611 doi: 10.11766/trxb201104200142 SONG C L, FAN J B, HE Y Q, et al. Phosphorous adsorption characteristics of red paddy soils derived from different parent materials and their influencing factors[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012, 49(3): 607−611 doi: 10.11766/trxb201104200142
[50] 赵小蓉, 钟晓英, 李贵桐, 等. 我国23个土壤磷素淋失风险评估Ⅱ. 淋失临界值与土壤理化性质和磷吸附特性的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(9): 3011−3017 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2006.09.029 ZHAO X R, ZHONG X Y, LI G T, et al. The evaluation of phosphorus leaching risk of 23 Chinese soils Ⅱ. The relationships between soil properties, P adsorption characteristics and the leaching criterion[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26(9): 3011−3017 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2006.09.029
[51] 许俊香, 邹国元, 孙钦平, 等. 施用有机肥对蔬菜生长和土壤磷素累积的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2016, 30(9): 1824−1832 doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2016.09.1824 XU J X, ZOU G Y, SUN Q P, et al. Effects of application manure on Olsen-P accumulation and distribution in soil profile and the yield of vegetable[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 30(9): 1824−1832 doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2016.09.1824
[52] 宋雅欣, 赵同科, 安志装, 等. 有机无机肥料配施对设施番茄产量及土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(S01): 306−311 SONG Y X, ZHAO T K, AN Z Z, et al. Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers combined application on yield and soil nutrient in facility tomatoes[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(S01): 306−311
[53] 姜波, 林咸永, 章永松. 杭州市郊典型菜园土壤磷素状况及磷素淋失风险研究[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2008, 34(2): 207−213 JIANG B, LIN X Y, ZHANG Y S. Phosphorus status and index for predicting environmental risk of phosphorus leaching in typical vegetable soils of Hangzhou[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture & Life Sciences), 2008, 34(2): 207−213
-
期刊类型引用(4)
1. 任晓瑞，宋宏喜，丁心慧，刘清芳，宋宇宁，张凌云，王艳. 当阳市新建高标准农田施用磷肥对直播水稻的影响. 农业科技通讯. 2024(07): 65-68+114 . 
百度学术
2. 郭松超，庄元，郭凯璐，余明杨，包建平，陈强. 不同土壤管理方式对南疆芽变香梨优系土壤养分及酶活性的影响. 北方园艺. 2024(18): 72-83 . 百度学术
3. 陈娟，郭宁，王艳平，于跃跃，赵凯丽，王维瑞. 有机肥对复垦新增耕地土壤综合肥力及麦玉周年产量的影响. 华北农学报. 2024(S1): 195-202 . 百度学术
4. 刘霄. 日光温室番茄绿色生产与氮磷淋失阻控技术. 农业工程技术. 2023(33): 68-69 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 360
- HTML全文浏览量: 123
- PDF下载量: 75
- 被引次数: 8
