文章摘要
不同秸秆还田方式对辽东低山丘陵区旱田土壤酸度的影响
Effect of different straw returning methods on the soil acidity of dryland in low mountain and hilly areas of Liaodong
投稿时间:2024-04-07  修订日期:2024-06-12
DOI:
中文关键词: 土壤酸化  秸秆还田  交换性酸  酸害容量
英文关键词: soil acidification  straw returning  exchangeable acid  acid damage capacity
基金项目:辽宁省应用基础研究计划项目;辽宁省揭榜挂帅科技攻关专项
作者单位邮编
范庆锋 沈阳农业大学 110866
盛诗涵 沈阳农业大学 
杨春璐 辽宁大学环境学院 
陈重 盛京息壤辽宁环保科技有限公司 
安晶 沈阳农业大学 
邹洪涛* 沈阳农业大学 110866
摘要点击次数: 60
全文下载次数: 0
中文摘要:
      为了明确不同玉米秸秆还田方式对土壤酸度性质的影响,本文以辽东低山丘陵区不同秸秆还田方式下的旱田土壤为研究对象,设置对照(CK)、玉米秸秆直接还田(ZH)、玉米秸秆过腹还田(GF)及玉米秸秆焚烧后草木灰还田(FH)4个处理,通过测定土壤pH、交换性酸、盐基饱和度、酸害容量及酸害强度等指标,探究辽东低山丘陵区不同秸秆还田方式对土壤酸度的影响。结果表明:FH处理显著提高了土壤的pH值、EC值,降低了土壤交换性酸和其中交换性铝的含量;ZH和GH处理显著降低了土壤交换性铝的含量及其在交换性酸中的比例;ZH和GH处理显著提高了土壤CEC,分别比对照处理增加了6.07%和11.28%,而FH处理和对照处理之间的CEC差异不显著。ZH、GH和FH处理的土壤盐基饱和度分别为69.65%、68.88%和69.76%,均高于较照处理的66.36%,但未达到5%差异显著水平。不同秸秆还田方式处理均显著提升了土壤的酸害容量与酸害强度,土壤酸害容量由高自低依次为GH、ZH和FH处理,增幅分别为15.97%、13.69%和12.70%,不同处理的土壤酸害强度表现为GH>ZH>FH>CK。在本研究中秸秆还田的方式虽然不同,但都不同程度的增强了土壤的酸害容量与强度,提高了土壤对酸的缓冲能力,其对于酸性土壤的改良与减缓土壤酸化都具有积极的作用。
英文摘要:
      In order to clarify the impact of different maize straw returning methods on soil acidity properties, this study takes dryland soil under different straw returning methods in the low mountain and hilly areas of Liaodong as the research object. Four treatments were set up, including control (CK), direct straw return (ZH), cow manure return (GF), and plant ash return after straw incineration (FH). By measuring soil pH, exchangeable acid, base saturation, acid damage capacity, and acid damage intensity, the effect of different straw returning methods on soil acidity in the low mountain and hilly areas of Liaodong was discussed. The results showed that FH treatment significantly increased the pH and EC values of the soil, and reduced the content of exchangeable acids and exchangeable aluminum in the soil; ZH and GH treatments significantly reduced the content of exchangeable aluminum in soil and its proportion in exchangeable acids; The ZH and GH treatments significantly increased soil CEC by 6.07% and 11.28%, respectively, compared to the control treatment. However, there was no significant difference in CEC between the FH and control treatments. The soil salinity saturation of ZH, GH, and FH treatments were 69.65%, 68.88%, and 69.76%, respectively, which were higher than 66.36% of the control treatment, but did not reach a significant level of 5% difference. The different straw returning methods significantly increased the soil"s acid damage capacity and intensity. The soil acid damage capacity was ranked from high to low in GH, ZH, and FH treatments, with increases of 15.97%, 13.69%, and 12.70%, respectively. The soil acid damage intensity of different treatments showed GH>ZH>FH>CK.
HTML    View Fulltext   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器