青贮玉米氮投入对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及水稳性团聚体的影响

赵桂茹; 安曈昕; 欧阳铖人; 邓宗澳; 吕凯; 杨友琼; 周锋; 吴伯志

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.05.011

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

青贮玉米氮投入对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及水稳性团聚体的影响

更新时间：2025-03-12

- 青贮玉米氮投入对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及水稳性团聚体的影响
- Impact of Nitrogen Input of Silage Maize on Soil Erosion and Water-stable Aggregates in Sloping Farmland
- 水土保持学报 2021年35卷第5期页码：72-79
- 作者机构：
  
  云南农业大学农学与生物技术学院云南省作物生产与智慧农业重点实验室,昆明,650201
- 作者简介：
  
  [ "赵桂茹(1989-),女,在读博士研究生,主要从事作物品种与生态多样性种植研究。E-mail:704136137@qq.com" ]
- 基金信息：
  
  云南省重点研发计划项目（2018BB015）云南省重大科技专项-绿色食品国际合作研究中心项目（2019ZG00902）
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.05.011
  中图分类号： S157.4
- 纸质出版：2021
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
赵桂茹, 安曈昕, 欧阳铖人, 等. 青贮玉米氮投入对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及水稳性团聚体的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(5):72-79.

ZHAO Guiru, AN Tongxin, OUYANG Chengren, et al. Impact of Nitrogen Input of Silage Maize on Soil Erosion and Water-stable Aggregates in Sloping Farmland[J]. 2021, 35(5): 72-79.
赵桂茹, 安曈昕, 欧阳铖人, 等. 青贮玉米氮投入对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及水稳性团聚体的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(5):72-79. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.05.011.

ZHAO Guiru, AN Tongxin, OUYANG Chengren, et al. Impact of Nitrogen Input of Silage Maize on Soil Erosion and Water-stable Aggregates in Sloping Farmland[J]. 2021, 35(5): 72-79. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.05.011.

摘要

为探讨不同氮投入对红壤坡耕地水土流失及土壤水稳性团聚体的影响，在种植青贮玉米的坡耕地上设置4个不同氮投入处理（N1：300.00 kg/hm2；N2：225.00 kg/hm2；N3：150.00 kg/hm2和N4：75.00 kg/hm2），用湿筛法获得>2，1~2，0.5~1，0.25~0.5，<0.25 mm粒径的团聚体组分并计算出水稳性团聚体含量（WSA>0.25）、平均重量直径（MWD）、几何平均直径（GMD）和分形维数（PD）的含量。结果表明：（1）不同氮投入处理的坡面产流产沙特征与降雨强度关系密切，在低强度、中强度和高强度降雨条件下，N1和N2处理的径流量和产沙量均显著小于N3和N4处理（P<0.05），N2与N1处理径流量及产沙量差异均未达到显著水平（P>0.05），但在极高强度降雨下，各处理径流量和产沙量的差异均不显著（P>0.05）。（2） N2处理的WSA>0.25、MWD和GMD比其他3个处理大，而PD却比较小，此外，WSA>0.25、MWD和GMD三者之间相互存在极显著正相关性（P<0.01），而与PD、径流量和产沙量均呈现出极显著负相关关系（P<0.01）。（3） N1和N2处理土壤容重显著低于N3和N4处理的容重（P<0.05），但其孔隙度和田间持水量显著高于N3和N4处理（P<0.05）。因此，在当地常规施肥水平上减少25%氮投入量不会加剧土壤侵蚀，还可通过改善土壤物理性质以维持红壤坡耕地的生产能力。

Abstract

In order to explore the effects of different nitrogen inputs on soil erosion and soil water-stable aggregates in red soil slope farmland

four nitrogen treatments including N1(300.00 kg/hm2)

N2(225.00 kg/hm2)

N3(150.00 kg/hm2) and N4(75.00 kg/hm2) were designed

and the runoff and sediment yield were measured during the whole growth period of silage maize. Meanwhile

the aggregate components with particle size >2

1~2

0.5~1

0.25~0.5 and <0.25 mm were obtained by wet screening method

and the content of water-stable aggregates (WSA>0.25)

mean weight diameter (MWD)

geometric mean diameter (GMD) and parting dimension (PD) were calculated. The results showed that:(1) The characteristics of runoff and sediment yield of different nitrogen inputs were closely related to rainfall intensity. The runoff and sediment yields of N1 and N2 treatments were significantly lower than those of N3 and N4 treatments under the condition of low

medium and high intensity rainfall (P<0.01)

and there was no significant difference in runoff and sediment yield between N1 and N2 treatment (P>0.05). Whereas

the differences in runoff and sediment yield were not significant among different treatments under extremely high intensity rainfall (P>0.05). (2) WSA>0.25

GMD and MWD of N2 treatment were higher than those of the other three treatments

but the PD was relatively low. Additionally

there was a very significant positive correlation among WSA>0.25

MWD and GMD

but an extremely significant negative correlation with PD

runoff and sediment yield. (3) The soil bulk densities of N1 and N2 treatments were significantly lower than those of N3 and N4 treatments (P<0.01)

but the porosity and soil water holding capacity of N1 and N2 treatments were significantly higher than those of N3 and N4 treatments (P<0.05). Therefore

reducing 25% of nitrogen input at the local fertilization level will not aggravate soil erosion

and improve the soil physical properties to maintain the productivity of red soil sloping farmland.

关键词

Keywords

references

Nishigaki T, Sugihara S, Kilasara M, et al. Surface runoff generation and soil loss under different soil and rainfall properties in the Uluguru mountains tanzania[J]. Land Degradation and Development, 2018, 28(1):283-293.

Yang D W. Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2010, 17(14):2913-2928.

Gerard G, Roel M, Bas V W, et al. Soil conservation in the 21st century:Why we need smart agricultural intensification[J]. Soil, 2017, 3(1):45-59.

Cerdan O, Govers G, Le Bissonnais Y, et al. Rates and spatial variations of soil erosion in Europe:A study based on erosion plot data[J]. Geomorphology, 2010, 122(1):167-177.

姜敏.衡南县土壤肥力空间变异及对土壤侵蚀的响应[D].武汉:华中农业大学, 2016.

Bissonnais Y L. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erodibility:Theory and methodology[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 48(1):39-48.

刘恩科, 赵秉强, 梅旭荣, 等.不同施肥处理对土壤水稳定性团聚体及有机碳分布的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(4):1035-1041.

柳开楼, 黄晶, 张会民, 等.长期施肥对红壤旱地团聚体特性及不同组分钾素分配的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2018, 55(2):443-454.

谢钧宇, 曹寒冰, 孟会生, 等.不同施肥措施及施肥年限下土壤团聚体的大小分布及其稳定性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(3):274-281

田昌, 周旋, 谢桂先, 等.控释尿素减施对双季稻田径流氮素变化、损失及产量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(3):21-28.

王新霞, 左婷, 王肖君, 等.稻-麦轮作条件下2种施肥模式作物产量和农田氮磷径流流失比较[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(3):20-27.

龚伟, 颜晓元, 蔡祖聪, 等.长期施肥对华北小麦-玉米轮作土壤物理性质和抗蚀性影响研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2009, 46(3):520-525.

唐柄哲.不同施肥类型及作方式下紫色土坡耕地径流氮、磷流失研究[D].重庆:西南大学, 2016.

王莺.山核桃林地表径流养分流失动态及其与土壤养分关系的研究[D].杭州:浙江农林大学, 2019.

郭萍, 王子豪, 刘斌祥, 等.不同覆盖方式下减氮对玉米生长与氮素吸收、运转和分配的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(1):229-239.

Lin Q T, Xu Q, Wu F Q, et al. Effects of wheat in regulating runoff and sediment on different slope gradients and under different rainfall intensities[J]. Catena, 2019, 183:1046-1053.

欧阳铖人, 字淑慧, 吴开贤, 等.模拟雨条件下玉米马铃薯间作对降雨入渗量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(3):14-21.

陈晓安, 杨洁, 汤崇军, 等.雨强和坡度对红壤坡耕地地表径流及壤中流的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(9):141-146.

Chen X A, Liang Z W, Zhang Z Y, et al. Effects of soil and water conservation measures on runoff and sediment yield in red soil slope farmland under natural rainfall[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(8):e3417.

Agostini M, Studdert G A, San M S, et al. Crop residue grazing and tillage systems effects on soil physical properties and corn (

Zea mays

L.) performance[J]. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2012, 12(2):271-282.

姜义亮, 郑粉莉, 王彬, 等.东北黑土区片蚀和沟蚀对土壤团聚体流失的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(24):7774-7781.

Yan F L, Shi Z H, Li Z X, et al. Estimating interrill soil erosion from aggregate stability of Ultisols in subtropical China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2008, 100(1/2):34-41.

Jordán A, Zavala L M, Gil J. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain[J]. Catena, 2010, 81:77-85.

谢钧宇, 曹寒冰, 孟会生, 等.不同施肥措施及施肥年限下土壤团聚体的大小分布及其稳定性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(3):274-281, 290.

浏览量

710

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

秦岭水源地生态恢复下土壤全氮分布对侵蚀的响应

盐碱土与非盐碱土团聚体差异、改良影响及启示

海泡石对镉污染土壤团聚体稳定性和有机碳含量的影响

紫色土区植物篱篱前淤积带土壤团聚体稳定性特征研究

不同施肥措施及施肥年限下土壤团聚体的大小分布及其稳定性