Crops ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (3): 168-174.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2024.03.022

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Organic Fertilizer and Soil Conditioner on the Growth and Development of Continuous Cropping Sweet Potato and Soil Fertility

Liu Yajun1(), Lu Yun3, Wang Wenjing1, Hu Qiguo1, Chu Fengli1, Li Zhijie2()   

  1. 1Shangqiu Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shangqiu 476000, Henan, China
    2Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau of Zhecheng County, Zhecheng 476200, Henan, China
    3Shangqiu Polytechnic, Shangqiu 476000, Henan, China
  • Received:2024-01-10 Revised:2024-04-01 Online:2024-06-15 Published:2024-06-18

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

208

Abstract:

In order to determine the effects of bio-organic fertilizer and soil conditioner on the growth and development of continuous cropping sweet potato and soil fertility, field positioning experiments were conducted from 2020 to 2023. Five treatments were set up: control without fertilization (CK), single application of chemical fertilizer (SF), single application of bio-organic fertilizer (SBF), 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% bio-organic fertilizer (FBF), and 100% chemical fertilizer with soil conditioner (FC). The changes of photosynthetic characteristics, stress resistance, yield, soil nutrients and enzyme activities of sweet potato under different fertilization measures were studied. The results showed that leaf SPAD values, photosynthesis rate and stress resistance, yield of fresh and dried sweet potato, and soil nutrient contents and enzyme activities under different fertilization measures were superior to those under CK treatment. In different fertilization treatments, the FBF treatment could improve leaf SPAD value, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, as well as superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities. The FC treatment could improve leaf stomatal conductance and catalase activity. With the extension of fertilization time, the yield of fresh and dried sweet potato under different treatments in 2023 showed as follows, FBF > FC > SBF > SF > CK. Among them, there was no significant difference between FBF and FC treatments. The correlation analysis showed that there was a good correlation between fresh sweet potato yield, leaf photosynthetic characteristics and soil enzyme activities. It was concluded that the continuous application of bio- organic fertilizers and soil conditioners for consecutive years could enhance the photosynthesis and stress resistance ability of sweet potato, improved soil quality, and increased the yields of fresh and dried sweet potato.

Key words: Organic fertilizer, Soil conditioner, Sweet potato, Growth and development, Soil fertility

Table 1

Effects of different fertilization measures on SPAD values and photosynthetic characteristics of sweet potato leaves"

处理Treatment SPAD值SPAD value Pn [μmol/(m2·s)] Gs [mol/(m2·s)] Ci (μmol/mol) Tr [mmol/(m2·s)]
CK 44.36±3.58d 14.42±0.97c 0.35±0.02d 252.16±13.38a 10.14±0.75b
SF 47.62±2.80c 14.92±0.81bc 0.38±0.01c 241.09±17.51ab 10.58±0.61b
SBF 50.05±3.15ab 15.76±1.16a 0.41±0.03b 226.17±14.08cd 11.24±0.84a
FBF 52.36±1.94a 15.88±1.05a 0.44±0.02a 220.38±14.45d 11.47±0.89a
FC 49.57±2.53bc 15.61±0.89ab 0.45±0.01a 237.33±16.07bc 11.15±0.97a

Table 2

Effects of different fertilization measures on antioxidant enzyme activities and MDA contents of sweet potato leaves"

处理
Treatment		 SOD
[U/(g·min)]		 CAT
[U/(g·min)]		 POD
[U/(g·min)]		 MDA
(μmol/g)
CK 144.02±8.69c 122.28±8.60d 189.06±12.31d 1.56±0.09a
SF 159.26±10.43b 134.57±10.08c 199.41±15.67c 1.50±0.07ab
SBF 168.49±12.82a 155.89±8.39a 212.86±15.84ab 1.48±0.12b
FBF 171.16±11.39a 152.13±10.65a 222.63±18.26a 1.46±0.09b
FC 164.49±9.92ab 143.08±9.14b 210.57±14.70b 1.48±0.08b

Fig.1

Effects of different fertilization measureson the fresh sweet potato yield Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments (P < 0.05). The same below."

Fig.2

Effects of different fertilization measureson the dried sweet potato yield"

Table 3

Effects of different fertilization measures on the nutrients of soil"

处理
Treatment		 碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzed
nitrogen (mg/kg)		 速效磷
Available phosphorus
(mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available potassium
(mg/kg)		 有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)		 pH
基土Basic soil 47.08±1.65a 55.87±2.12a 146.62±4.29a 15.49±0.44a 8.02±0.01a
CK 41.26±3.12d 49.65±1.84c 127.69±8.49c 14.22±0.82b 8.02±0.02a
SF 44.55±1.19b 54.28±3.18ab 142.20±8.92a 15.07±0.97a 7.99±0.03a
SBF 42.30±2.46c 52.22±3.65b 135.25±5.67b 15.76±1.02a 8.03±0.02a
FBF 47.81±0.82a 56.23±2.72a 146.28±6.20a 15.58±0.90a 8.01±0.01a
FC 47.47±1.21a 56.01±2.05a 144.91±8.02a 15.41±0.78a 8.01±0.02a

Table 4

Effects of different fertilization measures on the enzyme activities of soil"

处理
Treatment		 Ure
[mg/(g·d)]		 CAT
[mL/(g·h)]		 Suc
[mg/(g·d)]		 Apho
[mg/(g·d)]
CK 0.72±0.04e 7.26±0.45d 8.15±0.57d 2.18±0.12c
SF 0.84±0.03c 7.78±0.40c 8.56±0.53c 2.49±0.17b
SBF 0.77±0.02d 8.54±0.59a 9.05±0.70ab 2.67±0.09a
FBF 0.99±0.07a 8.31±0.61ab 9.47±0.61a 2.70±0.11a
FC 0.92±0.04b 7.96±0.24bc 8.99±0.33b 2.79±0.08a

Table 5

Correlation analysis between fresh sweet potato yield, photosynthetic characteristics indicators and soil enzyme activities"

指标
Index		 产量
Yield		 SPAD Pn Ure CAT Suc Apho
产量
Yield		 1.000
SPAD 0.862** 1.000
Pn 0.894** 0.930** 1.000
Ure 0.732* 0.857** 0.904** 1.000
CAT 0.594 0.728* 0.718* 0.506 1.000
Suc 0.607 0.413 0.474 0.451 0.390 1.000
Apho 0.529 0.705* 0.601 0.578 0.538 0.418 1.000
[1] 王欣, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3):483-492.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.003
[2] 马洪波, 杨苏, 李传哲, 等. 不同肥料和生物菌剂对重茬甘薯产量及土壤质量的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(24):47-49,57.
[3] 高志远, 胡亚亚, 刘兰服, 等. 甘薯连作对根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响. 核农学报, 2019, 33(6):1248-1255.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.06.1248
[4] 许仙菊, 姜晓蕊, 陈丹艳, 等. 甘薯连作障碍发生的土壤养分因素探讨. 中国土壤与肥料. (2023-12-14)[2024-01-29]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.5498.S.20231213.1548.002.
[5] 乔月静, 王雪娇, 武宝悦, 等. 不同种植模式对甘薯产量及甘薯根际茎线虫数量的影响. 农业现代化研究, 2014, 35(6):800-803.
[6] 汤晓仪. 冬季复种轮作缓解甘薯连作障碍的应用调控研究. 烟台: 烟台大学, 2023.
[7] 商丽丽, 杜清福, 韩俊杰, 等. 甘薯重茬对土壤微生物的影响及重茬障碍防治措施研究. 作物杂志, 2015(4):126-129.
[8] 靳辉勇, 黎娟, 朱益, 等. 土壤调理剂对烤烟根系活力及根际土壤微生物碳代谢特征的影响. 核农学报, 2019, 33(1):158-165.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.01.0158
[9] 周吉祥, 张贺, 杨静, 等. 连续施用土壤改良剂对沙质潮土肥力及活性有机碳组分的影响. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(16):3307-3318.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.16.009
[10] 王理德, 王方琳, 郭春秀, 等. 土壤酶学硏究进展. 土壤, 2016, 48(1):12-21.
[11] 邱现奎, 董元杰, 万勇善, 等. 不同施肥处理对土壤养分含量及土壤酶活性的影响. 土壤, 2010, 42(2):249-255.
[12] 段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 等. 化肥和生物有机肥配施对鲜食型甘薯块根产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(11):1971-1980.
[13] 宋以玲, 于建, 陈士更, 等. 化肥减量配施生物有机肥对油菜生长及土壤微生物和酶活性影响. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32 (1):352-360.
[14] 李晨昱, 卢树昌, 王茜. 土壤调理剂在农业领域研究现状、问题及前景. 北方园艺, 2018(14):154-160.
[15] 孙学武, 于天一, 沈浦, 等. 土壤调理剂对花生产量品质和土壤理化性状的影响. 花生学报, 2018, 47(1):43-46,51.
[16] 杜宏辉, 贾学刚, 杨涛. 化肥减量及配施生物有机肥对马铃薯产量、矿质元素含量及土壤肥力的影响. 中国瓜菜, 2023, 36(9):66-74.
[17] 李敏, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 无机肥与有机肥配施对甘薯生理特性及产量构成因素的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(16):91-98.
[18] 王光飞, 高晓东, 马艳, 等. 生物有机类复合调理剂在设施叶菜障碍土壤上的应用效果. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(2):56-65.
[19] 李停锋. 连作压砂西瓜田土壤肥力对土壤调理剂配施菌剂的响应. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2020.
[20] 李敏, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 施肥方式对连作甘薯田土壤团聚体稳定性及酶活性的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(13):252-260.
[21] 任立军, 赵文琪, 陈松岭, 等. 有机肥和土壤调理剂组合对设施土壤氮素和番茄产量的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2021, 40(12):70-77.
[22] 张蕾, 吴文强, 王维瑞, 等. 土壤调理剂及其配施微生物菌肥对设施菜田次生盐渍化土壤改良效果研究. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3):264-271.
[23] 王静, 王磊, 刘耀斌, 等. 长期施用不同有机肥对甘薯产量和土壤生物性状的影响. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2):184-192.
[24] 魏猛, 张爱君, 诸葛玉平, 等. 长期施肥下甘薯产量稳定性及品质特性研究. 西北农业学报, 2017, 26(4):588-595.
[25] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 第3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[26] 关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法. 北京: 农业出版社,1986.
[27] 王仪明, 雷艳芳, 魏臻武, 等. 不同轮作模式对青贮玉米产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响. 核农学报, 2017, 31(9):1803-1810.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.09.1803
[28] 兰孟焦, 张辉, 肖满秋, 等. 不同施肥处理对甘薯产量及土壤肥力与氮素利用的影响. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(1):44-52.
[29] 王文英, 刘喜存, 霍建中, 等. 不同含量土壤调理剂对重茬地西瓜产量和土壤化学性质的影响. 中国瓜菜, 2023, 36(1):67-71.
[30] 刘亚军, 王文静, 李敏, 等. 无机肥与有机肥配施对甘薯土壤养分变化及微生物碳代谢功能的影响. 河南农业科学, 2022, 51(7):75-84.
[31] 宁川川, 王建武, 蔡昆争. 有机肥对土壤肥力和土壤环境质量的影响研究进展. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(1):175-181.
doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2016.01.026
[32] 李蒙, 朱思远, 袁童瑶, 等. 生物有机肥对基质肥力、酶活性及番茄生长和品质的影响. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(6):1260-1270.
[33] 常虹, 秦广利, 王红军, 等. 土壤调理剂与微生物有机肥配施对黄潮土区重茬大蒜土壤改良及产量的影响. 河南农业科学, 2021, 50(11):72-78.
[34] 李敏, 刘亚军, 王文静, 等. 不同施肥模式对小麦―甘薯轮作田土壤性质及甘薯生长发育的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(13):250-256.
[35] 赵金标, 胡雪, 徐承昱, 等. 高温下秸秆还田耦合减氮对水稻剑叶光合生理特性的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(12):39-53.
[36] 莫勤, 刘丹, 马驰, 等. 周年减氮对玉米―大蒜轮作系统作物光合特性和干物质积累及产量的影响. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(10):1544-1554.
[37] 吴之涛, 张英英, 高正睿, 等. 喷施硅对蒙古黄芪抗氧化酶活性以及产量和品质的影响. 西北植物学报, 2022, 42(5):837-844.
[38] 张海燕, 段文学, 董顺旭, 等. 苗期干旱胁迫条件下外源ABA对甘薯膜透性和抗氧化酶系统的影响(英文). 华北农学报, 2018, 33(2):177-187.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.02.025
[1] Chen Biwei, Ju Xikai, Sun Yiming, Li Qinghua, Liu Qing, Zeng Lusheng. Effects of Drought in Different Periods on Yield Formation and Starch Gelatinization Characteristics of Starchy Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(3): 141-147.
[2] Yi Qin, Huang Miao, Yang Guotao, Hu Yungao, Chen Hong, Wang Xuechun. Effects of Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Yield and Quality of Rapeseed in Sichuan [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(3): 163-167.
[3] Luo Yuankai, Li Ranqiu, Li Yimeng, Tang Wei, Liu Yaju. Effects of Planting Density and EBR Concentration on the Yield and Quality of Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(3): 231-237.
[4] Xie Jin, Li Jincheng, Liang Zengfa, Huang Hao, Zhang Xi, Gao Renji, Jin Baofeng, Zeng Fandong, Lu Zhiwei, Cai Yixia, Wang Wei. Effects of Ridging Height and Ratio of Organic Fertilizer on Root Growth and Quality of Upper Tobacco Leaves [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(2): 165-171.
[5] Du Qingfu, Shang Lili, Lü Jiahao, Zhang Ruiqing, Yao Jiangang, Qiu Pengfei, Zhao Jianwei, He Shaozhen. Effects of Different Light Intensity on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Flowering of Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(2): 172-177.
[6] Yang Lipei, Han Shijian, Wei Benhui, Li Zhigang, Li Ruiling, Zhu Shuifang, Xiao Jiming, Li Suli. Effects of Interaction between Organic Fertilizer and Fenlong on Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics and Tissue and Cell Structure of Sugarcane [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 148-156.
[7] Ma Tao, Xing Baolong, Zheng Minna. Effects of Different Fertilization Methods on Soil Bacterial Community Diversity in Soybean Rhizosphere [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 167-173.
[8] Zhao Lijie, Zhao Haiyan, Han Genlan, Wang Jiang, Nie Mengʼen, Du Huiling, Yuan Xiangyang, Dong Shuqi. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Combined with Organic Fertilizer on Quality of Millet [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 224-232.
[9] Wang Zhenlong, Su Cuicui, Zhou Qi, Deng Chaochao, Zhou Yanfang. The Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer and Applying Organic Fertilizer on the Yield, Quality, and Soil Quality of Helianthus tuberosus L. [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 104-109.
[10] Liu Chen, Yang Mingfeng, Yang Long, Zhang Nan, Yu Tao. Effects of Wide-Narrow Row Configuration in Double-Row Concave Ridge on Growth and Quality of Upper Leaves of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 151-156.
[11] Liu Xiaomin, Xu Rui, Sun Jingguo, Zhao Fanchong, Si Zhenxing, Liang Zhizhe, Xu Zicheng, Han Dan. The Effects of Well Cellar Depth and Mulching Methods on the Gas- Thermal Environment and Flue-Cured Tobacco Growth and Yield [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 157-163.
[12] Zhai Jing, Yang Shengming, Wang Yuzhen, Shi Linlin. Effects of Multi-Year Organic Fertilizer Application on Starch Physicochemical Properties of Mid-Mature Soft Japonica Rice [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 91-97.
[13] Hu Xinyuan, Liu Yongqiang, Xie Kuizhong, Sun Xiaohua, Luo Aihua. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Replacing Nitrogen Fertilizer on Soil Physical Chemistry Properties and Potato Quality under Continuous Cropping in Arid Area [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(4): 159-164.
[14] Ding Kaixin, Wang Lichun, Tian Guokui, Wang Haiyan, Li Fengyun, Pan Yang, Pang Ze, Shan Ying. Review on the Response Reasearch of Potato Growth and PhysiologicalCharacteristics to Water Stress [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(4): 16-21.
[15] Xu Qian, Zeng Xinyu, Xiao Bo, Li Baozheng, Zhang Xingduan. Effects of Foliar Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Shoot Tip in Leaf-Vegetable Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(3): 183-187.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!