Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 86-92.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.05.012

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Biological Sulfur Regulator on the Yield, Quality of Alfalfa and Soil Physicochemical Properties in Saline-Alkali Land

Jia Yanli1(), Zhang Hongfa2, Liu Guixia3, Huang Sufang1, Qu Xinyue1, Yue Mingqiang1, Han Jiating1, Xu Yupeng1, Liu Qingsong1()   

  1. 1 Cangzhou Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Cangzhou 061001, Hebei, China
    2 Cangzhou Livestock Technology Promotion Station, Cangzhou 061001, Hebei, China
    3 College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, Hebei, China
  • Received:2024-09-23 Revised:2024-12-02 Online:2025-10-15 Published:2025-10-21

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

352

Abstract:

To study the effects of different application rates of biological sulfur regulators on the yield, quality, and soil physicochemical properties of alfalfa in saline-alkali land in eastern Hebei Province, alfalfa fields were applied at application levels of 3, 6, 9, and 12 t/ha on November 25, 2023. The results showed that with the increasing of the application amount of biological sulfur regulator, the greening time of alfalfa gradually delayed, and the biological sulfur regulator could prolong the overwintering time of alfalfa. Biological sulfur regulator could significantly improve the plant height, grass yield, and quality traits of alfalfa. The highest plant height was achieved at a rate of 9 t/ha, reached 56.9 cm. Alfalfa stem diameter, branching number, and leaf-stem ratio all performed best at a rate of 9 t/ha. Under the application rate of 9 t/ha, the yields of fresh grass and hay in the first cut were 29 254.5 kg/ha and 7045.2 kg/ha, respectively. At the same time, the crude protein and relative feeding value reached 23.23% and 179.40, respectively. The contents of crude fat, calcium, and phosphorus were 2.26%, 1.67% and 0.42%, respectively, which were significantly higher than other treatments. After the experiment, the soil pH and salt content were the lowest at a dosage of 12 t/ha, which were 8.97 and 0.285%, respectively; the organic matter, microbial carbon and microbial nitrogen contents were the highest at 7.45 g/kg, 61.02 mg/kg and 6.61 mg/kg, respectively, but there were no significant difference compared to the 9 t/ha dosage. Therefore, the optimal application rate of biological sulfur regulator for alfalfa in saline-alkali land was 9 t/ha.

Key words: Biological sulfur regulator, Saline-alkali land, Alfalfa, Yield, Quality, Soil properties

Table 1

Returning to green time of alfalfa under different application rates of biological sulfur regulators"

处理
Treatment		 返青时间（月-日）
Returning to green time (month-day)
CK 03-12
S3 03-12
S6 03-13
S9 03-15
S12 03-16

Table 2

Comparison of alfalfa growth trait under different application rates of biological sulfur regulators"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant
height (cm)		 茎粗
Stem
diameter (mm)		 分枝数
Branch
number		 叶茎比
Leaf-stem
ratio
CK 54.9±2.1c 1.91±0.01b 12.1±0.3b 0.852±0.009b
S3 55.6±2.3b 1.94±0.03b 12.5±0.4b 0.855±0.012b
S6 56.6±1.9a 2.02±0.03a 13.9±0.2a 0.902±0.011a
S9 56.9±2.4a 2.05±0.02a 14.2±0.3a 0.911±0.014a
S12 55.2±1.7c 1.91±0.01b 12.6±0.1b 0.857±0.006b

Table 3

Comparison of fresh grass yield and hay yield of alfalfa under different application rates of biological sulfur regulators kg/hm2"

处理Treatment 鲜草产量Fresh grass yield 干草产量Hay yield
CK 23 131.5±133.2d 5731.3±64.5d
S3 26 533.5±149.4c 6168.0±67.7c
S6 27 603.0±134.1b 6538.5±72.9b
S9 29 254.5±166.8a 7045.2±77.1a
S12 23 410.5±120.9d 5841.0±53.2d

Table 4

Comparison of alfalfa quality under different application rates of biological sulfur regulators"

处理
Treatment		 干物质
Dry matter
(%)		 粗蛋白
Crude protein
(%)		 粗脂肪
Crude fat
(%)		 酸性洗涤纤维
Acid detergent
fiber (%)		 中性洗涤纤维
Neutral detergent
fiber (%)		 相对饲喂价值
Relative
feeding value		 钙
Ca (%)		 磷
P (%)
CK 92.15±0.45a 19.88±1.44d 1.98±0.02c 26.37±2.12a 39.52±2.33a 160.90±6.34e 1.49±0.04b 0.35±0.01b
S3 92.09±0.31a 21.28±1.09c 2.02±0.03c 25.88±2.09b 38.59±2.01b 165.70±7.29d 1.52±0.04b 0.36±0.00b
S6 92.34±0.22a 22.39±1.22b 2.24±0.07a 25.12±1.91c 36.71±1.99d 175.69±1.55b 1.64±0.05a 0.41±0.01a
S9 92.17±0.25a 23.23±1.34a 2.26±0.06a 24.40±1.56d 36.24±2.43e 179.40±1.91a 1.67±0.03a 0.42±0.02a
S12 92.20±0.29a 22.11±1.87b 2.14±0.02b 25.45±1.68c 37.46±2.81c 171.53±6.31c 1.55±0.02b 0.36±0.00b

Table 5

Changes in soil pH, salt content, and organic matter content of different application rates of biological sulfur regulators"

处理
Treatment		 pH 含盐量Salt content (%) 有机质含量Organic matter content (g/kg)
试验前
Before experiment		 试验后
After experiment		 试验前
Before experiment		 试验后
After experiment		 试验前
Before experiment		 试验后
After experiment
CK 9.13 9.13±0.12a 0.314 0.321±0.009a 7.39 7.24±0.12d
S3 9.13 9.11±0.09a 0.314 0.311±0.011b 7.39 7.33±0.09c
S6 9.13 9.07±0.11b 0.314 0.304±0.007c 7.39 7.38±0.11b
S9 9.13 9.07±0.04b 0.314 0.289±0.014d 7.39 7.44±0.14a
S12 9.13 8.97±0.05c 0.314 0.285±0.012d 7.39 7.45±0.10a

Table 6

Changes in soil microbial carbon and nitrogen of different application rates of biological sulfur regulators mg/kg"

处理
Treatment		 微生物量碳Microbial carbon 微生物量氮Microbial nitrogen
试验前Before experiment 试验后After experiment 试验前Before experiment 试验后After experiment
CK 60.12 58.39±1.51c 6.32 5.94±0.12d
S3 60.12 60.44±2.02b 6.32 6.12±0.20c
S6 60.12 60.57±1.45b 6.32 6.34±0.15b
S9 60.12 60.99±1.79a 6.32 6.55±0.14a
S12 60.12 61.02±1.62a 6.32 6.61±0.14a

Table 7

Comparison of membership function values for various trait indicators of alfalfa of different application rates of biological sulfur regulators"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height		 茎粗
Stem diameter		 分枝数
Number of branches		 叶茎比
Leaf-stem ratio		 鲜草产量
Fresh grass yield		 干草产量
Hay yield		 粗蛋白
Crude protein		 粗脂肪
Crude fat		 钙
Ca		 磷
P
CK 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S3 0.350 0.214 0.190 0.051 0.556 0.332 0.418 0.143 0.167 0.143
S6 0.850 0.786 0.857 0.847 0.730 0.614 0.749 0.929 0.833 0.857
S9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
S12 0.150 0.000 0.238 0.085 0.046 0.083 0.018 0.571 0.333 0.143
CK 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.222 5
S3 0.751 0.716 0.259 0.875 0.722 0.429 0.779 0.269 0.409 3
S6 0.365 0.143 0.799 0.625 0.528 0.667 0.829 0.597 0.700 2
S9 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.625 0.111 0.952 0.989 0.910 0.810 1
S12 0.533 0.372 0.005 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.310 4
[1] 陶雅, 孙启忠, 徐丽君, 等. 我国苜蓿产业发展态势与面临的挑战. 草原与草业, 2022, 3(1):1-10.
[2] 王洪水. 适合盐碱地种植的牧草-苜蓿. 现代农业科技, 2007, 36(3):14-15.
[3] Beaychemin K A, Rode L M, Eliason M V. Chewing activities and milk production of dairy cows fed alfalfa as hay, silage, or dried cubes of hay or silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 1997, 80(2):324-333.
pmid: 9058275
[4] Lafereniere C, Berthiaume R, Giesen L, et al. Effects of methods of forage finishing with alfalfa on cattle growth performance and beef carcass characteristics, eating quality, and nutrient composition. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 101(1):30-48.
[5] 段代祥, 赵丽萍, 赵凤娟, 等. 苜蓿青贮在牛、羊饲料中的应用. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(20):169-172.
[6] 李建国, 濮励杰, 朱明, 等. 土壤盐渍化研究现状及未来研究热点. 地理学报, 2012, 67(9):1233-1245.
[7] 降蕴彰. 做好盐碱地特殊农业大文章. 小康, 2023(36):45-46.
[8] 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.
[9] 季慧慧, 黄明丽, 何键, 等. 粉煤灰对土壤性质改善及肥力提升的作用研究进展. 土壤, 2017, 49(4):665-669.
[10] 黄定国, 王文华, 吴玉敏. 实用粉煤灰利用技术在日本的研发现状. 煤炭加工与综合利用, 2006(3):47-49.
[11] 张宁宁, 楚睿雯, 李博洋, 等. 土壤调理剂添加对风沙土质量及紫花苜蓿生长的影响. 榆林学院学报, 2024, 34(2):27-34.
[12] 谢仕祺, 林正全, 陈玉蓝, 等. 不同土壤调理剂对植烟土壤养分及细菌群落的影响. 河南农业大学学报, 2021, 55(3):523-530.
[13] Dai S J, Li Y, Zhou T, et al. Reclamation of heavy metals from contaminated soil using organic acid liquid generated from food waste: removal of Cd, Cu, and Zn, and soil fertility improvement. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24:15260-15269.
[14] 崔恒, 张久东, 宝林, 等. 不同用量有机酸土壤调理剂对土壤养分和作物生长的影响. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(12):4411-4418.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202112.016
[15] 王莉莉, 谭军利, 陈欣, 等. 土壤调理剂对盐碱地土壤盐分、pH值及麒麟西瓜产量的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2024, 42 (4):1-10.
[16] 国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 饲料中粗蛋白的测定凯氏定氮法:GB/T 6432-2018 . 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.
[17] 中华人民共和国农业农村部.饲料中酸性洗涤纤维的测定:NY/T 1459-2022 北京: 中国农业出版社,, 2022.
[18] 国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会.饲料中中性洗涤纤维(NDF)的测定:GB/T 20806-2022. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2022.
[19] 刘源, 崔二苹, 李中阳, 等. 再生水和养殖废水灌溉下生物质炭和果胶对土壤盐碱化的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2018, 37(6):16-23.
[20] 王静童, 王勇, 殷金忠, 等. 短期沼液还田对小麦产量和土壤理化性质的影响. 河南科技学院学报(自然科学版), 2019, 47(4):5-9.
[21] 王倩. 硅酸盐矿物对滨海盐碱土改良作用及机理研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2019.
[22] 毛玉梅, 李小平. 烟气脱硫石膏对滨海滩涂盐碱地的改良效果研究. 中国环境科学, 2016, 36(1):225-231.
[23] Raiesi F, Razmkhah M, Kiani S. Salinity stress accelerates the effect of cadmium toxicity on soil N dynamics and cycling:does joint effect of these stresses matter?. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2018, 153:160-167.
doi: S0147-6513(18)30044-7 pmid: 29427977
[24] 康民泰, 文孝荣, 唐福森, 等. 不同盐碱地土壤调理剂对水稻生育期、农艺性状、产量和品质的影响. 北方水稻, 2022, 52 (6):21-23.
[25] 韩雅婷, 钱建财, 宋正熊, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂对烟草生育期和烟叶品质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(4):101-107.
[26] 王娜, 寇俊德, 张立勤, 等. 有机肥与土壤调理剂配施对轻度盐碱地玉米生育期、产量和土壤盐分的影响. 乡村科技, 2023, 14(11):68-70.
[27] 张荣. ORYKTA土壤调理剂对油葵生产影响试验. 青海科技, 2009(4):21-23.
[28] Wang Z B, Sun H Q, et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis and photosynthetic electron transport chain in young apple tree leaves. Biology Open, 2018, 7(11):25-34.
[29] 任晓磊. 新型土壤调理剂在滨海平原青贮玉米种的应用效果研究. 保定:河北农业大学, 2019.
[30] 刘继培, 张扬, 李飒, 等. 施用不同土壤改良剂对西瓜产量及品质的影响. 中国瓜菜, 2019, 32(8):98-101.
[31] 李丹, 王京文, 袁杭杰, 等. 餐厨废弃物土壤调理剂对土壤理化性状及水稻产量的影响. 农学学报, 2023, 13(6):39-42.
doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2022-0080
[32] 白博文, 刘善江, 申俊峰, 等. 土壤调理剂研发及应用研究进展. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(3):14-18.
[33] 宋秀华, 王秀峰, 魏珉, 等. 沸石添加对NaCl胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生长及离子含量的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2005, 11 (2):259-263.
[34] 朱诗君, 汪峰, 袁晴, 等. 不同土壤调理剂对滨海盐碱土毛豆产量及品质的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2024, 52(13):117-120.
[35] 吕先召. 苜蓿草粉日粮对育肥猪生长性能、胴体性状、肉品质及肌肉化学成分的影响. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2016.
[36] 李胜利. 优质粗饲料-苜蓿干草和鲁梅克斯对奶牛产奶性能的影响. 中国乳业, 2002, 3(1):23-25.
[37] 张林鑫, 吴仙, 李莉娜, 等. 8种青饲料营养成分及其饲用价值的研究. 中国畜禽种业, 2023, 19(5):66-71.
[38] 温洋. 磷钾营养对紫花苜蓿产量和品质的影响及相关机理研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2005.
[39] 杨钰琪, 余晓娥, 欧源, 等. 主成分分析和隶属函数法对不同种植模式下核桃营养品质的综合评价. 林业科技通讯, 2022(12):33-39.
[40] 张玉凤, 林海涛, 王江涛, 等. 盐碱土壤调理剂对玉米生长及土壤的改良效果. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(1):134-138.
[41] 韩笑晨. 土壤调理剂对滨海盐碱地土壤理化性状及夏玉米根系分布的影响. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2024.
[1] Zhou Tingfang, Li Ran, Liu Qianqian, Zhang Ze, Wang Zhenhua, Ma Baoxin, Lu Ming, Zhang Lin, Han Yehui, Yang Bo, Li Mingshun, Zhang Degui, Weng Jianfeng, Yong Hongjun, Xu Jingyu, Han Jienan, Li Xinhai. Analysis of Salt Tolerance at Germination Stage of 118 Maize Hybrids in Northeast China [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 1-10.
[2] Teng Wen, Ye Fan, Zhou Zhou, Wang Yule, Liu Lijun. Effects of Wheat and Rapeseed Straw Returning on Yield and Quality of Rice under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 11-18.
[3] Ma Qiang, Li Yankun, Wang Gui’e, Wen Tingting, Zhang Tianyu, Tian Jichun, Wang Yanxun. Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Quality Characteristics of Colored Wheat Varieties Approved in Shandong Province and Research on Improvement Direction [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 113-119.
[4] Li Xiaomin, Gong Hongyu, Tian Bingxin, Liu Donghua, Li Chunxi, Jiang Lina, Ma Jianhui. Effects of Different Row Spacing Arrangements and Planting Density Combinations on Canopy Structure and Nitrogen Utilization in Wheat on the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 171-176.
[5] Li Linlin, Zhang Zhen, He Gang, Gao Renji, Liang Zengfa, Xie Jin, Huang Hao, Zeng Fandong, Jin Baofeng, Cai Yixia, Jiang Junhong, Wang Wei. Effects of Stalk-Cutting and Curing on the Quality and Metabolites of Upper Tobacco Leaves [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 184-194.
[6] Li Jiahui, Chen Ruxue, Bai Hongbo, Wang Yonghua. Photosynthesis-Grain Filling Coordination Characteristics of Winter Wheat with Different Plant Types and Their Impact on Yield Components [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 195-203.
[7] Wang Yan, Zhang Qian, Dong Ming, Wang Shulin, Feng Guoyi, Liang Qinglong, Qi Hong. Effects of Mechanical Topping Time on Agronomic Characteristics and Yield of Cotton in Southern Hebei Cotton Region [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 204-208.
[8] Wu Huijuan, Geng Xiaoli, Li Deming, Zhou Dongchang, Fu Ping, Liu Qian, Du Xiaocun. Effects of Foliar Spraying with Different Iron Fertilizers on Seed Yield and Its Components in Oat [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 233-238.
[9] Li Xiang, Li Yijie, Wu Xiaojian, Long Shengfeng, Huang Dongmei, Gao Yijing, Wang Zeping. Application Effect of Sugarcane Waste in Cultivation of Dictyophora indusiata [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 260-265.
[10] Li Jie, Zhang Yongqiang, Lei Junjie, Lü Xiaoqing, Chen Chuanxin, Xu Qijiang, Nie Shihui, Xu Wenxiu, Chang Xuhong. Effects of Different Urea Types and Application Methods on Plant Characteristics and Yield Composition of Winter Wheat under Drip Irrigation [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 266-271.
[11] Du Hanmeng, Chen Yuqiong, Liu Ruotong, Chen Yinglong, Dai Qigen, Zhang Hongcheng, Liao Ping. Effects of Chlormequat Chloride and Gypsum Application on Rice Yield and Lodging Risk under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 29-34.
[12] Yan Jingrong, Pang Chunhua, Zhang Yongqing, Wu Yueyue, Hou Yuchen, Wang Jiaqi, Qiao Man. Effects of Desulfurized Gypsum and Humic Acid Interaction on Soil and Quinoa Growth in Saline-Alkali Land [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(5): 47-53.
[13] Sun Xianyin, Zhang Jibo, Lü Guangde, Qi Xiaolei, Sun Yingying, Mi Yong, Mu Qiuhuan, Yin Xundong, Wang Ruixia, Qian Zhaoguo, Gao Minggang. Comparison of High and Stable Yield Characteristics of Different Genotypes of Wheat under Dryland and Supplemental Irrigation Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 104-110.
[14] Wang Shengtai, Zhao Baoxie, Du Shikun, Li Yuyang, Yu Hualin, Li Rongxin. Identification of Salt Tolerance and Variety Screening of Flax in Moderately Saline-Alkali Soil [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 111-117.
[15] Li Xiushi, Li Yingtao, Fu Yuhua, Luo Renshan, Li Shouling, Shang Kun, Zhu Jiabao, Yu Chun. The Impact of Different Ecological Conditions on Yield of Coix Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 157-163.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!