Crops ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (6): 104-113.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.06.017

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Different Tillage Treatments on Soil Microorganisms, Enzyme Activities and Nutrients

Huang Binglin,Wang Mengxue,Jin Xijun,Hu Guohua,Zhang Yuxian   

  1. College of Agronomy, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing 163319, Heilongjiang, China
  • Received:2019-05-23 Revised:2019-10-11 Online:2019-12-15 Published:2019-12-11
  • Contact: Yuxian Zhang

RichHTML

9

PDF (PC)

316

Abstract:

In order to reveal the effects of different tillage treatments on soil microorganisms, enzyme activities and nutrients, two different tillage methods and four intertillage methods were used as primary tillage and secondary tillage. The results showed that the number of bacteria of rotary tillage decreased compared with that of ploughing in the flowering stage. The number of fungi of rotary tillage was higher than that of ploughing in the mature stage. However, the number of actinomycetes of ploughing increased in the flowering stage and decreased significantly in the podding stage compared with that of rotary tillage. In the podding stage the activity of urease of ploughing was lower than that of rotary tillage, but in the other growth stages were higher than that of rotary tillage. The activity of soil phosphatase of ploughing was higher than that of rotary tillage, which was increased in podding stage and bulging stage. The activity of sucrase of ploughing increased compared with that of rotary tillage in the flowering stage. The catalase activity of ploughing in the flowering and podding stage increased compared with that of rotary tillage. The available phosphorus content of ploughing was higher than that of rotary tillage. The available potassium content of rotary tillage was significantly higher than that of ploughing. In different tillage measures, the number of bacteria in flowering stage, RT1 and RT2 significantly increased compared with RCK. The number of fungi in the mature stage, PT1, PT2 and PT3 decreased compared with PCK. The quantity of actinomycetes increased in both PT2 and RT2 in each growth stage. In each growth stage, the soil urease activities of PT2 and RT2 were all relatively high, and PT2 compared with PCK and RT2 compared with RCK were significantly increased, respectively. The soil phosphatase activity of PT2 and RT2 were all relatively high in each growth stage. Soil sucrase activity was higher than the CK in different treatments in the mature stage. In the mature stages, the catalase activity of PT1 and RT1 was increased compared with that of PCK and RCK. In addition to the soil organic matter content of RT2 was significantly increase, there was no significant difference between other treatments. However, alkaloidal nitrogen and available potassium content were significantly higher than PCK and RCK in PT2 and RT2. In conclusion, PT2 combination tillage treatment is more conducive to the protection of soil microenvironment.

Key words: Tillage, Intertillage, Soil microorganisms, Soil enzymes, Soil nutrients

Table 1

Different treatment methods"

耕作措施
Tillage measure		 中耕方式
Intertillage method		 处理组合
Treatment combination		 播种后4~5d
4~5 days after sowing		 V2~V3期
V2~V3 stage		 V4~V5期
V4~V5 stage		 V6~V7期
V6~V7 stage
T1 PT1 小培土 - 中培土 大培土
翻耕(P) Ploughing T2 PT2 深松25~30cm - 深松30~35cm+中培土 大培土
T3 PT3 - 深松25~30cm 深松30~35cm 大培土
CK PCK - 小培土 中培土 大培土
T1 RT1 小培土 - 中培土 大培土
旋耕(R) Rotary tillage T2 RT2 深松25~30cm - 深松30~35cm+中培土 大培土
T3 RT3 - 深松25~30cm 深松30~35cm 大培土
CK RCK - 小培土 中培土 大培土

Fig.1

Effects of different tillage measures on number of bacteria in soil Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments (P<0.05), the same below"

Fig.2

Effects of different tillage measures on number of fungi in soil"

Fig.3

Effects of different tillage measures on number of actinomycetes in soil"

Fig.4

Effects of different tillage measures on soil urease activity"

Fig.5

Effects of different tillage measures on soil phosphatase activity"

Fig.6

Effects of different tillage measures on soil sucrase activity"

Fig.7

Effects of different tillage measures on soil catalase activity"

Table 2

Effects of different tillage measures on soil nutrients"

处理
Treatment		 有机质含量(g/kg)
Organic matter content		 碱解氮含量(mg/kg)
Available nitrogen content		 速效磷含量(mg/kg)
Available phosphorus content		 速效钾含量(mg/kg)
Available potassium content
PT1 20.65±3.25b 143.83±1.48b 22.79±0.38b 157.50±4.18d
PT2 21.96±1.49b 151.13±1.96a 29.37±0.10a 173.63±1.10b
PT3 21.59±1.81b 142.75±3.66b 21.29±1.49bc 158.23±2.76d
PCK 21.59±3.10b 134.81±4.19c 22.40±3.48b 160.23±2.68d
RT1 23.65±1.49b 141.68±2.57b 18.14±0.19d 171.13±1.15b
RT2 28.72±1.12a 152.62±1.70a 19.19±0.57cd 190.53±0.97a
RT3 22.34±1.97b 145.30±2.07b 17.98±0.67d 187.73±1.70a
RCK 23.28±0.32b 132.66±2.23c 17.53±0.59d 164.50±0.62c
[1] 张帆, 黄凤球, 肖小平 , 等. 冬季作物对稻田土壤微生物量碳、氮和微生物熵的短期影响. 生态学报, 2009,29(2):734-739.
[2] Ryan M P, Adley C C . Sphingomonas paucimobilis:a persistent Gram-negative nosocomial infectious organism, Journal of Hospital Infection, 2010,75(3):153-157.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.03.007
[3] Menders L W, Brossi M J de L, Kuramae E E ,et al. Land-use system shapes soil bacterial communities in Southeastern Amazon region. Applied Soil Ecology, 2015,95(4):151-160.
doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.06.005
[4] 赵亚丽, 郭海斌, 薛志伟 , 等. 耕作方式与秸秆还田对土壤微生物数量、酶活性及作物产量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2015,26(6):1785-1792.
[5] 隋鹏祥, 张心昱, 温学发 , 等. 耕作方式和秸秆还田对棕壤土壤养分和酶活性的影响. 生态学杂志, 2016,35(8):2038-2045.
[6] 陈闯, 吴景贵, 杨子仪 . 不同有机肥及其混施对黑土酶活性动态变化的影响. 水土保持学报, 2014,28(6):245-250.
[7] 王碧胜, 蔡典雄, 武雪萍 , 等. 长期保护性耕作对土壤有机碳和玉米产量及水分利用的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015,21(6):1455-1464.
doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2015.0610
[8] 虞舟鲁, 邱乐丰, 林霖 . 土地利用方式变化对农业土壤有机碳空间分布的影响. 浙江农业学报, 2017,29(5):806-811.
[9] 陈朝, 吕昌河, 范兰 , 等. 土地利用变化对土壤有机碳的影响研究进展. 生态学报, 2011,31(18):5358-5371.
[10] 张德喜, 吴卿 . 不同耕作方式对农田土壤养分含量及土壤酶活性的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(11):234-237.
[11] Wu L F, Li B B, Qin Y , et al. Soil CO2 emission and carbon budget of a wheat/maize annual double-cropped system in response to tillage and residue management in the North China Plain. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2017,15(3):253-263.
doi: 10.1080/14735903.2017.1288518
[12] 王小玲, 马琨, 汪志琴 , 等. 冬小麦免耕覆盖与有机栽培对土壤微生物群落组成的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2019,27(2):267-276.
[13] Ekenler M, Tabatabai M A . Tillage and residue management effects on β-glucosaminidase activity in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003,35(6):871-874.
doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00094-4
[14] 鲍士旦 . 土壤农化分析. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999.
[15] 潘静 . 呼和浩特城郊塑料大棚土壤微生物多样性的动态研究. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2015.
[16] 龚子同 . 中国土壤系统分类. 北京: 科学出版社, 1999: 404-409.
[17] 韦持章, 农玉琴, 陈远权 , 等. 茶树/大豆间作对根际土壤微生物群落及酶活性的影响. 西北农业学报, 2018,27(4):537-544.
[18] 盖志佳, 吴嘉彧, 张敬涛 , 等. 大豆玉米持续轮作免耕对土壤养分及作物产量的影响. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(5):100-106.
[19] 张贵云, 吕贝贝, 张丽萍 , 等. 黄土高原旱地麦田26年免耕覆盖对土壤肥力及原核微生物群落多样性的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2019,27(3):358-368.
[20] 李丽娜, 席运官, 陈鄂 , 等. 耕作方式与绿肥种植对土壤微生物组成和多样性的影响. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018,34(4):342-348.
[21] Vida K, Fayez R, Mohammad A . Tillage effects on soil microbial biomass,SOM mineralization and enzyme activity in a semi-arid calcixerepts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2016,232(16):73-84.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.07.022
[22] 张博文 . 深松对黑土区土壤特性及细菌群落结构影响. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2018.
[23] 贾凤梅, 张淑花, 魏雅冬 . 不同耕作方式下玉米农田土壤养分及土壤微生物活性变化. 水土保持研究, 2018,25(5):112-117.
[24] Martin D L, José R, José C G-H . Post-fire vegetation succession in Mediterranean gorse shrublands. Acta Oecologica, 2006,30(1):54-61.
doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2006.01.005
[25] 周东兴, 李磊, 李晶 , 等. 玉米/大豆轮作下不同施肥处理对土壤微生物生物量及酶活性的影响. 生态学杂志, 2018,37(6):1856-1864.
[26] 李海云, 张建贵, 姚拓 , 等. 退化高寒草地土壤养分、酶活性及生态化学计量特征. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(5):287-295.
[27] Li Z, Jing W, Guo Z F , et al. Rotary tillage in rotation with plowing tillage improves soil properties and crop yield in a wheat-maize cropping system. PLoS ONE, 2018,13(6):e0198193.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198193 pmid: 29902193
[28] Ding S J, Xiong S P, Ma X M , et al. Effects of tillage and nitrogen application rate on soil nitrogen transformation and yield in a winter wheat/summer maize multiple cropping system. Europe PMC, 2017,28(1):142-150.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201701.012 pmid: 29749198
[29] 张文超 . 耕作方式对土壤主要理化性状及玉米产量形成的影响. 大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2017.
[30] 罗奥 . 不同耕作措施对土壤理化生物性状和大豆产量的影响. 大庆:黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2009.
[31] 胡诚, 曹志平, 叶钟年 , 等. 不同的土壤培肥措施对低肥力农田土壤微生物生物量碳的影响. 生态学报,2006(3):808-814.
[32] 李玉洁, 王慧, 赵建宁 , 等. 耕作方式对农田土壤理化因子和生物学特性的影响. 应用生态学报, 2015,26(3):939-948.
[33] Tatsuya H, Mu Y H, Masakazu K , et al. Tillage and cover crop species affect soil organic carbon in Andosol,Kanto,Japan. Soil and Tillage Research, 2014,138:64-72.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.12.010
[34] 丁世杰, 熊淑萍, 马新明 , 等. 耕作方式与施氮量对小麦-玉米复种系统玉米季土壤氮素转化及产量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2017,28(1):142-150.
[35] 张志政 . 土壤深松对乌拉尔甘草(Glycyrrhiza uralensis)产量品质和土壤环境的影响. 石河子:石河子大学, 2017.
[1] Li Chunxi,Li Sisi,Shao Yun,Ma Shouchen,Liu Qing,Weng Zhengpeng,Li Xiaobo. Effects of Organic Materials Returning on Enzyme Activities and Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Content in Wheat Field under Nitrogen-Reducing Conditions [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 129-134.
[2] Xiao Guo, Shouyi Wang, Tianyi Yuan, Yuting Ye, Yifu Zhang, Yifu Jin, Ruihong Zhang, Hongcheng Zhang. Research Status and Prospects on Wheat No-Tillage Seeder [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 39-45.
[3] Yufei Zhang,Lizhi Liu,Yuxuan Ma,Xiaochun Wang,Jianjun Dai. Effects of Tillage and Straw Returning Methods on Maize Yield and Potassium Accumulation and Transport [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 122-127.
[4] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114-120.
[5] Wenchao Zhang,Yufeng Wang,Yifei Zhang,Jingyu Xu,Qiong Wu,Tianyu Chen,Pengfei Zhang,Chen Pang,Chunshuang Tang,Jian Fu,Kejun Yang. Effects of Different Tillage Methods on Changes of Soil Nutrients and Grain Yield of Maize in Semi-Arid Regions of Songnen Plain [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 123-128.
[6] Jingang Liang,Zhengguang Zhang. Advance on Effects of Genetically ModifiedCrops on Soil Ecosystems [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 1-6.
[7] Runlian Wang,Zhidong Zhang,Jinghui Liu,Huijun Liu,Baoping Zhao. Effects of No-Tillage with Stubble Mulch on Soil Nutrients, Soil Enzyme Activities and Oat Yield [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(3): 134-138.
[8] Ming Zhao,Wei Ma,Baoyuan Zhou,Xuefang Sun. Using Integrated Technology of Stubble-Shoving,Ridge-Cleaning and Precise Sowing to Achieve the High Yield,High Efficiency and Environment-Friendly in Maize Production [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(3): 1-5.
[9] . [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(3): 79-82.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Wang Haitao,Liu Cunjing,Tang Liyuan,Zhang Sujun,Li Xinghe,Cai Xiao,Zhang Xiangyun,Zhang Jianhong. Status and Developmental Tendency of Hybrid Cotton in Hebei Province[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 1 -8 .
[2] Huang Yufang,Ye Youliang,Zhao Yanan,Yue Songhua,Bai Hongbo,Wang Yang. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rates on Yield and Mineral Concentrations of Winter Wheat Grains in the North of Henan Province[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 104 -108 .
[3] Li Song,Zhang Shicheng,Dong Yunwu,Shi Delin,Shi Yundong. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Rice Varieties in Tengchong, Yunnan Based on SSR Markers[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 15 -21 .
[4] Hou Qian,Wang Wanxing,Li Guangcun,Xiong Xingyao. Advances in the Research on Potato Continuous Cropping Obstacles[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(6): 1 -7 .
[5] Cao Tingjie,Zhang Yu’e,Hu Weiguo,Yang Jian,Zhao Hong,Wang Xicheng,Zhou Yanjie,Zhao Qunyou,Li Huiqun. Detection of Three Dwarfing Genes in the New Wheat Cultivars (Lines) Developed in South Huang-Huai Valley and Its Association with Agronomic Traits[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(6): 14 -19 .
[6] Zhang Ting,Lu Lahu,Yang Bin,Yuan Kai,Zhang Wei,Shi Xiaofang. Comparative Analysis of Wheat Agronomic Traits in Four Provinces of Huanghuai Wheat Area[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(6): 20 -26 .
[7] Wang Yongxing,Shan Feibiao,Yan Wenzhi,Du Ruixia,Yang Qinfang,Liu Chunhui,Bai Lihua. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Code Classification Based on DUS Testing in Sunflower[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 22 -27 .
[8] Shi Zhaokang,Zhao Zequn,Zhang Yuanhang,Xu Shiying,Wang Ning,Wang Weijie,Cheng Hao,Xing Guofang,Feng Wanjun. The Response and Cluster Analysis of Biomass Accumulation and Root Morphology of Maize Inbred Lines Seedlings to Two Nitrogen Application Levels[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 28 -36 .
[9] Zhang Zhongwei,Yang Hailong,Fu Jun,Xie Wenjin,Feng Guang. Genetic Analysis of the Kernel Length of Maize with Mixed Model of Major Gene Plus Polygene[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 37 -40 .
[10] Zhang Yongfang,Qian Xiaona,Wang Runmei,Shi Pengqing,Yang Rong. Identification of Drought Resistance of Different Soybean Materials and Screening of Drought Tolerant Varieties[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 41 -45 .