Effects of Combined Addition of Biochemical Inhibitors and Humic Acids on Nitrogen Supply by Stability Urea for Rice in Black Soil
-
摘要:
目的 研究同时添加不同种生化抑制剂和腐植酸后尿素在黑土区水田的施用效果,为黑土区稻田新一代高效稳定性尿素肥料的研制提供理论依据。 方法 采用盆栽方法,以不施氮肥(CK)及施用尿素(N)为对照,通过测定水稻土中的氮素转化特征及水稻生理指标、产量及氮肥利用效率等的影响,探究添加腐植酸(HA)、N-丁基硫代磷酰三胺(NBPT)、3,4-二甲基吡唑磷酸盐(DMPP)和2-氯-6-三甲基吡啶(CP)及腐植酸分别与三种生化抑制剂组合制成的7种稳定性尿素肥料改善氮素供应稳定性的差异。 结果 ①相比单施普通尿素,添加腐植酸及NBPT、DMPP、CP均能提高水稻产量、吸氮量及尿素氮肥利用效率。② 相比单独施用NBPT,尿素联合添加NBPT和腐植酸后能有效抑制土壤硝化作用,分别提高水稻株高、分蘖数和叶绿素含量1.84%、13.38%和2.80%,但会降低水稻产量、叶面积指数、水稻吸氮量、氮肥利用率及偏生产力。③ 相比单独施用DMPP,尿素联合添加腐植酸、DMPP能分别提高水稻株高、分蘖数和叶绿素含量3.04%、5.20%和3.71%,显著降低土壤硝化抑制率、水稻产量、水稻吸氮量、氮肥利用率及偏生产力(P < 0.05)。④ 相比单独施用CP,尿素联合添加腐植酸、CP提高了土壤速效氮含量、水稻株高、分蘖数、叶绿素含量、生物产量,显著提高水稻籽粒产量、水稻吸氮量、氮肥利用率及偏生产力(P < 0.05)。 结论 腐植酸与CP联合添加制成新型稳定尿素肥料用于在东北黑土区水稻栽培,有利于作物增产及氮肥利用率的提高。 Abstract:Objective The application effects of stability urea adding different biochemical inhibitors and humic acids were carried on rice planted in black soil, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the development of a new generation of high efficiency and stability urea for rice planted in black soils. Method In the pot experiment, blank (CK) and urea (N) were set as controls, through the determination nitrogen transformation characteristics of paddy soil, rice physiological indices, yield and nitrogen fertilizer use efficiencies, to investigate the differences in nitrogen supply stability of 7 kinds of stability urea made from humic acids (HA), N-butyl thiophosphate-triamine (NBPT), 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), 2-chloro-6-trimethyl-pyridine (CP) and humic acids with 3 biochemical inhibitors, respectively. Result ① Urea (N) was set as controls, adding humic acids, NBPT, DMPP and CP could increase rice yield, N uptake and nitrogen use efficiency. ② Compared with the application of NBPT alone, the addition of humic acids could effectively inhibit soil nitrification, plant height, tiller number and chlorophyll contents of rice were increased by 1.84%, 13.38% and 2.80%, but yield, leaf area, nitrogen uptake, NUE and NPFP of rice were decreased. ③ Compared with the application of DMPP alone, the addition of humic acids could increase plant height, tiller number and chlorophyll contents of rice by 3.04%, 5.20% and 3.71%, respectively. And it also could significantly decrease nitrification inhibition rate, rice yield, nitrogen uptake, NUE and NPFP (P < 0.05). ④ Compared with the application of CP alone, the addition of humic acids increased soil available nitrogen content, plant height, tiller number, chlorophyll contents and total biomass of rice, significantly increased grain yield, nitrogen uptake, NUE and NPFP(P < 0.05). Conclusion Adding humic acids and CP to urea to make a new type of stability urea for rice cultivation in the black soil area of northeast China is beneficial to the increase of crop yield and the improvement of nitrogen use efficiency. -
Key words:
- Rice /
- Biostimulant /
- Urease inhibitor /
- Nitrification inhibitor /
- Ammonium nitrogen /
- Nitrate nitrogen /
- Nitrogen use efficiency
-
表 1 水稻不同生育时期不同处理土壤铵态氮含量(mg kg−1)
Table 1. Contents of soil ammonium nitrogen at different growth stages of rice under different treatments(mg kg−1)
处理
Treatment分蘖期
Tillering抽穗开花期
Heading and flowering灌浆期
Filling成熟期
MatureCK 19.67 ± 0.30 e 17.60 ± 1.26 bc 13.95 ± 0.27 c 13.54 ± 1.22 b N 20.22 ± 0.43 e 15.02 ± 0.03 d 12.38 ± 1.12 d 11.51 ± 0.49 c H 49.59 ± 2.41 a 20.40 ± 0.53 a 11.80 ± 0.69 de 13.52 ± 0.51 b NBPT 24.57 ± 1.28 cd 20.28 ± 0.20 a 15.08 ± 0.38 bc 13.16 ± 0.75 b DMPP 27.46 ± 1.45 bc 18.84 ± 1.12 ab 12.75 ± 0.59 d 12.48 ± 0.90 bc CP 28.67 ± 1.33 b 17.98 ± 1.64 bc 15.76 ± 1.13 b 12.48 ± 0.10 bc NBPT + H 25.83 ± 2.67 bcd 17.73 ± 1.49 bc 10.87 ± 0.47 e 13.35 ± 0.93 b DMPP + H 23.12 ± 0.58 d 16.59 ± 0.34 cd 12.47 ± 0.10 d 12.86 ± 0.29 b CP + H 47.82 ± 2.17 a 20.22 ± 1.24 a 17.14 ± 0.53 a 15.62 ± 0.17 a 注:同列不同字母表示差异达5%为显著水平。 表 2 水稻不同生育时期不同处理土壤硝态氮含量(mg kg-1)
Table 2. Contents of soil nitrate nitrogen in different growth stages of rice under different treatments(mg kg-1)
处理
Treatment分蘖期
Tillering抽穗开花期
Heading and flowering灌浆期
Grouting成熟期
MatureCK 2.63 ± 0.22 b 5.33 ± 0.03 ab 4.58 ± 0.07 a 2.58 ± 0.03 e N 2.37 ± 0.03 cd 4.74 ± 0.48 c 2.40 ± 0.10 d 3.14 ± 0.07 d H 3.05 ± 0.03 a 4.94 ± 0.28 bc 1.72 ± 0.02 e 2.76 ± 0.19 e NBPT 2.41 ± 0.00 c 4.97 ± 0.37 bc 2.67 ± 0.23 c 3.25 ± 0.05 d DMPP 2.14 ± 0.01 ef 4.63 ± 0.41 cd 2.40 ± 0.03 d 2.70 ± 0.24 e CP 2.11 ± 0.01 f 4.94 ± 0.22 bc 2.85 ± 0.15 bc 4.35 ± 0.12 b NBPT + H 2.26 ± 0.01 de 4.53 ± 0.02 cd 1.76 ± 0.09 e 5.33 ± 0.09 a DMPP + H 2.14 ± 0.01 ef 4.15 ± 0.11 d 2.83 ± 0.05 bc 2.17 ± 0.16 f CP + H 2.22 ± 0.01 ef 5.80 ± 0.22 a 2.94 ± 0.15 b 3.62 ± 0.21 c 注:同列不同字母表示差异达5%为显著水平。 表 3 不同处理水稻生长指标
Table 3. Growth index of rice under different treatments
处理
Treatment株高(cm)
Plant height分蘖数(个)
Tiller number叶绿素(SPAD)
Chlorophyll content叶面积指数(cm2)
Leaf areaCK 71.98 ± 1.94 c 7.53 ± 0.31 d 7.43 ± 0.31 e 24.33 ± 2.46 c N 84.32 ± 1.20 a 10.27 ± 0.31 c 19.52 ± 0.07 d 25.56 ± 0.83 c H 79.16 ± 4.73 b 11.67 ± 0.12 ab 21.70 ± 1.63 a 29.60 ± 0.73 b NBPT 82.67 ± 2.25 ab 10.47 ± 0.81 c 20.95 ± 0.14 abc 29.92 ± 3.78 b DMPP 79.06 ± 0.59 b 11.53 ± 0.61 ab 21.27 ± 0.88 ab 30.13 ± 0.41 b CP 84.20 ± 0.21 a 11.13 ± 0.61 bc 19.86 ± 0.04 cd 34.45 ± 1.85 a NBPT + H 84.19 ± 4.62 a 11.87 ± 0.76 ab 21.53 ± 0.81 ab 27.53 ± 0.79 bc DMPP + H 81.46 ± 1.65 ab 12.13 ± 0.50 a 22.06 ± 0.05 a 27.31 ± 0.94 bc CP + H 84.68 ± 0.66 a 11.67 ± 0.12 ab 20.30 ± 0.33 bcd 29.75 ± 1.02 b 注:同列不同字母表示差异达5%为显著水平。 表 4 不同处理水稻产量、吸氮量及氮肥利用效率
Table 4. Yield, nitrogen uptake, nitrogen use efficiency of rice under different treatments
处理
Treatment生物产量(g pot−1)
Total biomass籽粒产量(g pot−1)
Grain yield籽粒吸氮量(g pot−1)
Grain N uptake总吸氮量(g pot−1)
Total N uptake氮肥利用率(%)
NUE氮肥偏生产力(g g−1)
NPFPCK 182.91 ± 4.23 d 58.76 ± 1.33 g 0.66 ± 0.05 f 1.28 ± 0.09 d − − N 306.12 ± 15.77 c 76.29 ± 2.22 f 0.90 ± 0.08 e 2.39 ± 0.04 c 26.54 ± 1.03 c 18.17 ± 0.53 e H 306.99 ± 18.72 c 104.01 ± 4.61 bc 1.23 ± 0.07 bc 2.45 ± 0.12 c 27.75 ± 2.79 c 24.76 ± 1.10 ab NBPT 317.63 ± 14.62 bc 99.82 ± 2.29 cd 1.15 ± 0.01 c 2.67 ± 0.12 b 33.19 ± 2.88 b 23.77 ± 0.55 bc DMPP 363.89 ± 5.28 a 111.24 ± 2.26 a 1.36 ± 0.05 a 3.00 ± 0.07 a 40.84 ± 1.57 a 26.49 ± 0.54 a CP 329.38 ± 2.12 bc 98.74 ± 5.61 cd 1.17 ± 0.11 c 2.73 ± 0.10 b 34.46 ± 2.47 b 23.51 ± 1.34 bc NBPT + H 310.72 ± 16.24 bc 85.03 ± 2.85 e 1.02 ± 0.08 d 2.60 ± 0.07 b 31.45 ± 1.56 b 20.25 ± 0.68 d DMPP + H 307.00 ± 8.84 c 94.23 ± 3.32 d 1.14 ± 0.04 c 2.68 ± 0.07 b 33.40 ± 1.76 b 22.44 ± 0.79 c CP + H 333.13 ± 18.03 bc 109.62 ± 6.64 ab 1.33 ± 0.06 ab 3.09 ± 0.03 a 43.01 ± 0.80 a 26.10 ± 1.58 a 注:同列不同字母表示差异达5%为显著水平。 -
[1] Rahman M M, Shan J, Yang P P, et al. Effects of long-term pig manure application on antibiotics, abundance of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), anammox and denitrification rates in paddy soils[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2018, 240: 368 − 377. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.135 [2] 刘 泰, 王洪媛, 杨 波, 等. 粪肥增施对水稻产量和氮素利用效率的影响[J/OL]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021 : 1 − 19. [3] 武开阔, 张丽莉, 宋玉超, 等. 稳定性氮肥配合秸秆还田对水稻产量及N2O和CH4排放的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(4): 1287 − 1294. [4] Gu J F, Chen Y, Zhang H, et al. Canopy light and nitrogen distributions are related to grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in rice[J]. Field Crops Research, 2017, 206: 74 − 85. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.021 [5] 于春晓, 张丽莉, 杨立杰, 等. 抑制剂和猪粪对尿素氮在稻田土壤中转化的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(6): 1851 − 1858. [6] Zhu Z L, Chen D L. Nitrogen fertilizer use in China - Contributions to food production, impacts on the environment and best management strategies[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2002, 63(2-3): 117 − 127. [7] Lassaletta L, Billen G, Grizzetti B, et al. Food and feed trade as a driver in the global nitrogen cycle: 50-year trends[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2014, 118(1-3): 225 − 241. doi: 10.1007/s10533-013-9923-4 [8] Beeckman F, Motte H, Beeckman T. Nitrification in agricultural soils: Impact, actors and mitigation[J]. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2018, 50: 166 − 173. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2018.01.014 [9] 武志杰, 石元亮, 李东坡, 等. 稳定性肥料发展与展望[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6): 1614 − 1621. [10] Akiyama H, Yan X Y, Yagi K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: Meta-analysis[J]. Global Change Biology, 2010, 16(6): 1837 − 1846. [11] Wallace A J, Armstrong R D, Grace P R, et al. Nitrogen use efficiency of N-15 urea applied to wheat based on fertiliser timing and use of inhibitors[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2020, 116(1): 41 − 56. doi: 10.1007/s10705-019-10028-x [12] 崔 磊, 李东坡, 武志杰, 等. 用于黑土的稳定性氯化铵的适宜硝化抑制剂和氮肥增效剂组合[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(12): 2178 − 2188. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19298 [13] 张 蕾, 王玲莉, 房娜娜, 等. 稳定性肥料在中国不同区域的施用效果及施用量[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(2): 215 − 230. [14] Vitale L, Ottaiano L, Polimeno F, et al. Effects of 3, 4-dimethylphyrazole phosphate-added nitrogen fertilizers on crop growth and N2O emissions in southern Italy[J]. Plant Soil and Environment, 2013, 59(11): 517 − 523. doi: 10.17221/362/2013-PSE [15] 孙志梅, 武志杰, 陈利军, 等. 硝化抑制剂的施用效果、影响因素及其评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, (7): 1611 − 1618. [16] Asli S, Neumann P M. Rhizosphere humic acid interacts with root cell walls to reduce hydraulic conductivity and plant development[J]. Plant and Soil, 2010, 336(1-2): 313 − 322. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0483-2 [17] Canellas L P, Olivares F L, Okorokova-Facanha A L, et al. Humic acids isolated from earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma membrane H + ATPase activity in maize roots[J]. Plant Physiology, 2002, 130(4): 1951 − 1957. doi: 10.1104/pp.007088 [18] Schmidt W, Santi S, Pinton R, et al. Water-extractable humic substances alter root development and epidermal cell pattern in Arabidopsis[J]. Plant and Soil, 2007, 300(1-2): 259 − 267. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9411-5 [19] Akladious S A, Mohamed H I. Ameliorative effects of calcium nitrate and humic acid on the growth, yield component and biochemical attribute of pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants grown under salt stress[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2018, 236: 244 − 250. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.03.047 [20] 刘兰兰, 史春余, 梁太波, 等. 腐植酸肥料对生姜土壤微生物量和酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(11): 6136 − 6141. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.11.047 [21] Manzoor A, Khattak R A, Dost M. Humic acid and micronutrient effects on wheat yield and nutrients uptake in salt affected soils[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2014, 16(5): 991 − 995. [22] 林江辉, 李辉信, 胡 锋, 等. 干土效应对土壤生物组成及矿化与硝化作用的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2004, (6): 924 − 930. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.06.013 [23] 油伦成, 李东坡, 崔 磊, 等. 不同硝化抑制剂组合对铵态氮在黑土和褐土中转化的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(12): 2113 − 2121. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19338 [24] 葛均筑, 徐 莹, 袁国印, 等. 覆膜对长江中游春玉米氮肥利用效率及土壤速效氮素的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(2): 296 − 306. [25] 王 静, 王允青, 张凤芝, 等. 脲酶/硝化抑制剂对沿淮平原水稻产量、氮肥利用率及稻田氮素的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(5): 211 − 216. [26] 闫双堆, 刘利军, 洪坚平. 腐殖酸-尿素络合物对尿素转化及氮素释放的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2008, (1): 109 − 112. [27] Dong L, Cordova-Kreylos A L, Yang J, et al. Humic acids buffer the effects of urea on soil ammonia oxidizers and potential nitrification[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2009, 41(8): 1612 − 1621. [28] 薛 妍, 武志杰, 张丽莉, 等. 土壤含水量、pH及有机质对DMPP硝化抑制效果的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(10): 2663 − 2669. [29] 张务帅, 张建青, 谷端银, 等. 腐植酸复合肥对苹果生长及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(2): 177 − 182. [30] Nardi S, Pizzeghello D, Muscolo A, et al. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2002, 34(11): 1527 − 1536. [31] 刘 敏, 李絮花, 刘文博, 等. 腐植酸对番茄苗期氮素代谢的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(3): 327 − 331. [32] Tripathi S C, Sayre K D, Kaul J N, et al. Lodging behavior and yield potential of spring wheat (Triticum aestivumL. ): effects of ethephon and genotypes[J]. Field Crops Research, 2004, 87(2-3): 207 − 220. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.11.003 [33] 谷端银, 王秀峰, 高俊杰, 等. 纯化腐植酸对氮胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生长和氮代谢的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(8): 2575 − 2582. [34] 张水勤, 袁 亮, 林治安, 等. 腐植酸促进植物生长的机理研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(4): 1065 − 1076.