| 引用本文: | 华克骥,何军,张宇航,等.不同灌溉和施肥方式对稻田土壤氮、磷迁移转化的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2022,():-. |
| HUA Keji,HE Jun,ZHANG Yuhang,et al.不同灌溉和施肥方式对稻田土壤氮、磷迁移转化的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2022,():-. |
|
| 摘要: |
| 【目的】揭示不同灌溉和施肥方式对稻田土壤氮、磷迁移转化的影响，寻求水稻适宜的水肥管理模式。【方法】于2019年6—9月在湖北省漳河灌区开展水稻测坑试验。设置4个处理：淹灌常规施肥（W1N1）、淹灌缓释施肥（W1N2）、间歇灌溉常规施肥（W2N1）、间歇灌溉缓释施肥（W2N2），每个处理重复3次，对各处理不同深度土层的渗滤液总氮（TN）、硝态氮（NO-3-N）、铵态氮（NH+ 4-N）、总磷（TP）浓度进行化验分析。【结果】缓释施肥（N2）条件下0~25 cm处渗滤液TN、NO-3-N、NH+ 4-N平均浓度均高于常规施肥（N1）；淹水灌溉（W1）配施缓释肥显著提高了TN、NH+ 4-N浓度（P<0.05），而NO-3-N浓度差异不显著；各处理0~25 cm处渗滤液TP平均浓度差异不显著。TN、NO-3-N垂向迁移呈明显分层：25~40 cm为过渡淋失层、40~55 cm为快速淋失层、55~125 cm为缓冲淋失层、125~245 cm为稳定淋失层。W1N2处理下，稻田淋失层渗滤液NO-3-N、NH+ 4-N平均浓度均值最高，分别为2.37 mg/L、0.75 mg/L；N2条件下，NH+ 4-N、NO-3-N平均浓度均值较N1分别高29.0%~193.8%、3.7%~3.9%；W2模式较W1模式的NO-3-N平均浓度均值降低了12.5%~12.7%，而TP平均浓度均值提高了29.2%~49.2%。【结论】淹灌缓释施肥能够较好地维持稻田吸收层的氮素水平，而对磷素的维持效果不如间歇灌溉缓释施肥。缓释施肥比常规施肥的氮素淋失风险更大，间歇灌溉缓释施肥可以降低氮素淋失风险，但会增加磷素淋失风险。 |
| 关键词: 稻田;灌溉模式;施肥方式;土壤氮、磷渗滤液;产量;淋失风险 |
| DOI：10.13522/j.cnki.ggps.2022032 |
| 分类号:S274；X592；TV93 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Effects of Different Irrigation and Fertilization Methods on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Migration in Paddy Soil |
|
HUA Keji1, HE Jun1, ZHANG Yuhang1, HE Tianzhong2, SHAO Qiang2, ZHAO Shujun1, ZHONG Yun1, ZHANG Lei3
|
|
1.College of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering,China Three Gorges University;2.Hubei Zhanghe Hydraulic Project Administration Bureau;3.School of Water Conservation,North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power
|
| Abstract: |
| 【Objective】Irrational water fertilization patterns make rice N and P utilization low and also cause serious agricultural non-point source pollution problems. It is crucial to study the appropriate water and fertilizer mode for rice.【Method】A rice pit test was conducted from June to September 2019 in the Zhanghe Irrigation District, Hubei Province, using two irrigation modes: continuous flooding (CF) and alternating wet and dry irrigation (AWD), and two fertilizer types: conventional fertilizer and slow-release fertilizer. Negative-pressure samplers were used to observe the migration and transformation processes of nitrogen and phosphorus in paddy field leachate under different water and fertilizer treatments【Result】Total nitrogen (TN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO-3-N), and ammonium nitrogen (NH+ 4-N) concentrations were higher at 0~25 cm depth under slow-release fertilizer (N2) treatment than conventional fertilizer (N1). Compared to other treatments, W1N2 significantly increased TN and NH+ 4-N concentrations (P<0.05). The study showed that the average concentrations of TN, NO-3-N, NH+ 4-N, and TP below 25 cm did not differ significantly among the treatments, but there were obvious stratification phenomena in the vertical migration of TN and NO-3-N, which could be divided into four levels according to the nitrogen migration features at different soil depths: 25~40 cm as a transitional leaching layer, 40~55 cm as a fast leaching layer, 55~125 cm as a buffer leaching layer. and 125~245 cm as a stable loss layer. Among them, 25~40 cm is the transitional layer between the rice uptake layer and rice leaching layer, because the response of N and P in soil solution in this layer to rice uptake is limited, but the effect on rice leaching is great. Under W1N2 treatment, the mean value of average concentration of NO-3-N and NH+ 4-N were the highest, which were 2.37 mg/L and 0.75 mg/L, respectively. The mean value of average concentration of NH+ 4-N and NO-3-N under slow-release fertilizer conditions were 29.0%~193.8% and 3.7%~3.9% higher than those under conventional fertilizer respectively; NO-3-N concentration were 12.5%~12.7% lower and TP concentrations were 13.0%~70.7% higher under AWD than under CF mode.【Conclusion】W1N2 treatment well maintained the nitrogen content of the leachate from 0~25 cm in the paddy field, while it does not maintain the phosphorus content as well as the W2N2 treatment, which reduces the risk of nitrogen leaching but it increases the risk of phosphorus leaching. |
| Key words: Paddy fields; Irrigation mode; Fertilization methods; Soil solution nitrogen and phosphorus; Yield; Leaching risk |
