不同绿肥对柑橘园土壤肥力及植株生长的影响

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240107

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 探索幼龄柑橘园种植不同绿肥对土壤肥力及植株生长的影响,为合理种植绿肥提供理论依据,连续3年在幼龄柑橘园种植鼠茅草、黑麦草和毛苕子,在盛花期测定绿肥的生物产量和养分含量,同时刈割还田,还田100 d后,在柑橘园采集土壤样品,分析土壤理化性质。结果表明,鼠茅草、黑麦草、毛苕子的鲜草产量差异显著,黑麦草和毛苕子的鲜草产量分别比鼠茅草高102.0%和194.2%;3种绿肥的全氮和全磷含量均为毛苕子>鼠茅草>黑麦草;鼠茅草和毛苕子的全钾含量基本相等,且显著高于黑麦草;盛花期黑麦草高度显著高于鼠茅草和毛苕子。不同绿肥生长区域内,土壤磷酸酶和过氧化氢酶活性差异不显著,硝酸还原酶活性表现为鼠茅草>黑麦草>毛苕子,脲酶活性则表现为黑麦草>鼠茅草>毛苕子,三者之间差异显著。不同绿肥生长区域内土壤速效氮、磷、钾含量之间差异显著,均以毛苕子处理最高。不同绿肥种植区域的柑橘新梢抽发数量均显著高于对照,其中以毛苕子处理新梢数最多;新梢长度表现为黑麦草>毛苕子>鼠茅草>对照;毛苕子和黑麦草的梢粗、叶片数均显著高于对照。由此可见,种植不同绿肥品种,均能改善根域微生态环境,提高土壤酶活性和土壤肥力,促进植株生长。在培肥土壤方面,毛苕子的效果最好;作为果园间作绿肥,鼠茅草和毛苕子盛花期的高度比较合适,间作黑麦草时,建议在高度为20~40 cm时进行刈割还田。

关键词: 绿肥, 柑橘, 土壤肥力, 新梢

Abstract:

To explore the effects of planting different green manure on soil fertility and plant growth in young citrus orchards, and to provide a theoretical basis for rational planting of green manure, rattail fescue, ryegrass and hairy vetch were planted in young citrus orchards for three consecutive years, and the biological yield and nutrient content of green manure were measured at the full flowering stage, and soil samples were collected in citrus orchards for 100 days to analyze soil physical and chemical properties. The results showed that there were significant differences in the yield of rattail fescue, ryegrass and hairy vetch treatments, and the yield of ryegrass and hairy vetch was 102.0% and 194.2% higher than that of rattail fescue, respectively. The total N and P contents of the three green manures were hairy vetch>rattail fescue>ryegrass. The total K content of rattail fescue and hairy vetch was basically the same, and was significantly higher than that of ryegrass. The height of ryegrass in full flowering was significantly higher than that of rattail fescue and hairy vetch. There was no significant difference in soil phosphatase and catalase activities in different green manure growth areas, and the nitrate reductase activities were rattail fescue>ryegrass>hairy vetch, while urease activities were ryegrass>rattail fescue>hairy vetch, and the differences among the three were significant. There were significant differences in soil available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents among different green manure growth areas, and the highest treatment was hairy vetch. The number of citrus new shoot in different green manure planting areas was significantly higher than that of the control, and the number of new shoot was the highest in the treatment with hairy vetch. The length of the new shoot was shown as ryegrass>hairy vetch>rattail fescue>CK. The shoot thickness and leaf number of hairy vetch and ryegrass treatments were significantly higher than those of the control. It can be seen that planting different green manure can improve the microecological environment in the root zone, increase soil enzyme activity and soil fertility, and promote plant growth. When it comes to fertilizing the soil, the hairy vetch have the best effect. As orchard intercropping green manure, the height of rattail fescue and hairy vetch was more suitable in the full flowering period, and when intercropping ryegrass, it was recommended to mow and return to the field when the height is 20-40 cm.

Key words: green manure, citrus, soil fertility, new shoot

中图分类号:

S666.2

温明霞, 黄贝, 王鹏, 吴韶辉. 不同绿肥对柑橘园土壤肥力及植株生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2025, 66(3): 662-666.

WEN Mingxia, HUANG Bei, WANG Peng, WU Shaohui. Effects of different green manures on soil fertility and plant growth in citrus orchards[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(3): 662-666.

图/表 5

参考文献 23

[1]	BROWN L K, KAZAS C, STOCKAN J, et al. Is green manure from riparian buffer strip species an effective nutrient source for crops?[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2019, 48(2): 385-393.
[2]	JU X T, XING G X, CHEN X P, et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, 106(9): 3041-3046.
[3]	KHAN M I, GWON H S, ALAM M A, et al. Short term effects of different green manure amendments on the composition of main microbial groups and microbial activity of a submerged rice cropping system[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2020, 147: 103400.
[4]	REDDY P P. Introduction[M]// Recent advances in crop protection. New Delhi: Springer India, 2012: 1-12.
[5]	AI Y J, LI F P, GU H H, et al. Combined effects of green manure returning and addition of sewage sludge compost on plant growth and microorganism communities in gold tailings[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2020, 27(25): 31686-31698.
[6]	DRINKWATER L E, WAGONER P, SARRANTONIO M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses[J]. Nature, 1998, 396: 262-265.
[7]	ROBERTSON G P, PAUL E A, HARWOOD R R. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere[J]. Science, 2000, 289(5486): 1922-1925.
[8]	TEJADA M, GONZALEZ J L, GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ A M, et al. Effects of different green manures on soil biological properties and maize yield[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(6): 1758-1767.
[9]	BRENNAN E B, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ V. Soil microbial biomass and enzyme data after six years of cover crop and compost treatments in organic vegetable production[J]. Data in Brief, 2018, 21: 212-227.
[10]	ZHANG X X, ZHANG R J, GAO J S, et al. Thirty-one years of rice-rice-green manure rotations shape the rhizosphere microbial community and enrich beneficial bacteria[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 104: 208-217.
[11]	HWANG H Y, KIM G W, LEE Y B, et al. Improvement of the value of green manure via mixed hairy vetch and barley cultivation in temperate paddy soil[J]. Field Crops Research, 2015, 183: 138-146.
[12]	BOWLES T M, ACOSTA-MARTÍNEZ V, CALDERÓN F, et al. Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2014, 68: 252-262.
[13]	CLEVELAND C C, LIPTZIN D. C: N: P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2007, 85(3): 235-252.
[14]	ISLAM M M, URMI T A, RANA M S, et al. Green manuring effects on crop Morpho-physiological characters, rice yield and soil properties[J]. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 2019, 25(1): 303-312.
[15]	DABNEY S M, DELGADO J A, REEVES D W. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2001, 32(7/8): 1221-1250.
[16]	GRÜTER R, COSTEROUSSE B, BERTONI A, et al. Green manure and long-term fertilization effects on soil zinc and cadmium availability and uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at different growth stages[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 599: 1330-1343.
[17]	ADEKIYA A O, EJUE W S, OLAYANJU A, et al. Different organic manure sources and NPK fertilizer on soil chemical properties, growth, yield and quality of okra[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1): 16083.
[18]	CELETTE F, RIPOCHE A, GARY C. WaLIS—a simple model to simulate water partitioning in a crop association: The example of an intercropped vineyard[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2010, 97(11): 1749-1759.
[19]	SWAIN S C, DORA D K, SAHOO S C, et al. Influence of mango-based intercropping systems on improvement of soil health under rainfed situation[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2012, 43(15): 2018-2026.
[20]	KONG C H, LIANG W J, HU F, et al. Allelochemicals and their transformations in the Ageratum conyzoides intercropped Citrus orchard soils[J]. Plant and Soil, 2004, 264(1): 149-157.
[21]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[22]	SANTAGATA S, GASIŪNAITE Z, VERLING E, et al. Effect of osmotic shock as a management strategy to reduce transfers of non-indigenous species among low-salinity ports by ships[J]. Aquatic Invasions, 2008, 3(1): 61-76.
[23]	SICARDI M, GARCÍA-PRÉCHAC F, FRIONI L. Soil microbial indicators sensitive to land use conversion from pastures to commercial Eucalyptus grandis (Hill ex Maiden) plantations in Uruguay[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2004, 27(2): 125-133.

草种	鲜草产量/ (kg·m^-2)	高度/ m	含水量/ %	全氮含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全磷含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全钾含量/ (g·kg^-1)
鼠茅草	3.46±0.06 c	0.39±0.01 b	78.6±0.1 c	23.4±0.2 b	2.93±0.04 b	36.4±0.1 a
黑麦草	6.99±0.87 b	1.19±0.04 a	81.0±0.1 b	15.3±0.4 c	2.85±0.01 b	31.1±0.4 b
毛苕子	10.18±1.01 a	0.47±0.03 b	83.2±0.1 a	41.6±0.4 a	3.61±0.12 a	36.3±0.6 a

草种	鲜草产量/ (kg·m^-2)	高度/ m	含水量/ %	全氮含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全磷含量/ (g·kg^-1)	全钾含量/ (g·kg^-1)
鼠茅草	3.46±0.06 c	0.39±0.01 b	78.6±0.1 c	23.4±0.2 b	2.93±0.04 b	36.4±0.1 a
黑麦草	6.99±0.87 b	1.19±0.04 a	81.0±0.1 b	15.3±0.4 c	2.85±0.01 b	31.1±0.4 b
毛苕子	10.18±1.01 a	0.47±0.03 b	83.2±0.1 a	41.6±0.4 a	3.61±0.12 a	36.3±0.6 a

草种	微生物碳含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	微生物氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	微生物磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)
鼠茅草	104.3±0.1 a	13.1±0.1 a	14.3±0.3 a
黑麦草	107.2±5.3 a	15.5±1.4 a	5.4±0.2 b
毛苕子	38.9±2.5 b	8.7±0.7 b	5.6±1.2 b

草种	微生物碳含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	微生物氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	微生物磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)
鼠茅草	104.3±0.1 a	13.1±0.1 a	14.3±0.3 a
黑麦草	107.2±5.3 a	15.5±1.4 a	5.4±0.2 b
毛苕子	38.9±2.5 b	8.7±0.7 b	5.6±1.2 b

草种	硝酸还原酶活性/ (μmol·d^-1·g^-1)	脲酶活性/ (μg·d^-1·g^-1)	磷酸酶活性/ (μmol·d^-1·g^-1)	过氧化氢酶活性/ (μmol·d^-1·g^-1)
鼠茅草	0.77±0.03 a	84.1±0.2 b	1.81±0.07 a	58.84±0.03 a
黑麦草	0.22±0.01 b	232.0±2.2 a	1.57±0.09 a	59.09±0.02 a
毛苕子	0.04±0.01 c	53.9±2.7 c	1.74±0.12 a	58.93±0.10 a