园林绿化垃圾堆肥和生物质炭对滨海盐渍土土壤理化特性的影响

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20250054

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究园林绿化垃圾堆肥和生物质炭土壤改良剂对滨海盐渍土质量的影响,设置对照组(CK)、绿化垃圾堆肥处理组(GW)和生物质炭处理组(BC)进行试验,并测定土壤理化性质和种子发芽指数。研究结果表明:在种子发芽指数方面,生物质炭处理优于堆肥处理,其中,堆肥处理土壤种子发芽指数为88%,较对照组(67%)增加了21百分点,生物质炭处理土壤种子发芽指数为96%,较对照组增加了29百分点。土壤物理特性方面,堆肥处理显著提高了最大持水量、毛管持水量、毛管孔隙度及入渗率,并降低质量含水率和非毛管孔隙度;生物质炭处理显著增加了土壤容重、质量含水率和入渗率,但降低了最大持水量、毛管持水量、毛管孔隙度和总孔隙度。土壤化学特性方面,堆肥处理显著提升土壤有机质、全氮含量及碳氮比,同时降低pH值和电导率(EC);生物质炭处理则显著提高土壤有机质、全氮含量、碳氮比及pH值,并降低EC值。研究结果揭示了2种改良剂的作用机制,为盐渍化地区的土壤质量改良提供理论依据和技术支持。

关键词: 盐渍土, 园林绿化垃圾堆肥, 生物质炭, 土壤特性, 上海

Abstract:

In order to explore the effects of garden waste compost and biochar soil conditioner on the quality of coastal saline soil, the control group (CK), green waste compost treatment group (GW) and biochar treatment group (BC) were set up. The results showed that: in terms of seed germination index, biochar treatment was superior to composting treatment, in which the soil seed germination index of composting treatment was 88%, which was 21 percentage points higher than that of the control group (67%), and the soil seed germination index of biochar treatment was 96%, which was 29 percentage points higher than that of the control group. In terms of soil physical properties, composting treatment significantly increased the maximum water holding capacity, capillary water holding capacity, capillary porosity and infiltration rate, and reduced the mass moisture content and non capillary porosity; Biochar treatment significantly increased soil bulk density, mass moisture content and infiltration rate, but decreased the maximum water holding capacity, capillary water holding capacity, capillary porosity and total porosity. In terms of soil chemical properties, composting treatment significantly increased soil organic matter, total nitrogen content and carbon nitrogen ratio, while reducing pH value and electrical conductivity (EC); Biochar treatment significantly increased soil organic matter, total nitrogen content, carbon nitrogen ratio and pH value, and decreased EC value. The results reveal the mechanism of the two amendments, and provide theoretical basis and technical support for soil quality improvement in salinized areas.

Key words: saline soil, garden waste composting, biochar, soil properties, Shanghai

中图分类号:

S156.4

刘芹. 园林绿化垃圾堆肥和生物质炭对滨海盐渍土土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2025, 66(5): 1257-1262.

LIU Qin. Effects of garden waste compost and biochar on the physicochemical properties of coastal saline soils[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(5): 1257-1262.

图/表 3

参考文献 34

[1]	LI P Y, QIAN H, WU J H. Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water to reduce soil salinization in the Yinchuan Plain, North-West China[J]. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2018, 34(3): 337-353.
[2]	XIE X F, PU L J, ZHU M, et al. Linkage between soil salinization indicators and physicochemical properties in a long-term intensive agricultural coastal reclamation area, Eastern China[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2019, 19(11): 3699-3707.
[3]	CHU L L, YUAN S, CHEN D, et al. Changes in salinity and vegetation growth under different land use types during the reclamation in coastal saline soil[J]. Chemosphere, 2024, 366: 143427.
[4]	YI S Q, ZUO W G, XU L, et al. Accumulation and migration of microplastics and its influencing factors in coastal saline-alkali soils amended with sewage sludge[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2023, 266: 115597.
[5]	路迅, 李建国, 潘霞, 等. 滨海垦区表层盐渍土理化性质和盐分离子动态特征[J]. 土壤, 2024, 56(2): 398-405.
[6]	李春燕, 陈恩, 罗旭辉, 等. 7种豆科牧草种子萌发期耐盐性评价[J]. 福建农业科技, 2023, 54(12): 41-48.
[7]	ZHANG C, LI X B, KANG Y H, et al. Salt leaching and response of Dianthus chinensis L. to saline water drip-irrigation in two coastal saline soils[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2019, 218: 8-16.
[8]	霍本龙, 马稳. 造纸污泥热解处理工艺的研究进展[J]. 中国造纸, 2024, 43(11): 157-164.
[9]	汪峰, 张挺, 余硕琦, 等. 宁波城区绿化种植土改良与替代效果[J]. 农学学报, 2024, 14(6): 24-30.
[10]	易观文. 生物质炭与磷肥配施对盐碱土磷素转化的影响及微生物学机制[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2023.
[11]	李金文, 曹林奎, 曹燕, 等. 上海市稻田耕作制度演变与绿色高质量发展进程[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2022, 41(6): 101-110.
[12]	方宇航. 生物质炭协同底泥应用于盐碱地和白浆土改良[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2024.
[13]	罗雪娇, 王志春, 杨帆. 苏打盐碱土壤黏粒分散特征研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2024, 56(2): 255-263.
[14]	李松. 园林绿化废弃物堆肥对镉污染土壤修复机理及效应研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2021.
[15]	钱新锋, 赏国锋, 沈国清. 园林绿化废弃物生物质炭化与应用技术研究进展[J]. 中国园林, 2012, 28(11): 101-104.
[16]	张万儒. 森林土壤分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1999.
[17]	李时琛. 鼠李糖脂在含油污泥与盐碱土壤修复中的应用基础研究[D]. 桂林: 桂林理工大学, 2021.
[18]	周志强, 刘瑜, 冯华奇, 等. 园林落叶和EM菌剂对餐厨垃圾堆肥的影响[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2022, 37(4): 1-5.
[19]	陈立红. 土壤改良剂在提高作物产量中的应用效果分析[J]. 河北农机, 2024(22): 109-111.
[20]	杨佳, 王国英, 唐若兰, 等. 生物质炭和菌剂对羊粪微好氧堆肥腐熟度和温室气体排放的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(10): 224-231.
[21]	汪胜, 罗梦, 张田田, 等. 硅改性生物质炭对酸性土壤化学特性、碳硅组分及番茄生长的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2024, 39(6): 145-153.
[22]	殷奥杰, 张世文, 周思雨, 等. 改性煤矸石对砂姜黑土物理结构及有机碳组分的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(8): 1805-1814.
[23]	李兰若, 马飞, 王露璐, 等. 生物质炭协同生物措施防治土传病害的研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2024(10): 249-259.
[24]	荆卫民, 宫江平, 刘炳寿, 等. 沼渣有机肥资源化应用于土壤改良修复的研究进展[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2022, 45(3): 61-63.
[25]	徐东. 化肥减量配施园林废弃物堆肥对青稞生长、产量和土壤肥力的影响[D]. 林芝: 西藏农牧学院, 2023.
[26]	郑伟杰, 陆其伟, 冯小纹. 施用生物质炭对土壤影响的研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2024(24): 110-113.
[27]	相龙康, 高佩玲, 张晴雯, 等. 不同改良剂对滨海盐碱化土壤水盐运移特性的影响[J]. 排灌机械工程学报, 2020, 38(9): 945-950.
[28]	杨海丽, 李明玉, 念腾飞. 基于核磁共振技术的生物质炭改性土的渗透特性分析[J]. 排灌机械工程学报, 2023, 41(7): 682-688.
[29]	樊艳平, 陈明星, 孟昭琛. 矿区不同土地利用方式下土壤理化特性分析[J]. 种子科技, 2022, 40(13): 13-17.
[30]	张悦, 李爽. 园林废弃物堆肥的研究进展[J]. 肥料与健康, 2023, 50(4): 14-18.
[31]	解雪峰, 濮励杰, 沈洪运, 等. 滨海重度盐碱地改良土壤盐渍化动态特征及预测[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(6): 1504-1516.
[32]	龚小强. 园林绿化废弃物堆肥产品改良及用作花卉栽培代用基质研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2013.
[33]	张晨欣, 孟祥占, 刘芳妮, 等. 干旱胁迫下生物质炭对冬小麦生理特性和土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 生态科学, 2023, 42(6): 240-246.
[34]	张怡仪, 范东阳, 左章琦, 等. 滨海蓝碳增汇: 技术、装备前沿与展望[J]. 工程设计学报, 2024, 31(5): 547-556.

处理	容重/ (g·cm^-3)	质量含水率/ %	最大持水量/ (g·kg^-1)	毛管持水量/ (g·kg^-1)	非毛管孔隙度/ %	毛管孔隙度/ %	总孔隙度/ %	入渗率/ (mm·h^-1)
CK	1.38±0.04 b	23.81±2.13 b	337.14±3.25 b	320.38±2.78 b	2.31±0.25 a	44.28±1.63 b	46.59±3.89 b	3.27±0.52 c
GW	1.38±0.09 b	22.01±1.78 c	351.81±4.16 a	342.49±4.16 a	1.29±0.39 c	47.41±2.47 a	48.70±5.12 a	54.52±2.34 a
BC	1.40±0.06 a	24.15±1.65 a	315.24±2.66 c	304.61±2.84 c	1.48±0.27 b	42.66±2.35 c	44.14±2.41 c	15.05±1.89 b

处理	容重/ (g·cm^-3)	质量含水率/ %	最大持水量/ (g·kg^-1)	毛管持水量/ (g·kg^-1)	非毛管孔隙度/ %	毛管孔隙度/ %	总孔隙度/ %	入渗率/ (mm·h^-1)
CK	1.38±0.04 b	23.81±2.13 b	337.14±3.25 b	320.38±2.78 b	2.31±0.25 a	44.28±1.63 b	46.59±3.89 b	3.27±0.52 c
GW	1.38±0.09 b	22.01±1.78 c	351.81±4.16 a	342.49±4.16 a	1.29±0.39 c	47.41±2.47 a	48.70±5.12 a	54.52±2.34 a
BC	1.40±0.06 a	24.15±1.65 a	315.24±2.66 c	304.61±2.84 c	1.48±0.27 b	42.66±2.35 c	44.14±2.41 c	15.05±1.89 b

处理	pH值	EC值/(mS·cm^-1)	有机质含量/(g·kg^-1)	全氮含量/(g·kg^-1)	碳氮比
CK	8.35±0.01 b	0.85±0.001 a	7.71±0.24 c	0.54±0.08 c	8.32±0.31 c
GW	8.15±0.02 c	0.08±0.002 b	17.49±0.19 b	0.87±0.04 a	11.64±0.25 b
BC	8.46±0.01 a	0.04±0.002 c	19.57±0.13 a	0.79±0.11 b	14.33±0.16 a

处理	pH值	EC值/(mS·cm^-1)	有机质含量/(g·kg^-1)	全氮含量/(g·kg^-1)	碳氮比
CK	8.35±0.01 b	0.85±0.001 a	7.71±0.24 c	0.54±0.08 c	8.32±0.31 c
GW	8.15±0.02 c	0.08±0.002 b	17.49±0.19 b	0.87±0.04 a	11.64±0.25 b
BC	8.46±0.01 a	0.04±0.002 c	19.57±0.13 a	0.79±0.11 b	14.33±0.16 a