Effects of different passivators on soil and tea quality in tea plantations

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230163

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the soil quality of tea plantation, reduce the safety risk of tea and improve the quality of tea, the effects of different passivators on soil and tea quality in tea plantation were explored. Biochar, calcium, magnesium and phosphate fertilizers, bentonite and lime were used as test materials for a one-year field experiment. The four kinds of passivators can improve the soil, improve the quality of tea, and reduce the harm of heavy metal cadmium. Compared with CK, the pH value, organic matter and available potassium content of biochar treatment, as well as the total phosphorus and total potassium content in tea were significantly increased. Lime treatment has the highest content of alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen and available phosphorus. Calcium, magnesium and phosphorus fertilizers had the highest content of caffeine. The contents of total nitrogen, tea polyphenols, free amino acids and water extracts were the highest, and the phenol-ammonia ratio was the lowest. Compared with CK, the available cadmium contents of biochar, calcium-magnesium-phosphate fertilizer, bentonite and lime treatments decreased by 69.74%, 66.62%, 72.99% and 61.95%, respectively. The application of bentonite had the most obvious effect on the improvement of tea quality. The application of biochar was the most beneficial to the improvement of pH value and soil nutrients, and the treatment effect of heavy metal cadmium in tea plantation was the best.

Key words: passivator, tea quality, heavy metals, soil fertility

CLC Number:

S571.1

WU Lintu, XU Huozhong, LI Guisong, YE Chunfu, HE Jinfa, WANG Yunxiang, PAN Yingjie, WANG Yueyuan, YE Zhengqian. Effects of different passivators on soil and tea quality in tea plantations[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(7): 1571-1577.

Figures/Tables 5

References 28

[1]	中国茶叶流通协会. 2014年全国春茶产销形势分析报告[J]. 中国茶叶, 2014, 36(6): 20-23.
[2]	郭胡津, 胡波, 蔡烈伟, 等. 茶园重金属污染途径及其修复技术研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2016(7): 214-216, 219.
[3]	ROGERS M A, SIMON D G. A preliminary study of dietary aluminium intake and risk of Alzheimer's disease[J]. Age and Ageing, 1999, 28(2): 205-209.
[4]	吴萍萍, 李录久, 王家嘉, 等. 秸秆生物炭对矿区污染土壤重金属形态转化的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2017, 33(5): 453-459.
[5]	毛平生, 李延升, 张斌. 论重金属与茶树、茶叶的关系[J]. 蚕桑茶叶通讯, 2021(2): 31-33.
[6]	兰海霞. Pb、Cd及复合污染对茶树生理生态效应的研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2008.
[7]	PUGA A P, ABREU C A, MELO L C A, et al. Biochar application to a contaminated soil reduces the availability and plant uptake of zinc, lead and cadmium[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 159: 86-93.
[8]	张阿凤, 潘根兴, 李恋卿. 生物黑炭及其增汇减排与改良土壤意义[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(12): 2459-2463.
[9]	罗远恒, 顾雪元, 吴永贵, 等. 钝化剂对农田土壤镉污染的原位钝化修复效应研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2014, 33(5): 890-897.
[10]	LUO W X, YANG S N, KHAN M A, et al. Mitigation of Cd accumulation in rice with water management and calcium-magnesium phosphate fertilizer in field environment[J]. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2020, 42(11): 3877-3886.
[11]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 北京农业科技出版社, 1999.
[12]	李陈, 郭龙, 刘佩诗, 等. 饼肥替代化肥对茶叶产量品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(17): 265-271.
[13]	茹淑华, 赵欧亚, 侯利敏, 等. 8种钝化剂产品对不同镉污染土壤理化性质和镉有效性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(10): 2085-2092.
[14]	国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 食品安全国家标准食品中镉的测定: GB 5009.15—2014[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2015.
[15]	周春海, 张振强, 黄志红, 等. 不同钝化剂对酸性土壤中重金属的钝化修复研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(33): 71-79.
[16]	宋正国, 唐世荣, 丁永祯, 等. 田间条件下不同钝化材料对玉米吸收镉的影响研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(11): 2152-2159.
[17]	李传哲, 章欢, 姚文静, 等. 生物炭配施氮肥对典型黄河故道区土壤理化性质和冬小麦产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(10): 3424-3432.
[18]	韩光明, 孟军, 曹婷, 等. 生物炭对菠菜根际微生物及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2012, 43(5): 515-520.
[19]	上官宇先, 尹宏亮, 徐懿, 等. 不同钝化剂对水稻小麦籽粒镉吸收的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 370-379.
[20]	罗玲, 潘宏兵, 钟奇, 等. 石灰和有机肥对芒果园酸性土壤的改良效果及对芒果品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3): 169-177.
[21]	胡敏, 向永生, 鲁剑巍. 石灰用量对酸性土壤酸度及大麦幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(20): 3896-3903.
[22]	徐仁扣. 秸秆生物质炭对红壤酸度的改良作用: 回顾与展望[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2016, 33(4): 303-309.
[23]	CAO X D, MA L N, GAO B, et al. Dairy-manure derived biochar effectively sorbs lead and atrazine[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43(9): 3285-3291.
[24]	杨启良, 武振中, 陈金陵, 等. 植物修复重金属污染土壤的研究现状及其水肥调控技术展望[J]. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(6): 1075-1084.
[25]	易杰祥, 刘国道, 孙水芬, 等. 膨润土的土壤改良效果及其对作物生长的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2006, 34(10): 2209, 2212.
[26]	孙呈鹏. 探讨膨润土和沸石在镉污染土壤治理中的应用[J]. 当代化工研究, 2022(3): 57-59.
[27]	朱忻钰. 砷、镉对茶树生长的影响及其在茶树体内的吸收积累特性研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2008.
[28]	冯德建. 铅、镉及其复合污染对茶树生理生化及吸收积累特性的研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2010.

处理	有机质含量/(g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/(mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/(mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/(mg·kg^-1)
CK	31.56±8.02 c	244.82±45.54 bc	290.63±38.28 c	260.00±0 c
T1	38.89±0.70 a	219.75±19.25 c	313.64±20.89 bc	333.67±30.23 a
T2	35.45±1.14 bc	290.60±30.21 ab	363.76±32.98 abc	303.00±4.32 ab
T3	36.64±4.65 b	249.18±8.48 bc	385.82±41.56 ab	279.33±4.03 bc
T4	34.18±1.00 bc	346.19±10.22 a	418.11±17.14 a	319.67±6.60 a

处理	有机质含量/(g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/(mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/(mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/(mg·kg^-1)
CK	31.56±8.02 c	244.82±45.54 bc	290.63±38.28 c	260.00±0 c
T1	38.89±0.70 a	219.75±19.25 c	313.64±20.89 bc	333.67±30.23 a
T2	35.45±1.14 bc	290.60±30.21 ab	363.76±32.98 abc	303.00±4.32 ab
T3	36.64±4.65 b	249.18±8.48 bc	385.82±41.56 ab	279.33±4.03 bc
T4	34.18±1.00 bc	346.19±10.22 a	418.11±17.14 a	319.67±6.60 a

处理	全氮含量/%	全磷含量/%	全钾含量/%	SPAD值
CK	3.45±0.14 a	0.28±0.01 d	1.00±0.02 c	43.35±2.01 c
T1	3.55±0.03 a	0.33±0 a	1.23±0.03 a	46.36±1.26 a
T2	3.54±0.08 a	0.30±0 c	1.06±0.02 b	45.72±2.31 a
T3	3.87±0.47 a	0.29±0 bc	1.04±0.02 bc	44.36±1.43 b
T4	3.49±0.06 a	0.29±0.01 cd	1.03±0.02 bc	44.59±1.17 bc

处理	全氮含量/%	全磷含量/%	全钾含量/%	SPAD值
CK	3.45±0.14 a	0.28±0.01 d	1.00±0.02 c	43.35±2.01 c
T1	3.55±0.03 a	0.33±0 a	1.23±0.03 a	46.36±1.26 a
T2	3.54±0.08 a	0.30±0 c	1.06±0.02 b	45.72±2.31 a
T3	3.87±0.47 a	0.29±0 bc	1.04±0.02 bc	44.36±1.43 b
T4	3.49±0.06 a	0.29±0.01 cd	1.03±0.02 bc	44.59±1.17 bc