Study on the application effect of the main acidification management model for grape cultivated land in Changxing County

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230428

Abstract

Abstract:

This study focuses on the acidification status of typical vineyard soils in Changxing County, Huzhou City, and compares the impacts of two primary methods “organic fertilizer + green manure” and “soil conditioner with humic acid + green manure” on soil acidification, nutrient quality, and grape quality, using conventional fertilization as the control. The results indicated that the “organic fertilizer + green manure (Vulpia myuros)” method had negligible effects on soil pH value, showing no significant influence on exchangeable H⁺ and total exchangeable acidity, but it significantly reduced the levels of exchangeable Al³⁺ and Mn. The second method, “soil conditioner with humic acid + green manure”, significantly lowered the pH value, exchangeable H⁺, exchangeable Al³⁺, total exchangeable acidity, and exchangeable Mn levels in the soil. Both methods significantly enhanced the soil's organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, and the levels of exchangeable calcium and magnesium, thereby increasing the soil's buffer capacity. These approaches also significantly boosted the grape fruit's soluble sugar, vitamin C, and total free amino acid content, with the “soil conditioner with humic acid + green manure” method showing a greater effect on vitamin C enhancement. Therefore, both primary methods effectively reduce soil acidity and enhance fertility, thereby improving grape quality.

Key words: grape, soil acidification, soil nutrients, soil improvement

CLC Number:

WEN Wei, PAN Jianqing, YU Bo, XIE Jing, MA Junwei, YANG Yan, WANG Feng. Study on the application effect of the main acidification management model for grape cultivated land in Changxing County[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1838-1842.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1 Different soil acidification management models of grape

Fig.2 Effects of different soil acidification treatment modes on soil pH value of vineyards in Changxing County

Fig.3 Effects of different soil acidification management modes on soil acidification in vineyards in Changxing County

Fig.4 Effects of different soil acidification treatment modes on soil organic matter content in vineyards in Changxing County

Fig.5 Effects of different soil acidification treatment modes on cation exchange capacity, exchange calcium and magnesium contents of vineyard soil in Changxing County

Table 1 Effects of different soil acidification treatment modes on grape fruit quality traits in Changxing County

模式	可溶性总糖/ (mg·g^-1)	维生素C/ (μg·g^-1)	游离氨基酸总量/ (g·kg^-1)	可滴定酸/ %
对照	156.8±7.3 b	71.3±5.2 c	5.51±0.3 b	0.36±0.05 a
模式一	185.3±4.1 a	135.2±7.9 b	7.39±0.6 a	0.37±0.07 a
模式二	196.1±1.6 a	165.1±7.1 a	6.77±0.4 a	0.34±0.11 a

References 13

[1]	钱秋霞. 交易成本对农户销售渠道选择的影响分析: 以浙江长兴县葡萄种植户调查为据[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2014, 25(5): 195-196.
[2]	柴有忠, 张圆圆, 马军伟, 等. 不同酸性改良剂对葡萄园土壤及葡萄品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(2): 102-107.
[3]	韩科峰, 陈余平, 胡铁军, 等. 硅钙钾镁肥对浙江省酸性水稻土壤的改良效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(1): 117-122.
[4]	徐仁扣, 李九玉, 周世伟, 等. 我国农田土壤酸化调控的科学问题与技术措施[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(2): 160-167.
[5]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 20-22.
[6]	中国环境监测总站. 土壤元素的近代分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 1992: 39-262.
[7]	魏林根, 李建国, 苏全平, 等. 振荡浸提: 原子吸收光谱法测定土壤中交换性钙镁[J]. 分析测试技术与仪器, 2006, 12(4): 249-252.
[8]	莫淑勋, 钱承梁. 果实中可溶性糖的比色法测定[J]. 果树科学, 1992, 9(1): 59-62.
[9]	龙淑珍, 何永群. 荔枝可滴定酸与维生素C的测定及其相关性[J]. 广西农业科学, 2002, 33(4): 188-189.
[10]	刘春生, 杨守祥, 宋国菡, 等. 模拟酸雨对褐土盐基离子淋失的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 1999, 30(1):42-43.
[11]	范庆锋, 张玉龙, 陈重, 等. 保护地土壤酸度特征及酸化机制研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2009, 46(3): 466-471.
[12]	王兴祥, 李清曼, 曹慧, 等. 关于植物对红壤的酸化作用及其致酸机理[J]. 土壤通报, 2004, 35(1): 73-77.
[13]	李庆军, 林英, 李俊良, 等. 土壤pH和不同酸化土壤改良剂对苹果果实品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(14): 209-213.