Effects of pig manure instead of partial nitrogen fertilizer on soil quality, yield and vitamin C content of Chinese flowering cabbage

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20231103

Abstract

Abstract:

In response to the challenges of harmless treatment and resource utilization of a large amount of livestock and poultry manure produced by large-scale intensive pig farms, this study focuses on the effects of pig manure fertilizer on soil fertility and crop yield improvement. The aim is to provide data support for the resource utilization and technology promotion of pig manure. Selecting Chinese flowering cabbage as the test crop, the experiment was designed with six treatments in the field: CK (no fertilization treatment), CF1 (farmers' habitual fertilization), CF2 (optimized formula fertilizer), PM1 (pig manure replacing 15% N), PM2 (pig manure replacing 30% N) and VC (vermicompost replacing 15% N). Nine indicators, including soil bulk density, soil pH value, soil electrical conductivity, soil ammonium N content, soil nitrate N content, soil available P content and soil available K content, as well as yield and vitamin C of Chinese flowering cabbage, were measured after harvest. The fertilizer effects of different treatments were comprehensively evaluated through principal component analysis and membership function analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in soil bulk density among different treatments, and the soil electrical conductivity was low among different treatments. Compared with treatments of CK, CF1, CF2, and VC, the soil pH value, soil ammonium N content and soil available K content of PM1 respectively increased by 4.68%-9.45%, 1.75%-62.62% and 17.81%-109.76%; the soil pH value, soil available P content and soil available K content of PM2 respectively increased by 1.72%-6.36%, 4.96%-152.99% and 12.33%-100.00%. Compared with treatments of CK, CF1 and CF2, the soil nitrate N content of PM1 and PM2 respectively increased by 77.93%-248.65% and 70.69%-234.46%, the yield of Chinese flowering cabbage of PM1 and PM2 respectively increased by 38.3%-1 057.0% and 38.6%-1 060.0%.The soil quality index (SQI) of different treatments is ranked as follows: PM2>PM1>VC>CF2>CF1>CK. There was a significant correlation between yield and vitamin C content of Chinese flowering cabbage at the 0.001 level, and PM2 has the best comprehensive effect on increasing yield and improving quality. In summary, pig manure replacing 30% N was the best recommended fertilization method.

Key words: pig manure, Chinese flowering cabbage, soil physicochemical property, yield, principal component analysis, membership function analysis

CLC Number:

S151.9
S634

YANG Chunya, WU Dongyang, TAN Huiling, YE Yu, ZHAO Zhongqiu, LI Yongtao, XU Huijuan. Effects of pig manure instead of partial nitrogen fertilizer on soil quality, yield and vitamin C content of Chinese flowering cabbage[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(2): 354-362.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1 The main nutrient index of manure fertilizer

粪肥	含水率/ %	pH值	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1)	N含量/ %	P₂O₅含量/ %	K₂O含量/ %
猪粪	37.1±0.1	7.68±0.04	295±4	2.49±0.09	6.29±0.09	3.42±0.04
蚯蚓粪	69.6±0.2	7.06±0.12	348±10	1.73±0.09	4.14±0.74	2.04±0.20

Table 2 Experimental treatment and fertilizer dosage 单位:kg·hm-2

处理	化肥用量			粪肥用量	总量
处理	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	粪肥用量	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
CK	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CF1	113	113	113	0	113	113	113
CF2	182	143	132	0	182	143	132
PM1	155	74	95	1 743	182	143	132
PM2	127	5	57	3 485	182	143	132
VC	155	77	100	5 183	182	143	132

Fig.1 Effects of different treatments on soil bulk density,pH value and electrical conductivity

Table 3 Effects of different treatments on soil nutrient content 单位:mg·kg-1

处理	铵态氮含量	硝态氮含量	有效磷含量	速效钾含量
CK	10.7±0.0 c	1.48±0.14 d	5.02±0.23 d	123±5 d
CF1	17.1±0.9 a	1.50±0.02 d	9.45±0.33 c	149±7 c
CF2	14.1±0.6 b	2.90±0.53 c	8.81±0.76 c	153±10 c
PM1	17.4±1.2 a	5.16±0.62 b	11.00±0.90 b	258±10 a
PM2	15.2±0.7 b	4.95±0.33 b	12.70±0.80 a	246±6 a
VC	15.3±0.4 b	6.76±0.13 a	12.10±0.30 a	219±8 b

Fig.2 Effects of different treatments on the yield and Vitamin C content of Chinese flowering cabbage

Fig.3 Pearson correlation heat map of each indicator of different treatments

Table 4 Load matrix, communalities and weight coefficient of the principal components of each index

指标	主成分1 PC1		主成分2 PC2		主成分3 PC3		公因子方差	权重系数
指标	载荷值	特征向量	载荷值	特征向量	载荷值	特征向量	公因子方差	权重系数
SBD	-0.190	-0.099	0.404	0.348	0.781	0.803	0.932	0.155
pH值	0.377	0.195	-0.254	-0.219	0.320	0.329	0.715	0.119
SEC	0.127	0.066	0.686	0.590	-0.486	-0.500	0.920	0.153
$NH 4 +$ -N	0.364	0.188	0.470	0.404	0.226	0.232	0.840	0.139
$NO 3 -$ -N	0.444	0.230	-0.238	-0.205	0.025	0.025	0.814	0.135
AP	0.477	0.247	0.131	0.112	-0.008	-0.008	0.874	0.145
AK	0.497	0.258	-0.084	-0.072	0.001	0.001	0.933	0.155

Table 4 Load matrix, communalities and weight coefficient of the principal components of each index

指标	主成分1 PC1		主成分2 PC2		主成分3 PC3		公因子方差	权重系数
指标	载荷值	特征向量	载荷值	特征向量	载荷值	特征向量	公因子方差	权重系数
SBD	-0.190	-0.099	0.404	0.348	0.781	0.803	0.932	0.155
pH值	0.377	0.195	-0.254	-0.219	0.320	0.329	0.715	0.119
SEC	0.127	0.066	0.686	0.590	-0.486	-0.500	0.920	0.153
$NH 4 +$ -N	0.364	0.188	0.470	0.404	0.226	0.232	0.840	0.139
$NO 3 -$ -N	0.444	0.230	-0.238	-0.205	0.025	0.025	0.814	0.135
AP	0.477	0.247	0.131	0.112	-0.008	-0.008	0.874	0.145
AK	0.497	0.258	-0.084	-0.072	0.001	0.001	0.933	0.155

Fig.4 Principal component analysis of each index of different treatments

Table 5 Membership degree values U(Xi) and soil quality index (SQI) of different treatments

处理	U(X₁)	U(X₂)	U(X₃)	U(X₄)	U(X₅)	U(X₆)	U(X₇)	SQI	排序
CK	0.485	0.241	0	0	0	0	0	0.104	6
CF1	0	0.133	0.624	0.953	0.004	0.575	0.190	0.357	5
CF2	0.392	0	1.000	0.511	0.268	0.492	0.219	0.426	4
PM1	0.502	1.000	0.629	1.000	0.697	0.775	1.000	0.793	2
PM2	1.000	0.673	0.670	0.674	0.657	1.000	0.912	0.806	1
VC	0.639	0.483	0.197	0.696	1.000	0.922	0.712	0.662	3

References 22

[1]	ZHU J, PENG H, JI X H, et al. Effects of reduced inorganic fertilization and rice straw recovery on soil enzyme activities and bacterial community in double-rice paddy soils[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2019, 94: 103116.
[2]	CHEN L D, ZHOU W, LUO L, et al. Short-term responses of soil nutrients, heavy metals and microbial community to partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with spent mushroom substrates (SMS)[J]. The Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 844: 157064.
[3]	董飞雨, 焦祎梦, 杨迪文, 等. 蚓粪替代部分化肥对温室黄瓜钾素吸收与产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(5): 1131-1139.
[4]	RUAN S Y, WU F D, LAI R F, et al. Preliminary application of vermicompost in rice production: effects of nursery raising with vermicompost on fragrant rice performances[J]. Agronomy, 2021, 11(6):1253.
[5]	游浩宇, 陈大刚, 徐开未, 等. 不同改良措施对猕猴桃园土壤理化性质变化的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2022, 40(6): 826-837.
[6]	鲍俊杰, 郭广振, 凡超杰, 等. 基于主成分分析和隶属函数分析研究收获期与青贮对甜玉米秸秆饲用品质的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(4): 2677-2689.
[7]	陈汉才, 吴增祥, 林悦欣, 等. 广东菜心、芥蓝研究现状与展望[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(9): 62-71.
[8]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[9]	杨莉, 王琪, 刘芳君, 等. 道地产区植参土壤质量等级与品质等级的相关性分析[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(2): 87-95.
[10]	韩金旭, 谷晓伟, 程春晓, 等. 不同土质灌区土壤盐分与物理特性空间变异规律及协同关系研究[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2020(10): 148-152, 158.
[11]	李永华, 武雪萍, 何刚, 等. 我国麦田有机肥替代化学氮肥的产量及经济环境效应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(23):4879-4890.
[12]	梁泳怡, 王晶晶, 吴炳孙, 等. 氮肥有机替代对橡胶树苗期养分吸收及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2023, 45(4):915-930.
[13]	杨柳, 周清华, 王东歧, 等. 有机肥替代化学氮肥对叶用芥菜产量品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 农业与技术, 2022, 42(18): 1-5.
[14]	CAI Z J, WANG B R, XU M G, et al. Nitrification and acidification from urea application in red soil (Ferralic Cambisol) after different long-term fertilization treatments[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2014, 14(9): 1526-1536.
[15]	冯腾腾. 蚯蚓粪和秸秆生物炭对大棚多年连作黄瓜的调控效果[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2017.
[16]	URMI T A, RAHMAN M M, ISLAM M M, et al. Integrated nutrient management for rice yield, soil fertility, and carbon sequestration[J]. Plants, 2022, 11(1): 138.
[17]	张婷, 李晓林. 生物有机肥替代化肥对菜心产量和效益的影响[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2022, 53(7): 69-71.
[18]	刘丽鹃, 冯宁沙, 陈杰, 等. 等氮条件下有机无机肥配施对大棚和露地青菜产量及品质的影响[J]. 上海农业学报, 2014, 30(4): 29-33.
[19]	于点, 蒋伟, 王冲. 有机无机肥料配施对叶菜产量和品质影响的Meta分析[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2022, 35(6): 16-21.
[20]	杨鹏, 晏莉霞, 蒲全明, 等. 化肥减量配施有机肥对春甘蓝产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(10): 85-94.
[21]	赵宇浩, 杨玉红, 赵浩东, 等. 基于主成分分析的沈阳地区水稻土镉污染修复剂修复效果评估[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(5): 1220-1226.
[22]	赵国栋, 赵同生, 李春敏, 等. 11个苹果野生砧木品种低温处理抗性指标的综合评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2018, 33(6): 145-151.