Effect of specialized bio-organic fertilizer on soil improvement and fruit quality enhancement in declined Chinese bayberry

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230869

Abstract

Abstract:

The newly emerging bayberry decline disease can cause leaf drop, tree death, and decrease fruit quality and yield. There may be a solution to this decline syndrome by applying bio-organic fertilizers. In this study, three types of bio-organic fertilizer prototypes were developed and applied based on preliminary investigation and considering the special nutrient needs of bayberry trees. The organic fertilizer carrier used in these prototypes was silkworm, which was co-inoculated with Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus velezensis, and Microbacterium phyllosphaerae. The effects of these bio-organic fertilizer prototypes on soil improvement and fruit quality enhancement were investigated by measuring the rhizosphere soil properties and fruit of declined trees. The results showed that compared with the control group, all three bio-organic fertilizers could increase the soil pH value by about 0.2, and could alleviate the soil acidification problem. They also increased the contents of available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the soil while maintaining soil organic matter content. In addition, the soluble solids content in bayberry fruits increased by 1.44, 1.70, 1.47 percentage points, respectively, with the maximum single fruit weight reaching 22.5 g. The fruit hardness was reduced, and the taste was improved. This study provides a theoretical and application basis for the development of specialized bio-organic fertilizers for bayberry to mitigate the adverse effects of the newly emerged bayberry decline symptoms.

Key words: bayberry, bayberry decline symptom, specialized bio-organic fertilizer, soil improvement, fruit quality

CLC Number:

S667.6

HONG Leidong, HONG Chunlai, ZHU Weijing, ZHU Fengxiang, WANG Weiping, ZHANG Shuwen, SUN Li, ZOU Xiuqin, QI Xingjiang, YAO Yanlai. Effect of specialized bio-organic fertilizer on soil improvement and fruit quality enhancement in declined Chinese bayberry[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(11): 2617-2622.

Figures/Tables 4

References 21

[1]	徐坚, 叶波, 顾艳红, 等. 施用不同沼液对杨梅土壤及果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(6): 1496-1499.
[2]	任海英, 郑锡良, 张淑文, 等. 杨梅衰弱病病症及病树矿质营养分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(10): 2043-2048.
[3]	REN H Y, WANG H Y, QI X J, et al. The damage caused by decline disease in bayberry plants through changes in soil properties, rhizosphere microbial community structure and metabolites[J]. Plants, 2021, 10(10): 2083.
[4]	汪兆, 任海英, 郑锡良, 等. 衰弱杨梅树根际土壤微生物多样性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(6): 1123-1128, 1132.
[5]	HONG L D, YAO Y L, LEI C T, et al. Declined symptoms in Myrica rubra: The influence of soil acidification and rhizosphere microbial communities[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2023, 313: 111892.
[6]	郑锡良, 任海英, 戚行江, 等. 生物有机肥复壮杨梅树势及改良果实品质的效应[J]. 中国南方果树, 2015, 44(6): 59-62.
[7]	杨国权, 周建国, 周晓康, 等. 生物有机肥对山地花牛苹果品质及产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(5): 1190-1194.
[8]	唐洪杰, 王鹏, 焦圣群, 等. 有机肥替代化肥对桃产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2023, 13(6): 55-59.
[9]	李苹, 付弘婷, 逄玉万, 等. 有机肥配施化肥对柑橘养分吸收及土壤酶活力的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3): 39-45.
[10]	林瑞, 任海英, 安笑笑, 等. 生物有机肥对杨梅凋萎病防控及其树势恢复的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(7): 1096-1104.
[11]	包慧芳, 王宁, 侯敏, 等. 生物有机肥对枸杞产量、品质及土壤性状的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(3): 545-552.
[12]	冯天祥, 王玲, 陈海敏, 等. 植物内生放线菌功能及生物活性物质研究进展[J]. 中国生物工程杂志, 2015, 35(4): 98-106.
[13]	宋斌. 杨梅的需肥特性及施肥要点[J]. 江西农业, 2015(1): 59.
[14]	何桂娥, 何风杰, 高洪勤, 等. 东魁杨梅矿质元素分布与施肥对策[J]. 现代园艺, 2014(11): 9-11.
[15]	吴昌旺, 程慧斌, 林明明, 等. 浙南山区杨梅大棚促早栽培技术研究[J]. 中国南方果树, 2021, 50(3): 100-103.
[16]	任海英, 郑静梦, 史伟, 等. 微生态制剂改良土壤对凋萎病杨梅营养生长和果实品质的作用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(9): 153-157.
[17]	BHATTACHARYYA S S, ROS G H, FURTAK K, et al. Soil carbon sequestration-An interplay between soil microbial community and soil organic matter dynamics[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 815: 152928.
[18]	ZHANG Y J, YE C, SU Y W, et al. Soil Acidification caused by excessive application of nitrogen fertilizer aggravates soil-borne diseases: Evidence from literature review and field trials[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2022, 340: 108176.
[19]	廖丽欣, 韩昊, 李岗, 等. 生物有机肥与土壤调理剂混施对衰弱杨梅营养生长及果实品质的改良作用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(8): 1881-1884.
[20]	YıLDıZ G, İZLI N, ÜNAL H, et al. Physical and chemical characteristics of goldenberry fruit (Physalis peruviana L.)[J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2015, 52(4): 2320-2327.
[21]	MORGAN J B, CONNOLLY E L. Plant-soil interactions: nutrient uptake[J]. Nature Education Knowledge, 2013, 4(8): 2.

处理	含水率/ %	pH值	EC值/ (mS·cm^-1)	有机质含量/ %	总氮含量/ %	总磷含量/ %	总钾含量/ %
鸡粪有机肥	17.76±1.50 b	9.13±0.02 d	4.76±0.54 c	52.8±0.80 b	2.93±0.22 b	5.76±1.08 c	7.24±0.92 c
猪粪有机肥	24.49±1.69 c	8.18±0.01 c	3.98±0.15 b	42.0±1.27 a	2.98±0.24 b	6.69±1.25 c	2.17±0.54 a
蚕沙有机肥	3.94±0.55 a	8.04±0.01 b	4.41±0.22 c	52.2±0.78 b	2.58±0.51 a	0.92±0.07 a	3.09±0.55 b
植物源有机肥(菇渣)	25.98±1.70 c	6.70±0.01 a	2.32±0.10 a	74.3±1.71 c	3.72±0.23 c	1.14±0.03 b	1.72±0.14 a

处理	含水率/ %	pH值	EC值/ (mS·cm^-1)	有机质含量/ %	总氮含量/ %	总磷含量/ %	总钾含量/ %
鸡粪有机肥	17.76±1.50 b	9.13±0.02 d	4.76±0.54 c	52.8±0.80 b	2.93±0.22 b	5.76±1.08 c	7.24±0.92 c
猪粪有机肥	24.49±1.69 c	8.18±0.01 c	3.98±0.15 b	42.0±1.27 a	2.98±0.24 b	6.69±1.25 c	2.17±0.54 a
蚕沙有机肥	3.94±0.55 a	8.04±0.01 b	4.41±0.22 c	52.2±0.78 b	2.58±0.51 a	0.92±0.07 a	3.09±0.55 b
植物源有机肥(菇渣)	25.98±1.70 c	6.70±0.01 a	2.32±0.10 a	74.3±1.71 c	3.72±0.23 c	1.14±0.03 b	1.72±0.14 a

采样时间	处理	pH值	EC/ (μS·cm^-1)	SOM/ (g·kg^-1)	TN/ (g·kg^-1)	AN/ (mg·kg^-1)	AP/ (mg·kg^-1)	AK/ (mg·kg^-1)
2021年7月	CK	4.89±0.30	96.85±30.03	34.30±6.91	1.36±0.32	119.46±30.86	8.69±6.60	133.83±9.90
	T1	4.61±0.34^*	97.40±12.85	28.25±0.35	1.09±0.05^*	104.80±4.55	45.00±5.57^*	120.00±19.10
	T2	4.69±0.19^*	113.20±29.23^*	37.22±1.60	1.26±0.18	149.21±16.49	31.45±11.62^*	150.25±54.00
	T3	4.62±0.11^*	225.08±40.00^*	31.47±3.89	1.62±0.05^*	144.59±5.36^*	44.16±15.81^*	124.75±28.26
2022年6月	CK	4.78±0.17	126.75±13.21	33.39±12.58	1.55±0.31	176.13±46.25	11.82±3.02	196.88±5.75
	T1	4.86±0.63^*	139.53±59.77	30.19±3.22	0.97±0.10^*	122.21±1.16	67.45±25.62^*	239.25±29.77^*
	T2	4.88±0.07^*	104.10±7.40	38.78±1.01	1.36±0.18	161.74±7.82	43.80±12.10^*	222.50±18.52^*
	T3	4.86±0.03^*	225.75±18.08^*	31.51±4.32	1.40±0.17	158.19±20.14	57.79±24.82^*	315.00±98.23^*

采样时间	处理	pH值	EC/ (μS·cm^-1)	SOM/ (g·kg^-1)	TN/ (g·kg^-1)	AN/ (mg·kg^-1)	AP/ (mg·kg^-1)	AK/ (mg·kg^-1)
2021年7月	CK	4.89±0.30	96.85±30.03	34.30±6.91	1.36±0.32	119.46±30.86	8.69±6.60	133.83±9.90
	T1	4.61±0.34^*	97.40±12.85	28.25±0.35	1.09±0.05^*	104.80±4.55	45.00±5.57^*	120.00±19.10
	T2	4.69±0.19^*	113.20±29.23^*	37.22±1.60	1.26±0.18	149.21±16.49	31.45±11.62^*	150.25±54.00
	T3	4.62±0.11^*	225.08±40.00^*	31.47±3.89	1.62±0.05^*	144.59±5.36^*	44.16±15.81^*	124.75±28.26
2022年6月	CK	4.78±0.17	126.75±13.21	33.39±12.58	1.55±0.31	176.13±46.25	11.82±3.02	196.88±5.75
	T1	4.86±0.63^*	139.53±59.77	30.19±3.22	0.97±0.10^*	122.21±1.16	67.45±25.62^*	239.25±29.77^*
	T2	4.88±0.07^*	104.10±7.40	38.78±1.01	1.36±0.18	161.74±7.82	43.80±12.10^*	222.50±18.52^*
	T3	4.86±0.03^*	225.75±18.08^*	31.51±4.32	1.40±0.17	158.19±20.14	57.79±24.82^*	315.00±98.23^*

处理	单株产量/kg	单株商品果产量/kg	单株商品果率/%
CK	18.57±2.13	11.50±1.67	61.71±2.21
T1	19.43±1.64	15.50±1.44	79.71±1.81
T2	21.53±1.87	16.53±1.29	76.86±1.51
T3	19.47±2.47	15.40±1.58	79.35±2.28