滴施酸化剂种类及用量对棉花生长的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.01.004

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (1): 25-31.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.01.004

• 作物遗传育种 · 耕作栽培 · 种质资源 · 生理生化 • 上一篇下一篇

滴施酸化剂种类及用量对棉花生长的影响

崔磊(), 马腾飞, 哈丽哈什·依巴提, 王斌, 孙晨, 杨金钰, 乔晓燕, 槐国龙, 王金鑫()

新疆农业科学院土壤肥料与农业节水研究所/农业部荒漠绿洲作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室, 乌鲁木齐 830091

收稿日期:2022-05-17 出版日期:2023-01-20 发布日期:2023-03-07
通信作者: 王金鑫(1985-),男,山东临沭人,副研究员,博士,研究方向为作物营养与施肥,(E-mail)wjxin345@sohu.com
作者简介:崔磊(1983-),男,陕西铜川人,助理研究员,研究方向为作物营养与施肥,(E-mail)47406097@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(31660606)

Effects of Acidifier Types and Dosage on Cotton Growth

CUI Lei(), MA Tengfei, Halihashi Yibati, WANG Bin, SUN Chen, YANG Jinyu, QIAO Xiaoyan, HUI Guolong, WANG Jinxin()

Institute of Soil Fertilizer and Agricultural Water-saving, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in Desert Oasis Region, Ministry of Agriculture, Urumqi 830091,China

Received:2022-05-17 Online:2023-01-20 Published:2023-03-07
Correspondence author: WANG Jinxin(1985-), male, native place: Linshu,Shandong province, associate researcher, Reserach filed: Crop nutrition and fertilization, (E-mail)wjxin345@sohu.com
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China “Research on the influence of acidulant on cotton growth and zinc nutrition”(31660606)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究滴施酸化剂对根区土壤pH、有效锌、棉花根系及产量品质的影响,为棉花生产筛选出合适的酸化剂种类及用量。【方法】采用田间试验,设置3种酸化剂分别为硫酸铵(S)、草酸(C)、柠檬酸(N),3个酸化剂用量,对照(CK)不做酸处理,以硫酸铵替代每次追肥30%、50%、70%尿素的N确定硫酸铵及尿素用量,以酸化剂溶液提供等量H⁺为标准,确定其他酸化剂用量。【结果】在垂直方向上随酸化剂施用量的增加土壤pH降低0.05~0.24;在水平方向上随着酸化剂施用量的增加土壤pH降低2.3%~3.2%;无论在垂直方向还是水平方向上,距滴头越近或硫酸铵替代尿素比例越高的位置,土壤有效锌含量越高;在氮肥用量不变的情况下,30%~70%的氮肥用硫酸铵替代时,草酸、柠檬酸以等量H⁺滴施到棉花根区,0~30 cm根系干物质与CK相比均明显增加。根系干重为S₃>C₃≈N₃>CK;硫酸铵和草酸对棉花干物质积累最大,与对照相比,施用酸化剂提高了棉花的单铃重,显著增加了棉花单株结铃数,棉花产量随硫酸铵替代尿素比例的增加而增加;相比对照处理,酸化剂促进了纤维长度和比强度的增加,降低了整齐度及马克隆值。【结论】3种酸化剂中硫酸铵是最佳的酸化剂,替代尿素的比例为70%。

关键词: 酸性肥料; 棉花; 有效锌; 根系

Abstract:

【Objective】 Field experiments were conducted to study the effects of drip application of acidifier on soil pH, available zinc, cotton root system, yield and quality in root zone, so as to screen out suitable acidifier types and dosage for local cotton production. 【Methods】 Three kinds of Acidifiers, ammonium sulfate (S), oxalic acid (C) and citric acid (N), were set as the test control (CK) without acid treatment. The dosage of ammonium sulfate and urea was determined by substituting 30%, 50% and 70% urea N for each top dressing. The same amount of H⁺ was provided by acidifier solution as the standard, and then the dosage of other Acidifiers was determined. 【Results】 In the vertical direction, soil pH decreased by 0.05-0.24 with the increase of acidifier application rate; in the horizontal direction, soil pH decreased by 2.3%-3.2% with the increase of ammonium sulfate application rate; no matter in the vertical direction or in the horizontal direction, the closer the distance from the emitter or the higher the proportion of ammonium sulfate replacing urea, the higher the content of soil available zinc; when 30%-70% of nitrogen fertilizer was replaced by ammonium sulfate, oxalic acid and lime decreased When citric acid was applied to cotton root zone with the same amount of H⁺, the dry matter of 0-30 cm root increased significantly compared with CK. The results showed that the dry weight of root system was S₃ > C₃ ≈ N₃ > CK; ammonium sulfate and oxalic acid had the largest accumulation of dry matter in cotton; compared with the control, the application of acidifier increased the single boll weight of cotton, significantly increased the number of bolls per plant, and the cotton yield increased with the increase of the proportion of ammonium sulfate replacing urea; compared with the control, acidifier promoted the increase of fiber length and specific strength, and reduced the uniformity and yield Micronaire value. 【Conclusion】 Among the three Acidifiers, ammonium sulfate is the best acidifier, and the proportion of replacing urea is 70%.

Key words: acid fertilizer; cotton; available zinc; moistureroot system

中图分类号:

S143.1
S562

崔磊, 马腾飞, 哈丽哈什·依巴提, 王斌, 孙晨, 杨金钰, 乔晓燕, 槐国龙, 王金鑫. 滴施酸化剂种类及用量对棉花生长的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 25-31.

CUI Lei, MA Tengfei, Halihashi Yibati, WANG Bin, SUN Chen, YANG Jinyu, QIAO Xiaoyan, HUI Guolong, WANG Jinxin. Effects of Acidifier Types and Dosage on Cotton Growth[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(1): 25-31.

图/表 8

参考文献 17

[1]	曹秀华, 曲东. 土壤养分活化途径的探讨[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 1998, 16(4): 9-14.
	CAO Xiuhua, QU Dong. A Method Study of Activating Potential Nutrient Components in Soil[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 1998, 16(4): 9-14.
[2]	钱金红, 谢振翅. 碳酸盐对土壤锌解吸影响的研究[J]. 土壤学报, 1994, 31(1): 105-108.
	QIAN Jinhong, XIE Zhenchi. Effect of Carbonate on Desorption of Soil Zinc[J]. Acta Pedologica sinica, 1994, 31(1): 105-108.
[3]	Benítez M., Pedrajas V., Del Campillo M., et al. Iron chlorosis in olive in relation to soil properties[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2002, 62(1): 47-52. DOI URL
[4]	Yuan S.H. Effect of Zn Adsorption on Charge of Variable Charge Soils[J]. Pedosphere, 1993, 3(3): 239-246.
[5]	张凌云, 张宪法, 翟衡. 土壤因子对植物缺铁失绿的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2002, 33(1): 74-77.
	ZHANG Lingyun, ZHANG Xianfa, ZHAI Heng. Effects of Soil Factors on Plant Chlorosis Due to Iron Deficit[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2002, 33(1): 74-77.
[6]	Khorsandi F. Sulfuric acid effects on iron and phosphorus availability in two calcareous soils[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1994, 17(9): 1611-1623. DOI URL
[7]	李燕婷, 白灯莎·买买提艾力, 张福锁, 等. 酸性根际肥对石灰性土壤pH和铁有效性的影响研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2003, 9(3): 312-316.
	LI Yanting, Baidengsha Maimaitiaili, Zhang Fusuo, et al. Effect of acidic rhizosphere fertilizer on the soil pH and Fe availability of calcareous soil[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2003, 9(3): 312-316.
[8]	Thomson C., Marschner H., Römheld V. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer form on p H of the bulk soil and rhizosphere, and on the growth, phosphorus, and micronutrient uptake of bean[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1993, 16(3): 493-506. DOI URL
[9]	杨绍琼, 党廷辉, 戚瑞生, 等. 低分子量有机酸对不同肥力土壤磷素的活化作用[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2012, 30(4): 60-64.
	YANG Shaoqiong, DANG Tinghui, QI Ruisheng, et al. Activation of organic acids on phosphorus of soil with different fertility[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2012, 30(4): 60-64.
[10]	龚松贵, 王兴祥, 张桃林, 等. 低分子量有机酸对红壤无机磷活化的作用[J]. 土壤学报, 2010, 47(4): 692-697.
	GONG Songgui, WANG Xingxiang, ZHANG Taolin, et al. Release of inorganic phosphorus from red soils induced by low molecular weight organic acids[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2010, 47(4): 692-697.
[11]	赵红华, 危常州, 侯建伟, 等. 滴灌下酸性物质对石灰性土壤磷有效性及作物吸收的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(5): 847-852.
	ZHAO Honghua, WEI Changzhou, HOU Jianwei, et al. Acidic Materials on Mobilization of Phosphorus in Calcareous Soil and Its impact on Phosphorus Uptake of Drip-irrigated Cotton[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(5): 847-852.
[12]	王金鑫, 危常州, 王肖娟, 等. 新疆石灰性土壤锌有效性及其影响因素[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(6): 297-304.
	WANG Jinxin, WEI Changzhou, WANG Xiaojuan, et al. Zinc Availability and Its Influencing Factors of Xinjiang Calcareous Soil[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 26(6): 297-304.
[13]	赵红华. 滴灌条件下土壤酸化对石灰性土壤磷锌有效性影响及其生物效应[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2015.
	ZHAO Honghua. ffects of soil acidification under drip irrigation on soil P and Zn availability at calcareous soil and its biological effects[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2015.
[14]	张书捷, 张新疆, 王娟, 等. 施用土壤酸化剂和调整播期防治膜下滴灌水稻苗期缺铁黄化的效果研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2015, 29(5): 519-527. DOI
	ZHANG Shujie, ZHANG Xinjiang, WANG Juan, et al. Applying soil acidification agents and adjusting sowing date to deal with rice chlorosis in seedling stage caused by iron ddficiency under drip irrigation with plastic film mulching[J]. Chin J Rice Sci, 2015, 29(5): 519-527. DOI
[15]	Jing JY, Rui YK, Zhang FD, et al. Localized application of phosphorus and ammonium improves growth of maize seedlings by stimulating root proliferation and rhizosphere acidification[J]. Field Crops Research, 2010, 119(2): 355-364. DOI URL
[16]	刘涛, 梁永超, 褚贵新, 等. 三种硝化抑制剂在石灰性土壤中的应用效果比较[J]. 土壤, 2011, 43(5): 758-762.
	LIU Tao, LIANG Yongchao, CHU Guixin, et al. Effect Comparison of Three Different Types of Nitrification Inhibitors (DCD, DMPP and Nitrapyrin) in Calcareous Soils[J]. Soil, 2011, 43(5): 758-762.
[17]	Freney J, Chen D, Mosier A, et al. Use of nitrification inhibitors to increase fertilizer nitrogen recovery and lint yield in irrigated cotton[J]. Fertilizer Research, 1993, 34(1): 37-44. DOI URL

生育期 Growth period	播种期 Sowing date	苗期 Seedling stage		蕾期 Bud stage		花期 Florescence		铃期 Boll period		吐絮期 Opening period
灌溉日期(日/月) Irrigation date(D/M)	18/4	8/6	18/6	26/6	3/7	11/7	18/7	26/7	4/8	14/8	24/8
灌溉量 Irrigation amount(m³/hm²)	210	420	450	480	540	540	540	450	450	270	150
施氮量 Napplication rate(kg/hm²)	30	12	24	30	42	45	45	39	27	6	0

生育期 Growth period	播种期 Sowing date	苗期 Seedling stage		蕾期 Bud stage		花期 Florescence		铃期 Boll period		吐絮期 Opening period
灌溉日期(日/月) Irrigation date(D/M)	18/4	8/6	18/6	26/6	3/7	11/7	18/7	26/7	4/8	14/8	24/8
灌溉量 Irrigation amount(m³/hm²)	210	420	450	480	540	540	540	450	450	270	150
施氮量 Napplication rate(kg/hm²)	30	12	24	30	42	45	45	39	27	6	0

处理 Treat- ment	距滴头垂直方向距离 Distance from emitter in vertical direction (cm)			距滴头水平方向距离 Distance from emitter in horizontal direction (cm)
处理 Treat- ment	0~10	10~20	20~30	0~5	5~10	10~15
CK	8.64	8.7	8.73	8.6	8.62	8.63
S₁	8.52	8.66	8.7	8.52	8.65	8.64
S₂	8.49	8.55	8.57	8.48	8.55	8.59
S₃	8.32	8.44	8.48	8.25	8.54	8.49
C₁	8.6	8.6	8.65	8.62	8.6	8.65
C₂	8.51	8.55	8.6	8.58	8.46	8.59
C₃	8.36	8.46	8.53	8.42	8.46	8.61
N₁	8.62	8.63	8.68	8.63	8.63	8.65
N₂	8.57	8.6	8.6	8.56	8.6	8.59
N₃	8.46	8.5	8.55	8.42	8.45	8.58

处理 Treat- ment	距滴头垂直方向距离 Distance from emitter in vertical direction (cm)			距滴头水平方向距离 Distance from emitter in horizontal direction (cm)
处理 Treat- ment	0~10	10~20	20~30	0~5	5~10	10~15
CK	8.64	8.7	8.73	8.6	8.62	8.63
S₁	8.52	8.66	8.7	8.52	8.65	8.64
S₂	8.49	8.55	8.57	8.48	8.55	8.59
S₃	8.32	8.44	8.48	8.25	8.54	8.49
C₁	8.6	8.6	8.65	8.62	8.6	8.65
C₂	8.51	8.55	8.6	8.58	8.46	8.59
C₃	8.36	8.46	8.53	8.42	8.46	8.61
N₁	8.62	8.63	8.68	8.63	8.63	8.65
N₂	8.57	8.6	8.6	8.56	8.6	8.59
N₃	8.46	8.5	8.55	8.42	8.45	8.58

处理 Treat- ment	距滴头垂直方向距离 Distance from emitter in vertical direction (cm)			距滴头水平方向距离 Distance from emitter in horizontal direction (cm)
处理 Treat- ment	0~10	10~20	20~30	0~5	5~10	10~15
CK	0.869	0.867	0.866	0.868	0.863	0.862
S₁	0.865	0.864	0.863	0.872	0.862	0.865
S₂	0.864	0.859	0.856	0.878	0.871	0.868
S₃	0.868	0.875	0.872	0.864	0.877	0.868
C₁	0.866	0.867	0.86	0.866	0.869	0.86
C₂	0.854	0.854	0.868	0.864	0.868	0.868
C₃	0.856	0.871	0.875	0.852	0.868	0.87
N₁	0.854	0.863	0.853	0.859	0.862	0.865
N₂	0.869	0.854	0.871	0.856	0.864	0.868
N₃	0.877	0.865	0.866	0.869	0.868	0.866

滴施酸化剂种类及用量对棉花生长的影响

Effects of Acidifier Types and Dosage on Cotton Growth

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 17

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

处理 Treat- ment	单株结铃数 Boll numbers per plant (个)	单铃重 Boll weight (g)	株数 Number of cotton (10⁴株/ hm²)	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	增产率 Yield increase rate (%)
CK	7.0^e	4.78	14.3	4 780	—
S₁	7.4^cd	4.97	14.7	5 407^b	13.1
S₂	8.4^ab	4.89	13.2	5 441^b	13.8
S₃	8.7^a	4.98	13.0	5 637^a	17.9
C₁	8.0^b	4.82	13.2	5 077^d	6.2
C₂	7.6^c	4.96	13.3	5 056^d	5.8
C₃	7.2^d	5.13	14.3	5 256^bc	10.0
N₁	7.9^b	4.82	14.2	5 370^b	12.4
N₂	7.9^b	4.89	13.8	5 328^bc	11.5
N₃	8.0^b	4.80	14.0	5 383^b	12.6

处理 Treat- ment	纤维长度 LEN (mm)	整齐度 UN (%)	马克隆值 MIC	伸长率 ELG (%)	比强度 STR (cN/tex)
CK	28.06	84.53	5.00	6.79	27.02
S₁	27.60	84.10	4.91	6.87	26.96
S₂	29.04	83.65	4.79	6.97	28.04
S₃	29.42	80.74	4.95	6.75	28.57
C₁	28.58	83.77	4.95	6.85	26.26
C₂	28.95	83.66	4.89	6.77	26.89
C₃	29.36	83.65	4.88	6.97	27.54
N₁	27.89	83.84	4.99	6.66	27.19
N₂	28.54	83.79	4.91	6.87	28.06
N₃	28.98	81.56	4.85	6.83	28.84

[1]	陈茂光, 林涛, 张昊, 刘海军, 王一帆, 汤秋香. 地膜类型对棉花生长的影响及自身降解和回收特性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2101-2108.
[2]	杨川, 张凯, 陈冰, 张慧, 柳萍, 常松, 盛建东. 棉花植株形态特征对不同水分状况的响应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2120-2127.
[3]	杨国江, 陈云, 林祥群, 何江勇, 刘盛林, 曲永清. 氮肥减施下有机肥替代对滴灌棉花产量、氮素吸收利用及土壤硝态氮的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2138-2145.
[4]	李雪玲, 郭俊先, 陈莉, 宋鹤岭, 张众. 不同覆膜宽度对棉花农田环境的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1840-1847.
[5]	阳妮, 玛依拉·玉素音, 杨延龙, 李春平, 张大伟, 徐海江, 赖成霞. 黄萎病枯斑型与黄化型病症棉花叶片的植物挥发物对比[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1975-1986.
[6]	米尔扎提·木塔力甫, 石秀楠, 柏军兵, 祖拜代·阿布都克日木, 吾勒加勒哈斯·阿扎提, 石书兵. 不同脱绒方式及PEG胁迫下对棉花种子活力及幼苗性状的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1561-1568.
[7]	罗四维, 贾永红, 张金汕, 王凯, 李丹丹, 王润琪, 董艳雪, 石书兵. 不同滴头间距和毛管间距对匀播冬小麦土壤水分空间分布、根系形态及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1344-1352.
[8]	江柱, 张江辉, 白云岗, 杨鹏年, 刘洪波, 肖军, 刘旭辉. 膜下咸水滴灌水肥盐调控对棉花生长及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1389-1397.
[9]	王文涛, 吴博, 邰红忠, 练文明, 戴翠荣, 李双江, 蒲艳梅. 新疆阿拉尔垦区不同播期对棉花生长的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1413-1422.
[10]	桑志伟, 梁亚军, 龚照龙, 郑巨云, 王俊铎, 李雪源, 陈全家. 不同陆地棉种质资源机采性状分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1088-1098.
[11]	逯涛, 曾庆涛, 张文, 王文博, 王政洋, 杨芮, 孙玉岩. 主成分分析及灰色关联度分析综合评价棉花产量与品质[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1099-1109.
[12]	周伟权, 侯毅兴, 刘春燕, 阿克居里德孜·努尔改里得, 薛靖, 李树德, 周龙. 不同葡萄砧穗组合嫁接对根系生长特性及解剖结构的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1170-1180.
[13]	王宁, 史应武, 牛新湘, 杨红梅, 楚敏, 詹发强, 包慧芳, 杨蓉, 龙宣杞, 丁荣荣. 棉花根际溶磷菌WJP-7发酵培养基优化及防病增产效果[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1263-1270.
[14]	张泓, 吐尔逊江·买买提, 张少民, 张军高, 周小云. 近30 a全国棉花生产区域时空变化及区域优势分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 1028-1040.
[15]	代健敏, 张巨松, 徐新龙, 李始鑫, 翟梦华, 孙明辉. 氮肥运筹对雹后重播受旱棉花生长特性及产量影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 798-809.