有机物料对不同磷肥用量条件下棉田综合效益评价

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.10.022

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (10): 2521-2531.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.10.022

• 植物保护·微生物·土壤肥料 • 上一篇下一篇

有机物料对不同磷肥用量条件下棉田综合效益评价

柳萍¹(), 张凯¹(), 马超², 张慧¹, 杨川¹

1.新疆农业大学资源与环境学院/新疆土壤与植物生态过程重点实验室,乌鲁木齐 830052
2.新疆心连心能源化工有限公司,新疆玛纳斯 832200

收稿日期:2023-01-07 出版日期:2023-10-20 发布日期:2023-11-01
通信作者: 张凯(1986-),男,河南获嘉人,副教授,博士,研究方向为养分循环,(E-mail)zhangkai4595241@163.com
作者简介:柳萍(1997-),女,新疆奎屯人,硕士研究生,研究方向为磷肥高效利用,(E-mail)1732479593@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目“有机酸、有机肥和生物炭对新疆棉田磷肥无效化过程的阻控效应及机制”(41761067);新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金项目“新疆滴灌棉田磷肥迁移转化和无效化阻控研究”(2017D01A37);国家重点研发专项子课题“新疆棉花种植体系减磷增效研究”(2017YFD0200205-6)

Evaluation of the comprehensive efficiency of cotton field with different phosphate fertilizer dosage

LIU Ping¹(), ZHANG Kai¹(), MA Chao², ZHANG Hui¹, YANG Chuan¹

1. School of Resources and Environment, Xinjiang Agricultural University / Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Soil and Plant Ecological Process, Urumqi 830052,China
2. Xinjiang Heart to Heart Energy and Chemical Co., LTD., Manas Xinjiang 832200,China

Received:2023-01-07 Online:2023-10-20 Published:2023-11-01
Correspondence author: ZHANG Kai (1986- ), male, native place: Huojia, Henan.Associate professor, research field: Cropland nutrient cycling (E-mail) zhangkai4595241@163.com
Supported by:
The National Natural Science Foundation of China“Impacts and mechanisms of organic acid, organic fertilizer and biochar amendment on invalidation processes of fertilized phosphorus in soils of cotton filed in Xinjiang”(41761067);Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Province“Transportation, transformation and prevention of invalidation processes of fertilized phosphorus in drip-irrigated cotton field in Xinjiang”(2017D01A37);The Nation Key Research and Development Program of China“Study of reducing phosphorus fertilizer amount and increasing economic efficiency in cotton field in Xinjiang”(2017YFD0200205-6)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 研究不同磷肥用量条件下有机物料添加的棉田综合效益,为棉田磷肥用量提供理论和技术参考。【方法】 采用大田试验方法,设置有机物料添加(有机酸、有机肥、生物炭)×不同磷肥用量(0、50、100和150 kgP₂O₅/hm²)双因素试验处理,利用雷达图分析法,从棉花产量、经济收益、磷肥利用率、土壤磷素有效性、土壤微生物指标(碱性酸酶活性、微生物生物量)等,综合性评价不同处理2020年棉田效益。【结果】 根据向量综合评价函数,MAP0+CK、MAP50+CK、MAP100+CK、MAP150+CK、MAP0+OF、MAP50+OF、MAP100+OF、MAP150+OF、MAP0+OA、MAP50+OA、MAP100+OA、MAP150+OA、MAP0+BC、MAP50+BC、MAP100+BC、MAP150+BC的综合评价值为0.609 9、0.896 7、0.921 5、0.913 3、0.610 3、0.832 7、0.998 8、0.903 5、0.636 6、0.937 8、0.916 3、0.783 9、0.765 4、0.941 1、0.945 2、0.875 3。【结论】 磷肥(100 kgP₂O₅/hm²)配施有机肥调控是棉田最优的施肥用量,而其中在100 kgP₂O₅/hm²的磷肥用量为梯度最优,添加有机酸调控的为50 kgP₂O₅/hm²+有机酸处理最优,添加生物炭调控的为100 kgP₂O₅/hm²+生物炭处理最优,添加有机肥调控的为100 kgP₂O₅/hm²+有机肥处理最优;在合理的磷肥用量条件下,增施有机物料可提高综合效益。

关键词: 有机物料; 磷肥用量; 棉田; 综合评价

Abstract:

【Objective】 In order to clarify the comprehensive benefits of cotton fields added with organic materials under different amounts of phosphorus fertilizer. This experiment provides theoretical and technical reference for establishing scientific fertilizer dosage and providing phosphate fertilizer dosage in cotton field.【Methods】 Using the field test method, Different amounts of organic material added (organic acid, organic fertilizer, biochar) ( kgP₂O₅/hm², 50 kgP₂O₅/hm², 100 kgP₂O₅/hm², 150 kgP₂O₅/hm²) Dual-factor test treatment, Using the radar map analysis method, In terms of cotton yield, economic benefits, phosphate fertilizer utilization rate, soil phosphate effectiveness, soil microbial indicators (alkalidase activity, microbial biomass), The benefits of different treated cotton fields in 2020 were comprehensively evaluated.【Results】 According to the vector comprehensive evaluation function, MAP0 + CK, MAP50 + CK, MAP100 + CK, MAP150 + CK, MAP0 + OF, MAP50 + OF, MAP100 + OF, MAP150 + OF, MAP0 + OA, MAP50 + OA, MAP100 + OA + OA, MAP150 + O A, MAP0 + BC, MAP50+BC,MAP100 + BC, MAP150 + BC were 0.6099,0.8967,0.9215,0.9133,0.6103,0.8327,0.9988,0.9035,0.6366,0.9378,0.9163,0.7839,0.7654,0.9411,0.9452,0.8753.【Conclusion】 Comprehensive analysis believes that a certain amount of phosphorus fertilizer (100 kgP₂O₅ /hm²) with organic fertilizer regulation is the optimal fertilization result of cotton fields, While the amount of phosphate fertilizer used at 100 kgP₂O₅ /hm² is the gradient-optimal, For 50 kgP₂O₅ /hm² + OA, Biochar-regulated 100 kgP₂O₅ /hm² +BC, The addition of organic fertilizer regulation is 100 kgP₂O₅ /hm² + OF is optimal; Under the reasonable amount of phosphate fertilizer used, The increased application of organic matter materials can improve the comprehensive benefits.

Key words: organic material; amount of phosphorus fertilizer; cotton field; comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S562

柳萍, 张凯, 马超, 张慧, 杨川. 有机物料对不同磷肥用量条件下棉田综合效益评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(10): 2521-2531.

LIU Ping, ZHANG Kai, MA Chao, ZHANG Hui, YANG Chuan. Evaluation of the comprehensive efficiency of cotton field with different phosphate fertilizer dosage[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(10): 2521-2531.

图/表 8

参考文献 32

[1]	吕双庆. 有机肥料对土壤磷素的影响及磷肥对小麦的增产原因[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2003.
	LYU Shuangqing. Effects of organic fertilizer on soil phosphates and reasons for increasing production of phosphorus fertilizer on wheat[D]. Yang ling: Northwest A & F University, 2003.
[2]	苏倩, 侯振安, 赵靓, 等. 生物碳对土壤磷素和棉花养分吸收的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(3):642-650.
	SU Qian, HOU Zhen'an, ZHAO Liang, et al. Effects of biocarbon on the nutrient uptake of soil phosphorus and cotton[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2014, 20 (3): 642-650.
[3]	Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W. Ameliorting physical and chemical properties of hi-ghly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal—A review[J]. Biology and Fertility of soils, 2002, 35(4):219-230. DOI URL
[4]	Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems A eview[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2006, 11(2):403-427. DOI URL
[5]	邢英, 李心清, 周志红, 等. 生物炭对水体中铵氮的吸附特征及其动力学研究[J]. 地球与环境, 2011, 39(4):511-516.
	XING Ying, LI Xingqing, ZHOU Zhihong, et al. The characteristics and dynamics of ammonium adsorption in water[J]. Earth and the Environment, 2011, 39 (4): 511-516.
[6]	周志红, 李心清, 邢英, 等. 生物炭对土壤氮素淋失的抑制作用[J]. 地球与环境, 2011, 39(2):278-284.
	ZHOU Zhihong, LI Xinqing, XING Ying, et al. Inhibition effect of biochar on soil nitrogen lymphatic loss[J]. Earth and the Environment, 2011, 39 (2): 278-284.
[7]	王永壮, 陈欣, 史奕, 等. 低分子量有机酸对土壤磷活化及其机制研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(7):2189-2198.
	WANG Yongzhuang, CHEN Xin, SHI Yi, et al. Progress in the activation and mechanism of low molecular weight organic acids[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2018, 37 (7): 2189-2198.
[8]	陈宇晖, 李方敏. 有机酸对土壤磷吸附的影响[J]. 湖北农学院学报, 1998,(2):3-5.
	CHEN Yuhui, LI Fangmin. Effects of organic acids on soil phosphorus adsorption[J]. Journal of Hubei Agricultural College, 1998,(2): 3-5.
[9]	胡红青, 李妍, 贺纪正. 土壤有机酸与磷素相互作用的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2004,(2): 222-229.
	HU Hongqing, LI Yan, HE Jizheng. Study on the interaction of organic acids and phosphorus elements in soil[J]. Soil Bulletin, 2004,(2): 222-229.
[10]	李迟园. 低磷土壤施用有机酸和根外施磷对玉米磷吸收及生长的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2011.
	LI Chiyuan. Effect of organic acid and external root application of phosphorus on maize phosphorus absorption and growth[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2011.
[11]	Xin X, Qin S, Zhang J, et al. Yield,phosphorus use efficiency and balance response to substituting long-term chemical fertilizer use with organic manure ina wheatmaize system[J]. FieldCrops Research,2017, 208(2017):27-33.
[12]	宋晓, 黄晨晨, 黄绍敏, 等. 不同耕作和有机培肥措施对土壤理化性质及小麦产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020,(3):102-108.
	SONG Xiao, HUANG Chenchen, HUANG Shaomin, et al. Effect of different tillage and organic fertilizer cultivation measures on soil physicochemical properties and wheat yield[J]. Crop Magazine, 2020,(3): 102-108.
[13]	石鑫蕊, 任彬彬, 江琳琳, 等. 有机肥替代部分化肥对水稻光合速率、氮素利用率和产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 12(3):1-10.
	SHI Xinrui, REN Binbin, JIANG Linlin, et al. Effect of replacement of organic fertilizers on photosynthetic rate, nitrogen utilization and yield in rice[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 12 (3): 1-10. DOI URL
[14]	Sarah R. Noack et al. Management of crop residues affects the transfer of phosphorus to plant and soil pools: Results from a dual-labelling experiment[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2014, 71:31-39. DOI URL
[15]	章永松, 林咸永, 罗安程, 等. 有机肥(物)对土壤中磷的活化作用及机理研究─Ⅰ.有机肥(物)对土壤不同形态无机磷的活化作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1998,(2):145-150.
	ZHANG Yongsong, LIN Xianyong, LUO Ancheng, et al. Activation effect of organic fertilizer (material) on different forms of soil inorganic phosphorus─ I[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 1998,(2): 145-150.
[16]	章永松, 林咸永, 罗安程. 有机肥(物)对土壤中磷的活化作用及机理研究─Ⅱ.有机肥(物)分解产生的有机酸及其对不同形态磷的活化作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1998,(2):151-155.
	ZHANG Yongsong, LIN Xianyong, LUO Ancheng. Actiactivation and mechanism of organic fertilizer (material) on phosphorus in soil ─Ⅱ.Organic acids produced by the decomposition of organic fertilizer (substances) and their activation effect on different forms of phosphorus[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 1998,(2): 151-155.
[17]	宋晓, 黄晨晨, 黄绍敏, 等. 不同耕作和有机培肥措施对土壤理化性质及小麦产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020, 196(3):102-108.
	SONG Xiao, HUANG Chenchen, HUANG Shaomin, et al. Effect of different tillage and organic fertilizer cultivation measures on soil physicochemical properties and wheat yield[J]. Crop Magazine, 2020, 196 (3): 102-108.
[18]	石鑫蕊, 任彬彬, 江琳琳, 等. 有机肥替代部分化肥对水稻光合速率、氮素利用率和产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 12(3):1-10.
	SHI Xinrui, REN Binbin, JIANG Linlin, et al. Effect of replacement of organic fertilizers on photosynthetic rate, nitrogen utilization and yield in rice[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 12 (3): 1-10. DOI URL
[19]	王琛, 林启美, 赵小蓉, 等. 有机肥替代化肥对土壤养分动态及甜玉米生产的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020, 289(5):132-140.
	WANG Chen, LIN Qimei, ZHAO Xiaorong, et al. Effect of organic fertilizer replacing chemical fertilizer on soil nutrient dynamics and sweet corn production[J]. Soil and Fertilizer in China, 2020, 289 (5): 132-140.
[20]	乔鹏程, 吴正国, 李辉. 基于改进雷达图法的电能质量综合评估方法[J]. 电力自动化设备, 2011, 31(6):88-92.
	QIAO Pengcheng, WU Zhengguo, LI Hui. Integrated power quality assessment method based on improved radar mapping method[J]. Power automation equipment, 2011, 31 (6): 88-92.
[21]	朱唯韦. 基于主客观权重的配电系统电能质置综合评估[D]. 合肥: 安徽大学, 2019.
	ZHU Weiwei. Comprehensive evaluation of power quality of power distribution system based on subjective and objective weights[D]. Hefei: Anhui University, 2019.
[22]	程志友, 朱唯韦, 陶青, 等. 基于改进雷达图的配电系统电能质量评估方法[J]. 电测与仪表, 2019, 56(14):34-39.
	CHENG Zhiyou, ZHU Weiwei, TAO Qing, et al. Power Quality Assessment Method of power distribution system based on improved radar diagram[J]. Electrical measurement and instrument, 2019, 56 (14): 34-39.
[23]	王梓琪, 肖思曲, 程雨, 等. 贵州省医疗保障能力综合评价:基于TOPSIS、聚类、雷达图实证研究[J]. 中国医院, 2019, 23,(12):17-20.
	WANG Ziqi, XIAO Siqu, CHENG Yu, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of medical security capability in Guizhou Province: based on the empirical research of TOPSIS, clustering and radar map[J]. China Hospital, 2019, 23, (12): 17-20.
[24]	李健, 蔡红丹, 申利未, 等. 基于EGM-雷达图分析法的数字医疗信息服务水平综合评价[J]. 医学与社会, 2020, 33(2):39-44.
	LI Jian, CAI Hongdan, SHEN Liwei, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation of Digital Medical Information Service Level based on EGM-Radar Map Analysis[J]. Medicine and Society, 2020, 33 (2): 39-44.
[25]	苏顺宝. 基于多维评价模型的长春市某中学教学评价系统的研究[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2017.
	SU Shunbao. Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of a Middle School in Changchun Based on Multi-dimensional Evaluation Model[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2017.
[26]	刘哲, 王虎, 杨建宇, 等. 品种筛选多环境测试作图分析方法[J]. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(10):142-147.
	LIU Zhe, WANG Hu, YANG Jianyu, et al. Mapping and analysis method for multi-environment testing for variety screening[J]. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2011, 27 (10): 142-147.
[27]	尉栋. 浅谈玉米区域试验新品种的综合评价[J]. 农技服务, 2017, 34(10):14.
	WEI Dong. Comprehensive Evaluation of New Variety[J]. Agricultural technology Service, 2017, 34 (10): 14.
[28]	常世豪, 耿臻, 杨青春, 等. 改进雷达图分析法在大豆品种选育中的应用[J]. 大豆科学, 2020, 39(6):862-868.
	CHANG Shihao, GENG Zhen, YANG Qingchun, et al. Application of Improving Radar Map Analysis in Soybean Variety Breeding[J]. Soy Science, 2020, 39 (6): 862-868.
[29]	邓禄军, 夏锦慧, 卢扬, 等. 雷达图分析法在马铃薯品种特征综合评价中的应用[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2013, 41(7):59-62.
	DENG Lujun, XIA Jinhui, LU Yang, et al. Application of Radar Map Analysis in Comprehensive Evaluation of Potato Variety Characteristics[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Science, 2013, 41 (7): 59-62.
[30]	方长云, 胡贤巧, 邵雅芳, 等. 基于雷达图分析法初步评价稻米食味品质的研究[J]. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(2):13-17. DOI
	FANG Changyun, HU Xianqiao, SHAO Yafang, et al. Study on Preliminary Evaluation of Rice Taste Quality Based on Radar Grram Analysis[J]. China Rice, 2017, 23 (2): 13-17.
[31]	孟凡秋. 借助AutoCAD及雷达图对评估结果实现多维度分析的探究[J]. 现代职业教育, 2022(2):22-24.
	MENG Fanqiu. Exploration of multi-dimensional analysis with the help of AutoCAD and radar map[J]. Modern vocational Education, 2022 (2): 22-24.
[32]	陈勇, 陈潇凯, 李志远, 等. 具有评价结果唯一性特征的雷达图综合评价法[J]. 北京理工大学学报, 2010, 30(12):1409-1412.
	CHEN Yong, CHEN Xiaokai, LI Zhiyuan, et al. Comprehensive evaluation method of radar diagram with the uniqueness feature of evaluation results[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology, 2010, 30 (12): 1409-1412.

处理 Treatment	产量 Output (kg/hm²)	速效磷 Olsen-P (mg/kg)	酶活性 ALP (mg/(g·h))	微生物生物量 Microbial biomass (mg/kg)	磷肥利用率 REP (%)	植物生物量 Plant biomass (g/3株)	植物累计吸磷量 Plants P uptake (kg/hm²)	经济效益 Economic benefits (元/hm²)
MAP0	3 736.09	20.85	233.71	7.67	-	75.15	51.14	905.00
MAP50	4 776.47	26.21	214.19	17.71	19.16	99.53	63.86	9 038.75
MAP100	4 672.65	26.09	216.51	22.61	32.97	85.24	53.39	8 021.25
MAP150	4 933.16	21.33	239.78	24.42	17.35	113.68	46.85	9 917.50
MAP0+OF	3 993.35	24.03	212.81	15.33	-	94.78	51.72	3 466.25
MAP50+OF	4 639.45	26.79	208.32	19.38	29.64	124.69	52.54	8 535.00
MAP100+OF	5 355.11	29.83	227.02	21.57	35.62	148.74	65.61	14 071.25
MAP150+OF	4 903.93	29.03	212.36	27.37	21.61	131.56	63.27	10 465.00
MAP0+OA	3 859.06	28.33	235.38	9.33	-	87.42	48.19	1 811.25
MAP50+OA	4 954.21	30.27	234.22	21.93	29.17	101.85	45.87	10 383.75
MAP100+OA	5 194.85	27.10	202.67	13.78	24.12	107.46	69.51	12 122.50
MAP150+OA	4 583.73	32.02	251.02	11.58	11.14	102.70	45.87	7 046.25
MAP0+BC	4 698.23	24.33	213.44	9.42	-	95.56	60.67	8 602.50
MAP50+BC	4 864.01	30.09	234.44	13.47	25.87	96.65	75.59	9 741.25
MAP100+BC	4 513.73	29.76	227.68	24.12	33.15	95.15	62.78	6 772.50
MAP150+BC	4 681.85	30.16	198.22	20.72	18.14	100.92	57.26	7 910.00

处理 Treatment	产量 Output (kg/hm²)	速效磷 Olsen-P (mg/kg)	酶活性 ALP (mg/(g·h))	微生物生物量 Microbial biomass (mg/kg)	磷肥利用率 REP (%)	植物生物量 Plant biomass (g/3株)	植物累计吸磷量 Plants P uptake (kg/hm²)	经济效益 Economic benefits (元/hm²)
MAP0	3 736.09	20.85	233.71	7.67	-	75.15	51.14	905.00
MAP50	4 776.47	26.21	214.19	17.71	19.16	99.53	63.86	9 038.75
MAP100	4 672.65	26.09	216.51	22.61	32.97	85.24	53.39	8 021.25
MAP150	4 933.16	21.33	239.78	24.42	17.35	113.68	46.85	9 917.50
MAP0+OF	3 993.35	24.03	212.81	15.33	-	94.78	51.72	3 466.25
MAP50+OF	4 639.45	26.79	208.32	19.38	29.64	124.69	52.54	8 535.00
MAP100+OF	5 355.11	29.83	227.02	21.57	35.62	148.74	65.61	14 071.25
MAP150+OF	4 903.93	29.03	212.36	27.37	21.61	131.56	63.27	10 465.00
MAP0+OA	3 859.06	28.33	235.38	9.33	-	87.42	48.19	1 811.25
MAP50+OA	4 954.21	30.27	234.22	21.93	29.17	101.85	45.87	10 383.75
MAP100+OA	5 194.85	27.10	202.67	13.78	24.12	107.46	69.51	12 122.50
MAP150+OA	4 583.73	32.02	251.02	11.58	11.14	102.70	45.87	7 046.25
MAP0+BC	4 698.23	24.33	213.44	9.42	-	95.56	60.67	8 602.50
MAP50+BC	4 864.01	30.09	234.44	13.47	25.87	96.65	75.59	9 741.25
MAP100+BC	4 513.73	29.76	227.68	24.12	33.15	95.15	62.78	6 772.50
MAP150+BC	4 681.85	30.16	198.22	20.72	18.14	100.92	57.26	7 910.00

处理 Treatment	产量 Output	速效磷 Olsen-P	酶活性 ALP	微生物生物量 Microbial biomass	磷肥利用率 REP	植物生物量 Plant biomass	植物累计吸磷量 Plants P uptake	经济效益 Economic benefits
MAP0	0.76	0.80	0.97	0.31	-	0.66	0.80	0.09
MAP50	0.97	1.00	0.89	0.73	0.58	0.88	1.00	0.91
MAP100	0.95	1.00	0.90	0.93	1.00	0.75	0.84	0.81
MAP150	1.00	0.81	1.00	1.00	0.53	1.00	0.73	1.00
MAP0+OF	0.50	0.81	0.94	0.56	-	0.64	0.79	0.25
MAP50+OF	0.87	0.90	0.92	0.71	0.83	0.84	0.80	0.61
MAP100+OF	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.79	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
MAP150+OF	0.92	0.97	0.94	1.00	0.61	0.88	0.96	0.74
MAP0+OA	0.74	0.88	0.94	0.43	-	0.81	0.69	0.15
MAP50+OA	0.95	0.95	0.93	1.00	1.00	0.95	0.66	0.86
MAP100+OA	1.00	0.85	0.81	0.63	0.83	1.00	1.00	1.00
MAP150+OA	0.88	1.00	1.00	0.53	0.38	0.96	0.66	0.58
MAP0+BC	0.97	0.81	0.91	0.39	0.00	0.95	0.80	0.88
MAP50+BC	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.56	0.78	0.96	1.00	1.00
MAP100+BC	0.93	0.99	0.97	1.00	1.00	0.94	0.83	0.70
MAP150+BC	0.96	1.00	0.85	0.86	0.55	1.00	0.76	0.81

处理 Treatment	产量 Output	速效磷 Olsen-P	酶活性 ALP	微生物生物量 Microbial biomass	磷肥利用率 REP	植物生物量 Plant biomass	植物累计吸磷量 Plants P uptake	经济效益 Economic benefits
MAP0	0.76	0.80	0.97	0.31	-	0.66	0.80	0.09
MAP50	0.97	1.00	0.89	0.73	0.58	0.88	1.00	0.91
MAP100	0.95	1.00	0.90	0.93	1.00	0.75	0.84	0.81
MAP150	1.00	0.81	1.00	1.00	0.53	1.00	0.73	1.00
MAP0+OF	0.50	0.81	0.94	0.56	-	0.64	0.79	0.25
MAP50+OF	0.87	0.90	0.92	0.71	0.83	0.84	0.80	0.61
MAP100+OF	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.79	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
MAP150+OF	0.92	0.97	0.94	1.00	0.61	0.88	0.96	0.74
MAP0+OA	0.74	0.88	0.94	0.43	-	0.81	0.69	0.15
MAP50+OA	0.95	0.95	0.93	1.00	1.00	0.95	0.66	0.86
MAP100+OA	1.00	0.85	0.81	0.63	0.83	1.00	1.00	1.00
MAP150+OA	0.88	1.00	1.00	0.53	0.38	0.96	0.66	0.58
MAP0+BC	0.97	0.81	0.91	0.39	0.00	0.95	0.80	0.88
MAP50+BC	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.56	0.78	0.96	1.00	1.00
MAP100+BC	0.93	0.99	0.97	1.00	1.00	0.94	0.83	0.70
MAP150+BC	0.96	1.00	0.85	0.86	0.55	1.00	0.76	0.81

处理 Treatment	雷达图面积 Radar map area S	雷达图周长 Radar map circumference L	面积评价值 Area evaluation value V₁	周长评价值 Perimeter evaluation V₂	评价值 Evaluation result Y	排序 Rank
MAP0	1.310 3	0.711 4	0.437 9	0.849 5	0.609 9	16
MAP50	2.435 4	0.912 8	0.814 0	0.987 9	0.896 7	9
MAP100	2.551 9	0.887 7	0.852 9	0.995 6	0.921 5	5
MAP150	2.539 4	0.779 2	0.848 7	0.982 7	0.913 3	7
MAP0+OF	1.255 8	0.957 7	0.419 7	0.887 5	0.610 3	15
MAP50+OF	2.089 7	1.059 7	0.698 4	0.992 9	0.832 7	11
MAP100+OF	2.992 5	0.763 4	1.000 2	0.997 5	0.998 8	1
MAP150+OF	2.467 5	0.869 6	0.824 7	0.989 9	0.903 5	8
MAP0+OA	1.391 5	0.767 6	0.465 1	0.871 3	0.636 6	14
MAP50+OA	2.648 4	0.849 9	0.885 2	0.993 6	0.937 8	4
MAP100+OA	2.537 3	0.889 1	0.848 0	0.990 1	0.916 3	6
MAP150+OA	1.920 6	0.941 5	0.641 9	0.957 4	0.783 9	12
MAP0+BC	1.920 9	0.774 4	0.642 0	0.912 5	0.765 4	13
MAP50+BC	2.686 1	0.812 2	0.897 8	0.986 6	0.941 1	3
MAP100+BC	2.688 0	0.847 6	0.898 4	0.994 3	0.945 2	2
MAP150+BC	2.323 6	0.897 9	0.776 6	0.986 7	0.875 3	10

有机物料对不同磷肥用量条件下棉田综合效益评价

Evaluation of the comprehensive efficiency of cotton field with different phosphate fertilizer dosage

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 32

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	姚庆, 阿里别里根·哈孜太, 杨明花, 李强, 苗昊翠, 崔宏亮. 藜麦种子对萌发温度的响应及低温胁迫萌发能力鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1141-1149.
[2]	杨明花, 刘强, 廖必勇, 彭云承, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 达吾来·杰克山. 不完全双列杂交玉米组合抗倒伏综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 832-840.
[3]	马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388.
[4]	马辉, 戴路, 李星星, 阿布都艾尼·阿布都维力, 艾麦尔江·阿布力提甫, 田立文, 欧欢. 不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2601-2608.
[5]	布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 张燕红, 袁杰, 赵志强, 文孝荣, 杜孝敬, 王奉斌, 吕玉平, 阿曼古丽·艾孜子. 新疆优质丰产香型水稻品种筛选与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2694-2703.
[6]	窦子微, 杨璐, 程平, 张志刚, 李宏. 不同品种桑葚营养品质分析及综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 127-139.
[7]	马彬, 王帅, 吴依衍, 姜艳. 干旱荒漠区农田防护林正负效应及其影响机制[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2232-2239.
[8]	马超, 张凯, 袁芳, 张楠, 盛建东, 张文太. 有机酸添加对不同磷肥用量棉田磷素状况和产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2247-2257.
[9]	李枭, 郭栋良, 李恭泽, 薛敏, 江海霞, 叶佳丽, 谢丽琼. 亚麻萌发期耐盐鉴定体系优化及150份种质耐盐性综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1438-1449.
[10]	李江艳, 张鲜花, 袁小强, 袁惠, 刘雯欣. 干旱胁迫下鸭茅苗期生长特性及耗水规律[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1502-1512.
[11]	张栋海, 魏俊梅, 陈兵, 吉光鹏, 王凡, 牛蛉磊. 无人机播前喷施除草剂防除棉田杂草效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 3022-3029.
[12]	马艳明, 赵连佳, 王威, 安学春, 向莉, 苗雨. 大麦种质资源表型性状遗传差异分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(11): 2628-2636.
[13]	王冬梅, 潘洪生, 李海强, 丁瑞丰, 阿克旦・吾外士, 刘建, 李号宾. DNA分子检测技术定量评估捕食性天敌对棉蚜的控害功能[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(11): 2661-2667.
[14]	李江余, 赵强, 吴雪琴, 马春梅, 任若飞, 许豆豆, 田阳青. 塑型剂对棉花农艺性状及产量品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2352-2357.
[15]	廖扭, 刁明, 崔洪鑫, 牛宁, 刘慧英. 花期盐水滴灌对10份番茄种质的主要性状影响及耐盐性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2486-2494.