Response of Soil Enzyme and Soil Fertility of Artificial Grassland in Sandy Soil to Different Mixture Ratio of Alfalfa and Smooth Brome

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.06.011

Acta Agrestia Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 1217-1223.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.06.011

Previous Articles Next Articles

Response of Soil Enzyme and Soil Fertility of Artificial Grassland in Sandy Soil to Different Mixture Ratio of Alfalfa and Smooth Brome

YU Tie-feng, HAO Feng, ZHANG Yong-liang, GAO Kai

College of Agronomy, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 028042, China

Received:2021-02-23 Revised:2021-03-12 Online:2021-06-15 Published:2021-07-05

沙地豆禾混播草地土壤酶与土壤养分对混播比例的响应

于铁峰, 郝凤, 张永亮, 高凯

内蒙古民族大学农学院, 内蒙古通辽 028042

作者简介:于铁峰(1983-)，男，黑龙江双鸭山人，博士，讲师，主要从事饲草栽培方向研究，E-mail：yutiefeng520@163.com
基金资助:
内蒙古民族大学博士科研启动基金项目（BS521）；内蒙古自治区自然科学基金项目（2019LH03011）；内蒙古民族大学博士科研启动基金项目（BS520）资助

Abstract

Abstract: The effects of two kinds of mixed modes (alfalfa and smooth brome ratio of 2∶2 or 1∶2) on soil enzyme and soil nutrient were studied in order to investigate the effects of different mixed modes on soil enzyme and soil fertility in sandy soils of Horqin. Results showed that the contents of soil nutrient (organic matter,available nitrogen,available phosphorus,available potassium) and soil enzyme activity (urease,invertase,alkaline phosphatase,catalase) decreased with the depth increse of soil layers,that is,surface aggregation features were present. The content of soil organic matter and available phosphorus in 1∶2 treatment was higher than 2∶2 treatment. The contents of available nitrogen and available potassium and soil enzyme activities in 2∶2 treatment was higher than 1∶2 treatment, it indicated that appropriate increase in legume forage proportion could improve soil enzyme activity,which was conducive to the accumulation and transformation of soil nutrients; the correlation analysis and principal component analysis showed that there was a certain correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil main nutrient factors. The soil fertility level of legume-grass mixed grassland was evaluated by soil enzyme activity and soil nutrient factors.

Key words: Sandy soil, Mixture sowing, Soil enzyme, Soil nutrient, Grassland

摘要： 在科尔沁沙地以紫花苜蓿（Medicago sativa）和无芒雀麦（Bromus inermis）为材料，研究豆禾2∶2和豆禾1∶2两种间行混播比例对人工草地土壤养分和土壤酶活性的影响。结果表明：土壤养分含量（有机质、碱解氮、速效磷、有效钾）和土壤酶活性（脲酶、蔗糖酶、碱性磷酸酶、过氧化氢酶）均随土层加深而逐渐降低，呈现表聚性特征；土壤有机质和速效磷含量均表现为豆禾1∶2处理高于豆禾2∶2处理，碱解氮和有效钾含量及4种土壤酶活性均表现为豆禾2∶2处理高于豆禾1∶2处理，说明适当增加豆科牧草比例可不同程度的提高土壤酶活性，有利于土壤养分的积累和转化；相关分析和主成分分析表明，土壤酶活性与土壤主要养分因子间具一定相关性，豆禾混播草地的土壤肥力水平是由土壤酶活性和土壤养分因子共同决定的。

关键词: 沙地, 混播, 土壤酶, 土壤养分, 草地

CLC Number:

S153.6

YU Tie-feng, HAO Feng, ZHANG Yong-liang, GAO Kai. Response of Soil Enzyme and Soil Fertility of Artificial Grassland in Sandy Soil to Different Mixture Ratio of Alfalfa and Smooth Brome[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1217-1223.

于铁峰, 郝凤, 张永亮, 高凯. 沙地豆禾混播草地土壤酶与土壤养分对混播比例的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1217-1223.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.06.011

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2021/V29/I6/1217

References

[1] Christopher P, Littlejohn, Rainer W, et al. Delivery of multiple ecosystem services in pasture by shelter created from the hybrid sterile bioenergy grass miscanthus x giganteus[J]. Scientific reports,2019,9(1):337-342
[2] 谢开云,孙伶俐,张力文,等. 菌根真菌和根瘤菌接种对紫花苜蓿和无芒雀麦混播牧草生物量的影响[J]. 草地学报,2021,29(1):182-188
[3] 张永亮,骆秀梅,吴明浩,等. 科尔沁沙地苜蓿-禾草混播组合对播种当年牧草生产性能的影响[J]. 草业科学,2018,35(4):176-184
[4] 郝凤,刘晓静,齐敏兴,等. 磷水平和接根瘤菌对紫花苜蓿根系形态特征和根瘤固氮特性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2015,23(4):818-822
[5] Muqaddas B, Zhou X Q, Lewis T, et al. Long-term frequent prescribed fire decreases surface soil carbon and nitrogen pools in a wet sclerophyll forest of Southeast Queensland, Australia[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2015,536:39-47
[6] 陆海飞,郑金伟,余喜初,等. 长期无机有机肥配施对红壤性水稻土微生物群落多样性及酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报,2015,21(3):632-643
[7] Bft B, Prescott C E, Grayston S J. Soil moisture is the major factor influencing microbial community structure and enzyme activities across seven biogeoclimatic zones in western Canada[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry,2012,44(1):9-20
[8] Balota E L, Machineski O, Truber P V. Soil enzyme activities under pig slurry addition and different tillage systems[J]. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy,2011,33(4):729-737
[9] 刘威,耿明建,秦自果,等. 种植绿肥与稻秸协同还田对单季稻田土壤有机碳库和酶活性的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2020,36(7):125-133
[10] 姜华,毕玉芬,朱栋斌,等. 恢复措施对云南退化山地草甸土壤微生物和酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2008,16(3):256-261
[11] 王小燕,姚宝辉,张彩军,等. 甘南"黑土滩"型退化草甸土壤理化特性及酶活性季节变化[J]. 草地学报,2021,29(2):220-227
[12] 南丽丽,汪堃,李小彦,等. 播量和行距对苜蓿根际土壤生物性质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2018,26(6):1330-1336
[13] Spargo J T, Cavigelli M A, Mirsky S B, et al. Mineralizable soil nitrogen and labile soil organic matter in diverse long-term cropping systems[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,2011,90(2):253-266
[14] 刘遵奇,兰宇,杨铁鑫,等. 减肥条件下生物炭施用方式对土壤肥力及酶活性的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报,2020,37(4):544-551
[15] 霍雅媛,曹宏,柴守玺,等. 不同豆禾牧草混播对土壤质地及肥力的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2020,38(3):238-244
[16] 单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等. 围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2009,18(2):3-10
[17] 王岩春,干友民,费道平,等. 川西北退牧还草工程区围栏草地植被恢复效果的研究[J].草业科学,2008,25(10):15-19
[18] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社,2000:308-309
[19] 关松萌. 土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1986:310-312
[20] 邰继承,张宏宇,杨恒山,等. 播种方式对紫花苜蓿+无芒雀麦人工草地土壤剖面养分分布的影响[J].内蒙古民族大学学报(自然科学版),2009,24(4):392-396
[21] 温仲明,焦峰,赫晓慧,等. 黄土高原森林边缘区退耕地植被自然恢复及其对土壤养分变化的影响[J].草业学报,2007(1):16-23
[22] 张永亮,范富,高凯,等. 苜蓿、无芒雀麦单播与混播对土壤有机质和速效养分的影响[J].草地学报,2009,17(1):22-26
[23] 韩建国,韩永伟,孙铁军,等. 农牧交错带退耕还草对土壤有机质和氮的影响[J].草业学报,2004(4):21-28
[24] Thilakarathna R M M S, Papadopoulos Y A, Rodd A V, et al. Characterizing nitrogen transfer from red clover populations to companion bluegrass under field conditions[J]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science,2012,92(6):1163-1173
[25] Jeranyama P, Hesterman O B,Waddington S R, et al. Relay-Intercropping of Sunnhemp and Cowpea into a Smallholder Maize System in Zimbabwe[J]. Agronomy Journal,2000,92(2):239-244
[26] Zhang F S, Li L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrientuse efficiency[J]. Plant and Soil,2003,248(1-2):305-312
[27] Jensen E S, Carlsson G,Hauggaard N H. Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N:A global-scale analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,2020,40(1):155-119
[28] 关正翾,娜尔克孜,朱亚琼,等. 不同混播方式下燕麦+箭筈豌豆混播草地的生产性能及土壤养分特征[J]. 草业科学,2019,36(3):178-190
[29] 郑伟,加娜尔古丽,唐高溶,等. 混播种类与混播比例对豆禾混播草地浅层土壤养分的影响[J]. 草业科学,2015,03(3):329-329
[30] Tian Y Q, Liu J, Wang X H, et al. Carbon mineralization in the soils under different cover crop and residue management in an intensive protected vegetable cultivation. Scientia Horticulturae,2011,127(3):198-206
[31] Katsalirou E, Deng S, Nofziger D L, et al. Long-term management effects on organic C and N pools and activities of C-transforming enzymes in prairie soils[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology,2010,46(5):335-341
[32] Tu C, Teng Y, Luo Y, et al. PCB removal, soil enzyme activities, and microbial community structures during the phytoremediation by alfalfa in field soils[J]. Journal of Soils & Sediments,2011,11(4):649-656
[33] 张丽琼,郝明德,臧逸飞,等. 苜蓿和小麦长期连作对土壤酶活性及养分的影响[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(11):3191-3196
[34] 李扬,孙洪仁,丁宁,等. 紫花苜蓿根系生物量[J].草地学报,2011,19(5):872-879
[35] Bhme L, Langer U, Bhme F. Microbial biomass, enzyme activities and microbial community structure in two European long-term field experiments[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,2005,109(1-2):141-152
[36] Jiang X, Liu X, Wang E, et al. Effects of tillage pan on soil water distribution in alfalfa-corn crop rotation systems using a dye tracer and geostatistical methods[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2015,150:68-77
[37] 焦婷,常根柱,周学辉,等. 高寒草甸草场不同载畜量下土壤酶与土壤肥力的关系研究[J]. 草业学报,2009(6):100-106
[38] 田露,刘景辉,赵宝平,等. 保水剂和微生物菌肥配施对旱作燕麦土壤微生物生物量碳、氮含量及酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报,2020,34(5):361-368
[39] 夏皖豫,陈彦云,柴忠良,等. 宁南山区膜下滴灌对马铃薯土壤酶活性、土壤养分及产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2021,39(1):57-64

Response of Soil Enzyme and Soil Fertility of Artificial Grassland in Sandy Soil to Different Mixture Ratio of Alfalfa and Smooth Brome

沙地豆禾混播草地土壤酶与土壤养分对混播比例的响应

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	JIN Yan-xia, CHEN Zhe, ZHOU Hua-kun, FU Jing-jing. Research Progress of Canopy Interception of Vegetation in Grassland Ecosystem [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 1-9.
[2]	HUANG Xiao-tao, YAO Bu-qing, MA Zhen, ZHOU Hua-kun. Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Grassland Net Primary Productivity and Precipitation Use Efficiency in Qinghai Plateau [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 19-26.
[3]	YANG Chong, WANG Wen-ying, LIU Pan, ZHOU Hua-kun, SUONANJi, LIU Yan-fang, GUAN Jin-hong. Characteristics and Analysis of Mineral Elements Content in Plants of Different Alpine Grasslands in the Regions of Three-River-Source [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 52-61.
[4]	ZHAO Meng-fan, ZHOU Bing-rong, ZHAO Tong, ZHOU Hua-kun, XIAO Rui-xiang, YAN Liang-dong, LI Fan. Drought Evaluation and Driving Force Analysis of Grassland in Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 93-103.
[5]	QIN Hai-rong, CHEN Zhang-cheng, HU Yue-ming, WANG Li-ya, XIAO Wu, ZHAO Zhi-zhong, HU Yong-qiang, ZHAO Li, MA Bing-yun, HUO Jun-ling, WANG Fu-cheng. Soil Degradation Intensity and Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Alpine Grassland in Qinghai Province [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 104-112.
[6]	YAN He-piao, LI Wen-long, LIANG Tian-gang, ZHOU Hua-kun, CAO Ya-peng, LIAO Yuan-cheng. Effects of Different Restoration Measures on Degraded Alpine Grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau: A meta-analysis [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 190-198.
[7]	ZHAO Shu-dong, LI Jian-hong. The Study on Screening and Characteristics of Rhizosphere Growth-promoting Bacteria of Poa alpigena L. [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 1885-1891.
[8]	WANG Zhan-qing, ZHANG Jie-xue, YANG Xue-lian, HUANG Xia, CHEN Si-liang, QIAO You-ming. Characteristics of Soil Microbial Diversity in Different Patches of Alpine Meadow [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 1916-1926.
[9]	WANG Xiao-fen, WU Yu-xin, XIAO Hai-long, ZHANG Ge-fei, CHEN Jian-gang, ZHANG De-gang. Features of Soil Aggregates and Plant Interspecific Affinity along Degraded Alpine Grasslands in Three Rivers Region [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 2001-2009.
[10]	HUANG Jia-xing, WU Jing, LI Chun-bin, QIN Ge-xia, QIAN Juan-bing, LI Huai-hai. Remote Sensing Retrieval of grassland Above-Ground Biomass in Tianzhu County based on Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 Data [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 2023-2030.
[11]	ZHAO Peng-bo, QIU Kai-yang, XIE Ying-zhong, ZHAO Xiang-jun, CHEN Lin, LIU Wang-suo, LI Hai-quan, MENG Wen-fen, HU Xue-qin, HE Yi, HUANG Ye-yun, LI Ya-yuan. Spatial Heterogeneity of Soil Nutrients under Different Sand-fixing Shrubs in Southern Mu Us Sandy Land, China [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 2040-2048.
[12]	YUE Fang-zheng, GAO Shu-jing, CHENG Tong-tong, XU Lin-bo, HAN Hai-bin, DING Wei, CHAI Shou-quan. Current Situation and Prospect of Pest Control in Grassland of China [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1615-1620.
[13]	QU Yan, SONG Qian, YANG He-long, ZHAO Kun, ZHAO Min, LIU Yu-ling, WANG De-ping, RONG Yu-ping. The Influence of Different Utilization Methods of Hulunbuir Grassland on the Structure of Soil Microbial Clusters [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1621-1627.
[14]	WU Xue-mei, YANG Xue-yan, LIN Yuan-yuan, DAI Yi, CAO Le-le, DONG Wen-xuan, LIU Zeng-wen. Response of Humification of Robinia pseudoacacia and Pinus tabulaeformis Litter to Climate Temperature and Humidity Changes [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1738-1747.
[15]	GAO Zhi-xiang, LI Xi-lai, ZHANG Jing, JIN Li-qun, ZHOU Wei. Effects of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Enzyme Activities in Coal Mining Residuals of Alpine Mining Area [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1748-1756.