引用本文:
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 46次   下载 44 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
不同耕法及秸秆还田对土壤水分运移变化的影响
李玉梅1, 王晓轶2, 王根林3, 王伟1, 刘峥宇4, 孟祥海5
1.黑龙江省农业科学院 土壤肥料与环境资源研究所, 黑龙江 哈尔滨 150086;2.燕山大学 环境与化学工程学院, 河北 秦皇岛 066000;3.黑龙江省农业科学院 畜牧研究所, 黑龙江 哈尔滨 150086;4.黑龙江省绥滨农场, 黑龙江 绥滨 154213;5.黑龙江省农业科学院 牡丹江分院, 黑龙江 牡丹江 157000
摘要:
[目的] 探讨不同耕法与秸秆还田方式下,旱地草甸土土壤水分随深度运移的变化,为今后生产中因地制宜制定科学合理的耕作与培肥技术提供理论依据。[方法] 采用田间定位试验,研究3种耕法免耕、浅翻、深翻与3种秸秆还田方式覆盖还田、浅翻还田、深翻还田条件下,作物生长不同时期、不同深度土层土壤含水量、田间持水量和容重的变化。[结果] 土壤水分的年际间变化与降水量和降水变率有一定的关系。秸秆不还田条件下,连续2 a免耕,年际间土壤含水量随深度变化的特征曲线基本一致,0-20 cm耕层田间持水量降低13.62%,而浅翻与深翻分别增加11.32%和27.98%;耕翻深度对20-30 cm土层水分的影响较大,随作物生长和地表覆盖度增加,40 cm以下土层含水量的变化减弱。秸秆还田条件下,0-20 cm耕层浅翻还田与深翻还田田间持水量分别增加16.24%,5.08%,而土壤容重降低0.12,0.09 g/cm3[结论] 同一耕法有秸秆还田处理土壤水分含量高于无秸秆还田,降水量越少,差异越明显。与免耕和免耕覆盖比较,翻耕与翻耕还田均增加了作物生长期间土壤含水量,提高了作物抗旱能力,产量有增加趋势。
关键词:  草甸土  秸秆还田  耕法  土壤水分
DOI:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.05.006
分类号:S157.4+2;S3
基金项目:国家重点研发项目“东北平原东北旱地丰产增效耕作培肥技术模式与示范”(2016YFD0300806);黑龙江省资助项目(GX18B013);黑龙江省重点基金(ZD2016008,LBH-Q14148)
Effects of Straw Returning Method Partnered with Different Tillage Methods on Migration of Soil Water
Li Yumei1, Wang Xiaoyi2, Wang Genlin3, Wang Wei1, Liu Zhengyu4, Meng Xianghai5
1.Institute of Soil Fertility and Environmental Resources, Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150086, China;2.School Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, Hebei 066000, China;3.Institute of Animal Sciences, Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150086, China;4.Heilongjiang Suibin Farm, Suibin, Heilongjiang 154213, China;5.Mudanjiang Branch of Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang 157041, China
Abstract:
[Objective] The change in the water content of meadow soils at different depths with different plow and straw returning methods was studied to provide a theoretical basis for formulating scientific/reasonable tillage and fertilizer technology according to local conditions during future production.[Methods] Based on field experiments, the soil water content, field water holding capacity, and bulk density of crop growth different stages and different soil depths were studied using three tillage and straw returning methods, which were no-tillage, shallow plow, and deep plow, each partnered with no straw and straw returning.[Results] The inter-annual variation in the soil water content had relationships with the annual precipitation and precipitation variability. In two consecutive years of no-tillage, the soil water curves were basically the same, the field water holding capacity in the 0-20 cm layer decreased by 13.62%, while the shallow and deep plow increased the field water holding capacity by 11.32% and 27.98%, respectively. The influence of the soil water content at the depth of 20-30 cm was higher than other soil layers, and along with the crop growth and increase of ground cover, the soil water in the three tillage systems decreased under the 40 cm soil layer. With straw shallow and deep returning, the water holding capacity of the 0-20 cm arable layer saw an average increase of 16.24% and 5.08%, respectively, and the soil bulk density decreased by 0.12 g/cm3 and 0.09 g/cm3, respectively.[Conclusion] Within the same plow systems, the soil water content with straw returning was higher than that without, and the less precipitation that was present the more obvious this difference was. Compared with no-tillage and straw mulching, the soil water increased with plow and straw returning, which increased the drought resistance of the crops and yields.
Key words:  meadow  straw returning  plow  soil water content