本文關(guān)鍵詞：不同耕作深度對土壤結(jié)構(gòu)及小麥玉米周年產(chǎn)量的影響　出處：《山東農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 耕作深度 容重 團聚體 碳足跡

【摘要】：大田試驗于2015—2016年在萊陽市馮格莊鎮(zhèn)朱家埠村進行。試驗采用小麥-玉米一年兩熟種植模式,供試小麥品種為煙農(nóng)24。玉米品種為鄭單958。秸稈全部還田。試驗采用完全隨機區(qū)組設(shè)計,共四個處理:翻耕20 cm、翻耕25 cm、翻耕30 cm和深松30 cm。試驗分析了不同耕作深度對麥玉輪作系統(tǒng)農(nóng)田土壤結(jié)構(gòu)、土壤團聚體分布、穩(wěn)定性以及其碳庫和小麥玉米產(chǎn)量的影響,尋求適合魯東地區(qū)高產(chǎn)穩(wěn)產(chǎn)農(nóng)田的適宜耕作方式和耕作深度。主要研究結(jié)果如下:1不同耕作深度對土壤結(jié)構(gòu)的影響在三個不同的翻耕深度之間,翻耕30 cm在20 cm以下土層對土壤含水量的提升明顯高于其他兩個翻耕處理。翻耕30 cm能打破多年形成的犁底層,發(fā)揮深層土壤對水分的調(diào)控功能。深松30 cm在0～60 cm 土層,相對于翻耕30 cm含水量略低。說明在相同的耕作深度下,翻耕更有利于提高土壤含水量。但在玉米抽雄期之后,深松30 cm 土壤的含水量卻高于翻耕30 cm。這是因為在玉米季煙臺地區(qū)干旱嚴重。在面臨突發(fā)性的干旱季節(jié),深松30 cm仍能表現(xiàn)出較高的土壤含水量,提高耕地的蓄水保墑能力。30cm以下土層隨著耕作深度的增加土壤緊實度隨之減小。雖然翻耕30 cm也沒有耕作到30 cm以下的土層。但在30 cm以下的土層的緊實度也小于其他兩個翻耕處理。這與深耕有利于小麥根系向深層延伸穿插切割等作用有很大關(guān)系。同時深松對表層土壤影響較小,但能顯著改善深層土壤的緊實度。小麥季在0～20 cm 土層的容重三個翻耕處理差異不大。但深松處理容重明顯大于翻耕處理。而在20～40 cm 土層,深松土壤容重卻小于翻耕30 cm。在玉米季,0～10 cm處的土壤容重差異逐漸減小,在20～40 cm處,除翻耕20 cm表現(xiàn)為較大的土壤容重,其他處理的土壤容重差別減少,相比于小麥季的耕作對容重作用順序,未能表現(xiàn)明顯差異。認為在小麥季容重的大小主要取決于耕作,而在玉米季對容重的影響因素更多的為耕作后效作用,以及秸稈還田、雨水沖淋和根系等的影響。2不同耕作深度對土壤團聚體分布、穩(wěn)定性以及其碳庫的影響隨著翻耕深度的增加,耕作深度對20～40 cm 土層深度的土壤團聚體影響增大,團聚體的穩(wěn)定性MWD和GMD也隨之減小。而深松處理隨著土壤深度的增加,團聚體粒徑逐漸減小,大團聚體數(shù)量逐漸降低。在小麥生育期深松30 cm 土壤表層土壤微團聚體(＜0.25 mm)比例比翻耕30 cm少,穩(wěn)定性高。更有利于提高土壤團聚體的穩(wěn)定性。本研究中,隨著時間的推移,各處理之間的團聚體穩(wěn)定性差異逐漸減小。土壤團聚體SOC較高的土層,其土壤團聚體穩(wěn)定指數(shù)也較高。深松30 cm不翻動土壤,淺表層(0～10 cm)土壤結(jié)構(gòu)受到保護,土壤有機質(zhì)有在表層土壤富集的現(xiàn)象.而翻耕處理能提高深層土壤的團聚體有機碳含量,但同時也降低了該土層土壤的團聚體的穩(wěn)定性。土壤團聚體SOC含量隨著土壤深度的增加逐漸減少。但翻耕30 cm在20～40 cm 土層中的團聚體SOC含量明顯比其他翻耕處理多。這表明隨著耕作深度的增加,更有利于深層土壤的團聚體SOC含量的提高。3不同耕作深度對作物產(chǎn)量和糧食碳成本的影響小麥季,增加耕作深度都能有效提高小麥的穗數(shù)和穗粒數(shù)。但對千粒重的影響并不顯著。產(chǎn)量上,翻耕30 cm產(chǎn)量最高。翻耕30 cm和翻耕25 cm分別比翻耕20 cm產(chǎn)量提高了 13.52%、3.58%。因此耕作深度在30 cm時,能顯著提高小麥產(chǎn)量。而深松30 cm和翻耕30 cm在穗數(shù)、穗粒數(shù)、千粒重和產(chǎn)量上差別都不大。玉米季,翻耕30 cm比翻耕20 cm和翻耕25 cm對玉米的穗數(shù)、穗粒數(shù)和千粒重提升顯著。而深松30 cm比翻耕30 cm在穗數(shù)和穗粒數(shù)都有所增加,但在千粒重和產(chǎn)量上差異并不顯著,但兩者的增產(chǎn)效果明顯比翻耕20 cm和翻耕25 cm明顯。在小麥-玉米一年兩熟體系下,總的糧食碳成本最高為翻耕20 cm,最低為深松30 cm,這說明在相同產(chǎn)量情況下,翻耕20 cm需要投入更多的生產(chǎn)性物質(zhì)來維持產(chǎn)量。這也表明,深松30 cm和翻耕30 cm雖然在產(chǎn)量上差別不大,但深松30 cm在相同的產(chǎn)量上比翻耕30 cm投入的更少,是更適合生產(chǎn)的耕作。
[Abstract]:Field experiment from 2015 to 2016 in Feng Ge Zhuang Zhen Zhu Jia Bu Cun, Laiyang city. In this experiment, wheat corn one year two cropping patterns, wheat varieties for Yannong 24. maize varieties Zhengdan 958. for straw returning. All the test using a randomized complete block design, four treatments were: plowing 20 cm. Till 25 cm, 30 cm tillage and subsoiling 30 cm. test analysis of different tillage depth on soil structure of farmland wheat maize rotation system, soil aggregate distribution and stability as well as the influence of the carbon pool and the yield of wheat and corn, to seek suitable tillage and tillage depth for Eastern high yield farmland. The main research results are as follows: 1 different tillage depth on soil structure in three different tillage depth, tillage on soil water content of 30 cm in 20 cm soil increased significantly higher than other two tillage. Tilling can break 30 cm Over the formation of plough layer, play a regulatory function of deep soil water. Deep loosening of 30 cm in 0 ~ 60 cm soil layer, compared with the tillage water content of 30 cm is slightly lower. When the tillage depth under the same tillage is beneficial to the improvement of soil moisture. But after corn tasseling, subsoiling 30 cm soil moisture is higher than plowing 30 cm. this is because in the maize season in Yantai area. In the face of severe drought drought season of sudden, subsoiling 30 cm can still exhibit higher soil moisture, improve farmland water conservation capacity below.30cm soil layer increased with tillage depth of soil compaction decreases. Although no tillage plowing 30 cm to 30 cm below soil. But in 30 cm below the soil compaction is less than the other two tillage treatment, which is conducive to wheat roots extending to the deep with a great relationship. At the same time cutting effect and deep deep Pine has little effect on the surface soil, but can significantly improve soil compaction. Wheat season in 0 ~ 20 cm soil bulk density three tillage treatments were the same. But the subsoiling tillage treatment. Bulk density was significantly higher than that in the 20 ~ 40 cm soil layer, soil bulk density was less than subsoiling tillage 30 cm. in maize season, 0 ~ 10 cm soil bulk density difference gradually decreases from 20 to 40 cm, in addition to plowing 20 cm showed greater soil bulk density, soil bulk density difference between the other treatments was reduced, compared to the effect of Tillage on wheat season bulk order, failed to show significant difference. In Wheat season. Weight mainly depended on farming, and in maize season the influencing factors of the weight of more farming effect, as well as straw, rain and root of the.2 effects of different tillage depth on soil aggregate distribution, stability and its influence with carbon Turn increase the depth of tillage depth on 20 ~ 40 cm soil depth soil aggregates increasing, the stability of MWD and GMD aggregates decreased. And deep tillage with the increase of soil depth, the aggregate particle size decreases and the aggregate number decreased gradually. In the growth period of wheat subsoiling 30 cm soil layer soil micro aggregates (< 0.25 mm) the proportion of farming 30 cm less than doubled. High stability is conducive to improve the stability of soil aggregates. In this study, with the passage of time, the aggregate stability difference between the treatments decreased gradually. Soil agglomerates with high SOC soil layer, the soil aggregate stability index is higher. Subsoiling 30 cm through the soil, shallow layer (0 ~ 10 cm) soil structure protected soil organic matter in the surface soil enrichment phenomenon. While conventional tillage can improve the soil organic carbon content in deep soil, but at the same time When also reduced the aggregate stability of the soil. The soil aggregate content of SOC decreased gradually with the increase of soil depth. But the ploughing depth of 30 cm in 20 ~ SOC soil aggregates content 40 cm than in other tillage treatment. This indicates that with the increasing of farming depth, aggregates content of SOC is more advantageous to the deep soil the improvement of.3 in different tillage depth effect on crop yield and grain carbon cost of winter wheat, panicle and spikelet number increasing tillage depth can effectively improve wheat. But the effect on grain weight was not significant. The yield of 30 cm, the highest yield. Tillage tillage and tillage 30 cm 25 cm respectively. Plowing 20 cm 3.58%. production increased by 13.52%, so the tillage depth at 30 cm, can significantly improve the yield of wheat. And subsoiling 30 cm and 30 cm in tillage panicle number, grain number per spike, 1000 grain weight and yield of the difference is not big. Maize season, plowing 30 cm Plowing 20 cm and 25 cm tillage on Maize spike number, grain number and grain weight were significantly improved. 30 cm and subsoiling tillage than the 30 cm in the panicles and grains per spike were increased, but no significant difference in 1000 grain weight and yield, but the yield effect is significantly higher than plowing 20 cm and cm were plowing 25. In wheat corn two crops a year under the system, the total cost for the highest grain carbon 20 cm minimum tillage, subsoiling is 30 cm, which shows that under the conditions of same yield, plowing 20 cm needed to maintain the production of more material. It also shows that 30 cm, subsoiling tillage and 30 cm although the difference in yield is not big, but the 30 cm 30 cm deep loosening farming inputs less than doubled in the same production, is more suitable for the production of farming.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：S512.1;S513

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 童文杰;鄧小鵬;徐照麗;馬二登;晉艷;李軍營;;不同耕作深度對土壤物理性狀及烤煙根系空間分布特征的影響[J];中國生態(tài)農(nóng)業(yè)學(xué)報;2016年11期

2 謝軍紅;張仁陟;李玲玲;羅珠珠;蔡立群;柴強;;耕作方法對黃土高原旱作玉米產(chǎn)量和土壤水溫特性的影響[J];中國生態(tài)農(nóng)業(yè)學(xué)報;2015年11期

3 張麗;張中東;郭正宇;宮帥;王若男;陶洪斌;王璞;;深松耕作和秸稈還田對農(nóng)田土壤物理特性的影響[J];水土保持通報;2015年01期

4 湯文光;肖小平;唐海明;張海林;陳阜;陳中督;薛建福;楊光立;;長期不同耕作與秸稈還田對土壤養(yǎng)分庫容及重金屬Cd的影響[J];應(yīng)用生態(tài)學(xué)報;2015年01期

5 孔曉民;韓成衛(wèi);曾蘇明;吳秋平;劉麗;;不同耕作方式對土壤物理性狀及玉米產(chǎn)量的影響[J];玉米科學(xué);2014年01期

6 田慎重;王瑜;李娜;寧堂原;王丙文;趙紅香;李增嘉;;耕作方式和秸稈還田對華北地區(qū)農(nóng)田土壤水穩(wěn)性團聚體分布及穩(wěn)定性的影響[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報;2013年22期

7 鄭成巖;于振文;張永麗;王東;石玉;許振柱;;土壤深松和補灌對小麥干物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)及水分利用率的影響[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報;2013年07期

8 祝宗美;;不同耕作深度對小麥生長發(fā)育、產(chǎn)量及水分生產(chǎn)效率的影響[J];山東農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué);2012年07期

9 徐璐;王志春;趙長巍;祝明煒;魏博微;;深松對吉林西部低產(chǎn)旱田土壤物理特性的影響[J];土壤與作物;2012年02期

10 陳學(xué)文;張曉平;梁愛珍;賈淑霞;時秀煥;范如芹;魏守才;;耕作方式對黑土硬度和容重的影響[J];應(yīng)用生態(tài)學(xué)報;2012年02期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 張大偉;李鳳博;卞新民;;不同耕作方式與秸稈還田對直播稻田土壤容重及病蟲草害影響研究[A];中國農(nóng)作制度研究進展2008[C];2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 張麗;深松和培肥對旱地農(nóng)田土壤水分保蓄能力及玉米生長的影響[D];中國農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

2 鄭存德;土壤物理性質(zhì)對玉米生長影響及高產(chǎn)農(nóng)田土壤物理特征研究[D];沈陽農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2012年

3 韓賓;保護性耕作措施對農(nóng)田土壤健康狀況的影響及作物響應(yīng)研究[D];山東農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 高小東;淺深松聯(lián)合整地機的設(shè)計[D];新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2016年

2 劉曉芳;不同耕作方式對旱作農(nóng)田土壤有機碳及相關(guān)指標(biāo)的影響[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

3 劉玲;有機物料對小麥—玉米周年產(chǎn)量及土壤有機碳組分的影響[D];山東農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

4 楊杰瑞;不同翻耕模式與秸稈還田對豫中區(qū)麥田土壤理化性狀影響的研究[D];河南師范大學(xué);2014年

5 李景;長期耕作對土壤團聚體有機碳及微生物多樣性的影響[D];中國農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院;2014年

6 尹斌;深松深度對高產(chǎn)春玉米花粒期根冠特性及產(chǎn)量形成影響的研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

7 王丹丹;耕作方式與秸稈還田對土壤活性有機碳特性的影響[D];華中農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

8 楊雪;黃淮海北部平原區(qū)不同土壤耕作法比較研究[D];中國農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院;2013年

，

本文編號：1364384