基于紫外-可见光光谱法研究长期不同施肥对砖红壤溶解性有机质化学性质的影响

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2022)10-3210-07

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (3083 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is the most active part of the soil, which is important ecological environment significance. It can provide a basis for soil fertilization management to clarify the impact of different fertilization methods on the chemical properties of DOM. Based on different fertilization methods for four years, this experiment is combined with UV-Visible absorption spectroscopy to explore the changes in dissolved organic matter chemical properties in soil. Four treatments were set up in the experiment: CK (non-fertilization); CF (chemical fertilization); OG (organic fertilization); ST (straw). The results show that, compared with the CK group, the DOC content of OG and ST are 95.97 and 104.89 mg·kg^-1, which are 129% and 141% of the CK group. On the contrary, the DOC content of CF is 15.32 mg·kg^-1, which is 21% of the CK group. OG significantly increase the content of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM, represented by α(355)), which is 2.76 times that of the CK group, and there is a change in ST inconspicuous; CF significantly reduces the CDOM content, which was only 0.55 times of the CK group. The application of OG caused redshift phenomenon in the ultraviolet absorption curve of soil, indicating the application of OG can increase the conjugated double bond substances and the degree of humification of the soil DOM; Compared with CK, the characteristic constants SUVA₂₅₄, SUVA₂₆₀, and SUVA₂₈₀ of DOM in OG were increased, revealing that the application of organic fertilization could improve the aromaticity, hydrophobic components and humification degree of DOM, the increase in straw treatment was not obvious, but the application of CF showed a significant decrease; The absorbance ratio A₂₅₀/A₃₅₄ was significantly increased compared to CK and CF, indicating that the application of chemical fertilization reduced the DOM molecule, but OG and ST treatments did not change significantly; the application of straw resulted in a significant increase in A₄₆₅/A₆₆₅, indicating that straw could effectively increase the content of protein and carbonhydrate in DOM; A₃₀₀/A₄₀₀ was greater than 3.5 under the application of OG and ST, and it showed this main soil DOM was rich in fulvic acid, while under the application of CF, A₃₀₀/A₄₀₀ was significantly lower than 3.5, showing that the main soil DOM was humic acid. Application of CF showed S_R>1, S_R<1 of CK, OG, and ST which also showed that organic fertilizer and straw could increase molecular weight. In summary, the organic fertilization and straw can effectively increase the soil DOM content and improve soil fertility; especially the application of OG, can increase the conjugated substances, humification degree, hydrophobic ratio, aromaticity and molecular weight of soil DOM. On the contrary, long-term application of CF cause the fertility of the cultivated layer reduced.

Key words：Dissolved organic matter; Chemical property; Fertilization method ; UV-Visible absorption spectroscopy

Received: 2021-07-04 Accepted: 2022-03-15

ZTFLH:

S14

Corresponding Authors: WANG Xu E-mail: 75194718@qq.com

Cite this article:

ZHAO Xiong-wei,WU Dong-ming,LI Qin-fen, et al. Response of Dissolved Organic Matter Chemical Properties to Long-Term Different Fertilization in Latosol: Insight From Ultraviolet-Visible Spectroscopy[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2022, 42(10): 3210-3216.

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2022)10-3210-07 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2022/V42/I10/3210

[1] Zhang H, Zheng Y, Wang X C, et al. J. Environ. Manage., 2021, 294: 113041.
[2] LIU Yan-yang, QIN Ji-hong, SUN Hui(刘堰杨，秦纪洪，孙辉). Acta Sci. Circum.(环境科学学报), 2018, 38(9): 3662.
[3] LIU Zhu, YANG Yu-sheng, ZHU Jin-mao, et al(刘翥，杨玉盛，朱锦懋, 等). Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 2015, 35(19): 6288.
[4] Ge Z, Gao L, Ma N, et al. Science of The Total Environment, 2021, 791: 148296.
[5] ZHU Ning-mei, CUI Bing, LIU Dong-ping, et al(朱宁美，崔兵，刘东萍, 等). Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology(环境工程技术学报), 2021: 1.
[6] LI Xiao-lei, ZHANG Yu-jun, SHEN Feng-min, et al(李小磊，张玉军，申凤敏, 等). Scientia Agricultura Sinica(中国农业科学), 2020, 53(6): 1189.
[7] WU Dong-ming, DENG Xiao, LI Yi, et al(吴东明，邓晓，李怡, 等). Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences(江苏农业科学), 2019, 47(3): 6.
[8] SHI Li-hong, LI Chao, TANG Hai-ming, et al(石丽红，李超，唐海明, 等). Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology(应用生态学报), 2021, 32(3): 921.
[9] Yan L, Liu Q, Liu C, et al. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2019, 184: 109616.
[10] Yu G, Xiao J, Hu S, et al. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(9): 4960.
[11] Gartzia-Bengoetxea N, Virto I, Arias-González A, et al. Geoderma, 2020, 358: 113998.
[12] Liu D, Yu H, Gao H, et al. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28(15): 19400.
[13] CHEN Zhao-yu, LI Si-yue(陈昭宇，李思悦). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2021, 42(1): 195.
[14] Cerdan M, Sanchez-Sanchez A, Jorda J D, et al. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 553: 340.
[15] GAO Jie, JIANG Tao, LI Lu-lu, et al(高洁，江韬，李璐璐, 等). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2015, 36(1): 151.
[16] ZHU Jin-jie, ZOU Nan, ZHONG Huan, et al(朱金杰，邹楠，钟寰, 等). Acta Sci. Circum.(环境科学学报), 2020, 40(7): 2528.
[17] GUO Wan-li, WU Jun, CAI Li-qun, et al(郭万里，武均，蔡立群, 等). Journal of Soil and Water Conservation(水土保持学报), 2020, 34(1): 283.
[18] Xiao J, He X, Hao J, et al. Biogeosciences, 2016, 13(12): 3607.
[19] Kastner M, Miltner A. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2016, 100(8): 3433.