不同有机肥对生菜生育期土壤剖面DOM分布的影响

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)09-2683-09

摘要
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (18970 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要：施用有机肥是农作物生产过程中提质增效的有效途径，研究不同来源有机肥施加下土壤剖面溶解性有机质(DOM)的分布规律有助于优化有机肥利用及进一步了解DOM 环境行为。采用二维相关光谱(2D-COS)等方法，研究施加不同来源有机肥（猪粪、鸡粪、羊粪、牛粪和沼渣）对土壤剖面DOM分布规律的影响。结果显示：有机肥还田主要影响土壤DOM的相对含量及组分构成。施加不同来源有机肥后，土壤中DOM相对含量始终大于对照（CK）处理，其中0~10 cm土层DOM相对含量影响最大，平均增加14.67 g·kg^-1。不同类型有机肥对增加剖面DOM有一定差异，其中鸡粪有机肥对剖面DOM增加影响最大，增加了21.42%。有机肥的施加主要提高了类酪氨酸组分（C4）的相对含量，对10~20 cm土层C4相对含量的影响最大，平均增加4.12%，其中羊粪和沼渣有机肥影响最大，分别增加了7.80%、7.89%。2D-COS分析显示，不同来源有机肥施用对溶解性微生物代谢产物、类蛋白质组分（295 nm、315 nm）影响最大，CK、鸡粪有机肥处理主要影响的是溶解性微生物代谢产物组分，其他处理最先响应的是类蛋白质组分；不同来源有机肥施用下，腐殖化指数HIX和F_n(330)、F_n(280)均随土层深度的增加而减小，但HIX和F_n(330)、F_n(280)的变化随有机肥种类不同而有所差异，其中牛粪有机肥对HIX和F_n(330)影响最大，羊粪有机肥对F_n(280)影响最大。生物指数BIX和新鲜度指数β∶α随着土层深度增加而增加，其中沼渣的影响最显著，但荧光指数FI并无显著变化。

关键词：不同来源有机肥；DOM；土壤剖面分布；三维荧光光谱；平行因子分析；二维相关光谱

Abstract：The application of organic fertilizer is an effective way to improve the quality and efficiency of crop production. Studying the distribution of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in soil profiles under the application of organic fertilizer from different sources is helpful to optimize the utilization of organic fertilizer and further understand the environmental behavior of DOM. This paper used 2D correlation spectroscopy (2D-COS) to study the effects of different organic fertilizers (pig manure, chicken manure, sheep manure, cow manure, and biogas residue) on DOM distribution in the soil profile. The results showed that organic fertilizer return to the field mainly affected the soil's relative content and composition of DOM. After applying different organic fertilizers, the relative content of DOM in soil was always higher than that in control (CK) treatment, and the relative content of DOM in the 0～10 cm soil layer had the greatest effect, with an average increase of 14.67 g·kg^-1. Different types of organic fertilizer had a certain difference in the increase of profile DOM, among which chicken manure organic fertilizer had the greatest effect on the increase of profile DOM, increasing by 21.42%. The application of organic fertilizer mainly increased the relative content of tyrosine-like components (C4), and had the greatest impact on the relative content of C4 in the 10～20 cm soil layer, with an average increase of 4.12%, in which sheep manure and biogas residue had the greatest impact, with an increase of 7.80% and 7.89%, respectively. 2D-COS analysis showed that applying organic fertilizer from different sources greatly impacted dissolved microbial metabolites and protein-like components (295, 315 nm); CK and chicken manure treatment mainly affected dissolved microbial metabolites, and other treatments first responded to protein-like components. The humification index HIX, F_n(330) and F_n(280) decreased with the increase of soil depth. Still, the changes of HIX, F_n(330), and F_n(280) were different with different types of organic fertilizer, among which cow manure had the greatest effect on HIX and F_n(330). Sheep manure had the greatest effect on F_n(280). The biological index BIX and freshness index β∶α increased with the increase of soil depth, and the influence of biogas residue was the most significant. Still, the fluorescence index FI had no significant change.

Key words：Organic Fertilizer; Dissolved organic matter; Soil profile distribution; Three-dimensional fluorescence spectrum; Parallel factor analysis; Two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy

收稿日期: 2023-08-29 修订日期: 2024-03-01

中图分类号:

X53

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目（51809095；52079052），华北水利水电大学水利工程学科创新团队培育计划项目（CXTDPY-9）资助

通讯作者: 雷宏军 E-mail: hj_lei2002@163.com

作者简介: 潘红卫，1983年生，华北水利水电大学水利学院副教授 e-mail: phw103@163.com

引用本文:

潘红卫，陈惠茹，史利利，雷宏军，王逸飞，孔海康，杨光. 不同有机肥对生菜生育期土壤剖面DOM分布的影响[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2024, 44(09): 2683-2691.
PAN Hong-wei, CHEN Hui-ru, SHI Li-li, LEI Hong-jun, WANG Yi-fei, KONG Hai-kang, YANG Guang. Distribution of DOM in Soil Profiles Under Different Types of Organic Fertilizer During the Growth Period of Lettuce. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(09): 2683-2691.

链接本文:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)09-2683-09 或 https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/Y2024/V44/I09/2683

[1] Yan L L, Liu C, Zhang Y D, et al. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2021, 209: 111804.
[2] ZHAO Xiong-wei, WU Dong-ming, LI Qin-fen, et al(赵雄威, 吴东明, 李勤奋, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2022, 42(10): 3210.
[3] Li J W, Zhao L Y, Li M, et al. Ecological Indicators, 2022, 143: 109386.
[4] Tan Z H, Dong B, Xing M Y, et al. Environmental Technology, 2024, 45(2): 283.
[5] LI Zhang-hai, ZHU Kai, PENG Yu, et al(李章海, 朱凯, 彭宇, 等). Chinese Tobacco Science(中国烟草科学), 2016, 37(3): 40.
[6] Xu R Z, Cao J S, Feng G Y, et al. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022, 430(2): 132893.
[7] HOU Lei, WU Pei-yi(侯磊, 武培怡). Acta Polymerica Sinica(高分子学报), 2022, 53(5): 522.
[8] LIANG Yi-hao, NI Cai-ying, LIU Xing-xing, et al(梁以豪, 倪才英, 刘星星, 等). Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture(中国生态农业学报)，2023, 31(4): 543.
[9] WANG Xing-yu, ZHANG Xi, DING Jing-tao, et al(王鑫宇, 张曦, 丁京涛, 等). Journal of Agro-Environment Science(农业环境科学学报), 2021, 40(11): 2372.
[10] Chen W, Habibul N, Liu X Y, et al. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(4): 2052.
[11] LIN Shao-xia, XIAO Zhi-qiang, ZHANG Zhuan-ling, et al(林绍霞, 肖致强, 张转铃, 等). China Environmental Science(中国环境科学), 2021, 41(3): 1325.
[12] Coulson L E, Weigelhofer G, Gill S, et al. Biogeochemistry, 2022, 159(2): 159.
[13] Pucher M, Flödl P, Graeber D, et al. Biogeosciences, 2021, 18(10): 3103.
[14] Yamashita Y, Scinto L J, Maie N, et al. Ecosystems, 2010, 13(7): 1006.
[15] D'Andrilli J, Junker J R, Smith H J, et al. Biogeochemistry, 2019, 142(2)：281.
[16] Yan C X, Sheng Y R, Ju M, et al. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27(25)：31872.
[17] TIAN Kai, LI Jia-qian, HAO Qiang, et al(田凯, 黎佳茜, 郝强, 等). Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering(环境工程学报), 2022, 16(10): 3497.
[18] LÜ Jing-jing, GONG Wei-jin, DOU Yan-yan, et al(吕晶晶, 龚为进, 窦艳艳, 等). China Environmental Science(中国环境科学), 2019, 39(5): 2039.
[19] HONG Zhi-qiang, XIONG Ying, LI Yan, et al(洪志强, 熊瑛, 李艳, 等). Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 2016, 36(19): 6308.
[20] Huguet A, Vacher L, Saubusse S, et al. Organic Geochemistry, 2009, 40(6): 706.
[21] XIAO Long-geng, CHEN Wen-song, CHEN Guo-feng, et al(肖隆庚, 陈文松, 陈国丰, 等). Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae(环境科学学报), 2014, 34(1): 160.
[22] Huguet A, Vacher L, Saubusse S, et al. Organic Geochemistry, 2010, 41(6): 595.
[23] Ohno T. Environmental Science & Technology, 2002, 36(4): 742.
[24] Lavonen E E, Kothawala D N, Tranvik L J, et al. Water Research, 2015, 85: 286.
[25] Mcknight D M, Boyer E W, Westerhoff P K, et al. Limnology and Oceanography, 2001, 46(1): 38.