Effect of Biochar Application before Winter on Soil Aggregates and Carbon Sequestration in Drip Irrigation Cotton Field
-
摘要:
目的 为探究非灌溉季节生物炭施用对滴灌棉田耕层土壤团聚体及碳含量的调控效应,确定滴灌棉田在非灌溉季节的最佳施炭量。 方法 以不施用生物炭(B0)为对照,探究非灌溉季节施用15(B1)、30(B2)、45(B3)和60 t hm−2(B4)生物炭对新疆滴灌棉田耕层(0 ~ 40 cm)土壤总碳、有机碳、微生物量碳、土壤呼吸速率、土壤团聚体及其结合态总碳和结合态有机碳的影响。 结果 施用生物炭处理与对照处理相比土壤总碳、团聚体结合态总碳和土壤呼吸速率随生物炭用量的增加而增加,增幅分别为6.85% ~ 18.14%、6.15% ~ 17.71%和13.52% ~ 53.88%。> 0.25 mm水稳性团聚体含量、团聚体结合态有机碳、土壤有机碳和微生物量碳随生物炭用量的增加先增加后减少,增幅分别为11.80% ~ 21.68%、12.64% ~ 57.54、17.58% ~ 55.27%和13.02% ~ 46.96%。通过建立最小数据集计算土壤质量指数得出,土壤质量指数最高(0.4632)的为施用45 t hm−2(B3)生物炭处理。 结论 生物炭在非灌溉季节施用有利于增加土壤大团聚体及其碳含量,但也会增加碳的排放。新疆滴灌棉田非灌溉季节生物炭最佳施用量为45 t hm−2。 Abstract:Objective The aim was to explore the regulation effect of biochar application in non-irrigation season on soil aggregates and carbon sequestration in topsoil of drip irrigation cotton field. Method Five treatments with the biochar applications of 15 t hm−2 (B1), 30 t hm−2 (B2), 45 t hm−2 (B3), 60 t hm−2 (B4), and no application (B0) were set up with three replicates. The effects of biochar in non-irrigation season on soil total carbon (C) and organic C, microbial biomass C, soil respiration rate, aggregate and aggregate-bound total C, and aggregate-bound organic C in the plough layer (0 - 40 cm) of drip irrigation cotton field in Xinjiang were analyzed. Result Compared with the control treatment, the soil total C, aggregate-associated total C, and soil respiration rate increased with the increase of biochar application rate. Total C increased by 6.85% - 18.14%, aggregate-bound total C increased by 6.15% - 17.71%, and soil respiration rate increased by 13.52%-53.88%. > 0.25 mm water-stable aggregate content, aggregate-bound organic C, soil organic C, and microbial biomass C increased first and then decreased with the increase of C application rate. >0.25 mm water-stable aggregate content increased by 11.80% - 21.68%, aggregate-bound organic C increased by 12.64% - 57.54%, soil organic C increased by 17.58% - 55.27%, microbial biomass C increased by 13.02% - 46.96%. By establishing the minimum data set to calculate the soil quality index, the highest soil quality index score was B3 (0.4632). Conclusion Application of biochar in non-irrigation season is beneficial to increase soil aggregate and soil C content, but also increases C emissions. The optimal application amount of biochar was 45 t·hm−2 in non-irrigation season of drip irrigation cotton field in Xinjiang. -
表 1 试验区0 ~ 40 cm土壤基本理化性质
Table 1. Basic physical and chemical properties of 0 ~ 40 cm soil in test area
容重
Bulk density
(g cm–3)pH 总碳
Total carbon
(g kg–1)有机碳
Organic carbon
(g kg–1)田间持水率
Soil field capacity
(g g–1)不同粒径水稳性团聚体比例 (%)
Proportion of water - stable aggregates> 2 mm 0.25 ~ 2 mm 0.053 ~ 0.25 mm < 0.053 mm 1.60 7.58 17.4 7.9 18.66 8.10 55.19 23.03 13.67 表 2 生物炭理化性质
Table 2. Physical and chemical properties of biochar
容重
Bulk density
(g cm–3)比表面积
Specific surface area
(m2 g–1)灰分
Ash content
(%)CEC
(cmol( + ) kg–1)有机碳
Organic carbon
(g kg–1)pH 全磷
Total phosphorus
(g kg–1)0.4 82.7 16.50 16.40 716 9.37 13.86 表 3 0 ~ 40 cm土层团聚体稳定性相关指标
Table 3. Correlation indexes of aggregate stability at 0 ~ 40 cm soil depth
处理
Treatment平均重量直径
Mean weight diameter
(mm)几何平均直径
Geometric mean diameter
(mm)> 0.25 mm水稳性团聚体含量
> 0.25 mm water-stable aggregate
content
(%)团聚体破坏百分比
Percentage of aggregate
destruction
(%)分形维数
Fractal dimensionB0 1.02 ± 0.13 d 0.43 ± 0.05 d 60.73 ± 2.39 d 34.26 ± 1.76 a 2.85 ± 0.03 a B1 1.43 ± 0.07 c 0.70 ± 0.04 c 72.53 ± 1.29 c 19.58 ± 1.29 b 2.66 ± 0.06 b B2 1.75 ± 0.06 a 0.97 ± 0.04 a 80.43 ± 1.22 ab 11.98 ± 2.65 c 2.50 ± 0.06 c B3 1.73 ± 0.08 a 0.98 ± 0.09 a 82.41 ± 2.96 a 7.44 ± 1.98 c 2.51 ± 0.03 c B4 1.53 ± 0.07 b 0.81 ± 0.06 b 77.84 ± 2.17 b 11.79 ± 0.46 c 2.63 ± 0.03 b 注: ± 表示标准差,同列不同小写字母表示差异具有显著性(P < 0.05)。 表 4 不同处理下各个取样时间的土壤呼吸速率值显著性分析
Table 4. Significance analysis of soil respiration rate values for each sampling time under different treatments
处理
Treatment2020/11/8 2020/11/23 2020/12/8 2020/12/23 2021/1/8 2021/3/3 2021/3/15 2021/3/28 B0 c c d c d c c e B1 c c c b c c c d B2 ab bc bc ab bc b b c B3 b ab b ab ab b a b B4 a a a a a a a a 注:同列不同小写字母表示差异具有显著性(P < 0.05) 表 5 参评指标相关系数矩阵
Table 5. Correlation coefficient matrix for reference indicators
指标
IndexX1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X1 1 0.604* 0.691** −0.638* 0.443 0.742** −0.729** 0.681** 0.673** 0.937** 0.719** X2 1 0.744** −0.772** 0.834** 0.590* −0.610* 0.708** 0.722** 0.600* 0.872** X3 1 −0.982** 0.828** 0.896** −0.908** 0.949** 0.948** 0.668** 0.674** X4 1 −0.872** −0.869** 0.843** −0.911** −0.938** −0.589* −0.704** X5 1 0.735** −0.647** 0.748** 0.776** 0.400 0.715** X6 1 −0.877** 0.861** 0.857** 0.676** 0.587* X7 1 −0.973** −0.930** −0.721** −0.553* X8 1 0.974** 0.695** 0.583* X9 1 0.674** 0.631* X10 1 0.601* X11 1 注:*表示P < 0.05,**表示P < 0.01 表 6 主成分特征值及方差贡献率
Table 6. Principal component eigenvalue and variance contribution rate
主成分
Principal
component特征值
Eigenvalue方差贡献率(%)
Contribution
rate累积方差贡献率(%)
Total of
contribution rate1 8.525 77.496 77.496 2 0.995 9.043 86.539 3 0.886 8.051 94.59 4 0.246 2.237 96.827 5 0.146 1.324 98.151 6 0.097 0.879 99.031 7 0.044 0.397 99.428 8 0.039 0.351 99.779 9 0.022 0.197 99.976 10 0.002 0.017 99.993 11 0.001 0.007 100 表 7 主成分荷载矩阵及Norm值计算结果
Table 7. Calculation results of principal component load matrix and Norm value
指标
Index主成分载荷矩阵
Principal component load matrix分组
GroupingNorm值
Norm value1 2 3 X1 0.804 0.538 0.193 2 2.4149 X2 0.827 −0.222 0.447 1 2.4610 X3 0.967 −0.110 −0.155 1 2.8293 X4 −0.949 0.224 0.094 1 2.7813 X5 0.830 −0.485 0.120 1 2.4738 X6 0.904 0.055 −0.228 1 2.6487 X7 −0.917 −0.119 0.308 1 2.6957 X8 0.947 −0.023 −0.259 1 2.7758 X9 0.951 −0.072 −0.208 1 2.7845 X10 0.775 0.577 0.130 2 2.3381 X11 0.780 −0.054 0.572 3 2.3408 表 8 不同处理土壤质量指数
Table 8. Soil quality index of different treatments
指标
IndexB0 B1 B2 B3 B4 土壤质量指数 0.0505 ± 0.0372 c 0.2387 ± 0.0244 b 0.4328 ± 0.0449 a 0.4632 ± 0.0208 a 0.3911 ± 0.0641 a -
[1] 张国娟. 干旱区农田添加有机质对土壤特性及棉花氮素利用根际过程的影响[D]. 新疆: 石河子大学, 2020 [2] 柴彦君. 灌漠土团聚体稳定性及其固碳机制研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2014. [3] 胡 坤, 张红雪, 郭力铭, 等. 烟秆炭基肥对薏苡土壤有机碳组分及微生物群落结构和丰度的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2021, 29(9): 1592 − 1603. [4] Palansooriya K N, Wong J T F, Hashimoto Y, et al. Response of microbial communities to biochar-amended soils: a critical review[J]. Biochar, 2019, 1(1): 3 − 22. doi: 10.1007/s42773-019-00009-2 [5] Maria V. R, Stefanie K, Harald R, et al. Changes in biochar physical and chemical properties: Accelerated biochar aging in an acidic soil[J]. Carbon, 2017, 115: 209 − 219. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2016.12.096 [6] Yang J, Zhou W, Liu J, et al. Dynamics of greenhouse gas formation in relation to freeze/thaw soil depth in a flooded peat marsh of Northeast China[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2014, 75: 202 − 210. [7] Liu Z L, Dugan B, Masiello C A, et al. Effect of freeze-thaw cycling on grain size of biochar[J]. Plos One, 2018, 13(1): e0191246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191246 [8] 刘文慧, 王昱璇, 陈丹丹, 等. 老化作用对生物炭理化特性的影响[J]. 工程热物理学报, 2021, 42(6): 1575 − 1582. [9] Mia S, Dijkstra F A, Singh B. Aging Induced Changes in Biochar's Functionality and Adsorption Behavior for Phosphate and Ammonium[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51(15): 8359 − 8367. [10] Zhou H, Fang H, Zhang Q, et al. Biochar enhances soil hydraulic function but not soil aggregation in a sandy loam[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2019, 70(2): 291 − 300. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12732 [11] 张 坤. 生物炭异质性及其纳米结构的环境风险[D]. 浙江: 浙江大学, 2019. [12] Hua L, Lu Z, Ma H, et al. Effect of biochar on carbon dioxide release, organic carbon accumulation, and aggregation of soil[J]. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2014, 2014,33(3): 941 − 946. [13] 孙福军, 苗涵博, 韩春兰, 等. 激光粒度仪法与湿筛-沉降法测定火山碎屑物发育土壤颗粒组成的比较[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(3): 574 − 579. [14] 王 尧, 田 衎, 封跃鹏, 等. 土壤中总有机碳环境标准样品研制[J]. 岩矿测试, 2021, 40(4): 593 − 602. [15] 罗佳琳, 赵亚慧, 于建光, 等. 麦秸与氮肥配施对水稻根际区土壤微生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2021, 29(9): 1582 − 1591. [16] 刘平奇, 张梦璇, 王立刚, 等. 深松秸秆还田措施对东北黑土土壤呼吸及有机碳平衡的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(5): 1150 − 1160. doi: 10.11654/jaes.2019-1387 [17] 朱家琪, 满秀玲, 王 飞. 我国寒温带四种森林植被类型下土壤团聚体粒级组成及其稳定性比较研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2020, 51(3): 606 − 613. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2020.03.14 [18] 贡 璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(3): 682 − 689. doi: 10.11766/trxb201406290331 [19] Zhang X, Qu J S, Li H, et al. Biochar addition combined with daily fertigation improves overall soil quality and enhances water-fertilizer productivity of cucumber in alkaline soils of a semi-arid region[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 363(C): 114 − 170. [20] D’Hose T, Cougnon M, Vliegher A D, et al. The positive relationship between soil quality and crop production: A case study on the effect of farm compost application[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2014, 75: 189 − 198. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.11.013 [21] Fu Q, Zhao H, Li H, et al. Effects of biochar application during different periods on soil structures and water retention in seasonally frozen soil areas[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 694(Dec.1): 133732.1 − 133732.14. [22] 彭红波, 杨 东, 高 鹏, 等. 生物炭中溶解性炭黑的释放及环境效应[J]. 材料导报, 2020, 34(11): 11029 − 11034. doi: 10.11896/cldb.19050149 [23] 周丹丹, 吴文卫, 吴 敏. 生物炭的稳定性及其评价方法[J]. 重庆大学学报, 2015, 38(3): 116 − 122. doi: 10.11835/j.issn.1000-582X.2015.03.016 [24] 孙 薇, 钱 勋, 付青霞, 等. 生物有机肥对秦巴山区核桃园土壤微生物群落和酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013, 19(5): 1224 − 1233. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2013.0523 [25] 罗 梅, 田 冬, 高 明, 等. 紫色土壤有机碳活性组分对生物炭施用量的响应[J]. 环境科学, 2018, 39(9): 4327 − 4337. [26] Xie Z, Xu Y, Liu G, et al. Impact of biochar application on nitrogen nutrition of rice, greenhouse-gas emissions and soil organic carbon dynamics in two paddy soils of China[J]. Plant & Soil, 2013, 370(1/2): 137 − 146. [27] 陈 颖, 刘玉学, 陈重军, 等. 生物炭对土壤有机碳矿化的激发效应及其机理研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(1): 314 − 320. [28] Leng L, Huang H, Li H, et al. Biochar stability assessment methods: A review[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 647(PT.1-1664): 210 − 222. [29] Farrell M, Kuhn T K, Macdonald L M, et al. Microbial utilisation of biochar-derived carbon[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2013, 465(6): 288 − 297. [30] Bruun S, Clauson-Kaas S, Bovulska L, et al. Carbon dioxide emissions from biochar in soil: role of clay, microorganisms and carbonates[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2014, 65(1): 52 − 59. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12073 [31] Huang R L, Zhang Z Y, Xiao X, et al. Structural changes of soil organic matter and the linkage to rhizosphere bacterial communities with biochar amendment in manure fertilized soils[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 692: 333 − 343. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.262 [32] Xu Y, Chen B. Investigation of thermodynamic parameters in the pyrolysis conversion of biomass and manure to biochars using thermogravimetric analysis[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 146: 485 − 493. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.086 [33] Gao Y, Li T, Fu Q, et al. Biochar application for the improvement of water-soil environments and carbon emissions under freeze-thaw conditions: An in-situ field trial[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 723(3): 138 − 147. [34] Lyu H, He Y, Tang J, et al. Effect of pyrolysis temperature on potential toxicity of biochar if applied to the environment[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2016, 218: 1 − 7. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.014 [35] Weng Z, Zwieten L V, Singh B P, et al. Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7(5): 371 − 376. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3276 [36] Deng W, Van Z L, Lin Z, et al. Sugarcane bagasse biochars impact respiration and greenhouse gas emissions from a latosol[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2017, 17(3): 632 − 640. doi: 10.1007/s11368-015-1347-4 [37] Shen Y F, Zhu L X, Cheng H Y, et al. Effects of Biochar Application on CO2 Emissions from a Cultivated Soil under Semiarid Climate Conditions in Northwest China[J]. Sustainability, 2017, 9(8): 1482. doi: 10.3390/su9081482