【摘要】：針對(duì)云南省坡耕地種植模式下,水土流失嚴(yán)重的現(xiàn)狀,本研究采用田間徑流小區(qū)試驗(yàn),研究了坡耕地條件下玉米大豆間作、玉米單作、大豆單作和裸地的水土流失情況。測定了不同種植模式下處理間作物生育期內(nèi)產(chǎn)流次數(shù)、產(chǎn)流量、土壤侵蝕量、徑流中養(yǎng)分流失量、流失土壤中養(yǎng)分流失量、作物農(nóng)藝性狀、土壤溫度、土壤含水量、空氣濕度、根系固土能力以及經(jīng)濟(jì)效益指標(biāo)。研究結(jié)果表明:(1)采用間作種植模式,較單作和裸地能有效降低作物生育期內(nèi)的產(chǎn)流次數(shù)和產(chǎn)流量。在產(chǎn)流次數(shù)方面,玉米大豆間作較大豆單作、玉米單作、裸地處理分別減少了4次,5次和6次;在產(chǎn)流量方面,生育期內(nèi)玉米大豆間作、大豆單作、玉米單作、裸地處理分別產(chǎn)生了937.54 m3/hm2,1217.67 m3/hm2,1163.17 m3/hm2和1327.98m3/hm2徑流。間作較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地處理總產(chǎn)流量分別減少了19.40%,23.01%,29.40%。(2)采用間作種植模式,較單作和裸地能有效降低生育期內(nèi)土壤流失。在試驗(yàn)期間,處理間土壤流失量差異顯著(P0.05),玉米大豆間作處理、玉米單作、大豆單作和裸地土壤流失量分別為28.06 t/hm2,41.58 t/hm2,39.52 t/hm2,53.15 t/hm2,間作處理較其他處理分別減少了32.52%,29.00%,47.21%。(3)從徑流中養(yǎng)分流失量來看,間作處理徑流攜帶總N養(yǎng)分流失最少,較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地處理分別減少了1.62%,19.37%,7.48%。從流失土壤中攜帶養(yǎng)分測定來看,間作處理在速效磷、速效鉀指標(biāo)與玉米單作、大豆單作和裸地處理之間差異顯著(P0.05),間作處理下的養(yǎng)分流失量最少。在速效磷指標(biāo)中,間作處理較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地分別減少了36.54%,8.81%,54.60%;在速效鉀指標(biāo)中,間作處理較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地分別減少了46.48%,26.55%,55.16%。而在有機(jī)質(zhì)和堿解氮流失量指標(biāo)中,各處理間差異不顯著(P0.05),在有機(jī)質(zhì)指標(biāo)中,間作處理較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地分別減少了16.78%,34.96%,51.66%;在堿解氮指標(biāo)中,間作處理較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地分別減少了2.60%,25.18%,32.56%;(4)采用間作處理模式,間作玉米葉面積指數(shù)的峰值為4.16,高于單作玉米小區(qū)3.74%,間作大豆葉面積指數(shù)的峰值為5.48,高于單作大豆小區(qū)4.78%。在其他農(nóng)藝性狀指標(biāo)中,間作處理均在一定程度上較單作有優(yōu)勢。在土壤含水量、土壤溫度、空氣濕度以及固土能力指標(biāo)中,10-20 cm土層深處間作處理土壤含水量較大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地處理分別高了1.8%,2.4%和2.3%,該深度處間作處理分別比大豆單作、玉米單作和裸地溫度降低了4.3%,0.5%和10.1%,間作處理的固土能力在測試中均強(qiáng)于單作處理和裸地處理。(5)按照2014年11月昆明市大豆和玉米干重價(jià)格(玉米:2.8元/kg,大豆:3.8元/kg)折算后,間作處理、大豆單作和玉米單作其每公頃凈收入分別為35753.0元/hm2,34823.8元/hm2,12946.6元/hm2,間作處理的公頃純收入比單作大豆和單作玉米分別提高了2.6%和63.8%。經(jīng)計(jì)算,土地當(dāng)量比LER=1.55。綜上可知,當(dāng)采用間作模式時(shí),可以有效提高地表覆蓋度,減少徑流形成次數(shù),延緩徑流形成時(shí)間,改善田塊環(huán)境濕度,降低水、土和養(yǎng)分流失。其次,間作模式下作物農(nóng)藝性狀和作物凈產(chǎn)值均有不同程度提高,其特有的地下根型布置能提高根系固土能力,在提高經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)值的同時(shí)兼顧水土保持效果,在云南省中部坡耕地采用間作處理模式具有推廣和應(yīng)用前景。
[Abstract]:In view of the serious soil and water loss under sloping farmland in Yunnan Province, the soil and water loss of maize-soybean intercropping, maize-soybean monocropping, soybean monocropping and bare land under sloping farmland was studied by field runoff plot experiment. Erosion, nutrient loss in runoff, nutrient loss in runoff, Crop Agronomic characteristics, soil temperature, soil moisture, air humidity, soil-fixing capacity of root system and economic benefit indicators. The results show that: (1) Intercropping can effectively reduce the number of runoff and runoff yield in crop growth period compared with monoculture and bare land. In terms of runoff frequency, maize-soybean intercropping decreased 4 times, 5 times and 6 times, respectively, compared with soybean monocropping, maize-soybean monocropping and bare land treatment; in terms of yield and runoff, 937.54 m3/hm2, 1217.67 m3/hm2, 1163.17 m3/hm2, 1327.98 m3/hm2 were produced by maize-soybean intercropping, soybean monocropping and maize monocropping, respectively. The total yield and discharge of maize monocropping and bare land treatment decreased by 19.40%, 23.01% and 29.40% respectively. (2) Intercropping could effectively reduce soil loss during the growth period compared with monocropping and bare land treatment. Intercropping treatment decreased 32.52%, 29.00% and 47.21% respectively compared with other treatments. (3) Compared with soybean monoculture, maize monoculture and bare land treatment decreased 1.62%, 19.37% and 7.48% respectively. The results of nutrient determination showed that there were significant differences between intercropping and maize monocropping, soybean monocropping and bare land treatment (P 0.05). The nutrient loss of intercropping was the least. Intercropping treatment decreased 46.48%, 26.55% and 55.16% respectively compared with soybean monocropping and bare land, but there was no significant difference in the loss of organic matter and alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (P 0.05). In organic matter index, intercropping treatment decreased 16.78%, 34.96% and 51.66% compared with soybean monocropping, maize monocropping and bare land, respectively. Compared with soybean monoculture, maize monoculture and bare land decreased by 2.60%, 25.18% and 32.56% respectively; (4) Intercropping mode was adopted, the peak value of maize leaf area index was 4.16, which was 3.74% higher than that of single cropping maize plot, and the peak value of soybean leaf area index was 5.48, which was 4.78% higher than that of single cropping soybean plot. In soil moisture content, soil temperature, air humidity and soil consolidation ability, the soil moisture content of 10-20 cm deep intercropping treatment was 1.8%, 2.4% and 2.3% higher than that of soybean monocropping, maize monocropping and bare land treatment, respectively. The soil temperature was reduced by 4.3%, 0.5% and 10.1%. The soil consolidation ability of intercropping treatment was better than that of single cropping and bare land treatment in the test. (5) According to the conversion of the dry weight price of soybean and maize (maize: 2.8 yuan / kg, soybean: 3.8 yuan / kg) in November 2014, the net income per hectare of soybean and maize monocropping was 35 753.0 yuan / hm2, respectively. 34823.8 yuan/hm2,12946.6 yuan/hm2,the net income per hectare of intercropping treatment was 2.6% and 63.8% higher than that of soybean and maize respectively. Secondly, Crop Agronomic Traits and net crop output value were improved in different degrees under the intercropping pattern. Its unique underground root type arrangement could improve the soil-fixing capacity of root system, improve the economic output value while taking into account the effect of soil and water conservation. The intercropping pattern was popularized and applied in sloping farmland of central Yunnan Province. Prospects.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：云南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：S157.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張文安,徐大地,肖厚軍,劉友云;黔中黃壤丘陵旱坡地不同耕作制與水土保持研究[J];貴州農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué);2001年02期

2 董莉麗;鄭粉莉;秦瑞杰;;基于LB法不同植被類型下土壤團(tuán)聚體水穩(wěn)性研究[J];干旱地區(qū)農(nóng)業(yè)研究;2010年02期

3 馬繼力;;遼河源頭區(qū)坡耕地面源污染阻控技術(shù)研究[J];北方環(huán)境;2011年05期

4 路海東;賈志寬;楊寶平;李永平;劉世新;;寧夏南部旱區(qū)坡地不同糧草帶比間作種植模式比較[J];生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào);2010年21期

5 安瞳昕;李彩虹;吳伯志;胡昌應(yīng);鄭愛萍;;玉米不同間作方式對(duì)坡耕地水土流失的影響[J];水土保持學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

6 倪九派;魏朝富;高明;謝德體;何丙輝;;三峽庫區(qū)坡耕地土壤養(yǎng)分流失的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[J];水土保持學(xué)報(bào);2008年05期

7 王暢;李永梅;王自林;范茂攀;;稻草編織物覆蓋對(duì)坡耕地紅壤侵蝕及理化性質(zhì)的影響[J];水土保持學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

8 馮洋;郭成久;李勇;郝冬寧;鄭帥;;不同水土保持措施對(duì)黑土區(qū)坡耕地氮、磷流失的影響[J];水土保持研究;2014年03期

9 邢向欣;鄭毅;湯利;;可降解編織物在土壤侵蝕控制和農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)上的應(yīng)用[J];云南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

10 和俊;;云南省坡耕地水土流失綜合治理的探索與實(shí)踐[J];中國水土保持;2011年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鄭海金;贛北紅壤坡面水土保持措施保水減沙作用研究[D];北京林業(yè)大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2236051