基于生态和社会效益优化黑土区高产玉米氮肥施用量

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.11.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】在农学和经济效益基础上，基于生态和社会效益进一步探索优化玉米氮肥施用量，促进黑土区玉米生产的可持续绿色发展，协同实现作物高产、资源高效、环境保护和人类健康等多重目标。【方法】2017—2020年在吉林省典型黑土区两个地点（三棵树村和泉眼沟村，简写为SKS和QYG）开展田间定位试验，研究氮肥（尿素）用量（0、50、100、150、200、250、300 kg N·hm^-2）对玉米产量、氮素吸收和利用的影响。采用生命周期评价和综合效益分析方法评估不同施氮水平下玉米的农学、经济、生态和社会效益（分别为施氮引起的直接产值增量、除去氮肥成本的利润增量、除去活性氮损失和温室气体排放等环境污染成本的生态效益、除去环境污染引发人类健康危害成本的社会效益），并分别计算农学最佳施氮量（agronomically optimal N rate，AOR）、经济最佳施氮量（privately optimal N rate，POR），生态最佳施氮量（ecologically optimal N rate，EOR）和社会效益最佳施氮量（socially optimal N rate，SOR），最终综合多重效益优化黑土区玉米的氮肥施用量。【结果】黑土区玉米施用氮肥具有显著增产效果，两个试验点产量随施氮量增加而持续上升，均在200 kg N·hm^-2达到产量平台，SKS和QYG 4年平均产量分别为10.3和11.1 t·hm^-2。玉米植株氮素吸收量也随施氮量增加而持续提高，SKS和QYG均在300 kg N·hm^-2达到最高（分别为151.9和161.8 kg N·hm^-2），而氮肥表观回收率均在施氮量100 kg N·hm^-2时最高（分别为70.3%和72.2%），而后则随施氮量增加呈下降趋势。基于4年试验结果进行综合效益分析发现，氮肥投入导致的生态和社会成本均随施氮量增加呈指数增长趋势，玉米施氮后的产值增量、利润增量、生态效益及社会效益均随施氮量增加呈现先增加后降低的一元二次曲线趋势。基于曲线拟合计算，SKS点的AOR、POR、EOR、SOR分别为236、225、215、211 kg N·hm^-2，而QYG点分别为245、235、225、221 kg N·hm^-2。AOR条件下，SKS和QYG点的玉米产量分别为10.6和11.4 t·hm^-2，活性氮损失分别为44.4和46.8 kg N·hm^-2，生态效益分别为8 786和10 271元/hm²，社会效益分别为8 351和9 822元/hm²。两个试验点在EOR条件下相比AOR条件分别减施氮肥8.8%和7.9%，提高氮肥偏生产力9.1%和8.1%，减少活性氮损失11.7%和11.0%。两个试验点的SOR在EOR基础上进一步减少氮投入，SOR相比AOR分别减施氮肥10.6%和9.6%，减少活性氮损失14.0%和13.1%，增加社会效益124和119元/hm²。【结论】基于生态和社会效益评估，本研究条件下玉米在10.5—12.0 t·hm^-2产量水平的适宜施氮量为210—220 kg N·hm^-2，建议黑土区玉米养分管理应以最佳生态或社会效益为目标推荐施氮量，以实现减氮增效、生态高产和人类健康等多重目标。

关键词: 黑土区, 玉米, 最佳施氮量, 生态效益, 社会效益, 生命周期评价

Abstract:

【Objective】Optimizing nitrogen (N) fertilizer rate for maize, by considering ecological and social benefits in combination with agricultural and economic benefits, was studied to promote the sustainable and green maize production in black soil region, and further to realize the multiple goals including higher yield, higher resource use efficiency, improved environment and human health.【Method】Two field experiments were conducted at San-ke-shu (SKS) and Quan-yan-gou (QYG) in typical black soil region from 2017 to 2020, to study the effects of different N fertilizer (urea) rates (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 kg N·hm^-2) on maize yield, N uptake and N recovery efficiency (NUE), and further to evaluate the agronomic, economic, ecological and social benefits (N-derived gross caused by N application, private benefits of removed the N fertilizer cost, ecological benefits of removed environmental pollution cost such as active nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emission, and social benefit of removed human health harm cost caused by environmental pollution, respectively) in different N rates by using life cycle assessment and comprehensive benefits analysis. The agronomically optimal N rate (AOR), privately optimal N rate (POR), ecologically optimal N rate (EOR) and socially optimal N rate (SOR) were calculated to evaluate the integrated benefits and determine the optimal N fertilizer rate for maize in black soil region. 【Result】 Maize grain yields were significantly affected by N rates, which increased continuously with increasing N input and reached the yield plateau under 200 kg N·hm^-2 treatment at both two experimental sites. Under this N rate, the average yields were 10.3 and 11.1 t·hm^-2 at SKS and QYG across four experimental years, respectively. The N uptake of maize plants also showed increased trends with increasing N rates, and the highest value in 200 kg N·hm^-2 treatment at SKS and QYG (151.9, 161.8 kg N·hm^-2, respectively). The NUE of maize showed the highest values in 100 kg N·hm^-2 treatment at both two experimental sites, the averages were 70.3% and 72.2%, respectively; and then, decreased with increasing N rates. Based on 4-year results, the ecological and social costs caused by N fertilizer input increased exponentially with the increase of N application rate. The N-derived gross, private benefits, ecological benefits and social benefits of maize increased firstly and then decreased with the increase of N application rate. Based on the curve fitting calculation, the AOR, POR, EOR and SOR were estimated as 236, 225, 215 and 211 kg N·hm^-2 at SKS, respectively, and which were 245, 235, 225 and 221 kg N·hm^-2 at QYG, respectively. Under AOR condition, maize yields of 10.6 and 11.4 t·hm^-2, the Nr losses of 44.4 and 46.8 kg N·hm^-2 were obtained at SKS and QYG, respectively, while their ecological benefits were 8 786 and 10 271 yuan/hm², and social benefits were 8 351 and 9 822 yuan/hm², respectively. Compared with AOR, by reducing N inputs by 8.8% and 7.9% at SKS and QYG, respectively, EOR increased partial factor productivity from applied N by 9.1% and 8.1%, respectively, while reducing Nr losses by 11.7% and 11.0%, respectively. Compared with EOR, SOR further reduced N inputs by 10.6% and 9.6% at SKS and QYG, respectively, thus reduced Nr losses by 14.0% and 13.1%, respectively, while increasing social benefits by 124 and 119 yuan/hm², respectively. 【Conclusion】Based on the comprehensive consideration with ecological and social benefits, the optimal N fertilizer rate was determined as 210-220 kg N·hm^-2 for maize with yield of 10.5-12.0 t·hm^-2, it was suggested that the optimal application of ecological or social benefits should be recommended for maize nutrient management in black soil area, which could synergistically achieve the multiple goals for higher yields and NUE, improved ecological environment and human health.

Key words: black soil region, maize, optimal N rate, ecological benefit, social benefit, life cycle assessment

郑春雨, 沙珊伊, 朱琳, 王少杰, 冯国忠, 高强, 王寅. 基于生态和社会效益优化黑土区高产玉米氮肥施用量[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(11): 2129-2140.

ZHENG ChunYu, SHA ShanYi, ZHU Lin, WANG ShaoJie, FENG GuoZhong, GAO Qiang, WANG Yin. Optimizing Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate for High-Yield Maize in Black Soil Region Based on Ecological and Social Benefits[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(11): 2129-2140.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.11.008

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2023/V56/I11/2129

图/表 9

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

表2

图5

表3

表4

参考文献 36

[1]	CHEN X P, CUI Z L, VITOUSEK P M, CASSMAN K G, MATSON P A, BAI J S, MENG Q F, HOU P, YUE S C, RÖMHELD V, ZHANG F S. Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108(16): 6399-6404.
[2]	乔远, 杨欢, 雒金麟, 汪思娴, 梁蓝月, 陈新平, 张务帅. 西北地区玉米生产投入及生态环境风险评价. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(5): 962-976. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.010. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.010
	QIAO Y, YANG H, LUO J L, WANG S X, LIANG L Y, CHEN X P, ZHANG W S. Inputs and ecological environment risks assessment of maize production in northwest China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(5): 962-976. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.010. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.010
[3]	王缘怡, 李晓宇, 王寅, 张馨月, 冯国忠, 焉莉, 李翠兰, 高强. 吉林省农户玉米种植与施肥现状调查. 中国农业资源与区划, 2021, 42(9): 262-271.
	WANG Y Y, LI X Y, WANG Y, ZHANG X Y, FENG G Z, YAN L, LI C L, GAO Q. Smallholder investigation on current maize cultivation and fertilization in Jilin Province. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2021, 42(9): 262-271. (in Chinese)
[4]	CUI Z L, CHEN X P, ZHANG F S. Current nitrogen management status and measures to improve the intensive wheat-maize system in China. Ambio, 2010, 39(5/6): 376-384. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0076-6
[5]	ZHU Z, CHEN D. Nitrogen fertilizer use in China-Contributions to food production, impacts on the environment and best management strategies. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2002, 63: 117-127. doi: 10.1023/A:1021107026067
[6]	TONG L I, SAMINATHAN R, CHANG C W. Uncertainty assessment of non-normal emission estimates using non-parametric bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 2017, 28(1): 61-70. doi: 10.3808/jei.201500322. doi: 10.3808/jei.201500322
[7]	GUO J H, LIU X J, ZHANG Y, SHEN J L, HAN W X, ZHANG W F, CHRISTIE P, GOULDING K W T, VITOUSEK P M, ZHANG F S. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 2010, 327(5968): 1008-1010. doi: 10.1126/science.1182570 pmid: 20150447
[8]	JU X T, XING G X, CHEN X P, ZHANG S L, ZHANG L J, LIU X J, CUI Z L, YIN B, CHRISTIE P, ZHU Z L, ZHANG F S. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, 106(9): 3041-3046.
[9]	GU B J, GE Y, REN Y, XU B, LUO W D, JIANG H, GU B H, CHANG J. Atmospheric reactive nitrogen in China: Sources, recent trends, and damage costs. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(17): 9420-9427. doi: 10.1021/es301446g
[10]	LIU X J, ZHANG Y, HAN W X, TANG A H, SHEN J L, CUI Z L, VITOUSEK P, ERISMAN J W, GOULDING K, CHRISTIE P, FANGMEIER A, ZHANG F S. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature, 2013, 494(7438): 459-462. doi: 10.1038/nature11917
[11]	ZHANG X, DAVIDSON E A, MAUZERALL D L, SEARCHINGER T D, DUMAS P, SHEN Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature, 2015, 528(7580): 51-59. doi: 10.1038/nature15743
[12]	WANG Z, LI J S, LI Y F. Effects of drip system uniformity and nitrogen application rate on yield and nitrogen balance of spring maize in the North China Plain. Field Crops Research, 2014, 159: 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.01.006
[13]	WANG W N, LU J W, REN T, LI X K, SU W, LU M X. Evaluating regional mean optimal nitrogen rates in combination with indigenous nitrogen supply for rice production. Field Crops Research, 2012, 137: 37-48. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.08.010
[14]	CUI Z L, CHEN X P, ZHANG F S. Development of regional nitrogen rate guidelines for intensive cropping systems in China. Agronomy Journal, 2013, 105(5): 1411-1416. doi: 10.2134/agronj2012.0398
[15]	XIA Y Q, YAN X Y. Ecologically optimal nitrogen application rates for rice cropping in the Taihu Lake region of China. Sustainability Science, 2012, 7(1): 33-44. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0144-2
[16]	吴良泉, 武良, 崔振岭, 陈新平, 张福锁. 中国玉米区域氮磷钾肥推荐用量及肥料配方研究. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(4): 802-817.
	WU L Q, WU L, CUI Z L, CHEN X P, ZHANG F S. Basic NPK fertilizer recommendation and fertilizer formula for maize production regions in China. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2015, 52(4): 802-817. (in Chinese)
[17]	冯国忠, 焉莉, 王寅, 王少杰, 李金昊, 陈新平, 崔振岭, 樊小林, 高强. 吉林省玉米推荐施肥指标体系的建立. 玉米科学, 2017, 25(6): 142-147.
	FENG G Z, YAN L, WANG Y, WANG S J, LI J H, CHEN X P, CUI Z L, FAN X L, GAO Q. Establishment of index system of fertilizer recommendation for spring maize in Jilin. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2017, 25(6): 142-147. (in Chinese)
[18]	ZHANG Y T, WANG H Y, LEI Q L, LUO J F, LINDSEY S, ZHANG J Z, ZHAI L M, WU S X, ZHANG J S, LIU X X, REN T Z, LIU H B. Optimizing the nitrogen application rate for maize and wheat based on yield and environment on the Northern China Plain. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 618: 1173-1183. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.183
[19]	VAN GRINSVEN H J M, HOLLAND M, JACOBSEN B H, KLIMONT Z, SUTTON M A, JAAP WILLEMS W. Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(8): 3571-3579. doi: 10.1021/es303804g
[20]	YING H, YE Y L, CUI Z L, CHEN X P. Managing nitrogen for sustainable wheat production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 162: 1308-1316. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.196
[21]	WANG G L, YE Y L, CHEN X P, CUI Z L. Determining the optimal nitrogen rate for summer maize in China by integrating agronomic, economic, and environmental aspects. Biogeosciences, 2014, 11(11): 3031-3041. doi: 10.5194/bg-11-3031-2014
[22]	辛景树, 汪景宽, 薛彦东. 东北黑土区耕地质量评价. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2017.
	XIN J S, WANG J K, XUE Y D. Evaluation of Cultivated Land Quality in Black Soil Area of Northeast China. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2017. (in Chinese)
[23]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 34-109.
	BAO S D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000: 34-109. (in Chinese)
[24]	SCHIERMEIER Q. Prices plummet on carbon market. Nature, 2009, 457: 365. doi: 10.1038/457364b
[25]	XIANG P G, ZHOU Y, JIANG J A, ZHENG H, YAN H M, HUANG H. External costs and optimum use of nitrogen fertilizer based on the balance of economic and ecological benefits in the paddy field system of the Dongting Lake area, China. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2007, 6(3): 347-354. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(07)60055-8
[26]	XIA Y Q, YAN X Y. Comparison of statistical models for predicting cost effective nitrogen rate at rice-wheat cropping systems. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2011, 57(2): 320-330. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2011.578259
[27]	ZHANG W F, DOU Z X, HE P, JU X T, POWLSON D, CHADWICK D, NORSE D, LU Y L, ZHANG Y, WU L, CHEN X P, CASSMAN K G, ZHANG F S. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(21): 8375-8380.
[28]	岳善超. 小麦玉米高产体系的氮肥优化管理[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2013.
	YUE S C. Optimal nitrogen management for high-yielding wheat and maize cropping system[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese)
[29]	XIA L L, TI C P, LI B L, XIA Y Q, YAN X Y. Greenhouse gas emissions and reactive nitrogen releases during the life-cycles of staple food production in China and their mitigation potential. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 556: 116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.204
[30]	GITARSKIY M L. The refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Fundamental and Applied Climatology, 2019, 2: 5-13. doi: 10.21513/0207-2564-2019-2-05-13
[31]	WANG X Z, LIU B, WU G, SUN Y X, GUO X S, JIN G Q, JIN Z H, ZOU C Q, CHADWICK D, CHEN X P. Cutting carbon footprints of vegetable production with integrated soil - crop system management: A case study of greenhouse pepper production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 254: 120158. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120158
[32]	CUI Z L, ZHANG H Y, CHEN X P, ZHANG C C, MA W Q, HUANG C D, ZHANG W F, MI G H, MIAO Y X, LI X L, GAO Q, YANG J C, WANG Z H, YE Y L, GUO S W, LU J W, HUANG J L, LV S H, SUN Y X, LIU Y Y, PENG X L, REN J, LI S Q, DENG X P, SHI X J, ZHANG Q, YANG Z P, TANG L, WEI C Z, JIA L L, ZHANG J W, HE M R, TONG Y N, TANG Q Y, ZHONG X H, LIU Z H, CAO N, KOU C L, YING H, YIN Y L, JIAO X Q, ZHANG Q S, FAN M S, JIANG R F, ZHANG F S, DOU Z X. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature, 2018, 555(7696): 363-366. doi: 10.1038/nature25785
[33]	侯云鹏, 孔丽丽, 李前, 尹彩侠, 秦裕波, 杨建, 于雷, 张磊, 谢佳贵. 不同施氮水平对春玉米氮素吸收、转运及产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2015, 23(3): 136-142.
	HOU Y P, KONG L L, LI Q, YIN C X, QIN Y B, YANG J, YU L, ZHANG L, XIE J G. Effect of different nitrogen rates on nitrogen absorption, translocation and yield of spring maize. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2015, 23(3): 136-142. (in Chinese)
[34]	崔金虎. 春玉米高产稳产品种筛选及配套栽培技术研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2010.
	CUI J H. Study on screening of spring maize varieties with high and stable yield and its supporting cultivation techniques[D]. Harbin:Northeast Agricultural University, 2010. (in Chinese)
[35]	叶东靖, 高强, 何文天, 何萍. 施氮对春玉米氮素利用及农田氮素平衡的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(3): 552-558.
	YE D J, GAO Q, HE W T, HE P. Effect of N application on N utilization and N balance in spring maize. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2010, 16(3): 552-558. (in Chinese)
[36]	LIANG X Q, LI H, HE M M, CHEN Y X, TIAN G M, XU S Y. The ecologically optimum application of nitrogen in wheat season of rice-wheat cropping system. Agronomy Journal, 2008, 100(1): 67-72. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0191

地点 Site	经纬度 Latitude and longitude	pH	有机质 Organic matter (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮 Alkaline N (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Olsen-P (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 NH₄OAc-K (mg·kg^-1)
三棵树 SKS	124°08′ E, 43°19′ N	5.4	19.2	115.3	27.6	145.7
泉眼沟 QYG	124°26′ E, 43°17′ N	5.2	14.4	89.5	37.2	164.4

地点 Site	施氮量 N fertilizer rates (kg N·hm^-2)	增加产量 N-derived yield (kg·hm^-2)	产值增量 N-derived gross (yuan/hm²)	氮肥成本 N costs (yuan/hm²)	利润增量 Private benefits (yuan/hm²)	生态成本 Ecological costs (yuan/hm²)	生态效益 Ecological benefits (yuan/hm²)	社会成本 Social costs (yuan/hm²)	社会效益 Social benefits (yuan/hm²)
三棵树 SKS	0	0	0	0	0	103	0	166	0
	50	2367	3550	200	3350	444	3106	582	2969
	100	5272	7908	400	7508	793	7116	1007	6901
	150	6078	9117	600	8517	1153	7964	1446	7671
	200	6758	10138	800	9338	1531	8607	1905	8233
	250	6801	10201	1000	9201	1933	8268	2392	7809
	300	6735	10102	1200	8902	2372	7729	2921	7180
泉眼沟 QYG	0	0	0	0	0	103	0	166	0
	50	2643	3964	200	3764	444	3521	582	3383
	100	5747	8621	400	8221	793	7828	1007	7614
	150	6857	10285	600	9685	1153	9132	1446	8839
	200	7812	11719	800	10919	1531	10188	1905	9814
	250	7777	11665	1000	10665	1933	9732	2392	9274
	300	7891	11836	1200	10636	2372	9464	2921	8915

地点 Site	效益目标 Benefits item	施氮量 N fertilizer rate (kg N·hm^-2)	产量 Grain yield (kg·hm^-2)	氮肥偏生产力 PFP-N (kg·kg^-1)	活性氮损失Nr loss
地点 Site	效益目标 Benefits item	施氮量 N fertilizer rate (kg N·hm^-2)	产量 Grain yield (kg·hm^-2)	氮肥偏生产力 PFP-N (kg·kg^-1)	N₂O-N (kg·hm^-2)	NO₃-N (kg·hm^-2)	NH₃-N (kg·hm^-2)	总损失 Total loss (kg·hm^-2)
三棵树 SKS	AOR	236	10609	45.0	1.52	24.0	19.0	44.4
	POR	225	10595	47.0	1.45	22.0	18.2	41.7
	EOR	215	10554	49.1	1.39	20.3	17.5	39.2
	SOR	211	10530	49.9	1.37	19.6	17.2	38.2
泉眼沟 QYG	AOR	245	11358	46.4	1.57	25.7	19.6	46.8
	POR	235	11345	48.3	1.51	23.7	18.9	44.1
	EOR	225	11307	50.2	1.45	22.0	18.2	41.7
	SOR	221	11284	51.0	1.43	21.3	18.0	40.7

地点 Site	效益目标 Benefits item	施氮量 N fertilizer rate (kg N·hm^-2)	产值增量 N-derived gross (yuan/hm²)	利润增量 Private benefit (yuan/hm²)	生态效益 Ecological benefit (yuan/hm²)	社会效益 Social benefit (yuan/hm²)
三棵树 SKS	AOR	236	10602	9658	8786	8351
	POR	225	10581	9679	8850	8433
	EOR	215	10520	9659	8870	8471
	SOR	211	10483	9639	8867	8475
泉眼沟 QYG	AOR	245	12159	11181	10271	9822
	POR	235	12139	11200	10332	9900
	EOR	225	12082	11182	10353	9937
	SOR	221	12048	11163	10350	9941