沼液中$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$对土壤CO2释放的影响

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202103045

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4): 162-168.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202103045

沼液中$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$对土壤CO₂释放的影响

辜旭¹(), 汤逸帆¹^,², 申建华³, 朱咏莉¹^,²^,^*()

1.南京林业大学生物与环境学院,江苏南京 210037
2.南京林业大学,南方现代林业协同创新中心,江苏南京 210037
3.中粮肉食(江苏)有限公司,江苏东台 224200

收稿日期:2021-03-25 修回日期:2022-02-19 出版日期:2022-07-30 发布日期:2022-08-01
通讯作者: 朱咏莉
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2017YFC0505803);国家自然科学基金项目(41977354)

Effects of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ in the biogas slurry on CO₂ release from soils

GU Xu¹(), TANG Yifan¹^,², SHEN Jianhua³, ZHU Yongli¹^,²^,^*()

1. College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
2. Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing 210037, China
3. COFCO Meat (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., Dongtai 224200, China

Received:2021-03-25 Revised:2022-02-19 Online:2022-07-30 Published:2022-08-01
Contact: ZHU Yongli

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】揭示沼液施用过程中$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$对土壤CO₂释放的影响机制。【方法】分别向土壤添加沼液原液(BS)、原液去除$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ (BS-B)、去离子水加HC(W+B)和去离子水(W)后,对土壤进行30 d的培养,观测土壤CO₂释放特征。【结果】BS处理下,土壤CO₂释放速率从2 h时的36.6 mg/(kg·h)快速降至30 d时的2.7 mg/(kg·h),BS-B处理CO₂释放速率从最高时的9.3 mg/(kg·h)(第1 天)降至1.9 mg/(kg·h)(第30 天),前者显著高于后者。30 d内,BS处理下土壤CO₂累计释放193.0 g/kg,BS-B处理下仅为97.8 g/kg。由此可见,沼液中的$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$显著促进了土壤CO₂的释放。相比较而言,W+B处理下土壤CO₂释放速率从最高时的12.0 mg/(kg·h)降至15 d时的0.6 mg/(kg·h),培养期内土壤CO₂累计释放54.5 g/kg;W处理下土壤CO₂释放速率在培养期内的变化为0.2~1.6 mg/(kg·h),CO₂累计释放34.4 g/kg。培养期内,BS处理下土壤CO₂释放量是BS-B与W+B两处理之和的1.6倍。$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$对土壤CO₂释放的贡献主要发生在上覆水层,且以$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$水解及$\mathrm{NH}_{4}^{+}$氧化贡献的H⁺与$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$的相互作用为主要途径。【结论】施用沼液后,大量$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$的添加是引起土壤CO₂释放加快且释放量增加的主要原因之一,土壤CO₂释放的增加并非$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$本身与除$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$之外沼液其他组分贡献的加和,二者存在显著的协同作用。

关键词: 沼液, 土壤pH, $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$, CO₂释放速率

Abstract:

【Objective】 The biogas slurry is rich not only in N, but also in $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$. This study aimed to reveal the impact of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ on the release of CO₂. 【Mothed】 when the biogas slurry was applied in farmlands, by arranging and adding four types of culture mediums, namely, the original biogas slurry, original liquid for removing $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$, deionized water plus $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ and deionization water, designated as BS, BS-B, W+B and W treatments, respectively, to the paddy soil for a 30-day cultivation experiment. 【Result】 The soil CO₂ release rates were observed. The results indicated that under the BS treatment, the soil CO₂ release rates decreased rapidly from 36.6 mg/(kg·h) at 2 h to 2.7 mg/(kg·h) at 30 d, and those for the BS-B treatment decreased from the highest 9.3 mg/(kg·h) at 1 d to 1.9 mg/(kg·h) at 30 d. The CO₂ release rates in the BS treatment were significantly higher than those in the BS-B. Within 30 d, the cumulative CO₂ emission under the BS was 193.0 g/kg, while that in BS-B was only 97.8 g/kg. It was evident that the presence of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ in the biogas slurry significantly increased the release of CO₂ from the soil. In comparison, the CO₂ release rate under the W+B treatment decreased from the highest value of 12.0 mg/(kg·h) to 0.6 mg/(kg·h) at 15 d, with a cumulative CO₂ emission of 54.5 g/kg during the culture period. The CO₂ release rate under W treatment varied from 0.2 to 1.6 mg/(kg·h) during the culture period, and the cumulative CO₂ emission was only 34.4 g/kg. It is evident that the CO₂ emission under the BS treatment was 1.6 times higher than that under BS-B and W+B treatments together. Further analysis indicated that the contribution of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ to the CO₂ release in the paddy soils mainly occurred in the overlying water layer, which was dominated by $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ hydrolysis and the reaction between $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ and H⁺ from $\mathrm{NH}_{4}^{+}$ oxidation. 【Conclusion】 With biogas slurry applying, the addition of a large amount of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ was one of the main reasons for the acceleration and increase of soil CO₂ release, which was not just a simple sum of contributions from HC and the other components of the biogas slurry, and there was a significant synergistic effect between the two.

Key words: biogas slurry, soil pH, $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$, CO₂ release rate

中图分类号:

X53
S156

辜旭,汤逸帆,申建华,等. 沼液中$\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$对土壤CO₂释放的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 162-168.

GU Xu, TANG Yifan, SHEN Jianhua, ZHU Yongli. Effects of $\mathrm{HCO}_{3}^{-}$ in the biogas slurry on CO₂ release from soils[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(4): 162-168.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202103045.

图/表 5

图1

图2

图3

表3

不同处理下CO2释放速率与上覆水及土壤性质之间的相关性"

处理 treatment	上覆水overlying water			土壤 soil
处理 treatment	pH	$HCO 3 -$	$NH 4 +$ -N	pH	$HCO 3 -$	$NH 4 +$ -N
BS	-0.814^**	0.863^**	0.785^**	0.921^**	-0.830^**	-0.325
BS-B	-0.396	0.207	0.796^**	0.661^**	0.865^**	0.351
W+B	-0.720^*	0.713^*	-0.000	-0.651^*	-0.388	0.353
W	-0.180	0.459	0.510	0.030	0.253	-0.284

表3

图4

参考文献 29

[1]	王桂良, 寇祥明, 张家宏, 等. 沼液替代化肥氮对水稻生长发育及稻米品质的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(9):2672-2679.
	WANG G L, KOU X M, ZHANG J H, et al. Effect of chemical fertilizer nitrogen substitution by biogas slurry on the growth and quality of rice[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2018, 37(9):2672-2679.DOI:10.13292/j.1000-4890.201809.017.
[2]	徐莉, 周伟, 俞元春, 等. 沼液施用对杨树林地土壤性质及林分生长的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2015, 32(2):204-207.
	XU L, ZHOU W, YU Y C, et al. Soil properties and poplar growth with pig manure biogas slurry[J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2015, 32(2):204-207.DOI:10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.02.006.
[3]	DU Z J, CHEN X M, QI X B, et al. The effects of biochar and hoggery biogas slurry on fluvo-aquic soil physical and hydraulic properties: a field study of four consecutive wheat-maize rotations[J]. J Soils Sediments, 2016, 16(8):2050-2058.DOI:10.1007/s11368-016-1402-9.
[4]	郑学博, 樊剑波, 周静, 等. 沼液化肥配施对红壤旱地土壤养分和花生产量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(3):675-684.
	ZHENG X B, FAN J B, ZHOU J, et al. Effects of combined application of biogas slurry and chemical fertilizer on soil nutrients and peanut yield in upland red soil[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2016, 53(3):675-684.DOI:10.11766/trxb201509210375.
[5]	ABUBAKER J, RISBERG K, JÖNSSON E, et al. Short-term effects of biogas digestates and pig slurry application on soil microbial activity[J]. Appl Environ Soil Sci, 2015, 2015:658542.DOI:10.1155/2015/658542.
[6]	汤逸帆, 汪玲玉, 吴旦, 等. 农田施用沼液的重金属污染评价及承载力估算:以江苏滨海稻麦轮作田为例[J]. 中国环境科学, 2019, 39(4):1687-1695.
	TANG Y F, WANG L Y, WU D, et al. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and bearing capacity estimation of continuous biogas slurry application on cropland:a case study of the coastal rice-wheat rotated farmland in Jiangsu,China[J]. China Environ Sci, 2019, 39(4):1687-1695.DOI:10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2019.0204.
[7]	王小非, 沈仕洲, 尹高飞, 等. 沼液灌溉对冬小麦-夏玉米轮作农田CO₂、N₂O排放规律的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017, 36(4):783-792.
	WANG X F, SHEN S Z, YIN G F, et al. Effects of biogas slurry irrigation on CO₂ and N₂O emission from winter wheat-summer maize rotation farm-land[J]. J Agro Environ Sci, 2017, 36(4):783-792.DOI:10.11654/jaes.2016-1535.
[8]	张玉铭, 胡春胜, 张佳宝, 等. 农田土壤主要温室气体(CO₂、CH₄、N₂O)的源/汇强度及其温室效应研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(4):966-975.
	ZHANG Y M, HU C S, ZHANG J B, et al. Research advances on source/sink intensities and greenhouse effects of CO₂,CH₄ and N₂O in agricultural soils[J]. Chin J Eco Agric, 2011, 19(4):966-975.DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1011.2011.00966.
[9]	WEST T O, MARLAND G. Net carbon flux from agricultural ecosystems:methodology for full carbon cycle analyses[J]. Environ Pollut, 2002, 116(3):439-444. DOI:10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00221-4.
[10]	YIN G F, WANG X F, DU H Y, et al. N₂O and CO₂ emissions,nitrogen use efficiency under biogas slurry irrigation:A field study of two consecutive wheat-maize rotation cycles in the North China Plain[J]. Agric Water Manag, 2019, 212:232-240.DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.038.
[11]	STEVENSON B A, VERBURG P S J. Effluxed CO₂-¹³C from sterilized and unsterilized treatments of a calcareous soil[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2006, 38(7):1727-1733.DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.028.
[12]	HANNAM K D, MIDWOOD A J, NEILSEN D, et al. Bicarbonates dissolved in irrigation water contribute to soil CO₂ efflux[J]. Geoderma, 2019, 337:1097-1104.DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.040.
[13]	ZHU C B, ZHAI X Q, XI Y M, et al. Efficient CO₂ capture from the air for high microalgal biomass production by a bicarbonate pool[J]. J CO₂ Util, 2020, 37:320-327.DOI:10.1016/j.jcou.2019.12.023.
[14]	GHAFARI S, HASAN M, AROUA M K. Effect of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate as inorganic carbon sources on growth and adaptation of autohydrogenotrophic denitrifying bacteria[J]. J Hazard Mater, 2009, 162(2/3):1507-1513.DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.039.
[15]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	BAO S D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis[M]. 3^rd Ed. .Beijing: Chinese Agriculture Press, 2000.
[16]	罗献宝, 周常茂, 李清, 等. 沼液施用及葡萄糖添加对赤红壤温室气体排放的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2018, 49(7):1311-1317.
	LUO X B, ZHOU C M, LI Q, et al. Impacts of biogas slurry application and glucose addition on greenhouse gas emission from lateritic red soil[J]. J South Agric, 2018, 49(7):1311-1317.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2018.07.08.
[17]	CHENG J B, CHEN Y C, HE T B, et al. Effects of biogas slurry irrigation DOC/N ratios on the fate of soil nitrogen and GHG emissions: a laboratory study[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 375:114458.DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114458.
[18]	NIELSEN K, ROß C L, HOFFMANN M, et al. The chemical composition of biogas digestates determines their effect on soil microbial activity[J]. Agriculture, 2020, 10(6):244.DOI:10.3390/agriculture10060244.
[19]	BERTRAND I, DELFOSSE O, MARY B. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization in acidic,limed and calcareous agricultural soils: apparent and actual effects[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2007, 39(1):276-288.DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.07.016.
[20]	WANG C W, LI W, SHEN T M, et al. Influence of soil bacteria and carbonic anhydrase on karstification intensity and regulatory factors in a typical Karst area[J]. Geoderma, 2018, 313:17-24.DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.10.016.
[21]	SAUZE J, JONES S P, WINGATE L, et al. The role of soil pH on soil carbonic anhydrase activity[J]. Biogeosciences, 2018, 15(2):597-612.DOI:10.5194/bg-15-597-2018.
[22]	TAMIR G, SHENKER M, HELLER H, et al. Can soil carbonate dissolution lead to overestimation of soil respiration?[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2011, 75(4):1414-1422.DOI:10.2136/sssaj2010.0396.
[23]	LOUGHRIN J H, COOK K L, LOVANH N. Recirculating swine waste through a silicone membrane in an aerobic chamber improves biogas quality and wastewater malodors[J]. Trans ASABE, 2012, 55(5):1929-1937.DOI:10.13031/2013.42355.
[24]	陈永杏, 董红敏, 陶秀萍, 等. 猪场沼液灌溉冬小麦对土壤质量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(3):154-158.
	CHEN Y X, DONG H M, TAO X P, et al. Effect of irrigating winter wheat with anaerobic digested swine farm wastewater (ADSFW) on soil quality[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2011, 27(3):154-158.
[25]	朱金山, 张慧, 马连杰, 等. 不同沼灌年限稻田土壤微生物群落分析[J]. 环境科学, 2018, 39(5):2400-2411.
	ZHU J S, ZHANG H, MA L J, et al. Diversity of the microbial community in rice paddy soil with biogas slurry irrigation analyzed by illumina sequencing technology[J]. Environ Sci, 2018, 39(5):2400-2411.DOI:10.13227/j.hjkx.201708085.
[26]	DU Z J, XIAO Y T, QI X B, et al. Peanut-shell biochar and biogas slurry improve soil properties in the north China plain:a four-year field study[J]. Sci Rep, 2018, 8(1):13724.DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-31942-0.
[27]	RANI S, SATYAVAN, KUMAR A, et al. Effect of integrated use of nutrients on soil properties and productivity of pearl millet-wheat cropping system irrigated with saline water in northwestern India[J]. Curr Sci, 2020, 119(8):1343.DOI:10.18520/cs/v119/i8/1343-1348.
[28]	THOMSEN I K, OLESEN J E, MOLLER H B, et al. Carbon dynamics and retention in soil after anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle feed and faeces[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2013, 58:82-87.DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.006
[29]	RISBERG K, CEDERLUND H, PELL M, et al. Comparative characterization of digestate versus pig slurry and cow manure-chemical composition and effects on soil microbial activity[J]. Waste Manag, 2017, 61:529-538.DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.016.