秸秆猪粪共热解生物炭对土壤肥力及水稻产量的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2026.01.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对单一原料生物炭的局限性（秸秆基生物炭养分较贫乏，猪粪基生物炭存在重金属积累风险），创新性地采用秸秆与猪粪共热解的方式制备生物炭（Co-pyrolyzed Biochar，CPB）。对CPB特性分析结果显示，CPB的比表面积达到21.58 m²/g，较猪粪基生物炭（Pig Manure-based Biochar，PMB）的 8.54 m²/g有大幅提升；同时，CPB中氮（N）、磷（P）、钾（K）等养分含量均高于秸秆基生物炭（Crop Straw-based Biochar，CSB），尤其是P、K含量分别提高了 262.30%和 282.70%。深入研究CPB不同施用量对水稻田土壤肥力、酶活性以及水稻生长状况的结果表明，CPB成功整合了秸秆的高比表面积（21.58 m²/g）与猪粪的丰富矿质养分（P含量为 18.55 g/kg、K含量为 33.56 g/kg），并且其重金属含量较PMB显著降低（Cd、As含量分别减少41.90%和 28.00%）。在不同施用量中，以2%的施用量（CPB2）效果最为显著：与对照（CK，0）相比，土壤有效P和速效K含量分别显著提高74.82%和72.83%，有机质和全N含量分别增加12.70%和9.49%；土壤磷酸酶和过氧化氢酶活性分别提升51.19%和 23.34%；水稻增产8.37%。通过土壤综合肥力指数（Integrated Fertility Index，IFI）评估发现，CPB2处理使土壤肥力等级从Ⅲ级（CK，IFI值为0.56）提升至Ⅱ级（IFI值为0.68），其中速效K是关键驱动因子，权重为 0.112。此外，所有处理组的重金属含量均低于国家标准（Cd含量≤0.60 mg/kg），内梅罗综合指数（Pollution Index，PI）均小于0.70，表明不存在污染风险。然而，3%施用量处理（CPB3）由于微孔堵塞以及养分竞争吸附等原因，其增产效果（3.59%）显著低于CPB2处理。本研究证实，共热解生物炭通过“碳-灰分协同效应”（即多孔碳结构负载矿质养分）优化了土壤的“养分-结构-酶活性”网络体系，其中2%的施用量是稻田系统中实现“高产-低风险”的最优阈值。

关键词: 水稻, 生物炭, 秸秆猪粪共热解, 施用量, 土壤肥力

Abstract:

In view of the limitations of biochar made from single raw materials (crop straw-based biochar is relatively nutrient-poor, and pig manure-based biochar poses a risk of heavy metal accumulation), Co-pyrolyzed Biochar(CPB) was innovatively prepared through co-pyrolysis of straw and pig manure. The results showed that the specific surface area of CPB attained 21.58 m²/g, which was a substantial increase compared to that of Pig Manure-based Biochar (PMB) at 8.54 m²/g. Meanwhile, the contents of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in CPB were all higher than those in Crop Straw-based Biochar (CSB), especially the phosphorus and potassium contents which increased by 262.30% and 282.70%, respectively. This study systematically and comprehensively explored the effects of CPB on soil fertility, enzyme activity, and rice growth in paddy fields. The research results indicated that CPB successfully integrated the high specific surface area of straw (21.58 m²/g) with the abundant mineral nutrients of pig manure(phosphorus content of 18.55 g/kg and potassium content of 33.56 g/kg). Moreover, its heavy metal content was significantly lower than that of PMB, with the contents of cadmium and arsenic decreased by 41.90% and 28.00%, respectively. Among the various application rates, the 2% application rate(CPB2) had the most remarkable effects: the contents of available phosphorus and rapidly available potassium in the soil increased significantly by 74.82% and 72.83%, respectively, compared to the control (CK, 0); the contents of organic matter and total nitrogen increased by 12.70% and 9.49%, respectively; the activities of soil phosphatase and catalase increased by 51.19% and 23.34%, respectively; and the rice yield increased by 8.37% compared to CK. Evaluation using the Integrated Fertility Index (IFI) revealed that the CPB2 treatment upgraded the soil fertility grade from Grade Ⅲ (CK, IFI value of 0.56) to Grade Ⅱ (IFI value of 0.68), with rapidly available potassium being the key driving factor with a weight of 0.112. The results of heavy metal pollution assessment showed that the heavy metal contents in all treatment groups were lower than the national standards (cadmium content ≤ 0.60 mg/kg), and the Nemerow Pollution Index (Pollution Index, PI) values were all less than 0.70, indicating no pollution risk. However, the 3% application rate treatment(CPB3) had a significantly lower yield increase effect (3.59%) than the CPB2 treatment due to micropore blockage and nutrient competitive adsorption. This study confirmed that co-pyrolyzed biochar optimized the “nutrient-structure-enzyme activity” network system of soil through the “carbon-ash synergistic effect” (i.e., porous carbon structures loading mineral nutrients). Among them, the 2% application rate was the optimal threshold for achieving “high yield-low risk” in paddy field systems.

Key words: rice, biochar, co-pyrolysis of straw and pig manure, application rate, soil fertility

中图分类号:

S511.062

庄海峰, 林洲洋, 饶聪, 池永清. 秸秆猪粪共热解生物炭对土壤肥力及水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2026, 32(1): 30-38.

ZHUANG Haifeng, LIN Zhouyang, RAO Cong, CHI Yongqing. Effects of Co-Pyrolyzed Biochar from Straw and Pig Manure on Soil Fertility and Rice Yield[J]. China Rice, 2026, 32(1): 30-38.

图/表 10

表1 土壤肥力指标所属隶属度函数阈值

表2 不同生物炭制备参数与成分特征

图1 生物炭FTIR光谱和SEM图像

表3 不同处理对土壤理化性质的影响

表4 不同处理对土壤养分的影响

图2 不同CPB处理对土壤酶活性的影响

图3 不同CPB处理对土壤综合肥力及其权重系数的影响

图4 不同CPB处理对水稻产量及其构成因子的影响

图5 不同处理对土壤重金属富集与污染风险的影响

图6 稻田土壤功能因子互作网络与水稻产量形成的剂量效应解析——基于理化性质、速效养分及酶活性的多元关联分析 *表示统计学显著性p<0.05。

参考文献 30

[1]	TWAGIRAYEZU G, CHENG H G, WU Y Y, et al. Insights into the influences of biochar on the fate and transport of pesticides in the soil environment: A critical review[J]. Biochar, 2024, 6(1): 9.
[2]	MEENA P K, AWALE S D, KUMAR S, et al. Thermochemical conversion of agricultural residue for the production of hydrogen, methane, and biofuels: A comprehensive overview[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2024, 221: 119 340.
[3]	王程. 玉米秸秆生物炭对东北地区典型土壤温室气体排放的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳大学, 2024.
[4]	隋阳辉. 秸秆还田方式对稻田碳氮固持及水稻生长发育的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2016.
[5]	ARANGUREN M, CASTELLON A, BESGA G, et al. Influence of wheat crop on carbon and nitrogen mineralization dynamics after the application of livestock manures[J]. Geoderma, 2021, 402: 115 351.
[6]	孟俊. 猪粪堆制、热解过程中重金属形态变化及其产物的应用[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014.
[7]	DURANGO PADILLA E R, HANSTED F A S, LUNA C M R, et al. Biochar derived from agricultural waste and its application as energy source in blast furnace[J]. Renewable Energy, 2024, 220: 119 688.
[8]	SUBEDI R, TAUPE N, IKOYI I, et al. Chemically and biologically-mediated fertilizing value of manure-derived biochar[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2016, 550: 924-933.
[9]	ZENG X, XIAO Z, ZHANG G, et al. Speciation and bioavailability of heavy metals in pyrolytic biochar of swine and goat manures[J]. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2018, 132: 82-93.
[10]	SARFARAZ Q, SILVA L S D, DRESCHER G L, et al. Characterization and carbon mineralization of biochars produced from different animal manures and plant residues[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1): 955.
[11]	XING J, XU G R, LI G B. Comparison of pyrolysis process, various fractions and potential soil applications between sewage sludge-based biochars and lignocellulose-based biochars[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2021, 208: 111 756.
[12]	QIU J, FERNANDES DE SOUZA M, ROBLES-AGUILAR A A, et al. Improving biochar properties by co-pyrolysis of pig manure with bio-invasive weed for use as the soil amendment[J]. Chemosphere, 2023, 312: 137 229.
[13]	MENG J, LIANG S J, TAO M M, et al. Chemical speciation and risk assessment of Cu and Zn in biochars derived from co-pyrolysis of pig manure with rice straw[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 200: 344-350.
[14]	ZHAO Y F, HU Z J, LU Y P, et al. Facilitating mitigation of agricultural non-point source pollution and improving soil nutrient conditions: The role of low temperature co-pyrolysis biochar in nitrogen and phosphorus distribution[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2024, 394: 130 179.
[15]	XU X X, ZOU Z K, GUO X, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of bioavailable phosphorus in biochar synthesized by co-pyrolysis of sewage sludge and straw ash[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 954: 176 679.
[16]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[17]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986.
[18]	徐建明. 土壤质量指标与评价[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010.
[19]	陈宗娟, 张倩, 张强, 等. 天津东南部某区域不同土地利用方式下土壤重金属的累积特征[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2015, 31(2):166-173.
[20]	谭凌智, 祁士华, 傅杨荣, 等. 海南八门湾高位池养殖区表层土壤重金属污染调查与评价[J]. 环境化学, 2010, 29(2):335-336.
[21]	CHEN X, LIU L, YANG Q Y, et al. Optimizing biochar application rates to improve soil properties and crop growth in saline-alkali soil[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16(6): 2 523.
[22]	DEY S, PURAKAYASTHA T J, SARKAR B, et al. Enhancing cation and anion exchange capacity of rice straw biochar by chemical modification for increased plant nutrient retention[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 886: 163 681.
[23]	LAIRD D A, FLEMING P, DAVIS D D, et al. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil[J]. Geoderma, 2010, 158(3): 443-449.
[24]	窦超银, 李祥瑞, 孙一迪, 等. 不同灌溉模式下生物炭施用量对水稻生长和产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2024, 43(12):21-29.
[25]	尹小红, 陈佳娜, 雷涛, 等. 生物炭对土壤化学性质及水稻苗期生长的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2021, 27(5):90-92.
[26]	马风兰, 王志丹, 刘威帆, 等. 生物炭对宁夏干旱地区土壤养分、酶活性及滴灌玉米产量的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 53(8):1-10.
[27]	黄雁飞, 陈桂芬, 熊柳梅, 等. 不同秸秆生物炭对水稻生长及土壤养分的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(9):2 113-2 119.
[28]	沈智达, 马世浩, 黄思远, 等. 种植方式和施肥对水稻根系形态、抗倒伏特性与产量的影响[J/OL]. 中国水稻科学.
[29]	吴朝都, 侯建伟, 邢存芳, 等. 花椒园增施生物炭土壤综合肥力变化及驱动因子分析[J/OL]. 分子植物育种.
[30]	殷明, 高玉红, 徐鹏, 等. 生物炭对不同种植模式下土壤肥力及胡麻产量和品质的影响[J/OL]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文).