基于土壤质量和稻米安全的稻田重金属钝化效果评估

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0239

中国农学通报 ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (8): 51-62.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0239

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

基于土壤质量和稻米安全的稻田重金属钝化效果评估

赵首萍¹(), 肖文丹¹, 陈德¹, 叶雪珠¹(), 张棋¹, 伍少福², 胡静¹, 高娜¹, 黄淼杰¹

¹ 农业农村部农产品信息溯源重点实验室/浙江省农业科学院农产品质量安全与营养研究所，杭州 310021
² 浙江省绍兴市粮油作物技术推广中心，浙江绍兴 312000

收稿日期:2022-03-29 修回日期:2022-06-08 出版日期:2023-03-15 发布日期:2023-03-14
通讯作者: 叶雪珠，女，1974年出生，浙江龙游人，研究员，硕士，主要从事农业环境安全控制技术方面的研究。通信地址：310021 浙江省杭州市德胜中路298号省农科院质量营养所，Tel：0571-86415206，E-mail：yexz@zaas.ac.cn。
作者简介:
赵首萍，女，1976年出生，黑龙江鸡西人，助理研究员，博士，主要从事土壤重金属污染修复技术方面的研究。通信地址：310021 浙江省杭州市德胜中路298号省农科院质量营养所，Tel：0571-86419052，E-mail：zhaosp@zaas.ac.cn。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划“国家质量基础的共性技术研究与应用”专项(2018YFF0213403); 浙江省基础公益研究计划“农田土壤典型污染物修复治理技术评估与集成示范”(LGN20D010004); “秸秆炭化还田技术阻控水稻铬积累及其应用研究”(LGN21D010003)

Evaluation of Heavy Metal Passivation in Contaminated Paddy Fields Based on Soil Quality and Rice Safety

ZHAO Shouping¹(), XIAO Wendan¹, CHEN De¹, YE Xuezhu¹(), ZHANG Qi¹, WU Shaofu², HU Jing¹, GAO Na¹, HUANG Miaojie¹

¹ Key Laboratory of Information Traceability for Agricultural Products, Institute of Agro-product Safety and Nutrition,Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021
² Shaoxing Grain and Oil Crop Technology Extension Center,Shaoxing, Zhejiang 312000

Received:2022-03-29 Revised:2022-06-08 Online:2023-03-15 Published:2023-03-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着污染耕地重金属钝化技术的推广应用，重金属污染稻田的治理修复效果急需全面的综合评价技术。在浙江省诸暨市(ZJ)和绍兴市越城区(YC)典型污染地块，对比浙江省常用的钝化剂施用模式：石灰4500 kg/hm² (LM)、海泡石12000 kg/hm² (SEP)、石灰+生物炭1:1混施9000 kg/hm² (F1)、石灰+生物炭+钙镁磷肥1:1:0.5混施9000 kg/hm² (F2)、石灰+生物炭+海泡石1:1:1混施9000 kg/hm² (F3) 5个处理的实施效果。重点关注钝化剂对污染指标的治理效果及土壤质量两方面的变化。结果表明：以水稻产量、糙米重金属含量、土壤DTPA提取态重金属含量来评价治理效果；以土壤理化指标（土壤有机质、CEC、速效氮和粘粒含量）和生物学指标（微生物量碳、蔗糖酶活性）评价土壤质量，构建综合评价体系。经评价：F1 (YC)和LM (ZJ)土壤DTPA-Cd降低幅度<15%，F1 (ZJ)和LM (ZJ)土壤有机质、速效氮降低幅度>10%，F1 (YC)蔗糖酶降低43.4%，F1和LM综合评价结论为“差”；SEP (ZJ)土壤有机质降低20%，微生物量碳降低25.7%，综合评价结论为“差”；F2和F3产量降低幅度<8%，糙米重金属含量符合GB2762规定，土壤DTPA提取态Cd、Cr和Pb分别降低15%、30%和25%以上，土壤理化和生物学指标降低幅度均<10%，综合评价结论为“优”。利用构建的综合评价体系，F2和F3处理修复重金属污染稻田效果最佳。

关键词: 水稻, 重金属, 修复, 评估, 土壤质量

Abstract:

With the popularization and application of heavy metal passivation technology in polluted arable land, comprehensive and integrated evaluation techniques are urgently needed for the treatment and remediation effects of heavy metal polluted rice fields. In this study, the commonly used passivation application patterns, including CK, lime 4500 kg/hm² (LM), sepiolite 12000 kg/hm² (SEP), lime +biochar 1:1 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F1), lime+ biochar + calcium magnesium phosphate 1:1:0.5 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F2) and lime+ biochar + sepiolite 1:1:1 mixed application 9000 kg/hm² (F3), were compared in typical contaminated plots in Zhuji City (ZJ) and Yuecheng District (YC) of Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province. The emphasis was on the effect of passivation on pollution indicators and soil quality. The remediation effect was evaluated by rice yield, heavy metal content in rice and heavy metal DTPA extractable amount in soil; the soil quality was evaluated by soil physicochemical indexes (soil organic matter, CEC, available nitrogen and clay) and biological indexes (microbial biomass carbon and soil sucrose activity) to build a comprehensive evaluation system. The evaluation results showed that: compare to those of CK, DTPA extractable Cd of F1 (YC) and LM (ZJ) soil decreased by <15%, organic matter and available nitrogen of F1 (ZJ) and LM (ZJ) soil decreased by >10%, the sucrose activity of F1 (YC) decreased by 43.4%, so the comprehensive evaluation conclusion for F1 and LM was ‘poor’. For SEP (ZJ) soil, the organic matter decreased by 20%, the microbial carbon decreased by 25.7%, the comprehensive evaluation conclusion was ‘poor’. The rice yield of F2 and F3 decreased by <8%, heavy metal content in rice were lower than the limited value of GB2762, and soil DTPA extractable Cd, Cr and Pb were reduced by more than 15%, 30% and 25%, respectively; and the reduction of soil physical, chemical and biological indexes were <10%, the overall evaluation conclusion of F2 and F3 was ‘excellent’. According to the constructed comprehensive evaluation system, F2 and F3 are the most effective treatments in remediating heavy metal contaminated paddy soil in the study sites.

Key words: rice, heavy metal, remediation, evaluation, soil quality

赵首萍, 肖文丹, 陈德, 叶雪珠, 张棋, 伍少福, 胡静, 高娜, 黄淼杰. 基于土壤质量和稻米安全的稻田重金属钝化效果评估[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(8): 51-62.

ZHAO Shouping, XIAO Wendan, CHEN De, YE Xuezhu, ZHANG Qi, WU Shaofu, HU Jing, GAO Na, HUANG Miaojie. Evaluation of Heavy Metal Passivation in Contaminated Paddy Fields Based on Soil Quality and Rice Safety[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(8): 51-62.

图/表 8

参考文献 34

[1]	YE X, XIAO W, ZHANG Y, et al. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in vegetables and relationships with soil heavy metal distribution in Zhejiang province, China[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2015, 187:378. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4604-5 pmid: 26013654
[2]	WANG L, CHEN L, TSANG D C, et al. Recycling dredged sediment into fill materials, partition blocks, and paving blocks: technical and economic assessment[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2018, 199:69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.165 URL
[3]	中华人民共和国环境保护部、国土资源部. 全国土壤污染状况调查公报[R/OL].[2018-02-13]. Http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201404/t20140417_270670.htm.
[4]	HUANG Y, WANG L, WANG W, et al. Current status of agricultural soil pollution by heavy metals in China: a meta-analysis[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 651:3034-3042. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.185 URL
[5]	HOU D, LI F. Complexities surrounding China's soil action plan[J]. Land degradation & development, 2017,28,2315-2320.
[6]	胡红青, 黄益宗, 黄巧云, 等. 农田土壤重金属污染化学钝化修复研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6):1676-1685.
[7]	ZHANG Y, ZHANG Y, AKAKURU O U, et al. Research progress and mechanism of nanomaterials-mediated in-situ remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil: A critical review[J]. Journal of environmental science, 2021, 104:351-364.
[8]	魏玮, 李平, 郎漫. 不同结构改良剂对铜镉污染土壤水稻生长和重金属吸收的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(9):4462-4470.
[9]	LAHORI A H, MIERZWA-HERSZTEK M, RASHID M, et al. Residual effects of tobacco biochar along with different fixing agents on stabilization of trace elements in multi-metal contaminated soils[J]. Journal of environmental sciences, 2020, 87:299-309. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2019.07.003 URL
[10]	HAMID Y, LIN T, MUHAMMAD Y, et al. Comparative efficacy of organic and inorganic amendments for cadmium and lead immobilization in contaminated soil under rice wheat cropping system[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 214:259-268. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.113 URL
[11]	SENEVIRATNE M, WEERASUNDARA L, OK Y S, et al. Phytotoxicity attenuation in Vigna radiata under heavy metal stress at the presence of biochar and N fixing bacteria[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2017, 186:293-300. doi: S0301-4797(16)30461-3 pmid: 27527669
[12]	USMAN M, BYRNE J M, CHAUDHARY A, et al. Magnetite and green rust: synthesis, properties, and environmental applications of mixed-valent Iron minerals[J]. Chemical reviews, 2018, 118:3251-3304. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00224 pmid: 29465223
[13]	O'CONNOR D, PENG T, ZHANG J, et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: a review of in situ field trials[J]. Science of the total environment, 2018, 619:815-826.
[14]	HAMID Y, TANG L, IRFAN-SOHAIL M, et al. An explanation of soil amendments to reduce cadmiumphy to availability and transfer to food chain[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 660:80-96. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.419 URL
[15]	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, 1:3-22. doi: 10.1007/s42773-019-00009-2
[16]	CHEN H P, WANG P, CHANG J D, et al. Producing Cd-safe rice grains in moderately and seriously Cd contaminated paddy soils[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 267:128893. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128893 URL
[17]	袁林, 赖星, 杨刚, 等. 钝化材料对镉污染农田原位钝化修复效果研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2019, 429(3):90-97.
[18]	周亮, 肖峰, 肖欢, 等. 施用石灰降低污染稻田上双季稻镉积累的效果[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4):780-791. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.04.010
[19]	YANG Y, LI Y, WANG M, et al. Limestone dosage response of cadmium phytoavailability minimization in rice: A trade-off relationship between soil pH and amorphous manganese content[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2021, 403:123664. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123664 URL
[20]	陈思慧, 张亚平, 李飞, 等. 钝化剂联合农艺措施修复镉污染水稻土[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(3):563-572.
[21]	CHEN D, YE X, ZHANG Q, et al. The effect of sepiolite application on rice Cd uptake-A two-year field study in Southern China[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2020, 254:109788. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109788 URL
[22]	陶玲, 管天成, 刘瑞珍, 等. 热改性坡缕石对土壤Cd污染的钝化修复研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(4):782-790.
[23]	KUMUDUNI N P, SHAHEEN S M, CHEN S S, et al. Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: A critical review[J]. Environment international, 2020, 134:105046. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105046 URL
[24]	GONG L, WANG J, ABBAS T, et al. Immobilization of exchangeable Cd in soil using mixed amendment and its effect on soil microbial communities under paddy upland rotation system[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 262:127828. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127828 URL
[25]	HAMID Y, LIN T, WANG X, et al. Immobilization of cadmium and lead in contaminated paddy field using inorganic and organic additives[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8:17839. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35881-8 pmid: 30546027
[26]	PAUL A L D, RUFUS LC. 2017. Effect of soil amendments on Cd accumulation by spinach from a Cd-mineralized soil[J]. Journal of environmental quality,2017, 46(4):707. doi: 10.2134/jeq2016.07.0251 URL
[27]	LWIN C S, SEO B H, KIM HU, et al. Application of soil amendments to contaminated soils for heavy metal immobilization and improved soil quality—a critical review[J]. Soil science and plant nutrition, 2018, 64 (2):156-167. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2018.1440938 URL
[28]	RINKLEBE J J, SHAHEEN S M. Miscellaneous additives can enhance plant uptake and affect geochemical fractions of copper in a heavily polluted riparian grassland soil[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental Safety, 2015, 119:58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.04.046 pmid: 25968602
[29]	ZHANG M, GAO B, VARNOOSFADERRANI S, et al. Preparation and characterization of a novel magnetic biochar for arsenic removal[J]. Bioresource technology, 2013, 130:457-462. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.132 pmid: 23313693
[30]	REHMAN M Z, KHALID H, AKMAL F, et al. Effect of limestone, lignite and biochar applied alone and combined on cadmium uptake in wheat and rice under rotation in an effiuent irrigated field[J]. Environmental pollution, 2017, 227:560-568. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.003 URL
[31]	周利军, 武琳, 林小兵, 等. 土壤调理剂对镉污染稻田修复效果[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(11):5098-5106.
[32]	李义纯, 王艳红, 陈勇, 等. 基于土壤质量的改良剂修复镉污染稻田综合效果评价[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(6):1219-1228.
[33]	DENG X, CHEN Y X, YANG Y, et al. Cadmium accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.)alleviated by basal alkaline fertilizers followed by topdressing of manganese fertilizer[J]. Environmental pollution, 2020, 262:114289. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114289 URL
[34]	何赢, 杜平, 石静, 等. 土壤重金属钝化效果评估—基于大田试验的研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(8):1734-1740.

指标	诸暨土	越城土	石灰	海泡石	生物炭	钙镁磷肥
有机质/(g/kg)	35.4	47.5	/	/	/	/
速效氮/(mg/kg)	169	184	/	/	/	/
有效磷/(mg/kg)	38.9	36.2	/	/	/	/
阳离子交换量/[cmol₍₊₎/kg]	11.8	17.5	/	/	/	/
黏粒/%	29	32	/	/	/	/
粉砂粒/%	33	58	/	/	/	/
砂粒/%	38	10	/	/	/	/
pH	5.33	5.48	12.47	9.5	9.95	/
Cd/(mg/kg)	0.431	0.405	0.113	0.137	0.195	0.17
Cr/(mg/kg)	45.6	78.9	8.51	7.85	16.1	14.6
Pb/(mg/kg)	28.2	62.1	10.4	9.51	7.30	5.48
Ni/(mg/kg)	23.8	34.5	7.83	2.99	11.9	8.63
Cu/(mg/kg)	24.5	36.2	3.73	13.5	22.8	15.3
Zn/(mg/kg)	99.7	217	10.6	7.87	78.9	/

指标	诸暨土	越城土	石灰	海泡石	生物炭	钙镁磷肥
有机质/(g/kg)	35.4	47.5	/	/	/	/
速效氮/(mg/kg)	169	184	/	/	/	/
有效磷/(mg/kg)	38.9	36.2	/	/	/	/
阳离子交换量/[cmol₍₊₎/kg]	11.8	17.5	/	/	/	/
黏粒/%	29	32	/	/	/	/
粉砂粒/%	33	58	/	/	/	/
砂粒/%	38	10	/	/	/	/
pH	5.33	5.48	12.47	9.5	9.95	/
Cd/(mg/kg)	0.431	0.405	0.113	0.137	0.195	0.17
Cr/(mg/kg)	45.6	78.9	8.51	7.85	16.1	14.6
Pb/(mg/kg)	28.2	62.1	10.4	9.51	7.30	5.48
Ni/(mg/kg)	23.8	34.5	7.83	2.99	11.9	8.63
Cu/(mg/kg)	24.5	36.2	3.73	13.5	22.8	15.3
Zn/(mg/kg)	99.7	217	10.6	7.87	78.9	/

试验地点	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	变化幅度/%
ZJ	CK	7875±597 ab	—
	LM	7800±578 ab	-0.95
	Sep	8040±655 ab	+2.10
	F1	8425±813 ab	+6.98
	F2	8800±649 ab	+11.8
	F3	7750±608 b	-1.59
YC	CK	8508±748 ab	—
	LM	7838±720 b	-7.88
	Sep	8350±829 ab	-1.85
	F1	7926±783 b	-6.83
	F2	9043±799 ab	+6.29
	F3	9753±839 a	+14.6

试验地点	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	变化幅度/%
ZJ	CK	7875±597 ab	—
	LM	7800±578 ab	-0.95
	Sep	8040±655 ab	+2.10
	F1	8425±813 ab	+6.98
	F2	8800±649 ab	+11.8
	F3	7750±608 b	-1.59
YC	CK	8508±748 ab	—
	LM	7838±720 b	-7.88
	Sep	8350±829 ab	-1.85
	F1	7926±783 b	-6.83
	F2	9043±799 ab	+6.29
	F3	9753±839 a	+14.6

重金属	试验地点	处理	糙米含量/(mg/kg)	降低幅度/%	土壤DTPA提取态含量/(mg/kg)	降低幅度/%
Cd	ZJ	CK	0.226±0.023 a	—	0.156±0.013 a	—
		LM	0.0694±0.005 c	69.29	0.134±0.013 b	14.10
		Sep	0.0192±0.001 e	91.50	0.128±0.011 bc	17.95
		F1	0.0322±0.002 d	85.75	0.115±0.012 cd	26.28
		F2	0.016±0.001 e	92.92	0.114±0.011 cd	26.92
		F3	0.0227±0.002 de	89.96	0.110±0.009 d	29.49
	YC	CK	0.176±0.015 b	—	0.134±0.012 b	—
		LM	0.0155±0.001 e	91.19	0.107±0.009 d	20.15
		Sep	0.0193±0.002 e	89.03	0.111±0.009 cd	17.16
		F1	0.0157±0.001 e	91.08	0.114±0.010 cd	14.93
		F2	0.0222±0.002 de	87.39	0.111±0.009 cd	17.16
		F3	0.0126±0.001 e	92.84	0.098±0.009 d	26.87
Cr	ZJ	CK	1.11±0.105 a	—	0.0237±0.002 a	—
		LM	0.952±0.074 ab	14.23	0.00795±0.007 c	66.46
		Sep	0.854±0.046 b	23.06	0.00965±0.007 b	59.28
		F1	0.902±0.085 b	18.74	0.0077±0.001 c	67.51
		F2	0.783±0.056 b	29.46	0.00755±0.001 c	68.14
		F3	0.872±0.069 b	21.44	0.00945±0.001 b	60.13
	YC	CK	1.21±0.111 a	—	0.0101±0.00091 b	—
		LM	1.05±0.099 ab	13.22	0.00335±0.0002 g	66.83
		Sep	0.925±0.085 b	23.55	0.0054±0.0003 e	46.53
		F1	0.800±0.059 b	33.88	0.00625±0.0002 d	38.12
		F2	0.837±0.073 b	30.83	0.00306±0.0001 g	69.70
		F3	0.788±0.085 b	34.88	0.00368±0.0001 f	63.56
Pb	ZJ	CK	0.0893±0.005 a	—	5.46±0.346 d	—
		LM	0.0591±0.004 bc	33.82	3.32±0.222 e	39.19
		Sep	0.0531±0.004 cd	40.54	3.21±0.164 e	41.21
		F1	0.0662±0.005 bc	25.87	3.21±0.158 e	41.21
		F2	0.0537±0.005 cd	39.87	3.10±0.139 e	43.22
		F3	0.0564±0.004 cd	36.84	3.19±0.101 e	41.58
	YC	CK	0.0819±0.006 a	—	28.8±2.34 a	—
		LM	0.0607±0.005 bc	25.89	14.9±1.02 c	48.26
		Sep	0.0462±0.005 d	43.59	14.8±1.33 c	48.61
		F1	0.0569±0.006 cd	30.53	13.2±1.07 c	54.17
		F2	0.0518±0.006 cd	36.75	20.3±1.99 b	29.51
		F3	0.046±0.004 d	43.83	19.3±1.87 b	32.99

基于土壤质量和稻米安全的稻田重金属钝化效果评估

Evaluation of Heavy Metal Passivation in Contaminated Paddy Fields Based on Soil Quality and Rice Safety

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 34

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

ZJ/YC		pH	有机质	CEC	粘粒	砂粒	粉砂粒	速效氮	有效磷	速效钾	微生物碳	脲酶	蔗糖酶	磷酸酶
pH		—	0.251	0.684^**	0.187	0.134	0.791^**	0.335	0.760^**	0.564^*	0.188	0.012	0.424	0.852^**
OM		0.653^**	—	0.837^**	0.782^**	0.063	0.607^**	0.949^**	0.247	0.681^**	0.933^**	0.712^**	0.813^**	0.563^*
CEC		0.415	0.889^**	—	0.738^**	0.098	0.867^**	0.914^**	0.413	0.687^**	0.787^**	0.560^*	0.901^**	0.849^**
粘粒		-0.036	0.511^*	0.779^**	—	0.526^*	0.377	0.846^**	-0.067	0.464	0.710^**	0.652^**	0.933^**	0.620^**
砂粒		0.264	0.104	0.015	-0.400	—	-0.169	0.062	0.097	0.160	-0.087	-0.045	0.340	0.456
粉砂粒		0.724^**	0.969^**	0.843^**	0.388	0.306	—	0.664^**	0.585^*	0.488^*	0.681^**	0.400	0.611^**	0.769^**
速效氮		0.579^*	0.966^**	0.848^**	0.585^*	-0.123	0.893^**	—	0.133	0.611^**	0.894^**	0.689^**	0.930^**	0.630^**
有效磷		0.447	0.172	0.381	0.350	-0.014	0.253	0.129	—	0.538^*	0.145	-0.190	0.098	0.648^**
速效钾		0.329	0.804^**	0.917^**	0.790^**	-0.137	0.771^**	0.828^**	0.453	—	0.473^*	0.481^*	0.521^*	0.600^**
	微生物碳	0.347	0.510^*	0.734^**	0.723^**	-0.251	0.412	0.479^*	0.571^*	0.557^*	—	0.798^**	0.740^**	0.468
	脲酶	0.404	0.386	0.543^*	0.505^*	-0.481^*	0.287	0.406	0.647^**	0.481^*	0.864^**	—	0.562^*	0.201
	蔗糖酶	-0.135	0.520^*	0.710^**	0.714^**	-0.470^*	0.374	0.581^*	0.081	0.730^**	0.538^*	0.547^*	—	0.760^**
	磷酸酶	0.128	0.395	0.576^*	0.456	-0.386	0.339	0.416	0.503^*	0.668^**	0.524^*	0.745^**	0.805^**	—

	评价结论	农产品质量要求	土壤质量要求
治理效果评价	一级	主要污染物符合GB2762（超标率≤5%），且产量降低≤8%	污染物下降幅度符合要求¹
	二级	5%<超标率≤10%且8%<产量降低≤10%
	三级	超标率>10%或产量降低>10%
	三级	一级或二级或三级	污染物下降幅度不符合要求
	评价结论	土壤要求
土壤质量评价	一级	污染物指标不增加；土壤理化-生物学指标²降低幅度≤10%。
	二级	污染物指标不增加；土壤理化-生物学指标²降低幅度≤20%。
	三级	土壤理化-生物学指标²降低幅度>20%。
	三级	污染物指标增加

[1]	陈书健, 陈京都, 杨呈芹, 许美刚, 高剑波. 不同施氮量对机械水条播水稻产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(9): 1-6.
[2]	吴楚鹏, 盛建东, 胡雨彤, 成志慧, 杨鹏飞. 新疆沙雅县绿洲棉田土壤质量评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(9): 71-78.
[3]	陈丽楠, 刘秀春, 周晏起, 朱红. 设施土壤次生盐渍化特征及修复进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(9): 79-84.
[4]	刘伟喜, 尹文锋, 李小娟, 肖友伦. 旱改水田水稻旱青立病的发生原因及防治措施研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(8): 85-89.
[5]	王鹏, 王军广, 陈旸, 许国强, 张固成, 曾广骅, 张东强. 海南岛东部主要农作物和土壤中重金属的相关性及富集特征研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(5): 75-80.
[6]	田婷, 张青, 徐雯. 基于无人机多光谱影像的水稻冠层SPAD值预测研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(4): 149-153.
[7]	肖本泽, 王资霖. 转EPSPS基因抗除草剂水稻恢复系的培育及育种评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(2): 8-15.
[8]	白玛仁增, 顿玉多吉, 德例归吉, 德吉央宗, 益西多吉, 边巴次仁. 星-地结合对水稻高温热害监测模型的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1): 133-141.
[9]	李晓宇. 苇基杏鲍菇栽培及产品分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1): 51-55.
[10]	罗先富, 刘文强, 潘孝武, 董铮, 刘三雄, 刘利成, 阳标仁, 盛新年, 李小湘. 应用剩余杂合体衍生的近等基因系定位水稻株高QTL[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 1-5.
[11]	洪慈清, 桂芳泽, 陈芳容, 方云, 游雨欣, 关雄, 潘晓鸿. 茶渣制备的生物质炭对重金属镍的吸附研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 109-114.
[12]	黄钰, 陈斌, 肖关丽. 云南哈尼族地方水稻‘月亮谷’对褐飞虱取食危害的生理反应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 123-129.
[13]	贾也纯, 陈润仪, 贺泽霖, 倪洪涛. 甜菜抗非生物胁迫研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 33-40.
[14]	李兴华, 王欢, 张盛, 蔡星星, 周强, 周楠. 氮肥用量与运筹方式对晚籼稻产量及花后干物质积累与转运的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 6-13.
[15]	秦乃群, 马巧云, 高敬伟, 杨璞, 蔡金兰, 郝迎春, 李艳梅, 冀洪策, 廖祥政. 沼渣施用对花生小麦轮作作物产量及土壤养分和重金属含量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(8): 58-63.