等碳量秸秆和秸秆炭还田对棉田土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0374

中国农学通报 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (2): 69-82.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0374

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

等碳量秸秆和秸秆炭还田对棉田土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响

房佰涵(), 刘晶晶, 郭晓雯, 叶扬, 杨茂琪, 张楠, 郭慧娟, 闵伟()

石河子大学农学院，新疆生产建设兵团绿洲生态农业重点实验室，新疆石河子 832003

收稿日期:2024-05-31 修回日期:2024-10-14 出版日期:2025-01-13 发布日期:2025-01-13
通讯作者:
闵伟，男，1986年出生，安徽太和人，副教授，博士，研究方向：土壤肥力与调控。通信地址：832003 新疆石河子石河子大学农学院，E-mail：minwei555@126.com。
作者简介:
房佰涵，男，2001年出生，山东德州人，硕士研究生，研究方向：土壤肥力与养分循环。通信地址：832003 新疆石河子石河子大学农学院，E-mail：1107274737@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目“生物炭对咸水滴灌棉田土壤硝化反硝化作用的影响与机制”(32160742); 兵团指导性项目“生物炭对咸水滴灌棉田土壤的改良效应研究”(2022DZ011); 石河子大学大学生研究训练计划项目“秸秆及其生物炭还田对咸水滴灌棉田土壤硝化作用的影响”(SRP2024194)

Effects of Equal Carbon Amounts of Straw and Straw Charcoal Incorporation on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Enzyme Activity in Cotton Fields

FANG Baihan(), LIU Jingjing, GUO Xiaowen, YE Yang, YANG Maoqi, ZHANG Nan, GUO Huijuan, MIN Wei()

Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecological Agriculture, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps / College of Agriculture, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832003

Received:2024-05-31 Revised:2024-10-14 Published:2025-01-13 Online:2025-01-13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究以棉花秸秆资源合理利用为背景，旨在探讨等碳量条件下添加秸秆和秸秆炭对土壤理化性质及养分转化酶活性的影响，以期为干旱区滴灌棉田土壤培肥和农业可持续发展提供一定的理论依据和参考价值。试验设置3个处理：无还田(CK)、棉花秸秆还田(ST，6 t/hm²)和秸秆炭还田(BC，3.7 t/hm²)。结果表明：较无还田相比，棉花秸秆和秸秆炭均增加了显著增加土壤大团聚体占比，显著提高团聚体平均质量直径和几何平均直径，增强了团聚体的稳定性，增加了土壤孔隙度和含水量，其中，大团聚体占比和含水量分别增加了107.7%和58.5%、42.1%和28.5%，但显著降低土壤容重。较无还田相比，棉花秸秆和秸秆炭显著增加土壤阳离子交换量、有机质、全氮、碱解氮、速效磷和速效钾含量，阳离子交换量分别增加了4%和12%，其中，秸秆炭还田对阳离子交换量、有机质、碳氮比、速效磷和速效钾含量增效大于棉花秸秆还田，而对于土壤全氮和碱解氮含量的增效小于棉花秸秆还田。棉花秸秆和秸秆炭显著增加土壤蔗糖酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶、纤维素酶、脱氢酶和碱性磷酸酶活性；此外，棉花秸秆还田显著增加土壤脲酶和碱性蛋白酶活性，而秸秆炭还田则降低土壤脲酶和碱性蛋白酶活性。相关性分析表明，土壤全氮和碱解氮是促进蔗糖酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶、纤维素酶、脱氢酶和碱性磷酸酶活性的主要因子，土壤pH和容重是抑制蔗糖酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶、纤维素酶、脲酶、脱氢酶和碱性磷酸酶活性的主要因子。棉花秸秆和秸秆炭还田显著提高棉花氮素、磷素和钾素的吸收量，从而促进棉花的生长发育有利于籽棉产量显著增加，增幅分别为12.6%和10.2%。棉花秸秆和秸秆炭还田提高了大团聚体的占比，增加土壤孔隙度和含水量，降低土壤容重，改善了土壤物理结构，同时有效提升了土壤养分含量和养分转化相关酶活性，有利于促进棉花养分吸收，进而提升棉花籽棉产量。

关键词: 棉花秸秆, 秸秆炭, 土壤理化性质, 土壤酶活性, 养分吸收, 籽棉产量

Abstract:

The study investigated the impact of adding equal carbon amounts of cotton stalks and biochar to soil on soil physical and chemical properties and nutrient transformation enzyme activities, aiming to support sustainable agriculture in drip-irrigated cotton fields in arid regions. The experiment included three treatments: no residue returning (CK), cotton stalk returning (ST, 6 t/hm²) and biochar returning (BC, 3.7 t/hm²). The results showed that both cotton stalks and biochar significantly increased the proportion of large soil aggregates compared with CK, the mean mass diameter and geometric mean diameter of aggregates were significantly improved, aggregate stability was improved, and soil porosity and water content were enhanced. Large aggregates and water content increased by 107.7%, 58.5% and 42.1%, 28.5%, but the soil bulk density was significantly reduced. Compared with CK, both treatments elevated soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter, total nitrogen, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium, CEC increased by 4% and 12%, with biochar being more effective in enhancing CEC, organic matter, carbon-nitrogen ratio, available phosphorus and available potassium. Cotton stalks were more effective in increasing total nitrogen and alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen. Both treatments increased the activities of soil sucrase, β-glucosidase, cellulase, dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase, with cotton stalks also elevating urease and alkaline protease activities, while biochar reduced them. Correlation analysis indicated that total nitrogen and alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen were primary factors promoting activities of sucrase, β-glucosidase, cellulase, dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase enzyme, while soil pH and bulk density inhibited them. Both treatments significantly enhanced the absorption of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in cotton, promoting growth and development, and increasing cotton seed yield by 12.6% for cotton stalks and 10.2% for biochar. In conclusion, returning cotton stalks and biochar to the soil improved soil structure, increased nutrient content and enzyme activities, and promoted nutrient absorption in cotton, leading to a significant increase in cotton seed yield.

Key words: cotton straw residue, charcoal residue, soil physical and chemical properties, soil enzyme activity, nutrient absorption, cotton seed yield

房佰涵, 刘晶晶, 郭晓雯, 叶扬, 杨茂琪, 张楠, 郭慧娟, 闵伟. 等碳量秸秆和秸秆炭还田对棉田土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(2): 69-82.

FANG Baihan, LIU Jingjing, GUO Xiaowen, YE Yang, YANG Maoqi, ZHANG Nan, GUO Huijuan, MIN Wei. Effects of Equal Carbon Amounts of Straw and Straw Charcoal Incorporation on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Enzyme Activity in Cotton Fields[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(2): 69-82.

图/表 12

图1. 试验期内降水和蒸散

处理	各粒级团聚体百分比含量
处理	>2 mm	1~2 mm	0.25~1 mm	0.053~0.25 mm	<0.053 mm
CK	7.35±0.38c	3.35±0.52d	14.53±0.43d	41.09±0.82a	33.68±1.56a
ST	14.49±0.45b	7.96±0.40a	29.95±0.79a	25.99±1.34c	21.61±1.00d
BC	13.88±0.14b	7.79±0.12a	18.34±0.93c	29.59±0.81b	30.41±0.10b

表1. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对土壤水稳性团聚体的影响 %

图2. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对>0.25 mm土壤团聚体含量、土壤团聚体平均质量直径和几何平均直径的影响

图3. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对土壤容重、孔隙度和含水量的影响

图4. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对土壤化学性质的影响

图5. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对棉田土壤蔗糖酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶和纤维素酶活性的影响

图6. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对棉田土壤脲酶、碱性蛋白酶和脱氢酶活性的影响

图7. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对棉田土壤碱性磷酸酶活性的影响

图8. 土壤理化性质与土壤蔗糖酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶和纤维素酶活性的相关性 S-SC：蔗糖酶；β-GC：β-葡萄糖苷酶；S-SL：纤维素酶

图9. 土壤理化性质与土壤脲酶、碱性蛋白酶和脱氢酶活性的相关性 S-UE：脲酶；S-ALPT：碱性蛋白酶；S-DHA：脱氢酶

图10. 土壤理化性质与土壤碱性磷酸酶活性的相关性 S-ALP：碱性磷酸酶

图11. 棉花秸秆和秸秆炭对棉田棉花氮素吸收、磷素吸收、钾素吸收、籽棉产量的影响

参考文献 63

[1]	国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴2023[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2023:387-392.
[2]	JIN Z, SHAH T, ZHANG L, et al. Effect of straw returning on soil organic carbon in rice-wheat rotation system: A review[J]. Food and energy security, 2020, 9(2):e200.
[3]	NGUYEN V T, NGUYEN T B, CHEN C W, et al. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons production and tetracycline adsorption behavior of biochar derived from spent coffee ground[J]. Bioresource technology, 2019, 284:197-203.
[4]	杨宇, 李成蓉, 彭银, 等. 生物炭与有机肥施用对红壤理化性质及氮素径流损失的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(4):16-24.
[5]	姚奇, 俞若涵, 张洪宇, 等. 生物炭施用对冬小麦农田土壤养分及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3):68-74.
[6]	郭琴波, 王小利, 段建军, 等. 施用生物炭对黄壤稻田水稻品质及氮肥利用效率的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2021, 35(4):287-292.
[7]	陈丽明. 长期秸秆还田下双季稻田土壤碳氮转化特征及其微生物学机制[D]. 南昌: 江西农业大学, 2023.
[8]	王月宁, 冯朋博, 李荣, 等. 不同秸秆还田方式对宁夏扬黄灌区土壤性质及玉米生长的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(11):2607-2614.
[9]	刘萌, 付威, 樊军, 等. 耕作与覆盖措施对黄土塬区春玉米田土壤水气传输的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(5):814-825.
[10]	陈晓东, 吴景贵, 范围, 等. 有机物料对原生盐碱土微团聚体特征及稳定性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(2):201-207.
[11]	李昊昱, 孟兆良, 庞党伟, 等. 周年秸秆还田对农田土壤固碳及冬小麦-夏玉米产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(6):893-903. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2019.81078
[12]	LIU K, HAN T, HUANG J, et al. Links between potassium of soil aggregates and pH levels in acidic soils under long-term fertilization regimes[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2020, 197:104480.
[13]	李娜, 范树茂, 陈梦凡, 等. 生物炭与秸秆还田对水稻土碳氮转化及相关酶活性的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2017, 48(4):431-438.
[14]	黄少辉, 杨军芳, 刘学彤, 等. 长期小麦秸秆还田对壤质潮土磷素含量及磷盈亏的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(6):89-96.
[15]	安宁, 李冬, 李娜, 等. 长期不同量秸秆炭化还田下水稻土孔隙结构特征[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(12):2150-2157.
[16]	聂瑾, 赵保卫, 刘辉, 等. 小麦秸秆生物炭对休耕期黄土农田土壤热性质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3):75-83.
[17]	孟繁昊, 于晓芳, 王志刚, 等. 生物炭配施氮肥对土壤物理性质及春玉米产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(1):142-150.
[18]	马光恕, 梁枭, 张渟, 等. 生物炭对甜瓜幼苗质量与根系生理特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(5):212-221.
[19]	肖和友, 朱伟, 王海军, 等. 连续施用不同生物质炭对植烟土壤特性和烤烟品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2021, 42(3):19-25.
[20]	LENTZ R D, IPPOLITO J A. Biochar and manure affect calcareous soil and corn silage nutrient concentrations and uptake[J]. Journal of environmental quality, 2012, 41(4):1033-1043. doi: 10.2134/jeq2011.0126 pmid: 22751045
[21]	张继宁, 周胜, 李广南, 等. 秸秆生物炭对水稻生长及滩涂土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2018, 35(6):492-499.
[22]	赵维彬, 唐丽, 王松, 等. 两种生物炭对滨海盐碱土的改良效果[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4):678-686. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2023.04.005
[23]	史多鹏, 叶子壮, 李惠通, 等. 生物炭和氮肥配施对夏玉米-冬小麦轮作体系耕层土壤质量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(2):442-450. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202302.013
[24]	阮泽斌, 王兰鸽, 蓝王凯宁, 等. 氮肥减量配施生物炭对水稻氮素吸收和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(2):394-402. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2023.02.17
[25]	纪仁婧, 胡梦阳, 和玉璞, 等. 生物炭施用对节水灌溉稻田土壤养分的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2023, 42(1):47-53.
[26]	YAO W, LIU Q, ZHOU J, et al. Short-term reduction in cropping intensity improves soil quality of topsoil rather than subsoil[J]. Land degradation & development, 2023, 34(8):2393-2402.
[27]	WU L, MA H, ZHAO Q, et al. Changes in soil bacterial community and enzyme activity under five years straw returning in paddy soil[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2020, 100:103215.
[28]	AWAD Y M, BLAGODATSKAYA E, OK Y S, et al. Effects of polyacrylamide, biopolymer, and biochar on decomposition of soil organic matter and plant residues as determined by 14C and enzyme activities[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2012, 48: 1-10.
[29]	PANDEY V, PATEL A, PATRA D D. Biochar ameliorates crop productivity, soil fertility,essential oil yield and aroma profiling in basil[J]. Ecological engineering, 2016, 90:361-366.
[30]	刘磊, 廖萍, 邵华, 等. 施石灰和秸秆还田对双季稻田土壤钾素表观平衡的互作效应[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(1):226-237. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.02060
[31]	周正萍, 田宝庚, 陈婉华, 等. 不同耕作方式与秸秆还田对土壤养分及小麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(3):78-83.
[32]	侯贤清, 吴鹏年, 王艳丽, 等. 秸秆还田配施氮肥对土壤水肥状况和玉米产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(6):1928-1934. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201806.023
[33]	杨竣皓, 骆永丽, 陈金, 等. 秸秆还田对我国主要粮食作物产量效应的整合(Meta)分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(21):4415-4429. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.21.010
[34]	GARG A, HUANG H, CAI W, et al. Influence of soil density on gas permeability and water retention in soils amended with in-house produced biochar[J]. Journal of rock mechanics and geotechnical engineering, 2021, 13(3):593-602.
[35]	TUYISHIMIRE E, CUI J, TANG X, et al. Interactive effects of honeysuckle planting and biochar amendment on soil structure and hydraulic properties of hillslope farmland[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 414.
[36]	LUO C, YANG J, CHEN W, et al. Effect of biochar on soil properties on the Loess plateau: results from field experiments[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 369:114323.
[37]	HAN L, ZHANG B, CHEN L, et al. Impact of biochar amendment on soil aggregation varied with incubation duration and biochar pyrolysis temperature[J]. Biochar, 2021, 3(3):339-347.
[38]	刘卉, 周清明, 黎娟. 秸秆还田对土壤改良及作物生长影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(32):53-57. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb17020111
[39]	王钰皓, 庞津雯, 卫婷, 等. 旱作农田覆膜和秸秆碳投入对土壤团聚特性及作物产量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2024, 61(1):272-284.
[40]	贾咏霖, 屈忠义, 丁艳宏, 等. 不同灌溉方式下施用生物炭对土壤水盐运移规律及玉米水分利用效率的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(8):44-51.
[41]	杨东, 李新举, 孔欣欣. 不同秸秆还田方式对滨海盐渍土水盐运动的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(6):74-78.
[42]	LIU Z, DUGAN B, MASIELLO C A, et al. Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties[J]. Plos one, 2017, 12(6):e0179079.
[43]	袁亮, 张春丽, 孟自力. 施用生物炭对冬小麦养分吸收、根际微生物和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(18):201-206.
[44]	ZHANG S, CUI J, WU H, et al. Organic carbon, total nitrogen, and microbial community distributions within aggregates of calcareous soil treated with biochar[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2021, 314:107408.
[45]	RAN C, GAO D, LIU W, et al. Straw and nitrogen amendments improve soil, rice yield, and roots in a saline sodic soil[J]. Rhizosphere, 2022, 24:100606.
[46]	GAMALERO E, BONA E, TODESCHINI V, et al. Saline and arid soils: Impact on bacteria, plants, and their interaction[J]. Biology, 2020, 9(6):116.
[47]	ZHANG L, MAO L, YAN X, et al. Long-term cotton stubble return and subsoiling increases cotton yield through improving root growth and properties of coastal saline soil[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2022, 177:114472.
[48]	NKOH J N, BAQUY M A A, MIA S, et al. A critical-systematic review of the interactions of biochar with soils and the observable outcomes[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(24):13726.
[49]	ZYGOURAKIS K. Biochar soil amendments for increased crop yields: How to design a “designer” biochar[J]. AIChE journal, 2017, 63(12):5425-5437.
[50]	郭丽欣, 王越, 杜雨婷, 等. 生物炭与秸秆配施对设施土壤有机碳矿化及理化性质的影响[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2022, 37(1):43-50.
[51]	PANG J, WANG Y, WANG B, et al. Biochar application increases maize yield under film mulching due to higher soil organic content and soil aggregate stability in a semi-arid area[J]. Journal of soils and sediments, 2023, 23(4):1718-1732.
[52]	HASNAT M, ALAM M A, KHANAM M, et al. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and biochar on organic matter mineralization and carbon accretion in soil[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(6):3684.
[53]	王丽娜, 杨瑛, 杜苏. 生物炭施入对盐碱土壤影响的研究现状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(8):81-87. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0993
[54]	YUE L I, SHUIQING Z, YANLAI H A N, et al. Effects on fluvo-aquic soil enzyme activity and fungal community of long-term straw returning and fertilization[J]. Ecology and environment, 2020, 29(7): 1359.
[55]	PAUSCH J, KUZYAKOV Y. Carbon input by roots into the soil: quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale[J]. Global change biology, 2018, 24(1): 1-12. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13850 pmid: 28752603
[56]	张英, 武淑霞, 雷秋良, 等. 不同类型粪肥还田对土壤酶活性及微生物群落的影响[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(6):1175-1184.
[57]	钱九盛, 谢文逸, 何中华, 等. 施用生物质炭对桃园土壤肥力及黄桃产量和品质的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2023, 40(3):680-688.
[58]	王丽, 赵惠丽, 赵英. 生物质炭配施木灰对石灰性土壤固碳和微生物群落的影响[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(2):320-328.
[59]	刘东海, 乔艳, 李晓, 等. 紫色土区不同秸秆还田量对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(7):107-113.
[60]	李侠, 胡一民, 贝水宽, 等. 施肥方式和土壤水分变化对秸秆降解特征及微生物秸秆碳利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(11):79-89.
[61]	LIANG L, MA C, ZHANG R, et al. Improvement of soil nutrient availability and enzyme activities in rainfed wheat field by combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers[J]. Journal of Plant nutrition and fertilizers, 2019, 25(4):544-554.
[62]	SUN Y, XIONG X, HE M, et al. Roles of biochar-derived dissolved organic matter in soil amendment and environmental remediation: a critical review[J]. Chemical engineering journal, 2021, 424: 130387.
[63]	唐行灿, 陈金林. 生物炭对土壤理化和微生物性质影响研究进展[J]. 生态科学, 2018, 37(1):192-199.

等碳量秸秆和秸秆炭还田对棉田土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响

Effects of Equal Carbon Amounts of Straw and Straw Charcoal Incorporation on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Enzyme Activity in Cotton Fields

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 63

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

[1]	黄欢, 樊娅萍, 宋柏权, 王倡宪. 摩西球囊霉与强还原灭菌对黄瓜幼苗连作障碍的缓解作用研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(1): 55-62.
[2]	张正珍, 慕瑞瑞, 王佳, 徐灿, 陈永伟, 张战胜, 吴宏亮, 康建宏. 施钾量对玉米钾素吸收、转运及产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(8): 47-56.
[3]	陈睿, 崔泽远, 李志, 耿贵, 於丽华. AM真菌对连作土壤上作物生长影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(6): 1-8.
[4]	乔月, 胡诚, 万建华, 徐化林, 刘茂军, 郭卫红, 戴黎, 张春华, 邓超然. 不同施肥模式对水稻产量及养分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(6): 9-15.
[5]	林海晴, 李静, 李嘉炜, 王嘉慧, 焦加斌, 常静静, 陈潇, 张白鸽, 宋钊. 镁肥用量对4种叶类蔬菜产量、品质及养分吸收的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(4): 74-82.
[6]	徐建明, 王艳红, 刘忠珍, 郑小东. 有机物料还田对稻田土壤温室气体排放及产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(36): 95-101.
[7]	刘晓东, 李玉平, 姜佩庆, 李柯, 孙逢毅, 戴义立, 刘静, 徐昪. 林草间作对土壤理化性质及土壤微生物状况的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(35): 64-69.
[8]	陈芝, 颜墩炜, 黄强, 黄枝, 陈海玲, 郭媛贞. 牡蛎壳粉土壤调理剂施用量对土壤理化性质及茄子农艺性状和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(34): 111-117.
[9]	宋锦浩, 郝婉怡, 姜文婷, 陈国梁. 生草覆盖对枣园土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(33): 102-110.
[10]	应虹, 朱诗君, 金树权, 汪峰, 周金波. 宁波地区长期非粮化生产对耕层土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(27): 75-82.
[11]	马晓, 吕卫光, 蔡文倩, 余婷, 张月, 张海韵, 汤勇华, 董月霞, 张翰林. 不同稻田冬茬绿肥对土壤养分、酶活性和微生物数量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(26): 46-52.
[12]	郭佳祎, 于一雷, 李文彦, 吕翠翠, 刘超杰. 复合抗生素对生菜种子萌发及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(25): 52-58.
[13]	郭军成, 王明国, 耿荣, 王彦琪, 尹学红, 王旭敏, 朱志明, 李珍. 秸秆还田和有机肥对宁夏银北盐碱地改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(24): 73-78.
[14]	朱帅, 李仕勇, 姜泊宇, 赵文熠, 赵茂杰, 陈一民, 隋跃宇, 焦晓光. 冻融循环作用对东北农田黑土团聚体及有机碳的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(23): 53-59.
[15]	洪发彩, 邹倩梅, 张敏, 陈江政, 徐俊, 李晗梅, 王戈, 王娜, 白羽祥, 周鹏, 杜宇, 郑绍庚, 曾皓, 康铮, 李杰. 药剂对根结线虫病防效及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(22): 131-136.