耕作方式对土壤团聚体稳定性、土壤质量和玉米产量的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0211

中国农学通报 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (17): 78-87.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0211

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

耕作方式对土壤团聚体稳定性、土壤质量和玉米产量的影响

顾嘉诚¹^,²(), 王家平¹, 张增成¹^,², 蒋贵菊²^,³, 李鲁华¹(), 程志博¹^,²()

¹ 石河子大学农学院，新疆石河子 832003
² 石河子大学新疆博乐玉米科技小院，新疆博乐 833400
³ 博乐市农业农村机械化发展服务中心，新疆博乐 833400

收稿日期:2025-03-11 修回日期:2025-05-22 出版日期:2025-06-15 发布日期:2025-06-15
通讯作者:
李鲁华，女，1967年出生，新疆额敏人，教授，硕士，主要从事绿洲生态农业与绿洲农作制度研究。通信地址：832099 新疆石河子市北五路新疆石河子市石河子大学北苑新区，Tel：0993-2055018，E-mail：liluhuashiz@163.com；

程志博，男，1988年出生，甘肃平凉人，副教授，博士，主要从事农田养分循环与调控机制研究。通信地址：832099 新疆石河子市北五路新疆石河子市石河子大学北苑新区，Tel：0993-2057990，E-mail：czb_2022@126.com。
作者简介:
顾嘉诚，男，1999年出生，江苏南通人，硕士研究生，研究方向：保护性耕作与土壤养分循环。通信地址：832099 新疆石河子市北五路新疆石河子市石河子大学北苑新区，Tel：0993-2057990，E-mail：18796603237@163.com。
基金资助:
2025兵团科普发展专项“博乐玉米小院科技赋能与社会服务计划”(S2025H41459); 国家自然科学基金“绿洲棉田间作体系土壤磷素生物有效性及其根际微生态机制”(32001488)

Effect of Tillage Practices on Soil Aggregate Stability, Soil Quality and Maize Yield

GU Jiacheng¹^,²(), WANG Jiaping¹, ZHANG Zengcheng¹^,², JIANG Guiju²^,³, LI Luhua¹(), CHENG Zhibo¹^,²()

¹ Agricultural College of Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832003
² Corn Science and Technology Backyard, Bole, Xinjiang 833400
³ Bole Mechanization Development Service Center for Agriculture, Bole, Xinjiang 833400

Received:2025-03-11 Revised:2025-05-22 Published:2025-06-15 Online:2025-06-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究旨在探讨耕作方式对土壤理化性质、团聚体稳定性和土壤质量的影响，为新疆滴灌玉米农田土壤肥力和产量提升提供参考依据。于2022—2023年在新疆博乐市阿热勒托海牧场开展田间定位试验，供试玉米品种为‘金粒1702’，设置翻耕+覆膜(CT)、翻耕+不覆膜(BT)、免耕(NT)和浅耕(ST) 共4个处理，测定分析不同耕作方式下土壤理化性质、团聚体组成和玉米产量的变化。结果表明：与CT相比，NT和ST处理显著提高了>2 mm团聚体的百分含量、平均重量直径(MWD)、几何平均直径(GMD)和R_0.25值(P<0.05)，说明免耕和浅耕能够提高土壤团聚体稳定性；CT处理的温度和含水率均显著高于NT和ST处理，土壤容重的变化介于1.35~1.70 g/cm³，NT和ST中速效磷、全氮和有机碳含量较CT均显著提高；NT和ST的土壤质量指数较CT分别增加了19.82%和15.29%；NT和ST处理玉米产量显著高于CT和BT处理，分别达到20.67 t/hm²和19.84 t/hm²，穗粒数在各处理之间无显著差异，而NT处理千粒重显著高于其他处理(P<0.05)。Mantel分析表明产量与团聚体稳定性指数（MWD、GMD、D和R_0.25）、理化性质和土壤质量指数呈显著正相关关系；结构方程模型表明，耕作方式通过改变土壤团聚体稳定性和土壤理化性质来影响土壤质量，而间接影响玉米产量。研究发现，在新疆滴灌玉米农田耕作方式中，免耕和浅耕相较于常规耕作增产9.13%和4.75%，对于土壤结构稳定、土壤质量和玉米产量的提升效果显著。

关键词: 耕作方式, 团聚体, 土壤质量, 玉米产量, 土壤理化性质, 免耕, 浅耕, 保护性耕作

Abstract:

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of tillage practices on soil properties, aggregate stability and soil quality, providing references for improving soil fertility and yield in drip-irrigated maize fields in Xinjiang. A field positioning experiment was conducted in Areoletuohai Ranch, Bole City, Xinjiang from 2022-2023 with the maize variety ‘Jinli1702’ as the test material. Four tillage treatments were set up, including conventional tillage with plastic film (CT), conventional tillage without plastic film (BT), no-tillage (NT) and shallow tillage (ST). The changes in soil properties, aggregate fractions and maize yield were analyzed to evaluate the effects of tillage practices on soil quality and maize yield. The results showed that compared with CT, both NT and ST significantly increased >2 mm aggregate contents, mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), and R_0.25 (P<0.05), indicating improved soil aggregate stability. Under the CT, soil temperature and moisture content were significantly higher than that in the NT and ST. Soil bulk density ranged from 1.35 to 1.70 g/cm³, with NT and ST showing significantly higher levels of available phosphorus, total nitrogen and organic carbon compared to CT. The soil quality index (SQI) in NT and ST increased by 19.82% and 15.29%, respectively, compared to CT. Maize yield under NT and ST was significantly higher than under CT and BT, reaching 20.67 t/hm² and 19.84 t/hm², respectively. But, there were no differences in ear grain number across four treatments, while the thousand-grain weight of NT was significantly higher than that of the others (P<0.05). Mantel analysis revealed significant positive correlations between yield and aggregate stability indices (MWD, GMD, D and R_0.25), soil properties, and SQI. Structural equation modeling showed that tillage practices affected soil quality by altering soil aggregate stability and soil properties, thereby indirectly influencing maize yield. The results showed that the yield of NT and ST increased by 9.13 % and 4.75 % compared with conventional tillage in drip irrigation maize farmland in Xinjiang, which had a significant effect on soil structure stability, soil quality and maize yield.

Key words: tillage practices, aggregates, soil quality, maize yield, soil physical and chemical properties, no-tillage, shallow tillage, conservation tillage

顾嘉诚, 王家平, 张增成, 蒋贵菊, 李鲁华, 程志博. 耕作方式对土壤团聚体稳定性、土壤质量和玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(17): 78-87.

GU Jiacheng, WANG Jiaping, ZHANG Zengcheng, JIANG Guiju, LI Luhua, CHENG Zhibo. Effect of Tillage Practices on Soil Aggregate Stability, Soil Quality and Maize Yield[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(17): 78-87.

图/表 7

参考文献 15

[16]	LlU W X, WEI Y X, LI R C, et al. Improving soil aggregates stability and soil organic carbon sequestration by no-till and legume-based crop rotations in the North China Plain[J]. Science of the total environment, 2022, 847:157518.
[17]	李景, 吴会军, 武雪萍, 等. 长期不同耕作措施对土壤团聚体特征及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(8):2341.
[18]	HUANG M, LIANG T, WANG L, et al. Effects of no-tillage systems on soil physical properties and carbon sequestration under long-term wheat-maize double cropping system[J]. Catena, 2015, 128:195-202.
[19]	姚丽, 刘倩, 王金华, 等. 紫花苜蓿种植模式对干热河谷咖啡园土壤质量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(6):1360-1368.
[20]	杨淇钧, 吴克宁, 冯喆, 等. 大空间尺度土壤质量评价研究进展与启示[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(3):565-578.
[21]	KARACA S, DENGIZ O, TURAN İ D, et al. An assessment of pasture soils quality based on multi-indicator weighting approaches in semi-arid ecosystem[J]. Ecological indicators, 2021, 121:107001.
[22]	BISWAS S, HAZRA G C, PURAKAYASTHA T J, et al. Establishment of critical limits of indicators and indices of soil quality in rice-rice cropping systems under different soil orders[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 292:34-48.
[23]	SADIQ F K, MANIYANIYUNDA L M, ADEGOKE K A, et al. Evaluating quality of soils formed on basement complex rocks in Kaduna State, northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021, 193(7):383. doi: 10.1007/s10661-021-09157-0 pmid: 34089400
[24]	孙鸿烈, 刘光崧. 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1996.
[25]	HILLEL D. The mission of soil science in a changing world[J]. Journal of plant nutrition and soil science, 2009, 172(1):5-9.
[26]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008:30-281.
[27]	DORAN J W, PARKIN T B. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set[J]. Methods for assessing soil quality, 1997, 49:25-37.
[28]	SHUKLA M K, LAL R, EBINGER M. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2006, 87(2):194-204.
[29]	RAIESI F, KABIRI V. Identification of soil quality indicators for assessing the effect of different tillage practices through a soil quality index in a semi-arid environment[J]. Ecological indicators, 2016, 71:198-207.
[30]	ANDREWS S S, KARLEN D L, MITCHELL J P. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2002, 90(1):25-45.
[31]	GOLCHIN A, OADES J M, SKJEMSTAD J O, et al. Soil structure and carbon cycling[J]. Soil research, 1994, 32(5):1043-1068.
[32]	隋鹏祥, 罗洋, 郑洪兵, 等. 长期耕作对农田黑土团聚体和有机碳稳定性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(7):1853-1861. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202307.027
[33]	LAL R. The role of residues management in sustainable agricultural systems[J]. Journal of sustainable agriculture, 1995, 5(4):51-78.
[34]	WAN Y, WU C, XUE Q, et al. Effects of plastic contamination on water evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 654:576-582.
[35]	CHOUDHARY R L, BEHERA U K, Effect of sequential tillage practices and N levels on soil health and root parameters in maize (Zea mays)-wheat (Tritium aestivum) cropping system[J]. Journal of soil and water conservation, 2014, 13(1):73-82.
[36]	GAO L, BECKER, LIANG G, et al. Effect of different tillage systems on aggregate structure and inner distribution of organic carbon[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 288:97-104.
[37]	KABIRI V, RAIESI F, GHAZAVI M A. Six years of different tillage systems affected aggregate-associated SOM in a semi-arid loam soil from Central Iran[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2015, 154:114-125.
[38]	WANG T, ZHAI Y, ZHU Y, et al. Feedwater pH affects phosphorus transformation during hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge[J]. Bioresource technology, 2017, 245:182-187. doi: S0960-8524(17)31428-1 pmid: 28892689
[39]	王静娅, 王明亮, 张凤华. 干旱区典型盐生植物群落下土壤微生物群落特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(8):2363-2372.
[40]	DE PAUL OBADE V, LAL R. A standardized soil quality index for diverse field conditions[J]. Science of the total environment, 2016, 541:424-434.
[41]	闫雷, 董天浩, 喇乐鹏, 等. 免耕和秸秆还田对东北黑土区土壤团聚体组成及有机碳含量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(22):181-188.
[1]	仇焕广, 雷馨圆, 冷淦潇, 等. 新时期中国粮食安全的理论辨析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2022(7):2-17.
[2]	王术坤, 韩磊. 中国种业发展形势与国际比较[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2022, 43(5):814-822.
[3]	宋建新. 玉米在新疆的种植和推广[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2021(6):185-186.
[4]	BUSARI M A, KUKAL S S, KAUR A, et al. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment[J]. International soil and water conservation research, 2015, 3(2):119-129.
[5]	LV L, GAO Z, LIAO K, et al. Impact of conservation tillage on the distribution of soil nutrients with depth[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2023, 225:105527.
[6]	LI Y, LI Z, CUI S, et al. Microbial-derived carbon components are critical for enhancing soil organic carbon in no-tillage croplands: A global perspective[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2021, 205:104758.
[7]	汪洋, 杨殿林, 王丽丽, 等. 农田管理措施对土壤有机碳周转及微生物的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2020, 37(3):340-352.
[8]	李千雪, 李春越, 张文婷, 等. 秸秆覆盖还田保护性耕作对黄土旱塬土壤磷素组分的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(2):368-377.
[9]	WANG Y, TU C, CHENG L, et al. Long-term impact of farming practices on soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools and microbial biomass and activity[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2011, 117:8-16.
[10]	GUO L J, ZHANG Z S, WANG D D, et al. Effects of short-term conservation management practices on soil organic carbon fractions and microbial community composition under a rice-wheat rotation system[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2015, 51:65-75.
[11]	MORENO F, MURIllO J M, Pelegrín F, et al. Long-term impact of conservation tillage on stratification ratio of soil organic carbon and loss of total and active CaCO₃[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2006, 85(1-2):86-93.
[12]	张星杰, 刘景辉, 李立军, 等. 保护性耕作方式下土壤养分,微生物及酶活性研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2009(3):542-546.
[13]	王兴, 祁剑英, 井震寰, 等. 长期保护性耕作对稻田土壤团聚体稳定性和碳氮含量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(24):121-128.
[14]	江春玉, 刘萍, 刘明, 等. 不同肥力红壤水稻土根际团聚体组成和碳氮分布动态[J]. 土壤学报, 2017, 54(1):138-149.
[15]	PYGET P, CHENU C, BALESDENT J. Dynamics of soil organic matter associated with particle‐size fractions of water‐stable aggregates[J]. European journal of soil science, 2000, 51(4):595-605.

年份	土层深度/cm		耕作方式	pH	电导率EC/ (μS/cm)	SOC/ (g/kg)	全氮TN/ (g/kg)	全磷TP/ (g/kg)	全钾TK/ (g/kg)	速效磷AP/(mg/kg)	温度/ ℃	含水率/ %	容重/ (g/cm³)
2022	0~20		CT	7.81±0.15a	162.50±4.71d	23.48±7.29ab	1.86±0.03c	1.46±0.09a	32.32±2.70a	13.02±1.65a	9.81±1.10a	17.42±6.55a	1.38±0.02a
			BT	7.82±0.15a	178.07±1.36c	16.09±2.56b	1.55±0.09d	1.25±0.06ab	35.15±4.08a	11.51±0.28a	9.51±1.29a	11.10±0.47b	1.38±0.07a
			NT	7.88±0.19a	242.67±8.39b	19.70±1.14b	2.02±0.06b	1.12±0.23b	28.37±3.80a	12.17±1.78a	8.12±1.09b	13.51±0.84b	1.39±0.06a
			ST	7.71±0.06a	348.00±5.29a	27.64±0.34a	2.47±0.10a	1.38±0.09ab	33.26±2.88a	7.39±0.25b	8.58±0.27a	8.15±3.79c	1.37±0.02a
	20~40		CT	7.64±0.11c	278.33±14.36a	16.75±3.51b	1.80±0.05a	1.06±0.12a	35.76±3.03b	10.16±0.10a	5.89±2.28ab	16.32±3.70a	1.44±0.10a
			BT	8.13±0.11b	136.50±6.66d	12.04±2.56c	1.10±0.05c	1.05±0.07a	34.46±6.33b	2.82±0.04b	6.68±0.29a	12.54±1.95a	1.39±0.04a
			NT	8.07±0.11b	153.93±1.19c	17.84±0.19ab	1.49±0.00b	1.02±0.04a	37.16±5.33b	3.44±0.06b	4.89±1.50b	13.74±2.00a	1.35±0.08a
			ST	8.17±0.02a	245.33±49.34b	20.91±1.50a	1.85±0.09a	0.95±0.13a	41.91±3.71a	3.14±0.21b	7.36±0.80a	13.90±0.50a	1.37±0.01a
2023	0~20		CT	7.80±0.02a	165.00±4.36b	19.65±4.50ab	1.87±0.13b	1.26±0.04b	44.33±3.70a	31.45±0.83c	17.36±0.89ab	15.89±0.94a	1.58±0.02a
			BT	7.85±0.04a	128.33±3.51c	13.29±2.12c	1.46±0.05c	1.33±0.04a	38.17±2.37bc	28.60±0.64d	16.92±0.17ab	13.60±1.51b	1.68±0.23a
			NT	7.67±0.01b	124.67±2.08c	15.08±2.33bc	1.52±0.08c	1.34±0.01a	34.24±1.92c	36.26±1.05b	16.72±0.02b	12.91±1.88b	1.70±0.15a
			ST	7.54±0.05c	223.00±3.61a	23.68±0.79a	2.19±0.04a	1.24±0.04b	41.53±2.47ab	43.20±1.33a	17.80±0.33a	14.29±0.66b	1.54±0.09a
	20~40		CT	7.66±0.07b	148.67±6.03a	15.13±1.59b	1.97±0.06a	0.8±0.01d	42.03±0.44a	18.89±0.69b	16.84±0.63b	13.46±0.71a	1.57±0.03ab
			BT	7.75±0.02b	151.33±2.52a	10.66±1.60bc	1.13±0.03c	1.25±0.08a	42.86±1.67a	15.50±0.39c	16.35±0.06a	13.22±1.13a	1.65±0.26a
			NT	7.94±0.03a	102.33±3.79c	9.77±0.19c	1.42±0.09b	1.09±0.05b	46.55±6.31a	22.16±0.19a	16.90±0.02b	13.42±3.08a	1.66±0.12a
			ST	7.69±0.02b	129.00±2.65b	21.50±0.68a	1.88±0.02a	0.91±0.10c	40.72±3.93a	19.46±0.22b	16.68±0.07b	13.96±2.20a	1.49±0.07b
		Y		^**	^***	^*	ns	ns	^***	^***	^***	ns	^***
		T		ns	^**	^**	^***	ns	ns	ns	^**	^*	ns
		Y×T		^*	^*	ns	^*	ns	ns	ns	^*	ns	ns

年份	土层深度/cm		耕作方式	pH	电导率EC/ (μS/cm)	SOC/ (g/kg)	全氮TN/ (g/kg)	全磷TP/ (g/kg)	全钾TK/ (g/kg)	速效磷AP/(mg/kg)	温度/ ℃	含水率/ %	容重/ (g/cm³)
2022	0~20		CT	7.81±0.15a	162.50±4.71d	23.48±7.29ab	1.86±0.03c	1.46±0.09a	32.32±2.70a	13.02±1.65a	9.81±1.10a	17.42±6.55a	1.38±0.02a
			BT	7.82±0.15a	178.07±1.36c	16.09±2.56b	1.55±0.09d	1.25±0.06ab	35.15±4.08a	11.51±0.28a	9.51±1.29a	11.10±0.47b	1.38±0.07a
			NT	7.88±0.19a	242.67±8.39b	19.70±1.14b	2.02±0.06b	1.12±0.23b	28.37±3.80a	12.17±1.78a	8.12±1.09b	13.51±0.84b	1.39±0.06a
			ST	7.71±0.06a	348.00±5.29a	27.64±0.34a	2.47±0.10a	1.38±0.09ab	33.26±2.88a	7.39±0.25b	8.58±0.27a	8.15±3.79c	1.37±0.02a
	20~40		CT	7.64±0.11c	278.33±14.36a	16.75±3.51b	1.80±0.05a	1.06±0.12a	35.76±3.03b	10.16±0.10a	5.89±2.28ab	16.32±3.70a	1.44±0.10a
			BT	8.13±0.11b	136.50±6.66d	12.04±2.56c	1.10±0.05c	1.05±0.07a	34.46±6.33b	2.82±0.04b	6.68±0.29a	12.54±1.95a	1.39±0.04a
			NT	8.07±0.11b	153.93±1.19c	17.84±0.19ab	1.49±0.00b	1.02±0.04a	37.16±5.33b	3.44±0.06b	4.89±1.50b	13.74±2.00a	1.35±0.08a
			ST	8.17±0.02a	245.33±49.34b	20.91±1.50a	1.85±0.09a	0.95±0.13a	41.91±3.71a	3.14±0.21b	7.36±0.80a	13.90±0.50a	1.37±0.01a
2023	0~20		CT	7.80±0.02a	165.00±4.36b	19.65±4.50ab	1.87±0.13b	1.26±0.04b	44.33±3.70a	31.45±0.83c	17.36±0.89ab	15.89±0.94a	1.58±0.02a
			BT	7.85±0.04a	128.33±3.51c	13.29±2.12c	1.46±0.05c	1.33±0.04a	38.17±2.37bc	28.60±0.64d	16.92±0.17ab	13.60±1.51b	1.68±0.23a
			NT	7.67±0.01b	124.67±2.08c	15.08±2.33bc	1.52±0.08c	1.34±0.01a	34.24±1.92c	36.26±1.05b	16.72±0.02b	12.91±1.88b	1.70±0.15a
			ST	7.54±0.05c	223.00±3.61a	23.68±0.79a	2.19±0.04a	1.24±0.04b	41.53±2.47ab	43.20±1.33a	17.80±0.33a	14.29±0.66b	1.54±0.09a
	20~40		CT	7.66±0.07b	148.67±6.03a	15.13±1.59b	1.97±0.06a	0.8±0.01d	42.03±0.44a	18.89±0.69b	16.84±0.63b	13.46±0.71a	1.57±0.03ab
			BT	7.75±0.02b	151.33±2.52a	10.66±1.60bc	1.13±0.03c	1.25±0.08a	42.86±1.67a	15.50±0.39c	16.35±0.06a	13.22±1.13a	1.65±0.26a
			NT	7.94±0.03a	102.33±3.79c	9.77±0.19c	1.42±0.09b	1.09±0.05b	46.55±6.31a	22.16±0.19a	16.90±0.02b	13.42±3.08a	1.66±0.12a
			ST	7.69±0.02b	129.00±2.65b	21.50±0.68a	1.88±0.02a	0.91±0.10c	40.72±3.93a	19.46±0.22b	16.68±0.07b	13.96±2.20a	1.49±0.07b
		Y		^**	^***	^*	ns	ns	^***	^***	^***	ns	^***
		T		ns	^**	^**	^***	ns	ns	ns	^**	^*	ns
		Y×T		^*	^*	ns	^*	ns	ns	ns	^*	ns	ns

处理	产量/(t/hm²)	穗粒数/粒	千粒重/g	收获穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)
CT	18.94±0.34c	557±53a	385.83±7.84b	10.35±0.16a
BT	19.53±0.55bc	537±63a	389.39±5.86b	10.20±0.28a
NT	20.67±0.69a	604±27a	431.44±8.84a	9.12±0.22b
ST	19.84±0.38b	586±23a	385.36±11.59b	9.15±0.11b

处理	产量/(t/hm²)	穗粒数/粒	千粒重/g	收获穗数/(×10⁴/hm²)
CT	18.94±0.34c	557±53a	385.83±7.84b	10.35±0.16a
BT	19.53±0.55bc	537±63a	389.39±5.86b	10.20±0.28a
NT	20.67±0.69a	604±27a	431.44±8.84a	9.12±0.22b
ST	19.84±0.38b	586±23a	385.36±11.59b	9.15±0.11b

耕作方式对土壤团聚体稳定性、土壤质量和玉米产量的影响

Effect of Tillage Practices on Soil Aggregate Stability, Soil Quality and Maize Yield

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 15

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]	董林林, 严凯, 盛雪雯, 陆长婴, 施林林, 王海候, 吴正贵. 耕作方式影响下水稻生育期土壤水溶性有机碳的光谱特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(9): 99-106.
[2]	汤营营, 唐贤, 赵建荣. 基于Meta分析的长期施肥对中国农田土壤团聚体稳定性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(9): 117-126.
[3]	刘钟森, 赵雅, 薛海涛, 赵永超, 岳晶晶, 龚巍峥. 赤泥土壤化过程中土壤质量的变化[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(2): 56-62.
[4]	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.
[5]	刘武, 邹庆娴, 张佛熠, 钟嘉琳, 樊雨鹭, 刘玮, 王琼. 南昌城市森林土壤动物群落组成及多样性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(13): 80-88.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	李廷宇, 申毅, 童俊飞, 路顺凤, 李琴, 郭颂, 杨卫君. 施用生物炭并减少灌水量对麦田土壤团聚结构及冬小麦产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(36): 110-116.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	王宁, 张仁政, 刘振, 吕金玲, 沈莹, 杨乾, 李耕, 宁堂原. 长期深松耕作结合秸秆还田对土壤团聚体固碳能力与无机稳定机制的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(28): 83-93.
[13]	宋鸽, 胥智强, 孙静思, 赵雪宁. 不同开垦条件下土壤腐殖质光谱和热重特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(27): 60-68.
[14]	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.
[15]	王崇铭, 陈玲英, 鲁明星, 周志华, 田贵生, 张水平, 郑祖云, 方起超, 任涛, 鲁剑巍. 播种时期对免耕飞播油菜生长与产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(23): 32-38.