长期免耕覆盖对大型土壤动物群落结构与多样性的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0738

中国农学通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 92-100.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0738

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

长期免耕覆盖对大型土壤动物群落结构与多样性的影响

任嘉隆¹^,²(), 李红娟¹, 刘继亮², 辛未冬¹

¹ 山西师范大学地理科学学院，太原 030031
² 中国科学院西北生态环境资源研究院/临泽内陆河流域研究站，兰州 730000

收稿日期:2025-09-01 修回日期:2025-12-25 出版日期:2026-03-18 发布日期:2026-03-18
通讯作者:
辛未冬，女，1980年出生，黑龙江北安人，副教授，博士，主要从事土壤动物生态学研究。通信地址：030031 山西太原小店区太榆路339号山西师范大学地理科学学院，Tel：0357-2051200，E-mail：xiny-2005@163.com。
作者简介:
任嘉隆，男，2000年出生，山西长治人，硕士，研究方向：干旱区土壤动物生态地理学。通信地址：030031 山西太原小店区太榆路339号山西师范大学地理科学学院，Tel：0357-2051200，E-mail：rr18735570109@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年项目“晋南煤矿废弃地恢复演替过程中土壤动物多样性及功能群格局调节机理”(41701287)

Impact of Long-term No-tillage and Mulching on Community Structure and Diversity of Soil Macrofauna

REN Jialong¹^,²(), LI Hongjuan¹, LIU Jiliang², XIN Weidong¹

¹ College of Geographic Sciences, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030031
² Linze Inland River Basin Research Station/Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000

Received:2025-09-01 Revised:2025-12-25 Published:2026-03-18 Online:2026-03-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究旨在评估长期免耕覆盖对大型土壤动物群落组成与多样性的影响，为保护性耕作的生态效益评价及农田可持续管理提供科学依据。以山西省临汾市城隍村的长期定位试验田为研究区，选取25 a免耕覆盖(25y-NTS)、21 a免耕覆盖(21y-NTS)、传统耕作(TC)及对照(CK)4种处理，分析保护性耕作对大型土壤动物群落组成和多样性的影响。结果表明，共捕获大型土壤动物214只，隶属3门8纲20目48科。免耕覆盖处理显著提高了土壤动物的个体数量、类群丰富度和多样性指数（P<0.05），其中25y-NTS处理效应最为显著。免耕覆盖显著增加了蜱螨目(Acari)、鼠妇(Porcellionidae)和瓦娄蜗牛科(Valloniidae)等敏感类群的数量，而传统耕作以蚁科(Formicidae)和步甲科(Carabidae)等类群为主。在25y-NTS处理中蚁蜂科(Mutillidae)有较高的丰度，地蜈蚣科(Geophilomorpha)和鼠妇等类群在21y-NTS处理中显著富集，TC中蚁科群落较为优势，而步甲科是CK的优势科。土壤动物分布呈表聚性，且与土壤含水量、有机质、全氮、全磷、速效磷和速效钾呈正相关。长期免耕覆盖可通过减少土壤扰动、改善微环境和提升资源有效性，显著提高大型土壤动物群落的多样性和稳定性，其中25 a免耕覆盖的恢复效应更为显著。综上，土壤动物群落结构及特定指示类群可作为农田生态系统健康和管理措施生态效益的有效生物指标。

关键词: 免耕覆盖, 传统耕作, 大型土壤动物, 群落多样性, 群落功能

Abstract:

The aims are to investigate the impact of long-term no-tillage and mulching practices on the composition and diversity of soil macrofauna, and to provide a scientific basis for evaluating the ecological benefits of conservation tillage measures and sustainable management of farmland ecosystems. Taking the long-term conservation tillage pilot field in Chenghuang Village, Linfen City, Shanxi Province, as the research area, 4 treatments were selected, including 25-year no-tillage and straw mulching (25y-NTS), 21-year no-tillage and straw mulching (21y-NTS), traditional tillage (TC), and control (CK), to analyze the effects of conservation tillage on the composition and diversity of soil macrofauna. A total of 214 large soil animals were captured, belonging to 3 phyla, 8 classes, 20 orders, and 48 families. The results showed that no-tillage and straw mulching treatments significantly increased the individual number, group richness, and diversity index of soil animals (P<0.05), with the 25y-NTS treatment showing the most significant effect; no-tillage and straw mulching significantly increased the number of sensitive groups such as Acari, Porcellionidae, and Valloniidae, while traditional tillage was dominated by Formicidae and Carabidae. In the 25y-NTS, the abundance of Mutillidae was relatively high. In the 21y-NTS, taxa such as Geophilomorpha and Porcellionidae were significantly enriched. The Formicidae community was more dominant in TC, while Carabidae was the dominant family in CK. The distribution of soil animals exhibited significant ground aggregation, positively correlating with soil moisture content, organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available phosphorus, and available potassium. Long-term no-tillage and straw mulching can significantly enhance the diversity and stability of large soil animal communities by reducing soil disturbance, improving the micro-environment, and enhancing resource availability, with the recovery effect of 25-year no-tillage and straw mulching being more pronounced. In conclusion, soil animal community structure and specific indicator groups can serve as effective biological indicators for evaluating the health of farmland ecosystems and the ecological benefits of management measures.

Key words: no-tillage with mulching, traditional farming, macrofauna, community diversity, community function

任嘉隆, 李红娟, 刘继亮, 辛未冬. 长期免耕覆盖对大型土壤动物群落结构与多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(5): 92-100.

REN Jialong, LI Hongjuan, LIU Jiliang, XIN Weidong. Impact of Long-term No-tillage and Mulching on Community Structure and Diversity of Soil Macrofauna[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(5): 92-100.

图/表 8

图1. 研究区概况图

图2. 25y-NTS、21y-NTS、TC和CK大型土壤动物的累积曲线

处理	土层/cm	样地类型				相似性指数
处理	土层/cm	25y-NTS	21y-NTS	TC	CK	25y-NTS	21y-NTS	TC	CK
个体数量	0~10	42a	56a	20b	16b	1	0.29	0.23	0.26
个体数量	10~20	21a	27a	22a	10b
密度	0~10	672a	896a	320b	256b		1	0.23	0.24
密度	10~20	336a	432a	352a	160a
类群数	0~10	19a	18a	7b	14a			1	0.28
	10~20	13a	16a	8b	5b
									1

表1. 不同耕作方式下0~10 cm和10~20 cm土层大型土壤动物和相似性指数比较

图3. 不同生境大型土壤动物多样性指数比较

图4. 不同生境大型土壤动物功能群划分

样地	类群	指示值	P
25y-NTS	蚁蜂科Mutillidae	1.00	0.049
21y-NTS	蚁科Formicidae	0.83	0.005
—	鼠妇Porcellionidae	0.85	0.017
—	地蜈蚣科Geophilomorpha	0.83	0.005
—	长角跳科Entomobryidae	0.75	0.032
TC	蚁科Formicidae	0.83	0.005
CK	步甲科Carabidae	1.00	0.047

表2. 25y-NTS、21y-NTS、CT和CK中大型土壤动物指示值

图5. 0~10 cm大型土壤动物与环境因子相关关系RDA分析蚁科(Formicidae)；瓦娄蜗牛科(Valloniidae)；地蛛科(Atypidae)；颤蚓科(Tubificidae)；姬马陆科(Julidae)；鼠妇(Porcellionidae)；蜱螨(Acarina)；步甲科(Carabidae)；地蜈蚣科(Geophilomorpha)；虎甲科(Cicindelidae)；双尾虫科(Campodeidae)；盲蝽科(Miridae)；等节跳科(Isotomidae)；蕈蚊科(Mycetophilidae)；短角跳科(Neelidae)。土壤理化因子：TP，全磷；TK，全钾；TN，全氮；SM，土壤湿度；TOC，总有机碳；N，速效氮；P，速效磷；K，速效钾。下同。

图6. 10~20 cm大型土壤动物与环境因子相关关系RDA分析

参考文献 22

[1]	LAVELLE P, SPAIN A V. Soil ecology[M].Springer science & business Media, 2001.
[2]	BARDGETT R D, VAN der Putten W H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning[J]. Nature, 2014, 515(7528):505-511.
[3]	MCGEOCH M A. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators[J]. Biological reviews, 1998, 73(2):181-201.
[4]	殷秀琴, 宋博, 董炜华. 中国土壤动物生态地理研究进展[J]. 地理科学, 2010, 30(3):333-346.
[5]	WARDLE D A. Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices[J]. Advances in ecological research, 1995, 26:105-185.
[6]	VAN Capelle C, SCHRADER S, BRUNOTTE J. Tillage-induced changes in the functional diversity of soil biota: A review[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2012, 118:1-10.
[7]	TSIAFOULI M A. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe[J]. Global change biology, 2015, 21(2):973-985.
[8]	BEDANO J C, DOMÍNGUEZ A, AROLFO R. Effect of no-till on soil fauna in the Argentine Pampas[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2006, 42(1):23-29.
[9]	POSTMA-BLAAUW M B, DE Goede R G M, BLOEM J, et al. Soil biota community structure and abundance under agricultural intensification and extensification[J]. Ecology, 2010, 91(2):460-473.
[10]	BRUSSAARD L, DE Ruiter P C, BROWN G G. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2007, 121(3):233-244.
[11]	朱强根, 朱安宁, 张佳宝, 等. 保护性耕作下土壤动物群落及其与土壤肥力的关系[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(2):70-76.
[12]	宋理洪, 武海涛, 吴东辉. 我国农田生态系统土壤动物生态学研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(12):2898-2906.
[13]	辛未冬, 李红娟, 贾绍辉. 晋西南保护性耕作对土壤水分和冬小麦产量的影响[J]. 山西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 32(02):61-65.
[14]	BRIONES M J I, SCHMIDT O. Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis[J]. Global change biology, 2017, 23(10):4396-4419.
[15]	南开大学. 昆虫学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社,1984:61-321.
[16]	尹文英. 中国土壤动物检索图鉴[M]. 北京: 科学出版社,1998:38-322.
[17]	尹文英. 中国亚热带土壤动物[M]. 北京: 科学出版社,1992:18-64.
[18]	殷秀琴, 刘继亮, 高明. 小兴安岭森林生态系统中营养元素关系及土壤动物的作用[J]. 地理科学, 2007, 27(6):814-819.
[19]	LAVELLE P, DECAËNS T, AUBERT M, et al. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2006, 42:S3-S15.
[20]	DE Vries F T, THÉBAULT E, LIIRI M, et al. Soil food web properties explain ecosystem services across European land use systems[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110(35):14296-14301.
[21]	GARCÍA-PALACIOS P, MAESTRE F T, KATTGE J, et al. Climate and litter quality differently affect the fate of litter-derived carbon and nitrogen in a grassland soil[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2013, 57:438-450.
[22]	GILLER K E, BEARE M H, LAVELLE P, et al. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function[J]. Applied soil ecology, 1997, 6(1):3-16.

长期免耕覆盖对大型土壤动物群落结构与多样性的影响

Impact of Long-term No-tillage and Mulching on Community Structure and Diversity of Soil Macrofauna

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 22

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]	杨庆楠, 高士军, 张何普, 徐金忠. 秸秆覆盖对土壤水热状况的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(8): 80-85.
[2]	张丽慧, 冯丹, 白变霞, 晋婷婷, 任嘉红. 款冬根际促生细菌的筛选、鉴定及其接种效应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(34): 33-41.
[3]	许留兴, 蔡荣靖, 唐昕, 张丹, 吴冬, 龚占斌, 杨艳群, 全勇, 黄国嫣. 中国西南地区老龄苹果园土壤类型对真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(32): 85-90.
[4]	杨玉玲, 王灿, 屈用函, 茹瑞红, 孙宏伟, 李雪萍, 杨清松, 陶永宏. 文山地区三七根际真菌群落多样性及与土壤类型的关系研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(28): 94-101.
[5]	王灿, 杨玉玲, 彭翠仙, 赵大伟, 李玲, 杨清松, 孙宏伟, 屈用函, 陶永宏. 三七籽条对文山红壤土真菌群落结构的影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(24): 87-91.
[6]	杜倩, 李琳, 刘铁男, 梁素钰. 复合菌肥对盐渍土土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(2): 38-43.
[7]	武盼盼, 杨素芬, 刘书武, 王幻想, 张晓宁, 谷利敏, 刘蕊. 炭基土壤调理剂配施专用肥对玉米土壤微生物及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(26): 66-73.
[8]	陈娟, 刘周斌, 欧立军. 不同类型土壤种植辣椒前后微生物多样性比较[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(10): 84-93.
[9]	何沛,杨俊誉,苏代发,肖炜,刘志华,崔晓龙. 不同试剂盒对烟丝DNA提取及其微生物群落多样性分析效果的比较[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(21): 110-117.
[10]	张慧,廖敦秀,马连杰,余端. 果园种植三叶草对杂草群落及物种多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(32): 130-134.
[11]	朱菲莹,李基光,张屹,肖姬玲,梁志怀. 西瓜根际土壤细菌群落多样性对枯萎病发生的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(17): 69-76.
[12]	马艳芹,钱晨晨,孙丹平,黄国勤. 崇义客家梯田传统农耕知识、技术调查与研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(8): 154-160.
[13]	武盼盼. 不同施肥措施对酸性植烟土壤酶活性及微生物的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(30): 103-110.
[14]	赵霞,吴凤兰,姜鸿勋,唐保军,黄瑞冬,赵发欣,李潮海. 种肥应用对免耕精播夏玉米生理效应研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(15): 44-48.
[15]	赵霞,薛华政,唐保军,黄瑞冬,李潮海,凡军洲. 种子质量对免耕精播夏玉米生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(21): 37-42.