
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (17): 97-105.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0007
Previous Articles Next Articles
LIU Xiangting1(
), WANG Xiaoping2, HONG Ziqiang2, WANG Wenxiu1, ZHENG Guoqi1, WU Hongliang2, KANG Jianhong2, YANG Juan1(
)
Received:2026-01-19
Revised:2026-05-13
Online:2026-09-09
Published:2026-09-09
CLC Number:
LIU Xiangting, WANG Xiaoping, HONG Ziqiang, WANG Wenxiu, ZHENG Guoqi, WU Hongliang, KANG Jianhong, YANG Juan. Effects of Mulching Treatments on Rhizosphere Microbial Communities of Lycium barbarum L. and Their Key Driving Factors[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(17): 97-105.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0007
| 处理 | EC | pH | OM/(g/kg) | TP/(g/kg) | NH4+-N/(mg/kg) | NO3--N/(mg/kg) | TN/(g/kg) | AK/(mg/kg) | AP/(mg/kg) | AN/(mg/kg) | T/℃ | RH/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 0.25±0.01a | 7.04±0.03a | 6.10±0.36a | 0.65±0.01a | 4.49±0.07a | 6.02±0.02a | 0.29±0.01a | 147.73±0.34b | 21.16±0.20a | 7.19±0.26a | 18.52±0.65b | 16.83±1.26a |
| CM | 0.19±0.01b | 7.41±0.02b | 5.03±0.26b | 0.55±0.01b | 3.88±0.04b | 5.91±0.01a | 0.27±0.01b | 168.68±0.85a | 19.51±0.04ab | 7.09±0.01a | 18.80±0.82ab | 16.23±2.51ab |
| BM | 0.15±0.01c | 7.72±0.03b | 5.03±0.15b | 0.53±0.01b | 3.85±0.13b | 5.75±0.01a | 0.26±0.01c | 137.38±0.55c | 19.75±0.71b | 6.25±0.01b | 20.00±1.04a | 15.83±3.42b |
| CK | 0.13±0.01c | 7.78±0.02b | 4.95±0.24b | 0.49±0.01c | 3.14±0.07c | 5.48±0.01b | 0.25±0.01d | 129.92±0.28c | 17.66±0.15c | 5.69±0.40b | 20.20±0.82a | 13.70±0.70c |
| 处理 | EC | pH | OM/(g/kg) | TP/(g/kg) | NH4+-N/(mg/kg) | NO3--N/(mg/kg) | TN/(g/kg) | AK/(mg/kg) | AP/(mg/kg) | AN/(mg/kg) | T/℃ | RH/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 0.25±0.01a | 7.04±0.03a | 6.10±0.36a | 0.65±0.01a | 4.49±0.07a | 6.02±0.02a | 0.29±0.01a | 147.73±0.34b | 21.16±0.20a | 7.19±0.26a | 18.52±0.65b | 16.83±1.26a |
| CM | 0.19±0.01b | 7.41±0.02b | 5.03±0.26b | 0.55±0.01b | 3.88±0.04b | 5.91±0.01a | 0.27±0.01b | 168.68±0.85a | 19.51±0.04ab | 7.09±0.01a | 18.80±0.82ab | 16.23±2.51ab |
| BM | 0.15±0.01c | 7.72±0.03b | 5.03±0.15b | 0.53±0.01b | 3.85±0.13b | 5.75±0.01a | 0.26±0.01c | 137.38±0.55c | 19.75±0.71b | 6.25±0.01b | 20.00±1.04a | 15.83±3.42b |
| CK | 0.13±0.01c | 7.78±0.02b | 4.95±0.24b | 0.49±0.01c | 3.14±0.07c | 5.48±0.01b | 0.25±0.01d | 129.92±0.28c | 17.66±0.15c | 5.69±0.40b | 20.20±0.82a | 13.70±0.70c |
| 处理 | Ure | Suc | Pho | CAT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 2.29±0.33a | 1.84±0.11a | 12.06±0.11a | 2.03±0.06a |
| CM | 1.79±0.12ab | 1.46±0.03b | 9.62±0.13b | 1.70±0.10ab |
| BM | 1.63±0.29b | 1.21±0.03c | 7.92±0.15c | 1.47±0.12b |
| CK | 1.50±0.14b | 1.20±0.08c | 7.75±0.01c | 1.27±0.15c |
| 处理 | Ure | Suc | Pho | CAT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 2.29±0.33a | 1.84±0.11a | 12.06±0.11a | 2.03±0.06a |
| CM | 1.79±0.12ab | 1.46±0.03b | 9.62±0.13b | 1.70±0.10ab |
| BM | 1.63±0.29b | 1.21±0.03c | 7.92±0.15c | 1.47±0.12b |
| CK | 1.50±0.14b | 1.20±0.08c | 7.75±0.01c | 1.27±0.15c |
| 处理 | MBC/(mg/kg) | MBN/(mg/kg) | MBC/MBN |
|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 69.30±1.07a | 3.63±0.06a | 19.06±0.27a |
| CM | 65.37±1.96a | 3.23±0.12b | 20.28±0.42a |
| BM | 57.12±1.26b | 2.80±0.04c | 20.38±0.72a |
| CK | 53.15±1.45b | 2.57±0.03c | 20.70±0.82a |
| 处理 | MBC/(mg/kg) | MBN/(mg/kg) | MBC/MBN |
|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 69.30±1.07a | 3.63±0.06a | 19.06±0.27a |
| CM | 65.37±1.96a | 3.23±0.12b | 20.28±0.42a |
| BM | 57.12±1.26b | 2.80±0.04c | 20.38±0.72a |
| CK | 53.15±1.45b | 2.57±0.03c | 20.70±0.82a |
| 处理 | 细菌数量/(×104 cfu/g) | 占比/% | 真菌数量/(×104 cfu/g) | 占比/% | 细菌/真菌B/F | 微生物总数/(×104 cfu/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 112.57±5.00a | 96.90 | 3.60±1.00a | 3.10 | 31.25 | 116.17 |
| CM | 91.50±3.61b | 97.65 | 2.20±2.00c | 2.35 | 41.66 | 93.70 |
| BM | 94.50±7.21b | 97.31 | 2.60±2.00b | 2.69 | 36.21 | 97.10 |
| CK | 86.01±2.00b | 98.23 | 1.55±1.00d | 1.77 | 55.52 | 87.55 |
| 处理 | 细菌数量/(×104 cfu/g) | 占比/% | 真菌数量/(×104 cfu/g) | 占比/% | 细菌/真菌B/F | 微生物总数/(×104 cfu/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 112.57±5.00a | 96.90 | 3.60±1.00a | 3.10 | 31.25 | 116.17 |
| CM | 91.50±3.61b | 97.65 | 2.20±2.00c | 2.35 | 41.66 | 93.70 |
| BM | 94.50±7.21b | 97.31 | 2.60±2.00b | 2.69 | 36.21 | 97.10 |
| CK | 86.01±2.00b | 98.23 | 1.55±1.00d | 1.77 | 55.52 | 87.55 |
| 微生物类群 | 处理 | Shannon指数 | Simpson指数 | Chao1指数 | ACE指数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 细菌 | SM | 6.62±0.04a | 0.0045±0.00a | 4405.77±159.51a | 4430.73±162.77a |
| CM | 6.79±0.10a | 0.0029±0.00a | 4371.48±265.91a | 4365.59±265.09a | |
| BM | 6.66±0.36a | 0.0045±0.00a | 4453.47±552.72a | 4452.35±618.53a | |
| CK | 6.85±0.09a | 0.0026±0.00a | 4536.25±124.20a | 4578.90±101.20a | |
| 真菌 | SM | 4.601±0.04a | 0.053±0.00c | 562.90±0.42a | 756.21±0.14a |
| CM | 4.055±0.04b | 0.073±0.01b | 493.87±0.15b | 697.81±0.23ab | |
| BM | 3.963±0.03b | 0.084±0.00b | 475.65±0.22c | 661.14±0.02bc | |
| CK | 3.685±0.01c | 0.101±0.01a | 426.32±0.06d | 631.21±0.03c |
| 微生物类群 | 处理 | Shannon指数 | Simpson指数 | Chao1指数 | ACE指数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 细菌 | SM | 6.62±0.04a | 0.0045±0.00a | 4405.77±159.51a | 4430.73±162.77a |
| CM | 6.79±0.10a | 0.0029±0.00a | 4371.48±265.91a | 4365.59±265.09a | |
| BM | 6.66±0.36a | 0.0045±0.00a | 4453.47±552.72a | 4452.35±618.53a | |
| CK | 6.85±0.09a | 0.0026±0.00a | 4536.25±124.20a | 4578.90±101.20a | |
| 真菌 | SM | 4.601±0.04a | 0.053±0.00c | 562.90±0.42a | 756.21±0.14a |
| CM | 4.055±0.04b | 0.073±0.01b | 493.87±0.15b | 697.81±0.23ab | |
| BM | 3.963±0.03b | 0.084±0.00b | 475.65±0.22c | 661.14±0.02bc | |
| CK | 3.685±0.01c | 0.101±0.01a | 426.32±0.06d | 631.21±0.03c |
| 微生物类群 | 处理 | 门 | 纲 | 目 | 科 | 属 | 种 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 细菌 | SM | 42 | 136 | 326 | 501 | 870 | 1692 |
| BM | 42 | 136 | 331 | 512 | 902 | 1720 | |
| CM | 39 | 139 | 323 | 400 | 888 | 1703 | |
| CK | 41 | 134 | 327 | 499 | 887 | 1735 | |
| 真菌 | SM | 10 | 26 | 47 | 89 | 154 | 224 |
| BM | 11 | 31 | 53 | 96 | 161 | 239 | |
| CM | 11 | 30 | 53 | 105 | 198 | 291 | |
| CK | 11 | 31 | 56 | 112 | 187 | 275 |
| 微生物类群 | 处理 | 门 | 纲 | 目 | 科 | 属 | 种 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 细菌 | SM | 42 | 136 | 326 | 501 | 870 | 1692 |
| BM | 42 | 136 | 331 | 512 | 902 | 1720 | |
| CM | 39 | 139 | 323 | 400 | 888 | 1703 | |
| CK | 41 | 134 | 327 | 499 | 887 | 1735 | |
| 真菌 | SM | 10 | 26 | 47 | 89 | 154 | 224 |
| BM | 11 | 31 | 53 | 96 | 161 | 239 | |
| CM | 11 | 30 | 53 | 105 | 198 | 291 | |
| CK | 11 | 31 | 56 | 112 | 187 | 275 |
| [1] |
汪华, 苏明, 洪自强, 等. 雾化调控对宁夏枸杞叶片生理特性及产量与品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(25):31-39.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0207 |
| [2] |
苏明, 刘萍涛, 洪自强, 等. 盐碱地有机肥与微生物菌肥复配施用对有机枸杞叶片生理特性及产量、品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(19):87-94.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0081 |
| [3] |
李凤霞, 谭松伟, 倪翠襄. 宁夏典型土壤枸杞根际微生物数量分布特征[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2019, 60(3):26-30.
|
| [4] |
朱启敏. 宁夏地区欧丁香耐盐碱栽培技术[J]. 现代园艺, 2025, 48(18):47-48,51.
|
| [5] |
魏娇娇, 马宏财, 王灵娟, 等. 宁杞10号枸杞抗氧化酶活性、产量与品质对氮肥水平的响应[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2025, 60(5):142-150.
|
| [6] |
胥生荣, 张恩和, 马瑞丽, 等. 不同种植年限对枸杞根系及土壤环境的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(11):1725-1732.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.01725 |
| [7] |
达世彩. 不同覆盖材料保温保墒效果及其对枸杞产量的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(2):33-34,38.
|
| [8] |
胥生荣, 张恩和, 马瑞丽, 等. 不同覆盖措施对枸杞根系生长和土壤环境的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(12):1802-1810.
|
| [9] |
张佳佳, 肖文发, 雷蕾, 等. 柑橘园覆盖光叶苕子促进土壤颗粒有机碳净积累[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(2):74-84.
|
| [10] |
彭鵾, 靳红梅, 孙恩惠, 等. 秸秆纤维毯覆盖对葡萄园土壤理化性质、杂草防控及果实品质的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2025, 42(2):430-438.
|
| [11] |
曹刚, 毕淑海, 赵明新, 等. 干旱区梨园不同覆盖条件下土壤环境因子综合性评价研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(3):890-900.
doi: 10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2021.402 |
| [12] |
李保成, 白梓辰, 秦书勉, 等. 不同类型降解膜覆盖对玉米干物质积累、分配和转运及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2026, 31(1):21-34.
|
| [13] |
范瑾, 王宏, 孙霄, 等. 不同生草覆盖对‘马瑟兰’葡萄园土壤营养成分和微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2025, 30(8):25-37.
|
| [14] |
徐影, 刘晓冰, 李彦生, 等. 利用化学和酶计量学揭示长期施肥对黑土微生物养分限制状况的影响[J/OL]. 中国生态农业学报: 中英文,2025:1-11.
|
| [15] |
冯瑞芳, 刘育伟, 郭可馨, 等. 土壤节肢动物对箭竹凋落叶分解过程中酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(3):775-785.
|
| [16] |
杨悦, 顾广军, 于文全, 等. 基于高通量测序技术的寒地苹果根际土壤微生物群落组成及功能预测[J]. 经济林研究, 2025, 43(2):31-42.
|
| [17] |
张凯, 李茜, 李佳君, 等. 退化高寒草地养分失衡过程中土壤微生物量的变化[J/OL]. 生态环境学报,2026:1-11.
|
| [18] |
王天鹤, 王禹, 杨洌, 等. 不同肥料对苹果品质、产量和土壤质量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(12):168-176.
|
| [19] |
胥生荣, 张恩和, 马瑞丽, 等. 覆盖对枸杞根系土壤环境和水分利用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2):12-22.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018162 |
| [20] |
张露荷, 管利兵, 黄华梨, 等. 不同覆盖方式对土壤温湿度及枣树生理的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2018, 27(10):1454-1460.
|
| [21] |
刘少东, 汪春, 姜薇, 等. 松嫩平原盐碱地秸秆腐解规律试验研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2018(11):20-25.
|
| [22] |
杨楠, 逄蕾, 王明, 等. 不同覆盖措施对陇中旱作梯田土壤生态系统多功能性及春小麦产量的影响[J/OL]. 麦类作物学报,2025:1-8.
|
| [23] |
尹志荣, 柯英, 桂林国, 等. 覆沙对盐碱地土壤水盐运移及枸杞生长和产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2021, 30(9):1382-1393.
|
| [24] |
王佳璇, 杨庆利, 李鹏, 等. 不同秸秆覆盖量对黄土高原苹果园土壤有机碳的影响[J/OL]. 果树学报,2025:1-14.
|
| [25] |
杜雷, 陈钢, 王素萍, 等. 解磷菌剂对生菜根际土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2019, 58(11):70-74.
|
| [26] |
朱为静, 吴佳, 洪春来, 等. 秸秆覆盖对土壤水热肥及蟠桃产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9):1924-1932.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20240689 |
| [27] |
曹红妹, 胡桂萍, 熊江花, 等. 梨园秸秆腐解特点及不同秸秆覆盖量对土壤酶活的影响研究[J]. 土壤与作物, 2025, 14(1):44-52.
|
| [28] |
王修洁, 李哲, 李长江, 等. 腐熟菌剂促进矿区复垦土壤秸秆降解与功能提升[J/OL]. 农业环境科学学报,2025:1-18.
|
| [29] |
刘骁蒨, 涂仕华, 孙锡发, 等. 秸秆还田与施肥对稻田土壤微生物生物量及固氮菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(17):5210-5218.
|
| [30] |
高志远, 袁鸣, 姚槐应, 等. 极端干旱对土壤微生物群落和功能的影响研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(13):35-45.
|
| [31] |
郑文魁, 卢永健, 邓晓阳, 等. 控释氮肥对秸秆腐解及潮土有机碳组分的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5):292-298.
|
| [32] |
王译庆, 袁朝祥, 岳楷, 等. 植被恢复对矿区土壤微生物群落结构影响的整合分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(4):1141-1149.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202404.030 |
| [33] |
刘刚, 佟万红, 杜周和. 秸秆覆盖对桑园土壤微生物年变化的影响[J]. 蚕业科学, 2003(2):185-188.
|
| [34] |
顾爱星, 张艳, 石书兵, 等. 秸秆覆盖法对土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2005(4):64-68.
|
| [35] |
周登博, 井涛, 起登凤, 等. 抗香蕉枯萎病菌的卢娜林瑞链霉菌的分离及防效鉴定[J]. 园艺学报, 2017, 44(4):664-674.
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0598 |
| [36] |
王琦, 王媛媛, 李阳, 等. 有机肥和秸秆覆盖对黄土高原区山地果园土壤微生物群落结构及功能的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2025, 31(6):963-974.
|
| [37] |
马红叶, 黄伟, 杨仕品, 等. 生草和地布覆盖对猕猴桃果园土壤微生物和养分特征的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(12):250-260.
|
| [38] |
徐莹莹, 王宇先, 杨慧莹, 等. 长期保护性耕作对玉米生育期土壤真菌群落的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2025, 33(7):78-87,98.
|
| [39] |
王玉龙, 曾豫, 涂炜, 等. 不同作物秸秆还田腐解对土壤养分及微生物群落结构的影响[J/OL]. 中国农业科技导报: 中英文,2026:1-10.
|
| [1] | HUANG Yingmei, WU Jialong, LIANG Yongxin, LIANG Chunmei, ZHANG Juntao. Effects of Different Fish Protein Fertilizers on Growth of Bougainvillea and Soil Nutrients [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 48-58. |
| [2] | LUO Guohui, YU Shikang, ZHAI Yangni, GU Huizhan, LI Fucheng, WANG Bin, WU Tao. Characteristics of Allelochemicals and Microbial Diversity in Soils with Different Types of Tobacco Continuous Cropping Obstacles [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(5): 101-108. |
| [3] | CHEN Baozhu, HUANG Jichuan, Xu Yanggui, PENG Yiping, Li Zhuxian, LIANG Jianyi, ZHONG Wenliang, YAN Yuwei, TU Yuting. Effects of Different Crop Rotation Patterns on Soil Microbial Ecology in Late Flowering Cabbage Cultivation [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(2): 93-102. |
| [4] | GAO Weiya, CHEN Xingbao, SA Rula, TAI Jicheng, ZHANG Yanting, WANG Huimiao. Effects of Different Land Use Types on Soil Properties in Horqin Sandy Land [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(13): 135-142. |
| [5] | MENG Jiaxu, XIE Qigan, LI Ruochen, XIAO Wendan, YE Xuezhu. Effect of Different Organic Fertilizers on Growth, Quality and Soil Properties of Ginger [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(10): 41-51. |
| [6] | SUN Guangtao, BAO Guirong, TAI Jicheng, SA Rula, LIU Naijia, YU Miao, LI Anning. Effect of Maize and Peanut Intercropping on Crop and Soil Characteristics [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(5): 7-12. |
| [7] | BAN Caixin, SA Rula, TAI Jicheng, ZHAO Tingchao, LI Anning, WU Chengcheng, ARUNTUYA. Effect of Kitchen Waste Compost on Soil Enzyme Activity and Physiological Characteristics of Maize and Peanut Interplanting [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(33): 74-80. |
| [8] | MENG Lifang, ZHAO Wangli, JIN Min, MAO Guilian. Study on Endodermis Development and Apoplast Barrier in Roots of Lycium barbarum L. [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(30): 70-78. |
| [9] | LIU Naijia, SA Rula, YANG Hengshan, TAI Jicheng, WU Yunlong. Effect of Application Periods of Straw Composting Agent on Soil Fertility and Soil Enzyme Activity [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(27): 79-84. |
| [10] | 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. |
| [11] | MA Xiaoying, MAN Benju, LI Tao, LIU Weifan, MA Fenglan, WAN Menghu, LIU Jili, WU Na. Effects of Potato/Legume Intercropping System on Soil Enzyme Activity and Potato Yield in Arid Region of Southern Ningxia [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(14): 13-24. |
| [12] | QIN Xinke, LI Qi, LI Yuhang, ZHANG Huiyuan, HE Changlong, HUANG Xinrui, ZHANG Weizhen, LEI Ningfei, PEI Xiangjun. Impact of “Moss-Algae-SJP” on Restoration of Biological Soil Crusts in Sandy Land [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(11): 64-73. |
| [13] | ZHAN Wenjie, ZHOU Ben, ZHU Linxing, WANG Min, ZHU Changtai, SHEN Qirong, GUO Shiwei. Effects of Trichoderma Bio-organic Fertilizer on Salinized Soil Fertility and Yield and Quality of Hang Cabbage [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(7): 108-117. |
| [14] | MA Xiao, LV Weiguang, CAI Wenqian, YU Ting, ZHANG Yue, ZHANG Haiyun, TANG Yonghua, DONG Yuexia, ZHANG Hanlin. Effects of Different Winter Green Manure Crops on Paddy Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activity and Microbial Communities [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(26): 46-52. |
| [15] | GUO Juncheng, WANG Mingguo, GENG Rong, WANG Yanqi, YIN Xuehong, WANG Xumin, ZHU Zhiming, LI Zhen. Effect of Straw Returning and Organic Fertilizer Measures on Remediation of Soil in Ningxia Saline-alkali Land [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(24): 73-78. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||