长期施肥对土壤微生物量及土壤酶活性的影响

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020

植物生态学报 ›› 2008, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (1): 176-182.DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020 cstr: 32100.14.j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020

长期施肥对土壤微生物量及土壤酶活性的影响

刘恩科¹^,³, 赵秉强¹^,³^,^*(), 李秀英¹, 姜瑞波¹, 李燕婷¹, Hwat Bing So²

1 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所, 北京 100081
2 昆士兰大学土地和食品科学学院, 布里斯班 4072, 澳大利亚
3 中国农业科学院农业环境与可持续发展研究所, 北京 100081

收稿日期:2006-10-12 接受日期:2007-10-09 出版日期:2008-10-12 发布日期:2008-01-30
作者简介:* E-mail: bqzhao@sohu.com
第一联系人：
本文在农业部植物营养与养分循环重点实验室完成
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(30471012);国家基础研究重大项目前期研究专项(2001CCB00800);国家基础研究重大项目前期研究专项(2003 CCB00300);中国农业科学院杰出人才基金项目

BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ENZYMATIC ACTIVITY OF ARABLE SOILS AFFECTED BY LONG-TERM DIFFERENT FERTILIZATION SYSTEMS

LIU En-Ke¹^,³, ZHAO Bing-Qiang¹^,³^,^*(), LI Xiu-Ying¹, JIANG Rui-Bo¹, LI Yan-Ting¹, HWAT Bing So²

¹Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
²School of Land and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
³Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China

Received:2006-10-12 Accepted:2007-10-09 Online:2008-10-12 Published:2008-01-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

该文以北京国家褐潮土土壤肥力与肥料效益长期监测基地的长期肥料定位试验为平台,研究了长期不同施肥制度对土壤的生物学特性及其土壤酶的影响。主要研究结果:长期撂荒土壤(15年)的有机质和全氮(TN)的含量、微生物量碳(SMB-C)和氮(SMB-N)、土壤的蔗糖酶、磷酸酶和脲酶活性以及SMB-C/SOC(土壤有机碳)和SMB-N/TN比值都高于种植作物的农田土壤;而其代谢商和容重值低于农田土壤。长期施肥的农田(NPK、NPKM、NPKS和NPKF),其土壤养分含量、微生物量碳和氮以及土壤蔗糖酶、磷酸酶和脲酶活性均高于不施肥的农田(CK);而小麦(Triticum aestivum)-玉米(Zea mays)→小麦-大豆(Glycine max)复种轮作(NPKF)的农田又高于长期复种连作(NPK)的农田;在施肥处理中(NPK、NPKM、NPKS和NPKF),长期化肥与有机肥配合施用的处理(NPKM)的土壤上述指标高于其它施肥处理(NPK、NPKS和NPKF),但其土壤的代谢商、pH值和容重值较低。

关键词: 长期肥料试验, 施肥制度, 土壤微生物量, qCO₂, 土壤酶活性

Abstract:

Aims Cropping practices and fertilizer/organic matter application affects the soil microbial growth and activity. In china, only few studies have been conducted on the influence of long-term fertilizer and organic matter with fertilizer application on the soil biological properties. Our objective was to study the changes in soil biological and biochemical characteristics under a long-term (15 years) field experiment involving fertility treatments (inorganic fertilizers and organic matter with fertilizers) and two crop rotation systems.
Methods In 1990, thirteen different treatments were established in the Drab Fluvo-aquic soil in Beijing for the long-term experiment. Six treatments were chosen in this study. Four were in a wheat-maize rotation receiving no fertilizer (CK), mineral fertilizers (NPK), mineral fertilizers plus farmyard manure (NPKM) and mineral fertilizers with maize straw incorporated (NPKS). One was in a wheat-maize/wheat-soybean rotation receiving NPK (NPKF). The other was abandoned arable land (CK0) growing weeds. The amount of chemical fertilizer per year was N 150 kg·hm^-2, P₂O₅ 75 kg·hm^-2, K₂O 45 kg·hm^-2, manure 22.5 Mg·hm^-2 and maize straw 2.25 Mg·hm^-2. Established methods were used to analyze soil enzymes and soil physical and chemical characteristics. Analysis was done using an integrative method combining correlation and component analyses in SPSS.
Important findings The soil organic C (SOC) and total N (STN) content, microbial biomass C (SMB-C) & N (SMB-N), activities of soil invertase, phosphatase and urease, and the ratio of SMB-C/SOC and SMB-N/STN were found higher in long-term (15 years) abandoned arable land than those in cultivated arable land soils. However, the soil metabolic quotient, pH value and bulk density of fallow soil were lower than those in cultivated arable land soils. The soil nutrient concentration, microbial biomass C & N, activities of soil invertase, phosphatase and urease, were higher in treatments with fertilizer application (NPK, NPKM, NPKS and NPKF) compared to no fertilizer application treatment (CK). The above soil parameters were also found higher in wheat-maize/wheat-soybean rotation cropping system compared to continuous wheat-maize cropping system. Among the fertilizer application treatments (NPK, NPKM, NPKS and NPKF), NPKM had relative higher soil nutrient concentration, microbial biomass C & N, and enzyme activities compared to other fertilizer application treatments. However, the soil metabolic quotient, pH value and bulk density of NPKM were lower than them.

Key words: long-term fertilization experiment, fertilization systems, soil microbial biomass, qCO₂, soil enzyme activity

刘恩科, 赵秉强, 李秀英, 姜瑞波, 李燕婷, Hwat Bing So. 长期施肥对土壤微生物量及土壤酶活性的影响. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(1): 176-182. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020

LIU En-Ke, ZHAO Bing-Qiang, LI Xiu-Ying, JIANG Rui-Bo, LI Yan-Ting, HWAT Bing So. BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ENZYMATIC ACTIVITY OF ARABLE SOILS AFFECTED BY LONG-TERM DIFFERENT FERTILIZATION SYSTEMS. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2008, 32(1): 176-182. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2008.01.020

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2008/V32/I1/176

图/表 4

表1 不同施肥制度对土壤基本理化性质的影响

Table 1 Effects of long-term different fertilization systems on soil physic-chemical properties (0-20 cm)

处理 Treatments	有机质 Organic matter (g·kg^-1)	全氮 Total N (g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total P (g·kg^-1)	速效磷 Avaiable P (mg·kg^-1)	pH (H₂O)	容重 Bulk density (g·cm^-3)
CK	10.36^c	0.59^d	0.56^d	2.21^d	8.48^a	1.341^a
NPK	12.55^b	0.69^cd	0.72^bc	14.88^c	8.30^b	1.334^a
NPKM	16.79^a	1.13^a	1.54^a	139.14^a	8.21^b	1.312^a
NPKS	13.70^b	0.80^bc	0.76^b	18.89^b	8.24^b	1.328^a
NPKF	14.11^b	0.85^b	0.75^b	18.97^b	8.22^b	1.326^a
CK0	18.92^a	1.17^a	0.61^cd	2.58^d	8.29^b	1.118^b

表2 不同施肥制度对土壤微生物量碳氮含量的影响

Table 2 The effect of long-term different fertilization systems on soil microbial biomass C and N of soil (0-20 cm)

处理Treatments	SMB-C(mg·kg^-1)	SMB-N(mg·kg^-1)	SMB-C/SOC(%)	SMB-N/TN(%)	土壤微生物碳氮比 SMB-C/SMB-N
CK	133.28^d	16.97^e	2.22^c	2.86^d	7.86^a
NPK	167.94^cd	32.53^d	2.31^b	4.73^c	5.16^b
NPKM	226.95^b	59.53^b	2.33^b	5.28^b	3.81^d
NPKS	181.82^c	39.09^cd	2.29^bc	4.91^c	4.65^c
NPKF	194.02^c	43.96^c	2.37^b	5.16^b	4.41^c
CK0	282.57^a	70.17^a	2.58^a	5.98^a	4.03^cd

图1 不同施肥制度对土壤基础呼吸和代谢商的影响各个处理见表1 相同字母表示处理间差异不显著

Fig.1 Effects of long-term different fertilization systems on basal respiration and the metabolic quotient in the 0-20 cm soil layer Treatments see Fig. 1 Means associated with the same letter are not significantly different (p≤0.05)

图2 不同施肥制度对土壤酶活性的影响图注见图1

Fig.2 Changes in soil enzymatic activities in long-term different fertilization systems Notes see Fig. 1

参考文献 26

[1]	Bao SD (鲍士旦) (2000). Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis (土壤农化分析). China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[2]	Belay A, Claassens AS, Wehner FC (2002). Effect of direct nitrogen and potassium and residual phosphorus fertilizers on soil chemical properties, microbial components and maize yield under long-term crop rotation. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35, 420-427.
[3]	de la Paz Jimenez M, de la Horra A, Pruzzo L, Palma RM (2002). Soil quality: a new index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35, 302-306.
[4]	Dilly O, Munch JC (1996). Microbial biomass content, basal respiration and enzyme activities during the course of decomposition of leaf litter in a black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn) forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 28, 1073-1081.
[5]	Dilly O, Munch JC (1998). Ratios between estimates of microbial biomass content and microbialactivity in soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 27, 374-379.
[6]	Doran JW, Sarrantonio M, Liebig MA (1996). Soil health and sustainability. Advances in Agronomy, 56, 1-54.
[7]	Fu L, Cheng WX, Susfalk R (2002). Rhizospere respiration varies with plant species and phenology: a greenhouse pot experiment. Plant and Soil, 239, 133-140.
[8]	Goyal S, Chander K, Mundra MC, Kapoor KK (1999). Influence of inorganic fertilizers and organic amendments on soil organic matter and soil microbial properties under tropical conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 29, 196-200.
[9]	Guan SY (关松荫) (1986). Soil Enzyme and Study Method (土壤酶及其研究法). China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[10]	Joergensen RG, Mueller T (1996). The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: calibration of the k_EC value. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 28, 3-37.
[11]	Kanchikerimath M, Singh D (2001). Soil organic matter and biological properties after 26 years of maize-wheat-cowpea cropping as affected by manure and fertilization in a Cambisol in semiarid region of India. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 86, 155-162.
[12]	Kautz T, Wirth S, Ellmer F (2004). Microbial activity in a sandy arable soil is governed by the fertilization regime. European Journal of Soil Biology, 40, 87-94.
[13]	Lovell RD, Jarvis SC, Bardgett RD (1995). Soil microbial biomass and activity in long-term grassland: effects of management changes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 27, 969-975.
[14]	Lu RK (鲁如坤) (2000). Analysis Methods of Soil Agro-Chemistry (土壤农业化学分析方法). China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[15]	Masto RE, Chhonkar PK, Singh D, Patra AK (2006). Changes in soil biological and biochemical characteristics in a long-term field trial on a sub-tropical inceptisol. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38, 1577-1582.
[16]	Mersi W, Schinner F (1991). An improved and accurate method for determining the dehydrogenase activity of soils with iodonitrotetrazolium chloride. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 11, 216-220.
[17]	Neilson JW, Pepper IL (1990). Soil respiration as an index of soil aeration. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 54, 428-432.
[18]	Odum E (1985). Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. Biology Science, 35, 419-422.
[19]	Plaza C, Hernández D, García-Gil JC, Polo A (2004). Microbial activity in pig slurry-amended soils under semiarid conditions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36, 1577-1585.
[20]	Saggar S, Yeates GW, Shepherd TG (2001). Cultivation effects on soil biological properties, microfauna and organic matter dynamics in Eutric Gleysol and Gleyic Luvisol soils in New Zealand. Soil and Tillage Research, 58, 55-68.
[21]	Sall SN, Masse D, Ndour NYB, Chotte JL (2006). Does cropping modify the decomposition function and the diversity of the soil microbial community of tropical fallow soil? Applied Soil Ecology, 31, 211-219.
[22]	Sparling GP (1992). Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic matter. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 30, 195-207.
[23]	Sparling GP (1997). Soil microbial biomass, activity and nutrient cycling as indicators of soil health. In: Pankhurst C, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR eds. Biological Indicators of Soil Health. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 97-120.
[24]	Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987). An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 19, 703-707.
[25]	Visser S, Parkinson D (1992). Soil biological criteria as indicators of soil quality: soil microorganisms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7, 33-37.
[26]	Xu YC (徐阳春), Shen QR (沈其荣), Ran W (冉伟) (2002). Effects of zero-tillage and application of manure on soil microbial biomass C, N and P after sixteen years of cropping. Acta Pedologica Sinica (土壤学报), 39, 89-96. (in Chinaese with English abstract)

长期施肥对土壤微生物量及土壤酶活性的影响

BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ENZYMATIC ACTIVITY OF ARABLE SOILS AFFECTED BY LONG-TERM DIFFERENT FERTILIZATION SYSTEMS

全文

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	秦斐斐, 唐朝辉, 司彤, 慈敦伟. 盐碱耐受型和敏感型花生生长发育及根际土壤特性对丛枝菌根真菌的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2026, 50(3): 742-759.
[2]	徐源, 谭卓然, 殷缘, 化佳敏, 韩迎新, 蔺吉祥, 王傲, 王竞红. 入侵植物对土壤特性影响的研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(11): 1767-1777.
[3]	李天琦, 曹继容, 柳小妮, 田思惠, 兰波兰, 邱颖, 薛建国, 张倩, 褚建民, 张淑敏, 黄建辉, 李凌浩, 王其兵. 内蒙古典型草原土壤酶化学计量与限制性养分对放牧的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(1): 19-29.
[4]	刘瑶, 钟全林, 徐朝斌, 程栋梁, 郑跃芳, 邹宇星, 张雪, 郑新杰, 周云若. 不同大小刨花楠细根功能性状与根际微环境关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(6): 744-759.
[5]	吴君梅, 曾泉鑫, 梅孔灿, 林惠瑛, 谢欢, 刘苑苑, 徐建国, 陈岳民. 土壤磷有效性调控亚热带森林土壤酶活性和酶化学计量对凋落叶输入的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(2): 242-253.
[6]	汪子微, 万松泽, 蒋洪毛, 胡扬, 马书琴, 陈有超, 鲁旭阳. 青藏高原不同高寒草地类型土壤酶活性及其影响因子[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(5): 528-538.
[7]	解梦怡, 冯秀秀, 马寰菲, 胡汗, 王洁莹, 郭垚鑫, 任成杰, 王俊, 赵发珠. 秦岭锐齿栎林土壤酶活性与化学计量比变化特征及其影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(8): 885-894.
[8]	邹瓒, 陈劲松, 李洋, 宋会兴. 光合产物传输方向对蓉城竹根际微生物过程的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(8): 863-872.
[9]	魏翠翠, 刘小飞, 林成芳, 李先锋, 李艳, 郑裕雄. 凋落物输入改变对亚热带两种米槠次生林土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(6): 692-702.
[10]	王祥, 朱亚琼, 郑伟, 关正翾, 盛建东. 昭苏山地草甸4种典型土地利用方式下的土壤呼吸特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(3): 382-396.
[11]	卢玉鹏, 许纪元, 张晓曦, 王博雅, 谢博, 刘增文. 林下药用植物淋出物对红桦和杜仲枯落物分解及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(6): 639-649.
[12]	刘成刚, 薛建辉. 喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(10): 1050-1060.
[13]	袁丽环, 闫桂琴. 丛枝菌根化翅果油树幼苗根际土壤微环境[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(6): 678-686.
[14]	蒋智林, 刘万学, 万方浩, 李正跃. 紫茎泽兰与非洲狗尾草单、混种群落土壤酶活性和土壤养分的比较[J]. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(4): 900-907.
[15]	吴建国, 艾丽. 祁连山3种典型生态系统土壤微生物活性和生物量碳氮含量[J]. 植物生态学报, 2008, 32(2): 465-476.