植物生态学报 ›› 2011, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (12): 1236-1244.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01236
收稿日期:
2011-06-29
接受日期:
2011-10-09
出版日期:
2011-06-29
发布日期:
2011-12-15
作者简介:
*E-mail:guilingzhang2003@126.com
Received:
2011-06-29
Accepted:
2011-10-09
Online:
2011-06-29
Published:
2011-12-15
摘要:
以秸秆(覆盖重量分别为小麦(Triticum aestivum)秸3.25 kg·m-2、玉米(Zea mays)秸1.97 kg·m-2、禾本科杂草3.67 kg·m-2)和生草(白三叶草(Trifolium repens)、高羊茅(Festuca arundincea)和紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa), 播种量均为50 kg·hm-2)为覆盖材料, 以不覆盖为对照, 研究了不同覆盖材料对桃园土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响, 及其与土壤养分的关系。结果表明, 与对照相比, 除覆盖生草根际和非根际土壤全磷和速效磷含量差异均不显著外, 其他处理根际和非根际土壤碱解氮、速效钾、全氮、全钾和有机质含量差异均达到显著水平; 所有处理根际和非根际土壤氨化细菌、真菌和放线菌数量、土壤含水率和pH值、土壤脲酶和磷酸酶活性差异均达到显著水平。白三叶草处理的根际和非根际土壤碱解氮、速效钾、全氮、全钾、有机质含量, 土壤氨化细菌和真菌数量, 土壤脲酶和磷酸酶活性的平均升幅均最高, 分别为99%、270%、267%、117%、272%、158%、141%、156%和64%。氨化细菌、真菌、放线菌、脲酶和磷酸酶分别与土壤碱解氮、速效钾(放线菌和磷酸酶除外)、全氮、全钾和有机质呈显著或极显著的正相关。通径分析表明, 在3种土壤微生物和2种酶对养分含量的影响中, 脲酶是影响土壤碱解氮、速效钾、全氮、全钾和有机质的主要因子。
张桂玲. 秸秆和生草覆盖对桃园土壤养分含量、微生物数量及土壤酶活性的影响. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(12): 1236-1244. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01236
ZHANG Gui-Ling. Effects of straw and living grass mulching on soil nutrients, soil microbial quantities and soil enzyme activities in a peach orchard. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2011, 35(12): 1236-1244. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01236
处理 Treatment | 含水率 Moisture content (%) | pH | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | ||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 30.21 ± 2.49 b | 27.27 ± 2.36 b | 5.90 ± 0.20 b | 5.78 ± 0.27 b | |
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 28.90 ± 2.38 b | 26.90 ± 2.09 b | 5.92 ± 0.25 b | 5.75 ± 0.19 b | |
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 27.65 ± 2.19 b | 25.87 ± 2.18 b | 5.61 ± 0.19 b | 5.65 ± 0.20 b | |
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 37.15 ± 2.45 a | 32.55 ± 2.75 a | 6.31 ± 0.30 a | 6.25 ± 0.24 a | |
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 35.74 ± 2.87 a | 31.39 ± 2.52 a | 6.24 ± 0.25 a | 6.14 ± 0.22 a | |
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 35.28 ± 3.12 a | 27.89 ± 3.51 a | 6.35 ± 0.23 a | 6.27 ± 0.22 a | |
对照 Control | 15.23 ± 2.91 c | 13.14 ± 2.91 c | 5.60 ± 0.22 c | 5.54 ± 0.31 c |
表1 不同覆盖材料对土壤含水率和pH的影响(平均值±标准误差)
Table 1 Effects of different mulching materials on moisture content and pH of soil (mean ± SE)
处理 Treatment | 含水率 Moisture content (%) | pH | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | ||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 30.21 ± 2.49 b | 27.27 ± 2.36 b | 5.90 ± 0.20 b | 5.78 ± 0.27 b | |
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 28.90 ± 2.38 b | 26.90 ± 2.09 b | 5.92 ± 0.25 b | 5.75 ± 0.19 b | |
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 27.65 ± 2.19 b | 25.87 ± 2.18 b | 5.61 ± 0.19 b | 5.65 ± 0.20 b | |
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 37.15 ± 2.45 a | 32.55 ± 2.75 a | 6.31 ± 0.30 a | 6.25 ± 0.24 a | |
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 35.74 ± 2.87 a | 31.39 ± 2.52 a | 6.24 ± 0.25 a | 6.14 ± 0.22 a | |
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 35.28 ± 3.12 a | 27.89 ± 3.51 a | 6.35 ± 0.23 a | 6.27 ± 0.22 a | |
对照 Control | 15.23 ± 2.91 c | 13.14 ± 2.91 c | 5.60 ± 0.22 c | 5.54 ± 0.31 c |
处理 Treatment | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | 速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | |||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 152.10 ± 9.05 a | 139.55 ± 9.56 a | 5.48 ± 0.24 c | 4.57 ± 0.22 c | 201.36 ± 11.85 a | 174.02 ± 13.01 a | ||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 123.46 ± 8.60 b | 119.25 ± 8.55 b | 5.50 ± 0.31 c | 4.69 ± 0.29 c | 105.22 ± 9.96 b | 86.22 ± 7.54 c | ||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 75.56 ± 6.70 d | 70.20 ± 6.50 d | 5.30 ± 0.36 c | 4.75 ± 0.41 c | 190.05 ± 11.94 a | 144.11 ± 5.39 b | ||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 96.02 ± 8.55 c | 91.60 ± 8.00 c | 7.29 ± 0.40 b | 6.64 ± 0.37 b | 89.93 ± 5.98 b | 62.29 ± 4.07 d | ||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 95.77 ± 8.46 c | 91.35 ± 8.54 c | 7.06 ± 0.46 b | 6.65 ± 0.43 b | 88.79 ± 4.94 b | 60.04 ± 5.00 d | ||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 95.69 ± 9.90 c | 90.05 ± 9.86 c | 9.22 ± 0.56 a | 8.38 ± 0.54 a | 86.71 ± 4.10 b | 61.27 ± 4.97 d | ||
对照 Control | 74.18 ± 6.90 d | 72.75 ± 6.35 d | 5.07 ± 0.32 c | 4.50 ± 0.47 c | 54.28 ± 5.04 c | 47.22 ± 3.68 e |
表2 不同覆盖材料对土壤速效养分含量的影响(平均值±标准误差)
Table 2 Effects of different mulching materials on soil available nutrient contents (mean ± SE)
处理 Treatment | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | 速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | |||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 152.10 ± 9.05 a | 139.55 ± 9.56 a | 5.48 ± 0.24 c | 4.57 ± 0.22 c | 201.36 ± 11.85 a | 174.02 ± 13.01 a | ||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 123.46 ± 8.60 b | 119.25 ± 8.55 b | 5.50 ± 0.31 c | 4.69 ± 0.29 c | 105.22 ± 9.96 b | 86.22 ± 7.54 c | ||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 75.56 ± 6.70 d | 70.20 ± 6.50 d | 5.30 ± 0.36 c | 4.75 ± 0.41 c | 190.05 ± 11.94 a | 144.11 ± 5.39 b | ||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 96.02 ± 8.55 c | 91.60 ± 8.00 c | 7.29 ± 0.40 b | 6.64 ± 0.37 b | 89.93 ± 5.98 b | 62.29 ± 4.07 d | ||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 95.77 ± 8.46 c | 91.35 ± 8.54 c | 7.06 ± 0.46 b | 6.65 ± 0.43 b | 88.79 ± 4.94 b | 60.04 ± 5.00 d | ||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 95.69 ± 9.90 c | 90.05 ± 9.86 c | 9.22 ± 0.56 a | 8.38 ± 0.54 a | 86.71 ± 4.10 b | 61.27 ± 4.97 d | ||
对照 Control | 74.18 ± 6.90 d | 72.75 ± 6.35 d | 5.07 ± 0.32 c | 4.50 ± 0.47 c | 54.28 ± 5.04 c | 47.22 ± 3.68 e |
处理 Treatment | 全N Total N (g·kg-1) | 全P Total P (g·kg-1) | 全K Total K (g·kg-1) | 有机质 Organic matter (g·kg-1) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | ||||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 1.87 ± 0.20 a | 1.62 ± 0.16 a | 0.69 ± 0.04 b | 0.58 ± 0.08 b | 12.24 ± 0.85 a | 10.28 ± 0.71 a | 53.45 ± 2.35 a | 50.09 ± 2.52 a | |||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 1.86 ± 0.16 a | 1.63 ± 0.15 a | 0.70 ± 0.04 b | 0.59 ± 0.03 b | 11.91 ± 0.96 a | 9.66 ± 0.54 a | 48.78 ± 2.60 b | 45.35 ± 1.53 b | |||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 0.78 ± 0.10 c | 0.59 ± 0.11 c | 0.65 ± 0.03 b | 0.54 ± 0.02 b | 6.93 ± 0.94 c | 4.24 ± 0.39 c | 48.56 ± 1.45 b | 46.31 ± 2.50 b | |||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 1.22 ± 0.12 b | 1.05 ± 0.16 b | 0.86 ± 0.07 a | 0.73 ± 0.07 a | 9.17 ± 0.98 b | 7.05 ± 0.67 b | 27.02 ± 1.55 c | 24.62 ± 1.81 c | |||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 1.20 ± 0.13 b | 1.02 ± 0.14 b | 0.87 ± 0.06 a | 0.72 ± 0.03 a | 9.07 ± 0.77 b | 6.92 ± 0.54 b | 25.23 ± 1.78 c | 22.53 ± 1.26 cd | |||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 1.17 ± 0.10 b | 0.98 ± 0.16 b | 0.88 ± 0.03 a | 0.74 ± 0.05 a | 9.18 ± 0.62 b | 6.88 ± 0.25 b | 24.90 ± 1.06 c | 20.97 ± 1.72 d | |||
对照 Control | 0.53 ± 0.09 c | 0.42 ± 0.15 c | 0.62 ± 0.04 b | 0.57 ± 0.07 b | 5.99 ± 0.54 c | 4.38 ± 0.68 c | 11.18 ± 1.90 d | 10.77 ± 2.34 e |
表3 不同覆盖材料对土壤全氮(N)、全磷(P)、全钾(K)和有机质含量的影响(平均值±标准误差)
Table 3 Effects of different mulching materials on the contents of total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P), total potassium (K) and organic matter of soil (mean ± SE)
处理 Treatment | 全N Total N (g·kg-1) | 全P Total P (g·kg-1) | 全K Total K (g·kg-1) | 有机质 Organic matter (g·kg-1) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non- rhizosphere | ||||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 1.87 ± 0.20 a | 1.62 ± 0.16 a | 0.69 ± 0.04 b | 0.58 ± 0.08 b | 12.24 ± 0.85 a | 10.28 ± 0.71 a | 53.45 ± 2.35 a | 50.09 ± 2.52 a | |||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 1.86 ± 0.16 a | 1.63 ± 0.15 a | 0.70 ± 0.04 b | 0.59 ± 0.03 b | 11.91 ± 0.96 a | 9.66 ± 0.54 a | 48.78 ± 2.60 b | 45.35 ± 1.53 b | |||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 0.78 ± 0.10 c | 0.59 ± 0.11 c | 0.65 ± 0.03 b | 0.54 ± 0.02 b | 6.93 ± 0.94 c | 4.24 ± 0.39 c | 48.56 ± 1.45 b | 46.31 ± 2.50 b | |||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 1.22 ± 0.12 b | 1.05 ± 0.16 b | 0.86 ± 0.07 a | 0.73 ± 0.07 a | 9.17 ± 0.98 b | 7.05 ± 0.67 b | 27.02 ± 1.55 c | 24.62 ± 1.81 c | |||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 1.20 ± 0.13 b | 1.02 ± 0.14 b | 0.87 ± 0.06 a | 0.72 ± 0.03 a | 9.07 ± 0.77 b | 6.92 ± 0.54 b | 25.23 ± 1.78 c | 22.53 ± 1.26 cd | |||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 1.17 ± 0.10 b | 0.98 ± 0.16 b | 0.88 ± 0.03 a | 0.74 ± 0.05 a | 9.18 ± 0.62 b | 6.88 ± 0.25 b | 24.90 ± 1.06 c | 20.97 ± 1.72 d | |||
对照 Control | 0.53 ± 0.09 c | 0.42 ± 0.15 c | 0.62 ± 0.04 b | 0.57 ± 0.07 b | 5.99 ± 0.54 c | 4.38 ± 0.68 c | 11.18 ± 1.90 d | 10.77 ± 2.34 e |
处理 Treatment | 氨化细菌 Ammonification bacteria (×105·g-1) | 真菌 Fungi (×104·g-1) | 放线菌 Actinomyces (×103·g-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | |||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 13.39 ± 1.23 a | 9.63 ± 0.75 a | 6.27 ± 0.32 a | 4.76 ± 0.32 a | 6.89 ± 0.36 b | 5.21 ± 0.20 b | ||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 13.78 ± 1.25 a | 10.85 ± 0.81 a | 5.99 ± 0.26 a | 4.70 ± 0.21 a | 7.77 ± 0.50 a | 6.71 ± 0.32 a | ||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 10.28 ± 0.92 b | 8.94 ± 0.62 b | 5.33 ± 0.23 b | 4.28 ± 0.17 b | 3.21 ± 0.34 d | 2.19 ± 0.16 d | ||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 8.36 ± 0.83 c | 7.14 ± 0.55 c | 3.58 ± 0.20 c | 2.28 ± 0.15 c | 4.85 ± 0.27 c | 3.65 ± 0.14 c | ||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 8.45 ± 0.85 c | 7.10 ± 0.48 c | 3.49 ± 0.19 c | 2.58 ± 0.10 c | 4.65 ± 0.21 c | 3.54 ± 0.12 c | ||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 8.38 ± 0.77 c | 7.08 ± 0.39 c | 3.37 ± 0.15 c | 2.44 ± 0.08 c | 3.20 ± 0.19 d | 2.18 ± 0.08 d | ||
对照 Control | 6.67 ± 0.43 d | 5.25 ± 0.22 d | 2.67 ± 0.12 d | 1.90 ± 0.05 d | 2.49 ± 0.13 e | 1.56 ± 0.05 e |
表4 不同覆盖材料对土壤氨化细菌、真菌和放线菌数量的影响(平均值±标准误差)
Table 4 Effects of different mulching materials on quantities of ammonification bacteria, fungi and actinomyces of soil (mean ± SE)
处理 Treatment | 氨化细菌 Ammonification bacteria (×105·g-1) | 真菌 Fungi (×104·g-1) | 放线菌 Actinomyces (×103·g-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | |||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 13.39 ± 1.23 a | 9.63 ± 0.75 a | 6.27 ± 0.32 a | 4.76 ± 0.32 a | 6.89 ± 0.36 b | 5.21 ± 0.20 b | ||
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 13.78 ± 1.25 a | 10.85 ± 0.81 a | 5.99 ± 0.26 a | 4.70 ± 0.21 a | 7.77 ± 0.50 a | 6.71 ± 0.32 a | ||
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 10.28 ± 0.92 b | 8.94 ± 0.62 b | 5.33 ± 0.23 b | 4.28 ± 0.17 b | 3.21 ± 0.34 d | 2.19 ± 0.16 d | ||
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 8.36 ± 0.83 c | 7.14 ± 0.55 c | 3.58 ± 0.20 c | 2.28 ± 0.15 c | 4.85 ± 0.27 c | 3.65 ± 0.14 c | ||
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 8.45 ± 0.85 c | 7.10 ± 0.48 c | 3.49 ± 0.19 c | 2.58 ± 0.10 c | 4.65 ± 0.21 c | 3.54 ± 0.12 c | ||
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 8.38 ± 0.77 c | 7.08 ± 0.39 c | 3.37 ± 0.15 c | 2.44 ± 0.08 c | 3.20 ± 0.19 d | 2.18 ± 0.08 d | ||
对照 Control | 6.67 ± 0.43 d | 5.25 ± 0.22 d | 2.67 ± 0.12 d | 1.90 ± 0.05 d | 2.49 ± 0.13 e | 1.56 ± 0.05 e |
处理 Treatment | 脲酶 Urease (mg·g-1·24 h-1) | 磷酸酶 Phosphatase (μg·g-1·2 h-1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | ||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 0.49 ± 0.03 a | 0.43 ± 0.04 a | 128.40 ± 4.10 a | 119.50 ± 4.50 a | |
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 0.47 ± 0.02 a | 0.40 ± 0.02 a | 117.90 ± 2.50 b | 109.90 ± 3.60 b | |
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 0.36 ± 0.02 b | 0.30 ± 0.01 b | 97.20 ± 3.00 c | 85.30 ± 3.30 c | |
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 0.37 ± 0.03 b | 0.29 ± 0.03 b | 97.60 ± 5.10 c | 84.80 ± 4.80 c | |
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 0.38 ± 0.02 b | 0.31 ± 0.02 b | 98.90 ± 4.20 c | 86.40 ± 3.70 c | |
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 0.23 ± 0.01 c | 0.20 ± 0.01 c | 98.00 ± 5.00 c | 85.90 ± 4.40 c | |
对照 Control | 0.19 ± 0.01 d | 0.17 ± 0.01 c | 77.00 ± 3.40 d | 74.40 ± 2.60 d |
表5 不同覆盖材料对土壤酶活性的影响(平均值±标准误差)
Table 5 Effects of different mulching materials on enzyme activities of soil (mean ± SE)
处理 Treatment | 脲酶 Urease (mg·g-1·24 h-1) | 磷酸酶 Phosphatase (μg·g-1·2 h-1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | 根际 Rhizosphere | 非根际 Non-rhizosphere | ||
白三叶草 Trifolium repens | 0.49 ± 0.03 a | 0.43 ± 0.04 a | 128.40 ± 4.10 a | 119.50 ± 4.50 a | |
紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa | 0.47 ± 0.02 a | 0.40 ± 0.02 a | 117.90 ± 2.50 b | 109.90 ± 3.60 b | |
高羊茅 Festuca arundincea | 0.36 ± 0.02 b | 0.30 ± 0.01 b | 97.20 ± 3.00 c | 85.30 ± 3.30 c | |
玉米秸 Corn stalks | 0.37 ± 0.03 b | 0.29 ± 0.03 b | 97.60 ± 5.10 c | 84.80 ± 4.80 c | |
小麦秸 Wheat straw | 0.38 ± 0.02 b | 0.31 ± 0.02 b | 98.90 ± 4.20 c | 86.40 ± 3.70 c | |
禾本科杂草 Gramineal weeds | 0.23 ± 0.01 c | 0.20 ± 0.01 c | 98.00 ± 5.00 c | 85.90 ± 4.40 c | |
对照 Control | 0.19 ± 0.01 d | 0.17 ± 0.01 c | 77.00 ± 3.40 d | 74.40 ± 2.60 d |
相关因子 Correlation factor | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 速效磷 Available phosphorus | 速效钾 Available potassium | 全氮 Total nitrogen | 全磷 Total phosphorus | 全钾 Total potassium | 有机质 Organic matter | 含水率 Moisture content | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
氨化细菌 Ammonification bacteria | 0.735** | -0.205 | 0.664** | 0.824** | 0.100 | 0.827** | 0.839** | 0.364 | -0.054 |
真菌 Fungi | 0.643* | -0.287 | 0.799** | 0.690** | -0.060 | 0.672* | 0.906** | 0.342 | -0.130 |
放线菌 Actinomyces | 0.851** | -0.295 | 0.461 | 0.904** | -0.010 | 0.873** | 0.728** | 0.217 | -0.093 |
脲酶 Urease | 0.878** | -0.056 | 0.594* | 0.948** | 0.259 | 0.924** | 0.772** | 0.575* | 0.201 |
磷酸酶 Phosphatase | 0.961** | -0.113 | 0.526 | 0.945** | 0.128 | 0.944** | 0.668** | 0.346 | 0.089 |
表6 土壤微生物数量、酶活性与土壤养分含量的相关系数
Table 6 Correlation coefficients among soil microbial quantity, enzyme activity and soil nutrient content
相关因子 Correlation factor | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 速效磷 Available phosphorus | 速效钾 Available potassium | 全氮 Total nitrogen | 全磷 Total phosphorus | 全钾 Total potassium | 有机质 Organic matter | 含水率 Moisture content | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
氨化细菌 Ammonification bacteria | 0.735** | -0.205 | 0.664** | 0.824** | 0.100 | 0.827** | 0.839** | 0.364 | -0.054 |
真菌 Fungi | 0.643* | -0.287 | 0.799** | 0.690** | -0.060 | 0.672* | 0.906** | 0.342 | -0.130 |
放线菌 Actinomyces | 0.851** | -0.295 | 0.461 | 0.904** | -0.010 | 0.873** | 0.728** | 0.217 | -0.093 |
脲酶 Urease | 0.878** | -0.056 | 0.594* | 0.948** | 0.259 | 0.924** | 0.772** | 0.575* | 0.201 |
磷酸酶 Phosphatase | 0.961** | -0.113 | 0.526 | 0.945** | 0.128 | 0.944** | 0.668** | 0.346 | 0.089 |
因变量 Dependent variable | 自变量 Independent variable | X1 | Χ2 | Χ3 | Χ4 | Χ5 | 决定系数 Determination coefficient R2 | 间接通径系数之和 Sum of indirect path coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | X1 | -8.314 | 4.770 | 3.534 | 68.912 | 11.476 | 69.123 | 88.692 |
X2 | -7.493 | 5.292 | 2.950 | 61.202 | 9.577 | 28.005 | 66.236 | |
X3 | -7.615 | 4.046 | 3.858 | 67.368 | 12.513 | 14.884 | 76.312 | |
X4 | -7.525 | 4.254 | 3.414 | 76.142 | 12.635 | 5 797.604 | 12.778 | |
X5 | -6.945 | 3.689 | 3.514 | 70.026 | 13.739 | 188.760 | 70.284 | |
Y2 | X1 | 12.727 | 31.480 | -30.602 | -198.413 | 23.160 | 161.977 | -174.375 |
X2 | 11.471 | 34.930 | -25.545 | -176.214 | 19.326 | 1 220.105 | -170.962 | |
X3 | 11.657 | 26.706 | -33.411 | -193.967 | 25.251 | 1 116.295 | -130.353 | |
X4 | 11.519 | 28.076 | -29.561 | -219.229 | 25.499 | 48 061.354 | 35.533 | |
X5 | 10.631 | 24.347 | -30.429 | -201.618 | 27.726 | 768.731 | -197.069 | |
Y3 | X1 | -0.094 | -0.004 | 0.109 | 3.601 | 0.042 | 0.009 | 3.748 |
X2 | -0.085 | -0.005 | 0.091 | 3.198 | 0.035 | 0.000 | 3.239 | |
X3 | -0.086 | -0.004 | 0.119 | 3.521 | 0.046 | 0.014 | 3.477 | |
X4 | -0.085 | -0.004 | 0.105 | 3.979 | 0.046 | 15.832 | 0.062 | |
X5 | -0.079 | -0.003 | 0.108 | 3.659 | 0.050 | 0.003 | 3.685 | |
Y4 | X1 | 0.173 | -0.345 | -0.050 | 10.382 | 0.718 | 0.030 | 10.705 |
X2 | 0.156 | -0.383 | -0.041 | 9.220 | 0.599 | 0.147 | 9.934 | |
X3 | 0.159 | -0.293 | -0.054 | 10.149 | 0.782 | 0.003 | 10.797 | |
X4 | 0.157 | -0.308 | -0.048 | 11.471 | 0.790 | 131.584 | 0.591 | |
X5 | 0.145 | -0.267 | -0.049 | 10.549 | 0.859 | 0.738 | 10.378 | |
Y5 | X1 | -0.289 | 8.094 | 0.535 | 27.068 | -0.731 | 0.084 | 34.966 |
X2 | -0.260 | 8.981 | 0.447 | 24.039 | -0.610 | 80.658 | 23.616 | |
X3 | -0.264 | 6.867 | 0.584 | 26.461 | -0.797 | 0.341 | 32.267 | |
X4 | -0.261 | 7.219 | 0.517 | 29.907 | -0.805 | 894.429 | 6.670 | |
X5 | -0.241 | 6.260 | 0.532 | 27.505 | -0.875 | 0.766 | 34.056 |
表7 土壤微生物数量、酶活性与土壤养分含量的通径系数
Table 7 Path coefficients of soil microbial quantity and enzyme activity to soil nutrient content
因变量 Dependent variable | 自变量 Independent variable | X1 | Χ2 | Χ3 | Χ4 | Χ5 | 决定系数 Determination coefficient R2 | 间接通径系数之和 Sum of indirect path coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | X1 | -8.314 | 4.770 | 3.534 | 68.912 | 11.476 | 69.123 | 88.692 |
X2 | -7.493 | 5.292 | 2.950 | 61.202 | 9.577 | 28.005 | 66.236 | |
X3 | -7.615 | 4.046 | 3.858 | 67.368 | 12.513 | 14.884 | 76.312 | |
X4 | -7.525 | 4.254 | 3.414 | 76.142 | 12.635 | 5 797.604 | 12.778 | |
X5 | -6.945 | 3.689 | 3.514 | 70.026 | 13.739 | 188.760 | 70.284 | |
Y2 | X1 | 12.727 | 31.480 | -30.602 | -198.413 | 23.160 | 161.977 | -174.375 |
X2 | 11.471 | 34.930 | -25.545 | -176.214 | 19.326 | 1 220.105 | -170.962 | |
X3 | 11.657 | 26.706 | -33.411 | -193.967 | 25.251 | 1 116.295 | -130.353 | |
X4 | 11.519 | 28.076 | -29.561 | -219.229 | 25.499 | 48 061.354 | 35.533 | |
X5 | 10.631 | 24.347 | -30.429 | -201.618 | 27.726 | 768.731 | -197.069 | |
Y3 | X1 | -0.094 | -0.004 | 0.109 | 3.601 | 0.042 | 0.009 | 3.748 |
X2 | -0.085 | -0.005 | 0.091 | 3.198 | 0.035 | 0.000 | 3.239 | |
X3 | -0.086 | -0.004 | 0.119 | 3.521 | 0.046 | 0.014 | 3.477 | |
X4 | -0.085 | -0.004 | 0.105 | 3.979 | 0.046 | 15.832 | 0.062 | |
X5 | -0.079 | -0.003 | 0.108 | 3.659 | 0.050 | 0.003 | 3.685 | |
Y4 | X1 | 0.173 | -0.345 | -0.050 | 10.382 | 0.718 | 0.030 | 10.705 |
X2 | 0.156 | -0.383 | -0.041 | 9.220 | 0.599 | 0.147 | 9.934 | |
X3 | 0.159 | -0.293 | -0.054 | 10.149 | 0.782 | 0.003 | 10.797 | |
X4 | 0.157 | -0.308 | -0.048 | 11.471 | 0.790 | 131.584 | 0.591 | |
X5 | 0.145 | -0.267 | -0.049 | 10.549 | 0.859 | 0.738 | 10.378 | |
Y5 | X1 | -0.289 | 8.094 | 0.535 | 27.068 | -0.731 | 0.084 | 34.966 |
X2 | -0.260 | 8.981 | 0.447 | 24.039 | -0.610 | 80.658 | 23.616 | |
X3 | -0.264 | 6.867 | 0.584 | 26.461 | -0.797 | 0.341 | 32.267 | |
X4 | -0.261 | 7.219 | 0.517 | 29.907 | -0.805 | 894.429 | 6.670 | |
X5 | -0.241 | 6.260 | 0.532 | 27.505 | -0.875 | 0.766 | 34.056 |
[1] | Abbona EA, Sarandón SJ, Marasas ME, Astier M (2007). Ecological sustainability evaluation of traditional management in different vineyard systems in Berisso, Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 119,335-345. |
[2] | Bao SD (鲍士旦) (2000). Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis (土壤农化分析). China Agricultural Press, Beijing.30-107. (in Chinese) |
[3] | de la Paz Jimenez M, de la Horra AM, 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] | Fan J (樊军), Hao MD (郝明德) (2003). Study on long-term experiment of crop rotation and fertilization in the Loess Plateau II. Relationship between soil enzyme activities and soil fertility. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science (植物营养与肥料学报), 9,146-150. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[5] | Fang SZ, Li HY, Xie BD (2008). Decomposition and nutrient release of four potential mulching materials for poplar plantations on upland sites. Agroforestry Systems, 74,27-35. |
[6] | Fang SZ, Xu XZ, Yu X, Li ZC (2005). Poplar in wetland agroforestry: a case study of ecological benefits, site productivity, and economics. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13,93-104. |
[7] | Geng YQ (耿玉清), Bai CX (白翠霞), Zhao TR (赵铁蕊), Wang SS (王树森), Chen JQ (陈峻崎) (2006). Soil enzyme activity and its relationship with the soil fertility in Badaling Mountain area of Beijing. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (北京林业大学学报), 28(5),7-11. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[8] | Guan SY (关松荫) (1983). Soil Enzymes and Their Methodology (土壤酶及其研究法). China Agricultural Press, Beijing.294-313. (in Chinese) |
[9] | He JQ (贺军奇), Wu PT (吴普特), Wang YK (汪有科) (2007). Study on influence of straw mulch on change of plant-soil environment of peach orchard. Water Saving Irrigation (节水灌溉), (5),7-10. (in Chinese) |
[10] | Hui ZM (惠竹梅), Li H (李华), Long Y (龙妍), Zhang J (张瑾), Pang XL (庞学良) (2010). Variation of soil microbial populations and relationships between microbial factors and soil nutrients in cover cropping system of vineyard. Acta Horticulturae Sinica (园艺学报), 37,1395-1402. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[11] | Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing (中国科学院南京土壤硏究所) (1985). Study Method of Soil Microorganisms (土壤微生物研究法). Science Press, Beijing.43-70. (in Chinese) |
[12] | Jia W (贾伟), Zhou HP (周怀平), Xie WY (解文艳), Guan CL (关春林), Gao CH (郜春花), Shi YQ (石彦琴) (2008). Effects of long-term inorganic fertilizer combined with organic manure on microbial biomass C, N and enzyme activity in cinnamon soil. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science (植物营养与肥料学报), 14,700-705. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[13] | King AP, Berry AM (2005). Vineyard δ 15N, nitrogen and water status in perennial clover and bunch grass cover crop systems of California’s central valley. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 109,262-272. |
[14] | Li HK (李会科), Zhang GJ (张广军), Zhao ZY (赵政阳), Li KR (李凯荣) (2007). Effects of interplanting of herbage on soil nutrient of non-irrigated apple orchard in the Loess Plateau. Acta Horticulturae Sinica (园艺学报), 34,477-480. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[15] | Li LL (李玲玲), Huang GB (黄高宝), Zhang RZ (张仁陟), Jin XJ (晋小军), Guangdi L,Kwong YC (2005). Effects of no-till with stubble retention on soil water regimes in rainfed areas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 19(5),94-96. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[16] | Liu JJ (刘久俊) (2007). Effects of Biological Mulching on Rhizospheric Nutrition and Growth of Poplar Plantation in Southern Upland Area (生物覆盖对南方山地杨树人工林根际营养及生长的影响). Master Degree Dissertation, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing.8-9. (in Chinese) |
[17] | Ma JJ (马建军), Li QF (李青丰), Zhang SL (张树礼) (2007). The correlation among soil microorganism and soil nutrient in different types of mixed stands of Hippophae rhamnoides. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment (干旱区资源与环境), 21(6),163-167. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Ming DX (明道绪) (2007). Biometry with Design of Experiments (生物统计附试验设计). China Agricultural Press, Beijing.90-100. (in Chinese) |
[19] | Monteiro A, Lopes CM (2007). Influence of cover crop on water use and performance of vineyard in Mediterranean Portugal. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 121,336-342. |
[20] | Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Schlönvoigt AM, Kass DCL (2004). Decomposition of Erythrina poeppigiana leaves in 3-, 9-, and 18-year-old alleycropping systems in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems, 63,27-32. |
[21] | Sommer R, Vlek PLG, de Abreu Sá TD, Vielhauer K, de Fátima Rodrigues Coelho R, Fölster H (2004). Nutrient balance of shifting cultivation by burning or mulching in the Eastern Amazon evidence for subsoil nutrient accumulation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 68,257-271. |
[22] | Spring GP (1992). Ratio of microbial biomass to soil organic matter carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic matter. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 30,195-207. |
[23] | Steenwerth K, Belina KM (2008). Cover crops and cultivation: impacts on soil N dynamics and microbiological function in a Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. Applied Soil Ecology, 40,370-380. |
[24] | Tang YS (唐玉姝), Wei CF (魏朝富), Yan TM (颜廷梅), Yang LZ (杨林章), Ci E (慈恩) (2007). Biological indicator of soil quality: a review. Soil (土壤), 39,157-163. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[25] | Tiquia SM, Lioyd J, Herms DNA, Hoiting HAJ, Michel FC (2002). Effects of mulching and fertilization on soil nutrients, microbial activity and rhizosphere bacterial community structure determined by analysis of TRFLPs of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA genes. Applied Soil Ecology, 21,31-48. |
[26] | Xu FL (徐福利), Liang YL (梁银丽), Zhang CE (张成娥), Du SN (杜社妮), Chen ZJ (陈志杰) (2004). Effect of fertilization on cucumber growth and soil biological characteristics in sunlight greenhouse. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15,1227-1230. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[27] | Xu HQ (徐华勤), Xiao RL (肖润林), Song TQ (宋同清), Luo W (罗文), Ren Q (任全), Huang Y (黄瑶) (2008). Effects of mulching and intercropping on the functional diversity of soil microbial communities in tea plantations. Biodiversity Science (生物多样性), 16,166-174. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[28] | Xu HQ (徐华勤), Xiao RL (肖润林), Xiang ZX (向佐湘), Song TQ (宋同清), Ren Q (任全), Huang Y (黄瑶), Qin Z (秦钟) (2009). Soil enzyme activities and their relations with soil fertility in a tea plantation under straw mulching and white clover intercropping. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 28,1537-1543. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[29] | Xu HQ (徐华勤), Xiao RL (肖润林), Zou DS (邹冬生), Song TQ (宋同清), Luo W (罗文), Li SH (李盛华) (2007). Effects of long-term fertilization on functional diversity of soil microbial community of the tea plantation. Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 27,3355-3361. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[30] | Xu Q (徐强), Cheng ZH (程智慧), Meng HW (孟焕文), Zhang Y (张昱) (2007). Relationships between soil nutrients and rhizospheric soil microbial communities and enzyme activities in a maize-capsicum intercropping system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 18,2747-2754. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[31] | Xue QH (薛泉宏) (2000). Microbiology (微生物学). World Books Press, Xi’an.37-54. (in Chinese) |
[32] | Yao J (姚健), Wang D (王丁), Zhang XS (张显松), Xue JH (薛建辉) (2009). Effects of different types of mulches on soil moisture, temperature and seedling growth. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition) (南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)), 33(5),7-11. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[33] | Zhang XJ (张星杰), Liu JH (刘景辉), Li LJ (李立军), Wang ZG (王智功), Wang L (王林), Su SH (苏顺和) (2008). Effects of different conservation tillage on soil microbes quantities and enzyme activities in dry cultivation. Journal of Maize Sciences (玉米科学), 16,91-95. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[34] | Zheng Y (郑勇), Gao YS (高勇生), Zhang LM (张丽梅), He YQ (何圆球), He JZ (贺纪正) (2008). Effects of long- term fertilization on soil microorganisms and enzyme activities in an upland red soil. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science (植物营养与肥料学报), 14,316-321. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 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(预发表): 0-0. |
[2] | 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. |
[3] | 张琦, 冯可, 常智慧, 何双辉, 徐维启. 灌丛化对林草交错带植物和土壤微生物的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(6): 770-781. |
[4] | 郑炀, 孙学广, 熊洋阳, 袁贵云, 丁贵杰. 叶际微生物对马尾松凋落针叶分解的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(5): 687-698. |
[5] | 赵小祥, 朱彬彬, 田秋香, 林巧玲, 陈龙, 刘峰. 叶片凋落物分解的主场优势研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(5): 597-607. |
[6] | 林少颖, 曾瑜, 杨文文, 陈斌, 阮敏敏, 尹晓雷, 阳祥, 王维奇. 添加秸秆及其生物炭对茉莉植株与土壤碳氮磷生态化学计量特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(4): 530-545. |
[7] | 陈林康, 赵平, 王顶, 向蕊, 龙光强. 玉米马铃薯秸秆混合腐解的非加性效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(12): 1728-1738. |
[8] | 李万年, 罗益敏, 黄则月, 杨梅. 望天树人工幼林混交对土壤微生物功能多样性与碳源利用的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(9): 1109-1124. |
[9] | 孙彩丽, 仇模升, 黄朝相, 王艺伟. 黔西南石漠化过程中土壤胞外酶活性及其化学计量变化特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(7): 834-845. |
[10] | 吴赞, 彭云峰, 杨贵彪, 李秦鲁, 刘洋, 马黎华, 杨元合, 蒋先军. 青藏高原高寒草地退化对土壤及微生物化学计量特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(4): 461-472. |
[11] | 张英, 张常洪, 汪其同, 朱晓敏, 尹华军. 氮沉降下西南山地针叶林根际和非根际土壤微生物养分限制特征差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(4): 473-483. |
[12] | 朱玉荷, 肖虹, 王冰, 吴颖, 白永飞, 陈迪马. 蒙古高原草地不同深度土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征对气候因子的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(3): 340-349. |
[13] | 牟文博, 徐当会, 王谢军, 敬文茂, 张瑞英, 顾玉玲, 姚广前, 祁世华, 张龙, 苟亚飞. 排露沟流域不同海拔灌丛土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(11): 1422-1431. |
[14] | 毛瑾, 朵莹, 邓军, 程杰, 程积民, 彭长辉, 郭梁. 冬季增温和减雪对黄土高原典型草原土壤养分和细菌群落组成的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(8): 891-902. |
[15] | 姜鑫, 牛克昌. 青藏高原禾草混播对土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(5): 539-551. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《植物生态学报》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编: 100093
Tel.: 010-62836134, 62836138; Fax: 010-82599431; E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn
备案号: 京ICP备16067583号-19