刘兴禄,
董铁,
牛军强,
孙文泰,
马明,
甘肃省农业科学院林果花卉研究所 兰州 730070
基金项目: 国家公益性行业（农业）科研专项201303104
国家重点研发计划项目2016YFD0201135
甘肃省苹果产业科技攻关项目GPCK2010-1
国家苹果产业技术体系CARS-27
详细信息
作者简介:尹晓宁, 主要从事果园水肥及果树生理方面的研究工作。E-mail:1959822608@qq.com
通讯作者:马明, 主要研究方向为苹果栽培生理与育种。E-mail:maming65118@163.com
中图分类号:S661.1计量
文章访问数:1087
HTML全文浏览量:14
PDF下载量:1000
被引次数:0
出版历程
收稿日期:2017-06-27
录用日期:2017-09-21
刊出日期:2018-01-01
Effects of different mulching materials on soil and near-surface environment and of apple orchard tree growth
YIN Xiaoning,LIU Xinglu,
DONG Tie,
NIU Junqiang,
SUN Wentai,
MA Ming,
Institute of Fruit and Floriculture Research, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, China
Funds: the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in Public Interest of China201303104
the National Key Research and Development Project of China2016YFD0201135
the Gansu Science and Technology Project of Apple IndustryGPCK2010-1
the China Apple Research SystemCARS-27
More Information
Corresponding author:MA Ming, E-mail: maming65118@163.com
摘要
HTML全文
图
参考文献
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件
访问统计
摘要
摘要:干旱是影响陇东雨养区苹果生产的主要限制因素之一，覆盖保墒是保证该区苹果稳产丰产的重要措施。为了探寻适宜于陇东地区苹果园的覆盖保墒措施，于19年生‘长富2号’苹果园，采用覆盖麦草（WM）、覆盖细河沙（SM）、覆盖黑色地膜（FM）的地表连续3年（2010年11月-2013年11月）覆盖处理，以清耕（CK）为对照，研究不同覆盖材料对果园环境及树体生长发育的影响。结果表明：4-6月干旱期，3年各覆盖处理0~100 cm土层的平均含水量均显著（P < 0.01）高于对照，且WM处理 > SM处理 > FM处理 > CK；覆盖第3年，从花芽膨大到果实采收，叶幕形成（幼果期）前0~500 cm土层WM处理和SM处理的耗水量显著（P < 0.01）低于CK，叶幕形成后则显著（P < 0.05）高于CK，但耗水总量略低于CK；FM处理在叶幕形成前后均显著（P < 0.01）高于CK。WM处理降低3-8月份5~25 cm各层土壤温度，而升高了9-11月份土温，但5~25 cm平均地温日变幅始终显著（P < 0.05）低于CK，同时近地表气温降低相对湿度升高；SM处理对地温的影响较小，但明显提高近地表气温而降低相对湿度；FM处理的地温及日变幅始终高于CK，近地表气温和相对湿度与CK接近。各种覆盖处理对苹果物候期均无明显影响。总体0~60 cm土层各种养分含量顺序为WM处理 > CK > FM处理 > SM处理，且WM处理随年份增幅较大；FM处理0~20 cm土层与SM处理0~60 cm各土层的有机质、全氮和碱解氮等养分随年份降低最明显，相应的全盐量（包括WM处理0~20 cm土层）均显著（P < 0.01）低于CK。各种覆盖处理增加了苹果树体枝条生长量，但对枝类组成影响都不大。各种覆盖处理增加了果实单果重及产量，均以WM处理显著（P < 0.05）高于CK。水分利用效率WM处理显著（P < 0.01）高于其他处理。综上所述，陇东雨养区苹果园覆盖麦草效果较佳，长期覆沙和覆膜土壤须补充有机肥及其他养分，单一覆膜还需完善。
关键词:苹果园/
地面覆盖/
覆盖材料/
土壤环境/
近地微域环境/
树体生长/
产量和品质/
水分利用效率
Abstract:Apple is one of the top four fruits in the world and Chinese apple area and output are all the highest. Longdong, the Loess Plateau lying in East Gansu Province, is the largest apple cultivation region in China, with apple cultivated area and yield accounting respectively for 11.11% and 8.75% of the country (Gansu Rural Year book 2015). Apple is a major industry towards the alleviation of local poverty and enrichment of the local people. While drought is one of the main limiting factors of apple production under rainfed conditions, and mulching is an important method for improving the yield of apple. A field experiment was designed to find a suitable measure of soil moisture conservation in apple orchards in Longdong. In a 19-year-old 'Nagafu No.2' apple orchard, wheat straw mulching (WM), river sand mulching (SM), black plastic film mulching (FM) and clean tillage (CK) were applied to study effects of mulching matrieals on the apple orchard environment and tree development for the period from November 2010 to November 2013. Results showed that from April to June, average soil moisture content in the 0-100 cm soil layers of three mulching treatments was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than that of CK. Also the order of soil moisture content under treatments was WM > SM > FM > CK. In the third year, soil water consumptions in the 0-500 cm soil layer under WM and SM treatments were significantly (P < 0.01) lower than that of CK during the period from flower bud expansion stage to end of leaf canopy development stage, while significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that of CK for the period from end of leaf canopy development stage to maturity stage. However, total soil water consumptions of the two treatments were slightly lower than that of CK. Soil water consumption under FM treatment was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than that under CK before and after leaf canopy development. Treatment WM reduced soil temperature in the 5-25 cm soil layer during the period from March to August, increased soil temperature from September to November, but significantly (P < 0.05) decreased average daily soil temperature amplitude in the 5-25 cm soil layer, compared with CK. The near-surface temperature decreased while relative humidity increased under WM treatment compared with CK. Treatment SM had a slight effect on soil temperature, but obviously increased near-surface temperature and decreased relative humidity. The soil temperature and daily amplitude of FM treatment from March to November were always higher than those of CK, and the near-surface temperature and relative humidity were close to CK. Three mulching treatments had no obvious effect on phenological period of apple. On the whole, the order of the contents of nutrients in the 0-60 cm soil layer was WM > CK > FM > SM. The increase in almost all forms of nutrient was highest under WM treatment with the years. However, organic matter, alkaline hydrolytic N and total N in the 0-60 cm soil layer under SM treatment and in the 0-20 cm soil layer under FM treatment decreased obviously with the years. Correspondingly, total salt content (including in the 0-20 cm soil layer under WM treatment) was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than that of CK. All the mulching treatments enhanced apple tree growth, but had little effect on shoot ratio. These mulching treatments also increased single fruit weight and yield, which were significantly (P < 0.05) higher under WM treatment than under CK. Water use efficiency of WM was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than those of other treatments, and the order was WM > SM > CK > FM. The results indicated that wheat straw mulching was better for apple orchard cultivation under rainfed conditions in Longdong. The implementation of river sand mulching and black plastic film mulching should be combined with applications of organic fertilizer and other nutrients The dominant single film mulching measure in the region needed to be further improved.
Key words:Apple orchard/
Soil mulching/
Mulching material/
Soil environment/
Near-surface environment/
Tree growth/
Yield and quality/
Water use efficiency
HTML全文
图1苹果花芽膨大期(a)、新梢停长期(b)和果实成熟期(c)不同覆盖材料处理0~500 cm土层含水量
WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
Figure1.Soil moisture contents in 0-500 cm soil layer at flower bud expanding (a), shoot growth withhold (b) and maturity (c) stages of apple under different mulching materials
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图2不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期5~25 cm各土壤深度日均温动态变化
WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
Figure2.Dynamic changes of daily average temperatures of different layers of 5-25 cm soil of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图3不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期5~25 cm各深度地温日变幅动态
WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
Figure3.Dynamic changes of temperature daily amplitudes of different layers of 5-25 cm soil of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图4不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期近地表气温及相对湿度动态
WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
Figure4.Dynamic changes of near-surface temperature and relative humidity of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图5不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~100 cm土层苹果不同级别根系分布
WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。同一土层不同小写字母和大写字母分别表示在0.05和0.01水平上差异显著。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. Bar with different lowercase letters and capital letters in the same soil depth indicate significant differences at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Figure5.Distribution of apple roots with different diameters in 0-100 cm soil layers of apple orchard under different mulching materials
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片表12011—2013年的试验区降雨量
Table1.Rainfall in 2011-2013 in the study area
| mm | |||||||||||||
| 年份 Year | 1月 January | 2月 February | 3月 March | 4月 April | 5月 May | 6月 June | 7月 July | 8月 August | 9月 September | 10月 October | 11月 November | 12月 December | 全年 Annual |
| 2011 | 0 | 0 | 6.3 | 3.5 | 35.0 | 15.0 | 51.5 | 24.0 | 216.0 | 11.0 | 23.0 | 0 | 385.3 |
| 2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55.3 | 59.5 | 47.1 | 86.1 | 145.6 | 109.1 | 11.6 | 0 | 0 | 514.3 |
| 2013 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32.9 | 76.1 | 52.3 | 324.2 | 61.3 | 58.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 604.9 |
下载: 导出CSV表2不同覆盖材料处理的苹果各生育期果园土壤含水量
Table2.Soil moisture contents at different growth stages of apple under different mulching materials
| % | ||||||||
| 土层 Soil layer (cm) | 年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 花芽膨大期 Flower bud expanding stage | 花期 Flowering stage | 新梢停长期 Shoot growth withhold stage | 幼果期 Young fruit stage | 果实膨大期 Fruit enlargement stage | 成熟期 Maturity stage |
| 0~100 | 2011 | WM | 20.03±0.113cB | 18.97±0.031abA | 20.43±0.118aA | 18.09±0.128aA | 18.53±0.126aA | 22.44±0.130aA |
| SM | 20.67±0.109bB | 19.43±0.086aA | 19.21±0.200aA | 16.9±0.252aAB | 17.72±0.348aA | 21.95±0.166aAB | ||
| FM | 21.84±0.193aA | 18.51±0.212bA | 19.05±0.445aA | 15.68±0.448bB | 17.36±0.565aA | 22.13±0.082aAB | ||
| CK | 19.14±0.084dC | 15.40±0.299cB | 15.15±0.328bB | 12.88±0.053cC | 14.18±0.332bB | 20.95±0.256bB | ||
| 2012 | WM | — | 21.61±0.345aA | 21.82±0.203aA | 18.51±0.768aA | 24.76±0.352aA | 24.44±0.382aA | |
| SM | — | 19.93±0.442abA | 19.22±0.069bB | 18.06±0.207aA | 23.08±0.075aAB | 21.66±0.295bAB | ||
| FM | — | 18.58±0.772bA | 17.02±0.446cC | 16.33±0.617abAB | 23.25±0.381aAB | 24.43±0.201aA | ||
| CK | — | 18.36±0.085bA | 15.83±0.127dC | 14.48±0.368bB | 20.48±0.836bB | 21.10±0.577bB | ||
| 2013 | WM | 18.42±0.689abA | — | 19.63±0.510aA | — | — | 21.85±0.251aA | |
| SM | 17.39±0.815abA | — | 16.60±0.274bB | — | — | 20.23±0.212bB | ||
| FM | 19.38±0.556aA | — | 20.63±0.170aA | — | — | 21.44±0.039aAB | ||
| CK | 16.35±0.256bA | — | 15.07±0.152cB | — | — | 21.26±0.221aAB | ||
| 0~200 | 2012 | WM | — | 20.78±0.489aA | 20.94±0.254aA | 18.04±0.679aA | 21.83±0.780aA | 22.57±0.665aA |
| SM | — | 19.91±0.490abA | 19.21±0.143bB | 17.57±0.049aAB | 20.24±0.433abAB | 20.47±0.226bA | ||
| FM | — | 18.57±0.836bA | 17.44±0.517cC | 16.18±0.617bBC | 20.75±1.082aAB | 22.34±0.590aA | ||
| CK | — | 18.52±0.318bA | 17.12±0.071cC | 15.72±0.317bC | 18.40±0.800bB | 20.34±0.622bA | ||
| 2013 | WM | 18.95±0.343aA | — | 18.55±0.233aA | — | — | 21.85±0.251aA | |
| SM | 17.41±0.942aA | — | 16.60±0.467bBC | — | — | 20.23±0.212bBC | ||
| FM | 19.73±0.441aA | — | 19.46±0.518aAB | — | — | 19.34±0.108bC | ||
| CK | 17.67±0.186aA | — | 16.01±0.131bC | — | — | 21.26±0.221aAB | ||
| 0~500 | 2013 | WM | 18.27±0.473abA | — | 18.27±0.197aA | — | — | 20.16±0.228aA |
| SM | 17.86±0.608abA | — | 17.85±0.216aA | — | — | 19.62±0.295abAB | ||
| FM | 19.07±0.169aA | — | 17.30±0.461aAB | — | — | 18.20±0.402cB | ||
| CK | 17.16±0.130bA | — | 15.79±0.079bB | — | — | 18.60±0.075bcAB | ||
| ???表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. | ||||||||
下载: 导出CSV表3不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~500 cm土壤储水量及耗水量
Table3.Soil water storage and water consumption in 0-500 cm soil layer of apple orchard under different mulching materials
| mm | |||||||
| 处理 Treatment | 土壤储水量Soil water storage | 土壤耗水量Soil water consumption | |||||
| 花芽膨大期 Flower bud expanding stage | 新梢停长期 Shoot growth withhold stage | 成熟期 Maturity stage | 叶幕形成前 Before leaf canopy formation | 叶幕形成后 After leaf canopy formation | 果实采收前 Before harvest | ||
| WM | 1 174.7±7.06bB | 1 216.9±4.44aA | 1 319.5±20.88aA | 66.8±4.97dD | 393.3±17.60aAB | 460.1±13.88bB | |
| SM | 1 193.7±12.00bAB | 1 178.9±2.22bB | 1 303.4±3.22aA | 123.8±9.86cC | 371.3±4.84aAB | 495.1±13.49bB | |
| FM | 1 244.3±12.67aA | 1 088.4±11.22cC | 1 157.1±20.59cB | 264.8±6.82aA | 427.2±25.84aA | 692.1±31.11aA | |
| CK | 1 113.5±11.13cC | 1 024.9±6.55dD | 1 206.7±6.49bB | 197.7±17.19bB | 314.2±13.01bB | 511.8±6.93bB | |
| ???表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. | |||||||
下载: 导出CSV表4不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~60 cm土壤理化性状
Table4.Soil physical and chemical properties in 0-60 cm layer of apple orchard under different mulching materials
 |
表5不同覆盖材料处理下苹果树体生长量、枝类组成及比叶重
Table5.Growth amount, shoots composition and specific leaf weight of apple trees under different mulching materials
| 年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 新梢长 Shoot length (cm) | 新梢粗 Shoot thickness (mm) | 总枝量 Total quantity of branches (·hm-2) | 不同枝类比例Different branches ratio (%) | 比叶重 Specific leaf weight (g·m-2) | |
| ≤15 cm | > 15 cm | ||||||
| 2011 | WM | 29.6±2.0aA | 5.1±0.19aA | 1 791 207±162 946aA | 68.8±1.51aA | 31.2±1.51aA | — |
| SM | 27.6±1.39aA | 4.8±0.21aA | 1 694 637±200 638aA | 76.2±2.15aA | 23.8±2.15aA | — | |
| FM | 28.4±0.69aA | 4.6±0.13aA | 1 436 562±177 272aA | 74.2±3.33aA | 25.8±3.33aA | — | |
| CK | 28.8±1.90aA | 5.0±0.19aA | 1 590 741±319 264aA | 70.0±2.96aA | 30.0±2.96aA | — | |
| 2012 | WM | 37.5±2.77abA | 6.2±0.44aA | 1 181 040±160 686aA | 76.4±3.22aA | 23.6±3.22aA | — |
| SM | 41.1±1.18aA | 6.2±0.13aA | 1 020 645±189 861aA | 76.5±5.34aA | 23.5±5.34aA | — | |
| FM | 37.8±2.47abA | 6.4±0.07aA | 1 502 940±201 574aA | 76.0±2.07aA | 24.0±2.07aA | — | |
| CK | 31.7±0.96bA | 5.9±0.07aA | 1 475 745±289 154aA | 73.1±4.30aA | 26.9±4.30aA | — | |
| 2013 | WM | 29.0±0.68abA | 5.4±0.13aA | 1 438 560±108 058aA | 70.9±2.25aA | 29.1±2.25aA | 121.54 |
| SM | 36.4±0.92aA | 5.3±0.14aA | 1 428 570±40 885aA | 71.9±1.65aA | 28.1±1.65aA | 117.51 | |
| FM | 28.1±4.71abA | 5.0±0.11aA | 1 283 715±148 931aA | 73.4±6.70aA | 26.6±6.70aA | 122.96 | |
| CK | 26.2±2.12bA | 5.3±0.34aA | 1 398 600±69 930aA | 77.1±3.22aA | 22.9±3.22aA | 112.66 | |
| ???表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively; WM, SM, FM and CK in table represented wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. | |||||||
下载: 导出CSV表6不同覆盖材料处理下苹果果实性状
Table6.Fruit qualities of apple under different mulching materials
| 年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 单果重 Single fruit weight (g) | 果型指数 Fruit-type index | 去皮硬度 Peeled fruit firmness (kg·cm-2) | 可溶性固形物含量 Soluble solids contents (%) | 酸度 Acidity (%) |
| 2011 | WM | 178.0±5.42abA | 0.899±0.006aA | 9.03±0.12aA | 11.97±0.17bB | 0.389±0.361aA |
| SM | 185.7±4.24aA | 0.914±0.014aA | 8.83±0.06aAB | 11.62±0.22bB | 0.364±0.437aA | |
| FM | 182.6±3.56abA | 0.895±0.010aA | 8.54±0.07bB | 11.83±0.13bB | 0.383±0.384aA | |
| CK | 170.2±4.43bA | 0.887±0.004aA | 8.93±0.09aA | 13.15±0.14aA | 0.385±0.831aA | |
| 2012 | WM | 206.4±1.63aA | 0.972±0.005aA | 7.80±0.11aA | 12.29±0.41aA | 0.325±0.033bAB |
| SM | 190.4±1.63aAB | 0.951±0.007aA | 8.20±0.13aA | 11.53±0.44aA | 0.450±0.011aA | |
| FM | 189.2±7.57aAB | 0.930±0.020aA | 7.83±0.20aA | 12.50±0.41aA | 0.341±0.044bAB | |
| CK | 159.3±8.88bB | 0.927±0.018aA | 7.87±0.27aA | 12.10±0.70aA | 0.217±0.007cB | |
| 2013 | WM | 179.2±9.71aA | 0.874±0.011aA | 8.10±0.18aA | 11.54±0.49aA | 0.316±0.037aA |
| SM | 162.0±5.30abA | 0.889±0.010aA | 7.98±0.17aA | 11.96±0.34aA | 0.289±0.031aA | |
| FM | 172.2±1.65abA | 0.887±0.012aA | 8.18±0.13aA | 12.11±0.13aA | 0.263±0.040aA | |
| CK | 150.6±6.67bA | 0.872±0.012aA | 7.90±0.16aA | 12.86±0.42aA | 0.244±0.009aA | |
| ???表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. | ||||||
下载: 导出CSV表7不同覆盖材料处理下苹果产量及水分利用效率
Table7.Yield and water use efficiency of apple under different mulching materials
| 处理 Treatment | 干物质含量 Dry matter content (%) | 鲜产量 Fresh yield (kg·hm-2) | 干产量 Dry yield (kg·hm-2) | 鲜产量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of fresh yield (kg·mm-1·hm-2) | 干产量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of dry yield (kg·mm-1·hm-2) |
| WM | 12.27 | 53 705.8±2 910.33aA | 6 589.7±357.10aA | 116.8±0.846aA | 14.3±0.72aA |
| SM | 13.25 | 48 549.7±1 589.41abA | 6 432.8±210.60aA | 98.4±5.86bAB | 13.0±0.78aAB |
| FM | 13.96 | 51 608.3±495.67abA | 7 204.5±69.20aA | 74.9±3.28cB | 10.4±0.46bB |
| CK | 14.15 | 45 124.8±1 998.31bA | 6 385.2±282.76aA | 88.3±4.63bcB | 12.5±0.65abAB |
| ???表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. | |||||
下载: 导出CSV参考文献
| [1] | 潘雅文, 樊军, 郝明德, 等.黄土塬区长期不同耕作、覆盖措施对表层土壤理化性状和玉米产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(6):1558-1567 doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15455 PAN Y W, FAN J, HAO M D, et al. Effects of long-term tillage and mulching methods on properties of surface soil and maize yield in tableland region of the Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2016, 22(6):1558-1567 doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15455 |
| [2] | 汪景宽, 刘顺国, 李双异.长期地膜覆盖及不同施肥处理对棕壤无机氮和氮素矿化率的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2006, 20(6):107-110 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4676698 WANG J K, LIU S G, LI S Y. Effect of long-term plastic film mulching and fertilization on inorganic N distribution and organic N mineralization in brown earth[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20(6):107-110 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4676698 |
| [3] | 王红丽, 张绪成, 宋尚有, 等.西北黄土高原旱地全膜双垄沟播种植对玉米季节性耗水和产量的调节机制[J].中国农业科学, 2013, 46(5):917-926 http://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a73607e3169a4517723a384.html WANG H L, ZHANG X C, SONG S Y, et al. Regulation of whole field surface plastic mulching and Double Ridge-Furrow planting on seasonal soil water loss and maize yield in rain-fed area of Northwest Loess Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(5):917-926 http://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a73607e3169a4517723a384.html |
| [4] | 侯连涛, 江晓东, 韩宾, 等.不同覆盖处理对冬小麦气体交换参数及水分利用效率的影响[J].农业工程学报, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm HOU L T, JIANG X D, HAN B, et al. Effects of different mulching treatments on the gas exchange parameters and water use efficiency of winter wheat[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm |
| [5] | 王敏, 王海霞, 韩清芳, 等.不同材料覆盖的土壤水温效应及对玉米生长的影响[J].作物学报, 2011, 37(7):1249-1258 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/069df3984693daef5ef73da7-3.html WANG M, WANG H X, HAN Q F, et al. Effects of different mulching materials on soil water, temperature, and corn growth[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011, 37(7):1249-1258 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/069df3984693daef5ef73da7-3.html |
| [6] | 高茂盛, 廖允成, 李侠, 等.不同覆盖方式对渭北旱作苹果园土壤贮水的影响[J].中国农业科学, 2010, 43(10):2080-2087 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.10.014 GAO M S, LIAO Y C, LI X, et al. Effects of different mulching patterns on soil water-holding capacity of non-irrigated apple orchard in the Weibei Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010, 43(10):2080-2087 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.10.014 |
| [7] | 刘建新.覆草对果园土壤肥力及苹果产量与品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2004, 22(1):102-105 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GATE201006034.htm LIU J X. The effects of grass covering on soil fertility in or-chard and output and quality of apple[J]. Agricultural Re-search in the Arid Areas, 2004, 22(1):102-105 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GATE201006034.htm |
| [8] | 赵鹏, 王硕, 叶素银, 等.梨园秸秆还田腐解特征及对土壤性状的影响研究[J].土壤, 2016, 48(2):270-277 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TURA201602010.htm ZHAO P, WANG S, YE S Y, et al. Effects of straw decom-position characteristics on soil properties of pear orchard[J]. Soils, 2016, 48(2):270-277 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TURA201602010.htm |
| [9] | 郭学军, 韩张雄, 马锋旺.不同覆盖方式对苹果园土壤状况及果树生长与果实的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 41(9):112-118 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90760A/201309/47499560.html GUO X J, HAN Z X, MA F W. Effect of different mulching treatments on changes of soil properties, growth of fruit tree, and yield and quality of fruit[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University:Natural Science Edition, 2013, 41(9):112-118 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90760A/201309/47499560.html |
| [10] | 张林森, 刘富庭, 张永旺, 等.不同覆盖方式对黄土高原地区苹果园土壤有机碳组分及微生物的影响[J].中国农业科学, 2013, 46(15):3180-3190 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.15.012 ZHANG L S, LIU F T, ZHANG Y W, et al. Effects of different mulching on soil organic carbon fractions and soil microbial community of apple orchard in Loess Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(15):3180-3190 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.15.012 |
| [11] | 王锐, 刘文兆, 李志.黄土塬区10 m深剖面土壤物理性质研究[J].土壤学报, 2008, 45(3):550-554 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=trxb200803022&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ WANG R, LIU W Z, LI Z. Physical properties of soils along a 10 m deep soil profile in Loess Tableland[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(3):550-554 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=trxb200803022&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [12] | 范晶, 赵惠勋, 李敏.比叶重及其与光合能力的关系[J].东北林业大学学报, 2003, 31(5):37-39 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5083250 FAN J, ZHAO H X, LI M. The specific leaf weight and its relationship with photosynthetic capacity[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2003, 31(5):37-39 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5083250 |
| [13] | 杨洪强, 束怀瑞.苹果根系研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2007:21-145 YANG H Q, SHU H R. Studies on Apple Roots[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2007:21-145 |
| [14] | 王进鑫, 张晓鹏, 高保山, 等.渭北旱塬红富士苹果需水量与限水灌溉效应研究[J].水土保持研究, 2000, 7(1):69-72 http://tongji.cnki.net/kns55/Publish/industry/Z011.html WANG J X, ZHANG X P, GAO B S, et al. Study on water requirement and limited irrigation effects of dwarfing red Fuji apple tree on Weibei of Loess Plateau[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000, 7(1):69-72 http://tongji.cnki.net/kns55/Publish/industry/Z011.html |
| [15] | 姜远茂, 张宏彦, 张福锁.北方落叶果树:养分资源综合管理理论与实践[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社, 2007:57-118 JIANG Y M, ZHANG H Y, ZHANG F S. The Northern De-ciduous Fruit Trees of Nutrient Resource Integrated Man-agement Theory and Practice[M]. Beijing:China Agricultural University Press, 2007:57-118 |
| [16] | 张金珠, 王振华, 虎胆·吐马尔白.秸秆覆盖对滴灌棉花土壤水盐运移及根系分布的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(12):1467-1476 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20131204&flag=1 ZHANG J Z, WANG Z H, Hudan·TUMAREBI. Influence of straw mulching on soil water/salt movement and cotton root distribution under drip irrigation[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(12):1467-1476 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20131204&flag=1 |
| [17] | 杨萍, 邱慧珍, 海龙, 等.表层土壤调控措施对苹果根系形态及活力的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报, 2014, 49(2):89-95 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94944X/201402/49689058.html YANG P, QIU H Z, HAI L, et al. Effects of surface soil management measures on apple root morphology and vitality[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2014, 49(2):89-95 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94944X/201402/49689058.html |
| [18] | 易明晖.气象学与农业气象学[M].北京:农业出版社, 1990:32-43 YI M H. Meteorology and Agricultural Meteorology[M]. Beijing:Agriculture Press, 1990:32-43 |
| [19] | 张义, 谢永生.不同覆盖措施下苹果园土壤水文差异[J].草业学报, 2011, 20(2):85-92 doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110210 ZHANG Y, XIE Y S. Effects of different patterns of surface mulching on soil hydrology in an apple orchard[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2):85-92 doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110210 |
| [20] | 关红杰, 冯浩.砂石覆盖厚度和粒径对土壤蒸发的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2009, 28(4):41-44 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/200904/31439732.html GUAN H J, FENG H. Effects of the thickness and grain size of gravel mulch on soil moisture evaporation[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2009, 28(4):41-44 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/200904/31439732.html |
| [21] | 张坤, 尹小宁, 刘小勇, 等.陇东旱地果园覆沙对苹果树蒸腾耗水及果实品质的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(11):2755-2762 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4378715 ZHANG K, YIN X N, LIU X Y, et al. Effects of sand-covering on apple trees transpiration and fruit quality in dry land orchards of Longdong, Gansu[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(11):2755-2762 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4378715 |
| [22] | 许强, 吴宏亮, 康建宏, 等.旱区砂田肥力演变特征研究[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(1):37-41 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ghdqnyyj200901008 XU Q, WU H L, KANG J H, et al. Study on evolution char-acteristics of sandy-field in arid region[J]. Agricultural Re-search in the Arid Areas, 2009, 27(1):37-41 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ghdqnyyj200901008 |
| [23] | 宋日权, 褚贵新, 张瑞喜, 等.覆砂对土壤入渗、蒸发和盐分迁移的影响[J].土壤学报, 2012, 49(2):282-288 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TRXB201202011.htm SONG R Q, CHU G X, ZHANG R X, et al. Effects of sand mulching on soil infiltration, evaporation, and salt distribu-tion[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012, 49(2):282-288 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TRXB201202011.htm |
| [24] | MANDAL U K, RAO K W, MISHRA P K, et al. Soil infiltration, and run off and sediment yield from a shallow soil with varied stone cover and intensity of rain[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2005, 56:435-444 doi: 10.1111/ejs.2005.56.issue-4 |
| [25] | 张义, 谢永生, 郝明德, 等.不同地表覆盖方式对苹果园土壤性状及果树生长和产量的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(2):279-286 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/yj/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_yystxb201002003 ZHANG Y, XIE Y S, HAO M D, et al. Effects of different patterns surface mulching on soil properties and fruit trees growth and yield in an apple orchard[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(2):279-286 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/yj/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_yystxb201002003 |
| [26] | 张坤, 王发林, 刘小勇, 等.旱地果园起垄覆膜集雨措施对树体水分利用的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2011, 30(3):68-71 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/201103/38416780.html ZHANG K, WANG F L, LIU X Y, et al. Effect of ridging the land and covering plastic film for rainfall collection on water use of apple trees in dry land orchard[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2011, 30(3):68-71 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/201103/38416780.html |
| [27] | 杨文治, 邵明安.黄土高原土壤水分研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2000:197-249 http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA54035636 YANG W Z, SHAO M A. Study on Soil Moisture in the Loess Plateau[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2000:197-249 http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA54035636 |
| [28] | 康绍忠, 张建华.不同土壤水分与温度条件下土根系统中水分传导的变化及其相对重要性[J].农业工程学报, 1997, 13(2):76-81 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYYJ201402016.htm KANG S Z, ZHANG J H. Hydraulic conductivities in soil-root system and relative importance at different soil water potential and temperature[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 1997, 13(2):76-81 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYYJ201402016.htm |
| [29] | 刘克长, 任中兴, 李申安, 等.不同覆盖措施下龙廷杏梅园地小气候效应研究[J].水土保持研究, 2008, 15(5):145-148 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98303X/200805/28495790.html LIU K C, REN Z X, LI S A, et al. Area climate effect on Long-ting P. simonii Carr. with the different mulching meas-urements[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 15(5):145-148 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98303X/200805/28495790.html |
| [30] | 刘小勇, 李红旭, 李建明, 等.不同覆盖方式对旱地果园水热特征的影响[J].生态学报, 2014, 34(3):746-754 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97435X/201011/36177349.html LIU X Y, LI H X, LI J M, et al. The effects of different mulching way on soil water thermal characteristics in pear orchard in the arid area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(3):746-754 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97435X/201011/36177349.html |
| [31] | 杜社妮, 白岗栓.玉米地膜覆盖的土壤环境效应[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2007, 25(5):56-59 http://www.irgrid.ac.cn/handle/1471x/140658 DU S N, BAI G S. Studies on effects of plastic film mulching on soil environment of maize field[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2007, 25(5):56-59 http://www.irgrid.ac.cn/handle/1471x/140658 |
