不同栽培模式对中小型土壤动物多样性的影响

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

陈茜^{1, 2,},
李强强^{1, 2},
唐伟²,
王祯祎^{1, 2},
陶军^{1, 2,,},
许映军^{1, 2},
顾卫^{1, 2}
1.北京师范大学环境演变与自然灾害教育部重点实验室北京 100875
2.北京师范大学地表过程与资源生态国家重点实验室/北京师范大学地理科学学部北京 100875
基金项目: 国家科技支撑计划课题2014BAD14B03

详细信息

作者简介:陈茜, 主要研究方向为土壤动物。E-mail:201621480013@mail.bnu.edu.cn

通讯作者:陶军, 主要研究方向为土壤生态学。E-mail:juntao@bnu.edu.cn

中图分类号:S154.5

计量

文章访问数:670
HTML全文浏览量:4
PDF下载量:514
被引次数:0

出版历程

收稿日期:2018-07-02
录用日期:2019-04-01
刊出日期:2019-08-01

Effects of different cultivation facilities on the diversity of soil meso-and micro-fauna

CHEN Xi^{1, 2,},
LI Qiangqiang^{1, 2},
TANG Wei²,
WANG Zhenyi^{1, 2},
TAO Jun^{1, 2,,},
XU Yingjun^{1, 2},
GU Wei^{1, 2}
1. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster, Ministry of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Process and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University/Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Funds: the National Key Technologies R & D Program of China2014BAD14B03

More Information

Corresponding author:TAO Jun, E-mail:juntao@bnu.edu.cn

摘要
HTML全文
图(1)表(5)
参考文献(47)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要
摘要:土壤动物是土壤中重要的生物群落，在分解凋落物、土壤有机质以及维护生态系统平衡等方面中扮演重要角色。为了研究不同栽培模式下中小型土壤动物多样性特征，探究有利于中小型土壤动物的种植方式，本文研究了有机与常规栽培、大棚与露天、茄果与叶菜等不同栽培模式对中小型土壤动物种群数量、组成和多样性等特征的影响。结果表明：1）利用Tullgren法在18个样地共获得中小型土壤动物3 869只，隶属于2门14目30科（亚目）。辐螨亚目、甲螨亚目以及等节跳科构成了研究区土壤动物的主要部分。2）露天条件下，有机栽培使5~10 cm和10~15 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量显著高于常规栽培；但大棚条件下，有机栽培使0~5 cm和5~10 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量显著低于常规栽培。3）有机栽培下，大棚内0~5 cm和10~15 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量显著低于露天，且棚内10~15 cm层中小型土壤动物丰富度显著高于常规栽培；而常规栽培下，大棚内5~10 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量著高于露天。无论有机和常规栽培，棚内0~5 cm层中小型土壤动物Shannon-Weiner多样性高于露天。4）有机栽培使叶菜作物10~15 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量显著低于常规栽培，且0~5 cm土层中小型土壤动物均匀度指数显著高于常规栽培；常规栽培使叶菜作物0~5 cm和5~10 cm土层中小型土壤动物数量显著高于茄果作物。因此，在设施条件下采用有机栽培和管理，且利用作物轮作可能更有利于土壤动物群落数量和多样性的增加。
关键词:有机栽培/
大棚种植/
露天种植/
作物种类/
中小型土壤动物
Abstract:Organic agriculture, which has become increasingly popular in recent years and is widely used in greenhouse facilities, is generally believed to be more conducive to agro-ecosystems than conventional agriculture. The soil fauna is a significant biological indicator of the soil environment. An understanding of the differences in the community structure and diversity of the soil fauna under different facility management regimens is necessary. However, little is known about the effects of both organic and conventional agricultural systems on the diversity of soil meso-and micro-fauna. To investigate the effects of organic facility cultivation on the diversity and community structure of soil meso-and micro-fauna, the fauna of soils under 6 treatments (organic and conventional cropping patterns of leafy and solanaceous vegetables in greenhouse, organic and conventional cropping patterns in open air) in the Shunyi District of Beijing in June 2016 was studied. Fauna from the 0-15 cm soil layer was extracted by the modified Tullgren method. In total, there were 3 869 soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 18 sample plots, belonging to 30 families, 14 orders 14, 2 taxa (suborders). The results were as follows:1) the orders such as Actinedida, Oribatida, and Onychiuridae were in the largest quantities and were the most widely distributed in the study area, where Acarina, Rhabditidae, and Collembola constituted the main taxa of the soil meso-and micro-fauna. 2) In the open air, the numbers of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 5-10 cm and 10-15 cm layers under organic cultivation were higher than those under conventional cultivation. In the greenhouse, the numbers of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 0-5 cm and 5-10 cm layers under organic cultivation were significantly lower than those under conventional cultivation. 3) Under organic cultivation, the numbers of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 0-5 cm and 10-15 cm layers in the greenhouse were significantly lower than those in the open air, and the Menhinick's abundance index of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 10-15 cm layer in the greenhouse was higher than that in conventional cultivation. Under conventional cultivation, the number of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 5-10 cm layer in the greenhouse was significantly higher than that in the open air. The Shannon-Weiner diversity index of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 0-5 cm layer was higher in the greenhouse than in the open air under both organic and conventional cultivation. 4) Under organic cultivation, the number of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 10-15 cm layer was lower than that under conventional cultivation, and the Pielou's evenness indices of soil meso-and micro-fauna in the 0-5 cm layer were higher than those under conventional cultivation when leafy vegetables were cultivated. Under the conventional cultivation of leafy vegetables, there were more meso-and micro-fauna in the 0-5 cm and 5-10 cm soil layers than in those of solanaceous vegetable cultivation. Therefore, organic cultivation and management in the greenhouse, and the effective use of crop rotation system can facilitate the restoration of soil fauna communities.
Key words:Organic cultivation/
Facility planting/
Open-air conditions/
Crops species/
Meso-and micro-fauna

HTML全文

图1不同处理间各土层中小型土壤动物个体数和类群数
OS:有机模式大棚茄果类; OL:有机模式大棚叶菜类; CS:常规模式大棚茄果类; CL:常规模式大棚叶菜类; OO:露天有机模式; CO:露天常规模式。不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。
Figure1.Individuals and groups numbers of meso- and micro-fauna in different soil layers under different treatments
OS: organic management of solanaceous vegetable in the greenhouse; OL: organic management of leafy vegetable in the greenhouse; CS: conventional management of solanaceous vegetable in the greenhouse; CL: conventional management of leafy vegetable in the greenhouse; OO: organic management in the open air; CO: conventional management in the open air. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments in the same soil layer at 0.05 level.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表1不同栽培模式露天条件下中小型土壤动物组成(n=6)
Table1.Percentage of each soil meso- and micro-fauna in the open air under different cultivation patterns (n=6)

类群 Group	有机栽培?Organic cultivation		常规栽培?Conventional cultivation		总计?Total
类群 Group	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	多度 Abundance
辐螨亚目?Actinedida	465	54.20	268	46.77	733	51.19	+++
甲螨亚目?Oribatida	115	13.40	44	7.68	159	11.10	+++
革螨亚目?Gamasida	25	2.91	46	8.03	71	4.96	++
棘跳科?Isotomidae	95	11.07	67	11.69	162	11.31	+++
等节跳科?Onychiruidae	59	6.88	99	17.28	158	11.03	+++
球角跳科?Hypogastruridae	1	0.12	0	0.00	1	0.07	+
圆跳科?Sminthuridae	0	0.00	6	1.05	6	0.42	+
长角跳科?Entomobryidae	16	1.86	11	1.92	27	1.89	++
蚁科?Formicidae	62	7.23	17	2.97	79	5.52	++
幺蚣科?Scolopendrellidae	2	0.23	0	0.00	2	0.14	+
蚜总科?Aphidoidea	1	0.12	0	0.00	1	0.07	+
铗尾虫科?Japygidae	1	0.12	4	0.70	5	0.35	+
隐翅虫科?Staphyinidae	1	0.12	2	0.35	3	0.21	+
蜉金龟科?Aphodiidae	2	0.23	3	0.52	5	0.35	+
拟步甲科?Tenebrionidae	0	0.00	1	0.17	1	0.07	+
管蓟马科?Phloeothripoide	3	0.35	0	0.00	3	0.21	+
土蝽科?Cydnidae	2	0.23	0	0.00	2	0.14	+
线蚓科?Enchytraeidae	2	0.23	2	0.35	4	0.28	+
芒角亚目幼虫?Aristocera larvae	1	0.12	1	0.17	2	0.14	+
花萤科幼虫?Cantharidae larvae	5	0.58	0	0.00	5	0.35	+
金龟甲科幼虫?Scarabaeidae larvae	1	0.12	0	0.00	1	0.07	+
朽木甲科幼虫?Alleculidae larvae	0	0.00	2	0.35	2	0.14	+
类群数?Total groups	19		15		22
总个体数?Total individuals	859		573		1 432
+++代表优势类群(≥10.0%); ++代表常见类群(1.0%~10.0%); +代表稀有类群(≤1.0%)。+++: predominant group (≥10%); ++: frequent group (1.0%-10.0%); +: rare group (≤1.0%).

下载: 导出CSV
表2不同栽培模式大棚设施条件下中小型土壤动物组成(n=12)
Table2.Percentage of each soil meso- and micro-fauna in the greenhouses under different cultivation patterns (n=12)

类群 Group	有机栽培?Organic cultivation				常规栽培?Conventional cultivation				总计?Total
	茄果 Solanaceous vegetable		叶菜 Leafy vegetable		茄果 Solanaceous vegetable		叶菜 Leafy vegetable		数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	多度 Abundance
	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	数量 Number	比例 Proportion (%)	多度 Abundance
辐螨亚目?Actinedida	68	16.92	67	18.87	230	33.77	350	35.04	715	29.34	+++
甲螨亚目?Oribatida	28	6.97	42	11.83	53	7.78	163	16.32	286	11.74	+++
革螨亚目?Gamasida	19	4.73	87	24.51	104	15.27	162	16.22	372	15.26	+++
棘跳科?Isotomidae	7	1.74	100	28.17	20	3.82	26	2.00	153	6.28	++
等节跳科?Onychiruidae	261	64.93	6	1.69	173	25.40	158	15.82	598	24.54	+++
球角跳科 Hypogastruridae	0	0.00	26	7.32	0	0.00	59	5.91	85	3.49	++
拟比亚科 Pseudachorutidae	0	0.00	7	1.97	0	0.00	7	0.70	14	0.57	+
圆跳科?Sminthuridae	0	0.00	1	0.28	2	0.29	2	0.20	5	0.21	+
长角跳科?Entomobryidae	4	1.00	1	0.28	3	0.44	4	0.40	12	0.49	+
蚁科?Formicidae	6	1.49	1	0.28	50	7.34	55	5.51	112	4.60	++
幺蚣科?Scolopendrellidae	5	1.24	1	0.28	0	0.00	0	0.00	6	0.25	+
蚜总科?Aphidoidea	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	+
铗尾虫科?Japygidae	2	0.50	4	1.13	1	0.15	15	1.50	22	0.90	+
地蜈蚣科?Geophilidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	4	0.59	0	0.00	4	0.16	+
步甲科?Carabidae	0	0.00	1	0.28	1	0.15	0	0.00	2	0.08	+
隐翅虫科?Staphyinidae	0	0.00	1	0.28	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	0.04	+
蜉金龟科?Aphodiidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	25	3.67	0	0.00	25	1.03	++
蓟马科?Thripidae	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	0.10	1	0.04	+
正蚓科?Lumbricidae	0	0.00	1	0.28	5	0.73	0	0.00	6	0.25	+
线蚓科?Enchytraeidae	2	0.50	4	1.13	0	0.00	3	0.30	9	0.37	+
蝼蛄科?Gryllotalpoidea	0	0.00	1	0.28	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	0.04	+
长角亚目幼虫?Nematocera larvae	0	0.00	2	0.56	0	0.00	0	0.00	2	0.08	+
花萤科幼虫?Cantharidae larvae	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	0.44	0	0.00	3	0.12	+
隐翅虫科幼虫?Staphyinidae larvae	0	0.00	2	0.56	0	0.00	0	0.00	2	0.08	+
朽木甲科幼虫?Alleculidae larvae	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	0.15	0	0.00	1	0.04	+
类群数?Total groups	10		19		15		13		25
总个体数?Total individuals	402		355		681		999		2 437
+++代表优势类群(≥10.0%); ++代表常见类群(1.0%~10.0%); +代表稀有类群(≤1.0%)。+++: predominant group (≥10%); ++: frequent group (1.0%-10.0%); +: rare group (≤1.0%).

下载: 导出CSV
表3不同处理间各土层中小型土壤动物多样性指数(n=18)
Table3.Diversity indexes of meso- and micro-fauna communities in different soil layers under different treatments (n=18)

土层 Soil layer (cm)	处理 Treatment	Shannon-Weiner多样性指数(H') Shannon-Weiner index	均匀度指数(E) Pielou evenness index	优势度指数(C) Simpson dominance index	丰富度指数(D) Menhinick richness index
0~5	OS	2.11±0.14ab	1.13±0.08b	0.29±0.03	0.49±0.06
	OL	2.12±0.23ab	1.16±0.11b	0.28±0.04	0.50±0.07
	OO	1.38±0.41a	0.70±0.20ab	0.55±0.15	0.42±0.03
	CS	2.28±0.17b	0.69±0.01b	0.32±0.09	0.47±0.03
	CL	1.92±0.19ab	1.01±0.08a	0.31±0.04	0.38±0.06
	CO	1.46±0.26a	0.71±0.11a	0.52±0.10	0.45±0.03
5~10	OS	2.01±0.23	0.97±0.10	0.33±0.04	0.47±0.06
	OL	2.14±0.22	1.12±0.09	0.31±0.06	0.50±0.06
	OO	2.11±0.17	1.03±0.10	0.36±0.08	0.44±0.05
	CS	2.32±0.13	1.02±0.08	0.27±0.05	0.49±0.06
	CL	2.03±0.14	1.08±0.09	0.31±0.03	0.41±0.03
	CO	1.95±0.33	1.14±0.08	0.35±0.09	0.51±0.03
10~15	OS	1.99±0.28	1.10±0.08	0.32±0.05	0.47±0.10b
	OL	2.13±0.22	1.19±0.11	0.31±0.09	0.71±0.04b
	OO	1.91±0.37	1.01±0.06	0.35±0.08	0.42±0.03a
	CS	2.04±0.12	1.01±0.05	0.38±0.06	0.41±0.02a
	CL	2.02±0.18	1.00±0.06	0.33±0.03	0.47±0.08a
	CO	1.95±0.48	1.26±0.10	0.31±0.10	0.45±0.11a
OS:有机模式大棚茄果类; OL:有机模式大棚叶菜类; CS:常规模式大棚茄果类; CL:常规模大棚式叶菜类; OO:露天有机模式; CO:露天常规模式。同列数据后不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。OS: organic management of solanaceous vegetable in the greenhouse; OL: organic management of leafy vegetable in the greenhouse; CS: conventional management of solanaceous vegetable in the greenhouse; CL: conventional management of leafy vegetable in the greenhouse; OO: organic management in the open air; CO: conventional management in the open air. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments in the same soil layer at 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV
表4不同栽培模式和栽培条件对不同土层中小型土壤动物多样性指数的影响(Two-way ANOVA)
Table4.Effects of cultivation patterns and facilities and their interaction on soil meso- and micro-fauna diversity indexes in different soil layers (Two-way ANOVA)

土层 Soil layer (cm)	多样性指数 Diversity index	栽培模式 Planting pattern (a)	设施条件 Facility (b)	a × b
0~5	H′	0.033	11.550^**	0.048
	E	0.140	19.130^**	0.382
	C	0.001	11.911^**	0.187
	D	0.188	0.261	1.531
5~10	H′	0.155	1.063	0.015
	E	0.492	0.244	0.455
	C	0.152	0.979	0.011
	D	0.199	0.011	1.631
10~15	H′	0.001	0.202	0.018
	E	0.805	0.753	8.958^*
	C	0.002	0.001	0.463
	D	0.631	1.283	1.667
H′: Shannon-Weiner多样性指数; E:均匀度指数; C:优势度指数; D:丰富度指数。^表示P < 0.05; ^表示P < 0.01。H′: Shannon-Weiner index; E: Pielou evenness index; C: Simpson dominance index; D: Menhinick richness index. ^ and ^** mean significant effects at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

下载: 导出CSV
表5不同栽培模式下作物种类对不同土层中小型土壤动物多样性指数的影响(Two-way ANOVA)
Table5.Effects of management regime and crop type and their interaction on soil meso- and micro-fauna diversity indexes in different soil layers (Two-way ANOVA)

土层 Soil layer (cm)	多样性指数 Diversity index	栽培模式 Planting pattern (a)	种植作物 Crop type (b)	a × b
0~5	H′	0.002	0.987	0.981
	E	1.327	0.722	0.171
	C	0.357	0.027	0.006
	D	1.603	0.667	0.884
5~10	H′	0.293	0.185	1.205
	E	0.001	1.492	0.240
	C	0.284^*	0.071	0.497
	D	0.422	0.284	1.048
10~15	H′	0.016	0.068	0.099
	E	3.044	0.362	0.423
	C	0.488^*	0.298	0.166
	D	5.060	5.136	2.043
H′: Shannon-Weiner多样性指数; E:均匀度指数; C:优势度指数; D:丰富度指数。^表示P <* 0.05; ^*表示P < 0.01. H′: Shannon-Weiner index; E: Pielou evenness index; C: Simpson dominance index; D: Menhinick richness index. ^ and ^** mean significant effects at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(47)

[1]	史玉菲, 苏越, 张雪萍.我国土壤动物功能作用的研究进展[J].哈尔滨师范大学自然科学学报, 2011, 27(3): 84-88 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5617.2011.03.024 SHI Y F, SU Y, ZHANG X P. Research advance in the functional role of soil fauna in China[J]. Natural Science Journal of Harbin Normal University, 2011, 27(3): 84-88 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5617.2011.03.024
[2]	张雪萍.土壤动物与环境质量关系探讨[J].哈尔滨师范大学自然科学学报, 1995, 11(4): 95-99 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=QK199500202868 ZHANG X P. On the relation of soil animal to environmental quality[J]. Natural Science Journal of Harbin Normal University, 1995, 11(4): 95-99 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=QK199500202868
[3]	邵元虎, 张卫信, 刘胜杰, 等.土壤动物多样性及其生态功能[J].生态学报, 2015, 35(20): 6614-6625 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb201520005 SHAO Y H, ZHANG W X, LIU S J, et al. Diversity and function of soil fauna[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(20): 6614-6625 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb201520005
[4]	FROUZ J. Effects of soil macro- and mesofauna on litter decomposition and soil organic matter stabilization[J]. Geoderma, 2018, 332: 161-172 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.039
[5]	蒋海东, 杨青, 吕宪国.土壤动物在农业生态系统中的研究进展[J].土壤通报, 2006, 37(4): 805-808 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2006.04.041 JIANG H D, YANG Q, LYU X G. Advance of study on soil fauna in agricultural ecosystem[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2006, 37(4): 805-808 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2006.04.041
[6]	WAGG C, BENDER S F, WIDMER F, et al. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014, 111(14): 5266-5270 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320054111
[7]	李钰飞.有机、无公害和常规蔬菜种植模式下温室土壤生物群落结构及食物网的特征研究[D].北京: 中国农业大学, 2014: 95 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10019-1014221266.htm LI Y F. Effects of organic, low input and conventional management practices on soil biota community structure and soil food web under greenhouse conditions[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2014: 95 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10019-1014221266.htm
[8]	张震, 刘学瑜.我国设施农业发展现状与对策[J].农业经济问题, 2015, (5): 64-70 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/nyyjs201624121 ZHANG Z, LIU X Y. The present situation and countermeasures of facility agriculture development in our country[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2015, (5): 64-70 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/nyyjs201624121
[9]	李中华, 张学军, 吴政文, 等.基于京津冀一体化的设施农业发展思考[J].中国农机化学报, 2016, 37(1): 241-245 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgnjh201601055 LI Z H, ZHANG X J, WU Z W, et al. Thinking about development of the facility agriculture based on the integration of Jing-Jin-Ji[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2016, 37(1): 241-245 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zgnjh201601055
[10]	王庆忠.日光温室对土壤动物群落的影响[J].山东农业科学, 2008, (4): 80-83 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4942.2008.04.029 WANG Q Z. Influence of plastic greenhouse on soil animal community[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2008, (4): 80-83 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4942.2008.04.029
[11]	杜思瑶, 于淼, 刘芳华, 等.设施种植模式对土壤细菌多样性及群落结构的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(11): 1615-1625 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20171105&flag=1 DU S Y, YU M, LIU F H, et al. Effect of facility management regimes on soil bacterial diversity and community structure[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(11): 1615-1625 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20171105&flag=1
[12]	DOMíNGUEZ A, BEDANO J C, BECKER A R, et al. Organic farming fosters agroecosystem functioning in Argentinian temperate soils: Evidence from litter decomposition and soil fauna[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2014, 83: 170-176 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.11.008
[13]	HOLE D G, PERKINS A J, WILSON J D, et al. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity?[J]. Biological Conservation, 2005, 122(1): 113-130 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018
[14]	LIEBIG M A, DORAN J W. Impact of organic production practices on soil quality indicators[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1999, 28(5): 1601-1609 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43268541_Impact_of_organic_production_practices_on_soil_quality_indicators
[15]	王长永, 王光, 万树文, 等.有机农业与常规农业对农田生物多样性影响的比较研究进展[J].生态与农村环境学报, 2007, 23(1): 75-80 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4831.2007.01.017 WANG C Y, WANG G, WAN S W, et al. Effects of organic and conventional farming systems on farmland biodiversity[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2007, 23(1): 75-80 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4831.2007.01.017
[16]	戴素英.高温闷棚减轻病虫害[J].农村新技术, 2018, (8): 21-22 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3542.2018.08.011 DAI S Y. High temperature shack to reduce pests and diseases[J]. New Rural Technology, 2018, (8): 21-22 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3542.2018.08.011
[17]	武朝宝.日光温室大棚西红柿滴灌试验研究[J].节水灌溉, 2011, (5): 27-30 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jsgg201105009 WU C B. Experimental research on drip irrigation for tomato in solar greenhouse[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2011, (5): 27-30 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jsgg201105009
[18]	孙小青.日光温室多茬叶菜类高效种植模式[J].北京农业, 2009, (3): 21-23 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6966.2009.03.008 SUN X Q. High effect planting mode of multi-batched leaf vegetables in greenhouse[J]. Beijing Agriculture, 2009, (3): 21-23 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6966.2009.03.008
[19]	路有成, 王宗英, 罗爱武, 等.安徽沿江城郊蔬菜地土壤动物群落生态学研究[J].应用生态学报, 1997, 8(1): 70-76 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.1997.01.013 LU Y C, WANG Z Y, LUO A W, et al. Ecology of soil animal community in vegetable plots of suburbs along the Yangtze River in Anhui Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1997, 8(1): 70-76 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.1997.01.013
[20]	郑文静, 吴建强, 郭晋川, 等.不同灌溉模式对广西蔗田大型土壤动物群落结构的影响[J].生态与农村环境学报, 2017, 33(8): 722-729 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ncsthj201708007 ZHENG W J, WU J Q, GUO J C, et al. Effects of irrigation method on community structure of soil macro-fauna in sugarcane field in Guangxi[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2017, 33(8): 722-729 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ncsthj201708007
[21]	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 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxzz201112037 SONG L H, WU H T, WU D H. Soil fauna ecology in China cropland ecosystems: Research progress[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2011, 30(12): 2898-2906 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxzz201112037
[22]	尹文英, 张荣祖, 王世彰, 等.中国土壤动物[M].北京:科学出版社, 2000 YIN W Y, ZHANG R Z, WANG S Z, et al. Soil Animals of China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2000
[23]	尹文英.中国土壤动物检索图鉴[M].北京:科学出版社, 1998 YIN W Y. Pictorical Keys to Soil Animals of China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1998
[24]	郑乐怡, 归鸿.昆虫分类[M].南京:南京师范大学出版社, 1999 ZHENG L Y, GUI H. Insect Classification[M]. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press, 1999
[25]	范换, 王邵军, 阮宏华, 等.苏北沿海不同土地类型土壤动物群落及其对凋落物分解的影响[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2014, 38(3): 1-7 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njlydxxb201403001 FAN H, WANG S J, RUAN H H, et al. Effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition and its community structure under different land use patterns in coastal region of northern Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University: Natural Sciences Edition, 2014, 38(3): 1-7 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njlydxxb201403001
[26]	战丽莉.农田黑土中小型土壤动物多样性特征及其影响因素[D].长春: 中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所, 2013: 130 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Thesis_Y2440172.aspx ZHAN L L. Diversity and influencing factor of meso-soil animal under farm land of black soil[D]. Changchun: Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2013: 130 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Thesis_Y2440172.aspx
[27]	战丽莉, 许艳丽, 韩晓增.长期施肥对东北黑土玉米田土壤动物影响[J].土壤与作物, 2012, 1(2): 94-99 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/tryzw201202006 ZHAN L L, XU Y L, HAN X Z. Effect of long-term fertilization on soil fauna diversity in the farmland of black soil in Northeast China[J]. Soil and Crop, 2012, 1(2): 94-99 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/tryzw201202006
[28]	AXELSEN J A, KRISTENSEN K T. Collembola and mites in plots fertilised with different types of green manure[J]. Pedobiologia, 2000, 44(5): 556-566 doi: 10.1078/S0031-4056(04)70071-2
[29]	MELNYCHUK N A, OLFERT O, YOUNGS B, et al. Abundance and diversity of Carabidae (Coleoptera) in different farming systems[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2003, 95(1): 69-72 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880902001196
[30]	DOS SANTOS J B, RAMOS A C, JúNIOR R A, et al. Soil macrofauna in organic and conventional coffee plantations in Brazil[J]. Biota Neotropica, 2018, 18(2): e20180515
[31]	PELOSI C, BERTRAND M, ROGER-ESTRADE J. Earthworm community in conventional, organic and direct seeding with living mulch cropping systems[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29(2): 287-295 doi: 10.1051/agro/2008069
[32]	STOCKDALE E A, WATSON C A. Biological indicators of soil quality in organic farming systems[J]. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2009, 24(4): 308-318 doi: 10.1017/S1742170509990172
[33]	FOISSNER W. Comparative studies on the soil life in ecofarmed and conventionally farmed fields and grasslands of Austria[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & environment, 1992, 40(1/4): 207-218 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016788099290093Q
[34]	CZARNECKI A J, PAPROCKI R. An attempt to characterize complex properties of agroecosystems based on soil fauna[J]. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 1997, 15(1/4): 11-23 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=10.1080/01448765.1997.9755178
[35]	周杜挺. 7种杀虫剂及其混用对稻田水生动物和土壤动物影响的研究[D].长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2006: 75 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/article/cdmd-10537-2006126058.htm ZHOU D T. Studied on the effect about seven insecticides and their mixtures on aquatic animal and soil animal in the paddy field[D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2006: 75 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/article/cdmd-10537-2006126058.htm
[36]	REBECCHI L, GUIDI A, BERTOLANI R. Maturative pattern of the ovotestis in two hermaphrodite species of eutardigrades[J]. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development, 2000, 37(1): 25-34
[37]	陈丹, 范万新, 梁萍, 等, 夏季不同结构塑料大棚的小气候特征[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2008, 36(11): 183-190 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=xbnydxxb200811031 CHEN D, FAN W X, LIANG P, et al. Microclimate characteristics of different structure plastic greenhouses in summer[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University: Natural Science Edition, 2008, 36(11): 183-190 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=xbnydxxb200811031
[38]	王洪涛.日光温室大棚蔬菜施肥状况及对策[J].现代农业科技, 2007, 19: 74 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ahny200719050 WANG H T. Fertilization status and countermeasures of vegetables in solar greenhouse[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2007, 19: 74 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ahny200719050
[39]	SULKAVA P, HUHTA V. Effects of hard frost and freeze-thaw cycles on decomposer communities and N mineralisation in boreal forest soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2003, 22(3): 225-239 doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00155-5
[40]	赵哈林, 刘任涛, 赵学勇, 等.旱作农田改为水浇地对沙质土壤节肢动物群落的影响[J].干旱区资源与环境, 2014, 28(1): 9-14 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7578.2014.01.002 ZHAO H L, LIU R T, ZHAO X Y, et al. Effects of dry farmlands conversion to irrigation farmlands on soil arthropod community[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2014, 28(1): 9-14 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7578.2014.01.002
[41]	GREGORY P J. Roots, rhizosphere and soil: The route to a better understanding of soil science?[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2006, 57(1): 2-12 doi: 10.1111-j.1365-2389.2005.00778.x/
[42]	高翔, 龚道枝, 顾峰雪, 等.覆膜抑制土壤呼吸提高旱作春玉米产量[J].农业工程学报, 2014, 30(6): 62-70 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.06.008 GAO X, GONG D Z, GU F X, et al. Inhibiting soil respiration and improving yield of spring maize in fields with plastic film mulching[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014, 30(6): 62-70 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.06.008
[43]	王宏伟.枣园土壤动物与土壤养分的关系及利用地膜防治枣园害虫的研究[D].晋中: 山西农业大学, 2004: 36 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10113-2005114611.htm WANG H W. Study on relationship of between soil animals and soil elements and pests biorational prevention and cure in the jujube orchard utilizing membrane[D]. Jinzhong: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2004: 36 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10113-2005114611.htm
[44]	PONGE J F, PéRèS G, GUERNION M, et al. The impact of agricultural practices on soil biota: A regional study[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2013, 67: 271-284 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.026
[45]	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 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.02.013 ZHU Q G, ZHU A N, ZHANG J B, et al. Relation of agricultural soil fauna and soil fertility under conservation tillage systems[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2010, 26(2): 70-76 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.02.013
[46]	赵向田, 李继强, 程红玉, 等.不同覆膜对制种油菜生长及土壤水热的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2017, 36(7): 28-32 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ggps201707006 ZHAO X T, LI J Q, CHENG H Y, et al. Impact of plastic-film mulching on dynamics of soil water, temperature and growth of rape seedlings[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2017, 36(7): 28-32 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ggps201707006
[47]	BAI Z G, CASPARI T, GONZALEZ M R, et al. Effects of agricultural management practices on soil quality: A review of long-term experiments for Europe and China[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2018, 265: 1-7 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788091830224X