程曼^{1, 2,},
解文艳²,
杨振兴²,
周怀平^2,,
1.山西大学黄土高原研究所 太原 030006
2.山西省农业科学院农业环境与资源研究所 太原 030031
基金项目: 国家自然科学基金青年基金41807072
国家自然科学基金青年基金41807025
山西省重点研发计划重点项目201703D211002
山西省青年科技研究基金201701D221206

详细信息

作者简介:程曼, 研究方向为土壤生态。E-mail:chengman@sxu.edu.cn

通讯作者:周怀平, 主要研究方向为旱地土壤培育。E-mail:huaipingzhou@163.com

中图分类号:S158.5

计量

文章访问数:644
HTML全文浏览量:9
PDF下载量:439
被引次数:0

出版历程

收稿日期:2019-03-31
录用日期:2019-07-01
刊出日期:2019-10-01

Effects of long-term straw return on corn yield, soil nutrient contents and en-zyme activities in dryland of the Loess Plateau, China

CHENG Man^{1, 2,},
XIE Wenyan²,
YANG Zhenxing²,
ZHOU Huaiping^2,,
1. Institute of Loess Plateau, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China
2. Institute of Agricultural Environment and Resources, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Taiyuan 030031, China
Funds: the National Natural Science Foundation of China41807072
the National Natural Science Foundation of China41807025
the Science and Technology Key Program of Shanxi Province201703D211002
the Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths201701D221206

More Information

Corresponding author:ZHOU Huaiping, E-mail: huaipingzhou@163.com

摘要
HTML全文
图(3)表(3)
参考文献(31)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要
摘要:研究黄土旱塬区玉米生产中长期秸秆还田对土壤性质及玉米产量的影响，可为农田土壤可持续利用及质量提升提供科学依据。本研究基于连续24年（1992-2016年）秸秆还田长期定位试验，设置秸秆过腹还田、秸秆直接还田、秸秆覆盖还田以及不还田处理，研究长期不同秸秆还田方式对土壤化学性质、酶活性以及玉米产量的影响。研究表明，秸秆不还田处理累积玉米产量为1.695×10⁵ kg·hm^-2，覆盖还田、直接还田和过腹还田处理累积玉米产量分别为1.885×10⁵ kg·hm^-2、1.854×10⁵ kg·hm^-2、2.001×10⁵ kg·hm^-2，其增产率分别为10.1%、8.6%、15.3%。3种秸秆还田均可以显著提高0~20 cm土层土壤有机碳含量6%~14%，对20~40 cm土层土壤有机碳含量无显著影响。与秸秆不还田相比，长期过腹还田可显著增加土壤全氮、全磷、全钾、有效氮、有效磷和有效钾含量，秸秆直接还田可显著增加土壤全氮、全钾、有效氮和有效钾含量，长期覆盖还田仅提高土壤有效氮和有效钾含量。土壤蔗糖酶活性表现为过腹还田最高，直接还田和覆盖还田次之，不还田处理最低。秸秆直接还田0~20 cm纤维素酶活性最高，是不还田处理的2.2倍。过腹还田使土壤脲酶活性和碱性磷酸酶活性分别显著提高13.0%和20.5%，直接还田和秸秆覆盖对脲酶和碱性磷酸酶活性无显著影响。玉米生产中长期连续秸秆过腹还田和直接还田对土壤养分含量及酶活性产生了深远的影响，尤其是土壤蔗糖酶活性的提高与玉米产量稳定和提升有非常紧密联系。
关键词:连续秸秆还田/
秸秆还田方式/
土壤养分/
土壤酶活性/
玉米产量
Abstract:Incorporation of straw in soil plays an important role in nutrient management, maintenance of crop productivity, and improvement of soil quality, which is considered to be an effective measure as a substitute for chemical fertilization. Understanding the effects of long-term straw incorporation on soil properties and corn yield in the dryland of the Loess Plateau are essential to provide scientific evidence for sustainable utilization and soil quality improvement of cropland. Here, based on a long-term (24 years) straw return field experiment, effects of different straw return regimes, i.e., straw mulching (SM), direct straw return (DS), animal-digested straw return (AS), and non-straw return (CK) on soil chemical properties, enzyme activities, and corn yield were studied. Results showed that the cumulative corn yield under SM, DS, and AS treatments were 1.885×10⁵ kg·hm^-2, 1.854×10⁵ kg·hm^-2 and 2.001×10⁵ kg·hm^-2, respectively; the yields increased by 10.1%, 8.6% and 15.3%, respectively, compared to CK treatment (1.695×10⁵ kg·hm^-2). Besides, the three long-term straw incorporation treatments enhanced soil organic carbon by 6%-14% in 0-20 cm soil layer, whereas they had no significant effect on soil organic carbon in 20-40 cm soil layer. Compared to CK, soil total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium, available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium contents were significantly increased under AS treatment; whereas DS treatment enhanced soil total nitrogen, total potassium, available nitrogen and available potassium contents; and SM treatment increased soil available nitrogen and potassium content. In addition, soil invertase activity was the highest under AS treatment, followed by SM and DS, and the lowest under CK treatment. Soil cellulase activity under DS treatment was 2.2 and 1.3 times higher in 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm soil layers, respectively, than that under CK treatment. Furthermore, AS treatment enhanced soil urease activity by 13.0% and soil alkaline phosphatase by 20.5% compared to CK, while SM and DS treatments had no significant effect on soil urease and alkaline phosphatase activities. Soil activities of invertase, urease and alkaline phosphatase showed a greater response to animal-digested straw return treatment, whereas soil cellulose activity had a greater response to direct straw return treatment. Furthermore, there was a significant positive correlation between corn yield and soil invertase activity. In conclusion, long-term continuous animal-digested straw return and direct straw return had a profound impact on soil nutrients and enzyme activities. Particularly, the increase in soil invertase activity by straw return is closely related to the promotion of corn yield.
Key words:Long-term straw returning/
Straw returning regimes/
Soil nutrient/
Soil enzyme activities/
Corn yield

HTML全文


图1长期不同秸秆还田处理的玉米累积产量及增产率
CK为不还田处理, SM为秸秆覆盖还田, DS为秸秆直接还田, AS为秸秆过腹还田; 不同大写字母表示不同秸秆还田处理之间累积玉米产量存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。
Figure1.Cumulative yield and increasing rate of maize under long-term different straw returning treatments
CK means non-straw returning, SM means straw mulching, DS means direct straw returning, AS means animal-digested straw returning. Different capital letters mean significant differences among different straw returning treatments (P < 0.05).


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片


图2长期不同秸秆还田处理对不同土层土壤蔗糖酶活性和纤维素酶活性的影响
CK为不还田处理, SM为秸秆覆盖还田, DS为秸秆直接还田, AS为秸秆过腹还田。不同大写字母表示不同秸秆还田处理间差异显著, 不同小写字母表示不同土层间差异显著(P < 0.05)。
Figure2.Activities of invertase and cellulose of different soil layers under different long-term straw returning treatments
CK means non-straw returning, SM means straw mulching, DS means direct straw returning, AS means animal-digested straw returning. Different capital letters mean significant differences among different straw returning treatments (P < 0.05). Different lowercase letters mean significant differences between two soil layers (P < 0.05).


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片


图3长期不同秸秆还田对不同土层土壤脲酶活性和碱性磷酸酶活性的影响
CK为不还田处理, SM为秸秆覆盖还田, DS为秸秆直接还田, AS为秸秆过腹还田。不同大写字母表示不同秸秆还田处理间差异显著, 不同小写字母表示不同土层间差异显著(P < 0.05)。
Figure3.Activities of urease and alkaline phosphatase of different soil layers under different long-term straw returning treatments
CK means non-straw returning, SM means straw mulching, DS means direct straw returning, AS means animal-digested straw returning. Different capital letters mean significant differences among different straw returning treatments (P < 0.05). Different lowercase letters mean significant differences between two soil layers (P < 0.05).


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表11993—2016年不同秸秆还田处理玉米籽粒产量变化特征
Table1.Variation of corn grain yield under different straw returning treatments from 1993 to 2016

kg?hm-2
处理 Treatment	年份Year
	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
CK	6 320b	7 600b	4 450b	7 680a	3 680a	6 430b	2 450b	2 930b	6 120b	6 690b	5 050b	6 820b
SM	6 560ab	8 360a	6 360a	7 650a	3 810a	8 210a	3 470a	3 490ab	6 980a	6 360b	6 820a	7 000b
DS	7 020a	8 040ab	6 120a	7 880a	3 800a	6 720b	3 310a	4 190a	5 990ab	6 320b	6 640a	7 470b
AS	7 310a	8 320a	5 950a	8 270a	4 150a	7 920a	3 290a	4 420a	6 800a	7 130a	6 880a	9 020a
处理 Treatment	年份Year
	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
CK	6 950c	5 700b	8 840c	9 290b	5 940b	7 890b	5 250c	11 380b	14 300b	12 750b	6 250b	8 920b
SM	10 150a	6 990a	8 870c	8 690b	6 990a	8 520ab	6 240b	10 770b	15 330a	14 230a	7 980a	9 810ab
DS	8 340b	6 680ab	9 690b	9 560b	6 310ab	9 080a	6 360b	10 940b	15 060a	14 040a	7 630a	9 150b
AS	7 930b	7 190a	10 920a	10 690a	6 590a	9 090a	7 480a	12 440a	15 950a	14 280a	5 870b	10 420a
CK为不还田处理, SM为秸秆覆盖还田, DS为秸秆直接还田, AS为秸秆过腹还田; 同列数据不同小写字母表示不同秸秆还田处理间存在显著性差异(P < 0.05)。CK means non-straw returning, SM means straw mulching, DS means direct straw returning, AS means animal-digested straw returning. Different lowercase letters following the same column data mean significant differences among different treatments (P < 0.05).

下载: 导出CSV
表2长期不同秸秆还田处理对不同土层土壤化学性质的影响
Table2.Chemical properties of different soil layers under different long-term straw returning treatments

秸秆还田 Straw returning	土层 Soil layer (cm)	有机碳 Soil organic carbon (g?kg-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g?kg-1)	全磷 Tota phosphorus (g?kg-1)	全钾 Total potassium (g?kg-1)	有效氮 Available nitrogen (mg?kg-1)	有效磷 Available phosphorus (mg?kg-1)	有效钾 Available potassium (mg?kg-1)
覆盖还田 SM	0~20	16.53±0.54Ba	1.16±0.05Ba	0.76±0.04Ba	17.92±0.52Ca	59.33±2.30Ba	32.11±0.50Ba	77.00±2.30Ba
	20~40	11.33±0.95Ab	0.87±0.01Bb	0.61±0.09Bb	16.42±0.12Bb	40.79±0.12Cb	10.43±0.36Bb	56.11±0.25Bb
直接还田 DS	0~20	17.73±0.77Aa	1.27±0.02Aa	0.70±0.04Ba	18.67±0.23Ba	59.33±0.56Ba	32.30±0.67Ba	80.50±1.50Ba
	20~40	11.20±0.67Ab	0.98±0.03Ab	0.58±0.08Bb	16.42±0.34Bb	48.21±2.10Bb	11.59±0.05Bb	59.50±0.98Bb
过腹还田 AS	0~20	17.60±0.80Aa	1.27±0.04Aa	0.91±0.02Aa	20.93±0.20Aa	72.31±0.22Aa	73.72±0.45Aa	129.50±1.98Aa
	20~40	10.80±0.51Ab	0.96±0.05Ab	0.75±0.05Ab	20.18±0.54Ab	51.92±0.50Ab	20.21±1.20Ab	66.50±1.21Ab
不还田 CK	0~20	15.46±0.50Ca	1.12±0.01Ba	0.75±0.01Ba	17.17±0.24Ca	53.77±0.40Ca	28.88±0.80Ba	59.50±0.80Ca
	20~40	11.73±0.22Ab	0.83±0.04Bb	0.52±0.02Bb	16.43±0.10Bb	38.94±0.30Cb	10.26±0.46Bb	49.02±0.23Cb
不同大写字母表示不同秸秆还田处理间差异显著(P < 0.05), 不同小写字母表示不同土层间差异显著(P < 0.05)。CK means non-straw returning, SM means straw mulching, DS means direct straw returning, AS means animal-digested straw returning. Different capital letters mean significant differences at 0.05 level among different straw returning treatments. Different lowercase letters mean significant differences at 0.05 level between two soil layers.

下载: 导出CSV
表3土壤酶活性与土壤养分及玉米累积产量的相关系数
Table3.Correlation coefficients between soil enzyme activities, soil nutrient contents and corn yield

	蔗糖酶Invertase	纤维素酶Cellulase	脲酶Urease	碱性磷酸酶Alkaline phosphatase
累积产量Cumulative yield	0.968*	0.849	0.382	0.854
土壤有机碳Soil organic carbon	0.466	0.918**	0.690	0.934**
土壤全氮Total nitrogen	0.547	0.942**	0.712*	0.939**
土壤全磷Total phosphorus	0.754*	0.876**	0.690	0.845**
土壤全钾Total potassium	0.788*	0.527	0.376	0.680
有效氮Available nitrogen	0.747*	0.898**	0.545	0.939**
有效磷Available phosphorus	0.761*	0.892**	0.389	0.891**
有效钾Available potassium	0.858**	0.842**	0.456	0.815*
*表示差异显著(P < 0.05), **表示差异极显著(P < 0.01)。* and ** mean significant correlation at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(31)

[1]	宋大利, 侯胜鹏, 王秀斌, 等.中国秸秆养分资源数量及替代化肥潜力[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(1):1-21 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201801001 SONG D L, HOU S P, WANG X B, et al. Nutrient resource quantity of crop straw and its potential of substituting[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2018, 24(1):1-21 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201801001
[2]	田平, 姜英, 孙悦, 等.不同还田方式对玉米秸秆腐解及土壤养分含量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2019, 27(1):100-108 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stnyyj201901011 TIAN P, JIANG Y, SUN Y, et al. Effect of straw return methods on maize straw decomposition and soil nutrients contents[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(1):100-108 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stnyyj201901011
[3]	梁天锋, 徐世宏, 刘开强, 等.耕作方式对还田稻草氮素释放及水稻氮素利用的影响[J].中国农业科学, 2009, 42(10):3564-3570 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.10.0023 LIANG T F, XU S H, LIU K Q, et al. Influence of tillage patterns on incorporated straw nitrogen release and nitrogen utilization of rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009, 42(10):3564-3570 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.10.0023
[4]	MULUMBA L N, LAL R. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2008, 98(1):106-111 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2007.10.011
[5]	WEI T, ZHANG P, WANG K, et al. Effects of wheat straw incorporation on the availability of soil nutrients and enzyme activities in semiarid areas[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4):e0120994 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120994
[6]	ZHANG P, CHEN X L, WEI T, et al. Effects of straw incorporation on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and crop yield in a semiarid region of China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2016, 160:65-72 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.02.006
[7]	LOU Y L, XU M G, WANG W, et al. Return rate of straw residue affects soil organic C sequestration by chemical fertilization[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2011, 113(1):70-73 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2011.01.007
[8]	BRUNETTO G, VENTURA M, SCANDELLARI F, et al. Nutrient release during the decomposition of mowed perennial ryegrass and white clover and its contribution to nitrogen nutrition of grapevine[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2011, 90(3):299-308 doi: 10.1007/s10705-011-9430-8
[9]	PARTEY S T, QUASHIE-SAM S J, THEVATHASAN N V, et al. Decomposition and nutrient release patterns of the leaf biomass of the wild sunflower (Tithonia diversifolia):A comparative study with four leguminous agroforestry species[J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2011, 81(2):123-134 doi: 10.1007/s10457-010-9360-5
[10]	LIANG Q, CHEN H Q, GONG Y S, et al. Effects of 15 years of manure and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon fractions in a wheat-maize system in the North China Plain[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2012, 92(1):21-33 doi: 10.1007/s10705-011-9469-6
[11]	ZHOU Z J, ZENG X Z, CHEN K, et al. Long-term straw mulch effects on crop yields and soil organic carbon fractions at different depths under a no-till system on the Chengdu Plain, China[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2019, 19(5):2143-2152 doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-02234-x
[12]	张聪, 慕平, 尚建明.长期持续秸秆还田对土壤理化特性、酶活性和产量性状的影响[J].水土保持研究, 2018, 25(1):92-98 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stbcyj201801017 ZHANG C, MU P, SHANG J M. Effects of continuous returning corn straw on soil chemical properties, enzyme activities and yield trait[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 25(1):92-98 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stbcyj201801017
[13]	赵士诚, 曹彩云, 李科江, 等.长期秸秆还田对华北潮土肥力、氮库组分及作物产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(6):1441-1449 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201406016 ZHAO S C, CAO C Y, LI K J, et al. Effect of long-term straw return on soil fertility, nitrogen pool fractions and crop yields on a fluvo-aquic soil in North China[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2014, 20(6):1441-1449 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201406016
[14]	廖育林, 鲁艳红, 谢坚, 等.长期施用钾肥和稻草对红壤双季稻田土壤供钾能力的影响[J].土壤学报, 2017, 54(2):456-467 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trxb201702016 LIAO Y L, LU Y H, XIE J, et al. Effects of long-term application of chemical potassium fertilizer and incorporation of rice straw on potassium supplying capacity of red soil in double cropping paddy field[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2017, 54(2):456-467 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trxb201702016
[15]	AULAKH M S, KHERA T S, DORAN J W, et al. Managing crop residue with green manure, urea, and tillage in a rice-wheat rotation[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2001, 65(3):820-827 doi: 10.2136/sssaj2001.653820x
[16]	GANGWAR K S, SINGH K K, SHARMA S K, et al. Alternative tillage and crop residue management in wheat after rice in sandy loam soils of Indo-Gangetic plains[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2006, 88(1/2):242-252 http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=b35a795dc83bb40df4e860eedaf11ec4&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[17]	陈鲜妮, 岳西杰, 葛玺祖, 等.长期秸秆还田对(土娄)土耕层土壤有机碳库的影响[J].自然资源学报, 2012, 27(1):25-32 CHEN X N, YUE X J, GE X Z, et al. Effect of long-term residue return on soil organic carbon storage[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27(1):25-32
[18]	武均, 蔡立群, 罗珠珠, 等.保护性耕作对陇中黄土高原雨养农田土壤物理性状的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2014, 28(2):112-117 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201402021 WU J, CAI L Q, LUO Z Z, et al. Effects of conservation tillage on soil physical properties of rainfed field of the Loess Plateau in central of Gansu[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 28(2):112-117 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201402021
[19]	高云超, 朱文珊, 陈文新.秸秆覆盖免耕土壤微生物生物量与养分转化的研究[J].中国农业科学, 1994, 27(6):41-49 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.1994.06.010 GAO Y C, ZHU W S, CHEN W X. The relationship between soil microbial biomass and the transformation of plant nutrients in straw mulched no-tillage soils[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1994, 27(6):41-49 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.1994.06.010
[20]	高亚军, 李生秀.旱地秸秆覆盖条件下作物减产的原因及作用机制分析[J].农业工程学报, 2005, 21(7):15-19 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2005.07.004 GAO Y J, LI S X. Cause and mechanism of crop yield reduction under straw mulch in dryland[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2005, 21(7):15-19 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2005.07.004
[21]	MALHI S S, NYBORG M, GODDARD T, et al. Long-term tillage, straw management and N fertilization effects on quantity and quality of organic C and N in a Black Chernozem soil[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2010, 90(2):227-241 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=df0859b6ecdfa80c57bb08a246be0365
[22]	郑立臣, 宇万太, 马强, 等.农田土壤肥力综合评价研究进展[J].生态学杂志, 2004, 23(5):156-161 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4890.2004.05.030 ZHENG L C, YU W T, MA Q, et al. Advances in the integrated evaluation of farmland fertility[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2004, 23(5):156-161 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4890.2004.05.030
[23]	CONG P T, DUNG T D, HIEN T M, et al. Inoculant plant growth-promoting microorganisms enhance utilisation of urea-N and grain yield of paddy rice in southern Vietnam[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2009, 45(1):52-61 doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.06.006
[24]	徐燕, 霍仕平, 邱诗春, 等.玉米秸秆还田对土壤理化特性影响的研究[J].中国农学通报, 2016, 32(23):87-92 doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15120097 XU Y, HUO S P, QIU S C, et al. Effects of Maize straw turnover on soil physicochemical property[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2016, 32(23):87-92 doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15120097
[25]	DOLAN M S, CLAPP C E, ALLMARAS R R, et al. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a Minnesota soil as related to tillage, residue and nitrogen management[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2006, 89(2):221-231 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.07.015
[26]	毛海兰, 付鑫, 赵丹丹, 等.秸秆与地膜覆盖条件下旱作玉米田土壤氮组分生长季动态[J].水土保持学报, 2018, 32(4):246-254 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201804039 MAO H L, FU X, ZHAO D D, et al. Seasonal dynamics of soil nitrogen fractions in dryland spring maize field under straw and plastic film mulching[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 32(4):246-254 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201804039
[27]	刘建国, 卞新民, 李彦斌, 等.长期连作和秸秆还田对棉田土壤生物活性的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2008, 19(5):1027-1032 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb200805016 LIU J G, BIAN X M, LI Y B, et al. Effects of long-term continuous cropping of cotton and returning cotton stalk into field on soil biological activities[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008, 19(5):1027-1032 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb200805016
[28]	罗珠珠, 黄高宝, LI G D, 等.保护性耕作对旱作农田耕层土壤肥力及酶活性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2009, 15(5):1085-1092 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2009.05.015 LUO Z Z, HUANG G B, LI G D, et al. Effects of conservation tillage on soil nutrients and enzyme activities in rainfed area[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2009, 15(5):1085-1092 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1008-505X.2009.05.015
[29]	王灿, 王德建, 孙瑞娟, 等.长期不同施肥方式下土壤酶活性与肥力因素的相关性[J].生态环境, 2008, 17(2):688-692 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2008.02.047 WANG C, WANG D J, SUN R J, et al. The relationship between soil enzyme activities and soil nutrients by long-term fertilizer experiments[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2008, 17(2):688-692 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2008.02.047
[30]	隋跃宇, 焦晓光, 刘晓冰, 等.长期施肥对农田黑土酶活性及作物产量的影响[J].土壤通报, 2010, 41(3):608-610 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trtb201003020 SUI Y Y, JIAO X G, LIU X B, et al. Effects of long-term fertilizations on the black soil enzyme activities and crop yields[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 41(3):608-610 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trtb201003020
[31]	杨敏芳, 朱利群, 韩新忠, 等.耕作措施与秸秆还田对稻麦两熟制农田土壤养分、微生物生物量及酶活性的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2013, 27(2):272-275 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201302053 YANG M F, ZHU L Q, HAN X Z, et al. Effects of tillage and crop residues incorporation on soil nutrient, microbial biomass and enzyme activity under rice-wheat rotation[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2013, 27(2):272-275 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/trqsystbcxb201302053