本文已在中国知网网络首发，可在知网搜索、下载并阅读全文。
3种药用植物单/混播对沙化土壤碳、氮质量分数及酶活性的影响
doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200486
Effects of single/mixed sowing of three medicinal plants on the contents of carbon, nitrogen and enzymes activities of sandy soil
-
摘要:
目的 探究3种药用植物单/混播对土壤品质的影响。 方法 以金银花Lonicera japonica (LJT)、杭白菊Chrysanthemum morifolium (CMR)、内蒙黄芪Astragalus membranaceus (AMB)为材料，以沙化裸地为对照(ck)，在豫北地区连续4 a进行定位试验。分析单/混播种植模式对不同土层(0~40 cm)中有机碳、碱解氮和土壤酶活性的影响，并分析其相关性。 结果 杭白菊/内蒙黄芪(CMR/AMB)和金银花/内蒙黄芪(LJT/AMB)混播模式下土壤有机碳、碱解氮质量分数、土壤脲酶、蔗糖酶和碱性磷酸酶活性均显著高于杭白菊(CMR)和金银花(LJT)单播模式(P＜0.05)。CMR/AMB模式下土壤有机碳质量分数较ck、CMR和AMB分别提高了29.32%、20.16%和10.25%，碱解氮质量分数较ck和CMR分别提高了28.02%和13.24%；LJT/AMB模式下土壤有机碳质量分数较ck、LJT和AMB分别提高了25.46%、18.09%和6.96%，碱解氮质量分数较ck和LJT分别提高了25.56%和11.80%。土壤有机碳、碱解氮和4种土壤酶彼此之间均呈极显著相关(P＜0.01)。从土壤剖面看，不同种植模式下土壤有机碳、碱解氮含量及4种酶活性均呈表聚性特征。 结论 LJT/AMB和CMR/AMB混播模式能通过内蒙黄芪的生物固氮作用提高土壤养分有效性，是适合在当地推广的可持续发展的生态种植模式。图2表3参28 Abstract:Objective This study aims to explore the effects of single and mixed sowing of three medicinal plants on soil quality. Method Taking Lonicera japonica (LJT), Chrysanthemum morifolium (CMR) and Astragalus membranaceus var. mongholicus (AMB) as experimental materials and sandy bare land as control(ck), the effects of single and mixed sowing patterns on organic carbon, alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen and soil enzyme activity in different soil layers (0－40 cm) were studied in the location test conducted in northern Henan Province for 4 consecutive years, and their correlation was analyzed. Result The content of soil organic carbon, alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen and soil enzyme activity of urease, sucrase and alkaline phosphatase under the mixed sowing patterns of CMR/AMB and LJT/AMB were significantly higher than those under the single patten of CMR or LJT (P＜0.05). Soil organic carbon content in CMR/AMB pattern increased by 29.32%, 20.16% and 10.25% respectively, compared with ck, CMR and AMB. Alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen content increased by 28.02% and 13.24% respectively, compared with ck and CMR. Soil organic carbon content of LJT/AMB pattern increased by 25.46%, 18.09% and 6.96%, respectively, compared with ck, LJT and AMB. Alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen content increased by 25.56% and 11.80% respectively, compared with ck and LJT. Soil organic carbon, alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen, and four soil enzymes were all significantly correlated with each other (P＜0.01). From the view of soil profile, the soil organic carbon, alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen and the activities of 4 species of soil enzymes showed the characteristics of surface aggregation under different planting patterns. Conclusion CMR/AMB and LJT/AMB mixed patterns can improve the effectiveness of soil nutrients through the biological nitrogen fixation of A. membranaceus var. mongholicus. They are sustainable ecological patterns suitable for local promotion. [Ch, 2 fig. 3 tab. 28 ref.] -
图 1 不同播种模式下土壤各土层有机碳质量分数
不同字母表示同一土层不同播种模式间显著差异(P＜0.05)
Figure 1 Soil organic carbon content under different planting patterns
图 2 不同播种模式下土壤各土层碱解氮质量分数
不同字母表示同一土层不同播种模式间显著差异(P＜0.05)
Figure 2 Soil available nitrogen content under different planting patterns
表 1 供试土壤(0~40 cm)养分特性
Table 1. Soil nutrient characteristics (0－40 cm)
土层/cm 全氮/(g·kg−1) 全磷/(g·kg−1) 全钾/(g·kg−1) 碱解氮/(mg·kg−1) 速效磷/(mg·kg−1) 速效钾/(mg·kg−1) 有机碳/(g·kg−1) pH 0~20 1.28 0.77 13.13 73.75 15.39 107.69 9.44 7.87 20~40 0.69 0.59 11.25 42.68 10.60 66.28 6.10 7.83 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同播种模式下各土层土壤酶活性
Table 2. Soil enzyme activities in each soil layer under different planting patterns
土层/cm 种植方式 脲酶/(mg·g−1) 蔗糖酶/(mg·g−1) 碱性磷酸酶/(mg·g−1) 多酚氧化酶/(mg·g−1) 0~10 ck 0.342 5±0.021 8 d 6.358 2±0.265 0 d 0.417 6±0.020 6 d 0.754 8±0.046 9 b LJT 0.624 2±0.056 4 c 7.947 8±0.645 6 c 0.617 6±0.043 2 c 1.116 4±0.074 6 a CMR 0.606 7±0.046 5 c 7.847 8±0.241 8 c 0.655 6±0.034 5 c 1.103 1±0.072 6 a AMB 0.844 7±0.062 6 b 8.720 9±0.468 9 b 0.732 5±0.052 6 b 1.127 3±0.089 5 a LJT/AMB 1.108 3±0.061 3 a 9.466 5±0.532 5 a 0.843 2±0.067 8 a 1.275 3±0.084 2 a CMR/AMB 1.036 7±0.055 8 a 9.217 4±0.204 1 a 0.800 4±0.057 2 a 1.134 3±0.067 0 a 10~20 ck 0.310 3±0.018 7 d 5.575 0±0.344 7 d 0.387 5±0.025 3 d 0.697 9±0.037 0 b LJT 0.473 0±0.057 5 c 7.443 8±0.245 9 c 0.490 3±0.053 7 c 1.075 2±0.063 5 a CMR 0.578 1±0.032 1 c 7.143 8±0.443 0 c 0.587 9±0.047 6 c 1.052 2±0.068 7 a AMB 0.639 3±0.052 4 b 8.039 8±0.352 6 b 0.585 8±0.036 2 b 1.068 2±0.070 1 a LJT/AMB 0.843 2±0.064 7 a 8.732 1±0.231 9 a 0.665 4±0.054 7 a 1.182 6±0.096 4 a CMR/AMB 0.798 2±0.045 1 a 8.798 4±0.234 7 a 0.696 3±0.047 3 a 1.093 6±0.074 3 a 20~30 ck 0.222 5±0.015 3 d 4.754 6±0.125 4 c 0.332 7±0.022 3 c 0.563 7±0.026 4 b LJT 0.357 2±0.043 6 c 6.764 5±0.538 6 b 0.355 0±0.023 1 b 0.931 6±0.065 3 a CMR 0.489 7±0.030 7 c 6.994 5±0.364 8 b 0.453 6±0.036 1 b 0.880 7±0.057 0 a AMB 0.553 6±0.038 7 b 7.184 6±0.342 1 b 0.472 2±0.032 7 b 0.952 5±0.085 4 a LJT/AMB 0.667 1±0.059 8 a 7.648 7±0.452 3 a 0.551 2±0.166 0 a 0.994 3±0.073 2 a CMR/AMB 0.663 3±0.043 7 a 7.957 2±0.102 5 a 0.575 4±0.048 9 a 0.926 6±0.088 5 a 30~40 ck 0.171 6±0.013 4 d 4.248 9±0.247 5 c 0.304 9±0.019 7 c 0.506 4±0.022 7 b LJT 0.301 0±0.016 7 c 5.856 4±0.448 7 b 0.320 8±0.003 8 b 0.807 5±0.042 0 a CMR 0.489 7±0.030 7 c 6.994 5±0.364 8 b 0.453 6±0.036 1 b 0.8807±0.057 0 a AMB 0.481 2±0.034 2 b 6.323 1±0.476 8 b 0.415 0±0.025 4 b 0.835 4±0.067 3 a LJT/AMB 0.540 9±0.043 4 a 7.013 2±0.189 7 a 0.494 7±0.113 7 a 0.858 0±0.067 6 a CMR/AMB 0.565 0±0.038 1 a 7.185 4±0.114 6 a 0.506 9±0.036 1 a 0.865 9±0.064 0 a 说明：不同字母表示同一土层不同播种模式间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 土壤碳、氮质量分数与酶活性的相关性分析
Table 3. Correlations analysis of soil carbon, available nitrogen and enzyme activities
参数 有机碳 碱解氮 脲酶 蔗糖酶 碱性磷酸酶 多酚氧化酶 有机碳 1 0.893** 0.943** 0.897** 0.949** 0.808** 碱解氮 1 0.848** 0.844** 0.917** 0.835** 脲酶 1 0.949** 0.965** 0.871** 蔗糖酶 1 0.931** 0.948** 碱性磷酸酶 1 0.875** 多酚氧化酶 1 说明：**表示在0.01水平(双侧)上显著相关
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 郭秀芝, 彭政, 王铁霖, 等. 间套作体系下种间互作对药用植物影响的研究进展[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2020, 45(9): 2017 − 2022. GUO Xiuzhi, PENG Zheng, WANG Tielin, et al. Research progress in effects of interspecific interaction on medicinal plants in intercropping system [J]. China J Chin Mater Medica, 2020, 45(9): 2017 − 2022. [2] 谢开云, 李向林, 何峰, 等. 单播与混播下紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦生物量对氮肥的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 148 − 156. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140619 XIE Kaiyun, LI Xianglin, HE Feng, et al. Response of alfalfa and smooth brome to nitrogen fertilizer in monoculture and mixed grasslands [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 2014, 23(6): 148 − 156. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140619 [3] 欧阳铖人, 吴伯志. 水土保持耕作措施的研究进展及展望[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2017, 32(4): 718 − 726. OUYANG Chengren, WU Bozhi. A review of soil conservation practices on uplands [J]. J Yunnan Agric Univ Nat Sci, 2017, 32(4): 718 − 726. [4] 蔺芳, 刘晓静, 张家洋. 紫花苜蓿与多年生黑麦草不同种植模式下沙化土壤碳、氮含量和酶活性研究[J]. 草原与草坪, 2019, 39(3): 43 − 49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5500.2019.03.006 LIN Fang, LIU Xiaojing, ZHANG Jiayang. Study of the contents of carbon, nitrogen and enzymes activities of sandy soil grown alfalfa and perennial ryegrass with different planting patterns [J]. Grassland Turf, 2019, 39(3): 43 − 49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5500.2019.03.006 [5] 李昂, 李昌明, 尹卓忻, 等. 甘肃秦王川灌区种植豆禾混播牧草的农田生态保育效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(2): 239 − 244, 268. LI Ang, LI Changming, YIN Zhuoxin, et al. Ecological conservation effect of mixed planing legume and grass in Qinwangchuan irrigation area of Gansu Province [J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2020, 34(2): 239 − 244, 268. [6] 哈文秀, 周金星, 庞丹波, 等. 岩溶区不同恢复方式下土壤有机碳组分及酶活性研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(2): 1 − 11. HA Wenxiu, ZHOU Jinxing, PANG Danbo, et al. Soil organic carbon fraction and enzyme activities under different restoration methods in karst area [J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2019, 41(2): 1 − 11. [7] 张家春, 刘婧, 林绍霞, 等. 不同种植方式下贵州玄参种植土壤碳氮磷特征[J]. 河南农业科学, 2015, 44(6): 64 − 67. ZHANG Jiachun, LIU Jing, LIN Shaoxia, et al. Features of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in Scrophulariaceae growing soil under different planting patterns in Guizhou [J]. J Henan Agric Sci, 2015, 44(6): 64 − 67. [8] 王文锋, 李春花, 黄绍文, 等. 不同施肥模式对设施秋冬茬芹菜生育期间土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(3): 676 − 686. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15223 WANG Wenfeng, LI Chunhua, HUANG Shaowen, et al. Effects of different fertilization patterns on soil enzyme activities during growing period of autumn-winter season celery in greenhouse [J]. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2016, 22(3): 676 − 686. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15223 [9] 陈立明, 丁雷, 满秀玲. 云冷杉林土壤酶活性与植物多样性[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2009, 37(3): 58 − 61. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2009.03.022 CHEN Liming, DING Lei, MAN Xiuling. Soil enzyme activities and plant diversity in spruce-fir forest [J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2009, 37(3): 58 − 61. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2009.03.022 [10] 张家洋, 蔺芳, 詹乃才, 等. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦不同栽培模式下土壤团聚体形态结构、组成及有机碳特征[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2019, 36(6): 1077 − 1086. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.004 ZHANG Jiayang, LIN Fang, ZHAN Naicai, et al. Morphological structure, composition, and organic carbon characteristics of soil agglomerations for alfalfa and ryegrass planting patterns [J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2019, 36(6): 1077 − 1086. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.004 [11] 于天一, 逄焕成, 唐海明, 等. 不同母质类型水稻土酶活性及其与理化性质的关系[J]. 土壤学报, 2013, 50(5): 1043 − 1047. YU Tianyi, PANG Huancheng, TANG Haiming, et al. Soil enzyme activities and their relationships with soil physicochemical properties in paddy soils derived from different parent materials under double-rice cropping system in South China [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2013, 50(5): 1043 − 1047. [12] 关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究方法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986: 260 − 339. [13] 关正翾, 娜尔克孜, 朱亚琼, 等. 不同混播方式下燕麦+箭筈豌豆混播草地的生产性能及土壤养分特征[J]. 草业科学, 2019, 36(3): 772 − 784. GUAN Zhengxuan, Naerkezi, ZHU Yaqiong, et al. Effect of different sowing patterns on production performance and soil nutrients in Avena sativa+Vicia sativa mixtures [J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2019, 36(3): 772 − 784. [14] 邰继承, 杨恒山, 范富, 等. 播种方式对紫花苜蓿+无芒雀麦草地土壤碳密度和组分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2010, 27(6): 102 − 107. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2010.06.017 TAI Jicheng, YANG Hengshan, FAN Fu, et al. Effects of sowing methods on soil carbon density and composition in the alfalfa and Bromus inermis pasture [J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2010, 27(6): 102 − 107. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2010.06.017 [15] 包兴国, 杨文玉, 曹卫东, 等. 豆科与禾本科绿肥饲草作物混播增肥及改土效果研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2012, 34(1): 43 − 47. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5021.2012.01.008 BAO Xingguo, YANG Wenyu, CAO Weidong, et al. Soil fertility improvement by mixed planting of Leguminous and Gramineous green manure crops [J]. Chin J Grassland, 2012, 34(1): 43 − 47. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5021.2012.01.008 [16] 郑伟, 加娜尔古丽, 唐高溶, 等. 混播种类与混播比例对豆禾混播草地浅层土壤养分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2015, 32(3): 329 − 339. ZHENG Wei, Jianaerguli, TANG Gaorong, et al. Effects of mixed species, mixed ratios of legume to grass on soil nutrients in surface soils of legume-grass mixture pasture [J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2015, 32(3): 329 − 339. [17] 王理德, 王方琳, 郭春秀, 等. 土壤酶学硏究进展[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(1): 12 − 21. WANG Lide, WANG Fanglin, GUO Chunxiu, et al. Review: progress of soil enzymology [J]. Soils, 2016, 48(1): 12 − 21. [18] 蔺芳. 不同栽培模式下豫北沙化土壤微生物量和酶活性[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2019, 36(3): 590 − 597. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.03.021 LIN Fang. Microbial biomass and enzymatic activity in sandy soils of northern Henan Province with different alfalfa and awnless brome cultivating patterns [J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2019, 36(3): 590 − 597. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.03.021 [19] LI Qiang, LIANG Jianhong, HE Y Y, et al. Effect of land use on soil enzyme activities at karst area in Nanchuan, Chongqing, Southwest China [J]. Plant Soil Environ, 2014, 60(1): 15 − 20. doi: 10.17221/599/2013-PSE [20] 刘文辉, 张英俊, 师尚礼, 等. 高寒区施肥和豆科混播水平对燕麦人工草地土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(1): 23 − 33. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016196 LIU Wenhui, ZHANG Yingjun, SHI Shangli, et al. Soil enzyme activities in alpine naked oat-artificial grassland in reponse to fertilizer and legume mix levels [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 2017, 26(1): 23 − 33. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016196 [21] 黄玙璠, 舒英格, 肖盛杨, 等. 喀斯特山区不同草地土壤养分与酶活性特征[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 93 − 104. HUANG Yufan, SHU Yingge, XIAO Shengyang, et al. Quantification of soil nutrient levels and enzyme activities in different grassland categories in karst mountains [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 2020, 29(6): 93 − 104. [22] 张丽琼, 郝明德, 臧逸飞, 等. 苜蓿和小麦长期连作对土壤酶活性及养分的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(11): 3191 − 3196. ZHANG Liqiong, HAO Mingde, ZANG Yifei, et al. Effects of continuous cropping of wheat and alfalfa on soil enzyme activities and nutrients [J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2014, 25(11): 3191 − 3196. [23] 郝建朝, 吴沿友, 连宾, 等. 土壤多酚氧化酶性质研究及意义[J]. 土壤通报, 2006, 37(3): 470 − 474. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2006.03.013 HAO Jianchao, WU Yanyou, LIAN Bin, et al. Properties of polyphenol oxidase in soil and its significance [J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2006, 37(3): 470 − 474. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2006.03.013 [24] TOSCANO G, COLARIETI M L, Jr GRECO G. Oxidative polymerisation of phenols by a phenoloxidase from green olives [J]. Enzyme Microb Technol, 2003, 33(1): 47 − 54. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(03)00080-2 [25] TU Cheng, TENG Ying, LUO Yongming, et al. PCB removal, soil enzyme activities and microbial community structures during the phytoremediation by alfalfa in field soils [J]. J Soils Sediments, 2011, 11(4): 649 − 656. doi: 10.1007/s11368-011-0344-5 [26] 盛亚萍, 赵成章, 张静, 等. 高寒山区混播草地燕麦和毛苕子根长密度分布格局[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013, 32(2): 279 − 284. SHENG Yaping, ZHAO Chengzhang, ZHANG Jing, et al. Spatial distribution patterns of root length density of Avena sativa and Vicia villosa in their mixed-sowing grassland in alpine region [J]. Chin J Ecol, 2013, 32(2): 279 − 284. [27] 徐炳成, 山仑, 黄占斌, 等. 沙打旺与柳枝稷单、混播种苗期水分利用和根冠生长的比较[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2004, 10(5): 577 − 580. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2004.05.008 XU Bingcheng, SHAN Lun, HUANG Zhanbin, et al. Comparative study of water use efficiency and growth of Astrafalus adsurgens and Panicum virgatum seedings under separated and mixed plantation [J]. Chin J Appl Environ Biol, 2004, 10(5): 577 − 580. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2004.05.008 [28] 来幸樑, 师尚礼, 吴芳, 等. 紫花苜蓿与3种多年生禾草混播草地的土壤养分特征[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(1): 52 − 64. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2019-0127 LAI Xingliang, SHI Shangli, WU Fang, et al. Nutrient characteristics of soil sowed with different combinations of alfalfa and three perennial grasses [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 2020, 37(1): 52 − 64. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2019-0127 -
-
链接本文:
http://zlxb.zafu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200486
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 20
- 被引次数: 0
