不同改良模式对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.02.008

生态环境学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2): 275-284.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.02.008

不同改良模式对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质的影响

张子璇¹^,²(), 牛蓓蓓¹^,², 李新举¹^,²^,^*()

1.土肥资源高效利用国家工程实验室,山东泰安 271018
2.山东农业大学资源与环境学院,山东泰安 271018

收稿日期:2019-09-17 出版日期:2020-02-18 发布日期:2020-04-01
通讯作者: * 李新举（1965年生）,男,教授,博士,博士研究生导师,主要从事土地复垦及土壤生态方面的研究。E-mail: lxj0911@126.com
作者简介:张子璇（1996年生）,女,硕士研究生,主要从事土地整治与保护方面的研究。E-mail: 18554211381@163.com
基金资助:
山东省重大科技创新工程项目(2017CXGC0301)

Effect of Different Improvement Modes on Physical and Chemical Characters of the Coastal Saline Soil

ZHANG Zixuan¹^,²(), NIU Beibei¹^,², LI Xinju¹^,²^,^*()

1. National Engineering Laboratory for Efficient Utilization of Soil and Fertilizer Resources, Tai’an 271018, China
2. College of Resources and Environment, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China

Received:2019-09-17 Online:2020-02-18 Published:2020-04-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

作为中国重要的生态保护和土地后备资源区,黄河三角洲地区土壤盐渍化现象较为严重,因此探究不同功能性物料对其土壤理化性质的影响可为滨海盐渍土土壤改良和提高农作物产量提供理论依据。以黄河三角洲轻中度（T₁）和重度（T₂）滨海盐渍土为研究对象,采取秸秆覆盖（F₁）、秸秆掩埋（F₂）和秸秆覆盖+掩埋（F₃）3种秸秆还田方式与脱硫石膏（A）、有机肥（B）和脱硫石膏+有机肥（C）3种改良剂添加方式组成多种改良模式开展改良试验,通过对比分析不同改良模式对盐渍土土壤理化性状及土壤养分变化的影响,探究不同程度滨海盐渍土的最优改良组合。结果表明：成熟期与返青期相比,T₁F₂C处理的土壤含水率达最高值（40.65%）,土壤电导率均较其对照处理呈现最大降幅（35.57%）,盐分抑制效率（SIE）值达最高值（31.83%）;T₂F₃C处理的土壤含水率均值高达29.26%,SIE值上升18.88%;T₁和T₂的土壤养分指标均呈现不同幅度的增加。得出以下结论：不同秸秆还田方式均可降低土壤盐分并起到保水保肥的作用,总体以F₃>F₂>F₁的效果呈现。对于控制水分损失、有效抑制土壤盐分表聚的作用来说,C>A>B;对于提高土壤肥力、增加土壤养分有效性的效果,C>B>A。总体上,F₂C和F₃C处理分别对于T₁和T₂土壤的水盐改善和养分提高效果较优,为两种程度盐渍土的最佳改良模式,可推广使用。对于不同秸秆还田方式下施肥对土壤养分含量的影响,F₁和F₃方式与土壤有机质含量,F₁方式与土壤有效磷和速效钾含量,F₂和无秸秆处理方式（CK）与土壤碱解氮含量在一定程度上呈显著或极显著正相关关系。

关键词: 水盐动态, 土壤养分, 秸秆覆盖, 秸秆掩埋

Abstract:

The Yellow River Delta is an important ecological protection base and land reserve resource area in China, which has been suffering from severe soil salinization. Therefore, exploring the effects of different functional materials on soil physical and chemical properties can provide theoretical basis for improving coastal saline soils and increasing crop yields. In this study, light-medium (T₁) and severe (T₂) coastal saline soils in the Yellow River Delta were taken as research objects. Three types of straw applications: straw mulch (F₁), straw burial (F₂), and straw mulch plus straw burial (F₃), and three kinds of modifiers addition: desulfurization gypsum (A), organic fertilizer (B) and desulfurization gypsum plus organic fertilizer (C), were combined into multiple improvement modes to conduct improvement experiments. By comparing and analyzing the effects of different improvement models on the physicochemical properties and nutrient changes of saline soils, the optimal improvement modes of coastal saline soils with different salinization levels were explored. Compared with returning green stage, soil moisture content of T₁F₂C treatment reached the highest value (40.65%) in the mature period, besides the average value of soil electrical conductivity showed the largest decrease (35.57%) compared with that under control treatment, and the salt inhibition efficiency (SIE) value reached the highest value (31.83%). Simultaneously the average moisture content of soils treated by T₂F₃C was as high as 29.26%, and the SIE value increased by 18.88%. The soil nutrients of T₁ and T₂ increased in different ranges. The following conclusions were drawn: straw application can reduce soil salinity and play a role in retaining water and fertilizer, and the order of overall effects is F₃>F₂>F₁; The combined apllication of desulfurized gypsum and organic fertilizer (C) has the best effect on controlling water loss and inhibiting the accumulation of soil salt, followed by separate use of organic fertilizer (B) and desulfurized gypsum (A). Generally, F₂C and F₃C treatments have better effects on water and salt improvement and nutrient enhancement of T₁ and T₂ soils, respectively, indicating that they are the best improvement models for light-medium and severe coastal saline soils, respectively. In addition, significant or extremely significant positive correlations were found between F₁/F₃ treatments and SOC content, F₁ treatment and the content of soil available phosphorus and available potassium, as well as F₂/CK treatments and soil alkaline nitrogen content, which revealled the effect of straw application on soil nutrients.

Key words: water and salt dynamics, soil nutrient, straw mulching, straw burying

中图分类号:

S156.4
X144

张子璇, 牛蓓蓓, 李新举. 不同改良模式对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(2): 275-284.

ZHANG Zixuan, NIU Beibei, LI Xinju. Effect of Different Improvement Modes on Physical and Chemical Characters of the Coastal Saline Soil[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2020, 29(2): 275-284.

图/表 11

参考文献 25

[1]	CAIYAN L, HONGYAN W, HUAIHAI C, et al., 2018. Effects of N fertilization and maize straw on the transformation and fate of labeled (¹⁵NH₄)₂SO₄ among three continuous crop cultivations[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 208: 275-283. DOI URL
[2]	CHITER M, PARIHAR, MALU R, et al., 2018. Long-Term Conservation Agriculture and Intensified Cropping Systems: Effects on Growth, Yield, Water, and Energy-use Efficiency of Maize in Northwestern India[J]. Pedosphere, 28(6): 952-963. DOI URL
[3]	XIE W J, WU L F, ZHANG Y P, et al., 2017. Effects of straw application on coastal saline topsoil salinity and wheat yield trend[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 169: 1-6. DOI URL
[4]	鲍士旦, 1999. 土壤农化分析[M]. 第3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社: 42-50.
	BAO S D, 1999. Analysis of Soil Agrochemical[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agricultural Press: 42-50.
[5]	曹雨桐, 佘冬立, 2017. 施用生物炭和聚丙烯酰胺对海涂围垦区盐碱土水力性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 28(11): 3684-3690.
	CAO Y T, YAN D L, 2017. Effects of biochar and polyacrylamide on hydraulic properties of saline-alkali soil in the reclamation area of the tidal flat[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 28(11): 3684-3690.
[6]	刘广明, 杨劲松, 吕真真, 等, 2011. 不同调控措施对轻中度盐碱土壤的改良增产效应[J]. 农业工程学报, 27(9): 164-169.
	LIU G M, YANG J S, LV Z Z, et al., 2011. Effects of different control measures on the yield increase of light and moderate saline-alkali soils[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 27(9): 164-169.
[7]	刘艳, 李金胜, 王菊英, 等, 2014. 有机肥不同用量对黄河三角洲盐碱地杂交狼尾草产量和品质的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 46(6): 89-92.
	LIU Y, LI J S, WANG J Y, et al., 2014. Effects of different amounts of organic fertilizer on yield and quality of hybrid Pennisetum in saline-alkali land in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 46(6): 89-92.
[8]	李志丹, 干友民, 泽柏, 等, 2004. 牧草改良盐渍化土壤理化性质研究进展[J]. 草业科学, 21(6): 17-21.
	LI Z D, YOU Y M, ZE B, et al., 2004. Research progress on physical and chemical properties of forage improved salinized soil[J]. Journal of Grass Science, 21(6): 17-21.
[9]	吕真真, 杨劲松, 刘广明, 等, 2017. 黄河三角洲土壤盐渍化与地下水特征关系研究[J]. 土壤学报, 54(6): 1377-1385.
	LV Z Z, YANG J S, LIU G M, et al., 2017. Study on the relationship between soil salinization and groundwater characteristics in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 54(6): 1377-1385.
[10]	马飞, 许兴, 肖国举, 等, 2016. 秸秆还田与有机肥对银北盐碱地春小麦光合作用及生长的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 44(9): 80-83.
	MA F, XU X, XIAO G J, et al., 2016. Effects of straw returning and organic fertilizer on photosynthesis and growth of spring wheat in Yinbei saline-alkali land[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 44(9): 80-83.
[11]	毛玉梅, 李小平, 2016. 烟气脱硫石膏对滨海滩涂盐碱地的改良效果研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 36(1): 225-231.
	MAO Y M, LI X P, 2016. Study on the improvement effect of flue gas desulfurization gypsum on saline-alkali land in Binhai Beach[J]. China Environmental Science, 36(1): 225-231.
[12]	沈婧丽, 王彬, 许兴, 2016. 脱硫石膏改良盐碱地研究进展[J]. 农业科学研究, 37(1): 65-69.
	SHEN Y L, WANG B, XU X, 2016. Research progress in improving saline-alkali soil by desulfurization gypsum[J]. 农业科学研究, 37(1): 65-69.
[13]	沈婧丽, 王彬, 田小萍, 等, 2016. 不同改良模式对盐碱地土壤理化性质及苜蓿产量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 45(6): 45-50.
	SHEN Y L, WANG B, TIAN X P, et al., 2016. Effects of different improved models on soil physical and chemical properties and alfalfa yield in saline-alkali soils[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 45(6): 45-50.
[14]	王会, 何伟, 段福建, 等, 2019. 秸秆还田对盐渍土团聚体稳定性及碳氮含量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 35(4): 124-131.
	WANG H, HE W, DUAN F J, et al., 2019. Effects of straw returning on the stability and carbon and nitrogen contents of saline soil aggregates[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 35(4): 124-131.
[15]	肖国举, 罗成科, 张峰举, 等, 2010. 燃煤电厂脱硫石膏改良碱化土壤的施用量[J]. 环境科学研究, 23(6): 762-767.
	XIAO G J, LUO C K, ZHANG F J, et al., 2010. Application of desulfurized gypsum to improve alkalized soil in coal-fired power plants[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 23(6): 762-767.
[16]	杨东, 李新举, 孔欣欣, 2017. 不同秸秆还田方式对滨海盐渍土水盐运动的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 24(6): 74-78.
	YANG D, LI X J, KONG X X, 2017. Effects of different straw returning methods on water and salt movement of coastal saline soil[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 24(6): 74-78.
[17]	杨东, 李新举, 王梅, 2016. 秸秆覆盖对滨海盐渍土土壤养分的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 30(3): 159-164.
	YANG D, LI X J, WANG M, 2016. Effects of straw mulching on soil nutrients in coastal saline soil[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 30(3): 159-164.
[18]	杨东, 李新举, 许燕, 等, 2018. 不同有机物覆盖对滨海盐渍土改良效应的研究[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 49(2): 272-277.
	YANG D, LI X J, XU Y, et al., 2018. Study on the improvement effect of different organic matter coverage on coastal saline soil[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 49(2): 272-277.
[19]	杨凯, 刘红梅, 肖正午, 2018. 土壤改良剂及其在各种土壤改良应用的研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 46(21): 39-41.
	YANG K, LIU H M, XIAO Z W, 2018. Research progress of soil amendments and their application in various soil improvement applications[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 46(21): 39-41.
[20]	张济世, 于波涛, 张金凤, 等, 2017. 不同改良剂对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质和小麦生长的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 23(3): 704-711.
	ZHANG J S, YU B T, ZHANG J F, et al., 2017. Effects of different amendments on soil physical and chemical properties and wheat growth in coastal saline soil[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 23(3): 704-711.
[21]	张洁, 2014. 秸秆还田条件下优化施肥对小麦产量的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学.
	ZHANG J, 2014. Effect of optimized fertilization on wheat yield under straw returning[D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University.
[22]	张凌云, 赵庚星, 徐嗣英, 等, 2005. 滨海盐渍土适宜土壤盐碱改良剂的筛选研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 19(3): 21-23, 28.
	ZHANG L Y, ZHAO G X, XU Y Y, et al., 2005. Screening of suitable saline-alkali improvers for coastal saline soil[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 19(3): 21-23, 28.
[23]	张娟, 徐宁彤, 孟庆峰, 等, 2019. 有机肥施用年限对土壤有机碳组分及其来源与玉米产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 35(2): 107-113.
	ZHANG J, XU N W, MENG Q F, et al., 2019. Effects of application time of organic manure on soil organic carbon fraction and its source and maize yield[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 35(2): 107-113.
[24]	赵永敢, 李玉义, 胡小龙, 等, 2013. 地膜覆盖结合秸秆深埋对土壤水盐动态影响的微区试验[J]. 土壤学报, 50(6): 1129-1137.
	ZHAO Y G, LI Y Y, HU X L, et al., 2013. Micro-area experiment on the effect of plastic film mulching combined with deep burial on soil water and salt dynamics[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 50(6): 1129-1137.
[25]	邹传俊, 2011. 小麦生长期土壤养分动态变化与产量的关系[J]. 安徽农学通报(上半月刊), 17(5): 75-78.
	ZOU C J, 2011. Relationship between dynamic changes of soil nutrients and yield in wheat growth period[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences (First Half Monthly), 17(5): 75-78.

土壤盐化度 Classification of soil salinity	含水率 Moisture content/ %	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)	有机质 Organic matter/ (g∙kg^-1)	碱解氮 Alkaline nitrogen/ (mg∙kg^-1)	有效磷 Available phosphorus/ (mg∙kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg∙kg^-1)
轻中度盐渍土 Light and moderate Saline soil	30.96	1242	12.72	93.02	11.08	250.30
重度盐渍土 Severe saline soils	17.09	2970	7.76	60.80	5.75	185.70

土壤盐化度 Classification of soil salinity	含水率 Moisture content/ %	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)	有机质 Organic matter/ (g∙kg^-1)	碱解氮 Alkaline nitrogen/ (mg∙kg^-1)	有效磷 Available phosphorus/ (mg∙kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg∙kg^-1)
轻中度盐渍土 Light and moderate Saline soil	30.96	1242	12.72	93.02	11.08	250.30
重度盐渍土 Severe saline soils	17.09	2970	7.76	60.80	5.75	185.70

处理Treatments	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	是否添加脱硫石膏Whether to add desulfurization gypsum	是否施加有机肥 Whether to add organic fertilizer	处理 Treatments	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	是否添加脱硫石膏 Whether to add desulfurization gypsum	是否施加有机肥 Whether to add organic fertilizer
F₁A	秸秆覆盖 Straw mulching	√		F₃A	秸秆覆盖+ 秸秆掩埋 Straw covering and straw burying	√
F₁B			√	F₃B			√
F₁C		√	√	F₃C		√	√
F₁CK				F₃CK
F₂A	秸秆掩埋 Straw burying	√		CKA	对照 Control	√
F₂B			√	CKB			√
F₂C		√	√	CKC		√	√
F₂CK				CKCK

处理Treatments	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	是否添加脱硫石膏Whether to add desulfurization gypsum	是否施加有机肥 Whether to add organic fertilizer	处理 Treatments	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	是否添加脱硫石膏 Whether to add desulfurization gypsum	是否施加有机肥 Whether to add organic fertilizer
F₁A	秸秆覆盖 Straw mulching	√		F₃A	秸秆覆盖+ 秸秆掩埋 Straw covering and straw burying	√
F₁B			√	F₃B			√
F₁C		√	√	F₃C		√	√
F₁CK				F₃CK
F₂A	秸秆掩埋 Straw burying	√		CKA	对照 Control	√
F₂B			√	CKB			√
F₂C		√	√	CKC		√	√
F₂CK				CKCK

作物生长期 Crop’s growth stage	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理 Treatments	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)	作物生长期 Crop’s growth stage	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理 Treatments	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)
返青期 Returning green stage	T₁F₁	CK	754.21±41.47ab	成熟期 Ripening Stage	T₁F₁	CK	850.28±46.75bc
		A	664.08±36.52de			A	701.17±38.56de
		B	694.16±38.17bcd			B	789.41±43.40cd
		C	658.32±36.19de			C	652.28±35.86e
	T₁F₂	CK	701.05±38.56bc		T₁F₂	CK	832.35±45.76bc
		A	637.34±35.04d			A	640.19±35.20e
		B	675.07±37.13de			B	743.32±40.87d
		C	553.33±30.42e			C	536.26±29.48f
	T₁F₃	CK	776.37±42.68a		T₁F₃	CK	893.17±49.12ab
		A	643.18±35.37d			A	687.21±37.79de
		B	691.21±38.01cde			B	738.17±40.59d
		C	630.13±34.65d			C	659.28±36.52e
	T₁CK	CK	768.19±42.24ab		T₁CK	CK	933.19±51.32a
		A	746.31±41.03ab			A	887.21±48.79ab
		B	697.14±38.34bc			B	896.34±49.28ab
		C	658.21±36.19de			C	868.19±47.74ab

不同改良模式对滨海盐渍土土壤理化性质的影响

Effect of Different Improvement Modes on Physical and Chemical Characters of the Coastal Saline Soil

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 25

相关文章 13

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作物生长期 Crop’s growth stages	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理 Treatments	有机质 Organic matter/ (g∙kg^-1)	有效磷 Available phosphorus/ (mg∙kg^-1)	碱解氮 Alkaline nitrogen/ (mg∙kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg∙kg^-1)
返青期 Returning green stage	T₁F₁	CK	14.91±0.97ab	4.91±0.32d	64.90±3.89f	278.16±16.68f
		A	16.80±1.09cd	8.34±0.54cd	107.12±6.42cde	364.31±21.84bcd
		B	19.11±1.24bc	8.62±0.56cd	136.31±8.16a	461.21±27.66a
		C	16.15±1.05d	8.11±0.53cd	116.22±6.96bc	396.27±23.76b
	T₁F₂	CK	16.71±1.09cd	7.91±0.51cd	83.10±4.99e	345.35±20.70de
		A	18.50±1.20bcd	11.12±0.72bcd	112.41±6.72bcd	393.29±23.58bc
		B	17.09±1.11cd	8.22±0.53cd	110.13±6.60bcd	320.16±19.20e
		C	20.91±1.36ab	13.15±0.85bcd	132.21±7.92a	432.31±25.92a
	T₁F₃	CK	16.94±1.10cd	9.23±0.59cd	81.70±4.90e	347.27±20.82de
		A	17.91±1.16bcd	10.36±0.67ab	82.70±4.96e	391.18±23.46bc
		B	18.40±1.20bcd	16.61±1.08a	134.40±8.04a	388.33±23.28bc
		C	18.28±1.17cd	10.73±0.70bcd	119.33±7.14b	358.19±21.48bcd
	T₁CK	CK	18.36±1.17bcd	7.56±0.49cd	82.50±4.95e	356.21±21.36cde
		A	18.62±1.21bcd	8.93±0.58bcd	99.20±5.95de	371.19±22.26bcd
		B	18.31±1.19bcd	12.62±0.82bcd	108.13±6.48cde	387.22±23.22bc
		C	23.75±1.54a	18.72±1.22abc	104.43±6.24de	446.41±26.76a
成熟期 Ripening stage	T₁F₁	CK	15.40±0.99d	11.82±0.77bc	84.60±5.08e	310.29±18.60e
		A	17.53±1.14bc	6.51±0.42cd	109.18±6.54cd	346.16±20.76cde
		B	17.33±1.12bc	11.84±0.77bc	125.26±7.50bc	396.27±23.76bc
		C	21.20±1.37a	16.11±1.05ab	104.19±6.24cd	445.11±26.70a
	T₁F₂	CK	15.65±1.01d	7.43±0.48cd	101.31±6.06cde	344.38±20.64de
		A	16.72±1.09bcd	5.14±0.33d	147.24±8.82ab	347.13±20.82cde
		B	16.91±1.10bcd	9.91±0.64bcd	170.41±10.20a	360.21±21.60cd
		C	19.92±1.29ab	18.62±1.21a	153.19±9.18ab	402.26±24.12bc
	T₁F₃	CK	15.73±1.02cd	6.41±0.42cd	89.70±5.38e	329.19±19.74de
		A	16.63±1.08cd	8.91±0.58bcd	168.14±10.08a	347.31±20.82cde
		B	18.62±1.21ab	15.93±1.03ab	112.27±6.72bcd	410.25±24.60ab
		C	17.64±1.14abc	9.65±0.62bcd	120.19±7.20bcd	371.17±22.26bcd
	T₁CK	CK	16.32±1.06cd	8.41±0.55cd	109.32±6.54cd	361.19±21.66cd
		A	19.53±1.27ab	13.72±0.89bc	93.20±5.59cde	381.36±22.86bcd
		B	17.50±1.14bc	12.84±0.83bc	109.06±6.54bcd	392.21±23.52bc
		C	20.84±1.35a	19.81±1.29a	136.14±8.16bc	426.14±25.56ab

作物生长期 Crop’s growth Stage	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理Treatments	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)	作物生长期Crop’s growth stage	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理Treatments	电导率 Conductivity/ (μS∙cm^-1)
返青期 Returning green stage	T₂F₁	CK	1634.11±89.87a	成熟期 Ripening stage	T₂F₁	CK	1897.16±104.34ab
		A	1305.09±71.78ab			A	1392.22±76.56bc
		B	1505.25±82.78ab			B	1520.12±83.60abc
		C	1273.31±70.02ab			C	1345.31±73.98bc
	T₂F₂	CK	1624.22±89.32a		T₂F₂	CK	1860.17±102.30ab
		A	1353.43±74.42ab			A	1513.22±83.22abc
		B	1496.31±82.28ab			B	1534.41±84.37abc
		C	1302.17±71.61ab			C	1495.31±82.23abc
	T₂F₃	CK	1609.33±88.50ab		T₂F₃	CK	1799.14±98.95ab
		A	1183.19±65.07ab			A	1177.40±64.74cd
		B	1382.20±76.01ab			B	1296.35±71.28bc
		C	1091.33±60.01b			C	929.41±51.10d
	T₂CK	CK	1674.41±92.07a		T₂CK	CK	2007.30±110.39a
		A	1459.21±80.25ab			A	1814.21±99.77ab
		B	1506.19±82.83ab			B	1870.22±102.85ab
		C	1403.31±77.17ab			C	1751.18±96.31abc

作物生长期 Crop’s growth stage	秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	处理 Treatments	ω_{(Organic matter)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	ω_{(Available phosphorus)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)	ω_{(Alkaline nitrogen)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)	ω_{(Available potassium)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)
返青期 Returning green stage	T₂F₁	CK	11.81±0.77b	5.11±0.33de	62.53±3.75de	254.33±15.24e
		A	14.10±0.92ab	5.80±0.38cd	84.61±5.08bc	295.21±17.70de
		B	13.72±0.89ab	7.15±0.46bc	64.30±3.86de	289.19±17.34de
		C	13.51±0.88ab	5.82±0.38cd	75.44±4.52bcd	305.15±18.30cd
	T₂F₂	CK	13.43±0.87ab	2.85±0.18f	61.13±3.67de	260.31±15.60cd
		A	16.90±1.10a	5.71±0.37cd	70.16±4.21cd	325.26±19.50cd
		B	16.31±1.06a	4.13±0.27ef	93.53±5.61ab	341.11±20.46bc
		C	16.63±1.08a	4.82±0.31de	102.42±6.12a	283.16±16.98bc
	T₂F₃	CK	13.62±0.88ab	4.40±0.26ef	82.30±4.94bc	279.26±16.74bc
		A	15.20±0.99ab	5.51±0.36de	87.51±5.25ab	333.31±19.98bc
		B	14.91±0.97ab	5.24±0.34de	83.83±5.03bc	302.21±18.12abc
		C	17.09±1.11a	4.61±0.30de	90.44±5.42ab	345.27±20.70abc
	T₂CK	CK	13.61±0.88ab	5.82±0.38cd	53.71±3.22e	262.22±15.72ab
		A	14.32±0.93ab	5.30±0.34de	76.45±4.58bcd	270.30±16.20ab
		B	15.50±1.01ab	10.51±0.68a	72.92±4.37cd	319.19±19.14ab
		C	14.81±0.96ab	7.94±0.51b	65.91±3.95cd	375.31±16.50a
成熟期 Ripening stage	T₂F₁	CK	15.43±1.00cde	9.50±0.62de	109.34±6.54cde	358.21±21.48e
		A	18.90±1.23ab	10.33±0.67cd	135.31±8.10bc	340.29±20.40de
		B	18.31±1.19bc	15.21±0.99a	143.24±8.58b	430.33±25.80de
		C	16.82±1.09bcd	12.94±0.84ab	133.41±7.98bc	450.17±27.00cde
	T₂F₂	CK	13.31±0.86e	4.91±0.32f	94.60±5.68e	331.31±19.86cd
		A	20.24±1.31ab	12.90±0.84ab	105.21±6.30cde	463.21±27.78cd
		B	22.61±1.47a	16.14±1.04a	180.32±10.80a	378.19±22.68cd
		C	18.50±1.20abc	14.60±0.95a	185.41±11.10a	338.08±20.28cd
	T₂F₃	CK	13.21±0.86e	5.51±0.36f	95.30±5.72de	295.31±17.70c
		A	17.21±1.11bcd	8.82±0.57de	99.81±5.99de	328.22±19.68b
		B	14.41±0.94de	12.34±0.78bc	117.41±7.02bcd	429.21±25.74b
		C	18.31±1.19abc	10.23±0.66cd	137.15±8.22bc	567.43±34.02b
	T₂CK	CK	15.21±0.98de	8.11±0.53e	106.31±6.36cde	336.15±20.16b
		A	15.82±1.03cde	10.64±0.69cd	116.22±6.96bcd	358.18±21.48b
		B	17.21±1.12bc	16.41±1.07a	124.30±7.44bc	436.31±26.26b
		C	22.20±1.44a	10.83±0.70cd	111.21±6.66bcd	430.10±25.80a

秸秆还田方式 Straw returning method	有机质 Organic matter	有效磷 Available phosphorus	碱解氮 Alkaline nitrogen	速效钾 Available potassium
F₁	0.667*	0.855*	0.489	0.732**
F₂	0.447	0.572	0.673*	0.319
F₃	0.579*	0.490	0.390	0.261
CK	0.544	0.339	0.730**	0.613

[1]	董智今, 张呈春, 展秀丽, 张维福. 宁夏河东沙地生物土壤结皮及其下伏土壤养分的空间分布特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 910-919.
[2]	潘昱伶, 璩向宁, 李琴, 王磊, 王筱平, 谭鹏, 崔庚, 安雨, 佟守正. 黄河宁夏段典型滩涂湿地土壤理化因子空间分布特征及其对微地形的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 668-677.
[3]	张贝儿, 吴建强, 王敏, 熊丽君, 谭娟, 沈城, 黄波涛, 黄沈发. 耕地生态保育工程的土壤健康度评价方法初探[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 388-396.
[4]	夏恩龙, 农珺清, 魏松坡, 刘希珍, 刘广路. 毛竹向阔叶林扩展过程中土壤养分变化特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6): 1110-1117.
[5]	龙靖, 黄耀, 刘占锋, 简曙光, 魏丽萍, 王俊. 西沙热带珊瑚岛典型乔木叶片性状和养分再吸收特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 248-256.
[6]	余斐, 叶彩红, 许窕孜, 张中瑞, 朱航勇, 张耕, 华雷, 邓鉴锋, 丁晓纲. 韶关市花岗岩地区森林土壤重金属污染评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 354-362.
[7]	盛基峰, 李垚, 于美佳, 韩艳英, 叶彦辉. 氮磷添加对高寒草地土壤养分和相关酶活性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(12): 2302-2309.
[8]	张晓丽, 王国丽, 常芳弟, 张宏媛, 逄焕成, 张建丽, 王婧, 冀宏杰, 李玉义. 生物菌剂对根际盐碱土壤理化性质和微生物区系的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(10): 1984-1992.
[9]	宋贤冲, 蔡雪梅, 陈韬, 潘文, 石媛媛, 唐健, 曹继钊. 不同萌芽代次桉树根际和非根际土壤养分的变化特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(9): 1814-1820.
[10]	廖迎春, 段洪浪, 施星星, 孟庆银, 刘文飞, 沈芳芳, 樊后保, 朱涛. 杉木（Cunninghamia lanceolate）人工林生长状况与根系生物量相关性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(6): 1121-1128.
[11]	徐文印, 张宇鹏, 段成伟, 柴瑜, 宋娴, 李希来. 黄河源不同区域退化高寒草甸土壤养分空间变异研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(10): 1968-1975.
[12]	隋阳辉, 高继平, 王延波, 肖万欣, 刘晶, 史磊, 赵海岩, 张洋. 氮肥配施生物炭对旱地土壤养分和玉米根系径级分布的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(10): 2026-2032.
[13]	张莎莎, 李爱琴, 王会荣, 王晶晶, 徐小牛. 不同海拔杉木人工林土壤碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(1): 97-104.