生态环境学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (7): 1375-1385.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.07.006
收稿日期:
2021-02-17
出版日期:
2021-07-18
发布日期:
2021-10-09
通讯作者:
*作者简介:
孙文泰,(1983年生),女,副研究员,硕士,主要从事果树与逆境生态研究。E-mail: swt830312@126.com
基金资助:
SUN Wentai*(), MA Ming, DONG Tie, NIU Junqiang, YIN Xiaoning, LIU Xinglu
Received:
2021-02-17
Online:
2021-07-18
Published:
2021-10-09
摘要:
为探明陇东旱塬雨养农业区长期覆膜保墒措施对苹果细根形态、构型、解剖性状、土壤物理结构的影响,以18 a(长富2号/山定子)为试材,采用土壤剖面法系统调查清耕(CK)、覆膜2 a(2Y)、覆膜4 a(4Y)、覆膜6 a(6Y)根系空间分布,并对细根生物量、根长、表面积、分支数、导管直径、导管数量等进行测定,对根系水力特征指标进行计算,同时对表层土壤(0—20 cm)、亚表层土壤(20—40 cm)的含水量、容重、孔隙度、土壤质地、压实密度等进行测定、分析,探索不同覆膜年限细根生长分布、解剖结构、水力输导能力的空间异质性;并采用主成分分析,提取覆膜影响细根水力特征的主要因子,探索应对根际土壤物理退化的苹果细根生长适应策略调整。结果表明,(1)覆膜促进黏粒、物理性黏粒在亚表层土壤中的沉积,分别为表层土壤的102.29%、101.64%、102.72%,115.64%、115.58%、114.21%,导致容重、压实密度升高,有效孔隙(毛管孔隙、通气度)降低,亚表层土壤呈现不良结构。(2)覆膜处理以促进分支的方式提高表层土壤(0—20 cm)细根生物量积累、吸收功能表达,抑制亚表层土壤(20—40 cm)细根分布,并降低根系活力。随着覆膜年限的增长,根系削弱系数下降,表现为根系集中分布层逐渐上升,以6Y处理最为显著(P<0.05),50%根系集中分布于20.47 cm土层范围内。(3)短期覆膜(2Y)细根解剖结构与土壤水分含量呈极显著相关,形成较小直径、发达疏导组织的细根,采取增大导管管径、提升导水效率的快速吸水、输水、粗放式用水策略,并有效拓展细根分布范围,提高资源利用率。(4)随覆膜年限增加,细根解剖结构与土壤含水量无显著相关,与土壤物理特性的相关性增大。6Y亚表层土壤呈“隐性”退化,细根优先调节抗逆能力、输水安全性与有效性,而后改变轴向输水能力,以调节水力特征表达。形成导管内径、管壁厚度较大的细根,采取增大输水安全性的保守型用水策略。促进表层土壤根系生长,降低导管内径、管壁厚度,较大根长与旺盛分支形成“密集型”根系网络。
中图分类号:
孙文泰, 马明, 董铁, 牛军强, 尹晓宁, 刘兴禄. 西北旱地苹果细根分布及水力特征对长期覆膜的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(7): 1375-1385.
SUN Wentai, MA Ming, DONG Tie, NIU Junqiang, YIN Xiaoning, LIU Xinglu. Response of Fine Root Distribution and Hydraulic Characteristics of Apple to Long-term Plastic Mulching in Dryland of Northwest China[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(7): 1375-1385.
指标 Indicators | 20 cm | 40 cm |
---|---|---|
全氮 Total nitrogen/(g∙kg-1) | 1.27 | 0.74 |
全磷 Total phosphorus/(g∙kg-1) | 1.12 | 0.8 |
全钾 Total potassium/(g∙kg-1) | 16.86 | 16.82 |
有机质 Organic matter/(g∙kg-1) | 14.69 | 9.57 |
碱解氮 Alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen/(mg∙kg-1) | 96.25 | 47.25 |
速效磷 Available P/(mg∙kg-1) | 47.3 | 14.7 |
速效钾 Available K/(mg∙kg-1) | 377.04 | 182.96 |
pH | 8.35 | 8.85 |
表1 试验区土壤理化性状
Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of soil in test area
指标 Indicators | 20 cm | 40 cm |
---|---|---|
全氮 Total nitrogen/(g∙kg-1) | 1.27 | 0.74 |
全磷 Total phosphorus/(g∙kg-1) | 1.12 | 0.8 |
全钾 Total potassium/(g∙kg-1) | 16.86 | 16.82 |
有机质 Organic matter/(g∙kg-1) | 14.69 | 9.57 |
碱解氮 Alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen/(mg∙kg-1) | 96.25 | 47.25 |
速效磷 Available P/(mg∙kg-1) | 47.3 | 14.7 |
速效钾 Available K/(mg∙kg-1) | 377.04 | 182.96 |
pH | 8.35 | 8.85 |
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 根生物量 Root biomass/g | 根长 Root length/cm | 根表面积 Root surface area/cm2 | 根体积 Root volume/cm3 | 根尖数 Root tips/ind | 分支数 Branch number/ind |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 9.26±0.17d | 13311.09±452.70d | 1723.00±56.76c | 34.35±1.61d | 33300±698.98d | 72026.00±1240.43d |
2Y | 16.12±0.36c | 34086.36±406.47c | 5015.37±216.77b | 104.29±4.34b | 91994±7295.25c | 137570.00±7023.88c | |
4Y | 54.62±1.15a | 71155.00±6346.50a | 10921.66±720.21a | 220.56±10.19a | 186950±11555.51 | 295751.00±20974.46a | |
6Y | 25.80±1.40b | 47031.10±2961.83b | 5242.66±159.77b | 88.99±1.39c | 156191±11086.59b | 270110.00±1085.43b | |
40 | CK | 20.63±0.73a | 34180.29±1321.00a | 4956.95±65.06a | 100.48±8.54a | 90509.00±3526.64a | 196746.00±11855.16a |
2Y | 17.68±0.35b | 26504.27±2149.72b | 4674.64±138.43a | 103.93±5.09a | 45604.00±1514.55b | 65727.00±1152.36b | |
4Y | 15.21±0.40c | 21305.77±2348.58c | 3953.16±279.67b | 91.12±2.00b | 40121.00±2717.40c | 42793.00±709.59c | |
6Y | 15.89±0.79c | 17119.45±2771.93d | 3066.37±71.85c | 69.15±2.34c | 39031.00±1223.08c | 63234.00±1141.66b |
表2 不同覆膜年限苹果细根垂直分布差异
Table 2 The vertical distribution of fine roots of apple was different under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 根生物量 Root biomass/g | 根长 Root length/cm | 根表面积 Root surface area/cm2 | 根体积 Root volume/cm3 | 根尖数 Root tips/ind | 分支数 Branch number/ind |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 9.26±0.17d | 13311.09±452.70d | 1723.00±56.76c | 34.35±1.61d | 33300±698.98d | 72026.00±1240.43d |
2Y | 16.12±0.36c | 34086.36±406.47c | 5015.37±216.77b | 104.29±4.34b | 91994±7295.25c | 137570.00±7023.88c | |
4Y | 54.62±1.15a | 71155.00±6346.50a | 10921.66±720.21a | 220.56±10.19a | 186950±11555.51 | 295751.00±20974.46a | |
6Y | 25.80±1.40b | 47031.10±2961.83b | 5242.66±159.77b | 88.99±1.39c | 156191±11086.59b | 270110.00±1085.43b | |
40 | CK | 20.63±0.73a | 34180.29±1321.00a | 4956.95±65.06a | 100.48±8.54a | 90509.00±3526.64a | 196746.00±11855.16a |
2Y | 17.68±0.35b | 26504.27±2149.72b | 4674.64±138.43a | 103.93±5.09a | 45604.00±1514.55b | 65727.00±1152.36b | |
4Y | 15.21±0.40c | 21305.77±2348.58c | 3953.16±279.67b | 91.12±2.00b | 40121.00±2717.40c | 42793.00±709.59c | |
6Y | 15.89±0.79c | 17119.45±2771.93d | 3066.37±71.85c | 69.15±2.34c | 39031.00±1223.08c | 63234.00±1141.66b |
指标 Indicators | CK | 2Y | 4Y | 6Y |
---|---|---|---|---|
模型 Model | Y=1-0.9835d | Y=1-0.9814d | Y=1-0.9694d | Y=1-0.9667d |
β | 0.9835±0.0077a | 0.9814±0.0042a | 0.9694±0.0043b | 0.9667±0.003b |
D30 | 21.44 | 19 | 11.48 | 10.53 |
D50 | 41.66 | 36.92 | 22.3 | 20.47 |
表3 不同覆膜年限苹果细根垂直分布模型及削弱系数
Table 3 Vertical distribution model and weakening coefficient of fine roots of apple under different mulching years
指标 Indicators | CK | 2Y | 4Y | 6Y |
---|---|---|---|---|
模型 Model | Y=1-0.9835d | Y=1-0.9814d | Y=1-0.9694d | Y=1-0.9667d |
β | 0.9835±0.0077a | 0.9814±0.0042a | 0.9694±0.0043b | 0.9667±0.003b |
D30 | 21.44 | 19 | 11.48 | 10.53 |
D50 | 41.66 | 36.92 | 22.3 | 20.47 |
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 根系活力 Root activity/ (μg∙g-1∙h-1) | SOD/ (U∙g-1) | POD/ (U∙g-1) | CAT/ (mg∙g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 133.33±8.50a | 26.49±0.79c | 28.93±1.45d | 9.04±0.16d |
2Y | 120.30±8.02b | 27.68±0.96c | 33.75±1.44c | 18.07±0.53c | |
4Y | 127.70±4.53ab | 96±2.57a | 49.40±0.75b | 34.86±1.05b | |
6Y | 94.74±1.88c | 78.34±1.40b | 120.55±5.26a | 38.82±0.25a | |
40 | CK | 122.15±9.08a | 37.32±1.48b | 36.16±1.13c | 13.56±0.74d |
2Y | 112.15±7.25a | 30.58±0.41c | 43.40±1.08c | 21.63±1.22c | |
4Y | 108.81±7.14Ba | 98.61±1.22a | 53.04±1.60b | 36.16±0.68b | |
6Y | 89.41±5.68b | 91.84±2.44a | 125.37±1.13a | 40.67±1.45a |
表4 不同覆膜年限苹果细根生理活性垂直分布差异
Table 4 Vertical distribution of physiological activities in fine roots of apple under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 根系活力 Root activity/ (μg∙g-1∙h-1) | SOD/ (U∙g-1) | POD/ (U∙g-1) | CAT/ (mg∙g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 133.33±8.50a | 26.49±0.79c | 28.93±1.45d | 9.04±0.16d |
2Y | 120.30±8.02b | 27.68±0.96c | 33.75±1.44c | 18.07±0.53c | |
4Y | 127.70±4.53ab | 96±2.57a | 49.40±0.75b | 34.86±1.05b | |
6Y | 94.74±1.88c | 78.34±1.40b | 120.55±5.26a | 38.82±0.25a | |
40 | CK | 122.15±9.08a | 37.32±1.48b | 36.16±1.13c | 13.56±0.74d |
2Y | 112.15±7.25a | 30.58±0.41c | 43.40±1.08c | 21.63±1.22c | |
4Y | 108.81±7.14Ba | 98.61±1.22a | 53.04±1.60b | 36.16±0.68b | |
6Y | 89.41±5.68b | 91.84±2.44a | 125.37±1.13a | 40.67±1.45a |
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 平均根径 Average root diameter/mm | 周皮厚度 Periderm thickness/μm | 韧皮部厚度 Phloem thickness/μm | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter/μm | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 0.54±0.04c | 34.69±0.75c | 365.82±10.35a | 696.44±10.23b | 49.47±1.43b |
2Y | 0.67±0.04b | 40.20±1.96b | 305.64±5.94b | 798.22±12.88a | 54.34±1.20a | |
4Y | 0.60±0.11b | 42.44±1.24b | 314.6±7.04b | 707.84±10.16b | 51.47±1.54ab | |
6Y | 0.85±0.07a | 53.54±1.66a | 348.85±9.43a | 588.43±10.01c | 44.94±2.07c | |
40 | CK | 0.75±0.07c | 30.10±1.83d | 344.74±8.65c | 796.97±6.41c | 52.42±1.25ab |
2Y | 1.11±0.10b | 33.79±1.13c | 313.47±7.49d | 911.74±3.67a | 52.86±0.88a | |
4Y | 0.85±0.07c | 38.12±1.62b | 398.00±7.33b | 851.12±8.44b | 51.44±0.70b | |
6Y | 1.53±0.12a | 44.39±1.01a | 422.29±9.04a | 786.84±3.24c | 50.41±0.70c |
表5 不同覆膜年限苹果细根解剖结构垂直分布差异
Table 5 The vertical distribution of fine root anatomical structure of apple under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/cm | 处理 Treatment | 平均根径 Average root diameter/mm | 周皮厚度 Periderm thickness/μm | 韧皮部厚度 Phloem thickness/μm | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter/μm | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 0.54±0.04c | 34.69±0.75c | 365.82±10.35a | 696.44±10.23b | 49.47±1.43b |
2Y | 0.67±0.04b | 40.20±1.96b | 305.64±5.94b | 798.22±12.88a | 54.34±1.20a | |
4Y | 0.60±0.11b | 42.44±1.24b | 314.6±7.04b | 707.84±10.16b | 51.47±1.54ab | |
6Y | 0.85±0.07a | 53.54±1.66a | 348.85±9.43a | 588.43±10.01c | 44.94±2.07c | |
40 | CK | 0.75±0.07c | 30.10±1.83d | 344.74±8.65c | 796.97±6.41c | 52.42±1.25ab |
2Y | 1.11±0.10b | 33.79±1.13c | 313.47±7.49d | 911.74±3.67a | 52.86±0.88a | |
4Y | 0.85±0.07c | 38.12±1.62b | 398.00±7.33b | 851.12±8.44b | 51.44±0.70b | |
6Y | 1.53±0.12a | 44.39±1.01a | 422.29±9.04a | 786.84±3.24c | 50.41±0.70c |
土层 Soil layer/cm | 细根直径与木质部直径的关系函数 Relationship function between fine root diameter and xylem diameter | R2 | 细根直径与韧皮部厚度的关系函数 Relation function between fine root diameter and phloem thickness | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
20 | y= -5591.5x2+7487.2x-1732.9 | 0.892 | y= -3210.2x2+4313.6x-1096.8 | 0.696 |
40 | y= -800.55x2+1833.2x-134.25 | 0.995 | y=338.84x2-739.48x+736.96 | 0.419 |
表6 苹果细根直径关系函数
Table 6 The diameter function of apple fine root
土层 Soil layer/cm | 细根直径与木质部直径的关系函数 Relationship function between fine root diameter and xylem diameter | R2 | 细根直径与韧皮部厚度的关系函数 Relation function between fine root diameter and phloem thickness | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
20 | y= -5591.5x2+7487.2x-1732.9 | 0.892 | y= -3210.2x2+4313.6x-1096.8 | 0.696 |
40 | y= -800.55x2+1833.2x-134.25 | 0.995 | y=338.84x2-739.48x+736.96 | 0.419 |
土层 Soil layer/ cm | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径Average catheter inner diameter/μm | 导管数量Number of catheter | 平均导管壁厚度 Average pipe wall thickness/ μm | 导管横截面积 Cross-sectional area of catheter/ μm2 | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | 栓塞脆弱性指数Embolization vulnerability index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 29.12±0.95b | 110.00±4.36bc | 1.99±0.02c | 4341.00±45.73c | 72.23±2.85c | 81.06±7.01c | 283137.68±5895.44c |
2Y | 42.56±1.34a | 108.00±5.57c | 2.93±0.06b | 35100.04±514.18a | 53.98±1.43d | 508.15±11.21a | 815281.64±4560.46a | |
4Y | 29.93±0.94b | 121.00±1.00b | 3.20±0.04a | 8921.95±149.69b | 76.91±1.56b | 146.61±8.75b | 389153.72±1574.99b | |
6Y | 20.45±0.56c | 168.00±7.94a | 3.21±0.02a | 3928.55±88.98c | 154.52±5.32a | 67.28±3.10c | 188452.26±1835.38d | |
40 | CK | 32.51±1.56b | 432.00±9.17a | 2.21±0.03c | 13975.72±71.06a | 222.22±10.80a | 115.37±5.501a | 133968.06±1034.30d |
2Y | 39.98±0.31a | 128.00±4.36d | 2.95±0.05b | 11555.32±474.78c | 49.04±1.75d | 108.19±4.29ab | 788404.50±9161.13a | |
4Y | 34.26±0.66b | 176.00±4.36c | 3.28±0.08a | 13059.30±131.37b | 67.38±1.35c | 102.04±4.09b | 442776.16±13528.70b | |
6Y | 29.77±0.78c | 190.00±2.65b | 3.35±0.05a | 11499.70±851.43c | 95.27±2.85b | 42.83±3.37c | 341251.95±3959.27c |
表7 不同覆膜年限苹果细根水力特征垂直分布差异
Table 7 The vertical distribution of hydraulic characteristics of fine roots of apple under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/ cm | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径Average catheter inner diameter/μm | 导管数量Number of catheter | 平均导管壁厚度 Average pipe wall thickness/ μm | 导管横截面积 Cross-sectional area of catheter/ μm2 | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | 栓塞脆弱性指数Embolization vulnerability index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 29.12±0.95b | 110.00±4.36bc | 1.99±0.02c | 4341.00±45.73c | 72.23±2.85c | 81.06±7.01c | 283137.68±5895.44c |
2Y | 42.56±1.34a | 108.00±5.57c | 2.93±0.06b | 35100.04±514.18a | 53.98±1.43d | 508.15±11.21a | 815281.64±4560.46a | |
4Y | 29.93±0.94b | 121.00±1.00b | 3.20±0.04a | 8921.95±149.69b | 76.91±1.56b | 146.61±8.75b | 389153.72±1574.99b | |
6Y | 20.45±0.56c | 168.00±7.94a | 3.21±0.02a | 3928.55±88.98c | 154.52±5.32a | 67.28±3.10c | 188452.26±1835.38d | |
40 | CK | 32.51±1.56b | 432.00±9.17a | 2.21±0.03c | 13975.72±71.06a | 222.22±10.80a | 115.37±5.501a | 133968.06±1034.30d |
2Y | 39.98±0.31a | 128.00±4.36d | 2.95±0.05b | 11555.32±474.78c | 49.04±1.75d | 108.19±4.29ab | 788404.50±9161.13a | |
4Y | 34.26±0.66b | 176.00±4.36c | 3.28±0.08a | 13059.30±131.37b | 67.38±1.35c | 102.04±4.09b | 442776.16±13528.70b | |
6Y | 29.77±0.78c | 190.00±2.65b | 3.35±0.05a | 11499.70±851.43c | 95.27±2.85b | 42.83±3.37c | 341251.95±3959.27c |
指标 Indicators | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径 Average catheter inner diameter/μm | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 导管横截面积 Cross-sectional area of catheter/μm2 | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根系活力 Root activity/ (μg∙g-1∙h-1) | CK | -0.901** | -0.562* | -0.613** | -0.749** |
2Y | -0.093 | -0.157 | 0.537* | 0.968** | |
4Y | -0.783** | 0.846** | -0.899** | 0.651** | |
6Y | -0.525* | 0.693** | -0.7** | -0.633** | |
根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | CK | 0.837** | 0.887** | 0.955** | 0.735** |
2Y | 0.856** | 0.922** | 0.933** | 0.653** | |
4Y | -0.859** | 0.948** | -0.976** | 0.537* | |
6Y | -0.975** | 0.966** | -0.977** | -0.971** | |
栓塞脆弱性指数 Embolization vulnerability index | CK | -0.844** | -0.995** | -0.999** | -0.819** |
2Y | 0.889** | 0.952** | 0.924** | 0.698** | |
4Y | 0.916** | -0.927** | 0.967** | -0.467 | |
6Y | 0.993** | -0.992** | 0.993** | 0.938** |
表8 不同覆膜年限苹果细根解剖结构与水力特征相关性
Table 8 Correlation between fine root anatomical structure and hydraulic characteristics of apple under different mulching years
指标 Indicators | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径 Average catheter inner diameter/μm | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 导管横截面积 Cross-sectional area of catheter/μm2 | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
根系活力 Root activity/ (μg∙g-1∙h-1) | CK | -0.901** | -0.562* | -0.613** | -0.749** |
2Y | -0.093 | -0.157 | 0.537* | 0.968** | |
4Y | -0.783** | 0.846** | -0.899** | 0.651** | |
6Y | -0.525* | 0.693** | -0.7** | -0.633** | |
根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | CK | 0.837** | 0.887** | 0.955** | 0.735** |
2Y | 0.856** | 0.922** | 0.933** | 0.653** | |
4Y | -0.859** | 0.948** | -0.976** | 0.537* | |
6Y | -0.975** | 0.966** | -0.977** | -0.971** | |
栓塞脆弱性指数 Embolization vulnerability index | CK | -0.844** | -0.995** | -0.999** | -0.819** |
2Y | 0.889** | 0.952** | 0.924** | 0.698** | |
4Y | 0.916** | -0.927** | 0.967** | -0.467 | |
6Y | 0.993** | -0.992** | 0.993** | 0.938** |
土层 Soil layer/ cm | 处理 Treatment | 土壤含水量 Soil moisture/ (g∙cm-3) | 土壤孔隙度 Soil porosity/ % | 毛管孔隙度 Eapillary porosity/ % | 土壤通气度Soil aeration/ % | 容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm-3) | 黏粒 Clay/ % | 物理性黏粒Physical clay particles/% | 压实密度 Packing density/ (g∙cm-3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 21.07±1.30bc | 54.48±1.20ab | 42.65±0.40b | 35.34±1.60a | 1.31±0.07a | 9.7±0.03c | 56.75±0.12b | 2.18±0.08a |
2Y | 23.68±1.40ab | 57.56±1.40a | 44.48±0.70a | 34.20±1.40a | 1.18±0.07b | 9.61±0.04d | 52.25±0.24d | 2.05±0.08b | |
4Y | 24.23±1.90a | 51.01±3.50bc | 42.14±0.80b | 26.78±1.80b | 1.18±0.04b | 9.77±0.03b | 54.49±0.17c | 2.06±0.04b | |
6Y | 19.13±1.30c | 49.87±0.40c | 41.46±0.90b | 28.80±1.10b | 1.24±0.05ab | 9.93±0.03a | 57.41±0.15a | 2.13±0.03ab | |
40 | CK | 23.89±2.00b | 47.71±1.30ab | 36.09±1.50a | 27.83±1.07a | 1.27±0.06a | 9.59±0.06b | 57.89±0.37c | 2.14±0.04ab |
2Y | 28.20±1.50a | 49.87±1.40a | 34.24±1.10c | 21.67±1.07b | 1.24±0.02a | 9.83±0.07b | 60.42±0.17d | 2.12±0.02b | |
4Y | 25.24±1.50ab | 47.26±3.50ab | 34.96±1.60ab | 22.02±0.20b | 1.26±0.05a | 9.93±0.09ab | 62.98±1.10b | 2.16±0.03ab | |
6Y | 19.88±2.30c | 44.80±2.00b | 32.83±0.40c | 20.91±1.80b | 1.28±0.06a | 10.20±0.35a | 65.57±1.15a | 2.20±0.02a |
表9 不同覆膜年限土壤物理性状垂直分布差异
Table 9 The vertical distribution of soil physical properties was different under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/ cm | 处理 Treatment | 土壤含水量 Soil moisture/ (g∙cm-3) | 土壤孔隙度 Soil porosity/ % | 毛管孔隙度 Eapillary porosity/ % | 土壤通气度Soil aeration/ % | 容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm-3) | 黏粒 Clay/ % | 物理性黏粒Physical clay particles/% | 压实密度 Packing density/ (g∙cm-3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | CK | 21.07±1.30bc | 54.48±1.20ab | 42.65±0.40b | 35.34±1.60a | 1.31±0.07a | 9.7±0.03c | 56.75±0.12b | 2.18±0.08a |
2Y | 23.68±1.40ab | 57.56±1.40a | 44.48±0.70a | 34.20±1.40a | 1.18±0.07b | 9.61±0.04d | 52.25±0.24d | 2.05±0.08b | |
4Y | 24.23±1.90a | 51.01±3.50bc | 42.14±0.80b | 26.78±1.80b | 1.18±0.04b | 9.77±0.03b | 54.49±0.17c | 2.06±0.04b | |
6Y | 19.13±1.30c | 49.87±0.40c | 41.46±0.90b | 28.80±1.10b | 1.24±0.05ab | 9.93±0.03a | 57.41±0.15a | 2.13±0.03ab | |
40 | CK | 23.89±2.00b | 47.71±1.30ab | 36.09±1.50a | 27.83±1.07a | 1.27±0.06a | 9.59±0.06b | 57.89±0.37c | 2.14±0.04ab |
2Y | 28.20±1.50a | 49.87±1.40a | 34.24±1.10c | 21.67±1.07b | 1.24±0.02a | 9.83±0.07b | 60.42±0.17d | 2.12±0.02b | |
4Y | 25.24±1.50ab | 47.26±3.50ab | 34.96±1.60ab | 22.02±0.20b | 1.26±0.05a | 9.93±0.09ab | 62.98±1.10b | 2.16±0.03ab | |
6Y | 19.88±2.30c | 44.80±2.00b | 32.83±0.40c | 20.91±1.80b | 1.28±0.06a | 10.20±0.35a | 65.57±1.15a | 2.20±0.02a |
指标 Indicators | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径 Average catheter inner diameter/ μm | 平均导管壁厚度 Average pipe wall thickness/ μm | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/ % | 根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | 栓塞脆弱性指数Embolization vulnerability index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤含水量 Soil moisture/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | 0.675** | 0.731** | 0.699** | 0.626** | 0.632** | -0.724** |
2Y | -0.613** | 0.452 | -0.759** | -0.758** | -0.886** | -0.759** | |
4Y | 0.422 | -0.2 | -0.196 | -0.566* | -0.278 | 0.415 | |
6Y | 0.256 | 0.084 | -0.247 | 0.299 | -0.152 | 0.215 | |
容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | -0.274 | -0.312 | -0.34 | -0.178 | -0.37 | 0.307 |
2Y | -0.128 | 0.52* | -0.33 | -0.861** | -0.573* | -0.451 | |
4Y | 0.646** | 0.807** | -0.778** | -0.814** | -0.778** | 0.663** | |
6Y | 0.626** | 0.757** | -0.644** | 0.644** | -0.878** | 0.621** | |
物理性黏粒 Physical clay particles/% | CK | 0.933** | 0.624** | 0.9** | 0.824** | -0.966** | -0.921** |
2Y | -0.834** | 0.253 | -0.877** | -0.673** | -0.998** | -0.908** | |
4Y | 0.94** | 0.87** | 0.958** | -0.653** | -0.957** | 0.908** | |
6Y | 0.996** | 0.925** | 0.984** | 0.922** | -0.959** | 0.985** | |
压实密度 Packing density/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | 0.024 | -0.323 | -0.397 | 0.199 | -0.42 | 0.328 |
2Y | -0.521* | -0.357 | -0.568* | -0.556* | -0.69** | -0.699** | |
4Y | 0.746** | 0.682** | -0.791** | -0.691** | -0.737** | 0.923** | |
6Y | 0.804** | 0.77** | -0.876** | 0.689** | -0.939** | 0.829** |
表10 不同覆膜年限土壤物理性状与细根解剖结构及水力特征相关性
Table 10 Correlation between soil physical properties under different mulching years and fine root anatomical structure and hydraulic characteristics
指标 Indicators | 处理 Treatment | 平均导管内径 Average catheter inner diameter/ μm | 平均导管壁厚度 Average pipe wall thickness/ μm | 导管密度 Catheter density/ (ind·mm-2) | 木质部面积占比 The proportion of xylem area/ % | 根比导水率 Root specific water conductivity/ (kg∙m-1∙s-1∙MPa-1) | 栓塞脆弱性指数Embolization vulnerability index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤含水量 Soil moisture/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | 0.675** | 0.731** | 0.699** | 0.626** | 0.632** | -0.724** |
2Y | -0.613** | 0.452 | -0.759** | -0.758** | -0.886** | -0.759** | |
4Y | 0.422 | -0.2 | -0.196 | -0.566* | -0.278 | 0.415 | |
6Y | 0.256 | 0.084 | -0.247 | 0.299 | -0.152 | 0.215 | |
容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | -0.274 | -0.312 | -0.34 | -0.178 | -0.37 | 0.307 |
2Y | -0.128 | 0.52* | -0.33 | -0.861** | -0.573* | -0.451 | |
4Y | 0.646** | 0.807** | -0.778** | -0.814** | -0.778** | 0.663** | |
6Y | 0.626** | 0.757** | -0.644** | 0.644** | -0.878** | 0.621** | |
物理性黏粒 Physical clay particles/% | CK | 0.933** | 0.624** | 0.9** | 0.824** | -0.966** | -0.921** |
2Y | -0.834** | 0.253 | -0.877** | -0.673** | -0.998** | -0.908** | |
4Y | 0.94** | 0.87** | 0.958** | -0.653** | -0.957** | 0.908** | |
6Y | 0.996** | 0.925** | 0.984** | 0.922** | -0.959** | 0.985** | |
压实密度 Packing density/ (g∙cm-3) | CK | 0.024 | -0.323 | -0.397 | 0.199 | -0.42 | 0.328 |
2Y | -0.521* | -0.357 | -0.568* | -0.556* | -0.69** | -0.699** | |
4Y | 0.746** | 0.682** | -0.791** | -0.691** | -0.737** | 0.923** | |
6Y | 0.804** | 0.77** | -0.876** | 0.689** | -0.939** | 0.829** |
土层 Soil layer/cm | 主成分Principal component | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate/% | 累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate/% | 载荷矩阵 Load matrix | 综合得分 Composite scores | 综合排名 Comprehensive ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 1 | 71.065 | 71.065 | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter 韧皮部厚度 Phloem thickness 导管密度 Catheter density 导管直径 Vessel diameter | CK | 0.509 | 2 |
2Y | 0.527 | 1 | |||||
2 | 24.816 | 95.88 | 导管壁厚度 Thickness of pipe wall | 4Y | 0.103 | 3 | |
6Y | -1.14 | 4 | |||||
40 | 1 | 49.363 | 49.363 | 周皮厚度 Periderm thickness 导管壁厚度 Thickness of pipe wall | CK | 0.277 | 2 |
2 | 29.979 | 79.342 | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter 导管直径 Vessel diameter | 2Y | 0.499 | 1 | |
4Y | 0.11 | 3 | |||||
3 | 20.658 | 100 | 韧皮部面积占比 Area ratio of phloem | 6Y | -0.887 | 4 |
表11 不同覆膜年限细根水力特征主成分分析
Table 11 Principal component analysis of hydraulic characteristics of fine roots under different mulching years
土层 Soil layer/cm | 主成分Principal component | 方差贡献率Variance contribution rate/% | 累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate/% | 载荷矩阵 Load matrix | 综合得分 Composite scores | 综合排名 Comprehensive ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 1 | 71.065 | 71.065 | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter 韧皮部厚度 Phloem thickness 导管密度 Catheter density 导管直径 Vessel diameter | CK | 0.509 | 2 |
2Y | 0.527 | 1 | |||||
2 | 24.816 | 95.88 | 导管壁厚度 Thickness of pipe wall | 4Y | 0.103 | 3 | |
6Y | -1.14 | 4 | |||||
40 | 1 | 49.363 | 49.363 | 周皮厚度 Periderm thickness 导管壁厚度 Thickness of pipe wall | CK | 0.277 | 2 |
2 | 29.979 | 79.342 | 木质部直径 Xylem diameter 导管直径 Vessel diameter | 2Y | 0.499 | 1 | |
4Y | 0.11 | 3 | |||||
3 | 20.658 | 100 | 韧皮部面积占比 Area ratio of phloem | 6Y | -0.887 | 4 |
[1] |
CARLQUIST S, 1985. Wood anatomy of coriariaceae:Phyloge-netic and ecological implications[J]. Systematic Botany, 10(2): 174-183.
DOI URL |
[2] |
CHEN X L, WU P T, ZHAO X N, et al., 2013. Effect of different mulches on harvested rainfall use efficiency for corn (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions of northwest China[J]. Arid Land Research and Management, 27(3): 272-285.
DOI URL |
[3] |
CHOAT B, BRODRIBB T J, BRODERSEN C R, et al., 2018. Triggers of tree mortality under drought[J]. Nature, 558: 531-539.
DOI URL |
[4] |
GALE M R, GRIGAL D F, 1987. Vertical root distributions of northern tree species in relation to successional status[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 17(8): 829-834.
DOI URL |
[5] |
GEBAUER R, VOLARIK D, et al., 2013. Root hydraulic conductivity and vessel structure modification with; increasing soil depth of two oak species: Quercus pubescens and Quercus robur[J]. Trees-Struct Funct, 27(3): 523-531.
DOI URL |
[6] |
GLEASON S M, WESTOBY M, JANSEN S, et al., 2016. Weak trade-off between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world’s woody plant species[J]. New Phytologist, 209(1): 123-136.
DOI URL |
[7] |
HACKE U G, SPICER R, SCHREIBER S G, et al., 2016. An ecophysiological and developmental perspective on variation in vessel diameter[J]. Plant Cell Environ, 40(6): 831-845.
DOI URL |
[8] |
KONG X P, ZHANG M L, DE S I, et al., 2014. Designer crops: Optimal root system architecture for nutrient acquisition[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 32(12): 597-598.
DOI URL |
[9] |
LARTER M, PFAUTSCH S, DOMEC J, et al., 2017. Aridity drove the evolution of extreme embolism resistance and the radiation of conifer genus Callitris[J]. New Phytologist, 215(1): 97-112.
DOI URL |
[10] |
MARTRE P, DURAND J L, COCHARD H, 2010. Changes in axial hydraulic conductivity along elongating leaf blades in relation to xylem maturation in tall fescue[J]. New Phytol, 146(2): 235-247.
DOI URL |
[11] |
MELVINT T, FRANK W, 1991. The hydraulic architecture of trees and other woody plants[J]. New Phytologist, 119(34): 345-360.
DOI URL |
[12] |
PATE J S, JESCHKE W D, AYLWARD M J, 1995. Hydraulic architecture and xylem structure of the dimorphic root systems of south-west australian species of proteaceae[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 46(8): 907-915.
DOI URL |
[13] |
GEBAUER R, VOLAŘÍK D, 2013. Root hydraulic conductivity and vessel structure modification with increasing soil depth of two oak species Quercus pubescens and Quercus robur[J]. Trees, 27(3): 523-531.
DOI URL |
[14] |
ROUMET C, BIROUSTE M, PICON C C, et al., 2016. Root structure-function relationships in 74 species: Evidence of a root economics spectrum related to carbon economy[J]. New Phytologist, 210: 815-826.
DOI URL |
[15] | TYREE M T, ZIMMERMANN M H, 2002. Xylem structure and the ascent of sap[J]. Quarterly Review of Biology, 222(4623): 500. |
[16] |
ZADWORNY M, COMAS L H, EISSENSTAT D M, 2018. Linking fine root morphology, hydraulic functioning and shade tolerance of trees[J]. Annals of Botany, 122(2): 239-250.
DOI URL |
[17] |
郭京衡, 曾凡江, 李尝君, 等, 2014. 塔克拉玛干沙漠南缘三种防护林植物根系构型及其生态适应策略[J]. 植物生态学报, 38(1): 36-44.
DOI |
GUO J H, ZENG F J, LI C J, et al., 2014. Root architecture and ecological adaptation strategies in three shelterbelt plant species in the southern Taklimakan Desert[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 38(1): 36-44.
DOI URL |
|
[18] | 靳乐乐, 乔匀周, 董宝娣, 等, 2019. 起垄覆膜栽培技术的增产增效作用与发展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 27(9): 1364-1374. |
JIN L L, QIAO Y H, DONG B D, et al., 2019. Crop yield increasing and efficiency improving effects and development of technology of ridge-furrow cultivation with plastic film mulching[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 27(9): 1364-1374. | |
[19] | 李合生, 2000. 植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社. |
LI H S, 2000. Experimental principle and technique for plant physiology and biochemistry[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press. | |
[20] | 李佳旸, 王延平, 韩明玉, 等, 2017. 陕北黄土丘陵区山地苹果园的土壤水分动态研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 25(5): 749-758. |
LI J Y, WANG Y P, HAN M Y, et al., 2017. Soil moisture dynamics of apple orchards in Loess Hilly Area of northern Shaanxi Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 25(5): 749-758. | |
[21] | 李颖华, 田淑芬, 马闯, 等, 2021. 不同品种葡萄根系解剖结构及其水力特性分析[J]. 果树学报, 38(5): 714-724. |
LI Y H, TIAN S F, MA C, et al., 2021. Analysis on root anatomical structure and hydraulic characteristics in different grape varieties[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 38(5): 714-724. | |
[22] | 吕洁婷, 2017. 秸秆还田与地膜覆盖对土壤理化性状影响[D]. 兰州:兰州大学. |
LV J T, 2017. Effects of straw incorporation and plastic film mulch on soil physicochemical properties[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University. | |
[23] | 刘洪凯, 陈旭, 张明忠, 等, 2020. 鲁中丘陵山地干旱生境上11个树种的细根解剖特征与耐旱策略[J]. 林业科学, 56(7): 185-193. |
LIU H K, CHEN X, ZHANG M Z, et al., 2020. Anatomical characteristics of fine roots of 11 tree species in the hilly mountainous areas in central Shandong province and their drought resistance strategies[J]. Scienta Silvae Sinicae, 56(7): 185-193. | |
[24] | 刘均阳, 周正朝, 苏雪萌, 2020. 植物根系对土壤团聚体形成作用机制研究回顾[J]. 水土保持学报, 34(3): 267-273. |
LIU J Y, ZHOU Z C, SU X M, 2020. Review of the mechanism of root system on the formation of soil aggregates[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Consercation, 34(3): 267-273. | |
[25] | 马雄忠, 王新平, 2020. 阿拉善高原2种荒漠植物根系构型及生态适应性特征[J]. 生态学报, 40(17): 6001-6008. |
MA X Z, WANG X P, 2020. Root architecture and adaptive strategy of two desert plants in the Alxa Plateau[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(17): 6001-6008. | |
[26] | 卜玉山, 邵海林, 王建程, 等, 2010. 秸秆与地膜覆盖春玉米和春小麦耕层土壤碳氮动态[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 18(2): 322-326. |
BU Y S, SHAO H L, WANG J C, et al., 2010. Dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen in plowed layer of spring corn and spring wheat fields mulched with straw and plastic film[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 18(2): 322-326.
DOI URL |
|
[27] | 石宗琳, 王加旭, 梁化学, 等, 2017. 渭北不同园龄苹果园土壤团聚体状况及演变趋势研究[J]. 土壤学报, 54(2): 387-399. |
SHI Z L, WANG J X, LIANG H X, et al., 2017. Status and evolution of soil aggregates in apple orchards different in age in Weibei[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 54(2): 387-399. | |
[28] |
宋清华, 赵成章, 史元春, 等, 2015. 不同坡向甘肃臭草根系分叉数和连接长度的权衡关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 39(6): 577-585.
DOI |
SONG Q H, ZHAO C Z, SHI Y C, et al., 2015. Trade-off between root forks and link length of Melica przewalskyi on different aspects of slopes[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 39(6): 577-585.
DOI URL |
|
[29] | 苏一鸣, 2015. 黄土高原旱地苹果园起垄覆膜垄沟覆草技术研究[D]. 杨陵: 西北农林科技大学. |
SU Y M, 2015. Ridge film mulching combined straw mulvhing technology for arid apple orchad of the Loess Plateau[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University. | |
[30] | 孙文泰, 刘兴禄, 董铁, 等, 2015. 陇东旱塬苹果园不同覆盖措施对土壤性状、根系分布和果实品质的影响[J]. 果树学报, 32(5): 841-851. |
SUN W T, LIU X L, DONG T, et al., 2015. Root distribution, soil characteristics, root distribution and fruit quality affected by different mulching measures in apple orchard in the dry area of eastern Gansu[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 32(5): 841-851. | |
[31] | 孙文泰, 马明, 董铁, 等, 2016. 陇东旱塬苹果根系分布规律及生理特性对地表覆盖的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 27(10): 3153-3163. |
SUN W T, MA M, DONG T, et al., 2016. Response of distribution pattern and physiological characteristics of apple roots grown in the dry area of eastern Gansu to ground mulching[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 27(10): 3153-3163. | |
[32] | 汪攀, 陈奶莲, 邹显花, 等, 2015. 植物根系解剖结构对逆境胁迫响应的研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 34(2): 550-556. |
WANG P, CHEN N L, ZOU X H, et al., 2015. Research progress on adaptive responses of anatomical structure of plant roots to stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 34(2): 550-556. | |
[33] | 王亚楠, 2019. 6个温带树种吸收根生物量和根长密度季节动态研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学. |
WANG Y N, 2019. Seasonal dynamics of absorptive fine root biomass and length density in six temperate tree species[D]. Haerbin: Northeast Forestry University. | |
[34] | 魏彬萌, 李忠徽, 王益权, 2021. 渭北旱塬苹果园土壤紧实化现状及成因[J]. 应用生态学报, 32(3): 976-982. |
WEI B M, LI Z H, WANG Y Q, 2021. Status and causes of soil compaction at apple orchards in the Weibei Dry Highland, northwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 32(3): 976-982. | |
[35] | 徐佳星, 封涌涛, 叶玉莲, 等, 2020. 地膜覆盖条件下黄土高原玉米产量及水分利用效应分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 53(12): 2349-2359. |
XU J X, FENG Y T, YE Y L, et al., 2020. Effects of plastic film mulching on yield and water use of maize in the Loess Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 53(12): 2349-2359. | |
[36] | 徐立清, 崔东海, 王庆成, 等, 2020. 张广才岭西坡次生林不同生境胡桃楸幼树根系构型及细根特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 31(2): 373-380. |
XU L Q, CUI D H, WANG Q C, et al., 2020. Root architecture and fine root characteristics of Juglans mandshurica saplings in different habitats in the secondary forest on the west slope of Zhangguangcailing China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 31(2): 373-380. | |
[37] | 徐茜, 陈亚宁, 2012. 胡杨茎木质部解剖结构与水力特性对干旱胁迫处理的响应[J]. 中国农业生态学报, 20(8): 1059-1065. |
XU Q, CHEN Y N, 2012. Response of anatomy and hydraulic characteristics of xylem stem of Populus euphratica Oliv. to drought stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 20(8): 1059-1065.
DOI URL |
|
[38] | 张翠梅, 师尚礼, 刘珍, 等, 2019. 干旱胁迫对不同抗旱性苜蓿品种根系形态及解剖结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 28(5): 79-89. |
ZHANG C M, SHI S L, LIU Z, et al., 2019. Effects of drought stress on the root morphology and anatomical structure of alfalfa (Medicago satica) varieties with differing drought-tolerance[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinice, 28(5): 79-89. | |
[39] | 张国帅, 2020. 黄土高原多年生草木根部导管解剖特征[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学. |
ZHANG G S, 2020. Anatomical characteristics in roots of perennial forbs in the Loess Plateau, China[D]. Haerbin: Northeast Forestry University. | |
[40] | 张旭东, 2019. 覆膜种植和施肥对半干旱地区资源高效利用及玉米生产持续性的影响机制[D]. 杨陵: 西北农林科技大学. |
ZHANG X D, 2019. Influencing mechanism of mulch planting and fertilization on the efficient utilization of resources and maize production sustainability in semi-arid areas[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University. | |
[41] | 郑必昭, 郭延峰, 赵海英, 等, 2012. 玉米测土施肥不同采样时期土壤养分测试结果变化分析[J]. 中国农技推广, 38(2): 37-39. |
ZHENG B Z, GUO Y F, ZHAO D Y, et al., 2012. Analysis on the variation of soil nutrient test results in different sampling periods of maize soil testing and fertilization[J]. China Agricultural Technology Extension, 38(2): 37-39. | |
[42] | 祝飞华, 王益权, 石宗琳, 等, 2015. 轮耕对关中一年两熟区土壤物理性状和冬小麦根系生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 35(22): 7454-7463. |
ZHU F H, WANG Y Q, SHI Z L, et al., 2015. Effects of rotational tillage on soil physical properties and winter wheat root growth on annual double cropping area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(22): 7454-7463. | |
[43] | 朱广龙, 陈许兵, IRSHAD A, 等, 2018. 酸枣根系导管结构的可塑性对自然梯度干旱生境的适应机制[J]. 土壤学报, 55(3): 764-773. |
ZHU G L, CHEN X B, IRSHAD A, et al., 2018. Mechanism of Plasticity of Root Vessel Structure of Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa Adapting Ecotopes along a Natural Drought Gradient[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 55(3): 764-773. |
[1] | 陈敏毅, 朱航海, 佘伟铎, 尹光彩, 黄祖照, 杨巧玲. 珠三角某遗留造船厂场地土壤重金属人体健康风险评估及源解析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 794-804. |
[2] | 陈金凤, 余世钦, 符加方, 徐国良, 于波, 赖晓群, 胡思源, 张开渠, 刘家华. 华南红层地貌区不同利用方式土壤质量特征及其影响因素——以南雄盆地为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5): 918-930. |
[3] | 李亮亮, 代良羽, 高维常, 张淑怡, 刘涛泽. 贵州省典型覆膜耕地残膜赋存特征及影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(11): 2189-2197. |
[4] | 陈双双, 朱宁华, 周光益, 袁星明, 尚海, 王迤翾. 不同等级石漠化环境下人工乔木林的植被与土壤物理特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(1): 52-61. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 张鹏, 刘玮, 王铁杆, 钟晨辉, 陶月良. 无机砷短期胁迫对铜藻幼苗氧化损伤、抗氧化酶及抗氧化物的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(5): 1034-1041. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||