不同播期粳稻稻田甲烷排放及综合效益研究

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.07.013

生态环境学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (7): 1436-1446.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.07.013

不同播期粳稻稻田甲烷排放及综合效益研究

党慧慧(), 刘超, 伍翥嵘, 王圆媛, 胡正华^*(), 李琪, 陈书涛

南京信息工程大学气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心/应用气象学院,江苏南京 210044

收稿日期:2021-03-26 出版日期:2021-07-18 发布日期:2021-10-09
通讯作者: *E-mail: zhhu@nuist.edu.cn
作者简介:党慧慧（1997年生）,女,硕士研究生,研究方向为主要从事农业气象与气候变化研究。E-mail: 2431205531@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(42071023);国家自然科学基金项目(41775152);国家自然科学基金项目(41775151)

Methane Emission and Comprehensive Benefits of Japonica Rice Paddy Field with Different Sowing Dates

DANG Huihui(), LIU Chao, WU Zhurong, WANG Yuanyuan, HU Zhenghua^*(), LI Qi, CHEN Shutao

Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters/School of Applied Meteorology, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China

Received:2021-03-26 Online:2021-07-18 Published:2021-10-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究播期对稻田甲烷（CH₄）排放及其综合效益的影响,以优选最佳播期实现水稻丰产和稻田CH₄减排,于2019、2020年以粳稻（南粳9108）为试验材料,开展了分期播种试验。试验设两个不同播期,延期播种（Ⅱ期）的播种和移栽时间均比对照（Ⅰ期）延迟了10 d。采用透明箱-高精度气体分析仪观测CH₄通量;在水稻关键生育期,取水稻根际土测定土壤理化性质及酶活性;收获时进行水稻测产;根据产出与投入的差值计算水稻产量经济效益,进而计算基于CH₄减排的水稻生产综合效益。结果表明,2019、2020年水稻生长季,Ⅰ期和Ⅱ期稻田CH₄排放通量季节变化趋势一致,均呈逐渐增长,达到峰值后再下降趋势。2019、2020年的稻田CH₄累积排放量,Ⅱ期比Ⅰ期分别减小了15.4%（P=0.006）和26.3%（P=0.160）。Ⅰ期和Ⅱ期的稻田CH₄排放通量与土壤DOC含量、NO₃^--N含量、土壤转化酶和脲酶活性均呈正相关关系,与土壤NH₄⁺-N含量呈负相关关系。2019、2020年,Ⅱ期的水稻产量比Ⅰ期分别降低了17.9%（P=0.004）和40.2%（P=0.000）,Ⅱ期水稻生产综合效益比Ⅰ期分别减小了40.2%（P=0.000）和60.0%（P =0.000）。研究表明,延期播种10 d降低了粳稻稻田CH₄排放,同时也降低了水稻产量和水稻生产综合效益。

关键词: 稻田, CH₄排放, 播期, 产量, 综合效益

Abstract:

To investigate the effect of sowing date on methane (CH₄) emissions from rice field and its comprehensive benefits, a field experiment with different sowing dates of Japonica rice (Nanjing 9108) was carried out in 2019 and 2020 rice growing seasons for selecting the optimum sowing date to achieve high yield of rice and reduction of CH₄ emission from paddy fields. Experiment treatments included the control (I), and treatment II, which delayed seeding and transplanting by 10 days compared with I. A transparent static closed chamber-laser greenhouse gas analyzer technique was used to measure the CH₄ flux. Physicochemical properties and enzyme activities of rhizosphere soils were analyzed at the key rice growth stages, and the yield of rice was measured after harvest. According to the difference between output and input, the economic benefit of rice production was calculated, and then the comprehensive benefit of rice production based on CH₄ reduction was calculated. The results showed that the seasonal dynamics of CH₄ emission fluxes of treatments I and II had the same tendency, with a gradual increase, reaching a maximum value and then decreasing. In 2019 and 2020 rice growing seasons, the cumulative amount of CH₄ emissions of treatment II decreased by 15.4% (P=0.006) and 26.3% (P=0.160), respectively, relative to treatment I. The CH₄ fluxes of treatments I and II were positively correlated with soil DOC, NO₃^--N, catalase activity, and urease activity, while negatively correlated with NH₄⁺-N content. In 2019 and 2020, compared with treatment I, the rice yield of treatment II decreased by 17.9% (P=0.004) and 40.2% (P=0.000), respectively. Meanwhile, the comprehensive benefits of treatment II reduced by 40.2% (P=0.000) and 60.0% (P=0.000), respectively. Overall, our study reveals that a 10-day delay in sowing reduced CH₄ emissions from rice field, but also reduced rice yield and the comprehensive benefits of rice production.

Key words: paddy field, CH₄ emission, sowing date, yield, comprehensive benefit

中图分类号:

党慧慧, 刘超, 伍翥嵘, 王圆媛, 胡正华, 李琪, 陈书涛. 不同播期粳稻稻田甲烷排放及综合效益研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(7): 1436-1446.

DANG Huihui, LIU Chao, WU Zhurong, WANG Yuanyuan, HU Zhenghua, LI Qi, CHEN Shutao. Methane Emission and Comprehensive Benefits of Japonica Rice Paddy Field with Different Sowing Dates[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(7): 1436-1446.

图/表 9

参考文献 36

[1]	BHATTACHARYYA P, ROY K S, NEOGI S, et al., 2013. Impact of elevated CO₂ and temperature on soil C and N dynamics in relation to CH₄ and N₂O emissions from tropical flooded rice (Oryza sativa L.) - ScienceDirect[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 461-462: 601-611.
[2]	WANG C, LAI D Y F, TONG C, et al., 2015. Variations in temperature sensitivity (Q₁₀) of CH₄ emission from a subtropical estuarine marsh in southeast China[J]. Plos One, 10(5): 5-12.
[3]	DORICH R A, NELSON D W, 1984. Evaluation of manual cadmium reduction methods for determination of nitrate in potassium chloride extracts of soil[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48: 1(1): 72-75. DOI URL
[4]	DAS K, BARUAH K K, 2008. A comparison of growth and photosynthetic characteristics of two improved rice cultivars on methane emission from rainfed agroecosystem of northeast India[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 124(1-2): 105-113. DOI URL
[5]	GOPAL M, GUPTA A, ARUNACHALAM V, et al., 2007. Impact of azadirachtin, an insecticidal allelochemical from neem on soil microflora, enzyme and respiratory activities[J]. Bioresource Technology, 98(16): 3154-3158. DOI URL
[6]	GE H X, ZHANG H S, ZHANG H, et al., 2018. The characteristics of methane flux from an irrigated rice farm in east China measured using the eddy covariance method[J]. Agricultural & Forest Meteorology, 249: 228-238.
[7]	IPCC, 2013. Working GroupⅠcontribution to the IPCC Fifth AS sessment Report (AR5). Climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment[R/OL].[2013-10-30].
[8]	JOHNSON J L, TEMPLE K L, 1964. Some variables affecting the measurement of “catalase activity” in soil[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 28(2): 207-209. DOI URL
[9]	KEMPERS A J, ZWEERS A, 1986. Ammonium determination in soil extracts by the salicylate acid method[J]. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis, 17(7): 715-723.
[10]	KIRSCHKE S, BOUSQUET P, CIAIS P, et al., 2013. Three decades of global methane sources and sinks[J]. Nature Geoscience, 6(10): 813-823. DOI URL
[11]	KANDELER E, GERBER H, 1988. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium[J]. Biology & Fertility of Soils, 6(1): 68-72.
[12]	LI H, GUO H Q, HELBIG M, et al., 2019. Does direct-seeded rice decrease ecosystem-scale methane emissions?—A case study from a rice paddy in southeast China[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 272-273: 118-127.
[13]	SIMMONDS M B, MERLE A, ARLENE A, et al., 2015. Seasonal methane and nitrous oxide emissions of several rice cultivars in direct-seeded systems[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44(1): 103-113. DOI URL
[14]	QUAN Y, JUDITH P, RALF C, et al., 2012. Partitioning of CH₄ and CO₂ production originating from rice straw, soil and root organic carbon in rice microcosms[J]. Plos One, 7(11): 3-7.
[15]	SAUNOIS M, STAVERT A R, POULTER B, et al., 2020. The global methane budget 2000-2017 [J]. Earth System Science Data, 12(3): 1561-1623. DOI URL
[16]	TOKIDA T, ADACHI M, CHENG W, et al., 2011. Methane and soil CO₂ production from current-season photosynthates in a rice paddy exposed to elevated CO₂ concentration and soil temperature[J]. Global Change Biology, 17(11): 3327-3337. DOI URL
[17]	WANG W, LAI D Y F, WANG C, et al., 2016. Effects of inorganic amendments, rice cultivars and cultivation methods on greenhouse gas emissions and rice productivity in a subtropical paddy field[J]. Ecological engineering: The Journal of Ecotechnology, 95: 770-778.
[18]	艾磊, 2016. 不同生态区播期对粳稻生育进程、产量及品质的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学: 23-52.
	AI L, 2016. Effects of sowing date on growth period, yield and quality of Japonica rice in different ecological regions[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University: 23-52.
[19]	符冠富, 王丹英, 李华, 等, 2009. 水稻不同生育期温光条件对籽粒充实和米质的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 30(3): 375-382.
	FU G F, WANG D Y, LI H, et al., 2009. Influence of temperature and sunlight conditions on rice grain filling and quality in different growth stages[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 30(3): 375-382.
[20]	甘德欣, 2003. 稻鸭共栖免耕减排甲烷机制及综合效益研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学: 64-67.
	GAN D X, 2003. A study on the mechanism of mitigating methane and ingredient benefits of no-tillage in rice-duck complex system[D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University: 64-67.
[21]	韩广轩, 朱波, 高美荣, 等, 2003. 中国稻田甲烷排放研究进展[J]. 西南农业学报, 16(S1): 49-54.
	HAN G X, ZHU B, GAO M R, et al., 2003. Research progress on methane emission from rice field in China[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 16(S1): 49-54.
[22]	贾庆宇, 李晓岚, 于文颖, 等, 2020. 温度对东北平原水稻田甲烷排放的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 29(1): 1-10.
	JIA Q Y, LI X L, YU W Y, et al., 2020. Effect of temperature on methane emission over paddy fields in Northeast Plain[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 29(1): 1-10.
[23]	江瑜, 管大海, 张卫建, 2018. 水稻植株特性对稻田甲烷排放的影响及其机制的研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 26(2): 175-181.
	JIANG Y, GUAN D H, ZHANG W J, 2018. The effect of rice plant traits on methane emissions from paddy fields: A review[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 26(2): 175-181.
[24]	焦燕, 黄耀, 宗良纲, 等, 2002. 土壤理化特性对稻田CH₄排放的影响[J]. 环境科学, 23(5): 1-7.
	JIAO Y, HUANG Y, ZONG L G, et al., 2002. Methane emission from rice paddy soils as influenced by soil physico-chemical properties[J]. Environmental Science, 23(5): 1-7. DOI URL
[25]	盛锋, 2019. 稻鸭共育对稻田环境的影响及效益评估[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学: 64-71.
	SHENG F, 2019. Effects of rice-duck farming on rice field environment and its benefit evaluation[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University: 64-71.
[26]	沈学良, 田光蕾, 周元昌, 等, 2020. 水稻生物学特性对稻田甲烷排放的影响[J]. 农学学报, 10(2): 75-80.
	SHEN X L, TIAN G L, ZHOU Y C, et al., 2020. Rice biological characteristics: Effects on methane emission from paddy fields[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 10(2): 75-80.
[27]	田昌, 周旋, 黄思怡, 等, 2019. 控释尿素减施对稻田CH₄和N₂O排放及经济效益的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 28(11): 2223-2230.
	TIAN C, ZHOU X, HUANG S Y, et al., 2019. Effects of controlled-release urea reduction on CH₄ and N₂O emissions and its economic benefits in double cropping paddy fields[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 28(11): 2223-2230.
[28]	魏海苹, 孙文娟, 黄耀, 2012. 中国稻田甲烷排放及其影响因素的统计分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 45(17): 3531-3540.
	WEI H P, SUN W J, HUANG Y, 2012. Statistical analysis of methane emission from rice fields in China and the driving factors[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 45(17): 3531-3540.
[29]	尉海东, 2013. 稻田甲烷排放研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 29(18): 6-10.
	WEI H D, 2013. Research progress on methane emission from paddy fields[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 29(18): 6-10.
[30]	汪伟, 裘实, 朱大伟, 等, 2018. 播期对不同软米粳稻品种产量、生育期及温光资源利用的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 24(2): 79-83.
	WANG W, QIU S, ZHU D W, et al., 2018. Effects of sowing date on yield, growth period and utilization of temperature and lightin different japonica rice cultivars[J]. China Rice, 24(2): 79-83.
[31]	许轲, 孙圳, 霍中洋, 等, 2013. 播期、品种类型对水稻产量、生育期及温光利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 46(20): 4222-4233.
	XU K, SUN Z, HUO Z Y, et al., 2013. Effects of seeding date and variety type on yield, growth stage and utilization of temperature and sunshine in rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 46(20): 4222-4233.
[32]	徐年龙, 于洪喜, 叶仁宏, 等, 2020. 播期和栽插方式对水稻南粳9108产量和品质的影响[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 37(1): 15-21.
	XU N L, YU H X, YE R H, et al., 2020. Effects of sowing date and transplanting methodonthe yield and quality of the rice cultivar Nanjing 9108[J]. Barley and Cereal Sciences, 37(1): 15-21.
[33]	占新华, 周立祥, 2002. 土壤溶液和水体中水溶性有机碳的比色测定[J]. 中国环境科学, 22(5): 433-437.
	ZHAN X H, ZHOU L X, 2002. Colorimetric determination of dissolved organic carbon in soil solution and water environment[J]. China Environmental Science, 22(5): 433-437.
[34]	甄丽莎, 谷洁, 高华, 等, 2012. 秸秆还田与施肥对土壤酶活性和作物产量的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 32(9): 1811-1818.
	ZHEN L S, GU J, GAO H, et al., 2012. Effect of straws, manure and chemical fertilizer on soil properties and crop yields[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 32(9): 1811-1818.
[35]	周旋, 吴良欢, 戴锋, 2017. 生化抑制剂组合与施肥模式对黄泥田水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 36(12): 3517-3525.
	ZHOU X, WU L H, DAI F, 2017. Effects of biochemical inhibitor combination and fertilization mode on rice yield and economic benefit in yellow clayey field[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 36(12): 3517-3525.
[36]	周文涛, 戈家敏, 王勃然, 等, 2020. 不同水稻品种甲烷排放与土壤酶的关系[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 39(11): 2675-2682.
	ZHOU W T, GE J M, WANG B R, et al., 2020. Relationships between methane emissions and soil enzymes of different rice varieties[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 39(11): 2675-2682.

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	播种期 Sowing	移栽期 Transplanting	分蘖期 Tillering	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity
2019	Ⅰ	Jun.1	Jul.1	Jul.1	Aug.12	Aug.31	Oct.11
2019	Ⅱ	Jun.11	Jul.11	Jul.11	Aug.21	Sept.7	Oct.13
2020	Ⅰ	May.29	Jun.28	Jun.28	Aug.6	Aug.25	Oct.15
2020	Ⅱ	Jun.8	Jul.8	Jul.8	Aug.14	Aug.29	Oct.17

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	播种期 Sowing	移栽期 Transplanting	分蘖期 Tillering	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity
2019	Ⅰ	Jun.1	Jul.1	Jul.1	Aug.12	Aug.31	Oct.11
2019	Ⅱ	Jun.11	Jul.11	Jul.11	Aug.21	Sept.7	Oct.13
2020	Ⅰ	May.29	Jun.28	Jun.28	Aug.6	Aug.25	Oct.15
2020	Ⅱ	Jun.8	Jul.8	Jul.8	Aug.14	Aug.29	Oct.17

年份 Year	生育期 Growth Stage	处理 Treatment	pH	水溶性有机碳 w(DOC)/(mg·kg^-1)	铵态氮 w(NH₄⁺-N)/(mg·kg^-1)	硝态氮 w(NO₃^--N)/(mg·kg^-1)
2019	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	6.80±0.07^aA	77.46±22.99^aA	49.72±5.11^aA	5.67±1.01^aA
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	6.47±0.09^aA	96.41±14.40^aA	40.95±4.44^aB	3.34±0.72^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	6.46±0.09^aB	88.29±33.97^aA	28.17±1.67^bB	3.86±0.72^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	6.11±0.18^aA	61.09±14.39^aA	66.51±3.31^aA	3.47±0.69^aA
2020	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	6.47±0.03^aA	110.53±1.52^aA	29.49±0.24^aA	4.37±0.19^aA
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	6.35±0.04^aA	103.51±3.82^aA	29.49±0.45^aA	5.87±0.67^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	6.45±0.02^aA	114.91±4.64^aA	28.21±0.67^aA	2.50±0.41^aB
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	6.40±0.04^aA	95.61±3.82^bA	29.26±0.31^aA	2.22±0.49^aB

年份 Year	生育期 Growth Stage	处理 Treatment	pH	水溶性有机碳 w(DOC)/(mg·kg^-1)	铵态氮 w(NH₄⁺-N)/(mg·kg^-1)	硝态氮 w(NO₃^--N)/(mg·kg^-1)
2019	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	6.80±0.07^aA	77.46±22.99^aA	49.72±5.11^aA	5.67±1.01^aA
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	6.47±0.09^aA	96.41±14.40^aA	40.95±4.44^aB	3.34±0.72^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	6.46±0.09^aB	88.29±33.97^aA	28.17±1.67^bB	3.86±0.72^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	6.11±0.18^aA	61.09±14.39^aA	66.51±3.31^aA	3.47±0.69^aA
2020	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	6.47±0.03^aA	110.53±1.52^aA	29.49±0.24^aA	4.37±0.19^aA
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	6.35±0.04^aA	103.51±3.82^aA	29.49±0.45^aA	5.87±0.67^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	6.45±0.02^aA	114.91±4.64^aA	28.21±0.67^aA	2.50±0.41^aB
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	6.40±0.04^aA	95.61±3.82^bA	29.26±0.31^aA	2.22±0.49^aB

年份 Year	生育期 Growth Stage	处理 Treatment	过氧化氢酶活性 Catalase activity/(mL∙g^-1∙h^-1)	转化酶活性 Invertase activity/(mg∙g^-1∙d^-1)	脲酶活性 Urease activity/(mg∙g^-1∙d^-1)
2019	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	6.24±0.84^aA	64.30±2.47^aA	0.010±0.003^bB
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	7.89±0.23^aA	49.18±4.01^bA	0.043±0.004^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	8.34±0.27^aA	32.10±2.07^bB	0.039±0.006^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	7.32±0.69^aA	48.66±4.41^aA	0.038±0.005^aA
2020	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅰ	10.47±0.09^bA	45.98±0.38^bB	0.345±0.013^aA
	分蘖期 Tillering	Ⅱ	10.87±0.08^aA	50.28±1.15^aB	0.356±0.004^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅰ	10.75±0.19^aA	67.21±3.03^aA	0.312±0.009^aA
	成熟期 Maturity	Ⅱ	9.71±0.04^bB	58.06±1.42^aA	0.299±0.007^aB

不同播期粳稻稻田甲烷排放及综合效益研究

Methane Emission and Comprehensive Benefits of Japonica Rice Paddy Field with Different Sowing Dates

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 36

相关文章 11

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

指标 Index	水溶性有机碳 DOC	铵态氮 NH₄⁺-N	硝态氮 NO₃^--N	转化酶 Invertase	脲酶 Urease
2019年CH₄通量 CH₄ flux in 2019	0.207	-0.208	0.163	0.348	0.010
2020年CH₄通量 CH₄ flux in 2020	0.130	-0.181	0.375	0.088	0.147

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	CH₄增温潜势 CH₄ warming potential/(kg·hm^-2)	CH₄增温潜势成本 CH₄ warming potential costs/(yuan·hm^-2)	水稻产量 Rice yield/ (kg·hm^-2)	水稻产量经济效益 The economic benefits of rice production/(yuan·hm^-2)	基于CH₄减排的水稻生产综合效益 Comprehensive benefits based on CH₄ emission reduction/(yuan·hm^-2)
2019	Ⅰ	1930.17±41.34^a	80^a	10102.00±244.49^a	11720^a	11640^a
2019	Ⅱ	1632.09±37.08^b	68^b	8298.75±309.38^b	7032^b	6964^b
2020	Ⅰ	3513.97±280.16	146	11687.33±170.29^a	15842^a	15696^a
2020	Ⅱ	2589.58±458.51	108	8051.48±118.13^b	6389^b	6281^b

[1]	胡启瑞, 吉春容, 李迎春, 王雪姣, 杨明凤, 郭燕云. 膜下滴灌棉花蕾期干旱胁迫对光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1045-1052.
[2]	王敬, 孟珂, 陈璇, 章家恩, 向慧敏, 钟嘉文, 石兆基. 酸雨对生菜和上海青的产量、品质及生理特性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1098-1107.
[3]	唐海明, 石丽红, 文丽, 程凯凯, 李超, 龙泽东, 肖志武, 李微艳, 郭勇. 长期施肥对双季稻田根际土壤氮素的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 492-499.
[4]	李成伟, 刘章勇, 龚松玲, 杨伟, 李绍秋, 朱波. 稻作模式改变对稻田CH₄和N₂O排放的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5): 961-968.
[5]	贺晓佳, 冯书华, 蒋明, 李明锐, 湛方栋, 李元, 何永美. UV-B辐射对水稻根际土壤活性有机碳转化和产甲烷潜力的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(3): 556-564.
[6]	刘江, 朱丽杰, 张开, 王晓明, 王立为, 高西宁. 不同生育期干旱胁迫/复水对大豆光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 286-296.
[7]	黄巧义, 于俊红, 黄建凤, 黄旭, 李苹, 付弘婷, 唐拴虎, 刘一锋, 徐培智. 广东省主要农作物秸秆养分资源量及替代化肥潜力[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 297-306.
[8]	张开, 王立为, 高西宁, 贺明慧. 基于DNDC模型不同降水年型下氮肥管理对马铃薯田N₂O减排及增产潜力影响研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(8): 1672-1682.
[9]	陈思, 王灿, 李想, 李明锐, 湛方栋, 李元, 祖艳群, 何永美. 不同UV-B辐射增幅对稻田土壤酶活性、活性有机碳含量及温室气体排放的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(6): 1260-1268.
[10]	朱勇勇, 宋秉羲, 杨王敏, 张宇鹏, 高志红, 陈晓远. 旱作条件下氮肥减施对水稻生长、产量与经济收益的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(11): 2150-2156.
[11]	武岩, 靳拓, 王跃飞, 贺鹏程, 罗军, 刘宏金, 张雷, 郭晓宇, 陈瑞英. 内蒙古阴山北麓马铃薯应用PBAT/PLA全生物降解地膜可行性分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(10): 2100-2108.