生态环境学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 1600-1610.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2026.10.010
江落雁1(
), 钟嘉劲1, 黎铭洋1, 张池1, 曾曙才2,3, 仇荣亮1,3, 蒋成爱1,3,*(
)
收稿日期:2026-04-16
修回日期:2026-09-03
接受日期:2026-09-20
出版日期:2026-10-18
发布日期:2026-10-21
通讯作者:
E-mail: 作者简介:江落雁(1998年生),女,硕士,研究方向为农业环境保护。E-mail: 1356343114@qq.com
基金资助:
Jiang Luoyan1(
), Zhong Jiajing1, Li Mingyang1, Zhang Chi1, Zeng Shucai2,3, Qiu Rongliang1,3, Jiang Chengai1,3,*(
)
Received:2026-04-16
Revised:2026-09-03
Accepted:2026-09-20
Online:2026-10-18
Published:2026-10-21
摘要:
【目的】土壤重金属复合污染下不同营养级生物响应分异及其驱动机制尚不清晰。阐明关键驱动因子及响应节点,对涉重企业周边土壤生态风险识别、早期预警和差异化管控具有重要意义。【方法】整合典型涉重企业周边61个土壤样点的理化性质、重金属总量及植物、蚯蚓和微生物响应数据,采用随机森林和SHAP值分解识别不同受体的主控因子及响应节点,构建多受体生态响应解释框架。【结果】植物毒性指数和微生物响应指数均以土壤性质为主导,贡献率分别为61.42%和56.31%,其中pH、有效磷作用突出;蚯蚓生存指数则受重金属主导,Cr、As和Cd贡献较高。全生物综合指数中,土壤性质贡献率为62.53%,pH、有效磷和阳离子交换量为主要因子。SHAP依赖关系显示,pH响应节点集中于6.6-7.0,Cd、As和Cr在特定受体中出现候选响应区间。【结论】复合污染土壤生态响应体现为土壤性质调控下的受体分异,植物和微生物更偏向指示生境扰动,蚯蚓更直接反映金属暴露风险。研究结果可为复合污染生态风险识别、响应节点筛选和差异化管控提供定量科学依据。
中图分类号:
江落雁, 钟嘉劲, 黎铭洋, 张池, 曾曙才, 仇荣亮, 蒋成爱. 涉重金属企业周边土壤不同营养级生物响应阈值受体分异特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(10): 1600-1610.
Jiang Luoyan, Zhong Jiajing, Li Mingyang, Zhang Chi, Zeng Shucai, Qiu Rongliang, Jiang Chengai. Receptor-Specific Differences in Response Thresholds among Organisms at Different Trophic Levels in Soils Surrounding Heavy Metal-Related Enterprises[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2026, 35(10): 1600-1610.
| 编号 | 采样对象 | 类型 | 采样区域 | 样品数/个 | 采样范围 | 采样时间 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 钢铁厂一 | 钢铁生产企业 | 湖南衡阳 | 3 | 距企业200 m范围内 | 2023年4月27日 |
| 2 | 矿山开采一 | 矿山开采区 | 湖南衡阳 | 5 | 距开采区1000 m范围内 | 2023年4月28日 |
| 3 | 矿山开采冶炼二 | 矿山开采/冶炼复合场地 | 湖南衡阳 | 4 | 距企业1000 m范围内 | 2023年4月29日 |
| 4 | 矿山开采三 | 矿山开采区 | 湖南衡阳 | 5 | 距企业800 m范围内 | 2023年4月26日 |
| 5 | 冶炼厂一 | 金属冶炼企业 | 湖南衡阳 | 3 | 距企业300 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 6 | 工业园区一 | 工业园区 | 湖南衡阳 | 2 | 距园区200 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 7 | 肥料厂 | 肥料生产相关场地 | 湖南衡阳 | 2 | 距厂区400 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 8 | 冶炼厂二 | 金属冶炼企业 | 广东韶关 | 3 | 距厂区1000 m范围内 | 2023年6月9日 |
| 9 | 矿山采选四 | 矿山采选区 | 广东韶关 | 2 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月9日 |
| 10 | 钢铁厂二 | 钢铁生产企业 | 广东韶关 | 3 | 距企业400 m范围内 | 2023年6月10日 |
| 11 | 冶炼厂三 | 金属冶炼企业 | 广东韶关 | 4 | 距企业500 m范围内 | 2023年6月10日 |
| 12 | 矿山开采洗选 | 矿山开采/洗选区 | 广东韶关 | 7 | 距开采区1500 m范围内 | 2023年6月11日 |
| 13 | 产业园区一 | 产业园区 | 广东韶关 | 2 | 距园区100 m范围内 | 2023年6月12日 |
| 14 | 旧电镀厂一 | 旧电镀场地 | 广东中山 | 3 | 距厂区300 m范围内 | 2023年5月16日 |
| 15 | 电镀厂一 | 电镀企业 | 广东中山 | 1 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年5月17日 |
| 16 | 旧电镀厂二 | 旧电镀场地 | 广东中山 | 1 | 距厂区50 m范围内 | 2023年5月17日 |
| 17 | 旧金属回收冶炼一 | 金属回收/冶炼场地 | 广东肇庆四会 | 2 | 距厂区100 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 18 | 电镀厂二 | 电镀企业 | 广东肇庆四会 | 2 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 19 | 旧金属回收二 | 旧金属回收场地 | 广东肇庆四会 | 1 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 20 | 电镀园区一 | 电镀园区 | 广东肇庆四会 | 1 | 距园区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月15日 |
| 21 | 被污染的水稻土 | 污染土壤补充样点 | 广东韶关乳源 | 3 | 受污染水稻土采样区 | 2021年11月 |
| 22 | 对照土 | 对照土样 | 广东广州 | 2 | 华南农业大学生态试验场、树木园 | 2023年6月16日 |
表1 采样对象及样点布设信息
Table 1 Sampling objects and sampling information
| 编号 | 采样对象 | 类型 | 采样区域 | 样品数/个 | 采样范围 | 采样时间 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 钢铁厂一 | 钢铁生产企业 | 湖南衡阳 | 3 | 距企业200 m范围内 | 2023年4月27日 |
| 2 | 矿山开采一 | 矿山开采区 | 湖南衡阳 | 5 | 距开采区1000 m范围内 | 2023年4月28日 |
| 3 | 矿山开采冶炼二 | 矿山开采/冶炼复合场地 | 湖南衡阳 | 4 | 距企业1000 m范围内 | 2023年4月29日 |
| 4 | 矿山开采三 | 矿山开采区 | 湖南衡阳 | 5 | 距企业800 m范围内 | 2023年4月26日 |
| 5 | 冶炼厂一 | 金属冶炼企业 | 湖南衡阳 | 3 | 距企业300 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 6 | 工业园区一 | 工业园区 | 湖南衡阳 | 2 | 距园区200 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 7 | 肥料厂 | 肥料生产相关场地 | 湖南衡阳 | 2 | 距厂区400 m范围内 | 2023年4月30日 |
| 8 | 冶炼厂二 | 金属冶炼企业 | 广东韶关 | 3 | 距厂区1000 m范围内 | 2023年6月9日 |
| 9 | 矿山采选四 | 矿山采选区 | 广东韶关 | 2 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月9日 |
| 10 | 钢铁厂二 | 钢铁生产企业 | 广东韶关 | 3 | 距企业400 m范围内 | 2023年6月10日 |
| 11 | 冶炼厂三 | 金属冶炼企业 | 广东韶关 | 4 | 距企业500 m范围内 | 2023年6月10日 |
| 12 | 矿山开采洗选 | 矿山开采/洗选区 | 广东韶关 | 7 | 距开采区1500 m范围内 | 2023年6月11日 |
| 13 | 产业园区一 | 产业园区 | 广东韶关 | 2 | 距园区100 m范围内 | 2023年6月12日 |
| 14 | 旧电镀厂一 | 旧电镀场地 | 广东中山 | 3 | 距厂区300 m范围内 | 2023年5月16日 |
| 15 | 电镀厂一 | 电镀企业 | 广东中山 | 1 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年5月17日 |
| 16 | 旧电镀厂二 | 旧电镀场地 | 广东中山 | 1 | 距厂区50 m范围内 | 2023年5月17日 |
| 17 | 旧金属回收冶炼一 | 金属回收/冶炼场地 | 广东肇庆四会 | 2 | 距厂区100 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 18 | 电镀厂二 | 电镀企业 | 广东肇庆四会 | 2 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 19 | 旧金属回收二 | 旧金属回收场地 | 广东肇庆四会 | 1 | 距厂区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月14日 |
| 20 | 电镀园区一 | 电镀园区 | 广东肇庆四会 | 1 | 距园区200 m范围内 | 2023年6月15日 |
| 21 | 被污染的水稻土 | 污染土壤补充样点 | 广东韶关乳源 | 3 | 受污染水稻土采样区 | 2021年11月 |
| 22 | 对照土 | 对照土样 | 广东广州 | 2 | 华南农业大学生态试验场、树木园 | 2023年6月16日 |
| 元素 | pH≤5.5 | 5.5<pH≤6.5 | 6.5<pH≤7.5 | pH>7.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | 70 | 90 | 120 | 170 |
| Cd | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Cu | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| Zn | 200 | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| Ni | 60 | 70 | 100 | 190 |
| As | 40 | 40 | 30 | 25 |
| Hg | 1.3 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
| Cr | 150 | 150 | 200 | 250 |
表2 农用地土壤风险筛选值
Table 2 Risk screening values for agricultural land soil
| 元素 | pH≤5.5 | 5.5<pH≤6.5 | 6.5<pH≤7.5 | pH>7.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | 70 | 90 | 120 | 170 |
| Cd | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Cu | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| Zn | 200 | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| Ni | 60 | 70 | 100 | 190 |
| As | 40 | 40 | 30 | 25 |
| Hg | 1.3 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
| Cr | 150 | 150 | 200 | 250 |
| 生态维度 | 生物标志物指标 | 权重 | 指标含义 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 蚯蚓生存指数 | 赤子爱胜蚓 14 d存活率 | 1.00 | 表征土壤对动物受体的 急性毒性效应 |
| 植物毒性指数 | 水稻根伸长抑制率 | 0.35 | 表征根系对污染胁迫 和养分限制的敏感响应 |
| 生菜根伸长抑制率 | 0.35 | 表征根系对污染胁迫 和养分限制的敏感响应 | |
| 水稻种子发芽率 | 0.15 | 表征植物萌发阶段响应 | |
| 生菜种子发芽率 | 0.15 | 表征植物萌发阶段响应 | |
| 微生物响应指数 | 细菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征细菌群落丰富度 |
| 细菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征细菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 真菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征真菌群落丰富度 | |
| 真菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征真菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 放线菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征放线菌群落丰富度 | |
| 放线菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征放线菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 全生物综合指数 | 植物毒性指数 | 1/3 | 表征初级生产者响应 |
| 蚯蚓生存指数 | 1/3 | 表征土壤动物响应 | |
| 微生物响应指数 | 1/3 | 表征微生物群落响应 |
表3 生态分析维度的构成指标及权重分配
Table 3 Composition indicators and weight distribution of ecological analysis dimensions
| 生态维度 | 生物标志物指标 | 权重 | 指标含义 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 蚯蚓生存指数 | 赤子爱胜蚓 14 d存活率 | 1.00 | 表征土壤对动物受体的 急性毒性效应 |
| 植物毒性指数 | 水稻根伸长抑制率 | 0.35 | 表征根系对污染胁迫 和养分限制的敏感响应 |
| 生菜根伸长抑制率 | 0.35 | 表征根系对污染胁迫 和养分限制的敏感响应 | |
| 水稻种子发芽率 | 0.15 | 表征植物萌发阶段响应 | |
| 生菜种子发芽率 | 0.15 | 表征植物萌发阶段响应 | |
| 微生物响应指数 | 细菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征细菌群落丰富度 |
| 细菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征细菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 真菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征真菌群落丰富度 | |
| 真菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征真菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 放线菌Chao1 | 1/6 | 表征放线菌群落丰富度 | |
| 放线菌Shannon | 1/6 | 表征放线菌群落丰富度和均匀度 | |
| 全生物综合指数 | 植物毒性指数 | 1/3 | 表征初级生产者响应 |
| 蚯蚓生存指数 | 1/3 | 表征土壤动物响应 | |
| 微生物响应指数 | 1/3 | 表征微生物群落响应 |
图2 土壤污染-生物效应关系中关键环境因子的重要性分析
Figure 2 Importance analysis of key environmental factors in the relationship between soil pollution and biological effects
图3 关键环境因子对复合生态响应指数的响应规律与响应节点分析 灰色散点表示样点特征值与SHAP值的对应关系,黑色曲线为二次拟合结果;红色虚线表示SHAP=0的响应节点,蓝色虚线表示二次拟合曲线的效应转折点。透明色带表示基于样点数量敏感性重复抽样得到的不确定性区间,用于表征响应节点估计的稳定性
Figure 3 Response patterns and response-node analysis of key environmental factors to the composite ecological response index
| Number | Sampling subjects | Type | Area Sampling | Number of samples per piece | Sampling range | Sampling time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | iron and steel plant1 | Iron and Steel Production Enterprise | Hengyang, Hunan | 3 | Within 200 m from the enterprise | April 27, 2023 |
| 2 | Mining Area 1 | Mining Area | Hengyang, Hunan | 5 | Within 1 000 m from the mining area | April 28, 2023 |
| 3 | Mining and Smelting Area 2 | Mining-Smelting Composite Site | Hengyang, Hunan | 4 | Within 1 000 m from the enterprise | April 29, 2023 |
| 4 | Mining Area 3 | Mining Area | Hengyang, Hunan | 5 | Within 800 m from the enterprise | April 26, 2023 |
| 5 | Smelter 1 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Hengyang, Hunan | 3 | Within 300 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 6 | Industrial Park 1 | Industrial Park | Hengyang, Hunan | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 7 | Fertilizer Plant | Fertilizer Production Related Site | Hengyang, Hunan | 2 | Within 400 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 8 | Smelter 2 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 1 000 m from the plant | June 9, 2023 |
| 9 | Mining and Beneficiation Area 4 | Mining and Beneficiation Area | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 9, 2023 |
| 10 | Iron and Steel Plant 2 | Iron and Steel Production Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 400 m from the enterprise | June 10, 2023 |
| 11 | Smelter 3 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 4 | Within 500 m from the plant | June 10, 2023 |
| 12 | Mining and Washing Area 4 | Mining and Washing Area | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 7 | Within 1 500 m from the mining area | June 11, 2023 |
| 13 | Industrial Park 1 | Industrial Park | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 2 | Within 100 m from the plant | June 12, 2023 |
| 14 | Former Electroplating Plant 1 | Former Electroplating Site | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 300 m from the plant | May 16, 2023 |
| 15 | Electroplating Plant 1 | Operating electroplating enterprise | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | May 17, 2023 |
| 16 | Former Electroplating Plant 2 | Former Electroplating Site | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 1 | Within 50 m from the plant | May 17, 2023 |
| 17 | Waste Metal Recycling and Smelting Site 1 | Metal Recycling and Smelting Site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 2 | Within 100 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 18 | Electroplating Plant 2 | Electroplating Enterprise | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 19 | Waste Metal Recycling Site 2 | Waste Metal Recycling Site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 20 | Electroplating-industrial Park 1 | Electroplating industrial-cluster site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 15, 2023 |
| 21 | Contaminated Paddy Soil | Supplementary Sampling Point for Contaminated Soil | Ruyuan, Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Contaminated Paddy Soil Sampling Area | November 2021 |
| 22 | Control Soil | Control Soil Sample | Guangzhou, Guangdong | 2 | Ecological Experimental Station and Arboretum, South China Agricultural University | June 16, 2023 |
Table 1 Sampling objects and sampling information
| Number | Sampling subjects | Type | Area Sampling | Number of samples per piece | Sampling range | Sampling time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | iron and steel plant1 | Iron and Steel Production Enterprise | Hengyang, Hunan | 3 | Within 200 m from the enterprise | April 27, 2023 |
| 2 | Mining Area 1 | Mining Area | Hengyang, Hunan | 5 | Within 1 000 m from the mining area | April 28, 2023 |
| 3 | Mining and Smelting Area 2 | Mining-Smelting Composite Site | Hengyang, Hunan | 4 | Within 1 000 m from the enterprise | April 29, 2023 |
| 4 | Mining Area 3 | Mining Area | Hengyang, Hunan | 5 | Within 800 m from the enterprise | April 26, 2023 |
| 5 | Smelter 1 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Hengyang, Hunan | 3 | Within 300 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 6 | Industrial Park 1 | Industrial Park | Hengyang, Hunan | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 7 | Fertilizer Plant | Fertilizer Production Related Site | Hengyang, Hunan | 2 | Within 400 m from the plant | April 30, 2023 |
| 8 | Smelter 2 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 1 000 m from the plant | June 9, 2023 |
| 9 | Mining and Beneficiation Area 4 | Mining and Beneficiation Area | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 9, 2023 |
| 10 | Iron and Steel Plant 2 | Iron and Steel Production Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 400 m from the enterprise | June 10, 2023 |
| 11 | Smelter 3 | Metal Smelting Enterprise | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 4 | Within 500 m from the plant | June 10, 2023 |
| 12 | Mining and Washing Area 4 | Mining and Washing Area | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 7 | Within 1 500 m from the mining area | June 11, 2023 |
| 13 | Industrial Park 1 | Industrial Park | Shaoguan, Guangdong | 2 | Within 100 m from the plant | June 12, 2023 |
| 14 | Former Electroplating Plant 1 | Former Electroplating Site | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 3 | Within 300 m from the plant | May 16, 2023 |
| 15 | Electroplating Plant 1 | Operating electroplating enterprise | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | May 17, 2023 |
| 16 | Former Electroplating Plant 2 | Former Electroplating Site | Zhongshan, Guangdong | 1 | Within 50 m from the plant | May 17, 2023 |
| 17 | Waste Metal Recycling and Smelting Site 1 | Metal Recycling and Smelting Site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 2 | Within 100 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 18 | Electroplating Plant 2 | Electroplating Enterprise | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 2 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 19 | Waste Metal Recycling Site 2 | Waste Metal Recycling Site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 14, 2023 |
| 20 | Electroplating-industrial Park 1 | Electroplating industrial-cluster site | Sihui, Zhaoqing, Guangdong | 1 | Within 200 m from the plant | June 15, 2023 |
| 21 | Contaminated Paddy Soil | Supplementary Sampling Point for Contaminated Soil | Ruyuan, Shaoguan, Guangdong | 3 | Contaminated Paddy Soil Sampling Area | November 2021 |
| 22 | Control Soil | Control Soil Sample | Guangzhou, Guangdong | 2 | Ecological Experimental Station and Arboretum, South China Agricultural University | June 16, 2023 |
| Element | pH≤5.5 | 5.5<pH≤6.5 | 6.5<pH≤7.5 | pH>7.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | 70 | 90 | 120 | 170 |
| Cd | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Cu | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| Zn | 200 | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| Ni | 60 | 70 | 100 | 190 |
| As | 40 | 40 | 30 | 25 |
| Hg | 1.3 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
| Cr | 150 | 150 | 200 | 250 |
Table 2 Risk screening values for agricultural land soil
| Element | pH≤5.5 | 5.5<pH≤6.5 | 6.5<pH≤7.5 | pH>7.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | 70 | 90 | 120 | 170 |
| Cd | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Cu | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| Zn | 200 | 200 | 250 | 300 |
| Ni | 60 | 70 | 100 | 190 |
| As | 40 | 40 | 30 | 25 |
| Hg | 1.3 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
| Cr | 150 | 150 | 200 | 250 |
| Ecological DimensionBiomarker IndicatorWeightIndicator Description | Biomarker Indicator | Weight | Indicator Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earthworm Survival Index | 14-d survival rate of Eisenia fetida | 1.00 | Represents the acute toxic effect of soil on animal receptors |
| Plant Toxicity Index | Rice root elongation inhibition rate | 0.35 | Represents the sensitive response of root systems to pollution stress and nutrient limitation |
| Lettuce root elongation inhibition rate | 0.35 | Represents the sensitive response of root systems to pollution stress and nutrient limitation | |
| Rice seed germination rate | 0.15 | Represents the response of plants at the germination stage | |
| Lettuce seed germination rate | 0.15 | Represents the response of plants at the germination stage | |
| Microbial Response Index | Bacterial Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of bacterial community |
| Bacterial Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of bacterial community | |
| Fungal Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of fungal community | |
| Fungal Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of fungal community | |
| Actinobacterial Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of actinobacterial community | |
| Actinobacterial Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of actinobacterial community | |
| Integrated Whole-Biota Index | Plant Toxicity Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of primary producers |
| Earthworm Survival Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of soil fauna | |
| Microbial Response Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of microbial community |
Table 3 Composition indicators and weight distribution of ecological analysis dimensions
| Ecological DimensionBiomarker IndicatorWeightIndicator Description | Biomarker Indicator | Weight | Indicator Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earthworm Survival Index | 14-d survival rate of Eisenia fetida | 1.00 | Represents the acute toxic effect of soil on animal receptors |
| Plant Toxicity Index | Rice root elongation inhibition rate | 0.35 | Represents the sensitive response of root systems to pollution stress and nutrient limitation |
| Lettuce root elongation inhibition rate | 0.35 | Represents the sensitive response of root systems to pollution stress and nutrient limitation | |
| Rice seed germination rate | 0.15 | Represents the response of plants at the germination stage | |
| Lettuce seed germination rate | 0.15 | Represents the response of plants at the germination stage | |
| Microbial Response Index | Bacterial Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of bacterial community |
| Bacterial Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of bacterial community | |
| Fungal Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of fungal community | |
| Fungal Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of fungal community | |
| Actinobacterial Chao1 | 1/6 | Represents the richness of actinobacterial community | |
| Actinobacterial Shannon | 1/6 | Represents the richness and evenness of actinobacterial community | |
| Integrated Whole-Biota Index | Plant Toxicity Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of primary producers |
| Earthworm Survival Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of soil fauna | |
| Microbial Response Index | 1/3 | Represents the response of microbial community |
| [1] |
Breiman L, 2001. Random Forests[J]. Machine Learning, 45(1): 5-32.
DOI |
| [2] |
Bünemann E K, Bongiorno G, Bai Z G, et al., 2018. Soil quality - A critical review[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 120: 105-125.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
Rousk J, Erland B, Brookes P, et al., 2010. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil[J]. The ISME Journal, 4: 1340-1351.
DOI URL |
| [4] |
Kris B, Jelle M, Erik S, 2005. Toxicity of heavy metals in soil assessed with various soil microbial and plant growth assays: A comparative study[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(3): 634-640.
PMID |
| [5] |
Hakanson L, 1980. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control.a sedimentological approach[J]. Water Research, 14(8): 975-1001.
DOI URL |
| [6] | Lundberg S M, Lee S I, 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions[C]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems: 4768-4777. |
| [7] | Shapley L S, 1953. A value for n-person games[M]// Kuhn H W, Tucker A W. Contributions to the Theory of Games: Volume II. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 307-317. |
| [8] |
Tomlinson D L, Wilson J G, Harris C R, et al., 1980. Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index[J]. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen, 33(1): 566-575.
DOI URL |
| [9] |
Yadav R, Kumar R, Gupta R K, et al., 2023. Heavy metal toxicity in earthworms and its environmental implications: A review[J]. Environmental Advances, 12: 100374.
DOI URL |
| [10] |
Yang Q Q, Li Z Y, Lu X N, et al., 2018. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from industrial and agricultural regions in China: Pollution and risk assessment[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 642: 690-700.
DOI URL |
| [11] | 安亚男, 2023. 铅锌行业场地土壤重金属污染环境风险防控要素识别研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学. |
| An Y N, 2023. Research on the identification of environmental risk prevention and control elements for heavy metal pollution in soil of lead-zinc industry sites[D]. Changsha: Central South University. | |
| [12] | 陈保冬, 赵方杰, 张莘, 等, 2015. 土壤生物与土壤污染研究前沿与展望[J]. 生态学报, 35(20): 6604-6613. |
| Chen B D, Zhao F J, Zhang X, et al., 2015. Frontiers and prospects of soil biology and soil pollution research[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(20): 6604-6613. | |
| [13] | 陈红, 2025. 重金属对番茄种子发芽和根伸长的影响[J]. 园艺与种苗, 45(3): 33-35. |
| Chen H, 2025. Effects of heavy metals on germination and root elongation of tomato seeds[J]. Horticulture and Seedlings, 45(3): 33-35. | |
| [14] | 陈嘉浩, 王翔宇, 徐明, 2025. 利用蚯蚓表征和评价韶关典型区域土壤汞污染的暴露风险[J]. 生态毒理学报, 20(5): 438-446. |
| Chen J H, Wang X Y, Xu M, 2025. Characterization and Evaluation of soil mercury pollution Exposure Risk in Typical Areas of Shaoguan using earthworms[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecotoxicology, 20(5): 438-446. | |
| [15] | 陈静, 刘荣辉, 陈岩贽, 等, 2018. 重金属污染对土壤微生物生态的影响[J]. 生命科学, 30(6): 667-672. |
| Chen J, Liu R H, Chen Y Z, et al., 2018. The influence of heavy Metal Pollution on Soil Microbial ecology[J]. Life Sciences, 30(6): 667-672. | |
| [16] | 代杜铃, 姜瑢, 荣丽, 等, 2023. 土壤污染生态阈值研究进展[J]. 生态毒理学报, 18(6): 98-111. |
| Dai D L, Jiang R, Rong L, et al., 2023. Research progress on ecological threshold of soil pollution[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecotoxicology, 18(6): 98-111. | |
| [17] | 单孝全, 王子健, 张淑贞, 等, 2002. 形态分析、生物可给性与生态毒理研究[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 17(1): 37-40. |
| Shan X Q, Wang Z J, Zhang S Z, et al., 2002. Morphological analysis, bioavailability and ecotoxicological studies[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 17(1): 37-40. | |
| [18] | 郭可欣, 李天元, 宋繁永, 等, 2023. 土壤-作物中重金属生物有效性和可给性研究进展[J]. 中国环境科学, 43(8): 4164-4174. |
| Guo K X, Li T Y, Song F Y, et al., 2023. Research progress on the bioavailability and availability of heavy metals in soil-crops[J]. China Environmental Science, 43(8): 4164-4174. | |
| [19] | 李季, 黄益宗, 胡莹, 等, 2015. 基于植物重金属毒性的陆地生物配体模型 (t-BLM) 研究进展[J]. 生态毒理学报, 10(6): 43-53. |
| Li J, Huang Y Z, Hu Y, et al., 2015. Research progress of terrestrial ligand model based on plant heavy metal toxicity (t-BLM)[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecotoxicology, 10(6): 43-53. | |
| [20] | 吕晓男, 孟赐福, 麻万诸, 2007. 重金属与土壤环境质量及食物安全问题研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 15(2): 197-200. |
| Lü X N, Meng C F, Ma W Z, 2007. Research on heavy metals and soil environmental quality and food safety issues[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 15(2): 197-200. | |
| [21] | 宋玉芳, 许华夏, 任丽萍, 等, 2001. 土壤重金属对植物种子发芽与根伸长抑制的剂量-效应关系[C]// 中国毒理学会. 中国毒理学会第三届全国学术会议论文(摘要)集: 81-82. |
| Song Y F, Xu H X, Ren L P, et al., 2001. Dose-effect relationship of soil heavy metals on inhibition of plant seed germination and root elongation[C]// Chinese Society of Toxicology. Abstracts of the Third National Academic Conference of the Chinese Society of Toxicology: 81-82. | |
| [22] | 王锦涛, 刘伟杰, 刘丙祥, 等, 2024. 秸秆和牛粪生物炭对矿区菜地土壤中镉的钝化效果和小白菜生长的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 40(11): 1524-1532. |
| Wang J T, Liu W J, Liu B X, et al., 2024. The passivation effect of straw and cow dung biochar on cadmium in vegetable field soil in mining areas and its influence on the growth of Chinese cabbage[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 40(11): 1524-1532. | |
| [23] | 王开来, 苗峰, 史柯, 等, 2019. 土壤污染生态毒理诊断方法研究进展[J]. 土壤, 51(5): 854-863. |
| Wang K L, Miao F, Shi K, et al., 2019. Research progress on ecotoxicological diagnostic methods for soil pollution[J]. Soil Science, 51(5): 854-863. | |
| [24] | 王欣丽, 朱飞, 姚静, 等, 2018. 长期施肥对酸性土壤氨氧化微生物群落的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 24(2): 375-382. |
| Wang X L, Zhu F, Yao J, et al., 2018. The effect of long-term fertilization on ammonia oxidation microbial community in acidic soil[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 24(2): 375-382. | |
| [25] | 王怡雯, 芮玉奎, 李中阳, 等, 2020. 冬小麦吸收重金属特征及与影响因素的定量关系[J]. 环境科学, 41(3): 1482-1490. |
| Wang Y W, Rui Y K, Li Z Y, et al., 2020. Characteristics of heavy metal absorption in winter wheat and its quantitative relationship with influencing factors[J]. Environmental Science, 41(3): 1482-1490. | |
| [26] | 谢宗圆, 徐超, 郑刘根, 等, 2024. 某钢铁厂地下水中重金属来源解析与风险评价[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 36(4): 43-48. |
| Xie Z Y, Xu C, Zheng L G, et al., 2024. Source analysis and risk assessment of heavy metals in groundwater of a steel plant[J]. Environmental Monitoring Management and Technology, 36(4): 43-48. | |
| [27] | 杨梦丽, 叶明亮, 马友华, 等, 2019. 基于重金属有效态的农田土壤重金属污染评价研究[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 31(1): 10-13, 38. |
| Yang M L, Ye M L, Ma Y H, et al., 2019. Research on evaluation of heavy metal pollution in farmland soil based on the available states of heavy metals[J]. Environmental Monitoring Management and Technology, 31(1): 10-13, 38. | |
| [28] | 张萌, 肖武, 肖劲光, 等, 2026. 磷基材料稳定化修复土壤重金属: 机理、应用与挑战[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 16(2): 790-797. |
| Zhang M, Xiao W, Xiao J G, et al., 2026. Phosphorus‑based materials for stabilization and remediation of heavy metals in soil: Mechanism, Application and Challenges[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology, 16(2): 790-797. | |
| [29] | 章淼, 肖洪文, 胡伟, 等, 2019. 土壤重金属对蚯蚓的毒性作用研究进展[J]. 科技创新导报, 16(5): 114-115. |
| Zhang M, Xiao H W, Hu W, et al., 2019. Soil heavy metal on the toxic effects of earthworm research progress[J]. Science and Technology Innovation Herald, 16(5): 114-115. | |
| [30] | 章志青, 夏文明, 周祯领, 等, 2021. 某工业区电镀废水处理工艺的设计[J]. 电镀与涂饰, 40(13): 1052-1056. |
| Zhang Z Q, Xia W M, Zhou Z L, et al., 2021. Design of electroplating wastewater treatment process in an industrial zone[J]. Electroplating & Coating, 40(13): 1052-1056. | |
| [31] | 赵一鸣, 董颖博, 林海, 等, 2018. 土壤理化性质对重金属形态的影响[J]. 农业工程, 8(12): 38-43. |
| Zhao Y M, Dong Y B, Lin H, et al., 2018. The influence of soil physical and chemical properties on the forms of heavy metals[J]. Agricultural Engineering, 8(12): 38-43. | |
| [32] | 赵奕乔, 刘嫦娥, 段昌群, 等, 2024. 蚯蚓-微生物互作调控重金属污染土壤生态系统研究进展[J]. 环境污染与防治, 46(11): 1679-1687. |
| Zhao Y Q, Liu C E, Duan C Q, et al., 2024. Research progress on the regulation of heavy metal contaminated soil ecosystem by earthverm-microbial interaction[J]. Environmental Pollution Control and Prevention, 46(11): 1679-1687. | |
| [33] | 赵芷萱, 崔红标, 李帅, 等, 2024. 生物质灰复配磷酸盐对污染土壤铜铅钝化的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 55(5): 1482-1490. |
| Zhao Z X, Cui H B, Li S, et al., 2024. The effect of biomass ash mixed with phosphate on copper-lead passivation in contaminated soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 55(5): 1482-1490. | |
| [34] | 中华人民共和国环境保护部, 2013. 土壤和沉积物汞、砷、硒、铋、锑的测定微波消解/原子荧光法: HJ 680—2013[S]. 北京: 中国科学环境出版社. |
| Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China, 2013. Determination of mercury, arsenic, selenium, bismuth and antimony in soil and sediment by microwave digestion/atomic fluorescence spectrometry: HJ 680—2013[S]. Beijing: China Science Environment Press. | |
| [35] | 中华人民共和国生态环境部, 中华人民共和国国家市场监督管理总局, 2018. 土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准 (试行): GB 15618—2018[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社. |
| Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China, 2018. Soil Environmental Quality - Risk Control Standards for Soil Pollution in Agricultural Land (Trial): GB 15618—2018[S]. Beijing: China Standards Press. |
| [1] | 马雪莹, 杜宏茹, 马红莲, 赵雪纯, 林涛, 周耘天. 新疆景观生态风险评价及稳定性分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(9): 1393-1401. |
| [2] | 马思萌, 付千千, 韩博, 梁珊珊, 张晨, 赵静波, 毛洪钧, 于剑. 航班临时管制对飞机污染物排放影响效应研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(8): 1276-1286. |
| [3] | 黄思琦, 李婷苑, 王俊彬, 陈靖扬, 沈劲. 广东沿海地区海陆风对本地臭氧的影响研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(7): 1098-1113. |
| [4] | 周家豪, 张沛, 彭煜文, 钟松雄, 邹建平, 侯冬梅. 基于机器学习识别赣江流域重金属污染主控因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(6): 976-985. |
| [5] | 周浩然, 何涛, 彭恋, 钟志明, 钱宝. 长江流域重要水源地微塑料赋存特征及生态风险评估[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(3): 345-351. |
| [6] | 李家蔚, 黄凯, 李盛泽, 董路, 于相毅, 毛岩, 孟耀斌. SWAT-KM环境暴露模拟支持下的滇池流域邻苯二甲酸二辛酯生态风险研判[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(3): 362-377. |
| [7] | 刘崇万, 朱晓华, 王明华, 徐志华, 任娣, 杨洪生, 万金娟. 江苏典型淡水鱼类养殖尾水抗生素污染特征、生态风险及其与环境理化因子相关性[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(3): 378-392. |
| [8] | 吴璇, 余佳丽, 陈笔, 娄云剀, 何敏, 苗芃, 杨帆, 唐涛. 基于胁迫-响应关系的赤水河氮磷生态承载力研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(1): 134-146. |
| [9] | 赵文琪, 张佳华, 张鹏, 白林燕, 姚凤梅. 植被物候监测技术与遥感反演方法研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(9): 1473-1482. |
| [10] | 杜方旎, 冯青靓, 原寒, 曹少飞. 模式鱼类生物标志物在放射生态学研究中的应用及前景[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(8): 1182-1191. |
| [11] | 田蜜, 廖日权, 张健, 董凤凤, 唐建辉. 钦州湾全氟/多氟烷基化合物的污染特征及生态风险评估[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(7): 1020-1028. |
| [12] | 孟洁, 朱星宇, 徐明月, 荣凌云, 吴川福, 汪群慧. 腐熟牛粪沼渣对模拟含氨臭气的去除效能及建模分析研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(6): 922-930. |
| [13] | 郭欣达, 付奔, 余思洁, 侯鹰, 陈卫平. 城市内涝和夏季高温风险评价与优先管控区识别方法研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(5): 731-742. |
| [14] | 张艳, 张少娟, 吕韬, 贺慧汀. 黄河流域(内蒙古段)景观生态风险与生境质量的耦合协同关系研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(12): 1841-1852. |
| [15] | 王薇, 夏宇轩. 基于遥感技术和机器学习的城市街区PM2.5空间分布特征研究——以合肥市滨湖新区为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(9): 1426-1437. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||