秸秆还田下耕作方式对黑土活性有机碳组分及碳库管理指数的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.17.008

中国农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (17): 3408-3423.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.17.008

• 土壤肥料·节水灌溉·农业生态环境 • 上一篇下一篇

秸秆还田下耕作方式对黑土活性有机碳组分及碳库管理指数的影响

刘雅杰¹^,²^,³(), 张天娇¹^,²^,³, 张向前¹^,²(), 路战远¹^,²^,³(), 刘战勇¹, 程玉臣¹^,², 武迪¹^,²^,³, 李金龙⁴

¹ 内蒙古自治区农牧业科学院，呼和浩特 010031
² 农业农村部黑土地保护与利用重点实验室，呼和浩特 010031
³ 内蒙古大学生命科学学院，呼和浩特 010020
⁴ 阿荣旗农业事业发展中心，内蒙古呼伦贝尔 162750

收稿日期:2023-12-29 接受日期:2024-05-08 出版日期:2024-09-01 发布日期:2024-09-04
通信作者:
张向前，E-mail：zhangxiangqian_2008@126.com
路战远，E-mail：lzhy281@163.com
联系方式: 刘雅杰，E-mail：2745655513@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(32060450); 内蒙古自治区科技计划项目(2021GG0064); 中央引导地方科技发展资金(2022ZY0216)

Effects of Tillage Methods Under Straw Returning on the Labile Organic Carbon Fractions and Carbon Pool Management Index in Black Soil Farmland

LIU YaJie¹^,²^,³(), ZHANG TianJiao¹^,²^,³, ZHANG XiangQian¹^,²(), LU ZhanYuan¹^,²^,³(), LIU ZhanYong¹, CHENG YuChen¹^,², WU Di¹^,²^,³, LI JinLong⁴

¹ Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural & Animal Husbandry Sciences, Hohhot 010031
² Key Laboratory of Black Soil Protection and Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Hohhot 010031
³ College of Life Sciences, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010020
⁴ Arong Banner Agricultural Development Center, Hulunbuir 162750, Inner Mongolia

Received:2023-12-29 Accepted:2024-05-08 Published:2024-09-01 Online:2024-09-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】基于连续4年耕作定位试验，2020和2021年测定土壤相关指标，明确秸秆还田下不同耕作方式对大兴安岭南麓黑土农田土壤活性有机碳和碳库管理指数的影响。【方法】耕作定位试验设置7个处理，分别为深翻秸秆还田（DTS）、深松浅翻秸秆还田（DSS）、深松秸秆还田（STS）、重耙秸秆还田（SHS）、旋耕秸秆还田（RTS）、免耕秸秆还田（NTS）、浅翻秸秆不还田（CK）。玉米成熟期采集0—60 cm土层样品，用不同浓度（0.333、0.167和0.033 mol·L^-1）的高锰酸钾溶液测定活性有机碳（R₃₃₃）、中活性有机碳（R₁₆₇）、高活性有机碳（R₃₃）的含量，研究不同耕作方式对土壤活性有机碳组分含量及碳库管理指数的影响。【结果】（1）与CK相比，DSS、DTS、NTS、RTS、STS处理0—10 cm土层R₃₃₃含量显著提高9.0%—63.7%，DSS处理最高，DTS、NTS次之；10—60 cm土层，DTS、DSS、NTS处理R₃₃₃分别显著提高30.8%—134.5%、14.1%—97.8%、18.9%—63.0%（P<0.05）。（2）与CK相比，秸秆还田下各耕作方式0—10 cm土层R₁₆₇含量显著提高（P<0.05），DSS处理的R₁₆₇最高，提高了37.3%—101.0%；10—60 cm土层DTS处理的R₁₆₇含量最高，显著提高了44.8%—72.9%，整体呈现DTS>DSS>NTS处理。（3）与CK相比，0—10 cm土层，DSS处理R₃₃含量显著提高13.8%—55.6%（P<0.05）；在10—20 cm土层，DTS、DSS、STS、RTS、NTS处理R₃₃显著提高3.6%—29.3%（P<0.05），DTS最高，DSS次之；在20—60 cm土层，DTS、DSS、STS处理R₃₃显著提高68.1%—20.0%（P<0.05）。（4）与CK相比，秸秆还田下各处理0—10 cm土层惰性有机碳（IOC）显著提高4.7%—21.8%（P<0.05），在0—20 cm土层DSS处理的IOC含量最高，相比CK显著提高了14.0%—29.0%；20—60 cm土层，DTS、DSS处理的IOC含量相比其他处理显著提高了5.3%—156.6%、4.2%—138.8%（P<0.05）。（5）与CK相比，DTS处理0—20 cm土层碳库活度、碳库活度指数显著提高7.7%—44.8%和7.7%—45.0%（P<0.05）；DTS、DSS、STS、RTS处理各土层碳库指数均显著提高（P<0.05），DTS、DSS、NTS处理0—60 cm土层碳库管理指数分别显著提高了21.9%—140.9%、4.9%—103.7%、13.3%—62.0%（P<0.05）。（6）在0—60 cm土层，R₃₃₃、R₁₆₇、R₃₃、IOC含量均与土壤有机碳含量、碳库活度指数、容重、团聚体几何平均直径呈极显著正相关，而与土壤总孔隙度呈极显著负相关（P<0.01），其含量提高可改善土壤物理结构，增强团聚体稳定性；IOC与作物产量、干物质量也呈极显著正相关（P<0.01）。【结论】黑土区采用深翻秸秆还田（DTS）和深松浅翻秸秆还田（DDS）在一定程度上均可提升土壤活性有机碳和惰性有机碳含量，有效改善农田有机碳库。

关键词: 秸秆还田, 耕作方式, 黑土, 活性有机碳, 惰性有机碳, 碳库管理指数, 玉米产量, 大兴安岭南麓

Abstract:

【Objective】Soil-related indicators were measured during the mature period of maize in 2020 and 2021. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of tillage methods with straw returning on soil labile organic carbon and carbon pool management index of black soil farmland at the southern foot of the Daxing’an mountains based on four consecutive years of tillage experiment.【Method】Seven treatments were set up in the tillage positioning experiment, including deep tillage with straw returning (DTS), deep loosening and shallow with straw returning (DSS), subsoiling tillage with straw returning (STS), heavy harrowing straw returning (SHS), rotary tillage with straw returning (RTS), and no-tillage straw returning (NTS), with shallow tillage without straw returning (CK). 0-60 cm surface soil was collected. The contents of labile organic carbon (R₃₃₃), medium labile organic carbon (R₁₆₇) and high labile organic carbon(R₃₃) were determined by potassium permanganate solution with different concentrations (0.333, 0.167 and 0.033 mol·L^-1), and the effects of different tillage methods on soil labile organic carbon content and carbon pool management index were studied.【Result】(1) Compared with CK, the R₃₃₃ content in 0-10 cm soil layer treated by DSS, DTS, NTS, RTS and STS significantly increased by 9.0% to 63.7% in two years, respectively. DSS was the highest, followed by DTS and NTS. R₃₃₃ in 10-60 cm soil layer, DTS, DSS and NTS significantly increased by 30.8%-134.5%, 14.1%-97.8% and 18.9%-63.0%, respectively (P<0.05). (2) Compared with CK, the medium labile organic carbon (R₁₆₇) of 0-10 cm soil layer under different tillage methods was significantly increased (P<0.05). The DSS treatment of R₁₆₇ content was the highest, with an increase of 37.3%- 101.0%, and the DTS treatment of 10-60 cm soil layer was the highest, with an increase of 44.8%-72.9%, showing DTS>DSS>NTS treatment. (3) Compared with CK, the R₃₃content in 0-10 cm soil layer was significantly increased by 13.8%-55.6% under DSS treatment (P<0.05). In 10-20 cm soil layer, R₃₃ content of DTS, DSS, STS, RTS and NTS treatment was significantly increased by 3.6%-29.3% (P<0.05), with DTS being the highest, followed by DSS. In 20-60 cm soil layer, R₃₃ under DTS, DSS and STS treatment was significantly increased (P<0.05), and the proportion was 68.1%-20.0%. (4) The inert organic carbon (IOC) of 0-10 cm soil layer under straw returning was significantly increased by 4.7%-21.8% (P<0.05). In 20-60 cm soil layer, DTS and DSS significantly increased by 5.3%-156.6% and 4.2%-138.8% compared with other treatments (P<0.05). (5) Compared with CK, DTS treatment significantly increased carbon pool activity and carbon pool activity index in 0-20 cm soil layer (P<0.05), and increased by 7.7%-44.8% and 7.7%-45.0%, and significantly increased by DTS, DSS, STS and RTS soil layer carbon pool index (P<0.05). DTS, DSS and NTS treatment significantly increased the carbon pool management index of 0-60 cm soil layer by 21.9%-140.9%, 4.9%-103.7%, 13.3%-62.0% (P<0.05). (6) In 0-60 cm soil layer, R₃₃₃, R₁₆₇, R₃₃ and IOC were positively correlated with organic carbon content, carbon pool activity index, bulk density and geometric mean diameter, but negatively correlated with total soil porosity (P<0.01). Increasing the content of active organic carbon could improve soil physical structure and enhanced aggregate stability. The IOC was positively correlated with maize yield and dry matter mass (P<0.01).【Conclusion】Comprehensive analysis shows that both deep tillage with straw returning (DTS) and deep loosening and shallow with straw returning (DDS) can increase soil labile organic carbon and inert organic carbon to a certain extent, and effectively improve the organic carbon pool of farmland.

Key words: straw returning, tillage method, black soil, labile organic carbon, inert organic carbon, carbon pool management index, maize yield, the southern foot of the Daxing’an mountains

刘雅杰, 张天娇, 张向前, 路战远, 刘战勇, 程玉臣, 武迪, 李金龙. 秸秆还田下耕作方式对黑土活性有机碳组分及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(17): 3408-3423.

LIU YaJie, ZHANG TianJiao, ZHANG XiangQian, LU ZhanYuan, LIU ZhanYong, CHENG YuChen, WU Di, LI JinLong. Effects of Tillage Methods Under Straw Returning on the Labile Organic Carbon Fractions and Carbon Pool Management Index in Black Soil Farmland[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(17): 3408-3423.

图/表 9

图1

表1

表2

试验处理"

处理 Treatments	操作方法 Operations
深翻秸秆还田（DTS） Deep tillage with straw returning	深翻深度30—35 cm，秸秆还田深度为5—30 cm。翌年春季重耙后进行播种 The depth of plowing is 30-35 cm, the depth of straw returning to the field is 5-30 cm, and the seeds are sown after heavy harrowing in the spring of the next year
深松浅翻秸秆还田（DSS） Deep loosening and shallow with straw returning	浅翻15—20 cm，深松25—30 cm，秸秆还田深度为2—15 cm。翌年春季重耙后播种 Shallow tillage to a depth of 15-20 cm, deep plowing to a depth of 25-30 cm, and incorporation of straw into the soil at a depth of 2-15 cm should be carried out. The seeds are sown after heavy harrowing in the spring of the next year
深松秸秆还田（STS） Subsoiling tillage with straw returning	深松25—30 cm，秸秆还田深度为0—8 cm。翌年春季重耙后播种 Subsoiling tillage to a depth of 25-30 cm, and straw returned to the field depth of 0-8 cm should be carried out. The seeds are sown after heavy harrowing in the spring of the next year
重耙秸秆还田（SHS） Heavy harrowing with straw returning	重耙两遍，重耙深度10—15 cm，秸秆还田深度为0—12 cm。春季常规播种 Heavy harrowing the soil twice to a depth of 10-15 cm, and the straw returned to a depth of 0-12 cm should be carried out. The seeds are conventionally sown in the spring
旋耕秸秆还田（RTS） Rotary tillage with straw returning	旋耕耙地两遍，旋耕深度10—15 cm，秸秆还田深度为0—12 cm。春季常规播种 Rotary tilling twice, rotary tillage depth of 10-15 cm, the straw returning depth of 0-12 cm should be carried out. The seeds are conventionally sown in the spring
免耕秸秆还田（NTS） No-tillage with straw returning	玉米秸秆均匀覆盖地表还田，秸秆还田深度为0—3 cm。春季免耕播种机播种 The straw are evenly covered on the surface and returned to the field, the straw is returned to the field depth of 0-3 cm, and the seeds are sown by no-tillage seeder in spring
浅翻秸秆不还田（CK） Shallow tillage without straw returning	玉米秸秆全部移除，浅翻土壤，深度17—22 cm。春季重耙，常规播种 All straw are removed. The soil is shallowly tillaged, which the depth was 17-22 cm. The heavy harrowing and conventional sowing are carried out in spring

表2

图2

图3

图4

图5

表3

秸秆还田条件下不同耕作方式对土壤碳库管理指数的影响"

处理 Treatment	土层 Soil depth (cm)	2020				2021
处理 Treatment	土层 Soil depth (cm)	碳库活度 Activity	碳库活度指数 Activity index	碳库指数 Carbon pool index	碳库管理指数 Carbon management index	碳库活度 Activity	碳库活度指数 Activity index	碳库指数 Carbon pool index	碳库管理指数 Carbon management index
DTS	0-10	0.21±0.00a	1.08±0.01a	1.13±0.01c	121.85±0.99b	0.23±0.01b	1.27±0.04b	1.13±0.00c	143.19±4.36c
	10-20	0.20±0.00b	1.11±0.04b	1.20±0.01b	133.08±3.60a	0.21±0.01a	1.45±0.05a	1.24±0.04b	179.51±0.22a
	20-40	0.20±0.01de	0.64±0.03e	2.09±0.04a	135.00±4.02b	0.17±0.01b	1.21±0.03b	1.75±0.03a	212.50±3.73a
	40-60	0.28±0.00c	0.69±0.01c	2.03±0.06a	139.17±1.70a	0.22±0.00a	1.14±0.04a	2.10±0.09a	240.85±15.29a
DSS	0-10	0.20±0.00b	1.04±0.01b	1.23±0.00a	127.39±1.24a	0.26±0.01a	1.44±0.02a	1.22±0.01a	174.65±2.13a
	10-20	0.17±0.00e	0.91±0.03e	1.24±0.00a	112.57±3.47b	0.17±0.00b	1.20±0.04b	1.32±0.03a	158.14±4.86b
	20-40	0.19±0.01e	0.61±0.03e	1.93±0.03b	117.10±5.84c	0.17±0.00b	1.22±0.05b	1.67±0.03b	203.70±9.94a
	40-60	0.26±0.02d	0.62±0.04d	1.69±0.05b	104.87±6.51cd	0.19±0.00b	0.96±0.02b	1.88±0.09b	180.99±8.64b
STS	0-10	0.20±0.01b	1.00±0.02c	1.09±0.01d	108.93±3.37d	0.21±0.00c	1.18±0.01c	1.08±0.00d	126.32±1.01d
	10-20	0.17±0.00de	0.95±0.05de	1.08±0.01d	102.54±4.29c	0.17±0.00b	1.18±0.06bc	1.19±0.04bcd	140.09±5.37c
	20-40	0.21±0.00d	0.69±0.01d	1.64±0.01c	114.09±0.70c	0.14±0.01c	0.96±0.03c	1.55±0.04c	148.21±2.28b
	40-60	0.29±0.01cd	0.69±0.02c	1.55±0.04c	106.45±1.01c	0.12±0.01d	0.61±0.05d	1.61±0.05c	97.76±7.26e
SHS	0-10	0.18±0.00c	0.90±0.02e	1.10±0.03cd	99.50±0.82e	0.18±0.00d	0.99±0.00d	1.08±0.00d	106.23±0.07e
	10-20	0.20±0.00bc	1.07±0.03bc	1.05±0.01e	112.08±1.51b	0.16±0.00c	1.09±0.05cd	1.14±0.03d	124.93±4.67d
	20-40	0.30±0.01bc	0.98±0.01bc	1.10±0.02e	107.01±3.05d	0.18±0.01b	1.29±0.05b	1.05±0.02e	135.53±3.85cd
	40-60	0.30±0.01c	0.72±0.02c	1.47±0.03c	104.91±1.23cd	0.12±0.00d	0.64±0.02d	1.51±0.10cd	97.18±4.09e
RTS	0-10	0.18±0.00c	0.94±0.01d	1.18±0.01b	110.76±0.47d	0.19±0.01d	1.05±0.05d	1.16±0.01b	121.80±5.47d
	10-20	0.16±0.01e	0.88±0.02e	1.15±0.00c	101.20±2.58c	0.12±0.00e	0.85±0.02e	1.22±0.02bc	104.11±1.49e
	20-40	0.29±0.00c	0.93±0.01c	1.29±0.01d	120.29±1.65c	0.15±0.00c	1.04±0.03c	1.23±0.01d	128.08±3.48d
	40-60	0.28±0.01cd	0.67±0.01cd	1.48±0.02c	99.32±3.24d	0.16±0.01c	0.85±0.05c	1.58±0.07cd	134.06±6.63d
NTS	0-10	0.20±0.00b	1.03±0.01b	1.13±0.03c	117.03±1.09c	0.25±0.01a	1.38±0.05a	1.12±0.01c	153.90±5.27b
	10-20	0.23±0.01a	1.24±0.04a	1.06±0.02de	130.88±1.88a	0.17±0.00b	1.21±0.06b	1.15±0.03cd	139.98±6.13c
	20-40	0.49±0.01a	1.59±0.02a	1.01±0.02f	160.73±0.65a	0.20±0.00a	1.39±0.06a	1.03±0.00e	143.24±6.25bc
	40-60	0.35±0.01b	0.84±0.03b	1.35±0.04d	113.31±0.93b	0.23±0.01a	1.18±0.01a	1.43±0.05d	167.98±5.22c
CK	0-10	0.20±0.00b	1.00±0.00c	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00e	0.18±0.00d	1.00±0.00d	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00e
	10-20	0.18±0.01cd	1.00±0.00cd	1.00±0.00f	100.00±0.00c	0.14±0.01d	1.00±0.00d	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00e
	20-40	0.31±0.00b	1.00±0.00b	1.00±0.00g	100.00±0.00e	0.14±0.00c	1.00±0.00c	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00e
	40-60	0.41±0.01a	1.00±0.00a	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00cd	0.19±0.01b	1.00±0.00b	1.00±0.00e	100.00±0.00e

表3

图6

参考文献 44

[1]	HE L Y, LU S X, WANG C G, MU J, ZHANG Y L, WANG X D. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities in response to tillage practices in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 209: 104940.
[2]	徐莹莹, 孙士明, 靳晓燕, 王俊河, 庞爱国, 于晓波, 于侃超. 不同耕作措施对土壤质构和玉米产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2022, 30(4): 97-106.
	XU Y Y, SUN S M, JIN X Y, WANG J H, PANG A G, YU X B, YU K C. Effects of different tillage measures on soil texture and maize yield. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2022, 30(4): 97-106. (in Chinese)
[3]	沈宏, 曹志洪, 胡正义. 土壤活性有机碳的表征及其生态效应. 生态学杂志, 1999, 18(3): 33-39.
	SHEN H, CAO Z H, HU Z Y. Characterization of soil active organic carbon and its ecological effect. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 1999, 18(3): 33-39. (in Chinese)
[4]	石丽红, 李超, 唐海明, 程凯凯, 李微艳, 文丽, 肖小平. 长期不同施肥措施对双季稻田土壤活性有机碳组分和水解酶活性的影响. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(3): 921-930. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202103.023
	SHI L H, LI C, TANG H M, CHENG K K, LI W Y, WEN L, XIAO X P. Effects of long-term fertilizer management on soil labile organic carbon fractions and hydrolytic enzyme activity under a double- cropping rice system of Southern China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 32(3): 921-930. (in Chinese)
[5]	吕瑞珍, 熊瑛, 李友军, 吕强, 黄明. 保护性耕作对农田土壤碳库特性的影响. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(4): 206-209, 217.
	LÜ R Z, XIONG Y, LI Y J, LÜ Q, HUANG M. Effect of conservation tillage on soil carbon pool in farmland. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 28(4): 206-209, 217. (in Chinese)
[6]	STANHILL G. The role of terrestrial vegetation in the global carbon cycle: Measurement by remote sensing. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 1985, 12(3): 264-266.
[7]	LOGINOW W, WISNIEWSKI W, GONET S, CIEŚCIŃSKA B. Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation. Journal of Soil Science, 1987, 20(1):47-52.
[8]	BLAIR G J, LEFROY R, LISLE L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46(7): 1459.
[9]	LEFROY R D B, BLAIR G J, STRONG W M. Changes in soil organic matter with cropping as measured by organic carbon fractions and ¹³C natural isotope abundance. Plant and Soil, 1993, 155(1): 399-402.
[10]	ZHANG Z M, YAN J, HAN X Z, ZOU W X, CHEN X, LU X C, FENG Y T. Labile organic carbon fractions drive soil microbial communities after long-term fertilization. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 32: e01867.
[11]	张志毅, 熊桂云, 吴茂前, 范先鹏, 冯婷婷, 巴瑞先, 段申荣. 有机培肥与耕作方式对稻麦轮作土壤团聚体和有机碳组分的影响. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(3): 405-412.
	ZHANG Z Y, XIONG G Y, WU M Q, FAN X P, FENG T T, BA R X, DUAN S R. Effects of organic fertilization and tillage method on soil aggregates and organic carbon fractions in a wheat-rice system. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2020, 28(3): 405-412. (in Chinese)
[12]	贺美. 秸秆还田对黑土有机质变化的影响效应[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2016.
	HE M. Effects of straw returning methods on black soil organic matter[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2016. (in Chinese)
[13]	叶新新, 王冰清, 刘少君, 马超, 李军利, 柴如山, 熊启中, 李虹颖, 郜红建. 耕作方式和秸秆还田对砂姜黑土碳库及玉米小麦产量的影响. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(14): 112-118.
	YE X X, WANG B Q, LIU S J, MA C, LI J L, CHAI R S, XIONG Q Z, LI H Y, GAO H J. Influence of tillage and straw retention on soil carbon pool and maize-wheat yield in Shajiang black soil. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(14): 112-118. (in Chinese)
[14]	李霞, 罗丽卉, 周娅, 杨定清, 王棚, 李森. 秸秆还田对水稻-油菜轮作体系土壤活性有机碳组分及酶活性的影响. 华北农学报, 2022, 37(5): 124-131. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20193054
	LI X, LUO L H, ZHOU Y, YANG D Q, WANG P, LI S. Effects of straw returning on soil active organic carbon components and enzyme activities in rice-rape rotation. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37(5): 124-131. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20193054
[15]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
	LU R K. Methods of Soil Agrochemical Analysis. Beijing: China Agriculture Scientech Press, 2000. (in Chinese)
[16]	张宇浩, 方莉, 程芳琴. 日光节能温室土壤有机碳及组分变化对栽培年限的响应. 山西农业科学, 2013, 41(11): 1202-1204.
	ZHANG Y H, FANG L, CHENG F Q. Response on the changes of soil organic carbon and its fractions in solar greenhouse to planting years. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 41(11): 1202-1204. (in Chinese)
[17]	谢雪, 鲁艳红, 廖育林, 聂军, 张江林, 孙玉桃, 曹卫东, 高雅洁. 紫云英与稻草还田替代部分化肥对双季稻产量和土壤活性有机碳的影响. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(18): 3585-3598. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.18.008.
	XIE X, LU Y H, LIAO Y L, NIE J, ZHANG J L, SUN Y T, CAO W D, GAO Y J. Effects of returning Chinese milk vetch and rice straw to replace partial fertilizers on double season rice yield and soil labile organic carbon. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(18): 3585-3598. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.18.008. (in Chinese)
[18]	朱敏, 王兴龙, 张頔, 孔凡磊, 袁继超. 耕作方式与秸秆还田对川中紫土土壤碳库与玉米产量的影响. 华北农学报, 2017, 32(S1): 302-307. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2017.S1.052
	ZHU M, WANG X L, ZHANG D, KONG F L, YUAN J C. Effects of tillage methods and straw returning on soil carbon pool and maize yield in purple soil in central Sichuan. Acta Agriculturae Boreali- Sinica, 2017, 32(S1): 302-307. (in Chinese)
[19]	LIU B, XIA H, JIANG C C, RIAZ M, YANG L, CHEN Y F, FAN X P, XIA X G. 14 year applications of chemical fertilizers and crop straw effects on soil labile organic carbon fractions, enzyme activities and microbial community in rice-wheat rotation of middle China. The Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 841: 156608.
[20]	郭伟, 周云鹏, 陈美淇, 李丹丹, 王青霞, 周谈坛, 赵炳梓. 秸秆与有机无机肥配施对潮土关键微生物及小麦产量的影响. 土壤学报. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/32.1119.p.20231013.0850.002.html.
	GUO W, ZHOU Y P, CHEN M Q, LI D D, WANG Q X, ZHOU T T, ZHAO B Z. Effects of combined application of straw and organic- inorganic fertilizers on key microorganisms and wheat yield in fluvo-aquic soil. Acta Pedologica Sinica. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/32.1119.p.20231013.0850.002.html. (in Chinese)
[21]	吴萍萍, 王静, 李录久, 汪霄. 化肥减施下有机物料对砂姜黑土有机碳组分和养分含量的影响. 核农学报, 2022, 36(11): 2286-2294. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.11.2286
	WU P P, WANG J, LI L J, WANG X. Effects of organic materials applications on soil organic carbon fractions and nutrient contents in lime concretion black soil under chemical fertilizer reduction. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 36(11): 2286-2294. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.11.2286
[22]	李晓庆, 赵承森, 孟雨田, 徐晴晴, 陈琳, 马晓伟, 刘锡博, 王宏燕, 赵伟. 玉米秸秆对不同有机碳含量的黑土有机碳库的影响. 华南农业大学学报, 2018, 39(6): 39-46.
	LI X Q, ZHAO C S, MENG Y T, XU Q Q, CHEN L, MA X W, LIU X B, WANG H Y, ZHAO W. Effects of maize straw on organic carbon pool in different organic carbon with different contents of organic carbon in black soil. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2018, 39(6): 39-46. (in Chinese)
[23]	郭书亚, 尚赏, 王坤, 付国占, 卢广远. 秸秆覆盖深松对夏玉米田土壤有机碳库的影响. 作物杂志, 2022(2): 113-118.
	GUO S Y, SHANG S, WANG K, FU G Z, LU G Y. Effects of straw mulching and subsoiling on soil organic carbon pool in summer maize field. Crops, 2022(2): 113-118. (in Chinese)
[24]	郑凤君, 王雪, 李生平, 刘晓彤, 刘志平, 卢晋晶, 武雪萍, 席吉龙, 张建诚, 李永山. 免耕覆盖下土壤水分、团聚体稳定性及其有机碳分布对小麦产量的协同效应. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 596-607. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.013.
	ZHENG F J, WANG X, LI S P, LIU X T, LIU Z P, LU J J, WU X P, XI J L, ZHANG J C, LI Y S. Synergistic effects of soil moisture, aggregate stability and organic carbon distribution on wheat yield under no-tillage practice. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(3): 596-607. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.03.013. (in Chinese)
[25]	张霞. 耕作与施肥对渭北旱塬黑垆土碳库构成的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2018.
	ZHANG X. Effects of tillage and fertilization on composition of organic carbon pool in dark loessial soil of Weibei Highland[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[26]	李玉梅, 王根林, 孟祥海, 胡颖慧, 王伟, 李建英, 张冬梅. 秸秆还田方式对旱地草甸土活性有机碳组分的影响. 农业资源与环境学报, 2021, 38(2): 268-276.
	LI Y M, WANG G L, MENG X H, HU Y H, WANG W, LI J Y, ZHANG D M. Effects of different straw returning methods on labile organic carbon distribution in upland meadow soil. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2021, 38(2): 268-276. (in Chinese)
[27]	苏卓侠, 苏冰倩, 上官周平. 植物凋落物分解对土壤有机碳稳定性影响的研究进展. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(2): 406-413.
	SU Z X, SU B Q, SHANGGUAN Z P. Advances in effects of plant litter decomposition on the stability of soil organic carbon. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(2): 406-413. (in Chinese)
[28]	LI Y M, DUAN Y, WANG G L, WANG A Q, SHAO G Z, MENG X H, HU H Y, ZHANG D M. Straw alters the soil organic carbon composition and microbial community under different tillage practices in a meadow soil in Northeast China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 208: 104879.
[29]	王彩霞, 岳西杰, 葛玺祖, 王旭东. 不同耕作措施对塿土土壤有机碳形态及活性的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(6): 58-63, 74.
	WANG C X, YUE X J, GE X Z, WANG X D. Effect of different cultivation measures on activity and bound forms of organic carbon in Lou Soil. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2010, 28(6): 58-63, 74. (in Chinese)
[30]	LIU X, PENG C, ZHANG W J, LI S Y, AN T T, XU Y D, GE Z, XIE N H, WANG J K. Subsoiling tillage with straw incorporation improves soil microbial community characteristics in the whole cultivated layers: A one-year study. Soil and Tillage Research, 2022, 215: 105188.
[31]	闫秋艳, 董飞, 贾亚琴, 李峰, 杨峰, 鲁晋秀, 高丽娟, 张建诚, 王苗. 耕作方式对旱地麦田土壤蓄水变化特征及小麦产量的影响. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(1): 222-228.
	YAN Q Y, DONG F, JIA Y Q, LI F, YANG F, LU J X, GAO L J, ZHANG J C, WANG M. Effects of tillage patterns on soil water storage and wheat yield in dryland wheat field. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 35(1): 222-228. (in Chinese)
[32]	胡海清, 罗斯生, 罗碧珍, 魏书精, 吴泽鹏, 王振师, 李小川, 周宇飞. 林火干扰对森林生态系统土壤有机碳的影响研究进展. 生态学报, 2020, 40(6): 1839-1850.
	HU H Q, LUO S S, LUO B Z, WEI S J, WU Z P, WANG Z S, LI X C, ZHOU Y F. Effects of forest fire disturbance on soil organic carbon in forest ecosystems: A review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(6): 1839-1850. (in Chinese)
[33]	HAN Y, YAO S H, JIANG H, GE X L, ZHANG Y L, MAO J D, DOU S, ZHANG B. Effects of mixing maize straw with soil and placement depths on decomposition rates and products at two cold sites in the mollisol region of China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2020, 197: 104519.
[34]	田平, 姜英, 孙悦, 马梓淇, 隋鹏祥, 梅楠, 齐华. 不同还田方式对玉米秸秆腐解及土壤养分含量的影响. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(1): 100-108.
	TIAN P, JIANG Y, SUN Y, MA Z Q, SUI P X, MEI N, QI H. Effect of straw return methods on maize straw decomposition and soil nutrients contents. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(1): 100-108. (in Chinese)
[35]	张宇, 陈阜, 张海林, 陈继康. 耕作方式对玉米秸秆腐解影响的研究. 玉米科学, 2009, 17(6): 68-73.
	ZHANG Y, CHEN F, ZHANG H L, CHEN J K. Tillage effects of decomposed ratio on corn straw. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2009, 17(6): 68-73. (in Chinese)
[36]	孙萌, 刘洋, 李寒, 李保国, 齐国辉, 张雪梅. 有机物覆盖对核桃园土壤有机碳库及酶活性的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(1): 270-278.
	SUN M, LIU Y, LI H, LI B G, QI G H, ZHANG X M. Effects of organic mulching on soil organic carbon pool and soil enzyme activity in walnut orchard. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2018, 24(1): 270-278. (in Chinese)
[37]	刘红梅, 张海芳, 赵建宁, 王慧, 秦洁, 杨殿林, 张乃芹. 氮添加对贝加尔针茅草原土壤活性有机碳和碳库管理指数的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 18-26. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019477
	LIU H M, ZHANG H F, ZHAO J N, WANG H, QIN J, YANG D L, ZHANG N Q. Effects of nitrogen addition on labile soil organic carbon and carbon pool management index of Stipa baicalensis steppe in Inner Mongolia, China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 18-26. (in Chinese)
[38]	薛萐, 刘国彬, 潘彦平, 戴全厚, 张超, 余娜. 黄土丘陵区人工刺槐林土壤活性有机碳与碳库管理指数演变. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42(4): 1458-1464. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.04.042.
	XUE S, LIU G B, PAN Y P, DAI Q H, ZHANG C, YU N. Evolution of soil labile organic matter and carbon management index in the artificial Robinia of loess hilly area. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009, 42(4): 1458-1464. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.04.042. (in Chinese)
[39]	张琦, 王淑兰, 王浩, 刘朋召, 王旭敏, 张元红, 李昊昱, 王瑞, 王小利, 李军. 深松与免耕频次对黄土旱塬春玉米田土壤团聚体与土壤碳库的影响. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(14): 2840-2851. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.14.008.
	ZHANG Q, WANG S L, WANG H, LIU P Z, WANG X M, ZHANG Y H, LI H Y, WANG R, WANG X L, LI J. Effects of subsoiling and No-tillage frequencies on soil aggregates and carbon pools in the Loess Plateau. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(14): 2840-2851. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.14.008. (in Chinese)
[40]	朱长伟, 陈琛, 牛润芝, 李洋, 姜桂英, 杨锦, 申凤敏, 刘芳, 刘世亮. 不同轮耕模式对豫北农田土壤固碳及碳库管理指数的影响. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(4): 671-682.
	ZHU C W, CHEN C, NIU R Z, LI Y, JIANG G Y, YANG J, SHEN F M, LIU F, LIU S L. Effects of tillage rotation modes on soil carbon sequestration and carbon pool management index of farmland in northern Henan. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2022, 30(4): 671-682. (in Chinese)
[41]	赵宇航, 殷浩凯, 胡雪纯, 解文艳, 刘志平, 周怀平, 杨振兴. 长期秸秆还田褐土有机碳矿化特征及其驱动力. 环境科学, 2024, 45(4): 2353-2362.
	ZHAO Y H, YIN H K, HU X C, XIE W Y, LIU Z P, ZHOU H P, YANG Z X. Characteristics and driving forces of organic carbon mineralization in brown soil with long-term straw returning. Environmental Science, 2024, 45(4): 2353-2362. (in Chinese)
[42]	黎嘉成, 高明, 田冬, 黄容, 徐国鑫. 秸秆及生物炭还田对土壤有机碳及其活性组分的影响. 草业学报, 2018, 27(5): 39-50. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017261
	LI J C, GAO M, TIAN D, HUANG R, XU G X. Effects of straw and biochar on soil organic carbon and its active components. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(5): 39-50. (in Chinese)
[43]	陈帅. 黑土区坡耕地玉米秸秆还田水土保持功效研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国科学院大学(中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所), 2019.
	CHEN S. Effect of corn straw returning on soil and water conservation in slopping farmland of black soil region[D]. Harbin: Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2019. (in Chinese)
[44]	田慎重. 基于长期耕作和秸秆还田的农田土壤碳库演变、固碳减排潜力和碳足迹分析[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014.
	TIAN S Z. Responses of soil organic carbon pool, greenhouse gas emission and carbon footprint to a long-term tillage and residue management system[D]. Taian: Shandong Agricultural University, 2014. (in Chinese)

土层 Soil depth (cm)	pH	有机碳 Organic carbon (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮 Alkali hydrolysable nitrogen (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg^-1)	全钾 Total potassium (g·kg^-1)
0-10	8.0	33.3	40.7	47.9	62.7	2.0	34.5
10-20	8.0	30.0	35.0	22.3	41.3	1.9	31.8
20-40	8.1	22.7	32.6	7.7	38.7	1.4	25.4
40-60	8.3	13.3	14.7	10.4	32.2	0.7	19.8

秸秆还田下耕作方式对黑土活性有机碳组分及碳库管理指数的影响

Effects of Tillage Methods Under Straw Returning on the Labile Organic Carbon Fractions and Carbon Pool Management Index in Black Soil Farmland

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 44

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	许杨浩峻, 陈丽明, 杨世奇, 唐奕凡, 谭雪明, 曾勇军, 潘晓华, 曾研华. 长期秸秆还田对双季稻田不同土层有机碳、养分和团聚体的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(7): 1492-1506.
[2]	刘梦阳, 刘洁, 陈翔, 王擎运, 罗来超, 齐永波, 田达, 李金才, 柴如山. 长期秸秆还田对砂姜黑土团聚体结构及磷组分分布的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2026, 59(3): 575-588.
[3]	王冰洁, 秦诗涵, 李德成, 胡文友, 姜军, 迟凤琴, 张超, 张久明, 徐英德, 汪景宽. 黑龙江省嫩江市土壤容重空间分布格局及传递函数构建[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(9): 1791-1803.
[4]	张昊鑫, 于晟玥, 雷秋良, 杜新忠, 张继宗, 安妙颖, 樊秉乾, 罗加法, 刘宏斌. 基于RothC模型的东北旱地和稻田土壤有机碳动态变化模拟研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(8): 1564-1578.
[5]	张方方, 宋启龙, 高娜, 白炬, 李阳, 岳善超, 李世清. 长期覆盖对黄土高原春玉米产量、土壤碳氮组分和碳氮库相关指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(3): 507-519.
[6]	王钊, 张冰, 董思奇, 胡雨翕, 齐书宇, 冯国忠, 高强, 周雪. 长期施用氮肥对黑土和风沙土根际微生物群落结构及功能的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(3): 520-536.
[7]	田磊, 邵鑫, 周一民, 苗秀珍, 纪楠, 王浩, 石明帅, 张悦忠. 多因素管理下大兴安岭南麓玉米种植密度及耐密抗倒品种选择[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(24): 5143-5155.
[8]	马鹤逍, 葛国龙, 张向前, 路战远, 王满秀, 戎美仁, 师晶晶, 张德健, 孙雪萍. 不同作物轮作系统对土壤易氧化有机碳和碳库活度差异性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(24): 5201-5215.
[9]	吴文琪, 焦阳, 惠家祯, 王绪锋, 郭博森, 沈玉芳. 不同有机物料配施化肥对土壤肥力和玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(23): 4966-4978.
[10]	李月琪, 麻仲花, 苏明, 刘昊, 马风兰, 马小英, 李涛, 李清云, 张丹, 刘吉利, 吴娜. 不同耕作方式下盐碱地玉米光合物质生产能力对有机肥用量的响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(19): 3872-3889.
[11]	吴勇, 文雪, 王天舒, 黄炎炎, 孟熠黎, 姜红宇, 毕利东, 吴会军, 尧水红. 黑土区坡耕地地形因子和垄作方式对土壤养分和肥力指数的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(18): 3676-3689.
[12]	王安心, 方娅婷, 顿谦, 伍永清, 廖世鹏, 李小坤, 任涛, 陆志峰, 丛日环, 鲁剑巍. 秸秆直接还田与炭化还田对稻油轮作作物产量和氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(16): 3280-3292.
[13]	熊志豪, 刘君权, 叶琳, 朱丹丹, 侯素素, 方娅婷, 丛日环, 任涛, 李小坤, 鲁剑巍. 稻油轮作系统秸秆直接还田与焚烧还田的作物产量和养分表观平衡特征[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(16): 3293-3303.
[14]	卜容燕, 程文龙, 武际, 唐杉, 李敏, 鲁剑巍, 纪根学, 王慧, 朱睿, 蒋发辉, 汤萌萌, 韩上. 有机肥无机肥配施结合深耕提升稻油轮作系统生产力和养分利用效率[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(16): 3178-3189.
[15]	霍润霞, 方娅婷, 张艳科, 吴海亚, 刘桂生, 李小坤, 任涛, 陆志峰, 丛日环, 鲁剑巍. 长期秸秆还田条件下化肥减量对稻稻油轮作系统作物产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(16): 3267-3279.