草业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (5): 139-150.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2025213
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
收稿日期:2025-05-27
修回日期:2025-07-21
出版日期:2026-05-20
发布日期:2026-03-11
通讯作者:
周帮伟
作者简介:Corresponding author. E-mail: zhoubw599@nenu.edu.cn基金资助:
Yi-han WANG(
), Lu-meng SHI, Zhi-jian LI, Bang-wei ZHOU(
)
Received:2025-05-27
Revised:2025-07-21
Online:2026-05-20
Published:2026-03-11
Contact:
Bang-wei ZHOU
摘要:
松嫩平原土壤面临盐碱化持续加剧的生态威胁。本研究拟构建秸秆生物炭添加(CK:0 t·hm-2、T1:20 t·hm-2、T2:40 t·hm-2)结合耐盐碱牧草(羊草、星星草)的人工草地建植体系,分析生物炭添加对于土壤理化性质、牧草生理及生产性能的影响。结果表明:添加生物炭第一年土壤pH、电导率未见显著变化;次年T1处理土壤pH和电导率降幅最大,且随着生物炭添加导致含水量、孔隙度持续升高,土壤容重持续下降。生物炭添加使羊草土壤钠离子(Na+)含量显著降低(P<0.05),而星星草土壤Na+含量仅在次年显著下降。土壤钙离子(Ca2+)含量在两年观测期内T1处理较CK处理均有所升高,第二年较为显著(羊草:0.91~1.60 mg·kg-1;星星草:0.91~1.08 mg·kg-1)。镁离子(Mg2+)含量在第一年T2处理星星草种植下降低35.2%(P<0.05),次年两种牧草T2处理土壤Mg2+含量均显著升高(羊草45.5%,星星草66.8%)。2种牧草土壤钠吸附比(SAR)和碱化度(ESP)总体呈现T1处理下显著降低,而T2处理下的变化趋势波动较大。土壤铵态氮(NH4+-N)与硝态氮(NO3--N)含量均呈现第一年无显著变化,而第二年T1、T2处理的土壤铵态氮(NH4+-N)含量较CK处理均显著升高,硝态氮(NO3--N)含量均有所升高。生物炭添加可以显著提升羊草的叶绿素含量(T1、T2处理分别提高10.3%和8.2%),降低脯氨酸(T1、T2处理分别降低18.7%和38.1%)和可溶性糖含量(T1、T2处理分别降低15.0%和26.7%)。在土壤-植物协同作用下,生物炭添加可显著提升羊草的饲草产量(T1、T2处理分别提高12.9%和18.3%),而对星星草的相关生理指标影响均不显著,仅在T2处理呈现饲草产量增产28.8%,表明添加较高的生物炭才能促进星星草的产量提升。此外对比分析牧草对土壤的改良效果发现,羊草对钠离子的消减程度较星星草更好。因此,在中度盐碱区优先采用生物炭-羊草协同人工草地建植模式,有利于修复退化草地和提升人工草地的饲草产量。
王奕涵, 史路萌, 李志坚, 周帮伟. 草种及生物炭添加对东北苏打盐碱地改良及牧草生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(5): 139-150.
Yi-han WANG, Lu-meng SHI, Zhi-jian LI, Bang-wei ZHOU. Effects of grass species and biochar application rate on soda saline-alkali soil improvement and forage growth in northeast China[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(5): 139-150.
| pH | 水分 Moisture (%) | 有机碳 Organic carbon (OC, %) | 磷 Phosphorus (P, %) | 氮 Nitrogen (N, %) | 钾 Potassium (K, %) | 养分含量 Nutrients content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.5 | 15.3 | 63.7 | 0.97 | 1.52 | 2.84 | 5.33 |
表 1 生物炭基本理化性质
Table 1 Basic physicochemical properties of biochar
| pH | 水分 Moisture (%) | 有机碳 Organic carbon (OC, %) | 磷 Phosphorus (P, %) | 氮 Nitrogen (N, %) | 钾 Potassium (K, %) | 养分含量 Nutrients content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.5 | 15.3 | 63.7 | 0.97 | 1.52 | 2.84 | 5.33 |
含水量 Water content (WC, %) | pH | 电导率 Electric conductivity (EC, | 有效磷 Available phosphorus (AP, mg·kg-1 ) | 有机质 Organic matter (OM, g·kg-1) | 铵态氮 NH4+-N (mg·kg-1) | 硝态氮 NO3--N (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (AK, mg·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.27 | 8.60 | 268 | 18.45 | 8.47 | 3.72 | 5.62 | 139.42 |
表2 试验田土壤基础理化性质
Table 2 Basic physicochemical properties of experimental field soil
含水量 Water content (WC, %) | pH | 电导率 Electric conductivity (EC, | 有效磷 Available phosphorus (AP, mg·kg-1 ) | 有机质 Organic matter (OM, g·kg-1) | 铵态氮 NH4+-N (mg·kg-1) | 硝态氮 NO3--N (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (AK, mg·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.27 | 8.60 | 268 | 18.45 | 8.47 | 3.72 | 5.62 | 139.42 |
图1 添加生物炭及种植不同牧草对土壤pH、电导率、含水量、孔隙度和容重的影响CK、T1、T2分别表示生物炭的施用量为0、20、40 t·hm-2。T表示生物炭的施用量;Y表示年份;S表示物种。ns表示差异不显著,**表示在0.01水平上差异显著,***表示在0.001水平上差异显著。2022年种植羊草组内差异显著性用a、b、c表示,2022年种植星星草组内差异显著性用a、b、c表示;2023年种植羊草组内差异显著性用A、B、C表示,2023年种植星星草组内差异显著性用A、B、C表示。CK, T1, and T2 represent biochar application rates of 0, 20 and 40 t·ha-1, respectively. T denotes the biochar application rate; Y represents the year; S indicates the species. ns indicates no significant difference, ** indicates a significant difference at the 0.01 level, and *** indicates a significant difference at the 0.001 level. Within-group significant differences for L. chinensis planted in 2022 are denoted by a, b, c; for P. tenuiflora planted in 2022, they are denoted by a, b, c. Within-group significant differences for L. chinensis planted in 2023 are denoted by A, B, C; for P. tenuiflora planted in 2023, they are denoted by A, B, C.
Fig.1 Effects of biochar addition and cultivation of different forage grass species on soil pH, electrical conductivity, water content, porosity, and bulk density
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 年份 Year (Y) | 钠离子 Na+ (mg·kg-1) | 钙离子 Ca2+ (mg·kg-1) | 镁离子 Mg2+ (mg·kg-1) | 钠吸附比Sodium adsorption ration (SAR, mmol·L-1) | 碱化度Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP, %) | 铵态氮 NH4+-N (mg·kg-1) | 硝态氮 NO3--N (mg·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 2022 | 168.71±9.90a | 5.75±0.14ab | 36.56±1.19a | 7.79±0.22a | 8.94±0.17a | 4.40±0.55a | 17.75±0.56a |
| T1 | 2022 | 103.86±8.12b | 6.66±0.53a | 32.13±6.36a | 5.17±0.37b | 6.00±0.48a | 7.70±1.51a | 19.91±2.51a | |
| T2 | 2022 | 111.25±6.93b | 4.72±0.72b | 33.50±8.32a | 6.70±1.27ab | 7.62±1.47a | 4.31±0.45a | 16.21±2.24a | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 2022 | 178.96±7.04a | 5.48±0.32ab | 33.20±1.09a | 9.26±0.31ab | 10.89±0.36ab | 4.50±0.44a | 18.20±0.81a |
| T1 | 2022 | 166.18±8.90a | 6.56±0.67a | 43.00±4.05a | 7.06±1.01b | 8.21±1.22b | 6.50±1.13a | 24.68±2.75a | |
| T2 | 2022 | 132.45±22.16a | 4.11±0.78b | 21.50±5.59b | 11.44±1.28a | 13.25±1.37a | 4.25±0.25a | 17.96±2.24a | |
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 2023 | 110.72±1.92A | 3.98±0.02B | 11.68±0.34B | 14.36±0.45A | 16.05±0.22A | 3.31±0.14B | 4.93±0.51B |
| T1 | 2023 | 84.95±0.92C | 5.58±0.30A | 13.27±0.49B | 5.98±0.19C | 7.05±0.11C | 4.07±0.12A | 5.61±0.35AB | |
| T2 | 2023 | 95.14±0.73B | 3.25±0.20C | 17.00±0.49A | 10.18±0.32B | 11.77±0.39B | 4.46±0.20A | 6.91±0.09A | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 2023 | 97.89±3.07A | 2.46±0.16B | 7.99±0.48B | 17.02±0.89A | 18.66±0.90A | 3.89±0.15B | 5.63±0.35B |
| T1 | 2023 | 73.32±0.71B | 3.37±0.18A | 9.56±0.58B | 6.57±0.15B | 7.72±0.21B | 4.40±0.20A | 7.47±0.47A | |
| T2 | 2023 | 79.84±1.37B | 3.84±0.22A | 13.33±0.13A | 15.31±1.64A | 16.43±1.89A | 4.57±0.10A | 6.93±0.09AB | |
| T | 9079.07** | 32.20 | 327.08 | 1790.37*** | 1432.58*** | 35.24*** | 124.56*** | ||
| S | 4561.34* | 42.11* | 12.50 | 10.25 | 47.81 | 1.82 | 4.65 | ||
| Y | 8.50×104*** | 228.89*** | 1.50×104*** | 975.84*** | 712.96*** | 66.84*** | 3089.10*** | ||
| T×S | 9168.85** | 17.12 | 197.39 | 145.37* | 131.52* | 1.06 | 5.48 | ||
| T×Y | 2315.07 | 92.27*** | 239.83 | 848.35*** | 660.22*** | 22.83* | 91.52*** | ||
| S×Y | 745.70 | 4.34 | 190.60 | 17.01 | 3.58 | 0.71 | 0.26 | ||
| T×S×Y | 1.60×104 | 35.41 | 399.63 | 153.36 | 138.52 | 4.72 | 7.08 | ||
表3 添加生物炭及种植不同牧草对土壤盐离子和氮素状态的影响
Table 3 Effects of biochar addition and cultivation of different forage grass species on soil saline ions and nitrogen status
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 年份 Year (Y) | 钠离子 Na+ (mg·kg-1) | 钙离子 Ca2+ (mg·kg-1) | 镁离子 Mg2+ (mg·kg-1) | 钠吸附比Sodium adsorption ration (SAR, mmol·L-1) | 碱化度Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP, %) | 铵态氮 NH4+-N (mg·kg-1) | 硝态氮 NO3--N (mg·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 2022 | 168.71±9.90a | 5.75±0.14ab | 36.56±1.19a | 7.79±0.22a | 8.94±0.17a | 4.40±0.55a | 17.75±0.56a |
| T1 | 2022 | 103.86±8.12b | 6.66±0.53a | 32.13±6.36a | 5.17±0.37b | 6.00±0.48a | 7.70±1.51a | 19.91±2.51a | |
| T2 | 2022 | 111.25±6.93b | 4.72±0.72b | 33.50±8.32a | 6.70±1.27ab | 7.62±1.47a | 4.31±0.45a | 16.21±2.24a | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 2022 | 178.96±7.04a | 5.48±0.32ab | 33.20±1.09a | 9.26±0.31ab | 10.89±0.36ab | 4.50±0.44a | 18.20±0.81a |
| T1 | 2022 | 166.18±8.90a | 6.56±0.67a | 43.00±4.05a | 7.06±1.01b | 8.21±1.22b | 6.50±1.13a | 24.68±2.75a | |
| T2 | 2022 | 132.45±22.16a | 4.11±0.78b | 21.50±5.59b | 11.44±1.28a | 13.25±1.37a | 4.25±0.25a | 17.96±2.24a | |
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 2023 | 110.72±1.92A | 3.98±0.02B | 11.68±0.34B | 14.36±0.45A | 16.05±0.22A | 3.31±0.14B | 4.93±0.51B |
| T1 | 2023 | 84.95±0.92C | 5.58±0.30A | 13.27±0.49B | 5.98±0.19C | 7.05±0.11C | 4.07±0.12A | 5.61±0.35AB | |
| T2 | 2023 | 95.14±0.73B | 3.25±0.20C | 17.00±0.49A | 10.18±0.32B | 11.77±0.39B | 4.46±0.20A | 6.91±0.09A | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 2023 | 97.89±3.07A | 2.46±0.16B | 7.99±0.48B | 17.02±0.89A | 18.66±0.90A | 3.89±0.15B | 5.63±0.35B |
| T1 | 2023 | 73.32±0.71B | 3.37±0.18A | 9.56±0.58B | 6.57±0.15B | 7.72±0.21B | 4.40±0.20A | 7.47±0.47A | |
| T2 | 2023 | 79.84±1.37B | 3.84±0.22A | 13.33±0.13A | 15.31±1.64A | 16.43±1.89A | 4.57±0.10A | 6.93±0.09AB | |
| T | 9079.07** | 32.20 | 327.08 | 1790.37*** | 1432.58*** | 35.24*** | 124.56*** | ||
| S | 4561.34* | 42.11* | 12.50 | 10.25 | 47.81 | 1.82 | 4.65 | ||
| Y | 8.50×104*** | 228.89*** | 1.50×104*** | 975.84*** | 712.96*** | 66.84*** | 3089.10*** | ||
| T×S | 9168.85** | 17.12 | 197.39 | 145.37* | 131.52* | 1.06 | 5.48 | ||
| T×Y | 2315.07 | 92.27*** | 239.83 | 848.35*** | 660.22*** | 22.83* | 91.52*** | ||
| S×Y | 745.70 | 4.34 | 190.60 | 17.01 | 3.58 | 0.71 | 0.26 | ||
| T×S×Y | 1.60×104 | 35.41 | 399.63 | 153.36 | 138.52 | 4.72 | 7.08 | ||
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 产量 Yield (kg·hm-2) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 茎叶比 Ratio of stem to leaf | 穗长 Ear length (cm) | 叶宽 Leaf width (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 1789.68±38.73B | 82.10±1.68B | 1.78±0.04B | 2.64±0.11A | 18.68±0.43B | 5.56±0.10B |
| T1 | 2020.80±69.09A | 88.24±3.75AB | 1.84±0.05B | 3.20±0.22A | 18.70±0.37B | 5.28±0.29B | |
| T2 | 2117.52±38.63A | 92.88±0.69A | 2.10±0.03A | 2.98±0.21A | 20.60±0.56A | 6.92±0.37A | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 574.20±43.97B | 49.08±2.94A | 1.68±0.11B | 3.35±0.05B | 14.48±0.45A | 14.46±0.96A |
| T1 | 594.90±35.51AB | 48.72±1.08A | 1.62±0.06B | 4.33±0.22A | 15.22±0.14A | 20.60±2.51A | |
| T2 | 739.50±26.77A | 52.50±2.72A | 2.12±0.06A | 4.66±0.33A | 15.48±0.35A | 21.76±1.44A | |
| T | 3.00×105*** | 254.95* | 0.96*** | 4.28** | 11.47** | 97.65** | |
| S | 1.30×107*** | 1.10×104*** | 0.08 | 10.37*** | 136.53*** | 1271.40*** | |
| T×S | 6.10×104 | 80.97 | 0.07 | 1.18 | 3.38 | 63.94* | |
表4 生物炭添加对牧草农艺性状及饲草产量的影响
Table 4 Effects of biochar application on agronomic traits and forage yield
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 产量 Yield (kg·hm-2) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 茎叶比 Ratio of stem to leaf | 穗长 Ear length (cm) | 叶宽 Leaf width (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | CK | 1789.68±38.73B | 82.10±1.68B | 1.78±0.04B | 2.64±0.11A | 18.68±0.43B | 5.56±0.10B |
| T1 | 2020.80±69.09A | 88.24±3.75AB | 1.84±0.05B | 3.20±0.22A | 18.70±0.37B | 5.28±0.29B | |
| T2 | 2117.52±38.63A | 92.88±0.69A | 2.10±0.03A | 2.98±0.21A | 20.60±0.56A | 6.92±0.37A | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | CK | 574.20±43.97B | 49.08±2.94A | 1.68±0.11B | 3.35±0.05B | 14.48±0.45A | 14.46±0.96A |
| T1 | 594.90±35.51AB | 48.72±1.08A | 1.62±0.06B | 4.33±0.22A | 15.22±0.14A | 20.60±2.51A | |
| T2 | 739.50±26.77A | 52.50±2.72A | 2.12±0.06A | 4.66±0.33A | 15.48±0.35A | 21.76±1.44A | |
| T | 3.00×105*** | 254.95* | 0.96*** | 4.28** | 11.47** | 97.65** | |
| S | 1.30×107*** | 1.10×104*** | 0.08 | 10.37*** | 136.53*** | 1271.40*** | |
| T×S | 6.10×104 | 80.97 | 0.07 | 1.18 | 3.38 | 63.94* | |
物种 Species | 项目 Items | 产量 Yield | 含水量 Water content | 土壤容重 Soil bulk density | 孔隙度 Porosity | 有效磷 Available phosphorus | 有机碳 Organic carbon | 铵态氮 NH4+-N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | 含水量Water content | 0.656** | ||||||
| 土壤容重Soil bulk density | -0.612* | -0.813** | ||||||
| 孔隙度Porosity | 0.643** | 0.618* | -0.507 | |||||
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | 0.660** | 0.725** | -0.483 | 0.718** | ||||
| 有机碳Organic carbon | 0.660** | 0.683** | -0.551* | 0.757** | 0.873** | |||
| 铵态氮NH4+-N | 0.721** | 0.712** | -0.529* | 0.662** | 0.912* | 0.700** | ||
| 硝态氮NO3--N | 0.741** | 0.694** | -0.643** | 0.618* | 0.594* | 0.685** | 0.558* | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | 含水量Water content | 0.607* | ||||||
| 土壤容重Soil bulk density | -0.666** | -0.818** | ||||||
| 孔隙度Porosity | 0.707** | 0.900** | -0.906** | |||||
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | 0.345 | 0.592* | -0.736** | 0.690** | ||||
| 有机碳Organic carbon | 0.510 | 0.639* | -0.804** | 0.741** | 0.718** | |||
| 铵态氮NH4+-N | 0.345 | 0.578* | -0.560* | 0.512 | 0.608* | 0.337 | ||
| 硝态氮NO3--N | 0.234 | 0.116 | -0.342 | 0.184 | 0.554* | 0.472 | 0.373 |
表5 饲草产量与土壤理化性质间的相关性分析
Table 5 Correlation analysis between forage yield and soil physicochemical properties
物种 Species | 项目 Items | 产量 Yield | 含水量 Water content | 土壤容重 Soil bulk density | 孔隙度 Porosity | 有效磷 Available phosphorus | 有机碳 Organic carbon | 铵态氮 NH4+-N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
羊草 L. chinensis | 含水量Water content | 0.656** | ||||||
| 土壤容重Soil bulk density | -0.612* | -0.813** | ||||||
| 孔隙度Porosity | 0.643** | 0.618* | -0.507 | |||||
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | 0.660** | 0.725** | -0.483 | 0.718** | ||||
| 有机碳Organic carbon | 0.660** | 0.683** | -0.551* | 0.757** | 0.873** | |||
| 铵态氮NH4+-N | 0.721** | 0.712** | -0.529* | 0.662** | 0.912* | 0.700** | ||
| 硝态氮NO3--N | 0.741** | 0.694** | -0.643** | 0.618* | 0.594* | 0.685** | 0.558* | |
星星草 P. tenuiflora | 含水量Water content | 0.607* | ||||||
| 土壤容重Soil bulk density | -0.666** | -0.818** | ||||||
| 孔隙度Porosity | 0.707** | 0.900** | -0.906** | |||||
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | 0.345 | 0.592* | -0.736** | 0.690** | ||||
| 有机碳Organic carbon | 0.510 | 0.639* | -0.804** | 0.741** | 0.718** | |||
| 铵态氮NH4+-N | 0.345 | 0.578* | -0.560* | 0.512 | 0.608* | 0.337 | ||
| 硝态氮NO3--N | 0.234 | 0.116 | -0.342 | 0.184 | 0.554* | 0.472 | 0.373 |
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 叶绿素含量Chlorophyll content (Chl, SPAD values) | 可溶性糖含量Soluble sugar content (SSC, mg·g-1) | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content (Pro, mg·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 羊草L. chinensis | CK | 43.18±0.66B | 2.47±0.11A | 15.87±1.42A |
| T1 | 47.64±0.99A | 2.10±0.20AB | 12.90±1.33AB | |
| T2 | 46.70±0.75A | 1.81±0.06B | 9.82±0.44B | |
| 星星草P. tenuiflora | CK | 39.20±0.12A | 4.13±0.33A | 65.54±2.91A |
| T1 | 36.80±0.18A | 3.42±0.13A | 46.56±0.51A | |
| T2 | 39.60±0.24A | 3.77±0.17A | 31.85±5.28A | |
| T | 25.76** | 1.84* | 1981.31*** | |
| S | 1.30×104*** | 20.32*** | 9250.99*** | |
| T×S | 29.74** | 0.50 | 962.72*** | |
表6 生物炭添加对牧草生理指标的影响
Table 6 Effects of biochar application on forage physiological traits
物种 Species (S) | 处理 Treatment (T) | 叶绿素含量Chlorophyll content (Chl, SPAD values) | 可溶性糖含量Soluble sugar content (SSC, mg·g-1) | 脯氨酸含量 Proline content (Pro, mg·g-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 羊草L. chinensis | CK | 43.18±0.66B | 2.47±0.11A | 15.87±1.42A |
| T1 | 47.64±0.99A | 2.10±0.20AB | 12.90±1.33AB | |
| T2 | 46.70±0.75A | 1.81±0.06B | 9.82±0.44B | |
| 星星草P. tenuiflora | CK | 39.20±0.12A | 4.13±0.33A | 65.54±2.91A |
| T1 | 36.80±0.18A | 3.42±0.13A | 46.56±0.51A | |
| T2 | 39.60±0.24A | 3.77±0.17A | 31.85±5.28A | |
| T | 25.76** | 1.84* | 1981.31*** | |
| S | 1.30×104*** | 20.32*** | 9250.99*** | |
| T×S | 29.74** | 0.50 | 962.72*** | |
| [1] | Li X J. The alkili-saline land and agricultural sustainable development of the western Songnen Plain in China. Geographical Science, 2000, 20(1): 51-55. |
| 李秀军. 松嫩平原西部土地盐碱化与农业可持续发展. 地理科学, 2000, 20(1): 51-55. | |
| [2] | Wang S R, Huang Y X. Research progress on saline-alkali land improvement in Songnen Plain. Soils and Crops, 2023, 12(2): 206-217. |
| 王世睿, 黄迎新. 松嫩平原盐碱地改良治理研究进展. 土壤与作物, 2023, 12(2): 206-217. | |
| [3] | Gu H B, Song Y, Pan J. Research progress of influencing factors on salinization of Songnen Plain. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 38(10): 16895-16898. |
| 谷洪彪, 宋洋, 潘杰. 松嫩平原盐碱化形成影响因素研究进展. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(10): 16895-16898. | |
| [4] | Zeng Y X, Li X Q. Discussion on improvement techniques for saline-alkali land. Agriculture of Jilin, 2019(13): 80. |
| 曾玉霞, 李兴强. 盐碱地改良技术探讨. 吉林农业, 2019(13): 80. | |
| [5] | Frenkel H, Gerstl Z, Alperovitch N. Exchange-induced dissolution of gypsum and the reclamation of sodic soils. European Journal of Soil Science, 1989, 40(3): 599-611. |
| [6] | Chen W T, Guo L Z, Yan B, et al. Effects of amendments on oat growth and soil physical properties in saline-alkali soils. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2024, 59(5): 136-144. |
| 陈文涛, 郭丽琢, 剡斌, 等. 改良剂对盐碱地燕麦生长及土壤物理性状的调控效应. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2024, 59(5): 136-144. | |
| [7] | Sun F L. Amelioration of saline-alkali land through hydraulic measures for rice cultivation. Hydro Science and Cold Zone Engineering, 2010(10): 30. |
| 孙福利. 水利措施改良盐碱地种植水稻. 水利科学与寒区工程, 2010(10): 30. | |
| [8] | Peng Y N, Zhao T W, Liang Y, et al. Amelioration effects of compound microbial fertilizer application on saline-alkali soil in the Hexi Corridor. South-Central Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 45(3): 3-8. |
| 彭轶楠, 赵廷伟, 梁燕, 等. 施用复合微生物菌肥对河西走廊盐碱地的改良效果. 中南农业科技, 2024, 45(3): 3-8. | |
| [9] | He X S, Geng Z C, She D, et al. Implications of production and agricultural utilization of biochar and its international dynamic. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2011, 27(2): 1-7. |
| 何绪生, 耿增超, 佘雕, 等. 生物炭生产与农用的意义及国内外动态. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(2): 1-7. | |
| [10] | Xiong C Q. Effects of fulvic acid and biochar on the improvement of soda-alkali soil and the growth of maize. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2024. |
| 熊传琦. 黄腐酸和生物炭对苏打盐碱土壤改良效果和玉米生长的影响. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2024. | |
| [11] | Qin J, Shu J, Liu J, et al. Study on the effects of different media and sampling method on the counting of Eurotium cristatum in Fuzhuan tea of Jingyang. China Food Safety Magazine, 2022(26): 66-68. |
| 秦婧, 舒静, 刘静, 等. 不同培养基和取样方式对泾阳茯砖茶中冠突散囊菌计数的影响研究. 食品安全导刊, 2022(26): 66-68. | |
| [12] | Jiang S G. Review on soil bulk density determination method. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 58(S2): 82-86, 91. |
| 江胜国. 国内土壤容重测定方法综述. 湖北农业科学, 2019, 58(S2): 82-86, 91. | |
| [13] | Meng Z F. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) for preventing secondary soil alkalization. The Journal of Shandong Agriculture and Engineering University, 1998(1): 26-28. |
| 孟昭甫. 预防土壤次生碱化的钠吸附比指标. 山东农业工程学院学报, 1998(1): 26-28. | |
| [14] | National Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China, Forest Soil Research Laboratory, Research Institute of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry. Calculation of soil alkalization degree: LY/T 1249-1999. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 1999. |
| 中华人民共和国国家林业局, 中国林业科学研究院林业研究所森林土壤研究室. 土壤碱化度的计算: LY/T 1249-1999. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1999. | |
| [15] | Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Soil-Determination of dry matter and water content-Gravimetric method: HJ 613-2011. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2011. |
| 中华人民共和国环境保护部. 土壤 干物质和水分的测定 重量法: HJ 613-2011. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2011. | |
| [16] | Li H K, Dong X L. Analysis of soil bulk density at the soil moisture station in Dianshang Village. The Farmers Consultant, 2021(3): 47, 60. |
| 李海宽, 董小丽. 店上村墒情站土壤容重的测定分析. 农业科技创新, 2021(3): 47, 60. | |
| [17] | Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Soil quatity-Determination of available phosphorus-Sodium hydrogen carbonate solution-Mo-Sb anti spectrophotometric method: HJ 704-2014. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2014. |
| 中华人民共和国环境保护部. 土壤 有效磷的测定 碳酸氢钠浸提-钼锑抗分光光度法: HJ 704-2014. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2014. | |
| [18] | Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Determination of soil organic carbon potassium dichromate oxidation-spectrophotometric method: HJ 615-2011. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2011. |
| 中华人民共和国环境保护部. 土壤 有机碳的测定 重铬酸钾氧化-分光光度法: HJ 615-2011. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2011. | |
| [19] | National Technical Committee on Soil Quality of Standardization Administration of China (SAC/TC 404). Soil quality-Determination of nitrate, nitrite and ammonium in soils-Extraction with potassium chloride solution and determination using automated method with segmented flow analysis: GB/T 42485-2023. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2023. |
| 全国土壤质量标准化技术委员会(SAC/TC 404). 土壤质量 土壤硝态氮、亚硝态氮和铵态氮的测定 氯化钾溶液浸提手工分析法: GB/T 42485-2023. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2023. | |
| [20] | Zhang Q, Wei Z W, Yan T F. Correlation and path analysis of oat seed yield with agronomic characters in Jiang-Huai area. Crops, 2021(5): 146-152. |
| 张琦, 魏臻武, 闫天芳. 江淮地区燕麦籽粒产量与农艺性状的相关性及通径分析. 作物杂志, 2021(5): 146-152. | |
| [21] | Liu Q S, Jia Y L, Xiao Y, et al. Study on the adaptability evaluation of feeding oats in the eastern plain of Hebei Province. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022(3): 102-106. |
| 刘青松, 贾艳丽, 肖宇, 等. 河北东部平原区饲用燕麦适应性评价研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022(3): 102-106. | |
| [22] | Lu C H. Study on drought resistance and evaluation on turf use quality of eight wild annual bluegrass. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2010. |
| 鲁存海. 8种野生早熟禾抗旱性及草坪质量综合评价研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2010. | |
| [23] | Wystalska K, Kwarciak-Kozłowska A, Włodarczyk R. Influence of technical parameters of the pyrolysis process on the surface area, porosity, and hydrophobicity of biochar from sunflower husk pellet. Sustainability, 2023, 15(1): 394. |
| [24] | Kammann C I, Linsel S, Gößling J W, et al. Influence of biochar on drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd and on soil-plant relations. Plant and Soil, 2011, 345(1/2): 195-210. |
| [25] | Aitken R L, Moody P W. The effect of valence and ionic-strength on the measurement of pH buffer capacity. Soil Research, 1994, 32(5): 975-984. |
| [26] | Gliniak M, Sikora J, Sadowska U, et al. Impact of biochar on soil water content and electrical conductivity. Institute of Physics Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, 362: 012044. |
| [27] | Fidel R B, Laird D A, Thompson M L, et al. Characterization and quantification of biochar alkalinity. Chemosphere, 2017, 167: 367-373. |
| [28] | Ma W M, Ma L, Jiao J T, et al. Impact of straw incorporation on the physicochemical profile and fungal ecology of saline-alkaline soil. Microorganisms, 2024, 12(2): 277. |
| [29] | ELsaman N K, Amin A E A Z, El-Razek M A, et al. Comparative effects of different types and doses of biochar on soil quality indicators and arugula growth under saline conditions. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15(1): 10046. |
| [30] | Sun H J, Zhang H C, Shi W M, et al. Effect of biochar on nitrogen use efficiency, grain yield and amino acid content of wheat cultivated on saline soil. Plant Soil and Environment, 2019, 65(2): 83-89. |
| [31] | Liu B Y, Dai Y S, Cheng X, et al. Straw mulch improves soil carbon and nitrogen cycle by mediating microbial community structure and function in the maize field. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2023(14): 1217966. |
| [32] | Yao Y, Gao B, Zhang M, et al. Effect of biochar amendment on sorption and leaching of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate in a sandy soil. Chemosphere, 2012, 89(11): 1467-1471. |
| [33] | Wang S B, Gao P L, Zhang Q W, et al. Application of biochar and organic fertilizer to saline-alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta: Effects on soil water, salinity, nutrients, and maize yield. Soil Use and Management, 2022: 38(4): 1679-1692. |
| [34] | Abo-Elyousr K A M, Mousa M A A, Ibrahim O H M, et al. Calcium-rich biochar stimulates salt resistance in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) plants by improving soil quality and enhancing the antioxidant defense. Plants, 2022, 11(10): 1301. |
| [35] | Burrell L D, Zehetner F, Rampazzo N, et al. Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma, 2016(282): 96-102. |
| [36] | Yang S H. Effects of different vegetations on soil micro-food web characteristics in the Songnen Plain Wetland. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2024. |
| 杨舒涵. 松嫩平原湿地不同植被类型对土壤微食物网结构和特征的影响. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2024. | |
| [37] | Hua L, Jin S S, Luo J J. Effect of Bio-char on the micro-environment characteristics and humus in soil. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 21(11): 1795-1799. |
| 花莉, 金素素, 洛晶晶. 生物质炭输入对土壤微域特征及土壤腐殖质的作用效应研究. 生态环境学报, 2012, 21(11): 1795-1799. | |
| [38] | Amin A E A Z. Effects of saline water on soil properties and red radish growth in saline soil as a function of co-applying wood chips biochar with chemical fertilizers. BMC Plant Biology, 2023, 23(1): 382. |
| [39] | Deng X Y, Tang F L, Zhu R F, et al. Determination and optimization of cultivation for phosphorus-solubilizing capacity in rhizosphere of Leymus chinensis and Puccinellia tenuiflora in Songnen Grassland. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2017(5): 158-161. |
| 邓小宇, 唐凤兰, 朱瑞芬, 等. 松嫩草地羊草和星星草根际溶磷能力测定及优化培养. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2017(5): 158-161. | |
| [40] | Anjum S A, Xie X Y, Wang L C, et al. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2011, 6(9): 2026-2032. |
| [41] | Liu J X, Sun P, Zhao X Y, et al. Regulation of antioxidant metabolic pathways in ryegrass by biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi under salt stress. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 2025, 55(4): 81-89. |
| 刘佳鑫, 孙萍, 赵新月, 等. 盐胁迫下生物炭和丛枝菌根真菌对黑麦草抗氧化代谢路径的调节作用. 中国海洋大学学报, 2025, 55(4): 81-89. | |
| [42] | Murtaza G, Rizwan M, Usman M, et al. Biochar enhances the growth and physiological characteristics of Medicago sativa, Amaranthus caudatus and Zea mays in saline soils. BMC Plant Biology, 2024, 24(1): 304. |
| [43] | Johnson J M, Ibrahim A, Dossou-Yovo E R, et al. Inorganic fertilizer use and its association with rice yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Security-agriculture Policy Economics and Environment, 2023(38): 100708. |
| [1] | 刘朝荣, 陈永成, 陈莹, 张旭东, 胡天宇, 苏力合, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 姚琨, 马春晖. 新疆盐碱化土壤下不同羊草的耐盐碱性差异研究[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(4): 29-41. |
| [2] | 刘畅, 陈积山, 朱瑞芬, 孙万斌, 姚博, 董世魁. 有机肥和生物炭添加对亚热带人工草地土壤微生物碳、磷限制的缓解作用[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(4): 54-66. |
| [3] | 李磊, 马勇宽, 蒋鹏, 朱志明, 纪立东, 李龙, 许兴. “六位一体”模式对宁夏盐碱地土壤水盐动态、质量等级及青贮玉米产能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(3): 68-82. |
| [4] | 郭亮, 胡雨彤, 廖雨, 龚成毓, 杨晓燕, 管上淇, 鞠成琦. 磷添加和丛枝菌根真菌对羊草根系构型以及植株养分吸收利用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 165-178. |
| [5] | 高守舆, 刘文静, 李钰莹, 向清源, 许佳俊, 舒蕾淇, 李肇中. 苗期白羊草对盐胁迫的生理生化响应及其耐盐阈值的界定[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 164-174. |
| [6] | 亓雯雯, 马红媛, 李亚晓, 杜艳, 孙梦丹, 武海涛. 优质牧草新品种选育方法研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(6): 187-202. |
| [7] | 卢晓瑜, 刘雅洁, 白彩霞, 李进华, 王子贺, 杨春雪. 虎尾草伴生和丛枝菌根真菌对碱胁迫下羊草生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(11): 69-83. |
| [8] | 杨斯琪, 鲍雅静, 叶佳琦, 吴帅, 张萌, 徐梦冉, 赵钰, 吕晓涛, 韩兴国. 氮添加和刈割条件下羊草光合-CO2响应过程及模型比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 160-172. |
| [9] | 亢燕, 王耀辉, 牛天慧, 滕哲, 祁智, 杨佳. 羊草LcZIP1的铁转运功能鉴定[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 173-180. |
| [10] | 于晓东, 余浩洋, 杨旭, 赵东旭, 张林刚. 内蒙古两种生态型羊草叶绿体基因组序列差异分析[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 72-84. |
| [11] | 高守舆, 李钰莹, 杨志青, 董宽虎, 夏方山. 白羊草叶绿体基因组密码子使用偏好性分析[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 85-95. |
| [12] | 丰吉, 刘志扩, 李海燕, 杨允菲, 郭健. 围栏封育和长期刈割对松嫩草地羊草和野古草种群营养繁殖特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 50-60. |
| [13] | 王博, 张茹, 刘静, 李志刚. 翻埋与覆盖林木枝条对干旱区沙化土壤及紫花苜蓿根系丛枝菌根真菌的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(2): 15-25. |
| [14] | 吴金蕊, 李梦真, 杨勇, 刘爱军, 王普昶, 哈斯巴根null, 吕世杰, 运向军. 典型草原不同放牧强度下羊草种群空间分布的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(12): 68-76. |
| [15] | 陶雅, 徐丽君, 李峰, 李文龙, 孙启忠, 徐畅, 林克剑. 我国羊草产业亟待振兴[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(11): 188-198. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||