草业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (5): 151-161.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2025238
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
段艳雪1,3(
), 杨柳2, 王勇2, 韩雪1, 刘东阳2, 马超1, 邓全2, 陈玉蓝2, 黄建国1, 李勇1(
)
收稿日期:2025-06-16
修回日期:2025-09-01
出版日期:2026-05-20
发布日期:2026-03-11
通讯作者:
李勇
作者简介:Corresponding author. E-mail: liyongwf@swu.edu.cn基金资助:
Yan-xue DUAN1,3(
), Liu YANG2, Yong WANG2, Xue HAN1, Dong-yang LIU2, Chao MA1, Quan DENG2, Yu-lan CHEN2, Jian-guo HUANG1, Yong LI1(
)
Received:2025-06-16
Revised:2025-09-01
Online:2026-05-20
Published:2026-03-11
Contact:
Yong LI
摘要:
烤烟是喜肥且需肥量大的经济作物。我国植烟区土壤长期大量施用氮磷等化肥,虽富含养分,但多为难溶态有机氮磷,不易被植物吸收。因此,通过微生物活化土壤中难溶的养分,可减少化肥施用量,降低成本,实现烤烟的减肥增效。本研究通过土壤培养试验、纯培养试验和盆栽试验,研究了产酶溶杆菌LE16对土壤养分活化和烤烟生长的影响。研究发现,菌株LE16具备分泌蛋白酶和磷酸酶的能力。土壤培养结果表明,接种LE16,土壤中的中性蛋白酶和中性磷酸酶活性、碱解氮和有效磷含量均显著增加(P<0.05),其中碱解氮含量与中性蛋白酶活性(r=0.925**,P<0.01),有效磷含量与中性磷酸酶活性(r=0.405*,P<0.05)均呈显著正相关关系。盆栽试验结果表明,与施化肥处理(CF)相比,化肥+LE16(CF+LE16)和90%化肥+LE16(0.9CF+LE16)处理根际土壤的中性蛋白酶、中性磷酸酶活性和碱解氮含量分别显著提高了21.96%和46.08%、35.59%和52.13%、18.58%和12.83%(P<0.05);CF+LE16和0.9CF+LE16处理的土壤有效磷含量均高于CF处理,但无显著差异。CF+LE16和0.9CF+LE16处理的烤烟植株氮、磷和钾养分的吸收量较CF处理分别显著提高了16.55%和9.24%(氮)、5.70%和4.83%(磷)、18.46%和11.59%(钾)(P<0.05)。此外,0.9CF+LE16处理的茎鲜重/干重、叶鲜重/干重、株高、最大叶面积等,与CF处理相当。研究表明产酶溶杆菌LE16能活化土壤养分,促进烤烟植株养分的吸收和生长,在减肥增效中具有较好的应用前景。
段艳雪, 杨柳, 王勇, 韩雪, 刘东阳, 马超, 邓全, 陈玉蓝, 黄建国, 李勇. 产酶溶杆菌LE16对烤烟生长的促进作用[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(5): 151-161.
Yan-xue DUAN, Liu YANG, Yong WANG, Xue HAN, Dong-yang LIU, Chao MA, Quan DENG, Yu-lan CHEN, Jian-guo HUANG, Yong LI. Promotion effect of Lysobacter enzymogenes LE16 on the growth of tobacco[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2026, 35(5): 151-161.
图2 土壤中性蛋白酶活性和碱解氮含量的变化CK为土壤中接入5 mL无菌水的处理,LE16为土壤中接入5 mL LE16菌悬液的处理。不同小写字母表示所有处理间差异显著(P<0.05),下同。CK represents the treatment with 5 mL sterile water added to the soil, andLE16 represents the treatment with 5 mL L. enzymogenes LE16 bacterial suspension added to the soil. Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among treatments (P<0.05), the same below.
Fig.2 The changes of neutral protease activity and content of alkaline dissolved nitrogen in soil
指标 Index | 中性蛋白酶 Neutral protease | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 中性磷酸酶 Neutral phosphatase | 有效磷 Available phosphorus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 中性蛋白酶Neutral protease | 1.000 | 0.925** | - | - |
| 碱解氮Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 0.925** | 1.000 | - | - |
| 中性磷酸酶Neutral phosphatase | - | - | 1.000 | 0.405* |
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | - | - | 0.405* | 1.000 |
表1 土壤酶活性和有效养分含量的相关性
Table 1 Correlation between enzyme activity and available nutrient content in soil
指标 Index | 中性蛋白酶 Neutral protease | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 中性磷酸酶 Neutral phosphatase | 有效磷 Available phosphorus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 中性蛋白酶Neutral protease | 1.000 | 0.925** | - | - |
| 碱解氮Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen | 0.925** | 1.000 | - | - |
| 中性磷酸酶Neutral phosphatase | - | - | 1.000 | 0.405* |
| 有效磷Available phosphorus | - | - | 0.405* | 1.000 |
图4 不同处理中烤烟根际的土壤酶活性CK为不施肥,CF为化肥处理,CF+LE16为化肥+LE16菌悬液,0.9CF+LE16、0.8CF+LE16分别为90%化肥+LE16菌悬液和80%化肥+LE16菌悬液,下同。CK refers to the control group without fertilization, CF represents the chemical fertilizer treatment, CF+LE16 denotes chemical fertilizer combined with L. enzymogenes LE16 suspension, while 0.9CF+LE16 and 0.8CF+LE16 indicate 90% and 80% chemical fertilizer combined with LE16 suspension, respectively, the same below.
Fig.4 The enzyme activities of different treatments in tobacco rhizosphere soil
处理 Treatment | 有机质 Organic matter (g·kg-1) | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | 有效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 全磷 Total phosphorus (g·kg-1) | 全钾 Total potassium (g·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 26.63±1.11ab | 92.27±0.90c | 49.49±1.16b | 230.00±2.89d | 1.42±0.03ab | 1.05±0.01c | 14.73±0.33b |
| CF | 26.17±0.35b | 93.33±0.88c | 51.47±0.52ab | 392.67±24.23a | 1.39±0.01b | 1.09±0.01bc | 15.07±0.13ab |
| CF+LE16 | 26.80±0.38ab | 110.67±1.86a | 51.44±0.86ab | 291.67±6.01c | 1.44±0.01ab | 1.16±0.01a | 15.07±0.33ab |
| 0.9CF+LE16 | 26.63±0.55ab | 105.30±1.36b | 55.69±3.11a | 356.67±6.01ab | 1.42±0.03ab | 1.10±0.02bc | 15.10±0.20ab |
| 0.8CF+LE16 | 28.77±0.47a | 112.67±0.59a | 47.68±1.10b | 323.33±13.33bc | 1.50±0.04a | 1.17±0.04a | 15.80±0.40a |
表2 不同处理的烤烟根际土壤养分含量
Table 2 The nutrients content of different treatments in tobacco rhizosphere soil
处理 Treatment | 有机质 Organic matter (g·kg-1) | 碱解氮 Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | 有效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg-1) | 全磷 Total phosphorus (g·kg-1) | 全钾 Total potassium (g·kg-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 26.63±1.11ab | 92.27±0.90c | 49.49±1.16b | 230.00±2.89d | 1.42±0.03ab | 1.05±0.01c | 14.73±0.33b |
| CF | 26.17±0.35b | 93.33±0.88c | 51.47±0.52ab | 392.67±24.23a | 1.39±0.01b | 1.09±0.01bc | 15.07±0.13ab |
| CF+LE16 | 26.80±0.38ab | 110.67±1.86a | 51.44±0.86ab | 291.67±6.01c | 1.44±0.01ab | 1.16±0.01a | 15.07±0.33ab |
| 0.9CF+LE16 | 26.63±0.55ab | 105.30±1.36b | 55.69±3.11a | 356.67±6.01ab | 1.42±0.03ab | 1.10±0.02bc | 15.10±0.20ab |
| 0.8CF+LE16 | 28.77±0.47a | 112.67±0.59a | 47.68±1.10b | 323.33±13.33bc | 1.50±0.04a | 1.17±0.04a | 15.80±0.40a |
处理 Treatment | 茎Stem (g·plant-1) | 叶Leaf (g·plant-1) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (cm) | 最大叶面积 Maximum leaf area (cm2) | 叶片数 Leaf number (No.·plant-1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重 Fresh weight | 干重 Dry weight | 鲜重 Fresh weight | 干重 Dry weight | |||||
| CK | 27.0±1.5b | 3.8±0.3b | 51.3±2.4b | 3.5±0.3b | 51.0±1.2b | 3.6±0.03b | 234.0±16.3d | 11±0.9b |
| CF | 234.0±12.9a | 30.6±0.7a | 339.3±38.8a | 41.7±1.1a | 115.5±1.8a | 5.9±0.13a | 845.0±19.1bc | 20±0.7a |
| CF+LE16 | 259.7±14.3a | 30.4±3.3a | 375.0±36.7a | 42.7±2.0a | 117.3±4.3a | 6.1±0.12a | 1008.7±52.2a | 21±1.2a |
| 0.9CF+LE16 | 237.7±13.3a | 31.7±2.1a | 340.0±34.8a | 42.4±5.6a | 113.2±3.3a | 6.1±0.06a | 805.8±29.0c | 19±1.0a |
| 0.8CF+LE16 | 227.3±19.9a | 30.5±4.5a | 351.3±14.8a | 49.5±4.7a | 107.8±5.0a | 6.2±0.21a | 947.2±51.5ab | 20±0.7a |
表3 不同处理的烤烟农艺性状
Table 3 The tobacco agronomic traits of different treatments
处理 Treatment | 茎Stem (g·plant-1) | 叶Leaf (g·plant-1) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (cm) | 最大叶面积 Maximum leaf area (cm2) | 叶片数 Leaf number (No.·plant-1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重 Fresh weight | 干重 Dry weight | 鲜重 Fresh weight | 干重 Dry weight | |||||
| CK | 27.0±1.5b | 3.8±0.3b | 51.3±2.4b | 3.5±0.3b | 51.0±1.2b | 3.6±0.03b | 234.0±16.3d | 11±0.9b |
| CF | 234.0±12.9a | 30.6±0.7a | 339.3±38.8a | 41.7±1.1a | 115.5±1.8a | 5.9±0.13a | 845.0±19.1bc | 20±0.7a |
| CF+LE16 | 259.7±14.3a | 30.4±3.3a | 375.0±36.7a | 42.7±2.0a | 117.3±4.3a | 6.1±0.12a | 1008.7±52.2a | 21±1.2a |
| 0.9CF+LE16 | 237.7±13.3a | 31.7±2.1a | 340.0±34.8a | 42.4±5.6a | 113.2±3.3a | 6.1±0.06a | 805.8±29.0c | 19±1.0a |
| 0.8CF+LE16 | 227.3±19.9a | 30.5±4.5a | 351.3±14.8a | 49.5±4.7a | 107.8±5.0a | 6.2±0.21a | 947.2±51.5ab | 20±0.7a |
| [1] | Wang H T, Zhong Z. Comparative advantage analysis of main planting areas of flue cured tobacco in China-calculation based on the data of 22 provinces in China from 1996 to 2021. Modern Agricultural Research, 2024, 30(1): 93-100. |
| 王红桃, 钟自. 我国烤烟主要种植区域比较优势分析——基于全国22省1996-2021年数据测算. 现代农业研究, 2024, 30(1): 93-100. | |
| [2] | Tao F, Teng W, Li C J, et al. Nutrient input and output balance in flue-cured tobacco production in China. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2007, 28(3): 1-5. |
| 陶芾, 滕婉, 李春俭, 等. 我国烤烟生产体系中的养分平衡. 中国烟草科学, 2007, 28(3): 1-5. | |
| [3] | Zhang W T. Problems and countermeasures of flue-cured tobacco fertilization in Shaanxi Province. Shaanxi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 61(4): 88-90. |
| 张卫婷. 陕西省烤烟施肥的问题及对策. 陕西农业科学, 2015, 61(4): 88-90. | |
| [4] | Song G H, Yang X Y, Pan J H. Current status, existing problems and counter measures of fertilization for flue-cured tobacco in China. Chinese Tobacco Science, 1998, 19(4): 34-36. |
| 宋国菡, 杨献营, 潘吉焕. 我国烤烟施肥现状、存在问题及对策. 中国烟草科学, 1998, 19(4): 34-36. | |
| [5] | Wang Y Z, Chen X, Shi Y. Phosphorus availability in cropland soils of China and related affecting factors. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(1): 260-268. |
| 王永壮, 陈欣, 史奕. 农田土壤中磷素有效性及影响因素. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(1): 260-268. | |
| [6] | Wu H Q, Du S Y, Wang D Y, et al. Response of soil organic nitrogen fractions and tomato yield to irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in greenhouse. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2019, 25(5): 805-813. |
| 吴汉卿, 杜世宇, 王丹阳, 等. 设施土壤有机氮组分及番茄产量对水氮调控的响应. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(5): 805-813. | |
| [7] | Xia F Y, Wei S L, Zhou S L. Research progress of soil phosphorous types and availablility. Forest Investigation Design, 2009(3): 65-67. |
| 夏凤禹, 魏胜利, 周胜利. 土壤磷素形态及其有效化途径的研究进展. 林业勘查设计, 2009(3): 65-67. | |
| [8] | Zhang F S, Wang J Q, Zhang W F, et al. Nutrient use efficiencies of major cereal crops in China and measures for improvement. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(5): 915-924. |
| 张福锁, 王激清, 张卫峰, 等. 中国主要粮食作物肥料利用率现状与提高途径. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5): 915-924. | |
| [9] | Hu T W, Mao Z Z, Shi J, et al. The role of taxation in tobacco control and its potential economic impact in China. Tobacco Control, 2010, 19(1): 58-64. |
| [10] | Shen S. Analysis on issues and countermeasures of tobacco industry in China. Research on Development, 2019(3): 136-140. |
| 申珅. 中国烟草业存在的问题及对策. 开发研究, 2019(3): 136-140. | |
| [11] | Wang T T, Xu J X, Chen J, et al. Progress in microbial fertilizer regulation of crop growth and soil remediation research. Plants, 2024, 13(3): 346. |
| [12] | Philippot L, Raaijmakers J M, Lemanceau P, et al. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2013, 11: 789-799. |
| [13] | Chen Y C, Sun X Y, Xie Z J, et al. Screening of rhizosphere growth promoting bacteria and their application in tailings improvement. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(7): 50-63. |
| 陈意超, 孙晓莹, 解智杰, 等. 根际促生菌的筛选及其在尾矿改良中的应用. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 50-63. | |
| [14] | Zhang T R, Jian Q H, Yao X Z, et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) improve the growth and quality of several crops. Heliyon, 2024, 10(10): e31553. |
| [15] | Lugtenberg B, Kamilova F. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology, 2009, 63: 541-556. |
| [16] | Chamkhi I, Sbabou L, Aurag J. Improved growth and quality of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) in the field conditions through inoculation with selected native plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Industrial Crops and Products, 2023, 197: 116606. |
| [17] | Aydinoglu F, Kahriman T Y, Balci H. Seed bio-priming enhanced salt stress tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings by regulating the antioxidant system and miRNA expression. 3 Biotech, 2023, 13(11): 378. |
| [18] | Xu P Z, Bao Y Z, Guo K, et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in the rhizosphere of Pogostemon cablin: isolation, screening, and plant growth-promoting characterization. Microbiology China, 2025, 52(9): 4141-4156. |
| 许培增, 包韵滋, 郭焜, 等. 广藿香根际促生菌的分离、筛选及促生特性. 微生物学通报, 2025, 52(9): 4141-4156. | |
| [19] | Chen D M. Functions and mechanisms of the new Lysobacter enzymogenes strain LE16 in plant growth promoting and disease biocontrol. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2020.陈丹梅. 产酶溶杆菌新株Lysobacter enzymogenes LE16的促生防病作用及机理. 重庆: 西南大学, 2020. |
| [20] | State Tobacco Monopoly Administration. Investigating and measuring methods of agronomical character of tobacco: YC/T 142-2010. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2010.国家烟草专卖局. 烟草农艺性状调查测量方法: YC/T 142-2010. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2010. |
| [21] | Yang J H, Wang C L, Dai H L. Soil agrochemical analysis and environmental monitoring. Beijing: China Land Press, 2008.杨剑虹, 王成林, 代亨林. 土壤农化分析与环境监测. 北京: 中国大地出版社, 2008. |
| [22] | Guan S Y. Soil enzymes and research methods. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1986.关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986. |
| [23] | Dick R P. Methods of soil enzymology. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 2011. |
| [24] | Chaparro J M, Sheflin A M, Manter D K, et al. Manipulating the soil microbiome to increase soil health and plant fertility. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2012, 48(5): 489-499. |
| [25] | Aponte H, Meli P, Butler B, et al. Meta-analysis of heavy metal effects on soil enzyme activities. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 734: 139744. |
| [26] | Ma S K, Huo K, Zhang D X, et al. Effects of maize straw return combined with nitrogen on soil enzyme activity and nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency in western dryland wheat fields of Henan Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(6): 120-133. |
| 马嵩科, 霍克, 张冬霞, 等. 玉米秸秆还田配施氮肥对豫西旱地小麦土壤酶活性和氮肥利用效率的影响. 草业学报, 2023, 32(6): 120-133. | |
| [27] | Greenfield L M, Puissant J, Jones D L. Synthesis of methods used to assess soil protease activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2021, 158: 108277. |
| [28] | Chang D N, Chen Z Y, Han M, et al. Differences in phosphorus acquisition characteristics and rhizosphere properties among different hairy vetch genotypes. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(4): 122-134. |
| 常单娜, 陈子英, 韩梅, 等. 毛叶苕子磷获取特征及根际特性的基因型差异. 草业学报, 2024, 33(4): 122-134. | |
| [29] | Qu J F, Li J M, Xu M G, et al. Response of typical soil phosphorus evolution to long-term single nitrogen fertilization. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009, 42(11): 3933-3939. |
| 曲均峰, 李菊梅, 徐明岗, 等. 中国典型农田土壤磷素演化对长期单施氮肥的响应. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42(11): 3933-3939. | |
| [30] | Zhang F S, Cui Z L, Wang J Q, et al. Current status of soil and plant nutrient management in China and improvement strategies. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2007, 24(6): 687-694. |
| 张福锁, 崔振岭, 王激清, 等. 中国土壤和植物养分管理现状与改进策略. 植物学通报, 2007, 24(6): 687-694. | |
| [31] | Qi R S, Dang T H, Yang S Q, et al. Forms of soil phosphorus and P adsorption in soils under long-term crop rotation and fertilization systems. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012, 49(6): 1136-1146. |
| 戚瑞生, 党廷辉, 杨绍琼, 等. 长期轮作与施肥对农田土壤磷素形态和吸持特性的影响. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(6): 1136-1146. | |
| [32] | Wang R, Shi J, Yao T, et al. Effects of two growth-promoting strains on tobacco growth and bacterial community in rhizosphere soil. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2025, 46(1): 46-55. |
| 王睿, 师晶, 姚涛, 等. 两种促生菌对烟草生长和根际土壤细菌群落的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2025, 46(1): 46-55. | |
| [33] | Zhang S X, Li F M, Chang L Y, et al. Broad-spectrum applications of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) across diverse crops and intricate planting systems. Microbiology Spectrum, 2025, 13(3): e01879-24. |
| [34] | Sun Q P, Fan Y H, Li P Q, et al. Optimization of enzyme-producing conditions and probiotic effect of three strains of ACC deaminase producing plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2023(2): 234-241. |
| 孙庆培, 樊永红, 李佩琪, 等. 三株产ACC脱氨酶的植物根际促生菌产酶条件优化及促生作用研究. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(2): 234-241. | |
| [35] | Dong A J, Qiu H Z, Dong L, et al. The colonization characteristics of Paenibacillus jamilae QHZ11-gfp in potato plants and its growth-promoting effect. Microbiology China, 2021, 48(11): 4075-4086. |
| 董爱菊, 邱慧珍, 董莉, 等. 类芽孢杆菌QHZ11-gfp在马铃薯植株上的定殖特征及促生效果. 微生物学通报, 2021, 48(11): 4075-4086. | |
| [36] | Li H, Qiu Y, Yao T, et al. Effects of PGPR microbial inoculants on the growth and soil properties of Avena sativa, Medicago sativa, and Cucumis sativus seedlings. Soil and Tillage Research, 2020, 199: 104577. |
| [37] | Liang H, Wang Y, Chen Y L, et al. Effects of PGPR inoculants on physical and chemical properties of tobacco planting soil and composition of bacterial community containing phoD. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2022, 43(5): 61-67. |
| 梁辉, 王勇, 陈玉蓝, 等. PGPR菌剂对植烟土壤理化性状及phoD基因群落结构的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(5): 61-67. | |
| [38] | Zhang A M. Screening of the specific solubilizing phosphate and potassium CX-7 strain and research on its applying experiment. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2014.张爱民. 解磷解钾特异菌株CX-7的筛选及其应用试验研究. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2014. |
| [39] | Jiang M M. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens on agronomic traits of tobacco and soil properties in tobacco field. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2024.蒋敏敏. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌菌剂对烟草农艺性状及烟田土壤性状的影响. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2024. |
| [40] | Liu H J, Liu L, Liu Y H, et al. Effects of different bio-organic fertilizers on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco and soil nutrients. Ecological Science, 2018, 37(6): 91-96. |
| 刘汉军, 刘蕾, 刘轶豪, 等. 不同生物有机肥对烤烟产质量及土壤养分的影响. 生态科学, 2018, 37(6): 91-96. |
| [1] | 占今舜, 江浩筠, 贾浩滨, 王海波, 谷志勇, 潘月, 钟小军, 霍俊宏. 不同杂交组合绵羊生长性能、血液生化指标和瘤胃发酵的比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(4): 197-210. |
| [2] | 赵晓强, 张月娇, 张丹丹, 曹凯宁, 张元庆. 不同饲养方式及脂肪酸类型对犊牛生长性能、瘤胃内环境和血清指标的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(4): 211-220. |
| [3] | 姚东旭, 王彩忠, 郑琛. 猫尾草对幼龄肉兔生长性能、屠宰性能及肉品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2026, 35(3): 185-194. |
| [4] | 郭龙欣, 张铭洋, 杨永胜, 庞博, 张振华, 张秀娟. 外源添加物对三江源高寒草甸苔藓结皮快速培育的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(7): 132-144. |
| [5] | 雍嘉仪, 马霜, 马风华, 赵小娜, 张译尹, 胡海英. 干旱及复水对河北木蓝生物量分配与渗透调节特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(7): 158-170. |
| [6] | 张晴晴, 马兴羽, 鲁艳, 赵广兴, 曾凡江, 黄彩变. 沙化盐渍土地不同生长时期油莎豆的耐盐性差异研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 168-180. |
| [7] | 曾燕霞, 陈志龙, 尚继红, 沙晓弟, 吴娟, 陈彩锦. 太空诱变对PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下紫花苜蓿材料苗期生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 59-69. |
| [8] | 张敏, 杨锐, 黄逸州, 林芷昕, 郑贤跃, 刘庆华, 高玉云, 林冬梅, 林占熺, 金灵. 巨菌草对育肥从江香猪生长性能及肠道健康的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 171-188. |
| [9] | 祁帅, 张艳丽, 万永杰, 牛伟强, 张积鑫, 高雪, 茆达干. 菌酶协同发酵豆秸对湖羊生长性能、血清指标和瘤胃微生物的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 189-201. |
| [10] | 尚栋亮, 臧辉. 成坪高尔夫草坪上一年生早熟禾的化学防除研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 223-236. |
| [11] | 刘文谨, 蒋福祯, 祁凯斌, 宋明丹, 李正鹏. 不同施肥量和播种量对高寒矿区植被恢复和土壤质量的影响及综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 27-39. |
| [12] | 马召, 李晓帆, 孙莉琼, 黄智, 许垒, 鲁霆, 唐晓清, 王康才. 三株丹参根内生细菌对宿主生长及药用品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(4): 175-188. |
| [13] | 王梦琦, 王菲, 赵琬璐, 刘彦奇, 崔灿, 严俊鑫. 不同浓度硅、钙对留兰香幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 154-163. |
| [14] | 林心怡, 王旎, 陈拓, 宋一岚, 陆耀东, 董朝霞. 3种植物生长调节剂对结缕草耐荫性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 224-232. |
| [15] | 李浩晶, 张丹珂, 李海润, 曹静, 徐国伟. 施氮对不同食味品质水稻根系生长及分泌有机酸的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(2): 163-173. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||