留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

苹果园不同覆盖材料对土壤与近地微域环境及树体生长发育的影响

尹晓宁 刘兴禄 董铁 牛军强 孙文泰 马明

尹晓宁, 刘兴禄, 董铁, 牛军强, 孙文泰, 马明. 苹果园不同覆盖材料对土壤与近地微域环境及树体生长发育的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2018, 26(1): 83-95. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.170586
引用本文: 尹晓宁, 刘兴禄, 董铁, 牛军强, 孙文泰, 马明. 苹果园不同覆盖材料对土壤与近地微域环境及树体生长发育的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2018, 26(1): 83-95. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.170586
YIN Xiaoning, LIU Xinglu, DONG Tie, NIU Junqiang, SUN Wentai, MA Ming. Effects of different mulching materials on soil and near-surface environment and of apple orchard tree growth[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2018, 26(1): 83-95. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.170586
Citation: YIN Xiaoning, LIU Xinglu, DONG Tie, NIU Junqiang, SUN Wentai, MA Ming. Effects of different mulching materials on soil and near-surface environment and of apple orchard tree growth[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2018, 26(1): 83-95. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.170586

苹果园不同覆盖材料对土壤与近地微域环境及树体生长发育的影响

doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.170586
基金项目: 

国家公益性行业(农业)科研专项 201303104

国家重点研发计划项目 2016YFD0201135

甘肃省苹果产业科技攻关项目 GPCK2010-1

国家苹果产业技术体系 CARS-27

详细信息
    作者简介:

    尹晓宁, 主要从事果园水肥及果树生理方面的研究工作。E-mail:1959822608@qq.com

    通讯作者:

    马明, 主要研究方向为苹果栽培生理与育种。E-mail:maming65118@163.com

  • 中图分类号: S661.1

Effects of different mulching materials on soil and near-surface environment and of apple orchard tree growth

Funds: 

the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in Public Interest of China 201303104

the National Key Research and Development Project of China 2016YFD0201135

the Gansu Science and Technology Project of Apple Industry GPCK2010-1

the China Apple Research System CARS-27

More Information
  • 摘要: 干旱是影响陇东雨养区苹果生产的主要限制因素之一,覆盖保墒是保证该区苹果稳产丰产的重要措施。为了探寻适宜于陇东地区苹果园的覆盖保墒措施,于19年生‘长富2号’苹果园,采用覆盖麦草(WM)、覆盖细河沙(SM)、覆盖黑色地膜(FM)的地表连续3年(2010年11月-2013年11月)覆盖处理,以清耕(CK)为对照,研究不同覆盖材料对果园环境及树体生长发育的影响。结果表明:4-6月干旱期,3年各覆盖处理0~100 cm土层的平均含水量均显著(P < 0.01)高于对照,且WM处理 > SM处理 > FM处理 > CK;覆盖第3年,从花芽膨大到果实采收,叶幕形成(幼果期)前0~500 cm土层WM处理和SM处理的耗水量显著(P < 0.01)低于CK,叶幕形成后则显著(P < 0.05)高于CK,但耗水总量略低于CK;FM处理在叶幕形成前后均显著(P < 0.01)高于CK。WM处理降低3-8月份5~25 cm各层土壤温度,而升高了9-11月份土温,但5~25 cm平均地温日变幅始终显著(P < 0.05)低于CK,同时近地表气温降低相对湿度升高;SM处理对地温的影响较小,但明显提高近地表气温而降低相对湿度;FM处理的地温及日变幅始终高于CK,近地表气温和相对湿度与CK接近。各种覆盖处理对苹果物候期均无明显影响。总体0~60 cm土层各种养分含量顺序为WM处理 > CK > FM处理 > SM处理,且WM处理随年份增幅较大;FM处理0~20 cm土层与SM处理0~60 cm各土层的有机质、全氮和碱解氮等养分随年份降低最明显,相应的全盐量(包括WM处理0~20 cm土层)均显著(P < 0.01)低于CK。各种覆盖处理增加了苹果树体枝条生长量,但对枝类组成影响都不大。各种覆盖处理增加了果实单果重及产量,均以WM处理显著(P < 0.05)高于CK。水分利用效率WM处理显著(P < 0.01)高于其他处理。综上所述,陇东雨养区苹果园覆盖麦草效果较佳,长期覆沙和覆膜土壤须补充有机肥及其他养分,单一覆膜还需完善。
  • 图  1  苹果花芽膨大期(a)、新梢停长期(b)和果实成熟期(c)不同覆盖材料处理0~500 cm土层含水量

    WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.

    Figure  1.  Soil moisture contents in 0-500 cm soil layer at flower bud expanding (a), shoot growth withhold (b) and maturity (c) stages of apple under different mulching materials

    图  2  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期5~25 cm各土壤深度日均温动态变化

    WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.

    Figure  2.  Dynamic changes of daily average temperatures of different layers of 5-25 cm soil of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season

    图  3  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期5~25 cm各深度地温日变幅动态

    WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.

    Figure  3.  Dynamic changes of temperature daily amplitudes of different layers of 5-25 cm soil of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season

    图  4  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园苹果生长期近地表气温及相对湿度动态

    WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.

    Figure  4.  Dynamic changes of near-surface temperature and relative humidity of apple orchard under different mulching materials during apple growth season

    图  5  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~100 cm土层苹果不同级别根系分布

    WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。同一土层不同小写字母和大写字母分别表示在0.05和0.01水平上差异显著。WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively. Bar with different lowercase letters and capital letters in the same soil depth indicate significant differences at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

    Figure  5.  Distribution of apple roots with different diameters in 0-100 cm soil layers of apple orchard under different mulching materials

    表  1  2011—2013年的试验区降雨量

    Table  1.   Rainfall in 2011-2013 in the study area

    mm
    年份
    Year
    1月
    January
    2月
    February
    3月
    March
    4月
    April
    5月
    May
    6月
    June
    7月
    July
    8月
    August
    9月
    September
    10月
    October
    11月
    November
    12月
    December
    全年
    Annual
    2011 0 0 6.3 3.5 35.0 15.0 51.5 24.0 216.0 11.0 23.0 0 385.3
    2012 0 0 0 55.3 59.5 47.1 86.1 145.6 109.1 11.6 0 0 514.3
    2013 0 0 0 32.9 76.1 52.3 324.2 61.3 58.1 0 0 0 604.9
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  不同覆盖材料处理的苹果各生育期果园土壤含水量

    Table  2.   Soil moisture contents at different growth stages of apple under different mulching materials

    %
    土层
    Soil layer (cm)
    年份
    Year
    处理
    Treatment
    花芽膨大期
    Flower bud expanding stage
    花期
    Flowering stage
    新梢停长期
    Shoot growth withhold stage
    幼果期
    Young fruit stage
    果实膨大期
    Fruit enlargement stage
    成熟期
    Maturity stage
    0~100 2011 WM 20.03±0.113cB 18.97±0.031abA 20.43±0.118aA 18.09±0.128aA 18.53±0.126aA 22.44±0.130aA
    SM 20.67±0.109bB 19.43±0.086aA 19.21±0.200aA 16.9±0.252aAB 17.72±0.348aA 21.95±0.166aAB
    FM 21.84±0.193aA 18.51±0.212bA 19.05±0.445aA 15.68±0.448bB 17.36±0.565aA 22.13±0.082aAB
    CK 19.14±0.084dC 15.40±0.299cB 15.15±0.328bB 12.88±0.053cC 14.18±0.332bB 20.95±0.256bB
    2012 WM 21.61±0.345aA 21.82±0.203aA 18.51±0.768aA 24.76±0.352aA 24.44±0.382aA
    SM 19.93±0.442abA 19.22±0.069bB 18.06±0.207aA 23.08±0.075aAB 21.66±0.295bAB
    FM 18.58±0.772bA 17.02±0.446cC 16.33±0.617abAB 23.25±0.381aAB 24.43±0.201aA
    CK 18.36±0.085bA 15.83±0.127dC 14.48±0.368bB 20.48±0.836bB 21.10±0.577bB
    2013 WM 18.42±0.689abA 19.63±0.510aA 21.85±0.251aA
    SM 17.39±0.815abA 16.60±0.274bB 20.23±0.212bB
    FM 19.38±0.556aA 20.63±0.170aA 21.44±0.039aAB
    CK 16.35±0.256bA 15.07±0.152cB 21.26±0.221aAB
    0~200 2012 WM 20.78±0.489aA 20.94±0.254aA 18.04±0.679aA 21.83±0.780aA 22.57±0.665aA
    SM 19.91±0.490abA 19.21±0.143bB 17.57±0.049aAB 20.24±0.433abAB 20.47±0.226bA
    FM 18.57±0.836bA 17.44±0.517cC 16.18±0.617bBC 20.75±1.082aAB 22.34±0.590aA
    CK 18.52±0.318bA 17.12±0.071cC 15.72±0.317bC 18.40±0.800bB 20.34±0.622bA
    2013 WM 18.95±0.343aA 18.55±0.233aA 21.85±0.251aA
    SM 17.41±0.942aA 16.60±0.467bBC 20.23±0.212bBC
    FM 19.73±0.441aA 19.46±0.518aAB 19.34±0.108bC
    CK 17.67±0.186aA 16.01±0.131bC 21.26±0.221aAB
    0~500 2013 WM 18.27±0.473abA 18.27±0.197aA 20.16±0.228aA
    SM 17.86±0.608abA 17.85±0.216aA 19.62±0.295abAB
    FM 19.07±0.169aA 17.30±0.461aAB 18.20±0.402cB
    CK 17.16±0.130bA 15.79±0.079bB 18.60±0.075bcAB
       表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~500 cm土壤储水量及耗水量

    Table  3.   Soil water storage and water consumption in 0-500 cm soil layer of apple orchard under different mulching materials

    mm
    处理
    Treatment
    土壤储水量Soil water storage 土壤耗水量Soil water consumption
    花芽膨大期
    Flower bud expanding stage
    新梢停长期
    Shoot growth withhold stage
    成熟期
    Maturity stage
    叶幕形成前
    Before leaf canopy formation
    叶幕形成后
    After leaf canopy formation
    果实采收前
    Before harvest
    WM 1 174.7±7.06bB 1 216.9±4.44aA 1 319.5±20.88aA 66.8±4.97dD 393.3±17.60aAB 460.1±13.88bB
    SM 1 193.7±12.00bAB 1 178.9±2.22bB 1 303.4±3.22aA 123.8±9.86cC 371.3±4.84aAB 495.1±13.49bB
    FM 1 244.3±12.67aA 1 088.4±11.22cC 1 157.1±20.59cB 264.8±6.82aA 427.2±25.84aA 692.1±31.11aA
    CK 1 113.5±11.13cC 1 024.9±6.55dD 1 206.7±6.49bB 197.7±17.19bB 314.2±13.01bB 511.8±6.93bB
       表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  不同覆盖材料处理苹果园0~60 cm土壤理化性状

    Table  4.   Soil physical and chemical properties in 0-60 cm layer of apple orchard under different mulching materials

    表  5  不同覆盖材料处理下苹果树体生长量、枝类组成及比叶重

    Table  5.   Growth amount, shoots composition and specific leaf weight of apple trees under different mulching materials

    年份
    Year
    处理
    Treatment
    新梢长
    Shoot length
    (cm)
    新梢粗
    Shoot thickness
    (mm)
    总枝量
    Total quantity of branches (·hm-2)
    不同枝类比例Different branches ratio (%) 比叶重
    Specific leaf weight (g·m-2)
    ≤15 cm > 15 cm
    2011 WM 29.6±2.0aA 5.1±0.19aA 1 791 207±162 946aA 68.8±1.51aA 31.2±1.51aA
    SM 27.6±1.39aA 4.8±0.21aA 1 694 637±200 638aA 76.2±2.15aA 23.8±2.15aA
    FM 28.4±0.69aA 4.6±0.13aA 1 436 562±177 272aA 74.2±3.33aA 25.8±3.33aA
    CK 28.8±1.90aA 5.0±0.19aA 1 590 741±319 264aA 70.0±2.96aA 30.0±2.96aA
    2012 WM 37.5±2.77abA 6.2±0.44aA 1 181 040±160 686aA 76.4±3.22aA 23.6±3.22aA
    SM 41.1±1.18aA 6.2±0.13aA 1 020 645±189 861aA 76.5±5.34aA 23.5±5.34aA
    FM 37.8±2.47abA 6.4±0.07aA 1 502 940±201 574aA 76.0±2.07aA 24.0±2.07aA
    CK 31.7±0.96bA 5.9±0.07aA 1 475 745±289 154aA 73.1±4.30aA 26.9±4.30aA
    2013 WM 29.0±0.68abA 5.4±0.13aA 1 438 560±108 058aA 70.9±2.25aA 29.1±2.25aA 121.54
    SM 36.4±0.92aA 5.3±0.14aA 1 428 570±40 885aA 71.9±1.65aA 28.1±1.65aA 117.51
    FM 28.1±4.71abA 5.0±0.11aA 1 283 715±148 931aA 73.4±6.70aA 26.6±6.70aA 122.96
    CK 26.2±2.12bA 5.3±0.34aA 1 398 600±69 930aA 77.1±3.22aA 22.9±3.22aA 112.66
       表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively; WM, SM, FM and CK in table represented wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  6  不同覆盖材料处理下苹果果实性状

    Table  6.   Fruit qualities of apple under different mulching materials

    年份
    Year
    处理
    Treatment
    单果重
    Single fruit weight
    (g)
    果型指数
    Fruit-type index
    去皮硬度
    Peeled fruit firmness
    (kg·cm-2)
    可溶性固形物含量
    Soluble solids contents (%)
    酸度
    Acidity (%)
    2011 WM 178.0±5.42abA 0.899±0.006aA 9.03±0.12aA 11.97±0.17bB 0.389±0.361aA
    SM 185.7±4.24aA 0.914±0.014aA 8.83±0.06aAB 11.62±0.22bB 0.364±0.437aA
    FM 182.6±3.56abA 0.895±0.010aA 8.54±0.07bB 11.83±0.13bB 0.383±0.384aA
    CK 170.2±4.43bA 0.887±0.004aA 8.93±0.09aA 13.15±0.14aA 0.385±0.831aA
    2012 WM 206.4±1.63aA 0.972±0.005aA 7.80±0.11aA 12.29±0.41aA 0.325±0.033bAB
    SM 190.4±1.63aAB 0.951±0.007aA 8.20±0.13aA 11.53±0.44aA 0.450±0.011aA
    FM 189.2±7.57aAB 0.930±0.020aA 7.83±0.20aA 12.50±0.41aA 0.341±0.044bAB
    CK 159.3±8.88bB 0.927±0.018aA 7.87±0.27aA 12.10±0.70aA 0.217±0.007cB
    2013 WM 179.2±9.71aA 0.874±0.011aA 8.10±0.18aA 11.54±0.49aA 0.316±0.037aA
    SM 162.0±5.30abA 0.889±0.010aA 7.98±0.17aA 11.96±0.34aA 0.289±0.031aA
    FM 172.2±1.65abA 0.887±0.012aA 8.18±0.13aA 12.11±0.13aA 0.263±0.040aA
    CK 150.6±6.67bA 0.872±0.012aA 7.90±0.16aA 12.86±0.42aA 0.244±0.009aA
       表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  7  不同覆盖材料处理下苹果产量及水分利用效率

    Table  7.   Yield and water use efficiency of apple under different mulching materials

    处理
    Treatment
    干物质含量
    Dry matter content (%)
    鲜产量
    Fresh yield
    (kg·hm-2)
    干产量
    Dry yield
    (kg·hm-2)
    鲜产量水分利用效率
    Water use efficiency of fresh yield (kg·mm-1·hm-2)
    干产量水分利用效率
    Water use efficiency of dry yield (kg·mm-1·hm-2)
    WM 12.27 53 705.8±2 910.33aA 6 589.7±357.10aA 116.8±0.846aA 14.3±0.72aA
    SM 13.25 48 549.7±1 589.41abA 6 432.8±210.60aA 98.4±5.86bAB 13.0±0.78aAB
    FM 13.96 51 608.3±495.67abA 7 204.5±69.20aA 74.9±3.28cB 10.4±0.46bB
    CK 14.15 45 124.8±1 998.31bA 6 385.2±282.76aA 88.3±4.63bcB 12.5±0.65abAB
       表中数据为平均值±标准误, 同列不同小、大写字母分别表示差异达显著(P < 0.05)和极显著(P < 0.01)水平; WM、SM、FM和CK分别代表覆盖麦草、覆盖细河沙、覆盖黑色地膜和不覆盖对照。The data was mean ± standard error in table. Different lowercase and capital letters in the same column mean significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 levels, respectively. WM, SM, FM and CK in table represent wheat straw mulching, sand mulching, black film mulching and no mulching, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 潘雅文, 樊军, 郝明德, 等.黄土塬区长期不同耕作、覆盖措施对表层土壤理化性状和玉米产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(6):1558-1567 doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15455

    PAN Y W, FAN J, HAO M D, et al. Effects of long-term tillage and mulching methods on properties of surface soil and maize yield in tableland region of the Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2016, 22(6):1558-1567 doi: 10.11674/zwyf.15455
    [2] 汪景宽, 刘顺国, 李双异.长期地膜覆盖及不同施肥处理对棕壤无机氮和氮素矿化率的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2006, 20(6):107-110 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4676698

    WANG J K, LIU S G, LI S Y. Effect of long-term plastic film mulching and fertilization on inorganic N distribution and organic N mineralization in brown earth[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20(6):107-110 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4676698
    [3] 王红丽, 张绪成, 宋尚有, 等.西北黄土高原旱地全膜双垄沟播种植对玉米季节性耗水和产量的调节机制[J].中国农业科学, 2013, 46(5):917-926 http://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a73607e3169a4517723a384.html

    WANG H L, ZHANG X C, SONG S Y, et al. Regulation of whole field surface plastic mulching and Double Ridge-Furrow planting on seasonal soil water loss and maize yield in rain-fed area of Northwest Loess Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(5):917-926 http://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a73607e3169a4517723a384.html
    [4] 侯连涛, 江晓东, 韩宾, 等.不同覆盖处理对冬小麦气体交换参数及水分利用效率的影响[J].农业工程学报, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm

    HOU L T, JIANG X D, HAN B, et al. Effects of different mulching treatments on the gas exchange parameters and water use efficiency of winter wheat[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm
    [5] 王敏, 王海霞, 韩清芳, 等.不同材料覆盖的土壤水温效应及对玉米生长的影响[J].作物学报, 2011, 37(7):1249-1258 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/069df3984693daef5ef73da7-3.html

    WANG M, WANG H X, HAN Q F, et al. Effects of different mulching materials on soil water, temperature, and corn growth[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011, 37(7):1249-1258 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/069df3984693daef5ef73da7-3.html
    [6] 高茂盛, 廖允成, 李侠, 等.不同覆盖方式对渭北旱作苹果园土壤贮水的影响[J].中国农业科学, 2010, 43(10):2080-2087 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.10.014

    GAO M S, LIAO Y C, LI X, et al. Effects of different mulching patterns on soil water-holding capacity of non-irrigated apple orchard in the Weibei Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010, 43(10):2080-2087 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.10.014
    [7] 刘建新.覆草对果园土壤肥力及苹果产量与品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2004, 22(1):102-105 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GATE201006034.htm

    LIU J X. The effects of grass covering on soil fertility in or-chard and output and quality of apple[J]. Agricultural Re-search in the Arid Areas, 2004, 22(1):102-105 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GATE201006034.htm
    [8] 赵鹏, 王硕, 叶素银, 等.梨园秸秆还田腐解特征及对土壤性状的影响研究[J].土壤, 2016, 48(2):270-277 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TURA201602010.htm

    ZHAO P, WANG S, YE S Y, et al. Effects of straw decom-position characteristics on soil properties of pear orchard[J]. Soils, 2016, 48(2):270-277 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TURA201602010.htm
    [9] 郭学军, 韩张雄, 马锋旺.不同覆盖方式对苹果园土壤状况及果树生长与果实的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 41(9):112-118 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90760A/201309/47499560.html

    GUO X J, HAN Z X, MA F W. Effect of different mulching treatments on changes of soil properties, growth of fruit tree, and yield and quality of fruit[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University:Natural Science Edition, 2013, 41(9):112-118 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90760A/201309/47499560.html
    [10] 张林森, 刘富庭, 张永旺, 等.不同覆盖方式对黄土高原地区苹果园土壤有机碳组分及微生物的影响[J].中国农业科学, 2013, 46(15):3180-3190 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.15.012

    ZHANG L S, LIU F T, ZHANG Y W, et al. Effects of different mulching on soil organic carbon fractions and soil microbial community of apple orchard in Loess Plateau[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(15):3180-3190 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.15.012
    [11] 王锐, 刘文兆, 李志.黄土塬区10 m深剖面土壤物理性质研究[J].土壤学报, 2008, 45(3):550-554 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=trxb200803022&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ

    WANG R, LIU W Z, LI Z. Physical properties of soils along a 10 m deep soil profile in Loess Tableland[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(3):550-554 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=trxb200803022&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ
    [12] 范晶, 赵惠勋, 李敏.比叶重及其与光合能力的关系[J].东北林业大学学报, 2003, 31(5):37-39 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5083250

    FAN J, ZHAO H X, LI M. The specific leaf weight and its relationship with photosynthetic capacity[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2003, 31(5):37-39 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5083250
    [13] 杨洪强, 束怀瑞.苹果根系研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2007:21-145

    YANG H Q, SHU H R. Studies on Apple Roots[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2007:21-145
    [14] 王进鑫, 张晓鹏, 高保山, 等.渭北旱塬红富士苹果需水量与限水灌溉效应研究[J].水土保持研究, 2000, 7(1):69-72 http://tongji.cnki.net/kns55/Publish/industry/Z011.html

    WANG J X, ZHANG X P, GAO B S, et al. Study on water requirement and limited irrigation effects of dwarfing red Fuji apple tree on Weibei of Loess Plateau[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000, 7(1):69-72 http://tongji.cnki.net/kns55/Publish/industry/Z011.html
    [15] 姜远茂, 张宏彦, 张福锁.北方落叶果树:养分资源综合管理理论与实践[M].北京:中国农业大学出版社, 2007:57-118

    JIANG Y M, ZHANG H Y, ZHANG F S. The Northern De-ciduous Fruit Trees of Nutrient Resource Integrated Man-agement Theory and Practice[M]. Beijing:China Agricultural University Press, 2007:57-118
    [16] 张金珠, 王振华, 虎胆·吐马尔白.秸秆覆盖对滴灌棉花土壤水盐运移及根系分布的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(12):1467-1476 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20131204&flag=1

    ZHANG J Z, WANG Z H, Hudan·TUMAREBI. Influence of straw mulching on soil water/salt movement and cotton root distribution under drip irrigation[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(12):1467-1476 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20131204&flag=1
    [17] 杨萍, 邱慧珍, 海龙, 等.表层土壤调控措施对苹果根系形态及活力的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报, 2014, 49(2):89-95 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94944X/201402/49689058.html

    YANG P, QIU H Z, HAI L, et al. Effects of surface soil management measures on apple root morphology and vitality[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2014, 49(2):89-95 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94944X/201402/49689058.html
    [18] 易明晖.气象学与农业气象学[M].北京:农业出版社, 1990:32-43

    YI M H. Meteorology and Agricultural Meteorology[M]. Beijing:Agriculture Press, 1990:32-43
    [19] 张义, 谢永生.不同覆盖措施下苹果园土壤水文差异[J].草业学报, 2011, 20(2):85-92 doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110210

    ZHANG Y, XIE Y S. Effects of different patterns of surface mulching on soil hydrology in an apple orchard[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2):85-92 doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110210
    [20] 关红杰, 冯浩.砂石覆盖厚度和粒径对土壤蒸发的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2009, 28(4):41-44 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/200904/31439732.html

    GUAN H J, FENG H. Effects of the thickness and grain size of gravel mulch on soil moisture evaporation[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2009, 28(4):41-44 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/200904/31439732.html
    [21] 张坤, 尹小宁, 刘小勇, 等.陇东旱地果园覆沙对苹果树蒸腾耗水及果实品质的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(11):2755-2762 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4378715

    ZHANG K, YIN X N, LIU X Y, et al. Effects of sand-covering on apple trees transpiration and fruit quality in dry land orchards of Longdong, Gansu[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(11):2755-2762 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4378715
    [22] 许强, 吴宏亮, 康建宏, 等.旱区砂田肥力演变特征研究[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(1):37-41 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ghdqnyyj200901008

    XU Q, WU H L, KANG J H, et al. Study on evolution char-acteristics of sandy-field in arid region[J]. Agricultural Re-search in the Arid Areas, 2009, 27(1):37-41 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ghdqnyyj200901008
    [23] 宋日权, 褚贵新, 张瑞喜, 等.覆砂对土壤入渗、蒸发和盐分迁移的影响[J].土壤学报, 2012, 49(2):282-288 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TRXB201202011.htm

    SONG R Q, CHU G X, ZHANG R X, et al. Effects of sand mulching on soil infiltration, evaporation, and salt distribu-tion[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012, 49(2):282-288 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-TRXB201202011.htm
    [24] MANDAL U K, RAO K W, MISHRA P K, et al. Soil infiltration, and run off and sediment yield from a shallow soil with varied stone cover and intensity of rain[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2005, 56:435-444 doi: 10.1111/ejs.2005.56.issue-4
    [25] 张义, 谢永生, 郝明德, 等.不同地表覆盖方式对苹果园土壤性状及果树生长和产量的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(2):279-286 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/yj/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_yystxb201002003

    ZHANG Y, XIE Y S, HAO M D, et al. Effects of different patterns surface mulching on soil properties and fruit trees growth and yield in an apple orchard[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(2):279-286 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/yj/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_yystxb201002003
    [26] 张坤, 王发林, 刘小勇, 等.旱地果园起垄覆膜集雨措施对树体水分利用的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2011, 30(3):68-71 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/201103/38416780.html

    ZHANG K, WANG F L, LIU X Y, et al. Effect of ridging the land and covering plastic film for rainfall collection on water use of apple trees in dry land orchard[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2011, 30(3):68-71 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93783A/201103/38416780.html
    [27] 杨文治, 邵明安.黄土高原土壤水分研究[M].北京:科学出版社, 2000:197-249 http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA54035636

    YANG W Z, SHAO M A. Study on Soil Moisture in the Loess Plateau[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2000:197-249 http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA54035636
    [28] 康绍忠, 张建华.不同土壤水分与温度条件下土根系统中水分传导的变化及其相对重要性[J].农业工程学报, 1997, 13(2):76-81 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYYJ201402016.htm

    KANG S Z, ZHANG J H. Hydraulic conductivities in soil-root system and relative importance at different soil water potential and temperature[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 1997, 13(2):76-81 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYYJ201402016.htm
    [29] 刘克长, 任中兴, 李申安, 等.不同覆盖措施下龙廷杏梅园地小气候效应研究[J].水土保持研究, 2008, 15(5):145-148 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98303X/200805/28495790.html

    LIU K C, REN Z X, LI S A, et al. Area climate effect on Long-ting P. simonii Carr. with the different mulching meas-urements[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 15(5):145-148 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98303X/200805/28495790.html
    [30] 刘小勇, 李红旭, 李建明, 等.不同覆盖方式对旱地果园水热特征的影响[J].生态学报, 2014, 34(3):746-754 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97435X/201011/36177349.html

    LIU X Y, LI H X, LI J M, et al. The effects of different mulching way on soil water thermal characteristics in pear orchard in the arid area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(3):746-754 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97435X/201011/36177349.html
    [31] 杜社妮, 白岗栓.玉米地膜覆盖的土壤环境效应[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2007, 25(5):56-59 http://www.irgrid.ac.cn/handle/1471x/140658

    DU S N, BAI G S. Studies on effects of plastic film mulching on soil environment of maize field[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2007, 25(5):56-59 http://www.irgrid.ac.cn/handle/1471x/140658
  • 加载中
图(5) / 表(7)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1076
  • HTML全文浏览量:  4
  • PDF下载量:  999
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2017-06-27
  • 录用日期:  2017-09-21
  • 刊出日期:  2018-01-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回