不同土壤改良物料对连作黄芩生长及土壤酶活性的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0981

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2024, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (7): 189-198.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0981

• 生物制造资源生态 • 上一篇

不同土壤改良物料对连作黄芩生长及土壤酶活性的影响

蒲子天¹(), 王红², 赵斌³, 王鑫鑫²()

^1.河北农业大学资源与环境科学学院, 河北保定 071001
^2.河北农业大学, 国家北方山区农业工程技术研究中心, 河北省山区农业技术创新中心, 河北省山区研究所, 河北保定 071001
^3.河北农业大学理学院, 河北保定 071001

收稿日期:2022-11-14 接受日期:2022-12-15 出版日期:2024-07-15 发布日期:2024-07-12
通讯作者: 王鑫鑫
作者简介:蒲子天 E-mail： 2922321598@qq.com；
基金资助:
河北省科技厅重点研发项目(20326417D)

Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Growth of Scutellaria baicalensis and Soil Enzyme Activities in Continuous Cropping

Zitian PU¹(), Hong WANG², Bin ZHAO³, Xinxin WANG²()

^1.College of Resources and Environment Science，Hebei Agricultural University，Hebei Baoding 071001，China
^2.Agricultural Engineering Technology Research Center of National North Mountainous Area，Agricultural Technology Innovation Center in Mountainous Areas of Hebei Province，Hebei Mountain Research Institute，Hebei Agricultural University，Hebei Baoding 071001，China
^3.College of Science，Hebei Agricultural University，Hebei Baoding 071001，China

Received:2022-11-14 Accepted:2022-12-15 Online:2024-07-15 Published:2024-07-12
Contact: Xinxin WANG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究不同土壤改良物料对连作土壤酶活性和黄芩生长的影响，采用室内盆栽试验，设置不添加改良物料（CK）和分别添加生物炭（T1）、腐殖酸（T2）、腐殖酸+生物炭（T3）、蚯蚓粪（T4）、蚯蚓粪+生物炭（T5）共6个处理，对未种植黄芩（Y₀）和连作黄芩3年（Y₃）2种土壤的黄芩农艺指标及土壤酶活性进行比较。结果表明，Y₀条件下，仅T5处理的黄芩地上部生物量显著大于CK，并且5种土壤改良处理的黄芩根部生物量与CK均无显著差异；Y₃条件下，除T2处理外其他处理的黄芩地上部、根部生物量较CK均显著提升。2种土壤条件下，T5处理对黄芩总氮含量的提升效果最好，T4处理对磷和钾含量的提升效果最好；T3处理下土壤蔗糖酶活性增幅最大，T1处理下碱性磷酸酶活性增幅最大。Y₀条件下，T4处理的脲酶活性较CK显著提升，各处理的过氧化氢酶活性均显著降低；Y₃条件下，仅T2处理的脲酶活性显著提升，T1处理的过氧化氢酶活性显著降低。Y₀条件下，黄芩氮磷钾含量主要与蔗糖酶、脲酶活性显著相关；而Y₃条件下的黄芩氮磷钾含量主要与脲酶、过氧化氢酶活性显著相关；同时，Y₃条件下T5处理与黄芩氮磷钾含量、土壤蔗糖酶活性相关性更强。综上所述，T1、T5处理均可提升Y₃条件下黄芩的生物量和氮磷钾含量，同时添加生物炭对连作土壤酶活性均有显著影响；T5处理对缓解黄芩多年连作障碍有显著效果。以上研究结果为缓解黄芩连作障碍、提升黄芩质量提供了理论依据。

关键词: 黄芩, 连作障碍, 生物炭, 腐殖酸, 蚯蚓粪

Abstract:

In order to investigate the impact of various soil amendment materials on soil enzyme activity and Scutellaria baicalensis growth in continuously cropped soil， an indoor pot experiment was conducted. The experiment set 6 treatments including a control without any amendments （CK）， and with biochar application （T1）， humic acid （T2）， humic acid and biochar （T3）， vermicompost （T4）， vermicompost and biochar （T5）. The agronomic indexes and soil enzyme activities of Scutellaria baicalensis were compared between soil of non-cultivated （Y₀） and continuous cropping Scutellaria baicalensis for 3 years （Y₃）. The results showed that at Y₀ condition， the shoot biomass of Scutellaria baicalensis was significantly higher than CK， and the root biomass of Scutellaria baicalensis in 5 treatments had no significant difference compared with CK. At Y₃ condition， except T2 treatment， the shoot and root biomass of Scutellaria baicalensis were significantly increased compared with CK. Under 2 soil treatments， T5 treatment had the best effect on total nitrogen content and T4 treatment on phosphorus content and potassium content； T3 treatment to soil sucrase activity and T1 treatment to alkaline phosphatase activity increased the most. At Y₀ condition， urease activity of T4 treatment was significantly increased compared with CK，catalase activity of all treatments decreased significantly； at Y₃ condition， only urease activity of T2 treatment was significantly increased and catalase activity of T1 treatment was significantly decreased. The nitrogen， phosphorus， potassium content of Y₀ was significantly correlated with activities of sucrase and urease， while the nitrogen， phosphorus， potassium content of Y₃ was significantly correlated with the activities of urease and catalase. At the same time， at Y₃ condition， T5 treatment was more closely related to nitrogen， phosphorus， potassium content in Scutellaria baicalensis and sucrase activity. In summary， T1 and T5 treatments could both increase Scutellaria baicalensis biomass and nitrogen， phosphorus， potassium content at Y₃， and the addition of biochar had significant effects on the enzyme activity of continuous cropping soil. T5 treatment had a significant effect on alleviating the barrier of continuous croppping of Scutellaria baicalensis. Above results provided a theoretical basis for alleviating the barrier of continuous cultivation and improving the quality of Scutellaria scutellaria.

Key words: Scutellaria baicalensis, continuous cropping obstacle, biochar, humic acid, vermicompost

中图分类号:

S567.23+9

蒲子天, 王红, 赵斌, 王鑫鑫. 不同土壤改良物料对连作黄芩生长及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(7): 189-198.

Zitian PU, Hong WANG, Bin ZHAO, Xinxin WANG. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Growth of Scutellaria baicalensis and Soil Enzyme Activities in Continuous Cropping[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(7): 189-198.

图/表 7

表1 蚯蚓粪、腐殖酸和生物炭的养分含量

Table 1 Nutrient contents of vermicompost， humic acid and biochar

土壤改良物料 Soil improvement material	营养成分 Nutritional ingredient
土壤改良物料 Soil improvement material	氮N/（g·kg^-1）	五氧化二磷 P₂O₅/（mg·kg^-1）	氧化钾 K₂O/（mg·kg^-1）	有机质 Organic matter/（g·kg^-1）	pH	水溶性盐 Water soluble salt/（g·kg^-1）	腐殖酸 Humic acid/%
蚯蚓粪 Vermicompost	6.35	445	881	105.83	7.89	1.03	0
腐殖酸 Humic acid	7.76	589	419	29.97	9.65	0.99	≥65
生物炭 Biochar	8.76	221	972	217.75	10.10	1.04	0

表2 黄芩生物量、养分含量与土壤酶活性对不同物料处理和土壤的双因素方差分析（F值）

Table 2 Two-factor ANOVA analysis of biomass， nutrient content and soil enzyme activity on treatment and soil of Scutellaria baicalensis （F value）

指标 Index	土壤 Soil （df=1）	物料处理 Treatment （df=5）	土壤×物料处理 Soil×treatment （df=5）
地上部生物量Shoot biomass	346.79^***	34.21^***	17.64^***
根生物量 Root biomass	298.14^***	22.53^***	14.92^***
全氮含量 Total N content	8.15^**	21.15^***	3.21^*
全磷含量 Total P content	16.57^***	56.35^***	8.07^***
全钾含量 Total K content	1.60 ns	41.52^***	2.92^*
蔗糖酶活性SA	1 514.95^***	199.64^***	132.21^***
脲酶活性UA	566.14^***	182.91^***	412.40^***
过氧化氢酶活性CA	282.30^***	776.65^***	755.11^***
碱性磷酸酶活性APA	415.81^***	856.26^***	200.67^***

图1 不同处理下不同连作年限土壤的黄芩生物量注：不同小写字母代表同一土壤条件不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 1 Shoot and root biomass of Scutellaria baicalensis in soils with different continuous cropping years under different treatmentsNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the same soil condition between different treatments at P<0.05 level.

图2 不同处理下不同连作年限土壤的黄芩养分含量注：不同小写字母代表同一土壤条件不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 2 Nutrient content of Scutellaria baicalensis in soils with different continuous cropping years underNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in same soil condition between different treatments at P<0.05 level.

图3 不同下不同连作年限土壤的土壤酶活性注：不同小写字母代表同一土壤条件不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 3 Soil enzyme activity in soils with different continuous cropping years underNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in same soil condition between different treatments at P<0.05 level.

表 3 不同连作年限土壤下黄芩养分含量与土壤酶活性的相关性

Table 3 Correlation between nutrient contents of Scutellaria baicalensis and soil enzyme activities in soils with different continuous cropping years

指标 Index	氮含量 NC	磷含量 PC	钾含量 KC	蔗糖酶活性 SA	脲酶活性 UA	过氧化氢酶性CA	碱性磷酸酶活性 APA
氮含量NC	—	0.72^***	0.73^***	0.01	0.06	0.45^**	0.01
磷含量PC	0.56^***	—	0.63^***	0.16	-0.27^***	-0.37	0.25^*
钾含量KC	0.47^**	0.36^*	—	0.08	0.13	0.75^***	0.08
蔗糖酶活性 SA	-0.32^*	-0.11	0.36^*	—	0.02	0.41^*	0.03
脲酶活性 UA	-0.23	-0.42^*	0.36^*	0.16	—	0.31^*	-0.19
过氧化氢酶活性 CA	-0.06	-0.47^**	0.23	-0.22	-0.26	—	-0.10
碱性磷酸酶活性 APA	0.34^*	0.07	-0.24	0.37^*	-0.10	-0.33^*	—

图4 不同连作年限土壤下黄芩生理指标与土壤酶活性的主成分分析注：ShB—地上部生物量；RB—根生物量；NC—全氮含量；PC—全磷含量；KC—全钾含量；SA—蔗糖酶活性；UA—脲酶活性；CA—过氧化氢酶活性；APA—碱性磷酸酶活性。

Fig. 4 Principal component analysis of traits of Scutellaria baicalensis and soil enzyme activities in soil with different continuous cropping yearsNote： ShB—Shoot biomass；RB—Root biomass；NC—Total N content；PC—Total P content；KC—Total K content；SA—Sucrase activity；UA—Urease activity；CA—Catalase activity；APA—Alkaline phosphatase activity.

参考文献 31

1	严铸云, 王海, 何彪, 等. 中药连作障碍防治的微生态研究模式探讨[J]. 中药与临床, 2012, 3(2): 5-9.
	YAN Z Y, WANG H, HE B, et al.. Study on controlling measurement for continuous cropping obstacle in traditional Chinese medicinal plants by microecological research model [J]. Pharmacy Clinics Chin. Materia Medica, 2012, 3(2): 5-9.
2	王田涛, 王琦, 王惠珍, 等. 当归自毒作用和其对不同作物的化感效应[J]. 草地学报, 2012, 20(6): 1132-1138.
	WANG T T, WANG Q, WANG H Z, et al.. Autotoxicity of Angelica sinensis and allelopathy on tested plants [J]. Acta Agrectia Sin., 2012, 20(6): 1132-1138.
3	王田涛. 间套种植对当归连作障碍的修复机理[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2013.
	WANG T T. Remediation mechanisms of intercropping patterns on continuous cropping obstacle of Angelica sinensis [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2013.
4	刘垠霖. 连作年限对党参生长、土壤理化性状及酶活性的影响研究[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2021.
	LIU Y L. Effects of continuous cropping years on the growth of Codonopsis pilosula, soilphysical and chemical properties and enzyme activities [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2021.
5	安艳. 半夏连作障碍影响因子研究[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2018.
	AN Y. Study on the influence factors of continuous cropping obstruction of Pinellia ternata (Thunb.) Breit. [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2018.
6	何欢, 阎岩, 毛仁俊, 等. 黄芩种质资源评价及药理功效研究进展[J/OL]. 分子植物育种, 2022 [2022-10-13]. .
	HE H, YAN Y, MAO R J, et al.. Research advance of germplasm resource evaluation and pharmacological function of Scutellaria baicalensis [J/OL]. Mol. Plant Breeding, 2022 [2022-10-13]. .
7	杨全, 白音, 陈千良, 等. 黄芩资源现状及可持续利用的研究[J]. 时珍国医国药, 2006,17 (7): 1159-1160.
	YANG Q, BAI Y, CHEN Q L, et al.. The resource investigation and continual utilization of Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi [J]. Lishizhen Med. Materia Med. Res., 2006, 17(7): 1159-1160.
8	王小花, 闫昌誉, 余桂媛, 等. 黄芩抗病毒作用的研究进展及临床应用[J]. 今日药学, 2021, 31(11): 874-880.
	WANG X H, YAN C Y, YU G Y, et al.. Research progress and clinical application of Scutellaria baicalensis against viral infection [J]. Pharmacy Today, 2021, 31(11): 874-880.
9	金毅力. 药用植物黄芩(Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi)他感作用的初步研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2010.
	JIN Y L. Preliminary studies on the allelopathy of medicinal plant Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi [D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2010.
10	张菁,江山,王改玲.安太堡露天矿不同复垦年限苜蓿地土壤养分和酶活性剖面特征[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2018, 37(1): 42-48.
	ZHANG Q, JIANG S, WANG G L. Soil profile characteristics of soil nutrients and enzyme activity after reclaiming alfafa in Antaibao opencast coal mine [J]. J. Irrig. Drain., 2018, 37(1): 42-48.
11	UZOMA K C, INOUE M, ANDRY H, et al.. Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition [J]. Soil Use Manage., 2011, 27(2): 205-212.
12	MUSCOLO A, SIDARI M, ATTINA E, et al.. Biological activity of humic substances is related to their chemical structure [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 2007, 71(1): 75-85.
13	JONGMANS A G, PULLEMAN M M, BALABANE M, et al.. Soil structure and characteristics of organic matter in two orchards differing in earthworm activity [J]. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2003, 24(3): 219-232.
14	LIM S L, WU T, LIM P, et al.. The use of vermicompost in organic farming: overview, effects on soil and economics [J]. J. Sci. Food Agric., 2015, 95(6): 1143-1156.
15	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 第3版. 北京:中国农业出版社, 2000: 1-495.
16	马丽, 郭学良, 齐红志, 等. 生物炭对连作草莓光合特性及光响应的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2020, 35(2): 72-78.
	MA L, GUO X L, QI H Z, et al.. Effects of biochar andditio on photosynthetic characteristics and photoresponse of continuous-cropping strawberry [J]. J. Northwest For. Univ., 2020, 35(2): 72-78.
17	田给林, 张潞生. 蚯蚓粪缓解草莓连作土壤障碍的作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(3): 759-767.
	TIAN G L, ZHANG L S. Alleviation of vermicompost to obstacle in sterilized continuous cropping soil in strawberry productio [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2016, 22(3): 759-767.
18	柏彦超, 周雄飞, 赵学辉, 等. 蚓粪基质克服西瓜连作障碍的应用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(8): 212-216.
	BAI Y C, ZHOU X F, ZHAO X H, et al.. Solving successive cropping problems with the application of warm cast substrates in watermelon cultivation [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2011, 27(8): 212-216.
19	胡佩, 刘德辉, 胡锋, 等. 蚓粪中的植物激素及其对绿豆插条不定根发生的促进作用[J]. 生态学报, 2002,22 (8): 1211-1214.
	HU P, LIU D H, HU F, et al.. Plant hormones in earthworm casts and their promotion on adventitious root formation of mung bean cutting [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2002, 22(8): 1211-1214.
20	丁守鹏, 张国新, 姚玉涛, 等. 蚯蚓粪生物炭配施对盐碱地设施番茄生长及光合作用的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(18): 60-67.
	DING S P, ZHANG G X, YAO Y T, et al.. Effects of combined application of earthworm manure and biochar on protected tomato growth and photosynthesis in saline-alkali soils [J]. Northern Hortic., 2021 (18): 60-67.
21	董林林, 何建桥, 陆长婴, 等. 生物质炭配施蚯蚓粪提升土壤有机碳对水稻生长的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021 (2): 87-95.
	DONG L L, HE J Q, LU C Y, et al.. Effect of increased soil organic carbon on rice growth by biochar and wormcast combined application [J]. Soils Fert. Sci. China, 2021 (2): 87-95.
22	孙喜军, 吕爽, 高莹, 等. 蚯蚓粪对作物连作障碍抑制作用研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(4): 676-684.
	SUN X J, LYU S, GAO Y, et al.. Research progresses on inhibition effect of vermicompost to continuous cropping obstacles [J]. Soils, 2020, 52(4): 676-684.
23	才吉卓玛, 翟丽梅, 习斌, 等. 生物炭对不同类型土壤中Olsen-P和CaCl₂-P的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2014, 45(1): 163-168.
	Caijizhuoma, ZHAI L M, XI B, et al.. Effect of boichar on Olsen-P and CaCl₂-P in different types of soil [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2014, 45(1): 163-168.
24	倪杰强. 不同生物碳对滴灌棉田土壤磷素及磷肥利用率影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2015.
	NI J Q. Effects of biochar on soil P content and P use efficiency in drip irrigation cotton field [D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2015.
25	刘畅, 贺浩强, 王茜, 等. 腐植酸和生物炭配施对饲用甜高粱生长与土壤磷素吸收状况的影响[J]. 天津农业科学, 2019, 25(7): 69-72, 78.
	LIU C, HE H Q, WANG Q, et al.. Effects of combined application of humic acid and biochar on feed-sweet sorghum growth and soil phosphorus uptake [J]. Tianjin Agric. Sci., 2019, 25(7): 69-72, 78.
26	XING B S, LIU J D, LIU X D, et al.. Extraction and characterization of humic acids and humin fractions from a black soil of China [J]. Pedosphere, 2005, 15(1): 1-8.
27	MARCELO M J, KEVIN K J.Disaggregation kinetics of a peat humic acid:mechanism and pH effects [J]. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2002, 36: 5100-5105.
28	CIESLEWICZ J, GONET S S.Properties of humic acids as biomarkets of lake catchment management [J]. Aquatic Sci., 2004, 66: 178-184.
29	KAY C M, PORTER J F.Equilibrium parameters for the sorption of copper, cadmium and zinc irons onto peat [J]. J. Chem. Teachnol. Biotechnol., 1997, 69: 309-320.
30	CHAOUI H I, ZIBILSKE L M, OHNO T. Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial activity andplant nutrient availability [J]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2003, 35(2): 295-302.
31	和文祥, 朱铭莪, 张一平. 土壤酶与重金属关系的研究现状[J]. 土壤与环境, 2000, 9(2): 139-142.
	HE W X, ZHU M E, ZHANG Y P. Recent advance in relationship between soil enzymes and heavy metals [J]. Soil Environ. Sci., 2000,9 (2): 139-142.

[1]	周喜新, 袁世林, 杨柳, 夏滔, 张毅, 范伟. 连作烟草根系分泌物鉴定及潜在化感物质的筛选研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(7): 136-146.
[2]	谢勇俊, 潘小卓, 陈福慧, 尹凯波, 金嘉悦, 王一兵. 人参酚酸类自毒物质降解菌的筛选鉴定及生防研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(7): 147-155.
[3]	付彦博, 冷冰冰, 扁青永, 董志多, 刘国宏, 李海峰, 温云梦, 郭文博, 张万旭. 生物炭和油菜幼苗对土壤重金属镉污染的钝化效应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6): 183-190.
[4]	赵娅红, 胡骞予, 夏融, 王志江, 谢永辉, 叶贤文, 余磊, 齐颖, 羊绍武, 薛至勤, 吴治兴, 黄飞燕, 韩天华. 生物炭肥对易感根结线虫病烤烟根际菌群和理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(4): 206-214.
[5]	高静, 徐明岗, 李然, 蔡泽江, 孙楠, 张强, 郑磊. 整合分析生物炭施用对土壤pH的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(9): 186-196.
[6]	刘宏元, 周志花, 赵光昕, 沈钦瑞. 黄淮海平原农田土壤温室气体排放对长期施加生物炭的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 178-186.
[7]	王旭东, 任雪冰, 汤舒, 郭琴, 薛梦瑶, 金鹏, 张云华. 污泥生物炭在土壤改良中的应用研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 165-173.
[8]	庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.
[9]	李小玲, 周武先, 蒋小刚, 李大荣, 黄大野, 张美德. 微生物菌肥对川党参连作障碍及紫纹羽病的防控效果[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 119-131.
[10]	刘云飞, 韦凤杰, 夏茂林, 于兆锦, 夏昊, 衣春宇, 常剑波, 姬小明. 新型复合水凝胶对镉胁迫烟草幼苗的缓解效应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 188-197.
[11]	杨玲, 张富仓, 孙鑫, 张少辉, 王海东, ABDELGHANY Ahmed Elsayed, 陈占飞, 方玉川. 生物炭和滴灌量对陕北榆林沙土性质和马铃薯生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 221-233.
[12]	郑云珠, 孙树臣. 秸秆生物炭和秸秆对麦玉轮作系统土壤养分及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 152-162.
[13]	杨莉, 于俐, 孙卓, 张桐毓, 张阳, 杨利民. 人参根系分泌物中有机酸及皂苷对人参病原菌与生防菌的化感差异研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(6): 145-155.
[14]	易媛, 张会云, 刘立伟, 王静, 朱雪成, 赵娜, 冯国华. 活性腐殖酸缓释肥替代尿素对徐麦新品种产量和群体质量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(4): 144-153.
[15]	刘著文, 杨龙飞, 刘茂林, 贾国涛, 姚倩, 马一琼, 崔廷, 杨欣玲, 陈洋, 程良琨. 不同土壤改良剂对土壤养分及烤烟内在品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(11): 190-198.

不同土壤改良物料对连作黄芩生长及土壤酶活性的影响

Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Growth of Scutellaria baicalensis and Soil Enzyme Activities in Continuous Cropping

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 31

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics