Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (7): 190-203.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0804
• BIO-MANUFACTURING & RESOURCE AND ECOLOGY • Previous Articles
Qi ZHOU(), Qiang LIU(
), Jing ZHANG, Chaochao DENG, Zhenlong WANG, Yang LIU, Fang WU, Hao CHANG, Yanfang ZHOU, Cuicui SU, Zhiguo SHI, Zhengrui GAO, Fengjie MA
Received:
2024-09-27
Accepted:
2025-02-26
Online:
2025-07-15
Published:
2025-07-11
Contact:
Qiang LIU
周琦(), 刘强(
), 张靖, 邓超超, 王振龙, 柳洋, 吴芳, 常浩, 周彦芳, 宿翠翠, 施志国, 高正睿, 马凤捷
通讯作者:
刘强
作者简介:
周琦 E-mail:1610821576@qq.com;
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Qi ZHOU, Qiang LIU, Jing ZHANG, Chaochao DENG, Zhenlong WANG, Yang LIU, Fang WU, Hao CHANG, Yanfang ZHOU, Cuicui SU, Zhiguo SHI, Zhengrui GAO, Fengjie MA. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Replacing Chemical Fertilizer on Yield and Soil Biological Characteristics of Pumpkin[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(7): 190-203.
周琦, 刘强, 张靖, 邓超超, 王振龙, 柳洋, 吴芳, 常浩, 周彦芳, 宿翠翠, 施志国, 高正睿, 马凤捷. 有机肥替代化肥对土壤生物学特性及南瓜产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(7): 190-203.
处理 Treatment | 有机肥 Organic fertilizer | 尿素 Urea | 过磷酸钙 Calcium superphosphate | 硫酸钾镁 Sulphate-potassium magnesium |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 6.0 |
T2 | 12.6 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.7 |
T3 | 24.7 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 3.4 |
T4 | 37.1 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 2.1 |
T5 | 49.5 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
T6 | 61.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
Table 1 Fertilization amount of different treatments
处理 Treatment | 有机肥 Organic fertilizer | 尿素 Urea | 过磷酸钙 Calcium superphosphate | 硫酸钾镁 Sulphate-potassium magnesium |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 6.0 |
T2 | 12.6 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.7 |
T3 | 24.7 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 3.4 |
T4 | 37.1 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 2.1 |
T5 | 49.5 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
T6 | 61.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 453.74±2.57 b | 136.71±2.90 b | 295.23±0.17 b |
T2 | 383.33±2.94 d | 112.61±3.10 c | 247.97±3.02 d | |
T3 | 421.72±2.88 c | 137.47±2.90 b | 279.60±2.89 c | |
T4 | 475.00±2.89 a | 257.49±2.91 a | 366.25±2.90 a | |
T5 | 474.53±1.12 a | 255.67±1.57 a | 365.10±0.25 a | |
T6 | 265.19±2.90 e | 141.78±3.05 b | 203.48±0.49 e | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 530.14±2.95 d | 241.18±1.73 c | 385.66±0.62 d |
T2 | 570.30±1.07 c | 350.42±2.19 b | 460.36±1.63 c | |
T3 | 656.03±2.88 b | 391.39±0.61 a | 523.71±1.74 b | |
T4 | 920.23±5.77 a | 396.80±6.05 a | 658.52±4.67 a | |
T5 | 922.92±1.49 a | 394.06±6.45 a | 658.49±3.61 a | |
T6 | 520.28±8.63 d | 134.54±1.12 d | 327.41±4.88 e | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 524.16±3.15 d | 249.26±1.31 c | 386.72±2.22 d |
T2 | 560.26±4.91 c | 344.07±2.83 b | 452.17±3.87 c | |
T3 | 638.19±3.07 b | 357.16±11.92 b | 497.68±7.21 b | |
T4 | 918.07±1.24 a | 383.15±1.51 a | 650.61±1.06 a | |
T5 | 914.65±3.26 a | 382.98±1.55 a | 648.82±2.39 a | |
T6 | 501.64±1.30 e | 235.14±3.54 c | 368.39±1.24 e | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 458.43±5.39 c | 154.12±1.56 b | 306.28±1.98 c |
T2 | 493.99±5.17 b | 145.52±3.72 b | 319.76±3.53 b | |
T3 | 511.93±6.96 ab | 146.03±3.44 b | 328.98±2.77 b | |
T4 | 538.34±8.33 a | 188.49±4.01 a | 363.41±5.10 a | |
T5 | 530.15±2.69 a | 188.27±4.62 a | 359.21±2.09 a | |
T6 | 467.96±6.23 c | 148.71±5.13 b | 308.34±5.13 c |
Table 2 Soil urease activity under different treatments throughout entire growth stage of pumpkin
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 453.74±2.57 b | 136.71±2.90 b | 295.23±0.17 b |
T2 | 383.33±2.94 d | 112.61±3.10 c | 247.97±3.02 d | |
T3 | 421.72±2.88 c | 137.47±2.90 b | 279.60±2.89 c | |
T4 | 475.00±2.89 a | 257.49±2.91 a | 366.25±2.90 a | |
T5 | 474.53±1.12 a | 255.67±1.57 a | 365.10±0.25 a | |
T6 | 265.19±2.90 e | 141.78±3.05 b | 203.48±0.49 e | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 530.14±2.95 d | 241.18±1.73 c | 385.66±0.62 d |
T2 | 570.30±1.07 c | 350.42±2.19 b | 460.36±1.63 c | |
T3 | 656.03±2.88 b | 391.39±0.61 a | 523.71±1.74 b | |
T4 | 920.23±5.77 a | 396.80±6.05 a | 658.52±4.67 a | |
T5 | 922.92±1.49 a | 394.06±6.45 a | 658.49±3.61 a | |
T6 | 520.28±8.63 d | 134.54±1.12 d | 327.41±4.88 e | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 524.16±3.15 d | 249.26±1.31 c | 386.72±2.22 d |
T2 | 560.26±4.91 c | 344.07±2.83 b | 452.17±3.87 c | |
T3 | 638.19±3.07 b | 357.16±11.92 b | 497.68±7.21 b | |
T4 | 918.07±1.24 a | 383.15±1.51 a | 650.61±1.06 a | |
T5 | 914.65±3.26 a | 382.98±1.55 a | 648.82±2.39 a | |
T6 | 501.64±1.30 e | 235.14±3.54 c | 368.39±1.24 e | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 458.43±5.39 c | 154.12±1.56 b | 306.28±1.98 c |
T2 | 493.99±5.17 b | 145.52±3.72 b | 319.76±3.53 b | |
T3 | 511.93±6.96 ab | 146.03±3.44 b | 328.98±2.77 b | |
T4 | 538.34±8.33 a | 188.49±4.01 a | 363.41±5.10 a | |
T5 | 530.15±2.69 a | 188.27±4.62 a | 359.21±2.09 a | |
T6 | 467.96±6.23 c | 148.71±5.13 b | 308.34±5.13 c |
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 5.64±0.18 ab | 2.31±0.09 b | 3.98±0.13 b |
T2 | 5.59±0.12 ab | 2.79±0.12 a | 4.19±0.01 ab | |
T3 | 5.20±0.08 b | 2.06±0.06 bc | 3.63±0.04 c | |
T4 | 5.94±0.18 a | 2.70±0.12 a | 4.32±0.15 a | |
T5 | 5.98±0.16 a | 2.63±0.06 a | 4.31±0.10 a | |
T6 | 5.52±0.17 ab | 1.84±0.06 c | 3.68±0.06 c | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 8.15±0.05 bc | 4.26±0.05 b | 6.21±0.02 c |
T2 | 8.02±0.02 c | 3.32±0.06 c | 5.67±0.03 c | |
T3 | 8.15±0.06 bc | 4.28±0.07 b | 6.18±0.04 b | |
T4 | 8.34±0.03 ab | 5.26±0.04 a | 6.70±0.02 a | |
T5 | 8.38±0.11 a | 5.22±0.03 a | 6.81±0.06 a | |
T6 | 6.82±0.10 d | 2.90±0.02 d | 4.86±0.06 d | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 8.05±0.02 ab | 3.29±0.05 c | 5.67±0.03 c |
T2 | 7.99±0.07 b | 3.25±0.11 c | 5.62±0.09 c | |
T3 | 8.07±0.04 ab | 4.09±0.04 b | 6.12±0.04 b | |
T4 | 8.13±0.07 ab | 4.55±0.02 a | 6.45±0.03 ab | |
T5 | 8.18±0.06 a | 4.64±0.01 a | 6.41±0.04 a | |
T6 | 6.44±0.06 c | 2.60±0.13 d | 4.52±0.05 d | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 4.72±0.18 c | 2.86±0.09 b | 3.79±0.05 b |
T2 | 6.12±0.46 ab | 2.34±0.12 c | 4.23±0.29 b | |
T3 | 5.56±0.29 b | 2.64±0.06 b | 4.10±0.12 b | |
T4 | 6.48±0.18 a | 3.29±0.12 a | 4.89±0.15 a | |
T5 | 6.53±0.16 a | 3.14±0.06 a | 4.84±0.10 a | |
T6 | 4.07±0.17 c | 1.35±0.06 d | 2.71±0.06 c |
Table 3 Soil alkaline phosphatase activity under different treatments throughout entire growth stage of pumpkin (μmol·d-1·g-1)
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 5.64±0.18 ab | 2.31±0.09 b | 3.98±0.13 b |
T2 | 5.59±0.12 ab | 2.79±0.12 a | 4.19±0.01 ab | |
T3 | 5.20±0.08 b | 2.06±0.06 bc | 3.63±0.04 c | |
T4 | 5.94±0.18 a | 2.70±0.12 a | 4.32±0.15 a | |
T5 | 5.98±0.16 a | 2.63±0.06 a | 4.31±0.10 a | |
T6 | 5.52±0.17 ab | 1.84±0.06 c | 3.68±0.06 c | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 8.15±0.05 bc | 4.26±0.05 b | 6.21±0.02 c |
T2 | 8.02±0.02 c | 3.32±0.06 c | 5.67±0.03 c | |
T3 | 8.15±0.06 bc | 4.28±0.07 b | 6.18±0.04 b | |
T4 | 8.34±0.03 ab | 5.26±0.04 a | 6.70±0.02 a | |
T5 | 8.38±0.11 a | 5.22±0.03 a | 6.81±0.06 a | |
T6 | 6.82±0.10 d | 2.90±0.02 d | 4.86±0.06 d | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 8.05±0.02 ab | 3.29±0.05 c | 5.67±0.03 c |
T2 | 7.99±0.07 b | 3.25±0.11 c | 5.62±0.09 c | |
T3 | 8.07±0.04 ab | 4.09±0.04 b | 6.12±0.04 b | |
T4 | 8.13±0.07 ab | 4.55±0.02 a | 6.45±0.03 ab | |
T5 | 8.18±0.06 a | 4.64±0.01 a | 6.41±0.04 a | |
T6 | 6.44±0.06 c | 2.60±0.13 d | 4.52±0.05 d | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 4.72±0.18 c | 2.86±0.09 b | 3.79±0.05 b |
T2 | 6.12±0.46 ab | 2.34±0.12 c | 4.23±0.29 b | |
T3 | 5.56±0.29 b | 2.64±0.06 b | 4.10±0.12 b | |
T4 | 6.48±0.18 a | 3.29±0.12 a | 4.89±0.15 a | |
T5 | 6.53±0.16 a | 3.14±0.06 a | 4.84±0.10 a | |
T6 | 4.07±0.17 c | 1.35±0.06 d | 2.71±0.06 c |
生育时期 Growth stags | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 40.83±0.41 e | 6.59±0.17 b | 23.71±0.18 e |
T2 | 64.57±1.17 c | 6.85±0.12 ab | 35.71±0.59 c | |
T3 | 71.84±0.59 b | 6.43±0.27 b | 39.14±0.21 b | |
T4 | 77.54±0.69 a | 7.16±0.06 a | 42.35±0.37 a | |
T5 | 50.63±0.19 d | 6.89±0.07 ab | 28.77±0.11 d | |
T6 | 49.36±0.10 d | 6.44±0.11 b | 27.90±0.02 d | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 56.76±0.27 e | 14.31±0.26 c | 35.53±0.13 e |
T2 | 77.15±1.66 d | 14.48±0.34 c | 45.82±0.99 d | |
T3 | 79.75±0.11 c | 19.53±0.56 b | 49.64±0.34 c | |
T4 | 89.06±0.35 a | 21.84±0.60 a | 55.45±0.18 a | |
T5 | 83.54±0.29 b | 18.64±0.29 b | 51.09±0.28 b | |
T6 | 75.96±0.11 d | 15.44±0.23 c | 45.70±0.07 d | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 52.77±0.22 e | 11.57±0.17 d | 32.17±0.13 e |
T2 | 71.90±0.89 d | 12.18±0.31 cd | 42.05±0.55 d | |
T3 | 75.77±0.28 c | 17.52±0.31 b | 46.65±0.18 c | |
T4 | 85.37±0.57 b | 19.47±0.60 a | 52.42±0.28 a | |
T5 | 79.19±0.29 a | 19.94±0.17 a | 49.57±0.18 b | |
T6 | 71.94±0.25 d | 13.07±0.23 c | 42.51±0.19 d | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 46.67±0.13 f | 6.65±0.22 cd | 26.66±0.18 f |
T2 | 66.81±0.25 d | 6.65±0.19 cd | 36.73±0.03 d | |
T3 | 72.46±0.14 b | 7.10±0.08 c | 39.78±0.11 c | |
T4 | 75.62±0.16 a | 8.16±0.06 b | 41.89±0.11 a | |
T5 | 71.91±0.20 c | 8.89±0.07 a | 40.40±0.13 b | |
T6 | 58.82±0.12 e | 6.33±0.15 d | 32.57±0.12 e |
Table 4 Soil sucrase activity under different treatments throughout entire growth stage of pumpkin
生育时期 Growth stags | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 40.83±0.41 e | 6.59±0.17 b | 23.71±0.18 e |
T2 | 64.57±1.17 c | 6.85±0.12 ab | 35.71±0.59 c | |
T3 | 71.84±0.59 b | 6.43±0.27 b | 39.14±0.21 b | |
T4 | 77.54±0.69 a | 7.16±0.06 a | 42.35±0.37 a | |
T5 | 50.63±0.19 d | 6.89±0.07 ab | 28.77±0.11 d | |
T6 | 49.36±0.10 d | 6.44±0.11 b | 27.90±0.02 d | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 56.76±0.27 e | 14.31±0.26 c | 35.53±0.13 e |
T2 | 77.15±1.66 d | 14.48±0.34 c | 45.82±0.99 d | |
T3 | 79.75±0.11 c | 19.53±0.56 b | 49.64±0.34 c | |
T4 | 89.06±0.35 a | 21.84±0.60 a | 55.45±0.18 a | |
T5 | 83.54±0.29 b | 18.64±0.29 b | 51.09±0.28 b | |
T6 | 75.96±0.11 d | 15.44±0.23 c | 45.70±0.07 d | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 52.77±0.22 e | 11.57±0.17 d | 32.17±0.13 e |
T2 | 71.90±0.89 d | 12.18±0.31 cd | 42.05±0.55 d | |
T3 | 75.77±0.28 c | 17.52±0.31 b | 46.65±0.18 c | |
T4 | 85.37±0.57 b | 19.47±0.60 a | 52.42±0.28 a | |
T5 | 79.19±0.29 a | 19.94±0.17 a | 49.57±0.18 b | |
T6 | 71.94±0.25 d | 13.07±0.23 c | 42.51±0.19 d | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 46.67±0.13 f | 6.65±0.22 cd | 26.66±0.18 f |
T2 | 66.81±0.25 d | 6.65±0.19 cd | 36.73±0.03 d | |
T3 | 72.46±0.14 b | 7.10±0.08 c | 39.78±0.11 c | |
T4 | 75.62±0.16 a | 8.16±0.06 b | 41.89±0.11 a | |
T5 | 71.91±0.20 c | 8.89±0.07 a | 40.40±0.13 b | |
T6 | 58.82±0.12 e | 6.33±0.15 d | 32.57±0.12 e |
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 23.58±0.30 b | 15.98±0.52 d | 19.78±0.41 b |
T2 | 24.62±0.59 b | 16.70±0.19 bcd | 20.66±0.38 b | |
T3 | 28.26±0.10 a | 17.23±0.19 abc | 22.75±0.09 a | |
T4 | 28.42±0.08 a | 17.50±0.28 ab | 22.96±0.18 a | |
T5 | 28.31±0.09 a | 18.32±0.17 a | 23.32±0.04 a | |
T6 | 24.27±0.61 b | 16.17±0.58 cd | 20.22±0.59 b | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 30.78±0.19 d | 17.66±0.06 d | 24.22±0.10 c |
T2 | 31.49±0.33 c | 18.74±0.16 b | 25.12±0.24 b | |
T3 | 32.47±0.24 b | 18.43±0.21 bc | 25.45±0.23 b | |
T4 | 33.98±0.26 a | 19.66±0.12 a | 26.82±0.19 a | |
T5 | 34.40±0.20 a | 19.91±0.10 a | 27.16±0.15 a | |
T6 | 30.20±0.08 d | 18.16±0.07 c | 24.18±0.07 c | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 29.66±0.19 c | 16.77±0.39 c | 23.21±0.19 c |
T2 | 30.00±0.22 c | 17.55±0.20 c | 23.78±0.19 b | |
T3 | 30.85±0.14 b | 17.66±0.16 b | 24.26±0.05 b | |
T4 | 32.97±0.18 a | 18.86±0.24 a | 25.91±0.20 a | |
T5 | 33.39±0.14 a | 19.01±0.24 a | 26.20±0.19 a | |
T6 | 28.98±0.05 d | 17.17±0.27 d | 23.08±0.16 c | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 25.61±0.20 c | 15.41±0.18 d | 20.51±0.15 c |
T2 | 24.61±0.15 d | 15.44±0.06 d | 20.02±0.06 c | |
T3 | 25.79±0.10 c | 17.22±0.12 b | 21.51±0.11 b | |
T4 | 29.74±0.06 b | 17.56±0.12 b | 23.65±0.09 a | |
T5 | 30.48±0.12 a | 18.37±0.09 a | 24.43±0.02 a | |
T6 | 25.82±0.09 c | 16.44±0.07 c | 21.13±0.07 b |
Table 5 Soil catalase activity under different treatments throughout entire growth stage of pumpkin
生育时期 Growth stage | 处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | |||
苗期 SS | T1 | 23.58±0.30 b | 15.98±0.52 d | 19.78±0.41 b |
T2 | 24.62±0.59 b | 16.70±0.19 bcd | 20.66±0.38 b | |
T3 | 28.26±0.10 a | 17.23±0.19 abc | 22.75±0.09 a | |
T4 | 28.42±0.08 a | 17.50±0.28 ab | 22.96±0.18 a | |
T5 | 28.31±0.09 a | 18.32±0.17 a | 23.32±0.04 a | |
T6 | 24.27±0.61 b | 16.17±0.58 cd | 20.22±0.59 b | |
抽蔓期 VGS | T1 | 30.78±0.19 d | 17.66±0.06 d | 24.22±0.10 c |
T2 | 31.49±0.33 c | 18.74±0.16 b | 25.12±0.24 b | |
T3 | 32.47±0.24 b | 18.43±0.21 bc | 25.45±0.23 b | |
T4 | 33.98±0.26 a | 19.66±0.12 a | 26.82±0.19 a | |
T5 | 34.40±0.20 a | 19.91±0.10 a | 27.16±0.15 a | |
T6 | 30.20±0.08 d | 18.16±0.07 c | 24.18±0.07 c | |
开花结瓜期 FFS | T1 | 29.66±0.19 c | 16.77±0.39 c | 23.21±0.19 c |
T2 | 30.00±0.22 c | 17.55±0.20 c | 23.78±0.19 b | |
T3 | 30.85±0.14 b | 17.66±0.16 b | 24.26±0.05 b | |
T4 | 32.97±0.18 a | 18.86±0.24 a | 25.91±0.20 a | |
T5 | 33.39±0.14 a | 19.01±0.24 a | 26.20±0.19 a | |
T6 | 28.98±0.05 d | 17.17±0.27 d | 23.08±0.16 c | |
成熟期 MS | T1 | 25.61±0.20 c | 15.41±0.18 d | 20.51±0.15 c |
T2 | 24.61±0.15 d | 15.44±0.06 d | 20.02±0.06 c | |
T3 | 25.79±0.10 c | 17.22±0.12 b | 21.51±0.11 b | |
T4 | 29.74±0.06 b | 17.56±0.12 b | 23.65±0.09 a | |
T5 | 30.48±0.12 a | 18.37±0.09 a | 24.43±0.02 a | |
T6 | 25.82±0.09 c | 16.44±0.07 c | 21.13±0.07 b |
Fig. 1 Soil bacteria quantity under different treatments during the entire growth stage of pumpkinNote:Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments of same stage at P<0.05 level.
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/ cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 9.23±0.03 bc | 5.89±0.03 c | 7.56±0.02 c |
T2 | 9.90±0.18 b | 5.80±0.11 c | 7.85±0.09 c |
T3 | 8.90±0.04 c | 6.89±0.36 b | 7.89±0.20 c |
T4 | 11.72±0.25 a | 7.80±0.17 a | 9.75±0.17 a |
T5 | 11.77±0.25 a | 8.08±0.33 a | 9.93±0.08 a |
T6 | 9.24±0.47 bc | 7.61±0.30 ab | 8.43±0.14 b |
Table 6 Average of soil bacteria quantity in 0 to 40 cm soil layer during the entire growth stage of pumpkin under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/ cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 9.23±0.03 bc | 5.89±0.03 c | 7.56±0.02 c |
T2 | 9.90±0.18 b | 5.80±0.11 c | 7.85±0.09 c |
T3 | 8.90±0.04 c | 6.89±0.36 b | 7.89±0.20 c |
T4 | 11.72±0.25 a | 7.80±0.17 a | 9.75±0.17 a |
T5 | 11.77±0.25 a | 8.08±0.33 a | 9.93±0.08 a |
T6 | 9.24±0.47 bc | 7.61±0.30 ab | 8.43±0.14 b |
Fig. 2 Soil fungi quantity under different treatments during the entire growth stage of pumpkinNote:Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments of same stage at P<0.05 level.
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 13.09±0.37 c | 9.45±0.28 c | 11.27±0.16 c |
T2 | 12.97±0.20 c | 10.00±0.23 c | 11.49±0.20 c |
T3 | 14.42±0.12 b | 10.78±0.15 b | 12.60±0.08 b |
T4 | 16.32±0.21 a | 11.65±0.23 a | 13.99±0.15 a |
T5 | 16.27±0.04 a | 11.67±0.06 a | 13.97±0.010 a |
T6 | 14.46±0.39 b | 11.11±0.28 ab | 12.78±0.25 b |
Table 7 Average of soil fungal quantity in 0 to 40 cm soil layer during the entire growth stage of pumpkin under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 13.09±0.37 c | 9.45±0.28 c | 11.27±0.16 c |
T2 | 12.97±0.20 c | 10.00±0.23 c | 11.49±0.20 c |
T3 | 14.42±0.12 b | 10.78±0.15 b | 12.60±0.08 b |
T4 | 16.32±0.21 a | 11.65±0.23 a | 13.99±0.15 a |
T5 | 16.27±0.04 a | 11.67±0.06 a | 13.97±0.010 a |
T6 | 14.46±0.39 b | 11.11±0.28 ab | 12.78±0.25 b |
Fig. 3 Soil actinomycete quantity under different treatments during the entire growth stage of pumpkinNote: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments of same stage at P<0.05 level.
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/ cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 20.88±0.21 b | 14.53±0.28 d | 17.70±0.25 b |
T2 | 20.24±0.29 bc | 15.07±0.39 cd | 17.65±0.15 b |
T3 | 19.90±0.24 c | 15.64±0.18 bc | 17.77±0.03 b |
T4 | 25.07±0.22 a | 17.80±0.15 a | 21.43±0.16 a |
T5 | 24.97±0.16 a | 17.76±0.12 a | 21.36±0.04 a |
T6 | 19.95±0.23 c | 16.05±0.39 b | 18.00±0.27 b |
Table 8 Average of soil actinomycetes quantity in 0 to 40 cm soil layer during the entire growth stage of pumpkin under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 土层深度Soil layer/ cm | 平均 Average | |
---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 20—40 | ||
T1 | 20.88±0.21 b | 14.53±0.28 d | 17.70±0.25 b |
T2 | 20.24±0.29 bc | 15.07±0.39 cd | 17.65±0.15 b |
T3 | 19.90±0.24 c | 15.64±0.18 bc | 17.77±0.03 b |
T4 | 25.07±0.22 a | 17.80±0.15 a | 21.43±0.16 a |
T5 | 24.97±0.16 a | 17.76±0.12 a | 21.36±0.04 a |
T6 | 19.95±0.23 c | 16.05±0.39 b | 18.00±0.27 b |
Fig. 5 Pumpkin yield under different treatmentsNote:Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level.
指标 Index | 蔗糖酶 SC | 碱性磷酸酶 AKP | 过氧化氢酶 CAT | 细菌数量 BQ | 真菌数量 FQ | 放线菌数量 AQ | 呼吸速率 RR | 产量 Yield |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
脲酶UE | 0.740** | 0.911** | 0.960** | 0.810** | 0.747** | 0.887** | 0.844** | 0.819** |
蔗糖酶SC | 0.518* | 0.769** | 0.640** | 0.731** | 0.614** | 0.786** | 0.769** | |
碱性磷酸酶AKP | 0.788** | 0.563* | 0.434 | 0.706** | 0.615** | 0.606** | ||
过氧化氢酶CAT | 0.863** | 0.879** | 0.900** | 0.904** | 0.909** | |||
细菌数量BQ | 0.885** | 0.937** | 0.842** | 0.770** | ||||
真菌数量FQ | 0.858** | 0.878** | 0.848** | |||||
放线菌数量AQ | 0.827** | 0.729** | ||||||
呼吸速率RR | 0.890** |
Table 9 Correlation analysis between soil microenvironmental indicators and pumpkin yield
指标 Index | 蔗糖酶 SC | 碱性磷酸酶 AKP | 过氧化氢酶 CAT | 细菌数量 BQ | 真菌数量 FQ | 放线菌数量 AQ | 呼吸速率 RR | 产量 Yield |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
脲酶UE | 0.740** | 0.911** | 0.960** | 0.810** | 0.747** | 0.887** | 0.844** | 0.819** |
蔗糖酶SC | 0.518* | 0.769** | 0.640** | 0.731** | 0.614** | 0.786** | 0.769** | |
碱性磷酸酶AKP | 0.788** | 0.563* | 0.434 | 0.706** | 0.615** | 0.606** | ||
过氧化氢酶CAT | 0.863** | 0.879** | 0.900** | 0.904** | 0.909** | |||
细菌数量BQ | 0.885** | 0.937** | 0.842** | 0.770** | ||||
真菌数量FQ | 0.858** | 0.878** | 0.848** | |||||
放线菌数量AQ | 0.827** | 0.729** | ||||||
呼吸速率RR | 0.890** |
[1] | 朱建强,马维成,张国森,等.酒泉戈壁钢架大棚秋延茬贝贝南瓜高效栽培技术[J].中国蔬菜,2023(4):125-127. |
[2] | BAJGAI Y, YESHEY Y, DE MASTRO G, et al.. Influence of nitrogen application on wheat crop performance,soil properties,greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint in central Bhutan [J/OL].Environ.Dev.,2019,32:100469 [2024-08-26]. . |
[3] | 于果,周晓博.农业化肥与生物有机肥对环境的影响研究[J].农业经济,2022(5):12-14. |
[4] | HAN S Y, JI X H, HUANG L W, et al..Effects of aftercrop tomato and maize on the soil microenvironment and microbial diversity in a long-term cotton continuous cropping field [J/OL]. Front.Microbiol.,2024,15:1410219 [2024-08-26].. |
[5] | 强晓玉,浦瑜,陈沁,等.北京市设施蔬菜科学施肥模式应用现状及其推广建议[J].中国蔬菜, 2024(1):14-21. |
QIANG X Y, PU Y, CHEN Q, et al.. Application status of scientific fertilization model in Beijing facility vegetables and advise for its extension [J]. China Veg., 2024(1):14-21. | |
[6] | 杨咏,方怀信,王祝余.有机肥替代部分化肥对春暖式大棚西瓜产量和品质的影响[J].农业工程技术,2023,43(4):43-44. |
[7] | 张奇茹,谢英荷,李廷亮,等.有机肥替代化肥对旱地小麦产量和养分利用效率的影响及其经济环境效应[J].中国农业科学,2020,53(23):4866-4878. |
ZHANG Q R, XIE Y H, LI T L, et al.. Effects of organic fertilizers replacing chemical fertilizers on yield,nutrient use efficiency,economic and environmental benefits of dryland wheat [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2020, 53(23): 4866-4878. | |
[8] | 胡庆兰,杨凯,王金贵.地膜覆盖及不同施肥处理对根际土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J].西北农业学报,2023,32(3):429-439. |
HU Q L, YANG K, WANG J G. Effect of plastic mulching and different fertilization treatments on microbial quantity and enzyme activity of rhizosphere [J]. Acta Agric. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2023, 32(3): 429-439. | |
[9] | 石磊,张睿佳.生物有机肥对鲜食玉米产量、土壤养分及微生物的影响[J].农学学报,2021,11(11):33-36. |
SHI L, ZHANG R J. Bio-organic fertilizers:effects on fresh corn yield,soil nutrients and microbes [J]. J. Agric., 2021,11(11):33-36. | |
[10] | 高日平,王伟妮,狄彩霞,等.有机肥和秸秆还田对河套灌区盐渍化土壤养分及微生物数量的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2023(2):43-53. |
GAO R P, WANG W N, DI C X, et al.. Effects of organic manure and straw returning on nutrient and microbial quantity of saline soil in river-loop irrigation area [J]. Soils Fert. Sci. China, 2023(2):43-53. | |
[11] | JU J, GU Q, ZHOU H W, et al.. Effects of organic fertilizer combined with chemical fertilizer on nutrients,enzyme activities,and rice yield in reclaimed soil [J]. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 2022, 53(22): 3060-3071. |
[12] | 赵娜,王小利,何进,等.有机肥替代化学氮肥对黄壤活性有机碳组分、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J].环境科学,2024,45(7):4196-4205. |
ZHAO N, WANG X L, HE J, et al.. Effects of replacing chemical nitrogen fertilizer with organic fertilizer on active organic carbon fractions, enzyme activities, and crop yield in yellow soil [J]. Environ Sci., 2024, 45 (7): 4196-4205. | |
[13] | 赵成雷,于建,郭新送,等.有机肥替代化肥对设施番茄产量、品质及土壤性状的影响[J].山东农业科学,2023,55(8):116-120. |
ZHAO C L, YU J, GUO X S, et al.. Effects of organic fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizer on yield,quality and soil properties of greenhouse tomato [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci., 2023,55(8):116-120. | |
[14] | 付强,张平良,刘晓伟,等.有机肥替代部分化肥对半干旱区马铃薯产量、水分和氮素利用率的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2023(10):143-149. |
FU Q, ZHANG P L, LIU X W, et al.. Effects of organic fertilizers partial replacing chemical fertilizers on potato yield,water and nitrogen utilization in semi-arid areas [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2023(10):143-149. | |
[15] | 李明瑞,王小利,段建军,等.有机肥替代化肥对土壤养分、酶活性及水稻产量的影响[J].江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(13): 230-235. |
[16] | 章家恩,刘文高,胡刚.不同土地利用方式下土壤微生物数量与土壤肥力的关系[J].土壤与环境,2002(2):140-143. |
ZHANG J E, LIU W G, HU G. The relationship between quantity index of soil microorganisms and soil fertility of different land use systems [J]. Soil Environ.Sci., 2002(2):140-143. | |
[17] | DOLTRA J, LÆGDSMAND M, OLESEN J E. Cereal yield and quality as affected by nitrogen availability in organic and conventional arable crop rotations:a combined modeling and experimental approach [J]. Eur. J. Agron., 2011, 34(2): 83-95. |
[18] | LIANG Q, CHEN H Q, GONG Y S, et al.. Effects of 15 years of manure and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon fractions in a wheat-maize system in the North China Plain [J]. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 2012, 92(1): 21-33. |
[19] | 费聪.有机肥替代化肥对旱区雨养玉米养分吸收利用及产量的影响[J].核农学报,2024,38(7):1355-1364. |
FEI C. Effects of organic fertilizer replacing chemical fertilizer on nutrient absorption-utilization and yield of rain-fed maize in arid region [J]. J. Nucl. Agric. Sci., 2024,38(7):1355-1364. | |
[20] | 陈瑞州,李静,范家慧,等.不同施肥配比对芒果园土壤养分、微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J].热带作物学报,2018,39(6):1055-1060. |
CHEN R Z, LI J, FAN J H, et al.. Effects of different fertilizer ratio on soil nutrient,microbial quantity and enzyme activity in mango garden [J]. Chin. J. Trop. Crops, 2018, 39(6):1055-1060. | |
[21] | 陈军,王立光,叶春雷,等.耕作制度对胡麻土壤酶活性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2019,37(3):177-184, 214. |
CHEN J, WANG L G, YE C L, et al.. Effect of cropping system on flax soil enzyme activity [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas, 2019, 37(3):177-184, 214. | |
[22] | 李晓婷,李立军,李杨,等.轮作方式对土壤微生物量及酶活性的影响[J].中国农学通报,2018,34(9):68-73. |
LI X T, LI L J, LI Y, et al.. Effect of different crop rotation methods on soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2018, 34(9):68-73. | |
[23] | 鲁金香,柴继宽,赵桂琴,等.祁连山区轮作对燕麦土壤酶活性及微生物数量的影响[J].草原与草坪,2023,43(3):108-117. |
LU J X, CHAI J K, ZHAO G Q, et al.. Effects of crop rotation on soil enzyme activities and microorganisms of oat in Qilian mountain area [J]. Grassland Turf., 2023, 43(3):108-117. | |
[24] | 邓少虹,林明月,李伏生,等.施肥对喀斯特地区植草土壤碳库管理指数及酶活性的影响[J].草业学报,2014,23(4):262-268. |
DENG S H, LIN M Y, LI F S, et al.. Effects of fertilization on soil carbon pool management index and enzyme activities in pasture grown soil of the Karst region [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2014, 23(4):262-268. | |
[25] | 陈恩凤,周礼恺,武冠云.微团聚体的保肥供肥性能及其组成比例在评断土壤肥力水平中的意义[J].土壤学报,1994,31(1):18-25. |
CHEN E F, ZHOU L K, WU G Y.Performances of soil microaggregates in storing and supplying moisture and nutrients and role of their composition proportion in judging fertility level [J]. Acta Pedol. Sin., 1994, 31(1):18-25. | |
[26] | 梁路,马臣,张然,等.有机无机肥配施提高旱地麦田土壤养分有效性及酶活性[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2019,25(4):544-554. |
LIANG L, MA C, ZHANG R, et al.. Improvement of soil nutrient availability and enzyme activities in rainfed wheat field by combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers [J]. J. Plant Nutr. Fert., 2019, 25(4):544-554. | |
[27] | 何念鹏,刘远,徐丽,等.土壤有机质分解的温度敏感性:培养与测定模式[J].生态学报,2018,38(11):4045-4051. |
HE N P, LIU Y, XU L, et al.. Temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition:new insights into models of incubation and measurement [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2018, 38(11):4045-4051. | |
[28] | 罗珠珠,黄高宝,蔡立群,等.不同耕作方式下春小麦生育期土壤酶时空变化研究[J].草业学报,2012,21(6):94-101. |
LUO Z Z, HUANG G B, CAI L Q, et al.. Temporal and spatial disparities of soil enzyme activities during the spring wheat growing season under different tillage systems [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2012, 21(6): 94-101. | |
[29] | 李大荣,李小玲,周武先,等.有机肥替代部分化肥对湖北贝母生长及土壤性质的影响[J/OL].中国农业科技导报, 2025,27(3):216-226. |
LI D R, LI X L, ZHOU W X, et al.. Effects of partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer on growth and soil properties of Fritillaria hupehensis [J/OL]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2025, 27(3): 216-226. | |
[30] | 殷琳毅,李进,袁春新,等.生物有机肥替代化肥对土壤及荠菜产量、品质的影响[J].中国瓜菜,2023,36(1):85-89. |
YIN L Y, LI J, YUAN C X, et al.. Bioorganic fertilizer replacing chemical fertilizer affects the soil and shepherd’s purse yield and quality [J]. China Cucurbits Veg., 2023, 36(1):85-89. | |
[31] | WANG L K, LI X F. Steering soil microbiome to enhance soil system resilience [J]. Crit. Rev. Microbiol., 2019,45(5/6):743-753. |
[32] | 邵孝侯,刘旭,周永波,等.生物有机肥改良连作土壤及烤烟生长发育的效应[J].中国土壤与肥料,2011(2):65-67. |
SHAO X H, LIU X, ZHOU Y B, et al.. Effects of bio-organic fertilizer’s application on flue-cured tobacco planted on continuous cropping soil [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2011(2):65-67. | |
[33] | 汪自松,秦玉秀,沈伟,等.化肥减量配施有机肥对樱桃番茄土壤生物学特性及产量、品质的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2024(2):58-64. |
WANG Z S, QIN Y X, SHEN W, et al.. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with organic fertilizer application on soil biological characteristics,yield and quality of cherry tomato [J]. Soils Fert. Sci. China, 2024(2):58-64. | |
[34] | 王磊, 高方胜, 曹逼力, 等. 有机肥和化肥配施对不同熟期大白菜土壤生物特性及产量品质的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022,41(1):66-72. |
WANG L, GAO F S, CAO B L, et al.. Effects of combined organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizer application on soil biological characteristics, yield and quality of Chinese cabbage with different maturity periods [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2022,41(1):66-72. | |
[35] | 彭宇, 闫会转, 肖中林, 等.不同施肥处理对盆栽辣椒土壤酶活性及土壤微生物含量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学,2022,59(9):2200-2208. |
PENG Y, YAN H Z, XIAO Z L, et al.. Effects of different fertilization treatments on soil enzyme activity and soil microbial content of potted pepper [J]. Xinjiang Agric. Sci., 2022, 59 (9): 2200-2208. | |
[36] | 张明杰, 张振, 张馨方, 等. 生物有机肥和高碳基肥对皖南烟田土壤呼吸的影响[J].烟草科技, 2021, 54(10): 29-36. |
ZHANG M J, ZHANG Z, ZHANG X F, et al.. Effects of bioorganic fertilizer and high carbon base fertilizer on soil respiration of tobacco fields in southern Anhui province [J]. Tob. Sci. Technol., 2021, 54 (10): 29-36. | |
[37] | 施志国,刘强,宿翠翠,等.添加木本泥炭和腐熟秸秆对黄沙土壤有机碳组分及南瓜产量的影响[J].江苏农业科学,2024,52(5):229-236. |
[38] | 马荣辉,梁金英,王宪刚,等.化肥减量配施有机肥对设施番茄产量、品质和土壤肥力的影响[J].北方园艺,2023(24):45-51. |
MA R H, LIANG J Y, WANG X G, et al.. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with application organic fertilizer on tomato yield and quality and soil fertility in greenhouse [J].Northern Hortic., 2023(24):45-51. | |
[39] | 朱利霞,曹萌萌,桑成琛,等.生物有机肥替代化肥对玉米土壤肥力及酶活性的影响[J].四川农业大学学报,2022,40(1):67-72. |
ZHU L X, CAO M M, SANG C C, et al.. Effects of bio-fertilizer partially substituting chemical fertilizer on soil fertility and enzyme activity in maize field [J]. J. Sichuan Agric. Univ., 2022, 40(1):67-72. | |
[40] | 徐路路,王晓娟.有机肥等氮量替代化肥对土壤养分及酶活性的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2023(1):23-29. |
XU L L, WANG X J. Effects of organic manure replacing chemical fertilizer with equal nitrogen on soil nutrients and enzyme activities [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2023(1):23-29. |
[1] | Shichao CHEN, Ju WANG, Fuqiang GUO, Rui HAO, Jianping SHI. Effects of Different Water and Nitrogen Coupling on Physiological Indexes and Yield of Protein Mulberry [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(6): 240-249. |
[2] | Lijun DUAN, Xianhua DING, Weiqin LI, Shuangdui YAN. Investigation of Co-pyrolysis Behavior and Pyrolysis Product Analysis of Oak Bark and Corn Stalks [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(5): 164-172. |
[3] | Guiqian ZHANG, Li ZHANG, Qian WANG, Caiyun LIU. Effect of Astragalus Polysaccharides on Colony Development and Honey Production in Honeybees [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(5): 72-80. |
[4] | Yan WU, Leping ZOU, Huijie SONG, Dandan HU, Kailou LIU, Wanli LIANG. Effect of Controlled-release Nitrogen Fertilizer Combined Urea on Ammonium Nitrogen of Surface Water and Early Rice Yield [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(4): 192-200. |
[5] | Darong LI, Xiaoling LI, Wuxian ZHOU, Meide ZHANG, Xiaogang JIANG, Jinwen YOU, Hua WANG. Effects of Partial Substitution of Chemical Fertilizer with Organic Fertilizer on Growth and Soil Properties of Fritillaria hupehensis [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(3): 216-226. |
[6] | Junya DUAN, Yuanyuan ZHAO, Tingting WANG, Jianyu WEI, Zheng WANG, Dexun WANG, Juan LI, Hongzhi SHI. Effects of Nitrogen Reduction Combined with Polyaspartic Acid on Nitrogen Utilization, Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(3): 227-238. |
[7] | Qiang WU, Conglian WU, Xiaoyun WU, Jian WU, Xuanmei XU, Junsheng LAI, Weiyun HU, Bangchu GONG, Xibing JIANG. Effect of Different Fertilization Treatments on Yield and Fruit Quality of Castanea henryi [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(2): 228-237. |
[8] | Tingting LIU, Xiyu HAO, Hui WANG, Jingwen LENG, Shihang GONG, Wei LIU. Correlation Analysis Between Yield and Agronomical Traits of Different Foxtail Millet Varieties in Semi-arid Area of Western Jilin Province [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(1): 50-60. |
[9] | Wenxuan SHI, Jinfang TAN, Qian ZHANG, Lantao LI, Yilun WANG. Effect of One-off Fertilization on Yield and Nitrogen Fertilizer Efficiency of Summer Maize in Different Ecological Regions [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(9): 193-202. |
[10] | Mei WU, Jinzhu ZHANG, Zhenhua WANG, Jian LIU, Yue WEN, Xuanzhi LI. Effects of Water and Air Interaction on Physiological Growth and Yield of Maize Under Mulched Drip Irrigation [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(8): 189-200. |
[11] | Liang SUN, Yi XU, Qin CAI, Jinghao GUO, Can ZHAO, Baowei GUO, Zhipeng XING, Zhongyang HUO, Hongcheng ZHANG, Yajie HU. Research Progress on Effects of Medium and Trace Elements on Yield and Quality of Rice [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(8): 9-19. |
[12] | Xianyin SUN, Qiuhuan MU, Yong MI, Guangde LYU, Xiaolei QI, Yingying SUN, Xundong YIN, Ruixia WANG, Ke WU, Zhaoguo QIAN, Yan ZHAO, Minggang GAO. Classification and Evaluation of New Wheat Lines Based on GT Biplot [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(7): 14-24. |
[13] | Yukun QIN, Junying CHEN, Lijuan ZHANG. Response of Dry Matter Accumulation Characteristics and Yield of Cotton in North Jiangxi Cotton Region to Nitrogen Reduction Measures [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(6): 191-199. |
[14] | Shouhua PENG, Mingming XU, Jiqiang WEI, Lijun LIANG, Quan YE, Xiaoyuan CHI, Shaofeng ZHANG, Xiangli DONG. Effects of Increase Applying of Biofertilizer Strain FBR1 on Growth Development and Yield of Peanut [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(6): 200-205. |
[15] | Yuxin CHEN, Hongmei ZHAO, Weijun YANG, Mei YANG, Song GUO, Shilong SONG, Chao HUI. Effects of Biochar on Soil Microbial Carbon Source Utilization and Spring Wheat Yield [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(5): 174-183. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||