欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (2): 459-469.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.41019

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

燕麦红芸豆带状间作的产量效应及根系形态与土壤酶活性

张辰煜1(), 葛军勇2, 褚俊聪1, 王星宇2, 赵宝平3, 杨亚东1,*(), 臧华栋1, 曾昭海1,*()   

  1. 1中国农业大学农学院 / 农业农村部农作制度重点实验室, 北京 100193
    2张家口市农业科学院, 河北张家口 075000
    3内蒙古农业大学农学院, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010019
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-10 接受日期:2024-10-25 出版日期:2025-02-12 网络出版日期:2024-11-12
  • 通讯作者: 杨亚东, E-mail: yadong_tracy@cau.edu.cn; 曾昭海, E-mail: zengzhaohai@cau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:E-mail: s20223010033@cau.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目(2023YFD1600702);财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS07-B-5);财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS07-A-6)

Yield effect and its root and soil enzyme characteristics of oat and red kidney bean strip intercropping

ZHANG Chen-Yu1(), GE Jun-Yong2, CHU Jun-Cong1, WANG Xing-Yu2, ZHAO Bao-Ping3, YANG Ya-Dong1,*(), ZANG Hua-Dong1, ZENG Zhao-Hai1,*()   

  1. 1College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University / Key Laboratory of Farming System, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100193, China
    2Zhangjiakou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhangjiakou 075000, Hebei, China
    3College of Agronomy, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010019, Inner Mongolia, China
  • Received:2024-03-10 Accepted:2024-10-25 Published:2025-02-12 Published online:2024-11-12
  • Contact: E-mail: yadong_tracy@cau.edu.cn; E-mail: zengzhaohai@cau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program of China(2023YFD1600702);China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA(CARS07-B-5);China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA(CARS07-A-6)

RichHTML

14

PDF

303

摘要： 为明确豆禾间作系统的产量及其与作物根系和土壤酶学特性的关系。于2020—2021年在河北省张北县开展了2年大田试验, 以燕麦单作、红芸豆单作为对照, 研究了燕麦和红芸豆带状间作模式的产量效应、根系特征以及土壤酶活性。结果表明, 2年试验中, 间作模式的土地当量比分别为1.07和1.08, 且燕麦的偏土地当量比为0.63和0.72。间作模式的净收益与2种单作相比差异不显著, 但产投比均大于单作模式。间作燕麦在拔节期根长、根表面积、根体积在0~10 cm和10~20 cm两个土层均低于单作, 但在灌浆期均高于单作; 间作红芸豆根系形态参数在2个土层随生育期进程均由优势逐渐变为劣势。间作对燕麦各时期土壤酶活性的影响不显著, 但显著提高了红芸豆开花期和鼓粒期0~10 cm和10~20 cm两个土层土壤C、N和ALP获取酶活性。偏最小二乘路径分析显示, 燕麦的产量主要受到根系特性影响, 而红芸豆主要受土壤酶活性影响。由此可见, 燕麦‖红芸豆模式有更高的经济效益, 可以提升系统生产力, 且燕麦和红芸豆产量变化作用路径不同。

关键词: 燕麦, 红芸豆, 带状间作, 产量, 根系特征, 土壤酶活性

Abstract:

To evaluate the yield of a bean and cereal intercropping system and its relationship with root and soil enzyme characteristics, a two-year field experiment (2021-2022) was conducted in Zhangbei county, Hebei province, China. The study examined crop yield, root characteristics, and soil enzyme activities in oat and red kidney bean strip intercropping, with oat monoculture and red kidney bean monoculture as controls. The results showed that the land equivalent ratios (LER) for oat and red kidney bean intercropping were 1.07 and 1.08, respectively, over the two years. The partial land equivalent ratios (PLER) for oat were 0.63 and 0.72. While there was no significant difference in net income between intercropping and monoculture systems, the output-to-input ratio in the intercropping system was higher than in either monoculture. At the jointing stage, oat root length, surface area, and volume in intercropping were lower than in monoculture, but these parameters were higher at the filling stage in both the 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm soil layers. For intercropped red kidney bean, the dominance of root morphological parameters shifted to inferiority as the growth stage advanced. Relay intercropping had minimal effects on oat soil enzyme activities but significantly increased the activities of C, N, and ALP acquisition enzymes in the 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm soil layers at the flowering and filling stages of red kidney bean. Partial least squares path analysis revealed that oat yield was primarily influenced by root characteristics, while red kidney bean yield was predominantly regulated by soil enzyme activities. In conclusion, oat and red kidney bean strip intercropping enhances system productivity, provides higher economic benefits, and the yield dynamics of oat and red kidney bean are driven by different underlying mechanisms.

Key words: oat, red kidney bean, strip intercropping, yield, root system, soil enzyme activity

图1

燕麦红芸豆带状间作田间种植示意图"

表1

2021-2022年燕麦和红芸豆生物量和产量及土地当量比"

年份
Year		 作物
Crop		 生物量
Biomass (kg hm-2)		 产量
Yield (kg hm-2)		 土地当量比
Land equivalent ratio
单作
Monoculture		 间作
Intercropping		 单作
Monoculture		 间作Intercropping 偏土地当量比LERO/LERR 间作当量比 LER
2021 燕麦Oat 11,880.0±198.7 a 7737.5±124.6 b 3570.9±168.1 a 2245.9±27.8 b 0.63±0.03 1.07±0.02
红芸豆
Red kidney bean		 6429.1±259.5 b 2352.0±129.5 a 1853.1±43.4 b 793.3±23.5 a 0.44±0.01
2022 燕麦Oat 9443.3±221.6 a 6876.9±129.7 b 3484.7±54.8 a 2523.2±14.2 b 0.72±0.01 1.08±0.01
红芸豆
Red kidney bean		 5129.2±224.5 b 1930.2±52.0 a 2121.5±23.7 b 735.0±22.7 a 0.35±0.01

表2

2021-2022年不同种植模式的经济效益分析"

年份
Year		 种植模式
Cropping system		 总投入
Total input
(yuan hm-2)		 总收入
Total income
(yuan hm-2)		 净收入
Net income
(yuan hm-2)		 产投比
Output/Input
2021 燕麦单作Monoculture oat 2575.0 12,374.5±495.2 b 9799.5±495.2 a 3.81±0.19 b
红芸豆单作Monoculture red kidney bean 3925.0 14,824.7±347.2 a 10,899.7±347.2 a 3.78±0.09 b
间作Intercropping 3250.0 14,182.6±206.8 a 10,932.6±206.8 a 4.36±0.06 a
2022 燕麦单作Monoculture oat 2575.0 11,645.7±190.1 c 9070.7±190.1 c 3.52±0.07 b
红芸豆单作Monoculture red kidney bean 3925.0 16,971.7±190.0 a 13,046.7±190.0 a 4.32±0.05 a
间作Intercropping 3250.0 14,319.7±226.0 b 11,069.7±226.0 b 4.41±0.07 a

图2

2021-2022年不同时期燕麦和红芸豆的总根长(A和B)、根表面积(C和D)和根体积(E和F) 数据为平均值±标准误(n = 4)。Jointing stage: 燕麦拔节期(对应红芸豆开花期); Filling stage: 燕麦灌浆期(对应红芸豆鼓粒期); MO: 单作燕麦; IO: 间作燕麦; MR: 单作红芸豆; IR: 间作红芸豆。不同小写字母表示同一土层间作与单作间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图3

燕麦和红芸豆不同时期的土壤碳(A和B)、氮(C和D)和碱性磷酸(E和F)获取酶活性 数据为平均值±标准误(n = 4)。缩写及处理同图2。不同小写字母表示同一土层间作和单作间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图4

间作通过改变根系参数和土壤酶活性影响燕麦(A)和红芸豆(B)生产的偏最小二乘路径分析 实线箭头和虚线箭头分别代表正、负相关性。灰色底色标注为具体指标。箭头上的数字为标准化路径系数(r), 星号表示关系的强度(*: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01)。"

[1] Homulle Z, George T S, Karley A J. Root traits with team benefits: understanding belowground interactions in intercropping systems. Plant Soil, 2022, 471: 1-26.
[2] Li L, Sun J H, Zhang F S, Li X L, Yang S C, Rengel Z. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: I. Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crops Res, 2001, 71: 123-137.
[3] Gao X, Wu M, Xu R N, Wang X R, Pan R Q, Kim H J, Liao H. Root interactions in a maize/soybean intercropping system control soybean soil-borne disease, red crown rot. PLoS One, 2014, 9: e95031.
[4] Chapagain T, Riseman A. Intercropping wheat and beans: effects on agronomic performance and land productivity. Crop Sci, 2014, 54: 2285-2293.
[5] 杨亚东, 冯晓敏, 任长忠, 胡跃高, 张卫建, 曾昭海. 燕麦‖大豆、 燕麦‖绿豆系统种间互作对氮素吸收与结瘤固氮的影响. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48: 32-39.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.S.004
Yang Y D, Feng X M, Ren C Z, Hu Y G, Zhang W J, Zeng Z H. Effects of interspecific interactions on nitrogen absorption, nodulation and nitrogen fixation in oat ‖ soybean and oat ‖ mung bean intercropping systems. Sci Agric Sin, 2015, 48: 32-39 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.S.004
[6] Zheng B C, Zhou Y, Chen P, Zhang X N, Du Q, Yang H, Wang X C, Yang F, Xiao T, Li L, Yang W Y, Yong T W. Maize-legume intercropping promotes N uptake through changing the root spatial distribution, legume nodulation capacity, and soil N availability. J Integr Agric, 2022, 21: 1755-1771.
[7] Gong X W, Dang K, Lyu S M, Zhao G, Tian L X, Luo Y, Feng B L. Interspecific root interactions and water-use efficiency of intercropped proso millet and mung bean. Eur J Agron, 2020, 115: 126034.
[8] McCormack M L, Adams T S, Smithwick E A H, Eissenstat D M. Variability in root production, phenology, and turnover rate among 12 temperate tree species. Ecology, 2014, 95: 2224-2235.
pmid: 25230473
[9] Hassan A, Dresbøll D B, Rasmussen C R, Lyhne-Kjærbye A, Nicolaisen M H, Stokholm M S, Lund O S, Thorup-Kristensen K. Root distribution in intercropping systems—a comparison of DNA based methods and visual distinction of roots. Arch Agron Soil Sci, 2021, 67: 15-28.
[10] Xia H Y, Zhao J H, Sun J H, Bao X G, Christie P, Zhang F S, Li L. Dynamics of root length and distribution and shoot biomass of maize as affected by intercropping with different companion crops and phosphorus application rates. Field Crops Res, 2013, 150: 52-62.
[11] Ehrmann J, Ritz K. Plant: soil interactions in temperate multi-cropping production systems. Plant Soil, 2014, 376: 1-29.
[12] Peng X Q, Wang W. Stoichiometry of soil extracellular enzyme activity along a climatic transect in temperate grasslands of Northern China. Soil Biol Biochem, 2016, 98: 74-84.
[13] 张瑞, 焉学倩, 杨忠亮, 张丹丹, 闫梅霞, 王英平. 作物间作研究进展. 特产研究, 网络首发[2023-10-17], https://doi.org/10.16720/j.cnki.tcyj.2023.171.
Zhang R, Yan X Q, Yang Z L, Zhang D D, Yan M X, Wang Y P. Advances in study on intercropping of crops. Agric Res Arid Areas, Published online [2023-10-17], https://doi.org/10.16720/j.cnki.tcyj.2023.171 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14] 覃潇敏, 郑毅, 汤利, 龙光强. 施氮对玉米. //马铃薯间作根际土壤酶活性和硝化势的影响 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2015, 30: 886-894.
Qin X M, Zheng Y, Tang L, Long G Q. Effects of nitrogen application rates on rhizosphere soil enzyme activity and potential nitrification in maize and potato intercropping. J Yunnan Agric Univ (Nat Sci), 2015, 30: 886-894 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] Wang Z G, Bao X G, Li X F, Jin X, Zhao J H, Sun J H, Christie P, Li L. Intercropping maintains soil fertility in terms of chemical properties and enzyme activities on a timescale of one decade. Plant Soil, 2015, 391: 265-282.
[16] 罗志成. 北方旱地农业研究的进展与思考. 干旱地区农业研究, 1994, 12(1): 4-13.
Luo Z C. Progress and consideration of dryland farming research in North China. Agric Res Arid Areas, 1994, 12(1): 4-13 (in Chinese).
[17] 冯文豪, 佟越强, 杨亚东, 葛军勇, 臧华栋, 曾昭海. 全球燕麦生产时空演变规律及对中国的启示. 麦类作物学报, 2022, 42: 902-910.
Feng W H, Tong Y Q, Yang Y D, Ge J Y, Zang H D, Zeng Z H. Spatial-temporal evolution characteristics of global oat production and its enlightment to China. J Triticeae Crops, 2022, 42: 902-910 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[18] Sadras V O, Mahadevan M, Zwer P K. Oat phenotypes for drought adaptation and yield potential. Field Crops Res, 2017, 212: 135-144.
[19] 畅建武, 郝晓鹏, 王燕, 杨伟, 郜欣. 红芸豆氮磷钾肥效试验研究. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(15): 108-113.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120084
Chang J W, Hao X P, Wang Y, Yang W, Gao X. Fertilizer efficiency experiment of nitrogen phosphorus and potassium on red kidney bean. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2015, 31(15): 108-113 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120084
[20] Ma H Y, Zhou J, Ge J Y, Nie J W, Zhao J, Xue Z Q, Hu Y G, Yang Y D, Peixoto L, Zang H D, Zeng Z H. Intercropping improves soil ecosystem multifunctionality through enhanced available nutrients but depends on regional factors. Plant Soil, 2022, 480: 71-84.
[21] Mead R, Willey R W. The concept of a ‘land equivalent ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Exp Agric, 1980, 16: 217-228.
[22] 王月, 张鹏鹏, 施磊, 臧华栋, 葛军勇, 曾昭海, 杨亚东. 北方半干旱区燕麦带状间作模式构建及经济效益分析. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 42(5): 55-65.
Wang Y, Zhang P P, Shi L, Zang H D, Ge J Y, Zeng Z H, Yang Y D. Construction and economic benefits analysis of oat strip intercropping model of oat-based strip intercropping systems in the semi-arid area of northern China. J Shanxi Agric Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2022, 42(5): 55-65 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] Saraswati S, Parsons C T, Strack M. Access roads impact enzyme activities in boreal forested peatlands. Sci Total Environ, 2019, 651: 1405-1415.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.280
[24] 汪雪, 刘晓静, 王静, 童长春, 吴勇. 紫花苜蓿-燕麦连续间作下根系及土壤养分时空变化特征. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34: 2683-2692.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202310.017
Wang X, Liu X J, Wang J, Tong C C, Wu Y. Temporal-spatial variations of root and soil nutrient under continuous intercropping of alfalfa and oat. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2023, 34: 2683-2692 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202310.017
[25] 赵财, 周海燕, 柴强, 黄高宝, 刘辉娟, 朱静. 不同供水水平下丁香酚和间作蚕豆对小麦根系生长的互作效应. 草业学报, 2014, 23(2): 133-139.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140216
Zhao C, Zhou H Y, Chai Q, Huang G B, Liu H J, Zhu J. Effects of eugenol and intercropped faba-bean on wheat root growth under different water supply conditions. Acta Pratac Sin, 2014, 23(2): 133-139 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[26] 王婷, 王强学, 李永梅, 王自林, 肖靖秀, 范茂攀. 玉米大豆间作对作物根系及土壤团聚体稳定性的影响. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2021, 36: 507-515.
Wang T, Wang Q X, Li Y M, Wang Z L, Xiao J X, Fan M P. Effect of maize and soybean intercropping on root system and soil aggregate stability. J Yunnan Agric Univ (Nat Sci), 2021, 36: 507-515 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[27] 鲍根生, 李媛, 冯晓云, 张鹏, 孟思宇. 高寒区氮添加和间作种植互作对燕麦和豌豆根系构型影响的研究. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3): 73-84.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023155
Bao G S, Li Y, Feng X Y, Zhang P, Meng S Y. Interactive effects of intercropping patterns and nitrogen addition on root architectural characteristics of oat and pea in an alpine region. Acta Pratac Sin, 2024, 33(3): 73-84 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[28] 朱亚琼, 郑伟, 王祥, 关正翾. 混播方式对豆禾混播草地植物根系构型特征的影响. 草业学报, 2018, 27(1): 73-85.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017110
Zhu Y Q, Zheng W, Wang X, Guan Z X. Effects plant spacing pattern on root morphological and architectural characteristics of legume-grass mixtures. Acta Pratac Sin, 2018, 27(1): 73-85 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[29] 马忠明, 杜少平, 王平, 包兴国. 长期定位施肥对小麦玉米间作土壤酶活性的影响. 核农学报, 2011, 25: 796-801.
Ma Z M, Du S P, Wang P, Bao X G. Effects of long-term located fertilization on soil enzymatic activities for wheat-maize intercropping in irrigated desert soils. J Nucl Agric Sci, 2011, 25: 796-801 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2011.04.0796
[30] 王庆宇, 李立军, 阮慧, 周红生, 李晓婷. 旱地燕麦间作对土壤酶活性、微生物含量及产量的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(2): 179-184.
Wang Q Y, Li L J, Ruan H, Zhou H S, Li X T. Effects of intercropping of oat on soil enzyme activity, microbial content and yield in arid land. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2019, 37(2): 179-184 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[31] Sinsabaugh R L, Hill B H, Follstad Shah J J. Eco enzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment. Nature, 2009, 462: 795-798.
[32] 马怀英, 王上, 杨亚东, 冯晓敏, 曾昭海, 任长忠, 臧华栋, 胡跃高. 燕麦与豆科作物间作的产量、经济效益与碳足迹分析. 中国农业大学学报, 2021, 26(8): 23-32.
Ma H Y, Wang S, Yang Y D, Feng X M, Zeng Z H, Ren C Z, Zang H D, Hu Y G. Intercropping of oat with mung bean, peanut, and soybean: yield advantages, economic benefits and carbon footprints. J China Agric Univ, 2021, 26(8): 23-32 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[33] 朱珍勇, 高文道, 王晓云, 周明, 徐永忠. 配方施肥模式对南粳9108产量和产投比的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2023, (11): 56-60.
Zhu Z Y, Gao W D, Wang X Y, Zhou M, Xu Y Z. Effect of formulated fertilization mode on the yield and input-output ratio of Nanjing 9108. Bull Agric Sci Technol 2023, (11): 56-60 (in Chinese).
[34] 杜文盼, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 杨莉, 张建贵, 史怡超, 张官禄. 根系分隔方式对燕麦/豌豆间作地上生物量、土壤养分及根系性状的影响. 草业学报, 2024, 33(8): 25-36.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023370
Du W P, Zhao G Q, Chai J K, Yang L, Zhang J G, Shi Y C, Zhang G L. Effects of root separation on aboveground biomass, soil nutrient contents, and root characters of intercropped oat and pea. Acta Pratac Sin, 2024, 33(8): 25-36 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[35] 彭良斌, 周杰, 马怀英, 臧华栋, 靳建刚, 薛志强, 杨亚东, 曾昭海. 燕麦与马铃薯带状间作产量优势及土地利用率. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(3): 38-49.
Peng L B, Zhou J, Ma H Y, Zang H D, Jin J G, Xue Z Q, Yang Y D, Zeng Z H. Yield advantage and land utilization of oat and potato strip intercropping system. J China Agric Univ, 2023, 28(3): 38-49 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[36] 冯晓敏, 杨永, 臧华栋, 钱欣, 胡跃高, 宋振伟, 张卫建, 曾昭海. 燕麦花生间作系统作物氮素累积与转移规律. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24: 617-624.
Feng X M, Yang Y, Zang H D, Qian X, Hu Y G, Song Z W, Zhang W J, Zeng Z H. Characteristics of crop nitrogen accumulation and nitrogen transfer in oat and peanut intercropping system. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2018, 24: 617-624 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[37] Qian X, Zang H D, Xu H S, Hu Y G, Ren C Z, Guo L C, Wang C L, Zeng Z H. Relay strip intercropping of oat with maize, sunflower and mung bean in semi-arid regions of Northeast China: yield advantages and economic benefits. Field Crops Res, 2018, 223: 33-40.
[38] Yong Y, Hu Y G, Shahrajabian M H, Ren C Z, Guo L C, Wang C L, Zeng Z H. Organic matter, protein percentage, yield, competition and economics of oat-soybean and oat-groundnut intercropping systems in Northern China. Cercetari Agron Moldova, 2017, 50: 25-35.
[39] Tscherko D, Rustemeier J, Richter A, Wanek W, Kandeler E. Functional diversity of the soil microflora in primary succession across two glacier forelands in the Central Alps. Eur J Soil Sci, 2003, 54: 685-696.
[40] 李金婷, 覃潇敏, 覃宏宇, 农玉琴, 骆妍妃, 韦持章, 韦锦坚. 间作对玉米根系形态特征及其氮磷养分吸收的影响. 南方农业学报, 2022, 53: 1348-1356.
Li J T, Qin X M, Qin H Y, Nong Y Q, Luo Y F, Wei C Z, Wei J J. Effects of maize and soybean intercrop on maize root morphological traits and its nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient absorption. J South Agric, 2022, 53: 1348-1356 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[41] 邵泽强, 刘书奇, 勾千冬, 依德萍, 陆文龙. 施氮和种植模式对玉米/紫花苜蓿间作体系中作物产量、吸氮量和根系形态的影响. 东北农业科学, 2023, 48(4): 6-11.
Shao Z Q, Liu S Q, Gou Q D, Yi D P, Lu W L. Effects of nitrogen application and planting patterns on crop yield, nitrogen uptake and root morphology in a maize/alfalfa intercropping system. J Northeast Agric Sci, 2023, 48(4): 6-11 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[42] 赵建华, 孙建好, 陈亮之. 三种豆科作物与玉米间作对玉米生产力和种间竞争的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(1): 86-94.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019119
Zhao J H, Sun J H, Chen L Z. Productivity and interspecific competition of maize intercropped with faba bean, soybean or pea. Acta Pratac Sin, 2020, 29(1): 86-94 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[43] Liu S, Xu G X, Chen H H, Zhang M M, Cao X W, Chen M, Chen J, Feng Q H, Shi Z M. Contrasting responses of soil microbial biomass and extracellular enzyme activity along an elevation gradient on the eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Front Microbiol, 2023, 14: 974316.
[44] 张卫信, 申智锋, 邵元虎, 时雷雷, 刘胜杰, 史楠楠, 傅声雷. 土壤生物与可持续农业研究进展. 生态学报, 2020, 40: 3183-3206.
Zhang W X, Shen Z F, Shao Y H, Shi L L, Liu S J, Shi N N, Fu S L. Soil biota and sustainable agriculture: a review. Acta Ecol Sin, 2020, 40: 3183-3206 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[1] 胡川, 赵凯男, 黄修利, 吴金芝, 任开明, 王贺正, 付国占, 黄明, 李友军. 一次灌溉下耕作方式和氮肥用量对旱地小麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1830-1846.
[2] 马胜乾, 王志平, 陈浩天, 窦淑贤, 张燕, 邓艾兴, 张卫建, 原向阳, 宋振伟. 秸秆还田下耕作方式与氮肥施用量对东北玉米产量及土壤团聚体的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1802-1816.
[3] 张思思, 赵向辉, 周洋, 姚云凤, 朱荣昱, 董元杰, 胡国庆, 徐通, 刘兆新. 冬闲期翻耕和绿肥还田对连作花生田土壤理化性质和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1472-1486.
[4] 张宁宁, 滕雨菲, 任娜娜, 魏兴卓, 闫书豪, 樊可心, 王永宏, 陈文康, 张兴华, 朱万超, 徐淑兔, 薛吉全. 201份玉米自交系抗旱表型评价及可塑性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1309-1325.
[5] 张振, 冯连杰, 石玉, 于振文, 张永丽. 节水补灌下不同穗型小麦产量形成差异研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1522-1535.
[6] 闫安, 蒋昆炜, 王蓉圆, 田林, 张璐, 王韵, 徐建龙. 水稻剑叶小维管束数基因SVN7的鉴定与克隆[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1364-1372.
[7] 刘昕萌, 任昊, 张继波, 张吉旺, 赵斌, 任佰朝, 刘鹏, 王洪章. 茉莉酸甲酯(MeJA)缓解高温影响玉米雌穗分化的生理机制[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1561-1572.
[8] 王壮壮, 武紫君, 张永新, 张芯源, 袁丽雪, 陈如雪, 刘世举, 段剑钊, 冯伟, 王同朝, 王永华. 豫东南黏壤潮土区水氮优化协同提高冬小麦产量和氮素利用效率[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1501-1521.
[9] 张鸿蓉, 王菲儿, 李盼, 仇海龙, 朱静, 赵连豪, 南运有, 何蔚, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 柴强, 殷文. 减量20%灌水与25%有机肥替代化肥提高青贮玉米产量的光合特性[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1487-1500.
[10] 王宇诚, 张露, 刘阿康, 黄见良, 彭少兵, 袁珅. 基于产量差的作物大面积单产提升策略与展望[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1279-1290.
[11] 赵佳雪, 周龙昊, 郭岂源, 尚伦霄, 王涵, 刘志涛, 陈曦, 张晓佩, 宋宪亮, 毛丽丽. 长期秸秆还田与深松通过改善土壤环境与棉花光合特性提高滨海盐碱地棉花产量[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1548-1560.
[12] 郭星宇, 胡丹, 林苏期, 王梦凯, 谭文峰, 黄传琴. 生物炭配施化肥提高玉米‖大豆下玉米产量和土壤生态系统多功能性[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(5): 1536-1547.
[13] 蔡宏玮, 于爱忠, 姜科强, 王鹏飞, 王玉珑, 霍建喆, 庞小能, 尹波, 尚永盼. 干旱灌区有机肥替代部分化肥促进甜玉米产量提升的关键机制[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1166-1180.
[14] 崔雪梅, 柳妍娣, 刘景辉, 米俊珍, 武俊英, 赵宝平. 不同基因型燕麦强弱势粒生理特性与产量关系研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1220-1235.
[15] 杨锐, 陈敬东, 黄郢, 张学昆, 周登文, 刘清云, 徐劲松, 谢伶俐, 许本波. 长江下游冬油菜区应对气候变化的育种和栽培策略研究[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1153-1165.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2