玉米秸秆留高茬免耕对黑土农田大型土壤动物群落的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20230161

浙江农业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (1): 187-195.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20230161

玉米秸秆留高茬免耕对黑土农田大型土壤动物群落的影响

马丙增(), 蒋云峰(), 严婷, 刘俊男

吉林师范大学地理科学与旅游学院,吉林四平 136000

收稿日期:2023-02-14 出版日期:2024-01-25 发布日期:2024-02-18
作者简介:马丙增(1998—),男,内蒙古通辽人,硕士研究生,主要从事土壤动物生态学研究。E-mail:2088504602@qq.com
通讯作者: * 蒋云峰,E-mail: jiangyf427@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(41401283)

Influence of no tillage with high stubble on macrofauna community of black soil

MA Bingzeng(), JIANG Yunfeng(), YAN Ting, LIU Junnan

College of Geographic Science and Tourism, Jilin Normal University, Siping 136000, Jilin, China

Received:2023-02-14 Online:2024-01-25 Published:2024-02-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为阐明玉米秸秆留高茬免耕对黑土农田大型土壤动物群落的影响,在吉林省梨树县保护性耕作研发基地,对常规耕作(CT)、免耕(NT)和秸秆留高茬免耕(SS)处理样地分3个季节开展大型土壤动物群落调查。结果显示,获得的土壤动物隶属2门4纲14目。在各处理中,线蚓科(Enchytraeidae)为优势类群,鞘翅目(Coleoptera)、地蜈蚣目(Geophilomorpha)、双翅目幼虫(Diptera larvae)和蚁科(Formicidae)多为常见类群。春季,NT处理的土壤动物密度显著(P<0.05)高于CT,是CT的3.8倍;夏季,SS处理的土壤动物密度显著高于CT,是CT的2.8倍;秋季,NT与SS处理的土壤动物密度均显著高于CT,分别是CT的2.1倍与2.3倍。各处理的土壤动物密度均表现出春低秋高的特点。SS处理的大型土壤动物群落组成与CT差异明显,特别是在夏、秋季节,但与NT处理差异不明显。相较于CT,SS处理显著增加了夏、秋季线蚓科的密度。综上,秸秆留高茬免耕有助于增加农田大型土壤动物的密度。

关键词: 大型土壤动物, 留高茬免耕, 群落结构, 黑土

Abstract:

In order to clarify the effect of no tillage with high stubble on soil macrofauna community, soil macrofauna community under the treatments of conventional tillage (CT), no tillage (NT) and no tillage with high stubble (SS) was investigated in the research and development base of conservation tillage in Lishu County, Jilin Province, in spring, summer and autumn. Soil macrofauna were obtained belonging to 2 phyla 4 classes 14 orders. In each treatment, Enchytraeidae was the dominant group, while Coleoptera, Geophilomorpha, Diptera larvae and Formicidae were common. In spring, the density of soil macrofauna under NT treatment was significantly (P<0.05) higher than that under CT by 2.8-fold. In summer, the density of soil macrofauna under SS treatment was significantly higher than that under CT by 1.8-fold. In antumn, the density of soil macrofauna under NT and SS was significantly higher than that under CT by 1.1-fold and 1.3-fold, respectively. The density of soil macrofauna was low in spring and high in autumn. The community composition of soil macrofauna under SS treatment varied from that under CT treatment, especially in summer and autumn, but the difference between SS and NT was not significant. The density of Enchytraeidae was significantly increased under SS treatment in summer and autumn compared with that under CT. In general, no tillage with high stubble was beneficial to increase the density of soil macrofauna.

Key words: soil macrofauna, no tillage with high stubble, community structure, black soil

中图分类号:

S154.5

马丙增, 蒋云峰, 严婷, 刘俊男. 玉米秸秆留高茬免耕对黑土农田大型土壤动物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(1): 187-195.

MA Bingzeng, JIANG Yunfeng, YAN Ting, LIU Junnan. Influence of no tillage with high stubble on macrofauna community of black soil[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(1): 187-195.

图/表 5

参考文献 39

[1]	韩晓增, 李娜. 中国东北黑土地研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学, 2018, 38(7): 1032-1041.
	HAN X Z, LI N. Research progress of black soil in northeast China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018, 38(7): 1032-1041. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	赵玉明, 程立平, 梁亚红, 等. 东北黑土区演化历程及范围界定研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(4): 765-775.
	ZHAO Y M, CHENG L P, LIANG Y H, et al. Developing history and defining boundary of the black soil regions in northeast China[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2019, 50(4): 765-775. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	刘兴土, 阎百兴. 东北黑土区水土流失与粮食安全[J]. 中国水土保持, 2009(1): 17-19.
	LIU X T, YAN B X. Soil erosion and food security in black soil region of northeast China[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2009(1): 17-19. (in Chinese)
[4]	OUYANG W, WU Y Y, HAO Z C, et al. Combined impacts of land use and soil property changes on soil erosion in a mollisol area under long-term agricultural development[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 613/614: 798-809.
[5]	梁爱珍, 张延, 陈学文, 等. 东北黑土区保护性耕作的发展现状与成效研究[J]. 地理科学, 2022, 42(8): 1325-1335.
	LIANG A Z, ZHANG Y, CHEN X W, et al. Development and effects of conservation tillage in the black soil region of northeast China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2022, 42(8): 1325-1335. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	敖曼, 张旭东, 关义新. 东北黑土保护性耕作技术的研究与实践[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2021, 36(10): 1203-1215.
	AO M, ZHANG X D, GUAN Y X. Research and practice of conservation tillage in black soil region of northeast China[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2021, 36(10): 1203-1215. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	康轩, 黄景, 吕巨智, 等. 保护性耕作对土壤养分及有机碳库的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(6): 2339-2343.
	KANG X, HUANG J, LV J Z, et al. Effects of conservation tillage on soil nutrient and organic carbon pool[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 18(6): 2339-2343. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	陈强, KRAVCHENKO Y S, 陈渊, 等. 少免耕土壤结构与导水能力的季节变化及其水保效果[J]. 土壤学报, 2014, 51(1): 11-21.
	CHEN Q, KRAVCHENKO Y S, CHEN Y, et al. Seasonal variations of soil structures and hydraulic conductivities and their effects on soil and water conservation under no-tillage and reduced tillage[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2014, 51(1): 11-21. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	崔宁波, 范月圆, 董晋. 玉米秸秆覆盖还田保护性耕作技术在东北地区的应用与发展路径[J]. 玉米科学, 2021, 29(6): 112-117.
	CUI N B, FAN Y Y, DONG J. Application status and developing routes of maize straw mulching of conservation tillage technology in northeast China[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2021, 29(6): 112-117. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	TURMEL M S, SPERATTI A, BAUDRON F, et al. Crop residue management and soil health: a systems analysis[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2015, 134: 6-16.
[11]	SHARMA P, SINGH A, KAHLON C S, et al. The role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture: a review paper[J]. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2018, 9(9): 1935-1951.
[12]	彭琼, 刘宝元, 曹琦, 等. 作物覆盖度对土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(5): 97-103.
	PENG Q, LIU B Y, CAO Q, et al. Effect of crop coverage on soil erosion[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(5): 97-103. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	LAVELLE P, DECAËNS T, AUBERT M, et al. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2006, 42: S3-S15.
[14]	DOMÍNGUEZ A, BEDANO J C, BECKER A R. Negative effects of no-till on soil macrofauna and litter decomposition in Argentina as compared with natural grasslands[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2010, 110(1): 51-59.
[15]	王移, 卫伟, 杨兴中, 等. 我国土壤动物与土壤环境要素相互关系研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(9): 2441-2448.
	WANG Y, WEI W, YANG X Z, et al. Interrelationships between soil fauna and soil environmental factors in China: research advance[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(9): 2441-2448. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	孙新, 李琪, 姚海凤, 等. 土壤动物与土壤健康[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(5): 1073-1083.
	SUN X, LI Q, YAO H F, et al. Soil fauna and soil health[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2021, 58(5): 1073-1083. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	GEORGE P B L, KEITH A M, CREER S, et al. Evaluation of mesofauna communities as soil quality indicators in a national-level monitoring programme[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 115: 537-546.
[18]	MELMAN D A, KELLY C, SCHNEEKLOTH J, et al. Tillage and residue management drive rapid changes in soil macrofauna communities and soil properties in a semiarid cropping system of Eastern Colorado[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2019, 143: 98-106.
[19]	张士秀, 贾淑霞, 常亮, 等. 保护性耕作改善东北农田黑土土壤生物多样性及其生态功能[J]. 地理科学, 2022, 42(8): 1360-1369.
	ZHANG S X, JIA S X, CHANG L, et al. Conservation tillage improves soil biodiversity and its ecological function in the black soil region of northeast China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2022, 42(8): 1360-1369. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	ZHANG S X, LI Q, LÜ Y, et al. Conservation tillage positively influences the microflora and microfauna in the black soil of northeast China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2015, 149: 46-52.
[21]	李泽兴, 孙光芝, 王洋, 等. 玉米秸秆覆盖量对农田土壤动物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(16): 296-300.
	LI Z X, SUN G Z, WANG Y, et al. Effects of maize stubble mulch amount on soil animal community structure[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2010, 26(16): 296-300. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	杨迪, 林琳, 杨旭, 等. 黑龙江不同玉米秸秆还田方式下土壤动物群落结构及其对秸秆降解的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(1): 356-366.
	YANG D, LIN L, YANG X, et al. Community structure of soil animals and its effect on straw degradation under different maize straw returning patterns in Heilongjiang Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(1): 356-366. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	马南, 钱瑞雪, 杨慧敏, 等. 免耕留茬耕作对中小型土壤动物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(5): 825-831.
	MA N, QIAN R X, YANG H M, et al. Effects of no tillage and stubble mulch on soil meso-microfauna communities[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2018, 30(5): 825-831. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	尹文英. 中国土壤动物检索图鉴[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1998.
[25]	郑乐怡, 归鸿. 昆虫分类[M]. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社, 1999.
[26]	钟觉民. 幼虫分类学[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1990.
[27]	孙儒泳. 普通生态学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1993.
[28]	WARDLE D A. Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices[J]. Advances in Ecological Research, 1995, 26: 105-185.
[29]	BEDANO J C, DOMÍNGUEZ A, AROLFO R, et al. Effect of Good Agricultural Practices under no-till on litter and soil invertebrates in areas with different soil types[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2016, 158: 100-109.
[30]	连旭, 隋玉柱, 武海涛, 等. 秸秆还田对黑土农田土壤甲螨群落结构的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017, 36(1): 134-142.
	LIAN X, SUI Y Z, WU H T, et al. Effect of on-site recycling of straw on community structure of soil Oribatida in black soil farmland[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2017, 36(1): 134-142. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	Dı’AZ-ZORITA M, DUARTE G A, GROVE J H. A review of no-till systems and soil management for sustainable crop production in the subhumid and semiarid Pampas of Argentina[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2002, 65(1): 1-18.
[32]	LAL R, REICOSKY D C, HANSON J D. Evolution of the plow over 10, 000 years and the rationale for no-till farming[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2007, 93(1): 1-12.
[33]	STROUD J L, IRONS D E, CARTER J E, et al. Lumbricus terrestris middens are biological and chemical hotspots in a minimum tillage arable ecosystem[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 105: 31-35.
[34]	OLSSON P A, SJÖHOLM C, ÖDMAN A M. Soil disturbance favours threatened beetle species in sandy grasslands[J]. Journal of Insect Conservation, 2014, 18(5): 827-835.
[35]	LIU J L, REN W, ZHAO W Z, et al. Cropping systems alter the biodiversity of ground-and soil-dwelling herbivorous and predatory arthropods in a desert agroecosystem: implications for pest biocontrol[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2018, 266: 109-121.
[36]	杨旭, 林琳, 张雪萍, 等. 松嫩平原典型黑土耕作区中小型土壤动物时空分布特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(11): 3253-3260.
	YANG X, LIN L, ZHANG X P, et al. Spatio-temporal distribution characteristics of meso-micro soil fauna in typical cultivated blacksoil in the Song-Nen plain area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(11): 3253-3260. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	刘鹏飞, 红梅, 美丽, 等. 不同玉米秸秆还田量的土壤大型动物夏季群落动态特征[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(3): 760-772.
	LIU P F, HONG M, MEI L, et al. Dynamics of soil macrofauna community in farmlands different in corn stalk returning rate[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2020, 57(3): 760-772. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[38]	朱强根, 朱安宁, 张佳宝, 等. 黄淮海平原保护性耕作下玉米季土壤动物多样性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(10): 2417-2423.
	ZHU Q G, ZHU A N, ZHANG J B, et al. Diversity of soil fauna in corn fields in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China under effects of conservation tillage[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2009, 20(10): 2417-2423. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	王振中, 张友梅, 邢协加. 土壤环境变化对土壤动物群落影响的研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2002, 39(6): 892-897.
	WANG Z Z, ZHANG Y M, XING X J. Effect of change in soil environment on community structure of soil animal[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(6): 892-897. (in Chinese with English abstract)

编辑推荐

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

373

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	6	0	0	367

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	242	131
比例	65%	35%

摘要

172

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	172

	来源	本网站

	次数	172
	比例	100%

玉米秸秆留高茬免耕对黑土农田大型土壤动物群落的影响

Influence of no tillage with high stubble on macrofauna community of black soil

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 39

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

类群 Group		春季各处理的密度 Density of each treatment in spring			夏季各处理的密度 Density of each treatment in summer			秋季各处理的密度 Density of each treatment in autumn
类群 Group		CT	NT	SS	CT	NT	SS	CT	NT	SS
颤蚓目 Tubificida	线蚓科 Enchytraeidae	17.8±3.6 (62.5%)	80.0±29.7 (72.6%)	28.4±28.8 (88.9%)	21.3±16.3 (40.0%)	32.0±13.4 (46.2%)	113.8±9.9 (74.4%)	291.6±102.2 (94.3%)	535.1±70.4 (83.1%)	663.1±74.2 (93.5%)
单向蚓目 Haplotaxida	正蚓科 Lumbricidae	—	—	—	7.1±4.7 (13.3%)	3.6±1.8 (5.1%)	8.9±1.8 (5.8%)	—	3.6±3.6 (0.6%)	5.3±5.3 (0.8%)
鞘翅目 Coleoptera	隐翅虫科 Staphylinidae	3.6±1.8 (12.5%)	1.8±1.8 (1.6%)	—	—	3.6±3.6 (5.1%)	8.9±3.6 (5.8%)	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)	3.6±3.6 (0.5%)
	步甲科 Carabidae	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	3.6±1.8 (5.1%)	—	—	—	—
	金龟子科 Scarabaeidae	—	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (2.6%)	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)
	葬甲科 Silphidae	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	—	—	—
	出尾蕈甲科 Scaphidiidae	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)	—
	步甲科幼虫 Carabidae larvae	—	7.1±1.8 (6.5%)	—	—	3.6±1.8 (5.1%)	1.8±1.8 (1.2%)	1.8±1.8 (0.6%)	46.2±46.2 (7.2%)	—
	隐翅虫科幼虫 Staphylinidae larvae	—	3.6±1.8 (3.2%)	—	—	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)	—
	叩甲科幼虫 Elateridae larvae	—	1.8±1.8 (1.6%)	—	—	1.8±1.8 (2.6%)	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)
	象甲科幼虫 Curculiondae larvae	1.8±1.8 (6.3%)	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	—	—	—
	虎甲科幼虫 Cicindelidae larvae	—	—	—	—	—	3.6±3.6 (2.3%)	—	—	—
	金龟子科幼虫 Scarabaeidae larvae	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)	—
地蜈蚣目 Geophilomorpha		3.6±3.6 (12.5%)	1.8±1.8 (1.6%)	—	7.1±7.1 (13.3%)	1.8±1.8 (2.6%)	7.1±4.7 (4.7%)	1.8±1.8 (0.6%)	3.6±3.6 (0.6%)	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)
双翅目幼虫 Diptera larvae		1.8±1.8 (6.3%)	5.3±3.1 (4.8%)	—	—	1.8±1.8 (2.6%)	—	12.4±6.4 (4.0%)	44.4±31.1 (6.9%)	5.3±3.1 (0.8%)
膜翅目 Hymenoptera	蚁科 Formicidae	—	5.3±3.1 (4.8%)	3.6±1.8 (11.1%)	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	14.2±9.4 (20.5%)	1.8±1.8 (1.2%)	—	—	24.9±22.3 (3.5%)
鳞翅目 Lepidoptera	蝙蝠蛾科幼虫 Hepialidae larvae	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.6%)	—	—
蜘蛛目 Araneae		—	—	—	3.6±1.8 (6.7%)	—	3.6±3.6 (2.3%)	—	3.6±1.8 (0.6%)	—
石蜈蚣目 Lithobiomorpha		—	1.8±1.8 (1.6%)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
半翅目 Hemiptera	奇蝽科 Enicocephalidae	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	—	—	—
啮虫目 Psocoptera	啮科 Psocidae	—	1.8±1.8 (1.6%)	—	1.8±1.8 (3.3%)	—	—	—	—	—
双尾目 Diplura	铗科 Japygidae	—	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (2.6%)	—	—	—	—
直翅目 Orthoptera	蟋蟀科 Gryllidae	—	—	—	—	—	3.6±3.6 (2.3%)	—	—	—
等足目 Isopoda	潮虫科 Oniscidae	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.8±1.8 (0.3%)
合计 Total		28.4± 4.7	110.2± 25.1	32.0± 29.4	53.3± 18.7	69.3± 5.3	152.9± 9.4	309.3± 101.4	643.6± 9.5	709.3± 58.7

[1]	乔红雍, 袁涛, 赵信勇, 杨会岩. 不同株龄鲁菏红细根内生微生物群落变化特征[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(1): 115-126.
[2]	斯林林, 徐静, 曹凯, 张贤, 王建红. 绿肥种植对红壤旱地生土细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1864-1875.
[3]	朱诗君, 王丽丽, 金树权, 周金波, 汪峰, 卢晓红. 不同土壤消毒方式对土壤真菌多样性和群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 639-646.
[4]	王静鸽, 吉小凤, 吴静, 杨华, 唐标, 丁保安. 磺胺间甲氧嘧啶对蛋鸡粪便菌群结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 284-292.
[5]	崔宁波, 生世玉. 粮食安全视角下的东北黑土区耕地生态补偿研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(9): 1759-1769.
[6]	陈乾丽, 汪汉成, 梁永进, 蔡刘体, 黄宇, 周浩, 李忠, 韩洁. 烤后健康烟叶和霉烂烟叶真菌群落结构分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(6): 1019-1028.
[7]	罗熳丽, 兰琴, 王戈, 魏洪, 肖玖金, 张健. 施肥对农田土壤动物群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(6): 946-954.
[8]	苟丽琼, 姚恒, 王戈, 黄如成, 段均华, 肖玖金, 张健. 稻草不同还田方式对土壤动物群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(3): 450-457.
[9]	张茜, 杨东旭, 钟永德, 周国英, 李文明. 黄石寨景区旅游活动对典型植物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(7): 1158-1165.
[10]	郭静, 周可金. 麦秸还田量和还田方式对砂姜黑土地玉米播种出苗质量及光合的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(5): 717-721.
[11]	郭静, 周可金, 刘芳, 陈琳, 査道贵. 小麦秸秆还田量和还田方式对砂姜黑土地玉米生长发育的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(4): 521-527.
[12]	罗熳丽, 黄婷婷, 肖玖金, 黄进平, 张健, 彭彩云. 城市草坪不同管理方式下土壤动物群落结构特征与差异[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(11): 1835-1843.
[13]	李媛媛, 石凯, 德力格尔. 内蒙古草盲蝽复合组昆虫群落结构及区系[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(9): 1558-1563.
[14]	张爱菊1，2，3,刘金殿1，2，3,，杨元杰1，2，3，郭爱环1，2，3，顾志敏1，2，3，. 钱塘江桐庐渔业资源增殖放流区底栖动物群落结构特征分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(8): 1323-.
[15]	刘丹, 吴凤芝. 转Pal基因拟南芥对根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(12): 2068-2075.