蚯蚓-秸秆联合修复设施盐渍化土壤的效果及其作用机制

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250118

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 327-338.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250118

蚯蚓-秸秆联合修复设施盐渍化土壤的效果及其作用机制

刘佳铭¹^,²(), 王楠³, 马志梅², 吕卫光²^,⁴^,⁵, 郑宪清²^,⁶^,⁷, 宋科²^,⁵^,⁷, 张翰林²^,⁴^,⁵, 张海韵²^,⁴^,⁵, 张月²^,⁴^,⁵^,^*(), 张娟琴²^,⁴^,⁵

1.上海应用技术大学化学与环境工程学院, 上海 201418
2.上海市农业科学院生态环境保护研究所, 上海 201403
3.上海上实现代农业开发有限公司, 上海 202183
4.上海市设施园艺技术重点实验室, 上海 201403
5.上海市农业环境保护监测站, 上海 201403
6.农业农村部上海农业环境与耕地保育科学观测实验站, 上海 201403
7.上海低碳农业工程技术研究中心, 上海 201403

收稿日期:2025-02-17 出版日期:2026-02-25 发布日期:2026-03-24
作者简介:刘佳铭,研究方向为土壤修复。E-mail: 2573492220@qq.com
通讯作者: ^*张月,E-mail: zhangyuelsz@163.com
基金资助:
上海市科技创新行动计划(22DZ1209404);上海市科技创新行动计划(23015820900);上海市农业科学院卓越团队建设计划(沪农科卓〔2022〕008(沪农科卓〔2022〕008)

Effect and mechanisms of remediation on salinized greenhouse soil by earthworm-straw

LIU Jiaming¹^,²(), WANG Nan³, MA Zhimei², LYU Weiguang²^,⁴^,⁵, ZHENG Xianqing²^,⁶^,⁷, SONG Ke²^,⁵^,⁷, ZHANG Hanlin²^,⁴^,⁵, ZHANG Haiyun²^,⁴^,⁵, ZHANG Yue²^,⁴^,⁵^,^*(), ZHANG Juanqin²^,⁴^,⁵

1. School of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai 201418, China
2. Institute of Ecological and Environmental Protection, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai 201403, China
3. Shanghai Shangrealizai Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., Shanghai 202183, China
4. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Facility Horticulture Technology, Shanghai 201403, China
5. Shanghai Agricultural Environmental Protection Monitoring Station, Shanghai 201403, China
6. Shanghai Agricultural Environment and Cultivated Land Conservation Scientific Observation and Experiment Station, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Shanghai 201403, China
7. Shanghai Low Carbon Agricultural Engineering Technology Research Center, Shanghai 201403, China

Received:2025-02-17 Online:2026-02-25 Published:2026-03-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对设施盐渍化土壤存在的生产障碍,本研究基于连作10 a的葡萄设施盐渍化土壤(电导率为2 301.55 μS·cm^-1),引入蚯蚓和秸秆进行修复,设置不投放蚯蚓和秸秆(CK)、投放1%水稻秸秆(S1)、投放2%水稻秸秆(S2)、投放0.6 kg·m^-2威廉环毛蚓(E)、投放0.6 kg·m^-2威廉环毛蚓和1%水稻秸秆(S1E)、投放0.6 kg·m^-2威廉环毛蚓和2%水稻秸秆(S2E)6个处理,评估蚯蚓、秸秆联合对设施盐渍化土壤的修复效果,并探寻其中的关键微生物。试验90 d时(试验结束),S1、S2、S1E、S2E处理的耕层(0~20 cm)土壤电导率较试验15 d时分别下降46.43%、49.74%、52.34%和53.44%。与CK相比,S1E、S2E处理的土壤碱解氮、有效磷、速效钾、有机质和可溶性有机碳含量分别显著(p<0.05)提升12.68%~14.16%、12.45%~14.58%、14.89%~17.10%、19.48%~21.24%、30.19%~31.03%。三维荧光分析显示,土壤中的腐殖质类物质含量增加。添加秸秆的处理(S1、S2、S1E、S2E)中,鞘脂单胞菌属(Sphingomonas)、德沃斯氏菌属(Devosia)、交替赤杆菌属(Altererythrobacter)、Chthoniobacter、norank_f_Microscillaceae等秸秆降解相关菌属,和假黄色单胞菌属(Pseudoxanthomonas)、苍黄杆菌属(Luteolibacter)、节杆菌属(Arthrobacter)、norank_f_norank_o_Gaiellales等对盐分敏感的菌属的绝对丰度均较CK提高。总体来看,蚯蚓与秸秆联合修复通过促进土壤耕层盐离子向下迁移、增强土壤中秸秆的降解和对土壤微生物群落的调节,最终降低了设施盐渍化土壤的盐分,提升了土壤肥力,缓解了盐分对土壤微生物群落的胁迫。

关键词: 盐渍化土壤, 秸秆, 蚯蚓, 土壤养分, 土壤微生物

Abstract:

Aimed at the production obstacles associated with salinized greenhouse soil, an experiment was conducted on soils with 10 years of continuous cropping of grape (electrical conductivity of 2 301.55 μS·cm^-1) to evaluate the remediation effect of the combined application of earthworms and straw on salinized greenhouse soil and identify the key functional microorganisms involved. Earthworms and rice straw were introduced for soil remediation, with six treatments established: no earthworms or straw addition (CK), 1% rice straw addition (S1), 2% rice straw addition (S2), 0.6 kg·m^-2 Pheretima guillelmi addition (E), 0.6 kg·m^-2 P. guillelmi combined with 1% rice straw (S1E), and 0.6 kg·m^-2 P. guillelmi combined with 2% rice straw (S2E). On the 90th day (the end of the experiment), the electrical conductivity of the topsoil (0-20 cm) in treatments S1, S2, S1E, and S2E decreased by 46.43%, 49.74%, 52.34%, and 53.44%, respectively, compared with that on the 15th day. Compared with CK, the contents of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, organic matter, and dissolved organic carbon in S1E and S2E were significantly (p<0.05) increased by 12.68%-14.16%, 12.45%-14.58%, 14.89%-17.10%, 19.48%-21.24%, and 30.19%-31.03%, respectively. Besides, three-dimensional excitation-emission matrix (3D-EEM) fluorescence spectroscopy analysis revealed an increase in the content of humic substances in the soil. Among the treatments with straw addition (S1, S2, S1E, S2E), the absolute abundances of straw-degradation-related genera (e.g., Sphingomonas, Devosia, Altererythrobacter, Chthoniobacter, norank_f_Microscillaceae) and salt-sensitive genera (e.g., Pseudoxanthomonas, Luteolibacter, Arthrobacter, norank_f_norank_o_Gaiellales) were all higher than those in CK. Overall, the combined remediation with earthworms and straw reduced soil salinity, improved soil fertility, and alleviated the salt stress on soil microbial communities in salinized greenhouse soil, which was attributed to promoting the downward migration of salt ions in the topsoil, enhancing straw degradation, and regulating the soil microbial community structure.

Key words: salinized soil, straw, earthworm, soil nutrient, soil microorganism

中图分类号:

S156.4

刘佳铭, 王楠, 马志梅, 吕卫光, 郑宪清, 宋科, 张翰林, 张海韵, 张月, 张娟琴. 蚯蚓-秸秆联合修复设施盐渍化土壤的效果及其作用机制[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 327-338.

LIU Jiaming, WANG Nan, MA Zhimei, LYU Weiguang, ZHENG Xianqing, SONG Ke, ZHANG Hanlin, ZHANG Haiyun, ZHANG Yue, ZHANG Juanqin. Effect and mechanisms of remediation on salinized greenhouse soil by earthworm-straw[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(2): 327-338.

图/表 7

图1 不同处理耕层(0~20 cm)土壤(a)和土柱渗出液(b)的电导率(EC)变化

Fig.1 Dynamic of electrical conductivity (EC) in topsoil (0-20 cm) (a) and soil column leachate (b) under different treatments

表1 不同处理的土壤微生物Alpha多样性分析

Table 1 Alpha diversity of soil microbes under different treatments

样本 Sample	ACE指数 ACE index	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	香农指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index
CK_30	2 596.97±130.86 b	2 550.50±119.45 b	6.75±0.07 c	0.003 3±0.000 5 bc
E_30	2 351.07±74.72 b	2 286.94±70.41 b	6.62±0.05 d	0.002 8±0.000 4 cd
S1_30	2 409.49±286.14 b	2 352.81±254.80 b	6.61±0.05 d	0.003 6±0.000 7 b
S2_30	2 452.36±98.73 b	2 375.82±82.17 b	6.37±0.03 e	0.005 3±0.000 3 a
S1E_30	2 672.06±291.80 b	2 612.60±284.23 b	6.87±0.08 b	0.002 2±0.000 2 de
S2E_30	3 047.98±129.26 a	2 960.46±113.92 a	6.99±0.01 a	0.002 0±0.000 1 e
CK_60	2 670.53±164.72 bc	2 605.02±143.90 b	6.81±0.02 ab	0.003 1±0.000 1 b
E_60	2 431.99±91.36 c	2 363.28±92.77 c	6.64±0.10 c	0.003 5±0.000 8 b
S1_60	3 251.13±56.54 a	3 149.65±63.22 a	6.90±0.02 a	0.002 5±0.000 1 b
S2_60	2 754.01±70.96 b	2 662.33±58.14 b	6.43±0.10 d	0.005 3±0.001 0 a
S1E_60	2 777.83±246.77 b	2 702.45±240.17 b	6.73±0.02 bc	0.003 4±0.000 4 b
S2E_60	2 732.12±61.47 b	2 653.02±61.48 b	6.72±0.07 bc	0.003 2±0.000 4 b
CK_90	3 173.01±369.21 a	3 105.98±363.12 a	6.95±0.10 a	0.003 0±0.000 3 a
E_90	2 555.83±162.09 b	2 508.36±153.87 b	6.75±0.07 a	0.003 1±0.000 5 a
S1_90	2 913.72±191.76 ab	2 834.26±173.95 ab	6.70±0.07 a	0.004 9±0.001 3 a
S2_90	2 932.50±94.65 ab	2 847.32±86.48 ab	6.77±0.01 a	0.004 0±0.000 2 a
S1E_90	3 266.39±531.59 a	3 160.03±514.47 a	6.84±0.28 a	0.003 3±0.003 1 a
S2E_90	3 417.69±238.20 a	3 292.91±220.01 a	6.87±0.28 a	0.002 7±0.003 7 a

图2 不同处理下耕层(0~20 cm)土壤微生物的主坐标分析(PCoA)结果

Fig.2 Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) results of microbes in topsoil (0-20 cm)

图3 耕层土壤微生物在门分类水平上的相对丰度 Proteobacteria,变形菌门;Firmicutes,厚壁菌门;Actinobacteriota,放线菌门;Bacteroidota,拟杆菌门;Chloroflexi,绿弯菌门;Acidobacteriota,酸杆菌门;Gemmatimonadota,芽单胞菌门;Myxococcota,黏细菌门;Verrucomicrobiota,疣微菌门;Planctomycetota,浮霉菌门;Others,其他。

Fig.3 Relative abundance of microorganism in topsoil at phylum level

图4 不同处理耕层土壤属水平上部分功能微生物的绝对丰度 Sphingomonas,鞘脂单胞菌属;Pseudoxanthomonas,假黄色单胞菌属;Devosia,德沃斯氏菌属;Altererythrobacter,交替赤杆菌属;Microbulbifer,微泡菌属;norank_f_Microscillaceae,微颤蓝细菌科未分类属;Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium,异根瘤菌属-新根瘤菌属-副根瘤菌属-根瘤菌属;Luteolibacter,苍黄杆菌属;Arthrobacter,节杆菌属;norank_f_norank_o_Gaiellales,Gaiellales目未分类属。a、c、e分别为试验30、60、90 d时耕层(0~20 cm)土壤属水平上木质素/纤维素降解菌的运算分类单元(OTU)绝对丰度,b、d、f分别为试验30、60、90 d时耕层土壤属水平上盐分敏感菌的OTU绝对丰度。

Fig.4 Absolute abundances of some functional microorganisms at genus level in topsoil under different treatments a, c, and e represent the absolute abundances of OTU of lignin/cellulose-degrading bacteria at the genus level in the topsoil (0-20 cm) on the 30th, 60th, and 90th day of the experiment, respectively; while b, d, and f represent the absolute abundances of operational taxonomic unit (OTU) of salt-sensitive bacteria at the genus level in the topsoil on the 30th, 60th, and 90th day of the experiment, respectively.

表2 不同处理的土壤养分含量

Table 2 Soil nutrients content under different treatments

处理Treatment	ω_AN/(mg·kg^-1)	ω_AP/(mg·kg^-1)	ω_AK/(mg·kg^-1)	ω_OM/(g·kg^-1)	ω_DOC/(mg·L^-1)
CK	124.51±0.27 d	39.37±0.27 b	300.00±2.65 c	18.74±0.33 c	22.59±0.07 c
E	163.45±0.27 a	38.84±2.84 b	278.00±6.08 d	18.64±0.31 c	22.53±0.12 d
S1	96.75±1.63 e	42.85±0.48 a	339.00±4.58 b	20.22±0.07 b	35.26±0.28 a
S2	96.29±1.58 e	43.76±0.33 a	340.37±4.28 b	20.37±0.04 b	35.27±0.55 a
S1E	142.14±0.33 b	44.27±0.33 a	344.67±3.74 ab	22.39±0.25 a	29.41±0.11 b
S2E	140.30±0.01 c	45.11±0.60 a	351.30±3.90 a	22.72±0.16 a	29.60±0.36 b

图5 不同处理下耕层土壤的三维(3D)荧光图 a~f依次为CK、S1、S2、E、S1E、S2E处理的结果。

Fig.5 Three-dimensional (3D) fluorescence spectra of topsoil under different treatments a-f show the result of CK, S1, S2, E, S1E, S2E in sequence.

参考文献 36

[1]	杨真, 王宝山. 中国盐渍土资源现状及改良利用对策[J]. 山东农业科学, 2015, 47(4): 125-130.
	YANG Z, WANG B S. Present status of saline soil resources and countermeasures for improvement and utilization in China[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 47(4): 125-130.
[2]	ABIALA M A, ABDELRAHMAN M, BURRITT D J, et al. Salt stress tolerance mechanisms and potential applications of legumes for sustainable reclamation of salt-degraded soils[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2018, 29(10): 3812-3822.
[3]	吴晓卫, 付瑞敏, 郭彦钊, 等. 耐盐碱微生物复合菌剂的选育、复配及其对盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(6): 346-349.
	WU X W, FU R M, GUO Y Z, et al. Breeding, compounding and improvement effect of saline-alkali tolerant microbial compound agent on saline-alkali soil[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 43(6): 346-349.
[4]	周哲哲, 张磊, 王甲辰, 等. 种植年限对京郊温室土壤生态环境的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(1): 177-184.
	ZHOU Z Z, ZHANG L, WANG J C, et al. Effects of planting years on soil ecological environment of greenhouse in a suburb of Beijing[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2021, 52(1): 177-184.
[5]	胡炎, 杨帆, 杨宁, 等. 盐碱地资源分析及利用研究展望[J]. 土壤通报, 2023, 54(2): 489-494.
	HU Y, YANG F, YANG N, et al. Analysis and prospects of saline-alkali land in China from the perspective of utilization[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2023, 54(2): 489-494.
[6]	周和平, 张立新, 禹锋, 等. 我国盐碱地改良技术综述及展望[J]. 现代农业科技, 2007(11): 159-161, 164.
	ZHOU H P, ZHANG L X, YU F, et al. Summary and prospect of saline-alkali land improvement technology in China[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2007(11): 159-161, 164.
[7]	SASTRE-CONDE I, CARMEN LOBO M, ICELA BELTRÁN-HERNÁNDEZ R, et al. Remediation of saline soils by a two-step process: washing and amendment with sludge[J]. Geoderma, 2015, 247: 140-150.
[8]	陈尚洪, 朱钟麟, 吴婕, 等. 紫色土丘陵区秸秆还田的腐解特征及对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(6): 141-144.
	CHEN S H, ZHU Z L, WU J, et al. Decomposition characteristics of straw return to soil and its effect on soil fertility in purple hilly region[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20(6): 141-144.
[9]	秦都林. 滨海盐碱地棉花秸秆还田和深松对土壤理化性质及棉花产量品质的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2017.
	QIN D L. Effects of cotton stalk returning and subsoiling on soil physico-chemical properties and cotton yield and fiber quality in coastal saline-alkali soil[D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2017.
[10]	董建新, 丛萍, 刘娜, 等. 秸秆深还对黑土亚耕层土壤物理性状及团聚体分布特征的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(4): 921-934.
	DONG J X, CONG P, LIU N, et al. Effects of deep straw incorporation on subsoil physical properties and aggregate distribution in black soil[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2021, 58(4): 921-934.
[11]	李磊, 樊丽琴, 吴霞, 等. 秸秆还田对盐碱地土壤物理性质、酶活性及油葵产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(12): 1997-2004.
	LI L, FAN L Q, WU X, et al. Effects of straw returning to field on physical properties, enzyme activity of saline-alkali soil and yield of oil sunflower[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 1997-2004.
[12]	唐继华, 黄臻瑞, 马永华, 等. 蚯蚓生物反应器处理技术对小麦秸秆消解的应用效果[J]. 中国科技信息, 2013(1): 65.
	TANG J H, HUANG Z R, MA Y H, et al. Application effect of earthworm bioreactor treatment technology on wheat straw digestion[J]. China Science and Technology Information, 2013(1): 65.
[13]	SONG K, SUN Y F, QIN Q, et al. The effects of earthworms on fungal diversity and community structure in farmland soil with returned straw[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11: 594265.
[14]	张娟琴, 郑宪清, 李双喜, 等. 种养模式下蚯蚓对西瓜连作障碍的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2023, 54(5): 1159-1166.
	ZHANG J Q, ZHENG X Q, LI S X, et al. Effects of different earthworms on continuous cropping obstacles in watermelon-earthworm co-culture pattern[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2023, 54(5): 1159-1166.
[15]	胡南南, 逄蕾, 路建龙, 等. 秸秆覆盖对玉米农田土壤有机碳及其组分的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2024, 55(3): 695-706.
	HU N N, PANG L, LU J L, et al. Effects of straw mulching on soil organic carbon and its components in maize fields[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2024, 55(3): 695-706.
[16]	BUGG T D, AHMAD M, HARDIMAN E M, et al. The emerging role for bacteria in lignin degradation and bio-product formation[J]. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2011, 22(3): 394-400.
[17]	王彦伟, 祝其丽, 吴波, 等. 富集纤维素降解菌群过程中微生物群落多样性分析[J]. 中国沼气, 2023, 41(1): 40-46.
	WANG Y W, ZHU Q L, WU B, et al. Analysis of microbial diversity of cellulose degrading concentration process[J]. China Biogas, 2023, 41(1): 40-46.
[18]	章俊, 雷琼, 邱祖明, 等. 江陵天星观一号楚墓出土饱水木漆器F455中细菌对硬松木的腐蚀研究[J]. 文物保护与考古科学, 2017, 29(4): 19-26.
	ZHANG J, LEI Q, QIU Z M, et al. Study of wood degradation by bacteria from the archaeological waterlogged wood F455 excavated at Chu Tomb No.1 at Tianxingguan[J]. Sciences of Conservation and Archaeology, 2017, 29(4): 19-26.
[19]	杨素勤, 魏森, 张彪, 等. 连续施用改性生物质炭对镉铅土壤修复效果及其对微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(7): 1460-1471.
	YANG S Q, WEI S, ZHANG B, et al. Remediation effect of continuous application of modified biochar on cadmium- and lead-contaminated soil and its effect on microbial community structure[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2022, 41(7): 1460-1471.
[20]	王泽铭, 李传虹, 马巧丽, 等. 湿度盐度pH协同驱动锡林河景观疣微菌群空间异质性[J]. 微生物学报, 2021, 61(6): 1728-1742.
	WANG Z M, LI C H, MA Q L, et al. Moisture, salinity and pH co-driving spatial heterogeneity of Verrucomicrobial populations in Xilin River landscape[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2021, 61(6): 1728-1742.
[21]	林伟芬. 牛粪蚯蚓堆肥过程中水溶性有机物结构的光谱—电化学—质谱研究[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2019.
	LIN W F. Spectroscopic-electrochemical-mass spectrometric study on the structure of dissolved organic matter during vermicomposting of dairy manure[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2019.
[22]	王楠. 基于腐殖酸生物合成的木质纤维素好氧固态发酵特性研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2019.
	WANG N. Characteristics of aerobic solid fermentation of lignocellulose for humic acids biosynthesis[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing University, 2019.
[23]	周小惠. Microbulbifer hydrolyticus IRE-31发酵产纤维素酶的研究[D]. 北京: 北京化工大学, 2015.
	ZHOU X H. The research of fermentation Microbulbifer hydrolyticus IRE-31 to produce cellulase[D]. Beijing: Beijing University of Chemical Technology, 2015.
[24]	DEL CARMEN OROZCO-MOSQUEDA M, GLICK B R, SANTOYO G. ACC deaminase in plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB): an efficient mechanism to counter salt stress in crops[J]. Microbiological Research, 2020, 235: 126439.
[25]	高玉坤, 张建东, 杨溥原, 等. 高粱根际土壤细菌群落对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 生物技术通报, 2024, 40(4): 203-216.
	GAO Y K, ZHANG J D, YANG P Y, et al. Responses of sorghum rhizosphere soil bacterial communities to salt stress[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2024, 40(4): 203-216.
[26]	戴良香, 徐扬, 张冠初, 等. 花生根际土壤细菌群落多样性对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(8): 1581-1592.
	DAI L X, XU Y, ZHANG G C, et al. Response of rhizosphere bacterial community diversity to salt stress in peanut[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2021, 47(8): 1581-1592.
[27]	宿庆瑞, 李卫孝, 迟凤琴. 有机肥对土壤盐分及水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(4): 299-301.
	SU Q R, LI W X, CHI F Q. Effect of organic fertilizer application on soil salt content and the yield of rice[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2006, 22(4): 299-301.
[28]	黄强, 殷志刚, 田长彦, 等. 施有机肥条件下的土壤溶液盐分变化动态[J]. 干旱区研究, 2001, 18(1): 53-56.
	HUANG Q, YIN Z G, TIAN C Y, et al. The variation of saltiness of soil solution in the farmland fertilized by organic manure[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2001, 18(1): 53-56.
[29]	郜翻身, 崔志祥, 樊润威, 等. 有机物料对盐碱化土壤的改良作用[J]. 土壤通报, 1997, 28(1): 9-11.
	GAO F S, CUI Z X, FAN R W, et al. Improvement of organic materials on saline-alkali soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 1997, 28(1): 9-11.
[30]	RAHMAN M M, HAGARE D, MAHESHWARI B. Framework to assess sources controlling soil salinity resulting from irrigation using recycled water: an application of Bayesian Belief Network[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 105: 406-419.
[31]	LIU M L, WANG C, LIU X L, et al. Saline-alkali soil applied with vermicompost and humic acid fertilizer improved macroaggregate microstructure to enhance salt leaching and inhibit nitrogen losses[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2020, 156: 103705.
[32]	LIU M L, WANG C, WANG F Y, et al. Maize (Zea mays) growth and nutrient uptake following integrated improvement of vermicompost and humic acid fertilizer on coastal saline soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2019, 142: 147-154.
[33]	DING Z L, KHEIR A M S, ALI O A M, et al. A vermicompost and deep tillage system to improve saline-sodic soil quality and wheat productivity[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 277: 111388.
[34]	HOSSEINZADEH S R, AMIRI H, ISMAILI A. Evaluation of photosynthesis, physiological, and biochemical responses of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv. Pirouz) under water deficit stress and use of vermicompost fertilizer[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(11): 2426-2437.
[35]	YANG L J, ZHAO F Y, CHANG Q, et al. Effects of vermicomposts on tomato yield and quality and soil fertility in greenhouse under different soil water regimes[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2015, 160: 98-105.
[36]	CASTILLO J M, ROMERO E, NOGALES R. Dynamics of microbial communities related to biochemical parameters during vermicomposting and maturation of agroindustrial lignocellulose wastes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 146: 345-354.

蚯蚓-秸秆联合修复设施盐渍化土壤的效果及其作用机制

Effect and mechanisms of remediation on salinized greenhouse soil by earthworm-straw

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 36

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李传哲, 董青君, 纪力, 汪吉东, 陈川, 章安康, 张永春, 邵文奇. 新型肥料对典型黄河故道区土壤养分、微生物群落及稻麦产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(1): 136-147.
[2]	朱为静, 吴佳, 洪春来, 朱凤香, 洪磊东, 张涛, 张硕, 诸惠芬. 秸秆覆盖对土壤水热肥及蟠桃产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1924-1932.
[3]	张智, 何豪豪, 郁妙, 许剑锋. 化肥减量配施土壤改良剂对土壤酸度、土壤养分和水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1301-1308.
[4]	林小兵, 黎江, 成艳红, 王斌强, 何绍浪, 黄尚书, 黄欠如. 不同有机物料对土壤微生物生物量、矿质氮含量与水稻产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1309-1318.
[5]	苏扬, 商小兰, 钱忠明, 吴林根, 黄佳琦, 庄海峰, 赵宇飞, 党洪阳, 徐立军. 腐熟剂与生物炭协同强化秸秆还田对土壤质量和水稻生长的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(5): 1139-1148.
[6]	王云龙, 贾生强, 崔玲宇, 吕豪豪, 沈阿林, 苏瑶. 秸秆还田下土壤碳氮分布与固氮和反硝化细菌种群的相互影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(10): 2150-2164.
[7]	周毛措, 卢建雄, 郭晓农, 冯玉兰, 柴薇薇, 高鹏飞. 基于响应面法优化藜麦秸秆发酵工艺[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(9): 2020-2030.
[8]	颜晶莹, 倪亮, 沈星宇, 李玉. 热处理对转基因秸秆中重组蛋白和重组DNA的降解作用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(9): 2079-2088.
[9]	胡铁军. 化肥减量配施微生物肥对西蓝花产量品质与土壤性质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1657-1665.
[10]	熊瑞, 欧阳宁, 欧茜, 钟康裕, 周文涛, 王泓睿, 龙攀, 徐莹, 傅志强. 秸秆还田与耕作方式对双季稻土壤团聚体及碳氮含量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(6): 1347-1356.
[11]	侯栋, 李亚莉, 岳宏忠, 张东琴, 姚拓, 黄书超, 杨海兴. 微生物菌肥替代部分化肥对花椰菜产量、品质及土壤微生物的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(3): 589-599.
[12]	吴雨珂, 王峰, 王依凡, 吴雪萍, 朱维琴. 牛粪蚯蚓堆肥条件优化与堆制物的性状变化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(10): 2308-2315.
[13]	王浩杨, 荆天天, 唐忠, 王国强, 陈树人. 田间废弃秸秆捡拾打捆机设计与试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(10): 2368-2378.
[14]	岳宗伟, 李嘉骁, 孙向阳, 刘国梁, 李素艳, 王晨晨, 查贵超, 魏宁娴. 化肥有机肥配施对土壤性质、樱桃果实品质和产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(9): 2192-2201.
[15]	汪洁, 陆若辉, 朱伟锋, 陈钰佩, 单英杰. 浙江省主要粮食作物秸秆还田替代化肥的潜力[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1853-1863.