施用土壤改良剂对葡萄园酸化土壤质量与葡萄品质的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250681

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 1636-1647.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250681

施用土壤改良剂对葡萄园酸化土壤质量与葡萄品质的影响

张圆圆¹(), 盛文庆¹, 张乔淞¹, 黄巧巧¹, 王峰², 陈立天², 刘玉学²^,³^,^*()

¹ 浦江县农业技术推广中心, 浙江浦江 322200
² 浙江省农业科学院环境资源与土壤肥料研究所, 农产品质量安全全国重点实验室, 浙江杭州 310021
³ 浙江省生物炭工程技术研究中心, 浙江杭州 310021

收稿日期:2025-11-04 出版日期:2026-08-25 发布日期:2026-09-14
作者简介:张圆圆,主要从事土肥技术推广工作。E-mail: 344595578@qq.com
通讯作者: *刘玉学,E-mail: liuyuxue505@163.com
基金资助:
浙江省农业科学院地方科技合作项目(PJ202110)

Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality

ZHANG Yuanyuan¹(), SHENG Wenqing¹, ZHANG Qiaosong¹, HUANG Qiaoqiao¹, WANG Feng², CHEN Litian², LIU Yuxue²^,³^,^*()

¹ Agricultural Technology Extension Center of Pujiang County, Pujiang 322200, Zhejiang China
² State Key Laboratory for Quality and Safety of Agro-Products, Institute of Soil, Fertilizer and Environmental Resources, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China
³ Engineering Research Center of Biochar of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310021, China

Received:2025-11-04 Published:2026-08-25 Online:2026-09-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究不同土壤改良剂对葡萄园酸化土壤质量与葡萄品质的影响,在浦江地区某葡萄园设置对照(CK)、生石灰(QL)、竹炭(BC)、猪粪生物炭(MB)和炭基肥(CF)共5个处理开展田间试验。结果表明,与CK相比,添加改良剂的4个处理均显著(p<0.05)提升了葡萄园土壤的pH值,显著降低了可交换性酸总量,其中,MB处理的降幅最高,为48.6%。QL、BC和MB处理较CK处理显著降低了土壤中的可交换性H⁺含量,降幅在28.9%~55.1%;QL、MB和CF处理显著降低了土壤中的可交换性Al³⁺含量,降幅在37.4%~44.1%。添加4种改良剂均较CK显著提升了土壤中的交换性Ca²⁺、Mg²⁺含量和阳离子交换量,并显著提升了盐基离子总量和盐基饱和度,增幅分别为34.2%~80.5%和18.2%~60.3%。此外,添加4种改良剂还较CK显著提高了土壤有机质、全氮和速效钾含量,增幅分别为13.8%~39.4%、10.4%~30.1%和19.2%~67.1%。不同处理的土壤细菌和真菌的β多样性和群落组成存在明显差异。与CK相比,BC、MB和CF处理的葡萄果实可溶性固形物含量和固酸比分别显著增加1.91%~2.55%和4.96~12.92百分点,可滴定酸含量显著降低14.6%~28.5%;添加改良剂的4个处理的果实总糖、总花色苷和维生素C含量均显著增加,增幅分别为28.97%~34.99%、8.63%~21.01%、57.50%~152.50%。总体上,猪粪生物炭施入后可显著降低葡萄园土壤酸度,提高土壤交换性盐基离子含量,增加土壤有机质和氮、磷、钾养分含量,并提升葡萄品质,综合改良效果最佳。

关键词: 土壤改良剂, 葡萄园, 酸化土壤, 葡萄品质, 交换性酸, 盐基离子

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different soil amendments on soil quality and grape quality in acidified vineyards, a field experiment was conducted in a vineyard of Pujiang area with five treatments, including control (CK), quicklime (QL), bamboo charcoal (BC), pig manure biochar (MB), and carbon-based fertilizer (CF). The results showed that compared with CK, all four amendment treatments significantly (p<0.05) increased soil pH value and reduced total exchangeable acidity of acidified soil, with the MB treatment exhibiting the highest reduction rate of 48.6%. The QL, BC, and MB treatments significantly decreased soil exchangeable H⁺ content by 28.9% to 55.1% than that of CK, while the QL, MB, and CF treatments significantly reduced soil exchangeable Al³⁺ content by 37.4% to 44.1%. Compared with CK, the four soil amendment treatments significantly increased the contents of soil exchangeable Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺, as well as the cation exchange capacity, and the total base cations content and base saturation were significantly enhanced with increase ranges of 34.2%-80.5% and 18.2%-60.3%, respectively. In addition, the application of the four amendments significantly improved soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and available potassium contents, with increase rates of 13.8%-39.4%, 10.4%-30.1%, and 19.2%-67.1%, respectively. Obvious differences were observed in the β-diversity and community composition of soil bacteria and fungi among different treatments. In comparison with CK, the BC, MB, and CF treatments significantly increased the soluble solid content and solid-acid ratio of grape fruits by 1.91%-2.55% and 4.96-12.92 percentage points, respectively, significantly decreased titratable acid content by 14.6%-28.5%, and all four amendment treatments significantly elevated the contents of total sugar, total anthocyanins, and vitamin C in grape fruits, with increase ranges of 28.97%-34.99%, 8.63%-21.01%, and 57.50%-152.50%, respectively. In conclusion, pig manure biochar can effectively reduce soil acidity, increase the contents of soil exchangeable base cations, organic matter, and major soil nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), and improve grape quality, presenting the optimal comprehensive improvement effect on acidified vineyard soil.

Key words: soil amendment, vineyard, acidified soil, grape quality, exchangeable acidity, base cation

中图分类号:

S663.1
S156

张圆圆, 盛文庆, 张乔淞, 黄巧巧, 王峰, 陈立天, 刘玉学. 施用土壤改良剂对葡萄园酸化土壤质量与葡萄品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(8): 1636-1647.

ZHANG Yuanyuan, SHENG Wenqing, ZHANG Qiaosong, HUANG Qiaoqiao, WANG Feng, CHEN Litian, LIU Yuxue. Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(8): 1636-1647.

图/表 10

图1 不同处理对土壤酸度的影响柱上无相同字母的表示差异显著(p<0.05)。下同。

Fig.1 Effect of different treatments on soil acidity Bars marked without the same letters indicate significant difference at p<0.05. The same as below.

表1 不同处理对土壤阳离子交换量(CEC)、交换性盐基离子含量与盐基饱和度的影响

Table 1 Effects of different treatments on soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), contents of exchangeable base cations and base saturation

处理 Treatment	交换性K⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable K⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Na⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Na⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Ca²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Ca²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性Mg²⁺含量/ (cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable Mg²⁺ content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	CEC/ (cmol·kg^-1)	交换性盐基离子总量/(cmol·kg^-1) Exchangeable base cations content/ (cmol·kg^-1)	盐基饱和度/% Base saturation/%
CK	1.27±0.03 c	0.78±0.07 c	3.56±0.36 c	1.31±0.07 d	13.27±0.17 d	6.93±0.36 d	52.20±3.31 c
QL	1.45±0.25 bc	1.02±0.08 bc	8.50±0.40 a	1.55±0.11 c	14.96±0.21 c	12.51±0.53 a	83.66±3.50 a
BC	1.65±0.04 b	0.96±0.07 c	5.10±0.47 b	1.59±0.12 bc	15.08±0.07 c	9.30±0.34 c	61.68±2.45 b
MB	2.10±0.07 a	1.26±0.24 ab	5.93±0.62 b	1.83±0.10 a	17.75±0.63 a	11.13±0.52 b	62.70±2.69 b
CF	2.19±0.08 a	1.30±0.15 a	5.71±0.34 b	1.75±0.11 ab	16.46±0.51 b	10.95±0.46 b	66.57±3.12 b

图2 不同处理对土壤有机质和养分含量的影响

Fig.2 Effect of different treatments on contents of soil organic matter and nutrients

图3 不同处理的土壤细菌α多样性

Fig.3 The bacterial α-diversity of soil under different treatments

图4 不同处理的土壤细菌β多样性

Fig.4 The bacterial β-diversity of soil under different treatments

图5 不同处理的土壤细菌群落组成 Bacillota,芽孢杆菌门;Actinomycetota,放线菌门;Pseudomonadota,假单胞菌门;Chloroflexota,绿弯菌门;Acidobacteriota,酸杆菌门;Myxococcota,黏细菌门;Verrucomicrobiota,疣微菌门;Gemmatimonadota,芽单胞菌门;Bacteroidota,拟杆菌门;Nitrospirota,硝化螺旋菌门;Planctomycetota,浮霉菌门;Patescibacteria,髌骨细菌门;Thermodesulfobacteriota,热脱硫杆菌门;Latescibacterota,迟杆菌门;Others,其他类群。

Fig. 5 The composition of soil bacterial communities under different treatments

图6 不同处理的土壤真菌α多样性

Fig. 6 The fungal α-diversity of soil under different treatments

图7 不同处理的土壤真菌β多样性

Fig. 7 The fungal β-diversity of soil under different treatments

图8 不同处理的土壤细菌群落组成 Ascomycota,子囊菌门;Unassigned,未分类类群;Basidiomycota,担子菌门;Mortierellomycota,被孢霉门;Rozellomycota,罗兹菌门;Aphelidiomycota,滑鞭虫门;Chytridiomycota,壶菌门;Basidiobolomycota,蛙粪霉门;Fungi_phy_Incertae_sedis,真菌门类地位未定类群;Blastocladiomycota,芽枝霉门;Zoopagomycota,捕虫霉门;Kickxellomycota,梳霉门;Glomeromycota,球囊菌门;Mucoromycota,毛霉门;Entorrhizomycota,根肿黑粉菌门。

Fig.8 The composition of soil fungal communities under different treatments

表2 不同处理对葡萄品质的影响

Table 2 Effects of different treatments on grape quality

处理 Treatment	可溶性固形物含量/% Soluble solid content/%	可滴定酸含量/ (mmol·kg^-1) Titratable acidity/ (mmol·kg^-1)	固酸比/% Soluble solids-acid ratio/%	总糖含量/% Total sugar content/%	维生素C含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Vitamin C content/ (mg·kg^-1)	游离氨基酸总量/(g·kg^-1) Total free amino acids content/ (g·kg^-1)	总花色苷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Anthocyanin content/(mg·kg^-1)
CK	15.67±0.06 b	66.4±2.0 a	32.00±0.87 d	31.58±1.46 b	12.0±1.4 d	0.204±0.010 a	53.3±0.6 d
QL	15.70±0.10 b	61.8±3.6 a	33.80±1.85 cd	41.44±0.43 a	18.9±0.9 c	0.206±0.014 a	57.9±0.8 c
BC	15.97±0.06 a	56.7±3.4 b	36.96±2.28 bc	40.73±1.45 a	19.4±0.8 c	0.223±0.016 a	58.9±3.4 bc
MB	16.00±0.10 a	47.5±3.0 c	44.92±2.84 a	42.19±1.92 a	23.0±1.0 b	0.226±0.012 a	64.5±1.2 a
CF	16.07±0.15 a	55.8±1.4 b	38.21±1.15 b	42.63±1.14 a	30.3±1.3 a	0.215±0.023 a	61.5±1.4 ab

参考文献 38

[1]	Lin J, Massonnet M, Cantu D. The genetic basis of grape and wine aroma[J]. Horticulture Research, 2019, 6: 81.
[2]	赵斌, 张莲晓, 王红, 等. 控水条件下不同肥料配比对葡萄生长的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2023(13): 36-44.
	Zhao B, Zhang L X, Wang H, et al. Effects of fertilizer ratio on grape growth under water control condition[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2023(13): 36-44.
[3]	Yu Z P, Chen H Y H, Searle E B, et al. Whole soil acidification and base cation reduction across subtropical China[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 361: 114107.
[4]	Zhao F J, Ma Y B, Zhu Y G, et al. Soil contamination in China: current status and mitigation strategies[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(2): 750-759.
[5]	Puissant J, Jones B, Goodall T, et al. The pH optimum of soil exoenzymes adapt to long term changes in soil pH[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2019, 138: 107601.
[6]	Zhang S W, Zhu Q C, De Vries W, et al. Effects of soil amendments on soil acidity and crop yields in acidic soils: a world-wide meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 345: 118531.
[7]	胡仁, 龙巧玲, 王力敏, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良效果及机制的研究进展[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2025, 44(4): 11-21.
	Hu R, Long Q L, Wang L M, et al. Progress on effects and mechanism of biochar on amelioration of acidified soils[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2025, 44(4): 11-21.
[8]	Li S N, Ji X H, Chao C, et al. Effects of increasing lime application rates on microbial diversity and community structure in paddy soils[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 161: 103837.
[9]	陈立天, 刘玉学, 何莉莉, 等. 水稻秸秆生物炭对南方稻田土壤的固碳减排效应[J]. 土壤通报, 2024, 55(3): 686-694.
	Chen L T, Liu Y X, He L L, et al. Effects of rice straw biochar on soil carbon sequestration and emission reduction in southern paddy fields[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2024, 55(3): 686-694.
[10]	Meng J, Tao M M, Wang L L, et al. Changes in heavy metal bioavailability and speciation from a Pb-Zn mining soil amended with biochars from co-pyrolysis of rice straw and swine manure[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 633: 300-307.
[11]	李昌娟, 杨文浩, 周碧青, 等. 生物炭基肥对酸化茶园土壤养分及茶叶产质量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(2): 387-397.
	Li C J, Yang W H, Zhou B Q, et al. Effects of biochar based fertilizer on soil nutrients, tea output and quality in an acidified tea field[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2021, 52(2): 387-397.
[12]	赵琳, 刘桂珍, 钱笑杰, 等. 炭基肥添加对蜜柚果园酸性土壤pH和交换性能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(3): 244-251.
	Zhao L, Liu G Z, Qian X J, et al. Effects of biochar-based fertilizer on pH and exchange capacity of acidic soil in pomelo orchard[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(3): 244-251.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 56-271.
[14]	Yang W H, Li C J, Wang S S, et al. Influence of biochar and biochar-based fertilizer on yield, quality of tea and microbial community in an acid tea orchard soil[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2021, 166: 104005.
[15]	申梦雪, 郝芮, 刘新伟, 等. 化肥减量配施秸秆和有机肥对酸化土壤改良及侵蚀阻控的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2024, 38(6): 333-342.
	Shen M X, Hao R, Liu X W, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with straw and organic fertilizer application on soil acidification mitigation and erosion control[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2024, 38(6): 333-342.
[16]	王其选, 范贝贝, 王巍翰, 等. 土壤改良剂对强酸性土壤中菠菜生长和镉累积的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2024, 56(4): 111-117.
	Wang Q X, Fan B B, Wang W H, et al. Effects of soil amendments on spinach growth and cadmium accumulation in strongly acidic soil[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 56(4): 111-117.
[17]	范贝贝, 彭宇涛, 潘成杰, 等. 矿物调理剂对酸性土壤酸度降低和菠菜镉累积的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2023, 28(5): 96-105.
	Fan B B, Peng Y T, Pan C J, et al. Effects of mineral amendments on acidic soil acidity reduction and spinach cadmium accumulation[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2023, 28(5): 96-105.
[18]	王其选, 陈海宁, 王巍翰, 等. 酸性农田土壤改良材料的选择与应用研究进展[J]. 山东农业科学, 2024, 56(5): 171-180.
	Wang Q X, Chen H N, Wang W H, et al. Progress in selection and application of soil improvement materials for acidic farmland[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 56(5): 171-180.
[19]	Hass A, Gonzalez J M, Lima I M, et al. Chicken manure biochar as liming and nutrient source for acid Appalachian soil[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2012, 41(4): 1096-1106.
[20]	石晓芸, 夏尚光, 孙庆业, 等. 皖南山区不同类型森林土壤阳离子交换性能差异[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2024, 51(2): 284-290.
	Shi X Y, Xia S G, Sun Q Y, et al. Differences in soil cation exchange properties among different forests in the southern mountainous area of Anhui Province[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 2024, 51(2): 284-290.
[21]	张智, 何豪豪, 郁妙, 等. 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.
	Zhang Z, He H H, Yu M, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction combined with soil conditioner on soil acidity, soil nutrients and rice yield[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(6): 1301-1308.
[22]	秦书琪, 房凯, 王冠钦, 等. 高寒草原土壤交换性盐基离子对氮添加的响应: 以紫花针茅草原为例[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(1): 95-104.
	Qin S Q, Fang K, Wang G Q, et al. Responses of exchangeable base cations to continuously increasing nitrogen addition in alpine steppe: a case study of Stipa purpurea steppe[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018, 42(1): 95-104.
[23]	谢洪梅, 倪伟, 关亚菲, 等. 连续多年施用有机肥替代施用化肥对苹果园土壤酸碱度和交换性能的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2025(2): 14-21.
	Xie H M, Ni W, Guan Y F, et al. Effects of continuous years organic fertilizer replacing chemical fertilizer on soil pH and exchange capacity in apple orchard[J]. China Fruits, 2025(2): 14-21.
[24]	冀建华, 李絮花, 刘秀梅, 等. 硅钙钾镁肥对南方稻田土壤酸度的改良作用[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(4): 895-906.
	Ji J H, Li X H, Liu X M, et al. Effect of Si-Ca-K-Mg fertil-izer remedying acid paddy soil in South China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 56(4): 895-906.
[25]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 304-311.
[26]	郜礼阳, 林威鹏, 张风姬, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良的研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(1): 35-44.
	Gao L Y, Lin W P, Zhang F J, et al. Research progress of biochar in improving soil acidification[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 48(1): 35-44.
[27]	郭实荣, 胡昆, 邱孺, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良研究进展[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2017, 40(4): 92-94.
	Guo S R, Hu K, Qiu R, et al. Research progress of biochar in improving acidic soil[J]. Inner Mongolia Forestry Investigation and Design, 2017, 40(4): 92-94.
[28]	Hu Y L, Chen J, Hui D F, et al. Soil acidification suppresses phosphorus supply through enhancing organomineral association[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 905: 167105.
[29]	Li L, Hu B M, Hu M. Research on the strengthening mechanism of potassium leaching process to potassium feldspar[J]. Minerals Engineering, 2023, 191: 107941.
[30]	Wang T T, Cao X X, Chen M M, et al. Effects of soil acidification on bacterial and fungal communities in the Jiaodong Peninsula, northern China[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(4): 927.
[31]	林舜贤, 刘芷君, 王钰超, 等. 土壤酸化对茶园土壤氮形态转化和微生物群落的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 54(4): 544-554.
	Lin S X, Liu Z J, Wang Y C, et al. Effect of soil acidification on nitrogen form transformation and microbial community of soils in tea plantations[J]. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University(Natural Science Edition), 2025, 54(4): 544-554.
[32]	高欣雨, 李丹丹, 李子旭, 等. 土壤酸化胁迫下细菌和真菌的多样性差异与群落重构[J]. 环境科学, 2026, 47(4): 2701-2712.
	Gao X Y, Li D D, Li Z X, et al. Community diversity differences and community reconstruction of bacteria and fungi under soil acidification stress[J]. Environmental Science, 2026, 47(4): 2701-2712.
[33]	Li X G, Chen D L, Carrión V J, et al. Acidification suppresses the natural capacity of soil microbiome to fight pathogenic Fusarium infections[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14: 5090.
[34]	满百膺, 向兴, 罗洋, 等. 黄山典型植被类型土壤真菌群落特征及其影响因素[J]. 菌物学报, 2021, 40(10): 2735-2751.
	Man B Y, Xiang X, Luo Y, et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of soil fungal community of typical vegetation types in Mount Huangshan, East China[J]. Mycosystema, 2021, 40(10): 2735-2751.
[35]	高宁, 邢意警, 熊瑞, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌和溶磷细菌协调植物获取磷素的机制[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2023, 40(6): 1167-1180.
	Gao N, Xing Y J, Xiong R, et al. Mechanisms of plant P acquisition coordinated by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(6): 1167-1180.
[36]	任俊鹏, 李小红, 董瑞奇, 等. 环剥和脱落酸处理对‘夏黑’葡萄果实着色及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2013, 30(6): 968-974.
	Ren J P, Li X H, Dong R Q, et al. Effect of girdling and ABA treatment on fruit quality and peel coloring of ‘Summer Black’ grape[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2013, 30(6): 968-974.
[37]	李文静, 刘一心, 陈明堃, 等. 14种海棠果实品质分析及综合评价[J]. 食品科学, 2024, 45(16): 121-130.
	Li W J, Liu Y X, Chen M K, et al. Quality analysis and comprehensive evaluation of 14 varieties of crabapples[J]. Food Science, 2024, 45(16): 121-130.
[38]	梁银池, 李栋皓, 刘国勇, 等. 不同加气灌溉时期对温室'弗雷'葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2025, 34(10): 1813-1821.
	Liang Y C, Li D H, Liu G Y, et al. Effect of different aerated irrigation periods on fruit quality of greenhouse grown ‘Flame Seedless’ grapes[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-occidentalis Sinica, 2025, 34(10): 1813-1821.

施用土壤改良剂对葡萄园酸化土壤质量与葡萄品质的影响

Effects of soil amendment application on acidified vineyard soil quality and grape quality

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 38

相关文章 4

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	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.
[2]	黄鹏武, 吴倩倩, 赵丽芳, 邵德忠, 吴鲁洁, 赵觅漾, 田雨, 卢升高. 无机调理剂配施有机肥治理酸化土壤的长效性研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(4): 858-868.
[3]	陈闺, 周杰文, 李海平, 张发明, 李春顺, 柳立, 张毅. 土壤调理剂施用对植烟酸化土壤pH值和烤烟根系特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(7): 1275-1282.
[4]	杨海江, 钟艳霞, 赵亚峰, 田欣. 银川市西夏区贺兰山东麓葡萄种植区土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(1): 144-149.