轮作与菌剂施用对设施番茄根际土壤微生物群落的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250263

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (5): 979-990.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250263

轮作与菌剂施用对设施番茄根际土壤微生物群落的影响

毛晓梅¹(), 居星辉¹, 朱丽晶², 杨健¹^,^*()

¹ 长兴县农业技术推广服务总站, 浙江长兴 313100
² 长兴丽晶家庭农场, 浙江长兴 313100

收稿日期:2025-04-03 出版日期:2026-05-25 发布日期:2026-06-02
作者简介:毛晓梅,从事农业技术研究与推广工作。E-mail:65739068@qq.com
通讯作者: *杨健,E-mail:438826869k@qq.com
基金资助:
浙江省农业(蔬菜)产业技术项目(2023-2025)

Effects of crop rotation and microbial agent application on the rhizosphere soil microbial community of protected tomato

MAO Xiaomei¹(), JU Xinghui¹, ZHU Lijing², YANG Jian¹^,^*()

¹ Changxing County Agricultural Technology Extension Station, Changxing 313100, Zhejiang, China
² Changxing Lijing Family Farm, Changxing 313100, Zhejiang, China

Received:2025-04-03 Published:2026-05-25 Online:2026-06-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土壤微生物群落变化是影响连作障碍的主要因素之一。本研究以长兴县设施番茄种植区为研究对象,采用Illumina MiSeq技术,探究水稻-番茄轮作(D处理)、番茄连作+微生物菌剂处理(M处理)、番茄连作(N处理)等不同种植方式对根际土壤微生物群落的影响。结果表明,与N处理相比,D处理和M处理可改变根际土壤微生物群落结构,但对微生物的丰富度和多样性均未产生显著影响。D、M和N处理的番茄根际土壤微生物群落结构相似,但在门和属水平上的相对丰度存在显著差异。门水平的相对丰度差异主要出现在D处理与M处理、D处理与N处理之间,而M处理与N处理在细菌群落组成与丰度上较为相似;属水平的相对丰度差异主要出现在D处理与M处理之间,部分出现在D处理与N处理之间。D处理与M处理均能显著降低土壤有机质、全氮和有效磷含量;D处理可降低交换性钙含量并提高交换性镁含量,而M处理则使交换性钙和交换性镁含量均显著降低。土壤养分对细菌群落结构的影响大于对真菌群落的影响。综上,水稻-番茄轮作是影响番茄根际土壤微生物群落结构的主要因素,而微生物菌剂处理对真菌群落结构有一定影响,上述措施有助于缓解番茄种植土壤的盐渍化与连作障碍问题。

关键词: 设施蔬菜, 连作障碍, 轮作, 根际土壤, 微生物菌剂, 微生物群落

Abstract:

Changes in soil microbial communities are one of the main factors affecting continuous cropping obstacles. This study, focusing on the protected tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivation area in Changxing County, used Illumina MiSeq technology to investigate the effects of different cropping systems—rice-tomato rotation (D treatment), continuous tomato cropping with microbial agent application (M treatment), and continuous tomato cropping (N treatment) on the rhizosphere soil microbial community. The results showed that compared with the N treatment, both D and M treatments altered the rhizosphere soil microbial community structure, but did not significantly affect microbial richness or diversity. The microbial community structures in the rhizosphere soil of tomatoes under D, M, and N treatments were similar, but significant differences existed in relative abundances at the phylum and genus levels. Differences in relative abundance at the phylum level mainly occurred between D and M treatments and between D and N treatments, whereas the bacterial community composition and abundance were relatively similar between M and N treatments. Differences in relative abundance at the genus level primarily appeared between D and M treatments, with some differences also observed between D and N treatments. Both D and M treatments significantly reduced soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus contents. The D treatment decreased exchangeable calcium content and increased exchangeable magnesium content, while the M treatment significantly reduced both exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium contents. Soil nutrients had a greater influence on bacterial community structure than on fungal community structure. In conclusion, rice-tomato rotation is the primary factor influencing the rhizosphere soil microbial community structure in tomatoes, while microbial agent application has a certain effect on the fungal community structure. These measures contribute to alleviating soil salinization and continuous cropping obstacles in tomato cultivation.

Key words: facility vegetable, continuous cropping obstacle, crop rotation, rhizosphere soil, microbial inoculant, microbial community

中图分类号:

毛晓梅, 居星辉, 朱丽晶, 杨健. 轮作与菌剂施用对设施番茄根际土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 979-990.

MAO Xiaomei, JU Xinghui, ZHU Lijing, YANG Jian. Effects of crop rotation and microbial agent application on the rhizosphere soil microbial community of protected tomato[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(5): 979-990.

图/表 9

参考文献 17

[1]	马香, 杜明伦, 唐燕琼, 等. 番茄-水稻水旱轮作对土壤微生物多样性的影响[C]// 中国生物工程学会第十一届学术年会暨2017年全国生物技术大会论文集. 2017: 152-153.
[2]	伍朝荣, 何琼, 黄福忠, 等. 水稻-番茄轮作植物寄生线虫及微生物群落结构差异[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(1): 64-71.
	WU C R, HE Q, HUANG F Z, et al. Differences of plant parasitic nematode and microbial community structures between rotation and continuous cropping[J]. Soils, 2022, 54(1): 64-71.
[3]	姜宇, 王娟, 刘力勇, 等. 化肥与微生物菌肥配施对番茄生长、产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2024(8): 103-108.
	JIANG Y, WANG J, LIU L Y, et al. The effects of combined application of chemical fertilizers and microbial fertilizers on tomato growth, yield, and quality[J]. China Vegetables, 2024(8): 103-108.
[4]	李得铭, 徐云龙, 邓涛, 等. 复合微生物菌肥对番茄青枯病发生和根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2024, 55(9): 2641-2652.
	LI D M, XU Y L, DENG T, et al. Effects of compound microbial fertilizer on the occurrence of tomato bacterial wilt and bacterial community of tomato rhizosphere soil[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2024, 55(9): 2641-2652.
[5]	侯慧, 董坤, 杨智仙, 等. 连作障碍发生机理研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(6): 1068-1076.
	HOU H, DONG K, YANG Z X, et al. Advance in mechanism of continuous cropping obstacle[J]. Soils, 2016, 48(6): 1068-1076.
[6]	王广印, 郭卫丽, 王胜楠, 等. 玉米秸秆、生物菌肥和土壤调理剂对日光温室越冬茬番茄土壤盐及重金属含量的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2018, 57(6): 55-59.
	WANG G Y, GUO W L, WANG S N, et al. The influence of corn straw, bio-bacterial fertilizer and soil conditioner on soil salt and heavy metals contents in over-winter tomato of the solar greenhouse[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 57(6): 55-59.
[7]	王广印, 郭卫丽, 王胜楠, 等. 秸秆、生物菌肥和土壤调理剂施用对日光温室越冬茬番茄生长、坐果及果实品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(15): 55-59.
	WANG G Y, GUO W L, WANG S N, et al. Application of straw, bio-bacterial fertilizer and soil conditioner on growth, fruit setting and fruit quality of over-winter tomato in solar greenhouse[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(15): 55-59.
[8]	乔蓬蕾, 吴凤芝, 周新刚. 连作对作物根际土壤微生物菌群及酶活性影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2013, 44(5): 524-530.
	QIAO P L, WU F Z, ZHOU X G. Effects of continuous cropping on soil microbe communities and enzyme activity[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2013, 44(5): 524-530.
[9]	赵峥, 朱元宏, 周德平, 等. 不同轮作模式对稻田土壤肥力和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(4): 874-885.
	ZHAO Z, ZHU Y H, ZHOU D P, et al. Effects of different rotation patterns on soil fertility and microbial community composition in a paddy field system[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2024, 43(4): 874-885.
[10]	鲜文东, 张潇橦, 李文均. 绿弯菌的研究现状及展望[J]. 微生物学报, 2020, 60(9): 1801-1820.
	XIAN W D, ZHANG X T, LI W J. Research status and prospect on bacterial phylum Chloroflexi[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2020, 60(9): 1801-1820.
[11]	王光华, 刘俊杰, 于镇华, 等. 土壤酸杆菌门细菌生态学研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2016, 32(2): 14-20.
	WANG G H, LIU J J, YU Z H, et al. Research progress of acidobacteria ecology in soils[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2016, 32(2): 14-20.
[12]	余顺平, 杨济达, 朱红业, 等. 水旱轮作对设施蔬菜土壤微生物群落结构与功能的影响[J/OL]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2026. [2026-04-13]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/13.1432.S.20260108.1701.003.
	YU S P, YANG J D, ZHU H Y, et al. Effects of flooding-drying rotation on soil microbial community structure and function in protected vegetable fields[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2026. [2026-04-13]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/13.1432.S.20260108.1701.003.
[13]	马慧媛, 黄媛媛, 刘胜尧, 等. 微生物菌剂施用对设施茄子根际土壤养分和细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(1): 140-150.
	MA H Y, HUANG Y Y, LIU S Y, et al. Effects of microbial agents on nutrient and bacterial community diversity in rhizosphere soil of eggplant cultivated in facilities[J]. Microbiology China, 2020, 47(1): 140-150.
[14]	孙娟. 木质纤维素降解菌群的筛选及对秸秆的降解效应[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2022.
	SUN J. Screening of lignocellulose-degrading fungi and their degradation effect on straw[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2022.
[15]	王军杰. 林业剩余物在园艺栽培基质与土壤改良中的应用[J]. 现代园艺, 2026, 49(2): 120-122.
	WANG J J. Application of forestry residue in horticultural cultivation substrate and soil improvement[J]. Contemporary Horticulture, 2026, 49(2): 120-122.
[16]	袁宗胜. 复合微生物菌剂对毛竹土壤细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 福建农业学报, 2024, 39(4): 438-447.
	YUAN Z S. Soil microbiome at Phyllostachys edulis forest affected by application of bioagent[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 39(4): 438-447.
[17]	宋慧宁. 连年玉米秸秆还田对土壤养分和土壤细菌、真菌群落结构的影响[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2022.
	SONG H N. Effects of successive years of corn straw return on soil nutrients and soil bacterial and fungal community structure[D]. Changchun: Jilin University, 2022.

样本 Sample	序列数 Sequence number		平均长度/bp Average length/bp		最小长度/bp Minimum length/bp		最大长度/bp Maximum length/bp
样本 Sample	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi
D	72 535±9 034	65 014±7 045	413	250	259	133	458	490
M	78 392±3 510	74 703±5 058	416	248	229	117	493	496
N	76 315±2 328	80 091±4 870	416	246	228	141	470	522

样本 Sample	序列数 Sequence number		平均长度/bp Average length/bp		最小长度/bp Minimum length/bp		最大长度/bp Maximum length/bp
样本 Sample	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi	细菌Bacteria	真菌Fungi
D	72 535±9 034	65 014±7 045	413	250	259	133	458	490
M	78 392±3 510	74 703±5 058	416	248	229	117	493	496
N	76 315±2 328	80 091±4 870	416	246	228	141	470	522

分类 Taxonomy	门 Phylum	相对丰度Relative abundance
分类 Taxonomy	门 Phylum	D	M	N
细菌Bacteria	放线菌门Actinobacteriota	33.420±5.496 a	16.600±2.028 b	21.380±4.258 b
	变形菌门Proteobacteria	20.570±0.908 a	23.630±2.958 a	25.550±3.005 a
	绿弯菌门Chloroflexi	20.090±1.929 a	17.900±0.812 ab	15.350±2.469 b
	厚壁菌门Firmicutes	7.929±1.372 b	17.540±3.100 a	14.840±3.331 a
	酸杆菌门Acidobacteriota	5.917±0.876 b	9.845±1.323 a	7.439±1.345 ab
	芽单胞菌门Gemmatimonadota	4.195±0.224 b	5.762±0.591 ab	6.434±0.964 a
	髌骨菌门Patescibacteria	0.366±0.091 b	1.062±0.054 a	1.020±0.131 a
	盐厌氧菌门Halanaerobiaeota	0.252±0.085 a	0.508±0.242 a	0.146±0.007 a
	脱铁杆菌门Deferrisomatota	0.021±0.008 a	0 b	0 b
	河床菌门Zixibacteria	0.011±0.001 a	0.001 a	0 a
	Methylomirabilota	0.090±0.034 a	0.012±0.021 b	0.023±0.024 ab
真菌Fungi	子囊菌门Ascomycota	88.470±0.801 a	74.110±18.300 a	85.820±2.091 a
	被孢霉门Mortierellomycota	3.554±0.762 a	19.45±14.890 a	9.470±1.529 a
	担子菌门Basidiomycota	3.727±0.139 a	3.727±3.253 a	1.631±0.360 a
	罗兹菌门Rozellomycota	0.068±0.019 a	0.007±0.012 b	0.014±0.024 b
	壶菌门Chytridiomycota	0.062±0.024 a	0.006±0.008 b	0.012±0.007 b

分类 Taxonomy	门 Phylum	相对丰度Relative abundance
分类 Taxonomy	门 Phylum	D	M	N
细菌Bacteria	放线菌门Actinobacteriota	33.420±5.496 a	16.600±2.028 b	21.380±4.258 b
	变形菌门Proteobacteria	20.570±0.908 a	23.630±2.958 a	25.550±3.005 a
	绿弯菌门Chloroflexi	20.090±1.929 a	17.900±0.812 ab	15.350±2.469 b
	厚壁菌门Firmicutes	7.929±1.372 b	17.540±3.100 a	14.840±3.331 a
	酸杆菌门Acidobacteriota	5.917±0.876 b	9.845±1.323 a	7.439±1.345 ab
	芽单胞菌门Gemmatimonadota	4.195±0.224 b	5.762±0.591 ab	6.434±0.964 a
	髌骨菌门Patescibacteria	0.366±0.091 b	1.062±0.054 a	1.020±0.131 a
	盐厌氧菌门Halanaerobiaeota	0.252±0.085 a	0.508±0.242 a	0.146±0.007 a
	脱铁杆菌门Deferrisomatota	0.021±0.008 a	0 b	0 b
	河床菌门Zixibacteria	0.011±0.001 a	0.001 a	0 a
	Methylomirabilota	0.090±0.034 a	0.012±0.021 b	0.023±0.024 ab
真菌Fungi	子囊菌门Ascomycota	88.470±0.801 a	74.110±18.300 a	85.820±2.091 a
	被孢霉门Mortierellomycota	3.554±0.762 a	19.45±14.890 a	9.470±1.529 a
	担子菌门Basidiomycota	3.727±0.139 a	3.727±3.253 a	1.631±0.360 a
	罗兹菌门Rozellomycota	0.068±0.019 a	0.007±0.012 b	0.014±0.024 b
	壶菌门Chytridiomycota	0.062±0.024 a	0.006±0.008 b	0.012±0.007 b

分类 Taxonomy	属 Genera			相对丰度Relative abundance
分类 Taxonomy	属 Genera			D		M		N
细菌Bacteria	芽孢杆菌属Bacillus			3.165±0.356 b		8.249±0.953 a		7.299±1.977 a
	链霉菌属Streptomyces			5.559±0.454 a		2.388±0.472 b		2.466±0.392 b
	东氏菌属Dongia			1.381±0.161 b		2.192±0.742 ab		2.709±0.100 a
	鞘氨醇单胞菌属Sphingomonas			1.206±0.098 a		2.305±0.561 a		2.526±1.209 a
	诺卡氏菌属Nocardioides			1.361±0.451 a		0.951±0.363 a		1.691±0.252 a
	Iamia			2.584±1.119 a		0.392±0.070 b		0.530±0.216 b
	Actinophytocola			1.536±0.211 a		0.280±0.078 b		0.490±0.231 b
	分枝杆菌属Mycobacterium			1.285±0.238 a		0.428±0.131 b		0.575±0.190 b
	德沃斯氏菌属Devosia			0.963±0.045 a		0.520±0.151 b		0.610±0.167 b
	海洋芽孢杆菌属Oceanobacillus			0.376±0.068 b		0.827±0.289 a		0.595±0.012 ab
	气氨微菌属Aeromicrobium			0.878±0.144 a		0.394±0.163 b		0.409±0.088 b
	类芽孢杆菌属Paenibacillus			0.131±0.080 b		0.894±0.276 a		0.608±0.169 ab
	嗜热碱性菌属Anoxybacillus			0.370±0.035 b		0.620±0.097 a		0.481±0.130 ab
	Kribbella			0.735±0.153 a		0.182±0.043 b		0.321±0.172 b
	Lysobacter			0.495±0.010 a		0.236±0.136 b		0.331±0.097 ab
	野村菌属Nonomuraea			0.717±0.096 a		0.145±0.069 b		0.125±0.012 b
	藤黄单胞菌属Luteimonas			0.495±0.077 a		0.224±0.106 b		0.255±0.104 ab
	诺卡氏菌属Nocardia			0.584±0.143 a		0.165±0.096 b		0.141±0.028 b
	Candidatus_Solibacter			0.433±0.102 a		0.210±0.069 b		0.245±0.058 ab
	Pseudolabrys			0.447±0.058 a		0.256±0.131 ab		0.178±0.035 b
	Nitrospira			0.238±0.043 b		0.254±0.034 ab		0.342±0.038 a
	中慢生根瘤菌属Mesorhizobium			0.413±0.030 a		0.260±0.096 ab		0.138±0.051 b
真菌Fungi	曲霉属Aspergillus			20.44±4.012 a		12.110±11.820 a		31.25±6.714 a
	被孢霉属Mortierella			3.411±0.738 a		19.180±14.720 a		9.332±1.488 a
	毛葡孢属Botryotrichum			16.15±6.427 a		5.210±1.755 a		10.45±7.969 a
	金孢属Chrysosporium			0.911±0.455 a		24.270±41.90 a		0.307±0.044 a
	无茎真菌属Acaulium			8.716±1.238 a		0.191±0.070 b		0.312±0.162 b
	Fungi_gen_Incertae_sedis			2.427±0.267 a		0.561±0.428 b		0.908±0.514 b
		头梗霉属Cephaliophora	2.537±1.031 a		0.008±0.014 b		0 b
		绿核菌属Ustilaginoidea	2.127±0.377 a		0.064±0.087 b		0.166±0.135 b
		Chaetomium	1.294±0.482 a		0.425±0.242 ab		0.353±0.350 b
		枝孢属Cladosporium	0.633±0.102 a		0.199±0.098 b		0.338±0.066 b
		Sarocladium	0.713±0.172 a		0 b		0 b
		节担菌属Wallemia	0.004±0.007 b		0.092±0.067 ab		0.226±0.068 a
		韦斯特壳属Westerdykella	0.276±0.054 a		0.002±0.004 b		0.007±0.006 b
		球腔菌属Phaeosphaeria	0.167±0.054 a		0 b		0 b
		假单胞菌属Pseudogymnoascus	0.097±0.035 a		0 b		0 b

轮作与菌剂施用对设施番茄根际土壤微生物群落的影响

Effects of crop rotation and microbial agent application on the rhizosphere soil microbial community of protected tomato

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 17

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

处理 Treatment	OM/ (g·kg^-1)	pH值 pH value	TN/ (g·kg^-1)	AP/ (mg·kg^-1)	AK/ (mg·kg^-1)	EX-Ca/ (cmol·kg^-1)	EX-Mg/ (cmol·kg^-1)	TDS/ (g·kg^-1)	CEC/ (cmol·kg^-1)
D	39.53± 0.32 c	6.73± 0.01 b	2.45± 0.01 c	56.30± 0.40 c	235.00± 0.15 a	20.20± 0.27 c	2.96± 0.04 a	1.89± 0.09 a	19.23± 0.32 a
M	41.00± 0.27 b	6.94± 0.02 a	2.50± 0.40 b	63.63± 0.40 b	229.00± 0.06 a	22.30± 0.66 b	2.54± 0.04 c	1.07± 0.05 b	18.43± 0.29 b
N	42.90± 0.17 a	6.93± 0.01 a	2.56± 0.01 a	73.70± 0.79 a	204.00± 0.06 a	24.60± 1.15 a	2.86± 0.02 b	1.97± 0.03 a	19.40± 0.27 a

[1]	杨玉山, 张苗苗, 吕增伟, 陈雪, 黄秋良, 刘浩洋, 曹明辉, 黄振北, 张国防. 间作大豆与苜蓿对紫斑牡丹根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 351-363.
[2]	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.
[3]	施静, 李建宏, 褚鹏星, 余锐, 姜明, 陈光丽, 赵小霞, 冯莉. γ-聚谷氨酸配施化肥对党参生长的影响及其作用机制[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(1): 85-94.
[4]	徐伟东, 陆强, 姚张良, 王晖, 王瑞森, 郎淑平. 水稻田夏熟杂草多样性特征对不同轮作模式的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(10): 2138-2149.
[5]	万合锋, 刘国华, 武玉祥, 蒋娟, 张珍明, 刘勇. 物料初始pH值对堆肥理化性质及微生物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(10): 2165-2178.
[6]	潘志军, 吴小文, 吴晨阳, 程驭, 陈龙, 张晓红, 张进山, 周兵, 江波, 张文静, 车钊, 宋贺. 皖中不同类型再生稻品种产量与温光资源利用特征分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1492-1501.
[7]	李小霞, 李丹, 李万星, 靳鲲鹏, 刘永忠, 韩文清, 黄学芳, 刘鑫, 田岗, 曹晋军. 不同轮作模式对谷子灌浆期生理特性、产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(7): 1499-1510.
[8]	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.
[9]	田秀, 童炳丽, 谢元贵, 廖小锋, 吴婷婷, 刘济明. 米槁根际细菌对果实药用活性成分的影响及其PICRUST功能预测分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1837-1848.
[10]	黄锋, 邢建平, 符少怀, 潘攀, 吴琳, 刘贝贝, 陈淼. 不同安全利用技术对琼北地区稻菜轮作系统镉削减的效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(8): 1725-1733.
[11]	姚燕来, 朱为静, 丁检, 洪磊东, 洪春来, 王卫平, 朱凤香, 何伟科, 洪海清. 浙江省规模化蔬菜基地连作障碍与土壤环境调查分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(7): 1474-1484.
[12]	袁文雅, 康益晨, 杨昕宇, 张茹艳, 周春涛, 王勇, 陈喜鹏, 余慧芳, 秦舒浩. 清水苜蓿土壤浸提液对连作马铃薯根际土壤环境酶活性和微生物群落的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 240-247.
[13]	张鑫鹏, 王信, 孙健, 伊国云, 李松龄. 一株假单胞菌的分离鉴定及其在青海地区堆肥中的应用潜力[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 343-351.
[14]	张晓波, 于春雷, 张文洋, 闫烨, 阮芳. 不同连作年限菊花根际土壤微生物多样性变化特征[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(12): 2710-2719.
[15]	高志远, 杨淑娜, 王朝丽, 王智豪, 奚昕琰, 何娟, 贾惠娟. 不同熏蒸方式对连作桃园土壤的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 2251-2258.