轮作模式对杭白菊生长、品质和根际土壤环境的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250520

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (8): 1610-1619.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250520

轮作模式对杭白菊生长、品质和根际土壤环境的影响

孙健¹^,²(), 叶玲珍³, 汪传宝¹, 蔡龙¹, 俞国良¹, 孙月芳⁴, 周建松⁴, 王寅²^,^*()

¹ 浙江省中药研究所有限公司, 浙江杭州 310023
² 浙江省农业科学院农村发展研究所, 农业农村部创意农业重点实验室, 浙江杭州 310021
³ 浙江大学作物科学研究所, 浙江杭州 310058
⁴ 嘉兴市农业科学研究院桐乡农业科学研究所, 浙江桐乡 314500

收稿日期:2025-07-31 出版日期:2026-08-25 发布日期:2026-09-14
作者简介:孙健,从事中药材抗性育种和生态栽培工作。E-mail:21116025@zju.edu.cn
通讯作者: *王寅,E-mail:wangyin@zaas.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2022YFC3501500);浙江省农业(中药材新品种选育)新品种选育重大科技专项(2021C02074)

Effects of rotation patterns on growth, quality and rhizosphere soil environment of Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju

SUN Jian¹^,²(), YE Lingzhen³, WANG Chuanbao¹, CAI Long¹, YU Guoliang¹, SUN Yuefang⁴, ZHOU Jiansong⁴, WANG Yin²^,^*()

¹ Zhejiang Institute of Chinese Materia Medica Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310023, China
² Key Laboratory of Creative Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Institute of Rural Development, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China
³ Institute of Crop Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
⁴ Tongxiang Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiaxing Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tongxiang 314500, Zhejiang, China

Received:2025-07-31 Published:2026-08-25 Online:2026-09-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

杭白菊(Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju)长期连作易导致土壤养分失衡、微生物群落紊乱、病虫害加剧等连作障碍,严重制约产业可持续发展。本研究设置大麦(Hordeum vulgare L.)-杭白菊、小麦(Triticum aestivum L.)-杭白菊、青菜[Brassica rapa var. chinensis(L.) Kitam.]-杭白菊3种轮作模式,以杭白菊连作为对照组,系统分析不同轮作模式对杭白菊生长、品质和根际土壤环境的影响。结果表明:大麦-杭白菊轮作的杭白菊单株开花数、舌状花数和10朵花干重显著高于其他处理,产量指标均优于其他处理;小麦-杭白菊轮作虽可提升单花品质但抑制杭白菊早期生长,成活率仅为80.63%;青菜-杭白菊轮作效果与对照组相近。各处理的绿原酸、木犀草苷和3,5-O-二咖啡酰基奎宁酸含量无显著差异,均符合《中华人民共和国药典》2025年版标准。禾本科作物轮作模式显著提升土壤全氮、铵态氮和有机质含量。微生物多样性分析显示,大麦-杭白菊和小麦-杭白菊轮作处理的Shannon指数显著高于对照组,并富集了伯克霍尔德氏菌属(Burkholderia)、叶杆菌属(Phyllobacterium)等功能菌群,优化了根际微生物群落结构。综合分析表明,大麦-杭白菊轮作通过改善土壤肥力、优化根际微生物群落,显著促进杭白菊的生长发育和产量形成,是缓解杭白菊连作障碍的较优模式,为杭白菊可持续生产提供了理论依据和技术支撑。

关键词: 杭白菊, 轮作模式, 连作障碍, 根际微生物, 土壤养分

Abstract:

Long-term continuous cropping of Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju has resulted in soil nutrient imbalance, microbial community disruption, and intensified pest and disease pressure, thereby constraining sustainable industrial development. This study established three rotation patterns: barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-chrysanthemum, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-chrysanthemum, and bok choy [Brassica rapa var. chinensis(L.) Kitam.]-chrysanthemum, using continuous chrysanthemum cropping as the control, to systematically evaluate their effects on the growth, quality and rhizosphere soil environment of Chrysanthemum morifolium. The results showed that in the barley-chrysanthemum rotation, the flower number per plant, number of petals and dry weight of 10 flowers were significantly higher than those in other treatments, with all yield indicators superior to those in other treatments. Although the wheat-chrysanthemum rotation improved individual flower quality, it suppressed early-stage growth, resulting in a survival rate of only 80.63%. The effect of the bok choy-chrysanthemum rotation was similar to that of the control. No significant differences were observed in chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-O-glucoside and 3,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid contents among treatments, all of which met the standards of Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Rotation with gramineous crops significantly increased the contents of soil total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen and organic matter. Microbial diversity analysis revealed that barley-chrysanthemum and wheat-chrysanthemum rotations exhibited significantly higher Shannon indices compared with the control, with enrichment of beneficial genera including Burkholderia and Phyllobacterium, thereby optimizing rhizosphere microbial community structure. Comprehensive analysis indicated that the barley-chrysanthemum rotation significantly promoted the growth, development and yield formation of Chrysanthemum morifolium by improving soil fertility and optimizing the rhizosphere microbial community. It was a superior rotation pattern for alleviating the continuous cropping obstacles of Chrysanthemum morifolium, providing a theoretical basis and technical support for its sustainable production.

Key words: Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju, rotation pattern, continuous cropping obstacle, rhizosphere microorganism, soil nutrient

中图分类号:

S344.1

孙健, 叶玲珍, 汪传宝, 蔡龙, 俞国良, 孙月芳, 周建松, 王寅. 轮作模式对杭白菊生长、品质和根际土壤环境的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(8): 1610-1619.

SUN Jian, YE Lingzhen, WANG Chuanbao, CAI Long, YU Guoliang, SUN Yuefang, ZHOU Jiansong, WANG Yin. Effects of rotation patterns on growth, quality and rhizosphere soil environment of Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(8): 1610-1619.

图/表 5

参考文献 32

[1]	Cardinale B J, Duffy J E, Gonzalez A, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity[J]. Nature, 2012, 486(7401): 59-67.
[2]	Liu Q, Zhao Y X, Li T, et al. Changes in soil microbial biomass, diversity, and activity with crop rotation in cropping systems: a global synthesis[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2023, 186: 104815.
[3]	Banerjee S, Walder F, Büchi L, et al. Agricultural intensification reduces microbial network complexity and the abundance of keystone taxa in roots[J]. The ISME Journal, 2019, 13(7): 1722-1736.
[4]	Jing J Y, Cong W F, Bezemer T M. Legacies at work: plant-soil-microbiome interactions underpinning agricultural sustainability[J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2022, 27(8): 781-792.
[5]	Zhao J, Yang Y D, Zhang K, et al. Does crop rotation yield more in China? A meta-analysis[J]. Field Crops Research, 2020, 245: 107659.
[6]	刘智赫, 李冰圳, 张倩倩, 等. 不同轮作方式对北沙参生长及药材质量的影响[J]. 中药材, 2023, 46(2): 272-278.
	Liu Z H, Li B Z, Zhang Q Q, et al. Effects of different crop rotation methods on the growth and quality of Glehnia littoralis[J]. Journal of Chinese Medicinal Materials, 2023, 46(2): 272-278.
[7]	周丹, 韦雪娇, 李开阳, 等. 紫苏轮作对半夏连作根际土壤微生物群落结构、功能及理化性质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2025, 53(12): 235-249.
	Zhou D, Wei X J, Li K Y, et al. Effects of Perilla rotation on microbial community structure, function and physicochemical properties of rhizosphere soil in Pinellia ternata continuous cropping[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 53(12): 235-249.
[8]	Zhou X G, Zhang J Y, Khashi u Rahman M, et al. Interspecific plant interaction via root exudates structures the disease suppressiveness of rhizosphere microbiomes[J]. Molecular Plant, 2023, 16(5): 849-864.
[9]	檀国印, 杨志玲, 袁志林, 等. 药用植物连作障碍及其防治途径研究进展[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 40(4): 197-204.
	Tan G Y, Yang Z L, Yuan Z L, et al. Research advances in continuous cropping obstacle in medicinal plants and its management[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University(Natural Science Edition), 2012, 40(4): 197-204.
[10]	张敏, 谈献和, 张瑜, 等. 中药材连作障碍[J]. 现代中药研究与实践, 2012, 26(1): 83-85.
	Zhang M, Tan X H, Zhang Y, et al. Continuous cropping obstacles of Chinese medicinal materials[J]. Research and Practice on Chinese Medicines, 2012, 26(1): 83-85.
[11]	张冬琳. 中药材与农林生物的间套轮作等复合种植模式[J]. 农业与技术, 2016, 36(16): 2.
	Zhang D L. Compound planting patterns such as intercropping, relay cropping and rotation of Chinese medicinal materials with agricultural and forestry organisms[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2016, 36(16): 2.
[12]	Lin S, Huangqu J J, Chen T, et al. Effects of different cropping patterns on the physiology and quality of Pseudostellariae heterophylla[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2014, 16(5): 981-985.
[13]	陈冬梅, 陈祥旭, 孙红艳, 等. 麦类作物化感作用种质资源筛选与评价[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 37(1): 13-17.
	Chen D M, Chen X X, Sun H Y, et al. Screening and evaluation of allelopathic potential in triticeae crops germplasms[J]. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University(Natural Science Edition), 2008, 37(1): 13-17.
[14]	方彦杰, 徐银萍. 不同栽培模式对大麦生育期间土壤水分及产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015, 33(3): 190-195.
	Fang Y J, Xu Y P. Effects of different cultivation patterns on soil moisture and yield during the barley growth period[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2015, 33(3): 190-195.
[15]	杨忠义, 段国锋, 马金虎, 等. 黄土丘陵区菊花种植模式的生态及经济效益分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(4): 195-199.
	Yang Z Y, Duan G F, Ma J H, et al. Analysis on the ecological and economic benefits of cultivation patterns of Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. in hilly loess region[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(4): 195-199.
[16]	Wu H, Pratley J, Lemerle D, et al. Allelopathy in wheat (Triticum aestivum)[J]. Annals of Applied Biology, 2001, 139(1): 1-9.
[17]	Mehri S, Vahid R S, H Torabi Sirchisup M. Allelopathic appraisal effects of straw extract wheat varieties on the growth of corn[J]. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2010, 9(48): 8154-8160.
[18]	Matthiessen J N, Kirkegaard J A. Biofumigation and enhanced biodegradation: opportunity and challenge in soilborne pest and disease management[J]. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 2006, 25(3): 235-265.
[19]	Chen S L, Yu H, Luo H M, et al. Conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants: problems, progress, and prospects[J]. Chinese Medicine, 2016, 11: 37.
[20]	Yang L, Wen K S, Ruan X, et al. Response of plant secondary metabolites to environmental factors[J]. Molecules, 2018, 23(4): 762.
[21]	王籽懿, 黄修梅, 杨玉荣, 等. 不同轮作模式对东北黑土地影响的研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(11): 27-34.
	Wang Z Y, Huang X M, Yang Y R, et al. Research progress on effects of different rotation patterns on black soil in Northeast China[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 52(11): 27-34.
[22]	焦旭升, 魏春雷, 杨春, 等. 中药材轮作栽培的机理及模式研究进展[J]. 寒旱农业科学, 2024(5): 405-409.
	Jiao X S, Wei C L, Yang C, et al. Research progress on the mechanisms and models of the rotation cultivation in Chinese traditional medicinal crops[J]. Journal of Cold-Arid Agricultural Sciences, 2024(5): 405-409.
[23]	李冉, 李精华, 林生威, 等. 稻豆轮作对土壤理化性质及微生物群落的影响[J]. 热带生物学报, 2024, 15(2): 157-164.
	Li R, Li J H, Lin S W, et al. Effects of rice-soybean-rice rotation on soil physicochemical properties and microbial community[J]. Journal of Tropical Biology, 2024, 15(2): 157-164.
[24]	Tiemann L K, Grandy A S, Atkinson E E, et al. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem[J]. Ecology Letters, 2015, 18(8): 761-771.
[25]	刘彦伶, 李渝, 张雅蓉, 等. 长期不同轮作下黄壤微生物量碳季节变化特征与差异[J]. 环境科学, 2025, 46(12): 8062-8070.
	Liu Y L, Li Y, Zhang Y R, et al. Seasonal variation and differences in microbial biomass carbon in yellow soil under different long-term crop rotation patterns[J]. Environmental Science, 2025, 46(12): 8062-8070.
[26]	Kumar A, Dubey A. Rhizosphere microbiome: Engineering bacterial competitiveness for enhancing crop production[J]. Journal of Advanced Research, 2020, 24: 337-352.
[27]	Estrada-De Los Santos P, Bustillos-Cristales R, Caballero-Mellado J. Burkholderia, a genus rich in plant-associated nitrogen fixers with wide environmental and geographic distribution[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2001, 67(6): 2790-2798.
[28]	Contesto C, Milesi S, Mantelin S, et al. The auxin-signaling pathway is required for the lateral root response of Arabidopsis to the rhizobacterium Phyllobacterium brassicacearum[J]. Planta, 2010, 232(6): 1455-1470.
[29]	Venter Z S, Jacobs K, Hawkins H J. The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: a meta-analysis[J]. Pedobiologia, 2016, 59(4): 215-223.
[30]	Barka E A, Vatsa P, Sanchez L, et al. Taxonomy, physiology, and natural products of Actinobacteria[J]. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 2016, 80(1): 1-43.
[31]	丁亚茹, 陈玉蓝, 林正全, 等. 不同发病率烟田根际土壤微生物群落组成研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(1): 67-73.
	Ding Y R, Chen Y L, Lin Z Q, et al. Study on microbial community composition in rhizosphere soil of tobacco fields with different disease incidence rates[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2020, 41(1): 67-73.
[32]	Kielak A M, Barreto C C, Kowalchuk G A, et al. The ecology of Acidobacteria: moving beyond genes and genomes[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016, 7: 744.

处理 Treatment	成活率/% Survival rate/%	总分枝数 Total number of branches	单株开花数 Number of flowers per plant	单株花苞数 Number of flower buds per plant	单丛总花数 Total number of single cluster flowers	花序直径/mm Inflorescence diameter/mm
CK	95.63±2.22 a	23.66±1.57 a	441.33±8.76 b	369.33±14.56 a	808.54±22.15 a	43.98±0.88 a
QCJH	96.74±1.58 a	22.33±1.86 a	432.00±9.95 b	366.33±10.07 a	794.48±23.71 a	44.77±0.59 a
DMJH	95.43±1.12 a	23.33±2.71 a	460.09±6.25 a	359.00±13.27 a	821.35±19.16 a	45.98±0.84 a
XMJH	80.63±3.54 b	18.66±1.24 b	362.50±23.56 c	324.59±8.94 b	689.52±24.55 b	44.89±0.97 a
处理 Treatment	花芯直径/mm Diameter of the flower core/mm	舌状花数 Number of petals	10朵花鲜重/g Fresh weight of 10 flowers/g	10朵花干重/g Dry weight of 10 flowers/g	折干率/% Drying rate/%
CK	11.78±0.63 a	226.33±5.43 c	20.96±0.56 a	2.80±0.07 c	13.37±0.11 b
QCJH	11.76±0.65 a	222.67±8.21 c	20.23±0.57 a	2.68±0.10 c	13.25±0.11 b
DMJH	11.65±0.52 a	245.00±7.65 a	22.15±0.47 a	3.07±0.04 a	13.86±0.08 a
XMJH	11.67±0.61 a	234.67±6.47 b	21.23±0.51 a	2.94±0.02 b	13.84±0.05 a

处理 Treatment	成活率/% Survival rate/%	总分枝数 Total number of branches	单株开花数 Number of flowers per plant	单株花苞数 Number of flower buds per plant	单丛总花数 Total number of single cluster flowers	花序直径/mm Inflorescence diameter/mm
CK	95.63±2.22 a	23.66±1.57 a	441.33±8.76 b	369.33±14.56 a	808.54±22.15 a	43.98±0.88 a
QCJH	96.74±1.58 a	22.33±1.86 a	432.00±9.95 b	366.33±10.07 a	794.48±23.71 a	44.77±0.59 a
DMJH	95.43±1.12 a	23.33±2.71 a	460.09±6.25 a	359.00±13.27 a	821.35±19.16 a	45.98±0.84 a
XMJH	80.63±3.54 b	18.66±1.24 b	362.50±23.56 c	324.59±8.94 b	689.52±24.55 b	44.89±0.97 a
处理 Treatment	花芯直径/mm Diameter of the flower core/mm	舌状花数 Number of petals	10朵花鲜重/g Fresh weight of 10 flowers/g	10朵花干重/g Dry weight of 10 flowers/g	折干率/% Drying rate/%
CK	11.78±0.63 a	226.33±5.43 c	20.96±0.56 a	2.80±0.07 c	13.37±0.11 b
QCJH	11.76±0.65 a	222.67±8.21 c	20.23±0.57 a	2.68±0.10 c	13.25±0.11 b
DMJH	11.65±0.52 a	245.00±7.65 a	22.15±0.47 a	3.07±0.04 a	13.86±0.08 a
XMJH	11.67±0.61 a	234.67±6.47 b	21.23±0.51 a	2.94±0.02 b	13.84±0.05 a

处理 Treatment	绿原酸含量 Chlorogenic acid content	木犀草苷含量 Luteolin-7-O-glucoside content	3,5-O-二咖啡酰基奎宁酸含量 3,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid content
CK	4.82±0.23 a	2.35±0.13 a	7.96±0.32 a
QCJH	4.74±0.26 a	2.21±0.15 a	7.51±0.27 a
DMJH	4.47±0.58 a	2.16±0.14 a	8.25±0.23 a
XMJH	4.55±0.17 a	2.13±0.22 a	8.17±0.19 a

处理 Treatment	绿原酸含量 Chlorogenic acid content	木犀草苷含量 Luteolin-7-O-glucoside content	3,5-O-二咖啡酰基奎宁酸含量 3,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid content
CK	4.82±0.23 a	2.35±0.13 a	7.96±0.32 a
QCJH	4.74±0.26 a	2.21±0.15 a	7.51±0.27 a
DMJH	4.47±0.58 a	2.16±0.14 a	8.25±0.23 a
XMJH	4.55±0.17 a	2.13±0.22 a	8.17±0.19 a

处理 Treatment	全氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Total N content/ (mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Available P content/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Available K content/ (mg·kg^-1)	铵态氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1) N${\mathrm{H}}_{4}^{+}$-N content/ (mg·kg^-1)	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1) Organic matter content/ (g·kg^-1)	pH值 pH value
CK	1 440.23±8.97 b	35.09±0.87 b	125.78±0.77 b	41.42±0.56 b	27.37±1.22 b	7.57±0.08 a
QCJH	1 430.35±10.53 b	35.18±0.66 b	125.88±0.68 b	41.83±2.35 b	26.71±1.54 b	7.35±0.12 a
DMJH	1 550.67±9.96 a	36.82±0.97 a	124.91±0.75 b	48.23±1.79 a	30.71±1.76 a	7.35±0.10 a
XMJH	1 588.09±8.98 a	36.57±1.08 a	126.71±0.15 a	49.67±2.08 a	30.36±1.43 a	7.43±0.05 a

轮作模式对杭白菊生长、品质和根际土壤环境的影响

Effects of rotation patterns on growth, quality and rhizosphere soil environment of Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Hangbaiju

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 32

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	温明霞, 李永杰, 黄贝. 不同绿肥管理模式对柑橘园土壤理化特性和细菌群落的调控效应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(7): 1432-1442.
[2]	李洋, 刘战群, 贺润平, 赵飞, 邢鲲, 杨存弟, 蒲秀兰. 微生物菌肥对土壤养分、甜瓜品质与病虫害防治效果的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 909-918.
[3]	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.
[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.
[5]	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.
[6]	耿锐梅, 赵清海, 曹长代, 李峰, 王大海, 贺鹏霖, 刘洋, 李军民, 徐蕊, 宋志美, 胡海洲, 张玉. 烤烟品种中川208和CV87根际细菌群落分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(7): 1512-1520.
[7]	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.
[8]	韦新航, 周铨, 李亚妮, 陈卫良, 毛碧增. 生物有机肥对温郁金根际微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(4): 892-900.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	吴传美, 何季, 吴文珊, 蔡俊, 向仰州. 间作对刺梨园土壤团聚体化学计量特征和养分贡献率的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1132-1143.
[14]	鲁帅, 罗晓刚, 刘全伟, 张屹, 孟洋昊, 李洁, 张景来. 有机无机复混肥对小麦生长、土壤养分和重金属含量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 922-930.
[15]	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.