新垦丘陵山地不同施肥处理对甘薯土壤大型动物多样性的影响研究

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20231117

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在新垦丘陵山地地力提升试验中分别施用猪粪、羊粪和菌渣3种不同有机肥配施无机肥种植甘薯。结果表明,施用有机肥料比空白处理明显提高土壤的细菌和真菌群落的数量,土壤肥力的提高促使土壤微生物数量剧增,并且可改善因施用化肥而导致的土壤酸化问题。在甘薯生长过程中进行了不同施肥处理下土壤大型动物分布情况调查和土壤大型动物多样性分析,共捕获到8个类群的大型动物,其中猪粪商品有机肥处理的Shannon-Wiener多样性指数和PieLou均匀度指数最高,分别比空白处理提高40.91%和15.66%,比纯化肥处理提高158.33%和88.23%,而空白处理和纯化肥处理的个体数和类群数偏低,纯化肥处理多样性指数和均匀度指数最低。

关键词: 有机肥, 甘薯, 土壤大型动物, 新垦丘陵山地, 影响

Abstract:

In the experiment of improving soil fertility in newly reclaimed mountain land, three different organic fertilizers, pig manure, sheep manure, and mushroom residue, were applied in combination with inorganic fertilizers to plant sweet potatoes. The results showed that organic fertilizers significantly increased the number of bacterial and fungal communities in the soil compared with the blank treatment. The increase in soil fertility led to a sharp increase in soil microbial numbers and improved soil acidification caused by the application of inorganic fertilizers. During the growth process of sweet potatoes, the distribution and biodiversity analysis of soil macrofauna were investigated under different fertilization treatments. Eight groups of soil macrofauna were captured in the sweet potato field, among which the Shannon-Wiener diversity index and PieLou evenness index of pig manure commercial organic fertilizer treatment were the highest, increased by 40.91% and 15.66% respectively compared with the blank treatment, and increased by 158.33% and 88.23% compared with the inorganic fertilizer treatment. The blank treatment and inorganic fertilizer treatment had the relatively low number of individuals and groups, and the inorganic fertilizer treatment had the lowest Shannon-Wiener diversity index and PieLou evenness index.

Key words: organic fertilizer, sweet potato, soil macrofauna, newly reclaimed mountain land, effect

中图分类号:

S531

牛天新, 查燕, 马华升, 熊伟, 黄雨晴. 新垦丘陵山地不同施肥处理对甘薯土壤大型动物多样性的影响研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2025, 66(2): 502-506.

NIU Tianxin, ZHA Yan, MA Huasheng, XIONG Wei, HUANG Yuqing. Effects of different fertilization treatments on biodiversity of soil macrofauna of sweet potato in newly reclaimed mountain land[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(2): 502-506.

图/表 9

参考文献 14

[1]	宋梦意, 王盛毅, 卫乐乐. 浙江省低丘缓坡土地资源开发利用研究:以工业建设用地为视角[J]. 河南教育学院学报(自然科学版), 2012, 21(3): 52-54.
[2]	郑铭洁, 姜铭北, 章明奎, 等. 浙江省新垦耕地土壤熟化指标研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1834-1840.
[3]	沈建国, 王忠, 李丹, 等. 余杭区新垦红壤耕地肥力特征及地力评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(1): 55-60.
[4]	刘国群, 章明奎, 严建立. 施用高量有机物料对新垦耕地红壤有机碳积累及性态的影响[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2021, 48(1): 101-107.
[5]	沈建国, 楼玲, 邵小青, 等. 商品有机肥用量对新垦山地土壤肥力和蔬菜产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2019, 60(8): 1341-1344.
[6]	陶晶, 邬奇峰, 石江, 等. 间作与接种丛枝菌根真菌对新垦山地玉米产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(1): 115-123.
[7]	董炜华, 李晓强, 宋扬. 土壤动物在土壤有机质形成中的作用[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(2): 211-218.
[8]	AYRES E, STELTZER H, BERG S, et al. Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2009(5): 901-912.
[9]	魏巍, 许艳丽, 朱琳, 等. 长期施肥对黑土农田土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2013, 50(2):372-380.
[10]	MULDER C, BOIT A, BONKOWSKI M, et al. A belowground perspective on Dutch agroecosystems: how soil organisms interact to support ecosystem services[J]. Advances in Ecological Research, 2011,44:277-357.
[11]	段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 等. 化肥和生物有机肥配施对鲜食型甘薯块根产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(11):1971-1980.
[12]	齐振宇, 蔡盼, 蔡溧聪, 等. 化肥减施与有机肥替代对大蒜生长、产量及品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(10): 1984-1987, 1990.
[13]	张伟彬. 有机肥和化肥配施对小麦甘薯轮作土壤腐殖质结合形态及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(17): 247-252.
[14]	张卫兴, 朱玉祥, 吴勇. 施用有机肥基础上进行化肥减量在水稻甬优1540上的应用效果[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(11): 2137-2138, 2140.

土层/cm	处理1	处理2	处理3	处理4	处理5	平均值
0~5	4.99	3.13	3.57	3.22	4.80	3.94
>5~10	9.60	11.15	9.63	7.48	7.56	9.08
>10~15	11.67	12.66	11.24	8.50	11.84	11.18

土层/cm	处理1	处理2	处理3	处理4	处理5	平均值
0~5	4.99	3.13	3.57	3.22	4.80	3.94
>5~10	9.60	11.15	9.63	7.48	7.56	9.08
>10~15	11.67	12.66	11.24	8.50	11.84	11.18

土层/cm	处理1	处理2	处理3	处理4	处理5	平均值
0~5	6.47	6.29	6.04	6.13	6.12	6.21
>5~10	6.25	6.10	5.96	6.04	6.21	6.11
>10~15	5.98	5.95	6.19	6.42	6.49	6.21
平均	6.23	6.11	6.06	6.20	6.27	6.17

土层/cm	处理1	处理2	处理3	处理4	处理5	平均值
0~5	6.47	6.29	6.04	6.13	6.12	6.21
>5~10	6.25	6.10	5.96	6.04	6.21	6.11
>10~15	5.98	5.95	6.19	6.42	6.49	6.21
平均	6.23	6.11	6.06	6.20	6.27	6.17

类型	处理	重复1	重复2	重复3	平均值
细菌	空白	27.4×10⁶	30.8×10⁶	27.3×10⁶	28.5×10⁶
	施肥处理	40.7×10⁶	38.0×10⁶	42.8×10⁶	40.5×10⁶
真菌	空白	4.11×10⁶	5.03×10⁶	4.91×10⁶	4.68×10⁶
	施肥处理	12.32×10⁶	14.03×10⁶	12.55×10⁶	12.97×10⁶