薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹多种种植模式下土壤质量评价

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202210021

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2024, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (4): 177-183.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202210021

薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹多种种植模式下土壤质量评价

陈慧¹(), 王改萍¹^,^*(), 彭方仁¹, 朱允芬², 张钰¹, 王晗¹

1.南京林业大学林草学院,南方现代林业协同创新中心,江苏南京 210037
2.江苏万阳生物科技有限公司,江苏宜兴 214257

收稿日期:2022-10-15 修回日期:2023-03-20 出版日期:2024-07-30 发布日期:2024-08-05
通讯作者: *王改萍(905181635@qq.com),教授。
作者简介:
陈慧(1554289936@qq.com)。
基金资助:
江苏省林业科技创新与推广项目(LYKJ-宜兴[2020]01)

Soil quality assessment for Carya illinoensis-Paeonia ostii under various patterns

CHEN Hui¹(), WANG Gaiping¹^,^*(), PENG Fangren¹, ZHU Yunfen², ZHANG Yu¹, WANG Han¹

1. Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of Forestry and Grassland, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037,China
2. Jiangsu Wanyang Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Yixing 214257,China

Received:2022-10-15 Revised:2023-03-20 Online:2024-07-30 Published:2024-08-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探究不同经营模式下薄壳山核桃‘波尼’(Carya illinoensis ‘Pawnee’)与油用牡丹‘凤丹’(Paeonia ostii ‘Feng Dan’)林地土壤的理化性质及酶活性变化特征,分析季节变化对各模式经营种植下土壤性状的影响。【方法】分别以薄壳山核桃纯林模式(模式Ⅰ)、薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹复合模式(模式Ⅱ)、油用牡丹单植模式(模式Ⅲ)为研究对象,分析不同经营模式下土壤的理化性状及酶活性的季节变化特征,通过最小数据集法(MDS)计算土壤肥力综合质量指数(IFI),并对土壤肥力变化进行评价。【结果】在各模式下,林地表层土壤养分及酶活性高于深层;土壤含水量和容重随春、夏、秋季节变化而变化;土壤pH在秋季最低,春、夏两季差异不显著;夏季土壤过氧化氢酶活性高于春、秋季;土壤有机质、全氮、速效钾含量及土壤蔗糖酶、脲酶活性基本表现为随春、夏、秋季节变化逐渐升高。模式Ⅲ下土壤有效磷含量秋季高于春、夏两季;夏季土壤肥力综合质量指数最低,但以模式Ⅱ最高。【结论】林地土壤酶活性与理化性质间具有相关性;各季节下薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹复合模式(模式Ⅱ)土壤肥力均显著优于其余模式,且夏季土壤肥力显著低于其他季节;土壤肥力受容重、全氮、有效磷、速效钾含量及脲酶、蔗糖酶活性直接影响,其中蔗糖酶活性在季节土壤肥力综合质量评价中均较为敏感。

关键词: 薄壳山核桃, 油用牡丹, 复合经营, 土壤理化性状, 土壤酶活性

Abstract:

【Objective】The aim of the present study was to investigate the soil physical properties, chemical properties, and enzyme activities under different Carya illinoensis ‘Pawnee’ and Paeonia ostii ‘Feng Dan’ planting modes, as well as analyze the effects of different modes and seasons on soil characteristics.【Method】The treatments included single cultivation of C. illinoensis (mode Ⅰ), compound cultivation of C. illinoensis ‘Pawnee’-P. ostii ‘Feng Dan’ (mode Ⅱ), and single cultivation of P. ostii (mode Ⅲ). Seasonal variation of soil physical properties, chemical properties, and enzyme activities were measured under different modes, and the minimum date set method and soil integrated fertility index (IFI) were utilized to evaluate the changes of soil fertility.【Result】The nutrient and enzyme activity in the surface soil were higher than those in the deep soil. The soil moisture content and bulk density gradually varied with the seasons of spring, summer and autumn. There was no significant difference on soil pH between the spring and summer seasons, and the lowest soil pH was observed in autumn. The soil catalase activity in summer was higher than that in spring and autumn. The soil organic matter content, total nitrogen content, available potassium content, sucrase activity, and urease activity increased during the seasonal variation of spring, summer, and autumn. In mode Ⅲ, the soil available phosphorus content in autumn was higher than that in spring and summer. The seasonal variation of the soil IFI was the lowest in summer and highest in mode Ⅱ.【Conclusion】There is a correlation among soil physical properties, chemical properties and enzyme activities. The soil fertility of the compound cultivation of C. illinoensis ‘Pawnee’-P. ostii ‘Feng Dan’ (mode Ⅱ) is significantly higher than single cultivation of either species, and the soil fertility quality is lower in summer than in spring and autumn. The soil fertility quality is directly affected by bulk density, total nitrogen content, available potassium content, available phosphorus content, sucrase activity, and urease activity. Further, sucrase activity is more sensitive in evaluating the soil IFI in all seasons.

Key words: Carya illinoensis, Paeonia ostii ‘Feng Dan’, compound management, soil physical and chemical property, soil enzyme activity

中图分类号:

S714.8

陈慧,王改萍,彭方仁,等. 薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹多种种植模式下土壤质量评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(4): 177-183.

CHEN Hui, WANG Gaiping, PENG Fangren, ZHU Yunfen, ZHANG Yu, WANG Han. Soil quality assessment for Carya illinoensis-Paeonia ostii under various patterns[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 48(4): 177-183.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202210021.

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

表2

表3

图3

参考文献 34

[1]	张日清, 吕芳德. 优良经济树种:美国山核桃[J]. 广西林业科学, 1998, 27(4):202-206.
	ZHANG R Q, LYU F D. Good economic tree species—Carya Americana[J]. Guangxi For Sci, 1998, 27(4):202-206.DOI: 10.19692/j.cnki.gfs.1998.04.009.
[2]	陈文霞, 吴文浩, 彭方仁. 江苏丘陵地区薄壳山核桃适宜栽培模式及其产业发展对策[J]. 江苏林业科技, 2016, 43(3):53-57.
	CHEN W X, WU W H, PENG F R. Suitable cultivation mode and industrial development countermeasures of Carya illinoensis in hilly areas of Jiangsu Province[J]. J Jiangsu For Sci & Technol, 2016, 43(3):53-57.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7380.2016.03.014.
[3]	JIN J, WANG L, MÜLLER K, et al. A 10-year monitoring of soil properties dynamics and soil fertility evaluation in Chinese hickory plantation regions of southeastern China[J]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1):23531. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02947-z.
[4]	彭方仁, 李永荣, 郝明灼, 等. 我国薄壳山核桃生产现状与产业化发展策略[J]. 林业科技开发, 2012, 26(4):1-4.
	PENG F R, LI Y R, HAO M Z, et al. Production status and industrialization development strategy of Carya illinoensis in China[J]. Journal of Forestry Engineering, 2012, 26(4):1-4.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn1000-8101.201402001.
[5]	陈幸良. 林下经济学的缘起、发展与展望[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 46(6):105-114.
	CHEN X L. The origin,development and propspect of non-timber forest-based economics[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2022, 46(6):105-114.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202210024.
[6]	HONG Y, HEERINK N, JIN S Q, et al. Intercropping and agroforestry in China-current state and trends[J]. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 2017, 244:52-61.DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.019.
[7]	王怡晨, 孙海燕, 李永荣, 等. 油用牡丹‘凤丹’单株结实量及产油品质分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(4):155-160.
	WANG Y C, SUN H Y, LI Y R, et al. Analysis of the variation in yield and oil quality traits of selected Paeonia ostii ‘Feng Dan’ individuals[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019, 43(4):155-160.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201812031.
[8]	邓瑞雪, 刘振, 秦琳琳, 等. 超临界CO₂流体提取洛阳牡丹籽油工艺研究[J]. 食品科学, 2010, 31(10):142-145.
	DENG R X, LIU Z, QIN L L, et al. Optimization of supercritical CO₂ extraction and analysis of chemical composition of peony seed oil[J]. Food Sci, 2010, 31(10):142-145.DOI: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201010028.
[9]	韩继刚, 李晓青, 刘炤, 等. 牡丹油用价值及其应用前景[J]. 粮食与油脂, 2014, 27(5):21-25.
	HAN J G, LI X Q, LIU Z, et al. Potential applications of tree peony as an oil plant[J]. Cereals Oils, 2014, 27(5):21-25.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-9578.2014.05.006.
[10]	沈永涛, 张胜昔, 岳长江, 等. 核桃—小麦间作土壤养分与酶活性的变化[J]. 甘肃林业科技, 2021, 46(2):40-42,50.
	SHEN Y T, ZHANG S X, YUE C J, et al. Changes of soil nutrients and enzyme activities in Juglans regia & Triticum aestivu intercropping[J]. J Gansu For Sci Technol, 2021, 46(2):40-42,50.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0960.2021.02.011.
[11]	李孟, 刘琅, 刀梅, 等. 栗-茶间作茶园土壤化学性质和细菌丰富度分析[J]. 经济林研究, 2022, 40(1):58-65,81.
	LI M, LIU L, DAO M, et al. Analysis of soil chemical properties and bacterial richness in chestnut-tea intercropping tea orchard[J]. Non Wood For Res, 2022, 40(1):58-65,81.DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1003-8981.2022.01.007.
[12]	孟凡旭, 王树森, 秦富仓, 等. 残塬沟壑区不同果农复合模式对土壤理化性质及水源涵养功能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5):192-199.
	MENG F X, WANG S S, QIN F C, et al. Effect of different fruit-crop compounds on soil physiochemical properties and soil-water conservation in gully region of plateau[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2020, 34(5):192-199.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.05.027.
[13]	唐瑾暄, 秦晓威, 鱼欢, 等. 槟榔间作香露兜对土壤养分和养分吸收的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(9):2571-2578.
	TANG J X, QIN X W, YU H, et al. Effect of arecanut and pandan intercropping on soil nutrient and nutrient absorption[J]. Chin J Trop Crops, 2021, 42(9):2571-2578.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.09.018.
[14]	赵春建, 李玉正, 关佳晶, 等. 东北红豆杉-无花果复合种植对两种植物生长和土壤酶活性影响[J]. 植物研究, 2020, 40(5):679-685.
	ZHAO C J, LI Y Z, GUAN J J, et al. Effect of interplanting Taxus cuspidata with Ficus carica on growth of two plants and activities of soil enzymes[J]. Bull Bot Res, 2020, 40(5):679-685.DOI: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2020.05.006.
[15]	马占霞, 孙武, 李鑫鑫, 等. 不同间作模式茶园对土壤理化性质和茶叶化学成分的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2022, 42(5):1-8.
	MA Z X, SUN W, LI X X, et al. The effects of different intercropping tea plantations on tea chemical components,soil physical and chemical properties[J]. Chin J Trop Agric, 2022, 42(5):1-8.DOI: 10.12008/j.issn.1009-2196.2022.05.001.
[16]	田洪敏, 罗美玲, 杨雪梅, 等. 茶树-核桃树间作模式对茶园土壤养分的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(4):657-663.
	TIAN H M, LUO M L, YANG X M, et al. The impact on soil nutrient of the tea-walnut intercropping[J]. Chin J Trop Crops, 2019, 40(4):657-663.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.04.005.
[17]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000:1-19,146-195.
	LU R K. Methods for agricultural chemical analysis of soil[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000:1-19,146-195.
[18]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1986:260-339.
	GUAN S Y. Soil enzyme and its research method[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1986:260-339.
[19]	徐建明, 张甘霖, 谢正苗. 土壤质量指标与评价[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010:40-119.
	XU J M, ZHANG G L, XIE Z M. Indices and assessment of soil quality[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2010:40-119.
[20]	张文学, 王少先, 刘增兵, 等. 基于土壤肥力质量综合指数评价化肥与有机肥配施对红壤稻田肥力的提升作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(5):777-790.
	ZHANG W X, WANG S X, LIU Z B, et al. Evaluating soil fertility improvement effects of chemical fertilizer combined with organic fertilizers in a red paddy soil using the soil fertility index[J]. J Plant Nutr Fertil, 2021, 27(5):777-790.DOI: 10.11674/zwyf.20469.
[21]	邓绍欢, 曾令涛, 关强, 等. 基于最小数据集的南方地区冷浸田土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(5):1326-1333.
	DENG S H, ZENG L T, GUAN Q, et al. Minimum dataset-based soil quality assessment of waterlogged paddy field in South China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2016, 53(5):1326-1333.DOI: 10.11766/trxb201509070316.
[22]	常旭, 邱新彩, 刘欣, 等. 塞罕坝华北落叶松纯林和混交林土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2021, 43(8):50-59.
	CHANG X, QIU X C, LIU X, et al. Soil fertility quality evaluation of pure and mixed Larix principis-rupprechtii forests in Saihanba,Hebei Province of Northern China[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2021, 43(8):50-59.DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210189.
[23]	周楷玲, 陈绪文, 龚伟, 等. 核桃林下复合种植对土壤培肥效果的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2019, 37(6):807-813.
	ZHOU K L, CHEN X W, GONG W, et al. Effects of compound planting under walnut plantation on soil fertility[J]. J Sichuan Agric Univ, 2019, 37(6):807-813.DOI: 10.16036/j.issn.1000-2650.2019.06.009.
[24]	李晨晨, 周再知, 梁坤南, 等. 南药立体经营模式土壤质量综合评价[J]. 植物研究, 2017, 37(5):778-788.
	LI C C, ZHOU Z Z, LIANG K N, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality on agroforestry stereoscopic management patterns of southern medicine[J]. Bull Bot Res, 2017, 37(5):778-788.DOI: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2017.05.019.
[25]	郭颖, 聂朝俊, 向仰州, 等. 不同核桃农林复合经营模式对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(2):391-397.
	GUO Y, NIE C J, XIANG Y Z, et al. Effect of different agroforestry patterns on soil fertility in Juglans regia orchards[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2016, 47(2):391-397.DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2016.02.21.
[26]	吕丽茹, 扎西尼玛, 陈识澳, 等. 季节性因素对土壤微生物的影响研究进展[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(11):62-66,71.
	LYU L R, Zhaxinima, CHEN S A, et al. Research progress of seasonal factors on soil microorganism[J]. Hubei Agric Sci, 2022, 61(11):62-66,71. DOI: 10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2022.11.011.
[27]	刘建玲, 张凤华. 土壤磷素化学行为及影响因素研究进展[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2000, 23(3):36-45.
	LIU J L, ZHANG F H. The progress of phosphorus transformation in soil and its influencing factors[J]. J Agric Univ Hebei, 2000, 23(3):36-45.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1573.2000.03.010.
[28]	任子文, 吴佳美, 石佩佩, 等. 红壤磷素化学行为及影响因素研究进展[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2017, 40(2):100-104.
	REN Z W, WU J M, SHI P P, et al. Research progress on chemical behavior and influencing factors of phosphorus in red soil[J]. Inn Mong For Investig Des, 2017, 40(2):100-104.DOI: 10.13387/j.cnki.nmld.2017.02.041.
[29]	汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 程鹏, 等. 不同银杏复合经营模式土壤酶活性及综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 34(4):1-6.
	WANG G B, CAO F L, CHENG P, et al. The activities and integrated evaluation of soil enzymes of different agroforestry patterns of Ginkgo biloba L[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2010, 34(4):1-6.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2010.04.001.
[30]	WANG Z C, ZHOU M Y, LIU H, et al. Pecan agroforestry systems improve soil quality by stimulating enzyme activity[J]. PeerJ, 2022, 10:e12663.DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12663.
[31]	李林海, 邱莉萍, 梦梦. 黄土高原沟壑区土壤酶活性对植被恢复的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(12):3355-3360.
	LI L H, QIU L P, MENG M. Responses of soil enzyme activities to re-vegetation in gully Loess Plateau of northwest China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2012, 23(12):3355-3360.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2012.0423.
[32]	徐宏强, 汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 等. 生物覆盖对银杏用材林土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 39(2):21-26.
	XU H Q, WANG G B, CAO F L, et al. Effects of biological mulching on soil enzyme activity of Ginkgo(Ginkgo biloba L.) timber plantation[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2015, 39(2):21-26.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2015.02.004.
[33]	汪贵斌, 曹福亮, 程鹏, 等. 不同银杏复合经营模式土壤肥力综合评价[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(8):1-7.
	WANG G B, CAO F L, CHENG P, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of soil fertility of agroforestry patterns of Ginkgo biloba[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2010, 46(8):1-7.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2010.04.001.
[34]	ZOU X, ZHU X, ZHU P, et al. Soil quality assessment of different Hevea brasiliensis plantations in tropical China[J]. J Environ Manage, 2021, 285:112-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112147.

季节 season	种植模式 planting mode	土层/cm soil layer	土壤含水量/% water content	土壤容重/ (g·cm^-3) bulk density
春 spring	Ⅰ	[0,20)	31.26±0.22 Ab	2.24±0.08 Aab
		[20,40)	26.81±0.93 Ac	2.43±0.24 Aa
	Ⅱ	[0,20)	36.48±3.25 Aa	2.11±0.01 Ab
		[20,40)	31.90±0.59 Ab	2.13±0.20 Ab
	Ⅲ	[0,20)	23.52±0.49 Ad	2.12±0.11 Ab
夏 summer	Ⅰ	[0,20)	22.85±0.14 Bb	1.58±0.10 Bb
		[20,40)	20.64±0.15 Bc	1.89±0.07 Ba
	Ⅱ	[0,20)	25.71±1.24 Ba	1.29±0.17 Bc
		[20,40)	25.69±0.68 Ba	1.32±0.05 Bc
	Ⅲ	[0,20)	21.40±0.51 Bc	1.30±0.19 Bc
秋 autumn	Ⅰ	[0,20)	22.11±0.21 Bab	1.41±0.10 Bb
		[20,40)	18.67±0.31 Cc	1.73±0.03 Ba
	Ⅱ	[0,20)	23.14±1.04 Ba	1.14±0.10 Bc
		[20,40)	22.45±1.30 Ca	1.42±0.06 Bb
	Ⅲ	[0,20)	20.54±0.92 Bb	1.45±0.03 Bb
双因素方差分析 two-factor analysis	模式 mode		<0.01	<0.01
	季节 season		<0.01	<0.01
	模式×季节 mode×season		0.037	0.033

指标 index	春spring		夏summer		秋autumn
指标 index	PC1	PC2	PC1	PC2	PC1	PC2
容重BD	-0.743	0.084	-0.765	0.26	-0.51	0.767
有机质含量OM	0.526	0.769	0.958	-0.18	0.665	-0.521
全氮含量TN	0.955	0.247	0.968	0.009	0.996	0.007
有效磷含量AP	0.736	-0.531	0.309	0.842	0.591	0.735
速效钾含量AK	0.712	-0.667	0.934	-0.272	0.521	0.797
脲酶活性UE	0.967	0.085	0.946	-0.024	0.975	-0.074
蔗糖酶活性SUC	0.300	0.902	0.875	0.373	0.922	-0.206
过氧化氢酶活性CAT	0.831	-0.078	0.089	0.590	0.565	0.252

指标 index	春 spring		夏 summer					秋 autumn
PC1	全氮含量 TN content	脲酶活性 UE activity	有机质含量 OM content	全氮含量 TN content	速效钾含量 AK content	脲酶活性 UE activity	蔗糖酶活性 SUC activity	全氮含量 TN content	脲酶活性 UE activity	蔗糖酶活性 SUC activity
有机质含量OM content			1
全氮含量TN content	1		0.960	1				1
速效钾含量AK content			0.966	0.933	1
脲酶活性UE activity	0.950	1	0.922	0.899	0.903	1		0.974	1
蔗糖酶活性SUC activity			0.729	0.832	0.661	0.778	1	0.892	0.932	1
相关系数之和 correlation sum	1.950	1.950	4.577	4.624	4.463	4.502	4.000	2.866	2.906	2.824

薄壳山核桃-油用牡丹多种种植模式下土壤质量评价

Soil quality assessment for Carya illinoensis-Paeonia ostii under various patterns

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 34

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	田梦阳, 朱树林, 窦全琴, 季艳红. 薄壳山核桃-茶间作对‘安吉白茶’速生期光合特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(2): 86-96.
[2]	李建新, 徐森, 杨丽婷, 陈双林, 郭子武. 毛竹林下多花黄精构件生物量分配特征的年际效应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(5): 121-128.
[3]	李惠芝, 关庆伟, 赵家豪, 李俊杰, 王磊, 李凤凤, 左兴平, 陈斌. 地形对麻栎人工林土壤肥力质量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 161-168.
[4]	贾展慧, 贾晓东, 许梦洋, 莫正海, 翟敏, 宣继萍, 张计育, 王刚, 王涛, 郭忠仁. 薄壳山核桃原花青素合成关键酶基因的克隆与表达分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 49-57.
[5]	田梦阳, 窦全琴, 谢寅峰, 汤文华, 季艳红. 4个薄壳山核桃品种的光合特性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 67-74.
[6]	季艳红, 潘平平, 窦全琴, 谢寅峰. 不同泥炭替代基质对薄壳山核桃幼苗生长及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(1): 145-155.
[7]	张晓荣, 段广德, 郝龙飞, 刘婷岩, 张友, 张盛晰. 氮沉降和接种菌根真菌对灌木铁线莲非结构性碳水化合物及根际土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(1): 171-178.
[8]	季艳红, 汤文华, 窦全琴, 谢寅峰. 施肥对薄壳山核桃容器苗生长及养分积累的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(6): 47-56.
[9]	廖逸宁, 郭素娟, 王芳芳, 马雅莉, 刘亚斌. 有机-无机肥配施对板栗园土壤肥力及根系功能性状的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(5): 84-92.
[10]	王国兵, 徐瑾, 徐晓, 阮宏华, 曹国华. 蚯蚓与凋落物对杨树人工林土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(3): 8-14.
[11]	杨清平, 陈双林, 郭子武, 郑进. 摘花和打顶措施对毛竹林下多花黄精块茎生物量积累特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(2): 165-170.
[12]	蒋瑶, 魏海林, 高昌虎, 王大故, 冯楠可, 李睿, 刘榕榕, 吕芳德. 湖南低山丘陵区薄壳山核桃的开花物候期观测及品种配置[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(1): 53-62.
[13]	孙圆, 梁子瑜, 汪贵斌, 贾卫国, 郑文江, 陆兴安, 郭起荣, 曹福亮. 农林复合经营工程领域研究热点与前沿分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(6): 228-235.
[14]	周晓峰, 莫正海, 尚杨娟, 骆敏, 苏文川, 谭鹏鹏, 韩明慧, 邓秋菊, 田朝霞, 彭方仁. 薄壳山核桃CiDGAT1基因的克隆及表达模式分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 55-62.
[15]	王敏, 席东, 莫正海, 陈于, 赵玉强, 朱灿灿. 薄壳山核桃CiAGL6基因的克隆、亚细胞定位及表达[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 63-69.