生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201911014

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） ›› 2020, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (4): 143-150.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201911014

生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响

卢伟伟(), 耿慧丽, 张伊蕊, 阮宏华

南京林业大学生物与环境学院，南方现代林业协同创新中心，江苏南京 210037

收稿日期:2019-11-11 修回日期:2020-04-08 出版日期:2020-07-22 发布日期:2021-07-09
作者简介:卢伟伟（wwlu@njfu.edu.cn），副教授，ORCID(0000-0003-1361-686X)。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YD0600204);国家自然科学基金项目(41701264);江苏省自然科学基金项目(BK20170931);江苏省高校自然科学研究面上项目(16KJB210005);江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目

Effects of biochars pyrolyzed at different temperatures on soil microbial community in a poplar plantation in coastal eastern China

LU Weiwei(), GENG Huili, ZHANG Yirui, RUAN Honghua

Co -Innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

Received:2019-11-11 Revised:2020-04-08 Online:2020-07-22 Published:2021-07-09

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的

研究不同温度制备的生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落结构和酶活性影响的差异，探究土壤pH、微生物群落结构及其酶活性之间的关系，为深入研究生物质炭对土壤碳循环的影响提供参考。

方法

以江苏省东台林场的杨树人工林土壤为研究对象，开展了60 d的室内培养实验，设计不添加生物质炭的对照（CK）、添加以水稻为原料在300 ℃和500 ℃制备的生物质炭（B300和B500）共3个处理，分别在培养0、1、7、30和60 d时破坏性采集土壤样品，利用磷脂脂肪酸法（PLFAs）测定土壤微生物群落结构，通过比色法测定土壤β-D-葡萄糖苷酶、纤维二糖糖苷酶、多酚氧化酶和漆酶活性，利用电极法测定土壤pH。

结果

生物质炭对土壤微生物群落结构的影响呈现出明显的阶段性。与CK相比，培养7 d时，B300和B500处理的细菌相对丰度分别提高了5.87%和11.8%（P = 0.016，F = 8.85，df = 8）,而革兰氏阴性（G^-）菌/革兰氏阳性（G⁺）菌分别降低了7.47%和21.4%（P = 0.093，F = 4.55，df = 8）。与此同时，放线菌的相对丰度分别降低了15.2%和17.5%（P = 0.005，F = 14.00，df = 8）；培养30 d时，生物质炭对土壤微生物群落结构的影响恰好与培养7 d时相反，并且同样是B500比B300处理的影响程度大；培养60 d时，生物质炭没有对土壤微生物群落结构产生明显影响。平均而言，与CK相比，B500处理的β-D-葡萄糖苷酶活性和纤维二糖糖苷酶活性分别提高了21.2%（P = 0.031，F = 6.53，df = 8）和34.7%（P = 0.011，F = 10.31，df = 8），而B300处理的2个水解酶活性没有明显变化，B300和B500处理的多酚氧化酶活性分别提高了33.8%和40.1%（P = 0.021，F = 7.80，df = 8）。相关分析表明，土壤pH不是影响土壤微生物群落结构和酶活性的关键因子，并且微生物群落结构改变不是引起酶活性变化的主要原因。

结论

300 ℃和500 ℃制备的生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落结构和酶活性影响的方向一致，但500 ℃比300 ℃制备的生物质炭对土壤徽生物群落的影响程度更大，这可能是由于500 ℃制备的生物质炭含有更多难分解碳而引起。

关键词: 杨树人工林, 生物质炭, 制备温度, 磷脂脂肪酸, 土壤微生物, 酶活性

Abstract: Objective

To provide a basis for an in depth study of the impacts of biochar on soil carbon cycling, we examined the effects of biochars pyrolyzed at different temperatures on the soil microbial activity and community structure in a poplar plantation as well as on the relationship with soil pH.

Method

Poplar plantation soil was sampled from Dongtai Forest Farm, Jiangsu Province, and incubated in a laboratory for 60 days under three treatments, soil without biochar amendment (CK) and soils amended with biochars pyrolyzed at 300 ℃ and 500 ℃ (B300 and B500), using rice as the raw material. Incubated soils were destructively sampled on days 0, 1, 7, 30 and 60, respectively. The soil microbial community structure was analyzed using phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs), whereas β?D-glucosidase, cellobiosidase, poly phenol oxidase, and laccase activities were analyzed by colorimetric methods, and soil pH was analyzed using a pH electrode.

Result

The effects of biochars on soil microbial community structure were different during the incubation. On day 7, the relative abundance of bacteria increased by 5.87% and 11.8% （P = 0.016, F = 8.85, df = 8）, the ratio of gram-negative (G^-) bacteria to gram-positive (G⁺) bacteria decreased by 7.47% and 21.4% (P = 0.093, F = 4.55, df = 8), and the relative abundance of actinomycetes decreased by 15.2% and 17.5% (P = 0.005, F = 14.00, df = 8) following the B300 and B500 treatments, respectively, than following the CK treatment. In contrast, the opposite effects were observed on soil microbial community structure on day 30, and the effects were greater following the B500 treatment than following the B300 treatment. However, neither of the biochars affected soil microbial community structure on day 60. On average, compared with those following the CK treatment, β?D?glucosidase and cellobiosidase activities increased by 21.2% (P = 0.031, F = 6.53, df = 8) and 34.7% (P = 0.011, F = 10.31, df = 8), respectively, following the B500 treatment, whereas phenol oxidase activity increased by 33.8% and 40.1% (P = 0.021, F = 7.80, df = 8) following B300 and B500 treatments, respectively. The correlation analysis indicated that soil pH was not the key factor influencing soil microbial community structure; in addition, enzyme activity and the change in soil enzyme activity did not primarily result from the change in microbial community structure.

Conclusion

Biochars pyrolyzed at 300 ℃ and 500 ℃ resulted in the shifted soil microbial community structure and influenced enzyme activities in the same direction, although the biochar pyrolyzed at 500 ℃ showed greater effects than that pyrolyzed at 300 ℃, which was probably due to the higher content of recalcitrant carbon contained in the biochar pyrolyzed at 500 ℃.

Key words: poplar plantation, biochar, pyrolysis temperature, PLFAs, soil microbe, enzyme activity

中图分类号:

S714

卢伟伟,耿慧丽,张伊蕊,等. 生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 143-150.

LU Weiwei, GENG Huili, ZHANG Yirui, RUAN Honghua. Effects of biochars pyrolyzed at different temperatures on soil microbial community in a poplar plantation in coastal eastern China[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 44(4): 143-150.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201911014.

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

表2

参考文献 44

1	CHENG L, ZHANG N F, YUAN M T, et al. Warming enhances old organic carbon decomposition through altering functional microbial communities[J]. Isme J, 2017, 11(8): 1825–1835. DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2017.48.
2	SINANBAUGH R L, LAUBER C L, WEINTRAUB M N, et al. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale[J]. Ecol Lett, 2008, 11(11): 1252–1264. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01245.x.
3	LEHMANN J, GAUNT J, RONDON M. Bio⁃char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems： a review[J]. Mitig Adapt Strat Gl, 2006, 11(2): 403–427. DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5.
4	MUKHERJEE A, ZIMMERMAN A R. Organic carbon and nu⁃trient release from a range of laboratory⁃produced biochars and biochar⁃soil mixtures[J]. Geoderma, 2013, 193: 122–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.002.
5	周之栋, 卜晓莉, 吴永波, 等. 生物炭对土壤微生物特性影响的研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 40(6): 1–8.
	ZHOU Z D, BU X L, WU Y B, et al. Research advances in biochar effects on soil microbial properties[J]. J Nanjing For Univ（Nat Sci Ed）, 2016, 40(6): 1–8. DOI: 10. 3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2016.06.001.
6	王国兵, 王瑞, 徐瑾, 等. 生物炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物生物量碳、氮、磷及其化学计量特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(2): 1–6.
	WANG G B, WANG R, XU J, et al. Effects of biochar application on microbial biomass C, N, P and stoichiometry characteristics of poplar plantation soil[J]. J Nanjing For Univ（Nat Sci Ed）, 2019, 43(2): 1–6. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201803022.
7	SINGH B, SINGH B P, COWIE A L. Characterisation and eva⁃luation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment[J]. Aust J Soil Res, 2010, 48(7): 516–525. DOI: 10.1071/sr10058.
8	WETTERSTEDT J Å M, PERSSON T, ÅGREN G I. Temperature sensitivity and substrate quality in soil organic matter decomposition: results of an incubation study with three substrates[J]. Global Change Biol, 2009, 16(6): 1806–1819. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02112.x.
9	DEMPSTER D N, GLEESON D B, SOLAIMAN Z M, et al. Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen mineralisation with Eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil[J]. Plant Soil, 2012, 354(1/2): 311–324. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-011-1067-5.
10	李明, 李忠佩, 刘明, 等. 不同秸秆生物炭对红壤性水稻土养分及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(7): 1361–1369.
	LI M, LI Z P, LIU M, et al. Effects of different straw biochar on nutrient and microbial community structure of a red soil paddy soil[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2015, 48(7): 1361–1369. DOI: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.07.11.
11	BAMMINGER C, ZAISER N, ZINSSER P, et al. Effects of biochar, earthworms, and litter addition on soil microbial activity and abundance in a temperate agricultural soil[J]. Biol Fert Soils, 2014, 50(8): 1189–1200. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-014-0968-x.
12	RUTIGLIANO F A, ROMANO M, MARZAIOLI R, et al. Effect of biochar addition on soil microbial community in a wheat crop[J]. Eur J Soil Biol, 2014, 60: 9–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2013.10.007.
13	WANG R Z, GIBSON C D, BERRY T D, et al. Photooxidation of pyrogenic organic matter reduces its reactive, labile C pool and the apparent soil oxidative microbial enzyme response[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 293: 10–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.011.
14	GIBSON C, HATTON P J, BIRD J A, et al. Tree taxa and pyro⁃lysis temperature interact to control pyrogenic organic matter induced native soil organic carbon priming[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2018, 119: 174–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.022.
15	AMELOOT N, DE NEVE S, JEGAJEEVAGAN K, et al. Short⁃term CO₂ and N₂O emissions and microbial properties of biochar amended sandy loam soils[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2013, 57: 401–410. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.025.
16	方精云, 陈安平. 中国森林植被碳库的动态变化及其意义[J]. 植物学报, 2001, 43(9): 967–973.
	FANG J Y, CHEN A P. Dynamic forest biomass carbon pools in China and their significance[J]. Acta Bot Sin, 2001, 43(9): 967–973. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1672-9072.2001.09.014.
17	国家林业局森林资源管理司. 第七次全国森林资源清查及森林资源状况[J]. 林业资源管理, 2010(1): 1–8. Department of Forest Resources Management, Administration of Forestry of China. The sevevth national forest resources inventory and the status of forest resources[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2010(1): 1–8. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-6622.2010.01.001.
18	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.
	LU R K. Methods for chemical analysis of soil agriculture[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 2000.
19	LU W W, DING W X, ZHANG J H, et al. Biochar suppressed the decomposition of organic carbon in a cultivated sandy loam soil: a negative priming effect[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2014, 76: 12–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.029.
20	LUO Y, DURENKAMP M, DE NOBILI M, et al. Short term soil priming effects and the mineralisation of biochar following its incorporation to soils of different pH[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2011, 43(11): 2304–2314. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio. 2011.07.020.
21	LU W W, DING W X, ZHANG J H, et al. Nitrogen amendment stimulated decomposition of maize straw⁃derived biochar in a sandy loam soil: a short⁃term study[J]. Plos One, 2015, 10(7): e0133131. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133131.
22	ÅFROSTEGÅRD, TUNLID A, BÅÅTH E. Microbial biomass measured as total lipid phosphate in soils of different organic content[J]. J Microbiol Methods, 1991, 14(3): 151–163. DOI: 10.1016/0167-7012(91)90018-1.
23	ALLISON S D, VITOUSEK P M. Responses of extracellular enzymes to simple and complex nutrient inputs[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2005, 37(5): 937–944. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.09.014.
24	WALDROP M, BALSER T, FIRESTONE M. Linking microbial community composition to function in a tropical soil[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2000, 32(13): 1837–1846. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00157-7.
25	苏宝玲, 王月阳, 白震, 等. ABTS底物检测漆酶活力条件和算法比较: 以长白山两种林分土壤为例[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(5): 1162–1168.
	SU B L, WANG Y Y, BAI Z, et al. Comparisons of experiment conditions and calculation methods for laccase activity detection with ABTS-A case study with 2 forest stands in Changbai Mountain[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2016, 47(5): 1162–1168. DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2016.05.22.
26	ARTZ R R E, REID E, ANDERSON I C, et al. 2009. Long term repeated prescribed burning increases evenness in the basidiomycete laccase gene pool in forest soils[J]. Fems Microbiol Ecol,2009, 67(3): 397–410. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00650.x.
27	BUDAI A, RASSE D P, LAGOMARSINO A, et al. Biochar persistence, priming and microbial responses to pyrolysis temperature series[J]. Biol Fert Soils, 2016, 52(6): 749–761. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-016-1116-6.
28	虞竹韵. 生物质炭引起土壤激发效应及其机理[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2017.
	YU Z Y. Biochar⁃induced soil priming effects and associated mechanisms[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2017.
29	FARRELL M, KUHN T K, MACDONALD L M, et al. Microbial utilisation of biochar⁃derived carbon[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2013, 465(6): 288–297. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2013. 03.090.
30	MUHAMMAD N, DAI Z M, XIAO K C, et al. Changes in microbial community structure due to biochars generated from different feedstocks and their relationships with soil chemical pro⁃perties[J]. Geoderma, 2014, 226/227: 270–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.01.023.
31	SHENG Y Q, ZHAN Y, ZHU L Z. Reduced carbon sequestration potential of biochar in acidic soil[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2016, 572: 129–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.140.
32	YU Z, CHEN L, PAN S, et al. Feedstock determines biochar⁃induced soil priming effects by stimulating the activity of specific microorganisms[J]. Eur J Soil Sci, 2018, 69(3): 521–534. DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12542.
33	SHENG Y, ZHU L. Biochar alters microbial community and carbon sequestration potential across different soil pH[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2018, 622/623: 1391–1399. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.337.
34	KHADEM A, RAIESI F. Influence of biochar on potential enzyme activities in two calcareous soils of contrasting texture[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 308: 149–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.004.
35	JAIN S, MISHRA D, KHARE P, et al. Impact of biochar amendment on enzymatic resilience properties of mine spoils[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2016, 544: 410–421. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.011.
36	LEHMANN J, RILLIG M C, THIES J, et al. Biochar effects on soil biota: a review[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2011, 43(9): 1812–1836. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022.
37	MUKHERJEE A, LAL R, ZIMMERMAN A R. Effects of biochar and other amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2014, 487: 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.141.
38	韩剑宏, 李艳伟, 姚卫华, 等. 玉米秸秆和污泥共热解制备的生物质炭及其对盐碱土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(4): 92–98, 105.
	HAN J H, LI Y W, YAO W H, et al. Co⁃pyrolysis preparing biochar with corn straw and sewage sludge and its effects on saline soil improvement[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2017, 37(4): 92–98, 105. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2017.04.016.
39	YANG F, CAO X D, GAO B, et al. Short⁃term effects of rice straw biochar on sorption, emission, and transformation of soil NH₄⁺⁃N[J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2015, 22(12): 9184–9192. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-4067-1.
40	SHEN C C, SHI Y, FAN K K, et al. Soil pH dominates elevational diversity pattern for bacteria in high elevation alkaline soils on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Fems Microbiol Ecol, 2019, 95(2)：1-9. DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiz003.
41	虞璐. 生物质炭对酸化土壤的改良效应及其对土壤硝化作用的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2019.
	YU L. The effect of biochar on acidic soil amelioration and soil nitrification[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2019.
42	LAMMIRATO G, MILTNER A, KAESTNER M. Effects of wood char and activated carbon on the hydrolysis of cellobiose by β⁃glucosidase from Aspergillusniger[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2011, 43(9): 1936–1942. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.05.021.
43	曹延珺, 徐华东, 王立海, 等. 土壤理化性质对腐朽红松根部土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2018,34(2):45-49.
	CAO Y J, XU H D, WANG L H, et al. Effect of soil physical⁃chemical properties on quantity of microorganisms in rhizospheric soil of rotten Korean pine[J]. Forest Engineering, 2018,34(2):45-49. DOI：10.16270/j.cnki.slgc.2018.02.002.
44	CHEN J H, LIU X Y, LI L Q, et al. Consistent increase in abundance and diversity but variable change in community composition of bacteria in topsoil of rice paddy under short term biochar treatment across three sites from South China[J]. Appl Soil Ecol, 2015, 91: 68–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.02.012.

指标 index	pH	β?D?葡萄糖苷酶 β?D?glucosidase	纤维二糖糖苷酶 cellobiosidase	多酚氧化酶 phenol oxidase	漆酶 laccase	革兰氏阴性菌 G^- bacteria	革兰氏阳性菌 G⁺ bacteria	细菌 bacteria	真菌 fungi	放线菌 actinomycetes
pH	1
β-D-葡萄糖苷酶	?0.204	1
纤维二糖糖苷酶	0.338	?0.076	1
多酚氧化酶	?0.337	?0.258	0.216	1
漆酶	?0.036	0.038	0.044	?0.598^*	1
革兰氏阴性菌	0.095	?0.262	0.091	0.285	?0.291	1
革兰氏阳性菌	?0.548^*	?0.170	?0.149	0.252	0.110	0.022	1
细菌	?0.169	?0.318	?0.016	?0.056	0.467	? 0.499	0.544^*	1
真菌	0.257	0.045	0.124	0.088	?0.372	0.848^**	? 0.361	?0.803^**	1
放线菌	?0.074	0.463	0.043	?0.016	?0.173	0.321	? 0.289	?0.827^**	0.518^*	1

[1]	郭聪聪, 沈永宝, 史锋厚. 温度对白皮松种子萌发过程中储藏物质代谢及酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 25-34.
[2]	王纪, 方升佐. 不同抗褐化剂对青钱柳愈伤组织酶活性和生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 167-174.
[3]	颜铮明, 阮宏华, 廖家辉, 石珂, 倪娟平, 曹国华, 沈彩芹, 丁学农, 赵小龙, 庄鑫. 不同林龄杨树人工林地表甲虫群落多样性特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 236-242.
[4]	徐晨, 阮宏华, 吴小巧, 谢友超, 杨艳. 干旱影响森林土壤有机碳周转及积累的研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 195-206.
[5]	廖杨文科, 张佩瑶, 张清越, 李孝刚. 盐碱地林木耐盐机制及造林技术研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 96-104.
[6]	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.
[7]	赵凯歌, 周正虎, 金鹰, 王传宽. 长期氮添加对落叶松和水曲柳人工林土壤碳、氮、磷含量和胞外酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 177-184.
[8]	夏捷, 陈胜, 吴一凡, 张玮, 谢锦忠. 种植竹荪后毛竹林土壤微生物生物量和微生物熵的动态变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 127-134.
[9]	刘倩倩, 彭孝楠, 刘鑫, 王舒甜, 戴康龙, 徐海兵, 董丽娜, 张金池. 踩踏干扰下紫金山土壤质量季节变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 185-193.
[10]	赵爽, 王邵军, 杨波, 左倩倩, 曹乾斌, 王平, 张路路, 张昆凤, 樊宇翔. 西双版纳热带森林碳循环中土壤呼吸对次生演替的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 12-18.
[11]	崔皓, 韩建刚, 郭俨辉, 季淮, 朱咏莉, 李萍萍. 洪泽湖河湖交汇区典型杨树人工林碳通量月尺度变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 19-26.
[12]	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.
[13]	王润松, 徐涵湄, 曹国华, 沈彩芹, 阮宏华. 施用沼液对杨树人工林细根形态特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(5): 119-124.
[14]	邹雨婷, 朱铭玮, 李永荣, 翟金庭, 李淑娴. ‘凤丹’种子发育及其营养物质含量和相关酶活性的动态变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(5): 62-70.
[15]	王润松, 孙源, 徐涵湄, 曹国华, 沈彩芹, 阮宏华. 施用沼液对杨树人工林细根生物量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(4): 123-129.

生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响

Effects of biochars pyrolyzed at different temperatures on soil microbial community in a poplar plantation in coastal eastern China

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 44

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿