土壤覆膜对土壤有机碳及酶活性的影响

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0025

农学学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (5): 61-70.doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0025

• 土壤肥料资源环境生态 • 上一篇下一篇

土壤覆膜对土壤有机碳及酶活性的影响

薛润宇¹^,²(), 赵科刚³, 孙升学³, 张晴雯²(), 李孟妮², 刘国成¹

¹ 青岛农业大学资源与环境学院，山东青岛 266109
² 中国农业科学院农业环境与可持续发展研究所，北京 100081
³ 西安市农业技术推广中心，西安 710000

收稿日期:2025-01-28 修回日期:2025-06-05 出版日期:2026-05-20 发布日期:2026-05-15
通讯作者:
张晴雯，研究员，研究方向：碳氮过程及环境效应、面源污染、土壤侵蚀机理。通信地址：100081 北京市海淀区中关村南大街12号中国农业科学院农业环境与可持续发展研究所，E-mail：zhangqingwen@caas.cn。
作者简介:
薛润宇，女，1997年出生，河北承德人，硕士，研究方向：资源利用与植物保护。通信地址：100081 北京市海淀区中关村南大街12号中国农业科学院农业环境与可持续发展研究所，E-mail：xx127079@163.com。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目(2023YFD1900305); 中国农业科学院科技创新工程(CAAS-CSGLCA-IEDA-202402)

Effects of Soil Mulching on Soil Organic Carbon and Enzyme Activities

XUE Runyu¹^,²(), ZHAO Kegang³, SUN Shengxue³, ZHANG Qingwen²(), LI Mengni², LIU Guocheng¹

¹ College of Resources and Environment Sciences, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, Shandong 266109
² Institute of Agricultural Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081
³ Xi’an Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Xi’an 710000

Received:2025-01-28 Revised:2025-06-05 Online:2026-05-20 Published:2026-05-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

地膜覆盖技术作为重要的农业增温保墒措施，其长期应用对土壤质量的影响备受关注。本研究以西安地区未覆膜区、露天覆膜区和大棚覆膜区为研究对象，系统解析了不同覆膜模式对土壤有机碳(SOC)、溶解性有机质(DOM)及酶活性的调控效应。结果显示：（1）覆膜处理显著提升表层土壤(0~20 cm)全氮(TN)和总磷(TP)含量，其中大棚覆膜区增幅最大。（2）各覆膜处理显著提高了SOC含量，且表层(0~10 cm)更为显著。（3）DOC分布呈现空间差异，露天覆膜在0~10 cm土层，土壤溶解性有机碳(DOC)含量低于未覆膜，而大棚覆膜DOC含量要高于未覆膜。在10~30 cm土层中，2种覆膜土壤中DOC含量均高于未覆膜处理。（4）三维荧光光谱揭示覆膜处理增强DOM中腐殖化组分（V区）荧光强度，尤其在10~20 cm土层中更为明显，对土壤腐殖化有正面影响。（5）酶活性分析显示，2种覆膜处理均刺激了土壤β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶(BG)活性和碱性磷酸酶(ALP)活性，大棚覆膜也提高了N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶(NAG)活性。本研究结果揭示了覆膜技术对SOC、DOM及酶活性的影响，为地膜合理使用提供理论依据，并为深入认识覆膜对SOC、DOM及酶活性迁移转化的影响提供科技支撑。

关键词: 土壤覆膜, 有机碳, 溶解性有机碳, 溶解性有机质, 酶活性

Abstract:

As an important agricultural measure for soil warming and moisture retention, the long-term application of plastic film mulching has drawn much attention for its impact on soil quality. This study took the uncovered area, open-field mulched area and greenhouse mulched area in Xi’an as research objects, and systematically analyzed the regulatory effects of different mulching patterns on soil organic carbon (SOC), dissolved organic matter (DOM) and enzyme activities. The results showed that (1) mulching significantly increased the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) contents in the surface soil (0-20 cm), with the greatest increase observed in the mulched greenhouse plots. (2) All mulching treatments significantly increased soil organic carbon (SOC) content, especially in the topsoil layer (0-10 cm). (3) The distribution of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) showed spatial differences. In the 0-10 cm soil layer, the DOC content in the open-field mulched plots was lower than that in the non-mulched plots, while in the greenhouse mulched plots, the DOC content was higher than that in the non-mulched plots. In the soil layer of 10 to 30 cm, the DOC content in both mulched soils was higher than that in the non-mulched treatment. (4) Three-dimensional fluorescence spectroscopy revealed that mulching enhanced the fluorescence intensity of the humification component (V region) in DOM, especially in the soil layer of 10 to 20 cm, which had a positive effect on soil humification. (5) Enzyme activity analysis showed that both mulching treatments stimulated the activity of soil β-1,4-glucosidase (BG) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and greenhouse mulching also increased the activity of N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (NAG). The results of this study reveal the effects of the film mulching technology on SOC, DOM and enzyme activity, providing a theoretical basis for the rational use of plastic films and offering technological support for a deeper understanding of the migration and transformation of SOC, DOM and enzyme activity under the influence of film mulching.

Key words: soil mulching, organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, dissolved organic matter, enzyme activity

中图分类号:

X171生态系统与污染生态学

薛润宇, 赵科刚, 孙升学, 张晴雯, 李孟妮, 刘国成. 土壤覆膜对土壤有机碳及酶活性的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2026, 16(5): 61-70.

XUE Runyu, ZHAO Kegang, SUN Shengxue, ZHANG Qingwen, LI Mengni, LIU Guocheng. Effects of Soil Mulching on Soil Organic Carbon and Enzyme Activities[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2026, 16(5): 61-70.

图/表 9

图1. 全氮含量 a：不同覆膜处理下全氮含量；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中全氮含量；小写字母表示同一土层不同处理之间差异显著性，大写字母表示同一处理不同土层之间差异显著性。下同

图2. 总磷含量 a：不同覆膜处理下总磷含量；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中总磷含量

图3. 有机碳含量 a：不同覆膜处理下有机碳含量；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中有机碳含量

图4. 溶解性有机碳含量 a：不同覆膜处理下溶解性有机碳含量；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中溶解性有机碳含量

图5. 不同覆膜处理及不同土层中DOM荧光光谱图

图6. β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶活性 a：不同覆膜处理下β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶活性；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶活性

图7. N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶活性 a：不同覆膜处理下N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶活性；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶活性

图8. 碱性磷酸酶活性 a：不同覆膜处理下碱性磷酸酶活性；b：不同覆膜处理及不同土层中碱性磷酸酶活性

图9. 相关性分析未覆膜区(a)、露天覆膜区(b)、大棚覆膜区(c)、塑料残片(RF)、全氮(TN)、总磷(TP)、有机碳(SOC)、溶解性有机碳(DOC)、β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶(BG)、N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶(NAG)、碱性磷酸酶(AP)，*代表P<0.05，**代表P<0.01

参考文献 30

[1]	孙源辰, 何文清, 靳拓, 等. 西北六省区农田地膜残留特征与关键影响因素[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2024, 43(6):1260-1270.
[2]	GAO H, YAN C, LIU Q, et al. Exploring optimal soil mulching to enhance yield and water use efficiency in maize cropping in China: A meta-analysis[J]. Agricultural water management, 2019, 225:105741. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105741 URL
[3]	POZZER A, TSIMPIDI A P, KARYDIS V A, et al. Impact of agricultural emission reductions on fine-particulate matter and public health[J]. Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 2017, 17(20):12813-12826.
[4]	LI N, QI W, JIANG C, et al. Effects of plastic film mulching on soil respiration and its sensitivity to temperature and water content[J]. Environmental technology & innovation, 2024, 36:103780.
[5]	史文娇, 汪景宽, 祝凤春, 等. 施肥与覆膜对棕壤Olsen-P剖面分布及动态变化的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2007(2):248-253.
[6]	ZHANG H, LIU Q, YU X, et al. Effects of plastic mulch duration on nitrogen mineralization andleaching in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivated land in the Yimeng Mountainous Area, China[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2012, 158:164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.009 URL
[7]	LIU X J, WANG J C, LU S H, et al. Effects of non-flooded mulching cultivation on crop yield, nutrient uptake and nutrient balance in rice-wheat cropping systems[J]. Field crops research, 2003, 83(3):297-311. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00079-0 URL
[8]	张成娥, 梁银丽, 贺秀斌. 地膜覆盖玉米对土壤微生物量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2002(4):508-512.
[9]	杨那, 毛晓涵, 李彦, 等. 农田土壤有机碳及活性碳组分对秸秆和地膜覆盖响应的Meta分析[J]. 环境科学, 2025, 46(4):2292-2300.
[10]	REN T, UKALSKA-JARUGA A, SMRECZAK B, et al. Dissolved organic carbon in cropland soils: A global meta-analysis of management effects[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2024, 371:109080. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2024.109080 URL
[11]	GUO C, LIU X, HE X. A global meta-analysis of crop yield and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions under nitrogen fertilizer application[J]. Science of the total environment, 2022, 831:154982. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154982 URL
[12]	UKALSKA-JARUGA A, KLIMKOWICZ-PAWLAS A, SMRECZAK B. Characterization of organic matter fractions in the top layer of soils under different land uses in Central-Eastern Europe[J]. Soil use and management, 2019, 35(4):595-606. doi: 10.1111/sum.v35.4 URL
[13]	DENG J, FROLKING S, BAJGAIN R, et al. Improving a biogeochemical model to simulate microbial-mediated carbon dynamics in Agricultural ecosystems[J]. Journal of advances in modeling earth systems, 2021, 13(11):e2021MS002752.
[14]	何冬梅, 王火, 祝亚云, 等. 盐城滨海湿地土壤溶解性有机质的光谱特征分析[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(6):781-787.
[15]	陈丽铭, 吴月颖, 李财生, 等. 土壤溶解性有机质分子特征对不同来源有机肥分解的响应[J]. 土壤学报, 2023, 60(4):1101-1112.
[16]	张建, 石义静, 崔寅, 等. 土壤中邻苯二甲酸酯类物质的降解及其对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2010, 31(12):3056-3061.
[17]	丰晨晨, 陈悦, 陈富鹏, 等. 聚乙烯微塑料对冬小麦生长及土壤酶活性影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2024, 58(3):496-507.
[18]	黄佳惠, 张瑶, 肖凯, 等. 中国农田土壤质量评价指标及其发展趋势[J]. 资源环境与工程, 2024, 38(1):26-33. doi: 10.16536/j.cnki.issn.1671-1211.2024.01.004
[19]	MA Q J, ZHANG Q, NIU J, et al. Plastic-film mulch cropping increases mineral-associated organic carbon accumulation in maize cropped soils as revealed by natural 13C/12C ratio signature[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 370:114350. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114350 URL
[20]	HUANG Y, ZHAO Y, WANG J, et al. LDPE microplastic films alter microbial community composition and enzymatic activities in soil[J]. Environmental pollution, 2019, 254:112983. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.112983 URL
[21]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,2000:39-97.
[22]	NELSON D W, SOMMERS L E, Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter[M]. Methods of Soil Analysis. Madison, WI, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,1996:961-1010.
[23]	JONES D, WILLETT V. Experimental evaluation of methods to quantify dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2006, 38(5):991-999. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.012 URL
[24]	MOORHEAD D L, SINSABAUGH R L, HILL B H, et al. Vector analysis of ecoenzyme activities reveal constraints on coupled C, N and P dynamics[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2016, 93:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.10.019 URL
[25]	周丽娜, 雷金银. 覆膜方式对坡耕地春玉米产量、土壤水分和养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(33):20-25. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-1232
[26]	师玥, 栾璐, 蒋希芝, 等. 不同地膜覆盖对土壤质量和大蒜产量及品质的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2024, 45(9):5464-5473.
[27]	王庆鲁, 祝鹏飞, 丁凡. 地膜覆盖和有机肥施用对农田土壤和作物C、N、P化学计量学的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(4):1191-1197.
[28]	胡志娥, 肖谋良, 王双, 等. 地膜覆盖对农田土壤养分和生态酶计量学特征的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(3):1649-1656.
[29]	HANSEN A M, KRAUS T E C, PELLERIN B A, et al. Optical properties of dissolved organic matter (DOM): effects of biological and photolytic degradation[J]. Limnology and oceanography, 2016, 61(3):1015-1032. doi: 10.1002/lno.v61.3 URL
[30]	MO F, YU K L, CROWTHER T W, et al. How plastic mulching affects net primary productivity, soil C fluxes and organic carbon balance in dry agroecosystems in China[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2020, 263:121470. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121470 URL

土壤覆膜对土壤有机碳及酶活性的影响

Effects of Soil Mulching on Soil Organic Carbon and Enzyme Activities

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 30

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	季海蕊, 邵英男, 王琪瑶, 张鹤东, 闫思宇, 张东来. 松嫩平原不同退化草地土壤理化性质和酶活性特征[J]. 农学学报, 2026, 16(1): 17-23.
[2]	杨青峰, 赵一行, 郄欣, 刘华岩. 丰宁县表层土壤有机碳空间分异规律及其影响因素[J]. 农学学报, 2025, 15(8): 39-46.
[3]	尹献远, 张鑫, 徐秋桐, 章明奎. 不同有机物料与粘土矿物配施对新垦水田土壤有机碳积累的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2025, 15(3): 51-59.
[4]	刘学, 梁素钰, 王琪瑶, 李云红, 杜倩. 不同演替阶段3种林型土壤有机碳密度及影响因素[J]. 农学学报, 2024, 14(6): 18-23.
[5]	陆峰, 何结望, 肖志鹏, 唐剑宁, 马明云, 夏凡, 龙飞, 肖孟宇, 钱传林. 湘中烟稻轮作区2种水稻土团聚体稳定性及有机碳组分比较研究[J]. 农学学报, 2024, 14(3): 48-52.
[6]	孔令迁, 刘宪斌, 李云. 不同树种对森林土壤可溶性有机碳空间异质性的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2023, 13(8): 46-55.
[7]	黄越, 商小兰, 徐星, 郭水荣, 章明奎. 秸秆还田方式对低丘橘园土壤碳库与蓄水能力的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2023, 13(7): 63-69.
[8]	王京文, 陈志良, 谢国雄. 浙江省典型地貌区果园土壤有机碳和酸碱度状况及改良对策[J]. 农学学报, 2023, 13(10): 8-12.
[9]	尉吉乾, 倪春霄, 许思嘉, 章明奎. 不同有机废弃物提升新围涂地土壤有机碳库与生物活性的效果[J]. 农学学报, 2023, 13(1): 26-31.
[10]	龙丽娜, 陆诗敏, 刘晃. 生物絮团系统中不同低盐度条件对水质及凡纳滨对虾生理指标的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2022, 12(11): 50-54.
[11]	何佶弦, 苟小梅, 蔡艳, 肖玲, 李涛, 罗凯文, 张启莉, 孙志普, 顾会战. 烤烟油菜轮作及平衡施肥对土壤有机碳含量的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2022, 12(11): 32-36.
[12]	胡燕芳, 章明奎. 长期地表秸秆覆盖对果园土壤理化性状及有机碳积累的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2021, 11(7): 37-43.
[13]	吕晓菡, 章明奎, 严建立. 黏土矿物改良剂对新垦砂壤质耕地土壤有机碳积累的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2021, 11(12): 48-52.
[14]	袁红, 李菡, 张亮, 段良霞, 黄运湘, 王辉. 中亚热带主要农业土壤有机碳及其组分特征[J]. 农学学报, 2021, 11(1): 17-21.
[15]	邹海平, 刘志刚. 植物源高活性小分子有机碳材料在水产养殖业中的应用[J]. 农学学报, 2020, 10(2): 67-68.