不同种植年限鸟王茶产地土壤物理性质及生长特征

【目的】为探明喀斯特山区鸟王茶高产优质栽培的最佳年限,促进鸟王茶高产优质发展。【方法】以不同种植年限下鸟王茶根区与非根区土壤为研究对象,通过野外调查与室内分析相结合的方法,研究鸟王茶不同种植年限产地土壤的物理性质及其生长状况。【结果】鸟王茶不同种植年限的土壤总体表现为土壤结构性好。其中,非根区粉砂粒含量呈逐年递增趋势,但土壤中粘粒含量则随种植年限递增而减少;根区土壤的容重差异不大,依次为0~5a（1.25 g/cm3）〉6~10a（1.18 g/cm3）〉11~15a（1.12 g/cm3）;立地土壤总孔隙度差异很大,最大值为53.45%（11~15a）,最小值为42.55%（0~5a）,平均...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in西南农业学报 Vol. 30; no. 12; pp. 2746 - 2750
Main Author 罗倩;张珍明;向准;张家春;贺红早
Format Journal Article
LanguageChinese
Published 贵州师范学院,贵州贵阳,550018%贵州省生物研究所,贵州贵阳,550009%贵州省植物园,贵州贵阳,550004 2017
Subjects
土壤物理性状
生长状况
种植年限
贵州
鸟王茶
生长状况
土壤物理性状
种植年限
贵州
Growth characteristics
鸟王茶
Niaowang Tea
Soil physical property
Guizhou
Cultivation year
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1001-4829
DOI10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2017.12.022

Cover

More Information
Summary:【目的】为探明喀斯特山区鸟王茶高产优质栽培的最佳年限,促进鸟王茶高产优质发展。【方法】以不同种植年限下鸟王茶根区与非根区土壤为研究对象,通过野外调查与室内分析相结合的方法,研究鸟王茶不同种植年限产地土壤的物理性质及其生长状况。【结果】鸟王茶不同种植年限的土壤总体表现为土壤结构性好。其中,非根区粉砂粒含量呈逐年递增趋势,但土壤中粘粒含量则随种植年限递增而减少;根区土壤的容重差异不大,依次为0~5a（1.25 g/cm3）〉6~10a（1.18 g/cm3）〉11~15a（1.12 g/cm3）;立地土壤总孔隙度差异很大,最大值为53.45%（11~15a）,最小值为42.55%（0~5a）,平均为49.76%;随种植年限增加,土壤1~5和0.25~1 mm团聚体的占比呈增大趋势,粒径大于1.00 mm水稳性土壤团聚体的总量均为根区大于非根区。【结论】种植6~10a鸟王茶的产量和生长状况最佳。
Bibliography:51-1213/S
LUO Qian1 ,ZHANG Zhen-ming2 , XIANG Zhun2, ZHANG Jia-chun3 , HE Hong-zao2 （1. Guizhou Normal University, Guizhou Guiyang 550018, China; 2. Guizhou Institute of Biology, Guizhou 3. Guizhou Botanical Garden,Guizhou Guiyang 550004 ,China）
Objective】The study aims to explore the optimal year limit of Niaowang Tea and promote high yield and high quality of Niaowang Tea in karst mountainous area.【Method】The soil physical properties in root zone and non-root zone of Niaowang Tea growing area and growth characteristics of Niaowang Tea were studied by field survey and laboratory analysis.【Result】The soil structure of Niaowang Tea growing area with different cultivation years was good overall. The powder sand content in non-root zone presented a rising trend year by year,but the clay content in soil shows a declining trend with increase of cultivation years. There was no obvious difference in soil bulk density of root zone among different cultivation years and the soil bulk density of root zone with 0-5 a,6-10
ISSN:1001-4829
DOI:10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2017.12.022