4.7 Article

The effects of reclaimed water irrigation on the soil characteristics and microbial populations of plant rhizosphere

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 17570-17579

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16983-9

关键词

Reclaimed water; Soil nutrients; Microbes; Actinomycetes; Fungus; Total salinity

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Project of China [2017YFD0800900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [:51109197]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the effects of irrigation with reclaimed water on soil characteristics and plants are complex, with different plants showing varying levels of adaptability to water quality and nutrient absorption capacity. While reclaimed water irrigation can impact soil salinity and microbial populations, other soil characteristics such as pH remained relatively stable.
In this paper, the effects of irrigation with different water qualities on the soil characteristics of 8 kinds of garden plants were analyzed. The results showed that soil pH (ranging at 7.76-8.73) had no significant difference in different soils compared with the contrast treatment. Under the reclaimed water irrigation, the content of soil total salinity, chloride ions, and water soluble sodium in soil of most plants was averagely 160.3%, 83.3%, and 67.5% higher than that of tap water, respectively. The influences of reclaimed water irrigation on soil nutrients were changed with the types of plants. The content of soil organic matter and the available potassium showed no significant differences in most plants. Compared with the tap water irrigation, the content of alkaline nitrogen in 5 plants increased (averagely 25.8%) after 5-year irrigation with reclaimed water. In terms of soil microorganism, the increase of soil microbial population, including bacteria, fungus and actinomycetes, has been promoted by different levels of reclaimed water irrigation, which is closely related with soil nutrients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据