滴灌配施不同形态氮肥管理对水稻根际氮转化过程及产量形成的影响

doi:10.16819/j.1001-7216.2026.251008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】针对干旱区滴灌水稻氮素利用率低的问题，探究不同形态氮肥结合滴灌施肥位置对水稻根际土壤氮转化动力学特征及产量形成的影响机制，为滴灌水稻氮肥高效利用提供理论依据和技术参考。【方法】采用三因素完全随机区组试验设计。试验因素包括滴灌施肥方式，分为地表滴灌施肥(Su)和地下埋深10 cm滴灌施肥(Sh)；氮肥分为不施氮(N0)、施硝态氮肥(NN，硝酸钙)和施铵态氮肥配施硝化抑制剂(AN，硫酸铵+DMPP，DMPP为硝化抑制剂3,4-二甲基吡唑磷酸盐)；水稻品种选用粮香3号(LX3)和宁粳48号(NJ48)。三因素完全随机组合，共设12个处理，每处理设置3个重复。对比分析不同处理组合下水稻根际土壤pH、NH₄⁺-N和NO₃⁻-N含量、硝化速率和反硝化势，水稻地上部氮积累量及产量构成。【结果】两个水稻品种的干物质积累量、氮积累量和产量在不同处理组合间差异显著，总体表现为AN处理高于NN和N0处理，其中，以Sh+AN处理组合最高。AN处理的根际土壤pH值显著低于NN处理。在两个水稻品种的分蘖期和孕穗期，不同氮肥形态间土壤NH₄⁺-N含量表现为AN处理显著高于N0和NN处理，其中以Sh+AN处理组合的含量最高(LX3: 20.39 mg/kg；NJ48: 21.05 mg/kg)。不同氮肥形态管理间土壤NO₃⁻-N含量则表现为NN处理显著高于N0和AN处理，其中以Su+NN处理组合最高(LX3: 61.71 mg/kg；NJ48: 59.97 mg/kg)。两个品种的土壤氮初级硝化速率和反硝化势均表现为NN处理显著高于N0和AN，Su处理略高于Sh，但两者无显著性差异。【结论】地下10 cm滴灌结合铵态氮稳定化管理(Sh+AN)有利于维持水稻根际NH₄⁺-N水平，抑制根际氮硝化损失，进而提高水稻氮吸收量和促进产量增加。该方法可以推荐为新疆干旱区兼顾滴灌水稻产量提升和减少氮素损失的优化施肥选择。

关键词: 滴灌水稻, 施肥方式, 氮肥形态, 氮转化, 氮素利用率, 产量

Abstract:

【Objective】A field experiment was conducted in an arid region to investigate the effects of nitrogen form and drip irrigation placement on nitrogen transformation dynamics in rice rhizosphere and yield formation, aiming to address low nitrogen use efficiency in drip-irrigated rice and provide theoretical and technical support for improving nitrogen management in these systems. 【Method】A three-factor randomized complete block design was adopted. The experimental factors included nitrogen application methods under drip irrigation, i.e., surface drip irrigation (Su) and subsurface drip irrigation at a depth of 10 cm (Sh); nitrogen forms, including no nitrogen application (N0), nitrate nitrogen (NN, calcium nitrate), and ammonium nitrogen combined with a nitrification inhibitor (AN, ammonium sulfate + DMPP, where DMPP is a nitrification inhibitor); and rice cultivars, namely Liangxiang 3 (LX3) and Ningjing 48 (NJ48). The three factors were fully crossed, resulting in 12 treatment combinations with three replicates for each combination. We conducted a comparative analysis of the following parameters across the different treatment combinations: rhizosphere soil pH, NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N content, nitrification rate and denitrification potential, aboveground nitrogen accumulation, and yield components. 【Result】Dry matter accumulation, nitrogen accumulation, and yield differed significantly among the treatment combinations. Overall, the AN treatment outperformed the NN and N0 treatments, with the Sh+AN combination yielding the highest results.The rhizosphere soil pH was significantly lower in the AN treatment than in the NN treatment. At both the tillering and heading stages, the soil NH₄⁺-N content differed significantly among nitrogen forms, with the AN treatment being significantly higher than the N0 and NN treatments. The highest values were observed in the Sh+AN combination (LX3: 20.39 mg/kg; NJ48: 21.05 mg/kg). Similarly, soil NO₃⁻-N content varied significantly among nitrogen forms, with the NN treatment significantly exceeding the N0 and AN treatments. The Su+NN combination showed the highest levels (LX3: 61.71 mg/kg; NJ48: 59.97 mg/kg). The soil potential nitrification rate and denitrification potential were significantly higher in the NN treatment than in the N0 and AN treatments. While these rates were slightly higher under Su irrigation compared to Sh, the difference was not statistically significant. 【Conclusion】Shallow subsurface drip irrigation at 10 cm depth combined with ammonium nitrogen stabilization management (Sh + AN) better maintained NH₄⁺-N levels in the rice rhizosphere and suppressed nitrification-related nitrogen loss. Consequently, this practice enhanced nitrogen uptake and increased grain yield. Therefore, the Sh+AN strategy can be recommended as an optimized nitrogen and irrigation management practice for drip-irrigated rice in the arid region of Xinjiang, effectively balancing yield enhancement with the mitigation of nitrogen loss.

Key words: drip-irrigated rice, irrigation method, nitrogen form, nitrogen transformation, nitrogen use efficiency, yield

杨昌南, 何子欣, 谈亚文, 张学智, 张业诚, 田浩然, 危常州, 张新疆. 滴灌配施不同形态氮肥管理对水稻根际氮转化过程及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(5): 632-647.

YANG Changnan, HE Zixin, TAN Yawen, ZHANG Xuezhi, ZHANG Yecheng, TIAN Haoran, WEI Changzhou, ZHANG Xinjiang. Effects of Drip Irrigation Combined with Different Nitrogen Form Management Practices on Rhizospheric Nitrogen Transformation Process and Yield Formation in Rice[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2026, 40(5): 632-647.

图/表 10

表1 2024年试验点0~20 cm深度土壤理化性质

Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of soil at 0−20 cm depth at the experimental site in 2024

pH值 pH value	有机质 Organic matter (g/kg)	碱解氮 Alkali hydrolyzable N (mg/kg)	速效磷 Olsen-P (mg/kg)	速效钾 Available K (mg/kg)	土壤容重 Bulk density (g/cm³)	田间持水量 Field water capacity (%)
8.39	18.3	54.3	10.5	321.3	1.37	24.7

表2 不同灌溉施肥方式及氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻产量构成及氮肥农学利用率的影响

Table 2. Effects of fertigation approaches and nitrogen form on yield components and agronomic nitrogen use efficiency of drip-irrigated rice

品种 Cultivar	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach	穗数 Panicle number (×10⁶ /hm²)	穗粒数 Spikelets per panicle	结实率 Seed setting rate (%)	千粒重 1000-grain weight (g)	产量 Yield (t/hm²)	氮肥农学利用率 AEN (kg/kg)
LX3	N0	Su	3.2±0.3 d	65.4±0.4 c	58.9±6.0 c	21.6±0.2 c	2.7±0.5 d
		Sh	3.3±0.3 d	73.3±3.1 b	78.7±2.4 b	23.0±0.3 c	4.4±0.4 c
		平均 Average	3.2±0.3 B	69.4±1.8 B	68.8±4.2 B	22.3±0.3 B	3.5±0.3 B
	NN	Su	3.5±0.1 cd	75.0±4.7 b	83.2±0.9 ab	25.5±0.7 b	5.6±0.7 b	9.8±1.3 a
		Sh	4.0±0.3 ab	84.5±2.2 a	89.7±4.8 a	26.6±1.8 ab	8.0±0.7 a	12.0±1.4 a
		平均 Average	3.7±0.2 A	79.7±3.5 A	86.5±2.8 A	26.1±0.9 A	6.8±0.3 A	10.9±2.2 A
	AN	Su	3.7±0.1 bc	76.2±1.0 b	82.5±2.2 ab	26.3±0.6 ab	6.2±0.3 b	11.7±0.6 a
		Sh	4.2±0.3 a	85.9±2.6 a	87.5±7.2 a	27.8±1.6 a	8.7±1.1 a	14.5±2.1 a
		平均 Average	4.0±0.2 A	81.1±1.8 A	85.0±4.7 A	27.0±3.1 A	7.5±2.3 A	13.1±2.6 A
	方差分析 Analysis of variance
	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form(N)		**	**	**	**	**	ns
	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach(F)		*	**	**	*	**	ns
	氮肥形态×灌溉施肥方式(N×F)		ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns
NJ48	N0	Su	2.6±0.3 c	108.0±13.5 b	65.2±2.6 d	20.0±0.2 c	3.8±0.3 d
		Sh	2.9±0.3 bc	110.7±14.9 ab	69.9±2.7 c	22.6±0.4 b	5.1±0.4 c
		平均 Average	2.9±0.3 B	109.9±14.2 B	69.1±2.7 C	21.3±0.3 B	4.5±0.3 C
	NN	Su	3.3±0.1 ab	115.1±10.4 ab	77.1±0.9 b	23.0±0.7 b	6.7±1.0 bc	9.5±1.9 a
		Sh	3.3±0.3 ab	115.8±7.3 ab	79.0±3.4 b	25.1±1.8 a	7.5±1.3 b	7.9±2.4 a
		平均 Average	3.3±0.2 A	115.4±8.9 AB	78.1±2.1 B	24.1±1.3 A	7.1±1.1 B	8.7±3.2 A
	AN	Su	3.5±0.1 a	124.1±9.6 ab	76.2±0.5 bc	23.3±0.6 ab	7.6±0.7 ab	12.7±1.3 a
		Sh	3.4±0.1 ab	130.4±8.3 a	85.7±0.3 a	24.2±1.6 ab	9.1±1.0 a	13.2±2.0 a
		平均 Average	3.4±0.1 A	127.2±8.9 A	80.9±0.4 A	23.8±1.1 A	8.4±1.1 A	13.0±2.4 A
	方差分析Analysis of variance
	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form (N)		*	*	**	*	**	ns
	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach(F)		ns	ns	**	*	*	ns
	氮肥形态×灌溉施肥方式(N×F)		ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns

表2 不同灌溉施肥方式及氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻产量构成及氮肥农学利用率的影响

Table 2. Effects of fertigation approaches and nitrogen form on yield components and agronomic nitrogen use efficiency of drip-irrigated rice

品种 Cultivar	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach	穗数 Panicle number (×10⁶ /hm²)	穗粒数 Spikelets per panicle	结实率 Seed setting rate (%)	千粒重 1000-grain weight (g)	产量 Yield (t/hm²)	氮肥农学利用率 AEN (kg/kg)
LX3	N0	Su	3.2±0.3 d	65.4±0.4 c	58.9±6.0 c	21.6±0.2 c	2.7±0.5 d
		Sh	3.3±0.3 d	73.3±3.1 b	78.7±2.4 b	23.0±0.3 c	4.4±0.4 c
		平均 Average	3.2±0.3 B	69.4±1.8 B	68.8±4.2 B	22.3±0.3 B	3.5±0.3 B
	NN	Su	3.5±0.1 cd	75.0±4.7 b	83.2±0.9 ab	25.5±0.7 b	5.6±0.7 b	9.8±1.3 a
		Sh	4.0±0.3 ab	84.5±2.2 a	89.7±4.8 a	26.6±1.8 ab	8.0±0.7 a	12.0±1.4 a
		平均 Average	3.7±0.2 A	79.7±3.5 A	86.5±2.8 A	26.1±0.9 A	6.8±0.3 A	10.9±2.2 A
	AN	Su	3.7±0.1 bc	76.2±1.0 b	82.5±2.2 ab	26.3±0.6 ab	6.2±0.3 b	11.7±0.6 a
		Sh	4.2±0.3 a	85.9±2.6 a	87.5±7.2 a	27.8±1.6 a	8.7±1.1 a	14.5±2.1 a
		平均 Average	4.0±0.2 A	81.1±1.8 A	85.0±4.7 A	27.0±3.1 A	7.5±2.3 A	13.1±2.6 A
	方差分析 Analysis of variance
	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form(N)		**	**	**	**	**	ns
	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach(F)		*	**	**	*	**	ns
	氮肥形态×灌溉施肥方式(N×F)		ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns
NJ48	N0	Su	2.6±0.3 c	108.0±13.5 b	65.2±2.6 d	20.0±0.2 c	3.8±0.3 d
		Sh	2.9±0.3 bc	110.7±14.9 ab	69.9±2.7 c	22.6±0.4 b	5.1±0.4 c
		平均 Average	2.9±0.3 B	109.9±14.2 B	69.1±2.7 C	21.3±0.3 B	4.5±0.3 C
	NN	Su	3.3±0.1 ab	115.1±10.4 ab	77.1±0.9 b	23.0±0.7 b	6.7±1.0 bc	9.5±1.9 a
		Sh	3.3±0.3 ab	115.8±7.3 ab	79.0±3.4 b	25.1±1.8 a	7.5±1.3 b	7.9±2.4 a
		平均 Average	3.3±0.2 A	115.4±8.9 AB	78.1±2.1 B	24.1±1.3 A	7.1±1.1 B	8.7±3.2 A
	AN	Su	3.5±0.1 a	124.1±9.6 ab	76.2±0.5 bc	23.3±0.6 ab	7.6±0.7 ab	12.7±1.3 a
		Sh	3.4±0.1 ab	130.4±8.3 a	85.7±0.3 a	24.2±1.6 ab	9.1±1.0 a	13.2±2.0 a
		平均 Average	3.4±0.1 A	127.2±8.9 A	80.9±0.4 A	23.8±1.1 A	8.4±1.1 A	13.0±2.4 A
	方差分析Analysis of variance
	氮肥形态 Nitrogen form (N)		*	*	**	*	**	ns
	灌溉施肥方式 Fertigation approach(F)		ns	ns	**	*	*	ns
	氮肥形态×灌溉施肥方式(N×F)		ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns

图1 不同施肥方式及氮肥形态对滴灌水稻地上部生物量的影响 A、B为分蘖期，C、D为孕穗期，E、F为成熟期；A、C、E分别代表品种LX3的地上部生物量，B、D、F分别代表品种NJ48的地上部生物量。数据以平均值±标准误(SE)表示(n = 3)，误差棒表示标准误(SE)。采用双因素方差分析(氮肥形态×灌溉施肥方式)检验各因素及其交互作用的效应。主效应比较基于模型估计的边际均值进行。不同大写字母表示在P < 0.05水平上氮肥形态主效应差异显著(Tukey’s HSD检验)。对于处理组合间的比较，将不同处理组(F × N)视为单一因素，采用单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA)进行检验，并使用Tukey’s HSD方法进行多重比较。不同小写字母表示处理组合间差异显著(P < 0.05)。氮肥形态包括N0(不施氮处理，施N用量为 0 kg/hm²)、NN(施硝酸钙，施N用量为 300 kg/hm²)、AN(施硫酸铵+DMPP，施N用量为 300 kg/hm²)。灌溉施肥方式为：Su(地表滴灌施肥)、Sh(地下埋深10 cm滴灌施肥)。F表示灌溉施肥方式，N表示氮肥形态，F × N表示两者间的交互作用。下同。

Fig. 1. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on aboveground biomass of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; E and F represent the maturity stage. A, C and E show the aboveground biomass of variety LX3, while B, D and F show that of NJ48. Data are presented as mean ± standard error (SE) (n = 3), and error bars represent standard errors (SE). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the effects of nitrogen form management practices (N), fertilization method (F), and their interaction (F × N). Main effects were compared based on estimated marginal means, and different uppercase letters indicate significant differences in the main effect of nitrogen form management practices at P < 0.05 (Tukey’s HSD test). For comparisons among treatment combinations, all treatments (F × N) were considered as a single factor and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at P < 0.05. Nitrogen form management practices included N0 (no nitrogen application, 0 kg/hm²), NN (calcium nitrate, 300 kg/hm²), and AN (ammonium sulfate + DMPP, 300 kg/hm²). Fertilization methods included Su (surface drip fertigation) and Sh (subsurface drip fertigation at a depth of 10 cm). F represents fertigation method, N represents nitrogen form, and F × N represents their interaction. The same below.

图2 不同施肥方式和氮肥形态对滴灌水稻氮积累量的影响 A、B为分蘖期，C、D为孕穗期，E、F为成熟期；A、C、E分别代表品种LX3的地上部氮积累量，B、D、F分别代表品种NJ48的地上部氮积累量。试验处理、数据表示方法及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig. 2. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on nitrogen accumulation of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the tillering stage; C and D correspond to the booting stage; E and F show the maturity stage; A, C and E depict the nitrogen accumulation of variety LX3, and B, D and F depict that of NJ48. Treatment abbreviations, data presentation, and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

图3 不同施肥方式及氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻根际土壤pH值的影响 A、B为分蘖期; C、D为孕穗期; A、C分别代表品种LX3的根际土壤pH值; B、D分别代表品种NJ48的根际土壤pH值。试验处理、数据表示方法及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig. 3. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on rhizosphere soil pH values in drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the rhizosphere soil pH at the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; A and C correspond to variety LX3; B and D correspond to NJ48. Treatment abbreviations, data presentation, and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

图4 不同施肥方式和氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻根际土壤铵态氮（NH₄⁺-N）含量变化的影响 A、B为分蘖期; C、D为孕穗期；A、C分别代表品种LX3的根际土壤NH₄⁺-N含量; B、D分别代表品种NJ48的根际土壤NH₄⁺-N含量。试验处理及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig. 4. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on changes in ammonium (NH₄⁺-N) content in rhizosphere soil of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the rhizosphere soil NH₄⁺-N content at the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; A and C correspond to variety LX3; B and D correspond to NJ48. Treatment abbreviations and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

图5 不同施肥方式和氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻根际土壤硝态氮（NO3−-N）含量变化的影响 A、B为分蘖期; C、D为孕穗期；A、C分别代表品种LX3的根际土壤NO3⁻-N含量; B、D分别代表品种NJ48的根际土壤NO3⁻-N含量。试验处理及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig. 5. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on changes in nitrate nitrogen (NO3−-N) content in rhizosphere soil of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the rhizosphere soil NO3⁻-N content at the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; A and C correspond to variety LX3; B and D correspond to NJ48. Treatment abbreviations and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

图6 不同施肥方式和氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻根际土壤氮初级硝化速率的影响 A、B为分蘖期; C、D为孕穗期；A、C分别代表品种LX3的根际土壤氮初级硝化速率; B、D分别代表品种NJ48的根际土壤氮初级硝化速率。试验处理、数据表示方法及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig.6. Effects of different fertigation approaches and nitrogen form management practices on the primary nitrogen nitrification rates in rhizosphere soil of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the rhizosphere soil primary nitrification rate at the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; A and C correspond to variety LX3; B and D correspond to NJ48. Treatment abbreviations, data presentation, and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

图7 不同施肥方式和氮肥形态管理对滴灌水稻根际土壤氮反硝化势的影响 A、B为分蘖期; C、D为孕穗期; A、C分别代表品种LX3的根际土壤氮反硝化势; B、D分别代表品种NJ48的根际土壤氮反硝化势。试验处理、数据表示方法及误差棒含义同图1。

Fig. 7. Effects of different N application methods and nitrogen form management practices on the denitrification potential in rhizosphere soil of drip-irrigated rice A and B represent the rhizosphere soil denitrification potential at the tillering stage; C and D represent the booting stage; A and C correspond to variety LX3; B and D correspond to NJ48. Treatment abbreviations, data presentation, and error bar conventions are as described in Fig. 1.

表3 滴灌水稻根际土壤氮供应与转化过程指标与产量及氮肥农学利用率（AEN）的 Spearman 相关性分析

Table 3. Spearman correlation of rhizosphere soil nitrogen supply and transformation indicators with rice yield and agronomic efficiency of nitrogen(AEN) in drip-irrigated rice

指标 Indicator	生育期 Growth duration	品种 Variety	产量 Yield	氮肥农学利用率 AEN	NO₃⁻ AUC	NH₄⁺ AUC	pH值 pH value	硝化速率 Nitrogen nitrification rate	反硝化势 Denitrification potential	氮积累量 Nitrogen accumulation	干物质 Dry matter weight
产量 Yield	分蘖期 Tillering	LX3	1.000		0.482^*	0.777^**	−0.430	0.498^*	0.373	0.866^**	0.575^*
	分蘖期 Tillering	NJ48	1.000		0.428	0.822^**	−0.239	0.337	0.319	0.884^**	0.620^**
	孕穗期 Booting	LX3	1.000		0.503^*	0.692^**	−0.445	0.420	0.637^**	0.878^**	0.839^**
	孕穗期 Booting	NJ48	1.000		0.742^**	0.437	−0.355	0.412	0.490^*	0.893^**	0.849^**
氮肥农学利用率 AEN	分蘖期 Tillering	LX3		1.000	−0.455	0.441	−0.629^*	−0.434	−0.350	0.448	0.168
	分蘖期 Tillering	NJ48		1.000	−0.315	0.483	−0.252	−0.364	−0.154	0.462	0.294
	孕穗期 Booting	LX3		1.000	−0.378	0.322	−0.601^*	−0.308	0.196	0.566	0.469
	孕穗期 Booting	NJ48		1.000	0.427	−0.392	−0.284	−0.420	−0.133	0.455	0.210

参考文献 40

[1]	Lai Z, Fan J, Yang R, Xu X, Liu L, Li S, Zhang F, Li Z. Interactive effects of plant density and nitrogen rate on grain yield, economic benefit, water productivity and nitrogen use efficiency of drip-fertigated maize in northwest China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2022, 263: 107453.
[2]	张文强. 新疆水稻水足迹及其预测分析[J]. 南方农业, 2023, 17(18): 46-48.
	Zhang W Q. Water footprint of rice and its prediction analysis in Xinjiang[J]. South China Agriculture, 2023, 17(18): 46-48. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	郭庆人, 陈林. 水稻膜下滴灌栽培技术在我国发展的优势及前景分析[J]. 中国稻米, 2012, 18(4): 36-39.
	Guo Q R, Chen L. Advantages and prospects of rice drip irrigation under plastic film in China[J]. China Rice, 2012, 18(4): 36-39. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	Li J, Yang C, Zhang X, Wu S, Chi H, Zhang X, Wei C. Soil nitrogen distribution affects nitrogen utilization and yield of drip-irrigated rice[J]. Agronomy, 2024, 14(3): 593.
[5]	从夕汉, 施伏芝, 阮新民, 罗玉祥, 马廷臣, 罗志祥. 氮肥水平对不同基因型水稻氮素利用率、产量和品质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(4): 1219-1226.
	Cong X H, Shi F Z, Ruan X M, Luo Y X, Ma T C, Luo Z X. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer application rate on nitrogen use efficiency and grain yield and quality of different rice varieties[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28(4): 1219-1226. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	葛鑫, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 孟立明, 许轲. 农田氮素流失对环境的污染现状及防治对策[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2003, 26(6): 53-54, 57-67.
	Ge X, Dai Q G, Huo Z Y, Meng L M, Xu K. Countermeasures to curb pollution due to nitrogen loss in farmland[J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, 26(6): 53-54, 57-67. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	杨昌南, 李娟娟, 程李洋, 李小燕, 李晓东, 由纪蓉, 张新疆, 危常州. 深层根系减少及氮利用不足引发常规滴灌和氮肥量下水稻颖花退化[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2025, 31(12): 2415-2430.
	Yang C N, Li J J, Cheng L Y, Li X Y, Li X D, You J R, Zhang X J, Wei C Z. Insufficient deep-root growth and nitrogen utilization under conventional drip irrigation and nitrogen application rates causes spikelet degeneration in rice[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2025, 31(12): 2415-2430. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	习金根, 周建斌, 赵满兴, 陈竹君. 滴灌施肥条件下不同种类氮肥在土壤中迁移转化特性的研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004, 10(4): 337-342.
	Xi J G, Zhou J B, Zhao M X, Chen Z J. Leaching and transforming characteristics of different nitrogen fertilizers added by fertigation[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizing Science, 2004, 10(4): 337-342. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	吴蕴玉, 张展羽, 郝树荣, 陈文猛, 潘永春, 郑成鑫. 不同灌溉模式稻田氮素淋失特征[J]. 节水灌溉, 2019(3): 71-75, 81.
	Wu Y Y, Zhang Z Y, Hao S R, Chen W M, Pan Y C, Zheng C X. Nitrogen leaching losses from paddy fileds under different irrigation modes[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2019(3): 71-75, 81. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	谢诗猛, 刘登峰, 刘慧, 胡宏昌, 董志强, 王天赐, 明广辉. 气候变化影响下澜湄流域下游水稻生产用水量模拟与分析[J]. 人民珠江, 2024, 45(1): 13-33.
	Xie S M, Liu D F, Liu H, Hu H C, Dong Z Q, Wang T C, Ming G H. Simulation and analysis of water consumption for rice production in downstream lancanng-Mekong river basin under the influence of climate change[J]. Pearl River, 2024, 45(1): 13-33. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	Wan Y, Ju X, Ingwersen J, Schwarz U, Stange C F, Zhang F, Streck T. Gross nitrogen transformations and related nitrous oxide emissions in an intensively used calcareous soil[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2009, 73(1): 102-112.
[12]	Lin D X, Fan X H, Hu F, Zhao H T, Luo J F. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen utilization efficiency in response to urea application in rice fields of the Taihu Lake Region, China[J]. Pedosphere, 2007, 17(5): 639-645.
[13]	Van Groenigen J W, Velthof G L, Oenema O, Van Groenigen K J, Van Kessel C. Towards an agronomic assessment of N₂O emissions: A case study for arable crops[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 61(6): 903-913.
[14]	Snyder C S, Bruulsema T W, Jensen T L, Fixen P E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2009, 133(3/4): 247-266.
[15]	Loick N, Dixon E R, Abalos D, Vallejo A, Matthews G P, McGeough K L, Well R, Watson C J, Laughlin R J, Cardenas L M. Denitrification as a source of nitric oxide emissions from incubated soil cores from a UK grassland soil[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2016, 95: 1-7.
[16]	Tang Z, Liu X, Li G, Liu X. Mechanism of biochar on nitrification and denitrification to N₂O emissions based on isotope characteristic values[J]. Environmental Research, 2022, 212: 113219.
[17]	何文寿, 李生秀, 李辉桃. 水稻对铵态氮和硝态氮吸收特性的研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 1998, 12(4): 249-252.
	He W S, Li S X, Li H T. Characteristics of ammonium and nitrate uptake in rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 1998, 12(4): 249-252. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	胡君利, 林先贵, 褚海燕, 尹睿, 王俊华, 张华勇, 曹志洪, 胡正义. 古水稻土与现代水稻土的供氮差异及其氮肥效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2007, 44 (03): 556-560.
	Hu J L, Lin X G, Chu H Y, Yin R, Wang J H, Zhang H Y, Cao Z H, Hu Z Y. Different nitrogen supply capacities and nitrogenous fertilizer efficiencies in ancient and present paddy soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2007, 44 (03): 556-560. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	狄廷均, 朱毅勇, 仇美华, 阚建鸾, 张晓曼, 徐国华, 沈其荣. 水稻根系细胞膜H⁺-ATPase对铵硝营养的响应差异[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2007, 21(4): 360-366.
	Di T J, Zhu Y Y, Qiu M H, Kan J L, Zhang X M, Xu G H, Shen Q R. Response of plasma membrane H⁺-ATPase of rice root to ammonium and nitrate nutrition[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2007, 21(4): 360-366. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	徐晓鹏, 傅向东, 廖红. 植物铵态氮同化及其调控机制的研究进展[J]. 植物学报, 2016, 51(2): 152-166.
	Xu X P, Fu X D, Liao H. Advances in study of ammonium assimilation and its regulatory mechanism in plants[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2016, 51(2): 152-166. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	宋付朋, 张民, 史衍玺, 胡莹莹. 控释氮肥的氮素释放特征及其对水稻的增产效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2005, 42(4): 619-627.
	Song F P, Zhang M, Shi Y X, Hu Y Y. Releasing characteristics of controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer and its effects on rice yield[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2005, 42(4): 619-627. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	马慧婷, 李京芳, 刘菲, 陈亮. 土壤中氨氮与典型抗生素的吸附-解吸相互作用特征研究[J]. 岩矿测试, 2025, 44(5): 911-925.
	Ma H T, Li J F, Liu F, Chen L. Adsorption-desorption interaction characteristics of ammonium nitrogen and typical antibiotics in soil[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2025, 44(5): 911-925. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	王家玉, 王胜佳, 陈义, 郑纪慈. 稻田土壤中N的渗漏损失研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 1995, 6(S1): 62-66.
	Wang J Y, Wang S J, Chen Y, Zheng J C. Leaching loss of nitrogen in rice field[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1995, 6(S1): 62-66. (in Chinese)
[24]	冯冰聪, 马杰, 刘勇, 张潇雨, 陈雅丽, 翁莉萍. 氮素在农田土壤中迁移转化的研究进展[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2025, 42(2): 277-287.
	Feng B C, Ma J, Liu Y, Zhang X Y, Chen Y L, Weng L P. Research progress of nitrogen transport and transformation in farmland soils[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2025, 42(2): 277-287. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	刘杨, 周静, 梁晴, 张鑫. 灌溉方式与秸秆还田对小麦产量及水氮利用效率的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2025(4): 138-150.
	Liu Y, Zhou J, Liang Q, Zhang X. Effects of different irrigation methods and straw incorporation on winter wheat yield and water and nitrogen use efficiency[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2025(4): 138-150. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	邰继承, 李锐, 杨恒山, 张玉芹, 张瑞富. 浅埋滴灌条件下优化施氮对西辽河平原春玉米田碳、氮足迹的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(6): 278-284, 292.
	Tai J C, Li R, Yang H S, Zhang Y Q, Zhang R F. Effects of optimal nitrogen application on carbon and nitrogen footprints of spring maize fields under shallow buried drip irrigation in the xiliaohe plain[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 35(6): 278-284, 292. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	Kallenbach C M, Rolston D E, Horwath W R. Cover cropping affects soil N₂O and CO₂ emissions differently depending on type of irrigation[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2010, 137(3/4): 251-260.
[28]	张晓丽, 张宏媛, 卢闯, 逄焕成, 靳存旺, 高喜, 程挨平, 李玉义. 河套灌区不同秋浇年限对土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(19): 3380-3392.
	Zhang X L, Zhang H Y, Lu C, Pang H C, Jin C W, Gao X, Cheng A P, Li Y Y. Effects of the different autumn irrigation years on soil bacterial community in Hetao irrigation district[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(19): 3380-3392. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	聂福霄. 小麦浅埋滴灌高产节水技术应用研究[J]. 种子科技, 2025, 43(8): 65-67.
	Nie F X. Study on application of high yield and water saving technology of shallow buried drip irrigation for wheat[J]. Seed Science & Technology, 2025, 43(8): 65-67. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	Armstrong W. Radial oxygen losses from intact rice roots as affected by distance from the apex, respiration and waterlogging[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 1971, 25(2): 192-197.
[31]	Kotula L, Ranathunge K, Schreiber L, Steudle E. Functional and chemical comparison of apoplastic barriers to radial oxygen loss in roots of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in aerated or deoxygenated solution[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2009, 60(7): 2155-2167
[32]	Me i X, Wong M, Yang Y, Dong H, Qiu R, Ye Z. The effects of radial oxygen loss on arsenic tolerance and uptake in rice and on its rhizosphere[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2012, 165: 109-117.
[33]	孙凯, 胡丽燕, 张伟, 孟美瑶, 戴传超. 水稻根系泌氧对土壤微生物区系及氮素矿化影响的研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(12): 3413-3420.
	Sun K, Hu L Y, Zhang W, Meng M Y, Dai C C. Effects of rice root radial oxygen loss on soil microflora and organic nitrogen mineralization: A review[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016, 35(12): 3413-3420. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	马世浩, 杨丞, 王贵兵, 张赓, 李小坤. 水稻节水灌溉技术模式研究进展[J]. 节水灌溉, 2021 (8): 19-24.
	Ma S H, Yang C, Wang G B, Zhang G, Li X K. Research progress of rice water-saving irrigation technology mode[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2021(8): 19-24. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	Zhao L, Tang Q, Song Z, Yin Y, Wang G, Li Y. Increasing the yield of drip-irrigated rice by improving photosynthetic performance and enhancing nitrogen metabolism through optimizing water and nitrogen management[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023, 14: 1075625.
[36]	张珮仪, 温腾, 张金波, 蔡祖聪. 扩散法测定土壤无机氮¹⁵N丰度方法优化研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2017, 54(4): 948-957.
	Zhang P Y, Wen T, Zhang J B, Cai Z C. On improving the diffusion method for determination of δ¹⁵N-NH₄⁺ and δ¹⁵N-NO₃^- in soil extracts[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2017, 54(4): 948-957. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	张玉铭, 邢力, 李晓欣, 秦树平, 李燕楠, 韩建, 胡春胜. 作物根系对根际土壤N₂O产生与排放的调控机制研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报: 中英文, 2023, 31(8): 1322-1329.
	Zhang Y M, Xing L, Li X X, Qin S P, Li Y N, Han J, Hu C S. Research progress on the regulatory mechanisms of crop roots on N₂O production and emissions in rhizosphere soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2023, 31(8): 1322-1329. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[38]	Nardi P, Laanbroek H J, Nicol G W, Renella G, Cardinale M, Pietramellara G, Weckwerth W, Trinchera A, Ghatak A, Nannipieri P. Biological nitrification inhibition in the rhizosphere: Determining interactions and impact on microbially mediated processes and potential applications[J]. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 2020, 44(6): 874-908.
[39]	Sedlacek C J, Giguere A T, Dobie M D, Mellbye B L, Ferrell R V, Woebken D, Sayavedra-Soto L A, Bottomley P J, Daims H, Wagner M, Pjevac P. Transcriptomic response of Nitrosomonas europaea transitioned from ammonia- to oxygen-limited steady-state growth[J]. MSystems, 2020, 5: 10.1128/msystems.00562.
[40]	李宝珍, 王松伟, 冯慧敏, 徐国华. 氮素供应形态对水稻根系形态和磷吸收的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2008, 22(6):665-668.
	Li B Z, Wang S W, Feng H M, Xu G H. Effects of nitrogen forms on root morphology and phosphate uptake in rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2008, 22(6): 665-668. (in Chinese with English abstract)