Research of Returning Biogas Slurry to Cropland Based on Knowledge Graph Analysis and Its Development Trend
-
摘要: 畜禽养殖业的集约化和规模化发展,造成畜禽粪污产生量急剧增加。畜禽粪污处理不当可对周遭的土壤、水体、大气等造成污染,成为我国农业面源污染的主要来源之一。基于Web of Science核心合集数据库,采用文献计量学方法对此研究领域的相关文献进行分析整合。结果表明:① 全球对粪肥污染研究的重视程度越来越高,沼液作为畜禽粪污厌氧消化的主要产物,其在还田领域的发文主要集中于土壤科学、环境科学、农学3个学科;②美国、中国、德国、澳大利亚、法国等国家在沼液还田利用研究领域发文量较多,相互合作密切;①沼液还田利用领域的发文期刊主要有Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment、Geoderma、Science of the Total Environment,其中2021年的 SCI 影响因子较高的主要期刊有Science of the Total Environment、Geoderma、Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment、Catena等。沼液还田利用的未来研究趋势主要集中于沼液所携带的活性物质与菌群对土壤肥力的促进机制,以及对土传病原微生物的抑病机理等方面。Abstract: The intensive and large-scale development of livestock and poultry breeding industry has resulted in a sharp increase of livestock manure. Meanwhile, improper treatment of livestock manure could pollute the surrounding soil, water and air, which is one of the main sources of agriculture non-point source pollution in China. We conducted a bibliometric analysis based on the core collection database of the Web of Science, using the CiteSpace knowledge map analysis tool, VOSviewer visual analysis software and HistCite citation analysis tool to count the number of publications and their distributions in disciplines, contributor countries (regions) and institutions, publish journals and hotspots and trends in the field of returning biogas slurry to cropland. ① Research in this field has attracted increasing attention worldwide between 2000 to 2021, and the top 3 categories of the publications are soil science, environmental sciences and agronomy. ② The United States, China, Germany, Australia and France are the major contributors of academic articles in this field, and have established close cooperation relationships with each other. ③ “Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment”, “Geoderma” and “Science of the Total Environment” are the top 3 publishing journals in the field of returning biogas slurry to cropland. Besides, “Science of the Total Environment”, “Geoderma”, “Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment”, and “Catena” are the main journals that have high impacts (one year). ④The future research trend in this field will focus mainly on the mechanism of biogas slurry microbes to promote soil fertility, and exploration of suppression mechanism to prevent and control soil-borne diseases. This paper is based on bibliometric data of the researches in the field of returning biogas slurry to cropland between 2000-2021. Soil fertility, organic matter, crop yield, inhibition of pathogenic microorganism become the current hotspots of biogas slurry utilization. With the continuous development of the high-throughput sequencing technology, the knowledge of soil microbial communities has been greatly expanded. Returning biogas slurry to cropland can not only turn the manure waste into treasure macroscopically, but also can antagonize soil-borne pathogens to protect soil micro-ecological health microscopically. These results are useful for returning biogas slurry to develop a greener and effective agriculture in the future.
-
Key words:
- Biogas slurry /
- Soil fertility /
- Web of Science /
- CiteSpace /
- VOSviewer /
- HistCite
-
表 1 国家与机构的总联系强度排名前十
Table 1. Top 10 countries and institutions in total link strength
排名
Rank国家
Country总联系强度
Total link strength机构名称
Institution总联系强度
Total link strength1 美国 780 中国科学院 340 2 中国 757 中国科学院大学 215 3 德国 566 中国农业科学院 157 4 澳大利亚 388 西北农林科技大学 84 5 法国 341 中国农业大学 60 6 西班牙 330 西澳大学 59 7 荷兰 324 中国农业部 56 8 英国 312 美国农业部 47 9 意大利 277 康奈尔大学 46 10 瑞士 243 吉林农业科学院 44 表 2 2000 ~ 2021 年沼液还田利用研究领域研究发文量排名TOP10 期刊
Table 2. Top10 journals in terms of number of papers published addressing returning biogas slurry to cropland during the 2000 - 2021
期刊名称
Journal本地引用
TLCS总引用
TGCS发文量
Number of Papers影响因子(2021年)
Impact Factor (In 2021)Soil & Tillage Research 476 4023 162 5.374 Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 415 4000 178 5.567 Geoderma 414 4594 178 6.114 Science of the Total Environment 380 3798 165 7.963 Applied Soil Ecology 201 1809 129 4.046 Catena 167 2021 108 5.198 Communications in Soil Science And Plant Analysis 110 683 163 1.327 Archives of Agronomy And Soil Science 71 665 101 3.092 Sustainability 44 1020 106 3.251 Agronomy-Basel 6 518 110 2.473 表 3 2000 ~ 2021年沼液还田利用研究领域研究发文量排名 TOP20 关键词
Table 3. Top 20 keywords in the field of returning biogas slurry to cropland research published articles during 2000 - 2021
序号
No.关键词
Keyword频次
Frequence序号
No.关键词
Keyword频次
Frequence1 Nitrogen 1168 11 Growth 509 2 Soil fertility 1047 12 Phosphorus 489 3 Organic-matter 992 13 Microbial biomass 445 4 Carbon 886 14 Organic-carbon 441 5 Management 885 15 Matter 412 6 Yield 677 16 Manure 406 7 Fertility 667 17 Biomass 405 8 Quality 620 18 Productivity 393 9 Dynamics 544 19 Diversity 374 10 Soil 519 20 Biochar 365 表 4 突现至2021年关键词(即当下研究热点)
Table 4. Keywords bursting to 2021 (current research hotspots)
关键词
Keyword突现强度
Strength开始
Begin结束
EndCharcoal 8.56 2010 2014 Exchange 7.56 2010 2014 Leaf area 7.5 2010 2019 Cotton 6.98 2010 2014 Biochar 6.86 2015 2021 PCR 6.67 2010 2014 Fruit quality 6.64 2015 2021 Bacillus thuringiensis 6.47 2010 2019 Fungal community 6.35 2015 2021 Saturation 5.54 2010 2014 -
[1] 孙国峰, 王 鑫, 盛 婧, 等. 长期粪肥还田条件下稻米品质及氮肥利用率[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(11): 2521 − 2527. doi: 10.11654/jaes.2021-1023 [2] 王明利. 改革开放四十年我国畜牧业发展: 成就、经验及未来趋势[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, 08(11): 60 − 70. [3] Jin S, Zhang B, Wu B, et al. Decoupling livestock and crop production at the household level in China[J]. Nature Sustainability, 2021, 4(1): 48 − 55. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00596-0 [4] Bai Z, Ma W, Ma L, et al. China's livestock transition: Driving forces, impacts, and consequences[J]. Science Advances, 2018, 4(7): 8534. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar8534 [5] Park J, Kang T, Heo Y, et al. Evaluation of short-term exposure levels on ammonia and hydrogen sulfide during manure-handling processes at livestock farms[J]. Safety and Health at Work, 2020, 11(1): 109 − 117. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2019.12.007 [6] 吴浩玮, 孙小淇, 梁博文, 等. 我国畜禽粪便污染现状及处理与资源化利用分析[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2020, 39(6): 1168 − 1176. [7] 吴根义, 廖新俤, 贺德春, 等. 我国畜禽养殖污染防治现状及对策[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2014, 33(7): 1261 − 1264. doi: 10.11654/jaes.2014.07.001 [8] Chen Y C, Yang Z M, Chen Q H, et al. An overview on disposal of anaerobic digestate for large scale biogas engineering[J]. China Biogas, 2010, 28(1): 14 − 20. [9] 张鹏娟, 曹运红. 浅谈沼液的综合利用技术[J]. 农业技术与装备, 2011, 24(2): 79 − 80. [10] 张国治, 吴少斌, 王焕玲, 等. 大中型沼气工程沼渣沼液利用意愿现状调研及问题分析[J]. 中国沼气, 2010, 28(1): 21 − 24. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1166.2010.01.005 [11] 陈保冬, 赵方杰, 张 莘, 等. 土壤生物与土壤污染研究前沿与展望[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(20): 6604 − 6613. [12] Tyrrel S F, Quinton J N. Overland flow transport of pathogens from agricultural land receiving faecal wastes[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2003, 94: 87 − 93. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.94.s1.10.x [13] Beattie R E, Bandla A, Swarup S, et al. Freshwater sediment microbial communities are not resilient to disturbance from agricultural land runoff[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 15(11): 539921. [14] Rietz D N, Haynes R J. Effects of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on soil microbial activity[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(6): 845 − 854. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00125-1 [15] Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, et al. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems[J]. Bioscience, 2005, 55(7): 573 − 582. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2 [16] Jones D L, Rousk J, Edwards J G, et al. Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2012, 45: 113 − 124. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012 [17] Du Z, Xiao Y, Qi X, et al. Peanut-shell biochar and biogas slurry improve soil properties in the North China Plain: a four-year field study[J]. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1): 1 − 9. [18] Liu C, Chen Y, Li X, et al. Temporal effects of repeated application of biogas slurry on soil antibiotic resistance genes and their potential bacterial hosts[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2020, 258: 113652. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113652 [19] Niyungeko C, Liang X, Liu C, et al. Effect of biogas slurry application rate on colloidal phosphorus leaching in paddy soil: a column study[J]. Geoderma, 2018, 325(1): 117 − 124. [20] Brookes P C, Landman A, Pruden G, et al. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: A rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1985, 17(6): 837 − 842. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(85)90144-0 [21] Bradford M M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding[J]. Analytical Biochemistry, 1976, 72(1−2): 248 − 254. [22] Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, et al. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming[J]. Science, 2002, 296(5573): 1694 − 1697. doi: 10.1126/science.1071148 [23] Lehmann J, Steiner C, Nehls T, et al. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological anthrosol and a ferralsol of the central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments[J]. Plant and Soil, 2003, 249(2): 343 − 357. doi: 10.1023/A:1022833116184 [24] Garg R N, Pathak H, Das D K, et al. Use of flyash and biogas slurry for improving wheat yield and physical properties of soil[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2005, 107(1): 1 − 9. [25] Sänger A, Geisseler D, Ludwig B. Effects of moisture and temperature on greenhouse gas emissions and C and N leaching losses in soil treated with biogas slurry[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2011, 47(3): 249 − 259. doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0528-y [26] Tang Y, Luo L, Carswell A, et al. Changes in soil organic carbon status and microbial community structure following biogas slurry application in a wheat-rice rotation[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 757(25): 143786. [27] Xu M, Xian Y, Wu J, et al. Effect of biogas slurry addition on soil properties, yields, and bacterial composition in the rice-rape rotation ecosystem over 3 years[J]. Journal of Soil and Sediments, 2019, 19(5): 2534 − 2542. doi: 10.1007/s11368-019-02258-x [28] Zirkler D, Peters A, Kaupenjohann M. Elemental composition of biogas residues: Variability and alteration during anaerobic digestion[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2014, 67: 89 − 98. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.021 [29] Gálvez A, Sinicco T, Cayuela M L, et al. Short term effects of bioenergy by-products on soil C and N dynamics, nutrient availability and biochemical properties[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 2012, 160(1): 3 − 4. [30] Terhoeven U T, Scheller E, Raubuch M, et al. CO2 evolution and N mineralization after biogas slurry application in the field and its yield effects on spring barley[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2009, 42(3): 297 − 302. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.05.012 [31] Abubaker J, Risberg K, Pell M. Biogas residues as fertilizers–Effects on wheat growth and soil microbial activities[J]. Applied Energy, 2012, 99: 126 − 134. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.050 [32] Surendra K C, Takara D, Hashimoto A, et al. Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 31: 846 − 859. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.015 [33] Weiland P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2010, 85(4): 849 − 860. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7 [34] Garg R N, Pathak D S, Das D, et al. Use of flyash and biogas slurry for improving wheat yield and physical properties of soil[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2005, 107: 1 − 9. doi: 10.1007/s10661-005-2021-x [35] Singh K, Suman A, Singh P, et al. Improving quality of sugarcane-growing soils by organic amendments under subtropical climatic conditions of India[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2007, 44(2): 367 − 376. doi: 10.1007/s00374-007-0216-8 [36] Li H, Feng K. Life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts and energy efficiency of an integration of sludge anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 195(10): 476 − 485. [37] Mills N, Pearce P, Farrow J, et al. Environmental & economic life cycle assessment of current & future sewage sludge to energy technologies[J]. Waste Management, 2014, 34(1): 185 − 195. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.08.024 [38] Wang S N, Yuan R F, Chen H L, et al. Effect of sulfonamides on the dissolved organic matter fluorescence in biogas slurry during anaerobic fermentation according to the PARAFAC analysis[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 144: 253 − 262. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.07.033 [39] Islam S, Rahman M, Islam M S, et al. Effect of nitrogen level on aromatic rice varieties and soil fertility status[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Crop production, 2008, 3(3): 49 − 54. [40] Cheng J B, Chen Y C, He T B, et al. Soil nitrogen leaching decreases as biogas slurry DOC/N ratio increases[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 111: 105 − 113. [41] Yu F B, Luo X P, Song C F, et al. Concentrated biogas slurry enhanced soil fertility and tomato quality[J]. Soil and Plant Science, 2010, 60(3): 262 − 268. [42] Tang Y F, Luo L M, Carswell A, et al. Changes in soil organic carbon status and microbial community structure following biogas slurry application in a wheat-rice rotation[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 757(25): 143786. [43] Stumpe B, Werner S, Jung R, et al. Organic carbon dynamics and enzyme activities in agricultural soils amended with biogas slurry, liquid manure and sewage sludge[J]. Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 3(1): 104 − 113. doi: 10.4236/as.2012.31014 [44] Du H Y, Gao W X, Li J J, et al. Effects of digested biogas slurry applicationmixed with irrigation water on nitrate leaching during wheat-maize rotation in the North China Plain[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2019, 213(1): 882 − 893. [45] Cao Y, Wang J D, Chang Z Z, et al. The fate of antagonistic microorganisms and antimicrobial substances during anaerobic digestion of pig and dairy manure[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 136: 664 − 671. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.052 [46] Jothi G, Pugalendhi S, Poornima K, et al. Management of root-knot nematode in tomato Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill., with biogas slurry[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2003, 89(2): 169 − 170. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00047-6 [47] Cao Y, Wang J D, Wu H S, et al. Soil chemical and microbial responses to biogas slurry amendment and its effect on Fusarium wilt suppression[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 107: 116 − 123. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.05.010 [48] Goberna M, Podmirseg S M, Waldhuber S, et al. Pathogenic bacteria and mineral N in soils following the land spreading of biogas digestates and fresh manure[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2011, 49: 18 − 25. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.07.007 [49] Bagge E, Sahlstroem L, Albihn A. The effect of hygienic treatment on the microbial flora of biowaste at biogas plants[J]. Water Research, 2005, 39(20): 4879 − 4886. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.03.016 [50] Xing J J, Xiu J, Wang H Z, et al. The legacy of bacterial invasions on soil native communities[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2021, 23(2): 669 − 681. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15086 [51] Lourenço K S, Suleiman A K A, Pijl A, et al. Resilience of the resident soil microbiome to organic and inorganic amendment disturbances and to temporary bacterial invasion[J]. Microbiome, 2018, 6(1): 1 − 12.