中文摘要：

采用静态暗箱-气相色谱法对关中平原小麦-玉米轮作（2014—2015年）农田温室气体（CO2、CH4和N2O）排放通量进行监测,并用净增温潜势（NGWP）和碳足迹2个指标评估不同覆膜方式对关中平原农田温室效应、作物生产碳足迹的分布和构成的影响。试验处理设置为不覆膜（CK）、半膜覆盖（BM）、垄作覆膜（LM）、全膜覆盖（QM）。结果表明,与CK处理相比,BM、LM、QM处理下作物年际总产量分别增加了9.0%、16.5%、26.6%;CO2的年际排放总量分别增加了33.9%、9.3%、31.6%,N2O的年际排放总量分别增加了22.9%、14.3%、47.1%,但CH4的年际吸收总量无显著性差异;NGWP分别增加了9.0%、16.7%、26.0%;LM、QM处理碳足迹较CK处理减少了33.2%、21.9%,而BM处理碳足迹与CK处理无显著差异;BM处理单位产量碳足迹较CK处理增加了16.3%,而LM处理较CK处理减少了13.1%,QM处理与CK处理无显著性差异。综合考虑不同覆膜方式的经济效应和环境效应,垄作覆膜更有利于关中平原小麦-玉米轮作系统的固碳减排。

英文摘要：

The greenhouse gases such as methane （CH4）, nitrous oxide （N-O）, and carbon dioxide （CO2） were increased in atmospheric concentration since 1750, which attracted more and more attention regarding climate change. Agriculture activities contributed to the increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, resulting in high global warming potential, which was estimated to contribute about 47% -58% of the total anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N2O. Film mulching is reported to be a significant agricultural factor which greatly affected greenhouse gas （GHG） emissions and the carbon footprint. The annual GHG emissions （CO2, CH4 and N2O） from a wheat- maize rotation system during 2014-2015 were monitored by using the static opaque chamber and gas chromatography technique in Guanzhong Plain of China. Four mulching treatments were no mulching （CK） , semi-film mulching （BM）, ridge-furrow planting with film mulching over ridge （LM） and whole film mulching （QM）. Net global warming potential （NGWP） and carbon footprint were used to evaluate the effect of fihn mulching on GHG emissions and composition of carbon footprint production. The results showed that compared with CK, the BM, LM and QM treatments increased annual crop yield by 9.0% , 16.5% and 26.6%, respectively. Similarly, the BM, LM and QM treatments increased annual CO2 emission by 33.9% , 9.3% and 31.6% and annual N20 emission by 22.9% , 14.3% and 47. 1% , respectively. However, annual CH4 emissions showed no significant difference compared with CK. In addition, NGWP was increased by 9.0%, 16.7% and 26.0%, respectively. The carbon footprint of LM and QM treatments was 33.2% and 21.9% lower than that of CK, while BM treatment showed no significant difference compared with CK. Compared with carbon footprint per unit crop yield of CK, that of BM treatment was increased by 16. 3% , while that of LM treatment was decreased by 13. 1%. Meanwhile, QM treatment showed no significant difference. Considering both the economic