酸性土壤玉米根际土壤细菌群落对秸秆还田和调理剂的响应

张慧; 苏光秋; 林陈强; 陈龙军; 陈济琛

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2021.04.014

酸性土壤玉米根际土壤细菌群落对秸秆还田和调理剂的响应

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2021.04.014

1.
福建省农业科学院土壤肥料研究所, 福建　福州　350001
2.
屏南县农业农村局, 福建　屏南　352300

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划（2018YFD0200706）；福建省科技计划公益类专项（2019R1025-4）；福建省区域发展项目（2019Y3005）

详细信息

作者简介:
张慧（1981−），女，硕士，助理研究员，主要从事农业微生物研究（E-mail：zhanghui08@126.com）

通讯作者:
陈济琛（1965−），男，研究员，主要从事微生物研究（E-mail：chenjichen2001@126.com）

中图分类号: S 154
计量
- 文章访问数: 553
- HTML全文浏览量: 179
- PDF下载量: 23
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-10-16
- 修回日期: 2020-12-28
- 网络出版日期: 2021-03-27
- 刊出日期: 2021-04-30

Responses of Rhizosphere Bacterial Community to Straw-mulching and Conditioner-addition in Acid Soil of Maize Field

1.
Institute of Soil and Fertilizer, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian　350001, China
2.
Pingnan Agriculture and Rural Bureau, Pingnan, Fujian　352300, China

摘要

摘要: 目的以福建省黄泥田土壤为研究对象，探讨不施化肥（CK）、单一施化肥（T1）、化肥配施秸秆还田（T2）、化肥配施土壤调理剂（T3）等4组处理玉米根际土壤细菌群落组成、多样性和结构的变化。方法利用 Illumina Miseq测序平台对4组处理土壤样品进行测序，基于第二代高通量技术分析4种处理（CK、T1、T2、T3）的玉米根际土壤细菌的16S rRNA基因在V3～V4区域的多样性指数、丰富度以及群落组成和结构。结果 4个处理的玉米根际土壤细菌优势门（相对丰度＞10%）为变形菌门（Proteobacteria）、绿弯菌门（Chloroflexi）、放线菌门（Actinobacteria）。T1处理细菌的丰富度指数（ACE指数和Chao1指数）较CK均有所降低，分别降低17.65%和17.88%；T3处理的细菌丰富度指数（ACE指数和Chao1指数）高于CK处理，分别提高14.52%和14.00%。分层聚类图显示细菌属水平上，CK、T1和T2处理的土壤样品细菌群落结构相似性较高，T3与其他3个处理细菌群落结构差异较大。结论化肥配施土壤调理剂对土壤细菌群落结构影响大于单一施化肥和化肥配施秸秆还田处理，单一施化肥降低了根际土壤细菌的丰富度，化肥配施土壤调理剂可以显著提高玉米根际土壤细菌群落的丰富度，施用土壤调理剂提高酸性土壤pH对玉米根际细菌群落影响最大。
- 化肥 /
- 秸秆还田 /
- 土壤调理剂 /
- 高通量测序 /
- 土壤细菌群落
Abstract: Objective Composition and diversity of rhizosphere bacterial community in response to straw-mulching and soil conditioning on land of maize field were studied. Methods Soil at the maize growing fields was treated with either no chemical fertilizer (CK), a single chemical fertilizer (T1), straw-mulching and chemical fertilization (T2), or a soil conditioner plus chemical fertilization (T3). The second-generation technology of Illumina Miseq high-throughput sequencing was used based on the bacterial 16S rRNA genes in V3-V4 region to determine the changes of diversity, richness, composition, and structure of bacterial community in the rhizosphere soil under treatment. Results The dominant bacteria, which showed their relative abundance greater than 10%, in the rhizosphere bacterial community were 4,183 genera of Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Actinobacteria. The ACE and Chao 1 richness indices of the community under T1 were 17.65% and 17.88%, respectively, lower, while those under T3, 14.52% and 14%, respectively, higher than those under CK. At genera level, the stratified cluster diagram of community structure under T3 differed from those under CK, T1, and T2. Conclusion T3 significantly affected the structure of the bacteria community and more so than did the other treatments. Among all treatments, T1 lowered, while T3 enhanced, the richness of the community over CK. And the added soil conditioner raised the pH of the acidic soil rendering the greatest effect on the rhizosphere bacterial community in maize field.
- Chemical fertilization /
- straw-mulching /
- soil conditioner /
- high-throughput sequencing /
- rhizosphere bacterial community

HTML全文

图 1 4种施肥措施土壤细菌门水平下类群比较

Figure 1. Bacteria at phyla level in rhizosphere soil under treatments

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 4种施肥措施土壤样品细菌纲水平下类群比较

Figure 2. Bacteria at class level in rhizosphere soil under treatments

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 4种施肥措施土壤样品属水平细菌OTUs热图

Figure 3. OTUs heatmap of bacterial OTUs at genus level in rhizosphere soil under treatments

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 基于门和属水平下土壤细菌种群分布和环境因子的冗余分析

Figure 4. Redundancy analysis on bacterial community at phylum and genus levels in rhizosphere soil and on associated environmental factors

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 4种施肥措施下根际土壤细菌的序列读数及OTUs数

Table 1. Sequences and OTUs of rhizosphere bacterial community under treatments

处理 Treatment	序列读数 Reads	OTUs数 OTUs
CK	50675±1401 b	1789±34 ab
T1	46145±2253 b	1476±57 b
T2	47686±1571 b	1779±145 ab
T3	56660±2119 a	2057±220 a
注：① CK：不施化肥秸秆不还田；T1：常规施肥秸秆不还田；T2：常规施肥秸秆还田；T3：常规施肥加土壤调理剂。② 同列数据后不同小写字母表示差异达显著水平（P＜0.05），下同。 Note: ① CK: Basic soil; T1: Conventional fertilization; T2: Humic acid organic-inorganic mixed fertilizer ; T3: Humic acid biological organic fertilizer；-N 20% Humic acid biological organic fertilizer. ② Data with different lowercase letters on same row denote significant difference between treatments （P＜0.05）, same for the following.

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 4种施肥措施下根际土壤细菌的多样性指数

Table 2. Bacterial diversity of rhizosphere soil under treatments

处理 Treatment	ACE指数 ACE index	Chao1 指数 Chao1 index	Simpson指数 Simpson index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	覆盖率指数 Good’s coverage
CK	2170±28 ab	2164±28 ab	0.0072±0.0014 a	5.96±0.02 a	0.9889±0.0003 a
T1	1787±73 b	1777±69 b	0.0124±0.0004 a	5.53±0.07 a	0.9909±0.0004 ab
T2	2175±150 ab	2181±144 ab	0.0063±0.0006 a	5.94±0.13 a	0.9888±0.0005 ab
T3	2485±257 a	2467±260 a	0.0115±0.006 a	6.04±0.29 a	0.9875±0.0013 b

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(27)

[1]	林先贵, 胡君利. 土壤微生物多样性的科学内涵及其生态服务功能 [J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):892−900. LIN X G, HU J L. Scientific connotation and ecological service function of soil microbial diversity [J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(5): 892−900.(in Chinese)
[2]	曹志平. 土壤生态学[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2007.
[3]	齐虹凌, 贺国强, 李恒全, 等. 轮作与连作对烤烟不同生育期根际土壤细菌群落结构的影响 [J]. 中国烟草学报, 2015, 21(5):42−48. QI H L, HE G Q, LI H Q, et al. Effects of rotational and continuous cropping on bacterial community structures in rhizospheric soil at different growth stages of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica, 2015, 21(5): 42−48.(in Chinese)
[4]	CARSWELL A M, HILL P W, JONES D L, et al. Short-term biotic removal of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) compounds from soil solution and subsequent mineralisation in contrasting grassland soils [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2016, 96: 82−85. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.01.017
[5]	MANOHARAN L, KUSHWAHA S K, AHRÉN D, et al. Agricultural land use determines functional genetic diversity of soil microbial communities [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 115: 423−432. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.09.011
[6]	樊晓刚, 金轲, 李兆君, 等. 不同施肥和耕作制度下土壤微生物多样性研究进展 [J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(3):744−751. FAN X G, JIN K, LI Z J, et al. Soil microbial diversity under different fertilization and tillage practices: A review [J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2010, 16(3): 744−751.(in Chinese)
[7]	李玉新, 赵忠, 陈金泉, 等. 沙棘林土壤微生物多样性研究 [J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 38(8):67−74, 82. LI Y X, ZHAO Z, CHEN J Q, et al. Study on soil microbial diversity of seabuckthorn forest [J]. Journal of Northwest a& f University (Natural Science Edition), 2010, 38(8): 67−74, 82.(in Chinese)
[8]	刘玮琦, 茆振川, 杨宇红, 等. 应用16S rRNA基因文库技术分析土壤细菌群落的多样性 [J]. 微生物学报, 2008, 48(10):1344−1350. LIU W Q, MAO Z C, YANG Y H, et al. Analysis of soil bacterial diversity by Using the 16S rRNA gene Library [J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2008, 48(10): 1344−1350.(in Chinese)
[9]	朱兆良, 文启孝. 中国土壤氮素[M]. 南京: 江苏科学技术出版社, 1992.
[10]	荣勤雷, 梁国庆, 周卫, 等. 不同有机肥对黄泥田土壤培肥效果及土壤酶活性的影响 [J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(5):1168−1177. RONG Q L, LIANG G Q, ZHOU W, et al. Effects of different organic fertilization on fertility and enzyme activities of yellow clayey soil [J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2014, 20(5): 1168−1177.(in Chinese)
[11]	王飞, 林诚, 李清华, 等. 长期不同施肥方式对南方黄泥田水稻产量及基础地力贡献率的影响 [J]. 福建农业学报, 2010, 25(5):631−635. WANG F, LIN C, LI Q H, et al. Effects of long-term fertilization on rice yield and contribution rate of basic soil productivity on the yellow paddy of Southern China [J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 25(5): 631−635.(in Chinese)
[12]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[13]	WANG Y, SHENG H F, HE Y, et al. Comparison of the levels of bacterial diversity in freshwater, intertidal wetland, and marine sediments by using millions of illumina tags [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2012, 78(23): 8264−8271. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01821-12
[14]	葛英亮, 于水利, 时文歆, 等. 应用Illumina MiSeq高通量测序技术解析O₃⁻BAC饮用水处理过程细菌多样性变化 [J]. 食品科学, 2016, 37(16):223−228. GE Y L, YU S L, SHI W X, et al. Analysis of bacterial diversity in O₃⁻BAC drinking water treatment process by using illumina MiSeq high throughput sequencing technology [J]. Food Science, 2016, 37(16): 223−228.(in Chinese)
[15]	王爱英, 赵啸林, 孙玲丽, 等. 沼渣土壤调理剂对胶东地区酸性土壤改良效果研究 [J]. 中国沼气, 2019, 37(4):98−102. WANG A Y, ZHAO X L, SUN L L, et al. Effect of soil conditioner of biogas slurry on acid soil improvement in Jiaodong area [J]. China Biogas, 2019, 37(4): 98−102.(in Chinese)
[16]	李昂. 四种土壤调理剂对酸性土壤铝毒害改良效果研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2014. LI A. Remediate effects on aluminum toxicity by using four soil conditioners in acid soils[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2014. (in Chinese).
[17]	KALBITZ K, KAISER K. Contribution of dissolved organic matter to carbon storage in forest mineral soils [J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2010, 171(1): 52−60.
[18]	戴志刚, 鲁剑巍, 李小坤, 等. 不同作物还田秸秆的养分释放特征试验 [J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(6):272−276. DAI Z G, LU J W, LI X K, et al. Nutrient release characteristic of different crop straws manure [J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2010, 26(6): 272−276.(in Chinese)
[19]	郑丹. 不同条件下作物秸秆养分释放规律的研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2012. ZHENG D. The nutrient releasing regularity of crop stalks under different conditions[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2012. (in Chinese).
[20]	王志勇, 白由路, 杨俐苹, 等. 低土壤肥力下施钾和秸秆还田对作物产量及土壤钾素平衡的影响 [J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18(4):900−906. WANG Z Y, BAI Y L, YANG L P, et al. Effects of application of potassium fertilizer and straw returning on crop yields and soil potassium balance in low-yielding fields [J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2012, 18(4): 900−906.(in Chinese)
[21]	IQBAL M, UL-HASSAN A, VAN ES H M. Influence of Residue Management and Tillage Systems on Carbon Sequestration and Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Dynamics of Soil and Plant and Wheat Production in Semi-arid Region [J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2011, 42(5): 528−547. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2011.546929
[22]	王怡, 常彬河, 刘月, 等. 基于MiSeq测序分析酸性农作物土壤细菌群落结构与多样性 [J]. 环境科学研究, 2019, 32(9):1575−1583. WANG Y, CHANG B H, LIU Y, et al. Analysis of bacterial community composition and diversity in acid soil using MiSeq sequencing [J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2019, 32(9): 1575−1583.(in Chinese)
[23]	李丹, 靳鲲鹏, 李小霞, 等. 基于高通量测序技术的玉米不同生育时期土壤细菌多样性变化 [J]. 山西农业科学, 2019, 47(9):1569−1572. LI D, JIN K P, LI X X, et al. Variations of soil bacterial diversity at different growth stages in maize based on high-throughput sequencing [J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 47(9): 1569−1572.(in Chinese)
[24]	LIU J J, SUI Y Y, YU Z H, et a1. High throughput sequencing analysis of biogeographical distribution of bacterial communities in the black soils of northeast China [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2014, 70: 113−122. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.014
[25]	GRIFFITHS R I, THOMSON B C, JAMES P, et a1. The bacterial biogeography of British soils [J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2011(13): 1642−1654.
[26]	NAVARRETE A A, KURAMAE E E, DE HOLLANDER M, et al. Acidobacterial community responses to agricultural management of soybean in Amazon forest soils [J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2013, 83(3): 607−621. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12018
[27]	LAUBER C L, STRICKLAND M S, BRADFORD M A, et a1. The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008, 40(9): 2407−2415. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.05.021