荒漠灌区苜蓿后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.01.004

草地学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (1): 25-32.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.01.004

荒漠灌区苜蓿后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响

南丽丽, 郭全恩, 刘雪强

甘肃农业大学草业学院, 甘肃兰州 730070

收稿日期:2020-02-23 修回日期:2020-05-27 发布日期:2021-01-08
作者简介:南丽丽(1979-),女,甘肃天水人,博士,教授,主要从事草种质资源、栽培与育种研究,E-mail:nanll@gsau.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（31460630）；省部共建草业生态系统教育部重点实验室暨草学甘肃省优势特色学科建设（GAU-XKJS-2018-013）；现代农业产业技术体系建设专项（CARS-34）共同资助

Effects of the Alfalfa Post-harvest Rotation on Soil Bacterial Community in Arid Desert Oasis

NAN Li-li, GUO Quan-en, LIU Xue-qiang

College of Pratacultural Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China

Received:2020-02-23 Revised:2020-05-27 Published:2021-01-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为阐明荒漠灌区苜蓿（Medicago sativa）后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响，本研究以6年生苜蓿地为对照（CK），以5年生苜蓿地翻耕灭茬分别种植1年小麦（Triticum aestivum）（T₁）、油菜（Brassica chinensis）（T₂）、葵花（Helianthus annuus）（T₃）、玉米（Zea mays）（T₄）为处理，采用高通量测序技术，分析不同处理下土壤细菌群落的变化特征。结果表明，T₁，T₂微生物量碳含量显著大于CK，T₄微生物量氮含量显著高于CK（P<0.05）；T₃，T₄土壤呼吸显著大于CK（P<0.05）；T₁，T₂，T₃，T₄脲酶、碱性磷酸酶、过氧化氢酶、蔗糖酶活性分别是CK的1.44，1.13，1.36，1.54倍，1.53，7.78，4.25，7.28倍，1.09，1.28，1.14，1.06倍，1.11，1.38，1.14，1.74倍；与CK相比，轮茬后变形菌门、放线菌门、芽单胞菌门相对丰富呈降低、而酸杆菌门相对丰富呈增加趋势，这4个菌门为不同处理的优势菌门，占所有菌门的82.67%；T₁，T₂土壤细菌群落丰富度指数（Chao1和ACE）均显著高于CK（P<0.05）。综上，荒漠灌区轮茬较苜蓿连作更有助于提高土壤酶活性，稳定细菌群落结构，提高土地生产力。

关键词: 苜蓿, 轮茬, 细菌群落结构, 高通量测序, 荒漠灌区

Abstract: In order to determine the effects of alfalfa post-harvest rotation on soil bacterial community in arid desert oasis,an experiment was set up with the following five crop rotation treatments:(Ⅰ)control (CK) with six-year-old alfalfa;(Ⅱ) 5-year-old alfalfa-1-year-old wheat (T₁);(Ⅲ) 5-year-old alfalfa-1-year-old canola (T₂);(Ⅳ) 5-year-old alfalfa-1-year-old sunflower (T₃);and (Ⅴ) 5-year-old alfalfa-1-year-old corn (T₄). The characteristics of soil bacteria in different treatments were analyzed by high-throughput sequencing (Illumina HiSeq). The results showed that T₁and T₂ treatments significantly increased soil microbial biomass carbon content. T₄treatment significantly increased soil microbial biomass nitrogen content. T₃ and T₄ treatments significantly improved soil respiration. Soil urease,alkaline phosphatase,catalase,sucrase activities in T₁,T₂,T₃,and T₄ treatments were 1.44,1.13,1.36,and 1.54 times,1.53,7.78,4.25,and 7.28 times,1.09,1.28,1.14,and 1.06 times,1.11,1.38,1.14,and 1.74 times higher than that in CK treatment,respectively. Proteobacteria,Acidobacteria,Gemmatimonadetes,and Bacteroidetes were the four dominant bacteria in different treatments,accounting for 82.67% of all bacteria. Compared with CK,Proteobacteria,Gemmatimonadetes,and Actinobacteria decreased while Acidobacteria increased after different crop rotations. The abundance index (ACE and Chao1) of T₁ and T₂ treatments were significantly higher than CK (P<0.05). In conclusion,different crop rotations increased soil enzyme activities,stabilized bacterial community structure and improved soil productivity.

Key words: Alfalfa, Rotation, Bacterial community structure, High throughtput sequencing, Arid desert oasis

中图分类号:

S548

南丽丽, 郭全恩, 刘雪强. 荒漠灌区苜蓿后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 25-32.

NAN Li-li, GUO Quan-en, LIU Xue-qiang. Effects of the Alfalfa Post-harvest Rotation on Soil Bacterial Community in Arid Desert Oasis[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(1): 25-32.

参考文献

[1] Li L,Liang X,Ye Y,et al. Effects of repeated swine manure applications on legacy phosphorus and phosphomonoesterase activities in a paddy soil[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils,2015,51(2):167-181
[2] 李争艳,徐智明,师尚礼,等. 江淮地区不同轮茬作物对苜蓿产量及根际土壤质量的影响[J].草业学报,2019,28(8):28-39
[3] 王宁,罗佳琳,赵亚慧,等. 不同麦秸还田模式对稻田土壤微生物活性和微生物群落组成的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报,2020,39(1):125-133
[4] 南丽丽,师尚礼,郁继华. 荒漠灌区不同种植年限苜蓿草地土壤微生物特性[J]. 草地学报,2016,24(5):975-980
[5] 南丽丽,汪堃,李小彦,等. 播量和行距对苜蓿根际土壤生物性质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2018,26(6):1330-1336
[6] 王劲松,樊芳芳,郭珺,等. 不同作物轮作对连作高粱生长及其根际土壤环境的影响[J]. 应用生态学报,2016,27(7):2283-2291
[7] 张立成,彭沛宇,廖健程,等. 稻-稻-油菜轮作土壤细菌群落的特征[J]. 应用与环境生物学报,2018,24(2):276-280
[8] Li Y,Huang M. Pasture yield and soil water depletion of continuous growing alfalfa in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,2008,124(1):24-32
[9] 樊军,郝明德. 长期轮作与施肥对土壤主要微生物类群的影响[J]. 水土保持研究,2003(1):88-89,114
[10] Vance E D,Brookes P C,Jenkinson D S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass[J]. Soil Biology Bio-chemistry,1987,19(6):703-707
[11] Brookes P C,Andrea L,Pruden G,et al. Chloroformfumigation and the release of soil nitrogen:A rapid direct extraction method tO measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil[J].Soil Biologyand Biochemistry,1985,17(6):837-842
[12] 关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京:农业出版社,1986:274-342
[13] 杨兰芳,曾巧,李海波,等. 紫外分光光度法测定土壤过氧化氢酶活性[J].土壤通报,2011,42(1):207-210
[14] 郭全恩,李保国,南丽丽,等. 疏勒河流域绿洲荒漠过渡带土壤呼吸特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报,2016,25(6):934-938
[15] Bergmann G T,Bates S T,Eilers K G,et al. The under-recognized dominance of Verrucomicrobia in soil bacterial communities[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2011,43(7):1450-1455
[16] Mago T,Salzberg S L. Flash:Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies[J]. Bioinformatics,2011,27(21):2957-2963
[17] Wang Q,Garrity G M,Tiedje J M,et al. Naive bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of Rrna sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2007,73(16):5261-5267
[18] Quast C,Pruesse E,Yilmaz P,et al. The Silva ribosomal RNA gene database project:Improved data processing and web-based tools[J]. Nucleic Acids Researth,2013,41:590-596
[19] Edgar R C. MUSCLE:Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput[J]. Nucleic Acids Research,2004,32(5):1792-1797
[20] Wen X Y,Dubinsky E,Wu Y,et al. Wheat,maize and sunflower cropping systems selectively influence bacteria community structure and diversity in their and succeeding crop's rhizosphere[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,2016,15(8):1892-1902
[21] Niu J,Chao J,Xiao Y,et al. Insight into the effects of different cropping systems on soil bacterial community and tobacco bacterial wilt rate[J]. Journal of Basic Microbiology,2016,57(1):3-11
[22] 苟文龙,李平,董臣飞,等. 混播比例和刈割茬次对多花黑麦草+箭筈豌豆混播草地土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 草地学报,2019,27(5):1222-1230
[23] 尹国丽,李亚娟,张振粉,等. 不同草田轮作模式下土壤养分及细菌群落组成特征[J].生态学报,2020,40(5):1-9
[24] 王芳,陈井生,刘大伟. 不同种植方式大豆根际土壤细菌多样性分析[J]. 作物学报,2018,44(10):1539-1547
[25] Zheng W,Xue D,Li X,et al. The responses and adaptations of microbial communities to salinity in farmland soils:A molecular ecological network analysis[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,2017(120):239-246
[26] Null N. Correction:salinity and bacterial diversity:To what extent does the concentration of salt affect the bacterial community in a saline soil[J].PLoS ONE,2014,9(11):e114658
[27] Campbell B J,Kirchman D L. Bacterial diversity,community structure and potential growth rates along an estuarine salinity gradient[J]. The ISME Journal,2013,7(1):210-220
[28] Griffiths B S,Philippot L. Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community[J]. FEMS Microbiology Reviews,2013,37(2):112-129
[29] 丁新景,黄雅丽,敬如岩,等. 基于高通量测序的黄河三角洲4种人工林土壤细菌结构及多样性研究[J]. 生态学报,2018,38(16):5857-5864
[30] 赵璇. 中国北方主要草地类型土壤放线菌多样性和群落结构的比较研究[D]. 长春:东北师范大学,2015
[31] Xiong W,Zhao Q,Zhao J,et al. Different continuous cropping spans significantly affect microbial community membership and structure in a vanilla-grown soil as revealed by deep pyrosequencing[J]. Microbial Ecology,2015,70(1):209-218
[32] 郭丽丽,尹伟伦,郭大龙,等. 油用凤丹牡丹不同种植时间根际细菌群落多样性变化[J]. 林业科学,2017,53(11):131-141
[33] 梁儒彪,梁进,乔明锋,等. 模拟根系分泌物C:N化学计量特征对川西亚高山森林土壤碳动态和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 植物生态学报,2015,39(5):466-476
[34] Dick R P,Pankhurst C,Doube B M,et al. Soil enzyme activities as integrative indicators of soil health[J]. New York:CAB International,1997:121-156
[35] 张鹏鹏,濮晓珍,张旺锋. 干旱区绿洲农田不同种植模式和秸秆管理下土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报,2018,29(3):839-849

荒漠灌区苜蓿后茬轮作不同作物对土壤细菌群落的影响

Effects of the Alfalfa Post-harvest Rotation on Soil Bacterial Community in Arid Desert Oasis

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王静, 刘晓静, 程甜甜, 童长春, 汪雪. 不同氮效率紫花苜蓿叶特征及其产量效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1941-1949.
[2]	孟宣辰, 马鹏程, 马杰, 段珍, 韩阳阳, 张吉宇. 黄土高原半干旱区紫花苜蓿覆膜垄沟和施肥效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2098-2106.
[3]	王明涛, 方江平, 包赛很那, 苗彦军, 王向涛, 赵玉红, 谢文栋, 仓木德吉. 藏北燕麦草地持续利用与撂荒对高寒草甸土壤特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1801-1808.
[4]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[5]	陈雷, 暴雪艳, 郭刚, 霍文婕, 李清宏, 许庆方, 王聪, 刘强. 单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.
[6]	李春萍, 邱轶辉, 夏厚胤, 谭璐娜, 许环宇, 张瀚文, 高景慧. 紫花苜蓿多父本F₁代低蒸腾及产量性状的隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[7]	李天琦, 林志玲, 卢轩, 黄佳媛, 杨宁, 沃野, 高凯, 柳小妮, 王显国. 灌溉量对科尔沁沙地紫花苜蓿土壤速效养分分布及淋失的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1454-1461.
[8]	李红, 李波, 方志坚, 杨曌, 张超, 冯成龙, 金姗姗, 王思琦, 石婉莹. 冻融和冻融+苏打盐碱复合胁迫下苜蓿幼苗的生理响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1469-1476.
[9]	李鹏珍, 赵得琴, 邓波, 杨军, 赵国华, 赵亮. 生物炭与干旱胁迫对接种紫花苜蓿光合效率及生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1257-1264.
[10]	王文静, 麻冬梅, 赵丽娟, 马巧利. 2,4-表油菜素内酯对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理指标及根系离子积累的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1363-1368.
[11]	潘新怡, 史昆, 龚攀, 韦宝, 吴欣明, 王赞. 紫花苜蓿花青苷合成的转录组分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 866-875.
[12]	孙雷雷, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 刘富渊, 聂秀美, 王军. 贮藏方式和贮藏时间对苜蓿干草霉菌数量和种类的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 884-893.
[13]	陈彩锦, 张尚沛, 师尚礼, 曾燕霞, 吴娟, 尚继红, 高婷, 张蓉. 基于GGE双标图对苜蓿品种丰产性和稳定性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 912-918.
[14]	黄荣, 姚博, 张玉娟, 贾倩英, 李向阳, 张宏, 张振粉. 成团泛菌CQ10脂多糖对紫花苜蓿种子萌发及苗期生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 965-971.
[15]	王新宇, 申晨, 霍文婕, 刘强, 张拴林, 王聪, 陈雷, 许庆方, 王永新, 郭刚. 雁北地区不同品种玉米全株青贮发酵品质及细菌群落结构分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 1087-1093.