三江源农牧交错区土壤微生物碳、氮以及群落碳代谢特征对一年生禾豆混播的响应

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.05.004

草地学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (5): 1064-1070.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.05.004

三江源农牧交错区土壤微生物碳、氮以及群落碳代谢特征对一年生禾豆混播的响应

陈懂懂^1,2, 李奇^1,2, 陈昕^1,2,3, 贺福全^1,2,3, 赵新全^1,2, 徐世晓^1,2, 赵亮^1,2

1. 中国科学院高原生物适应与进化重点实验室, 青海西宁 810008;
2. 中国科学院西北高原生物研究所, 青海西宁 810008;
3. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049

收稿日期:2018-07-03 修回日期:2018-09-22 出版日期:2018-10-15 发布日期:2018-11-06
通讯作者: 赵亮
作者简介:陈懂懂(1982-),女,山东广饶人,博士,助理研究员,主要从事土壤生态学研究,E-mail:chendd@nwipb.cas.cn
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目（2016YFC0501805和2016YFC0501905）；青海省自然科学基金青年项目（2017-ZJ-939Q）；国家自然科学基金青年项目（31700394）；青海省科技重大专项（2017-SF-A6）和中国科学院STS项目（KFJ-STS-ZDTP-013）资助

Response of Soil Microbial Biomass C and N,C Metabolism Characteristics of Microbes to Grass-Legume Mixtures of Annual Artificial Grassland in Sanjiangyuan Region

CHEN Dong-dong^1,2, LI Qi^1,2, CHEN Xin^1,2,3, HE Fu-quan^1,2,3, ZHAO Xin-quan^1,2, XU Shi-xiao^1,2, ZHAO Liang^1,2

1. Key Laboratory of Adaptation and Evolution of Plateau Biota, Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining, Qinghai Province 810008, China;
2. Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining, Qinghai Province 810008, China;
3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Received:2018-07-03 Revised:2018-09-22 Online:2018-10-15 Published:2018-11-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过对三江源农牧交错区常见一年生牧草（小黑麦、燕麦和箭筈豌豆）进行不同种植处理，于当年收获后测定耕层0~20 cm土壤养分及微生物学性质，来研究牧草种植对土壤质量的影响。结果表明：小黑麦单播下的MBC及MBC/SOC%高于其他处理，且显著高于箭筈豌豆单播及箭筈豌豆与燕麦双优（1∶2∶2）处理（P<0.05）；研究区土壤微生物主要利用碳源类型为羧酸类、酚类化合物、碳水化合物和氨基酸；聚类分析发现小黑麦单播和种植燕麦单优势种（1∶3∶1）、箭筈豌豆单优势种（1∶1∶3）及小黑麦+燕麦双优势种（2∶2∶1），对土壤微生物特性的影响相似。小黑麦单播会加快土壤有机质周转，燕麦和箭筈豌豆双优势种混播有增加土壤有机质的潜力；作为土壤质量的指示因子，MBC比MBN更敏感；不同处理下，土壤微生物对碳的利用强度和类型相似。综合考虑土壤微生物活性和生产特性，在实际生产活动中不适宜箭筈豌豆单播。

关键词: 单播, 混播, 微生物生物量, 微生物碳代谢, 三江源区

Abstract: Different mixed sowing treatments of 3 annual forages (i.e. Triticale,Oats and Vicia sativa) in agro-pastoral ecotone of Sanjiangyuan region were carried out,and soil microbial properties,such as microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen,and carbon metabolism activity of microbes within 0~20 cm plough layer,were determined after harvest. The results showed that MBC and MBC/SOC% under triticale monoculture were higher than those under other treatments,and significantly higher than those under the Vicia sativa unicast and the 1:2:2 treatments (P<0.05),while no significant difference in other indicators between treatments was found. The carbon resources used by the soil microbes in the study area mainly included the carboxylic acid,phenolic acids,carbohydrates and amino acids. The cluster analysis found that the treatments of triticale unicast,1:3:1,1:1:3 and 2:2:1 had similar effects on soil microbial characteristics,and the microbial activity of which was greater than that under other treatments. The above results indicated that triticale unicast may promote turnover of soil organic matter,while mixed sowing of oats and Vicia Sativa had a potential to increase soil organic matter. As the indicator of soil quality,MBC was more sensitive than MBN. Soil microbes had similar carbon utilization intensity and types under different treatments in the study area. Considering the soil microbial activity and production characteristics,Vicia sativa unicast in the actual production activities was not recommended.

Key words: Unicast, Mixed sowing, Soil microbial biomass, Microbial carbon metabolism, Sanjiangyuan region

中图分类号:

S154.36

陈懂懂, 李奇, 陈昕, 贺福全, 赵新全, 徐世晓, 赵亮. 三江源农牧交错区土壤微生物碳、氮以及群落碳代谢特征对一年生禾豆混播的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(5): 1064-1070.

CHEN Dong-dong, LI Qi, CHEN Xin, HE Fu-quan, ZHAO Xin-quan, XU Shi-xiao, ZHAO Liang. Response of Soil Microbial Biomass C and N,C Metabolism Characteristics of Microbes to Grass-Legume Mixtures of Annual Artificial Grassland in Sanjiangyuan Region[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(5): 1064-1070.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.05.004

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2018/V26/I5/1064

参考文献

[1] Zak D R,Pregitzer K S,Burton A J,et al. Microbial responses to a changing environment:implications for the future functioning of terrestrial ecosystems[J]. Fungal Ecology,2011,4(6):386-395
[2] Chapin F S,Zavaleta E S,Eviner V T,et al. Consequences of changing biodiversity[J]. Nature,2000,405(6783):234-242
[3] Qi Y B,Chen T,Pu J,et al. Response of soil physical,chemical and microbial biomass properties to land use changes in fixed desertified land[J]. Catena,2018(160):339-344
[4] Bardgett R D,Jones A C,Jones D L,et al. Soil microbial community patterns related to the history and intensity of grazing in sub-montane ecosystems[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2001,33(12-13):1653-1664
[5] Putten W V D,Bardgett R D,Bever J D,et al. Plant-soil feedbacks:the past,the present and future challenges[J]. Journal of Ecology,2013,101(2):265-276
[6] Davidson E A,Ackeman I K. Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils[J]. Biogeochemistry,1993,20(3):161-193
[7] Anderson T H. Microbial eco-physiological indicators to asses soil quality[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystem and Environment,2003,98(1):285-293
[8] Singh J S,Gupta V K. Soil microbial biomass:A key soil driver in management of ecosystem functioning[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2018(634):497-500
[9] Sparling G P. Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic matter[J]. Australian Journal of Soil Research,1992,30(2):195-207
[10] Zhou H M,Zhang D X,Wang P,et al. Changes in microbial biomass and the metabolic quotient with biochar addition to agricultural soils:a meta-analysis[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystem and Environment,2017(239):80-89
[11] 郑华,欧阳志云,方治国,等. BIOLOG在土壤微生物群落功能多样性研究中的应用[J]. 土壤学报,2004,41(3):456-461
[12] 胡可,王利宾. BIOLOG微平板技术在土壤微生态研究中的应用[J]. 土壤通报,2007,38(4):819-821
[13] Chapman S J,Campbell C D,Artz R R E. Assessing CLPPs Using MicroResp^TM. A Comparison with Biolog and multi-SIR[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments,2007,7(6):406-410
[14] 翟文婷,陈懂懂,李奇,等. 放牧强度对环青海湖地区高寒草原土壤微生物群落代谢特征的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报,2017,23(4):0685-0692
[15] 郭芳芳,李永梅,李朝丽,等. 版纳河流域土地利用变化对土壤有机碳及微生物生物量碳和氮的影响[J]. 生态学杂志,2012,31(10):2473-2478
[16] 陈小燕,吕家珑,张红,等. 子午岭不同植被类型土壤微生物量与有机酸含量[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(3):167-170
[17] 许茜,李奇,陈懂懂,等. 近40a三江源地区土地利用变化动态分析及预测[J]. 干旱区研究,2018,35(3):695-704
[18] 李亚娟,曹广民,龙瑞军,等. 三江源土地利用方式对草地植物生物量及土壤特性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2016,24(3):524-529
[19] 施建军,马玉寿,董全民,等. "黑土型"退化草地优良牧草筛选试验[J]. 草地学报,2007,15(6):543-555
[20] 秦爱琼,朱勇,马金英,等. 藏北地区9种牧草栽培试验初报[J]. 草业与畜牧,2012,33(04):27-29
[21] 陈鸿洋,傅华,黄德君,等. 高寒地区垂穗披碱草优异种质资源筛选[J]. 中国农业科学,2013,46(4):841-848
[22] 郑伟,朱进忠,库尔班,等. 不同混播方式下禾豆混播草地种间竞争动态研究[J]. 草地学报,2010,18(4):568-575
[23] 陈懂懂,李奇,刘哲,等. 9种牧草对青海同德牧区土壤特性的影响[J]. 草原与草坪,2016,36(4):41-47
[24] 周华坤,赵新全,王启基,等. 青海省同德县草地现状及畜牧业可持续发展策略[J]. 草原与草坪,2007,27(04):7-12
[25] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京:中国农业科技出版社,2000
[26] Chen D D,Zhao L,Li Q,et al. Response of soil carbon and nitrogen to 15-year experimental warming in two alpine Habitats (Kobresia Meadow and Potentilla Shrubland) on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,2016,25(6):2305-2313
[27] Chen L J,Li C S,Feng Q,et al. Shifts in soil microbial metabolic activities and community structures along a salinity gradient of irrigation water in a typical arid region of China[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2017(598):64-70
[28] Classen A T,Boyle S I,Haskins K E,et al. Community-level physiological profiles of bacteria and fungi:plate type and incubation temperature influences on contrasting soils[J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology,2003,44(3):319-328
[29] Garland J L,Mills A L. Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1991,57(8):2351-2359
[30] Zak J C,Willig M R,Moorhead D L,et al. Functional diversity of microbial communities:a quantitative approach[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,1994,26(9):1101-1108
[31] Frac M,Oszust K,Lipiec J. Community Level Physiological Profiles (CLPP),Characterization and Microbial Activity of Soil Amended with Dairy Sewage Sludge[J]. Sensors,2012,12(3):3253-3268
[32] Feigl V,Ujaczki é,Vaszita E,et al. Influence of red mud on soil microbial communities:Application and comprehensive evaluation of the Biolog EcoPlate approach as a tool in soil microbiological studies[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2017(595):903-911
[33] Li C L,Li Q,Zhao L,et al. Land-use effects on organic and inorganic carbon patterns in the topsoil around Qinghai Lake basin,Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Catena,2016(147):345-355
[34] Wu H B,Guo Z T,Gao Q,et al. Distribution of soil inorganic carbon storage and its changes due to agricultural land use activity in China[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment,2009,129(4):413-421
[35] 刘哲,陈懂懂,李奇,等. 土地利用方式对高寒草甸生态系统土壤无机碳的影响[J]. 水土保持通报,2016,36(5):288-294
[36] Liu S L,Tang Y H,Zhang F W,et al. Changes of soil organic and inorganic carbon in relation to grassland degradation in Northern Tibet[J]. Ecological Research,2017,32(3):395-404
[37] Bronick C J,Lal R. Soil structure and management:a review[J]. Geoderma,2005,124(1-2):3-22
[38] 高寒,王宏燕,李传宝,等. 玉米秸秆不同腐解处理还田对黑土碳氮比的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报,2013,44(6):1392-1397
[39] 张宝泉,李红红,马虎,等. 渭北旱塬区不同年限苜蓿对土壤主要养分及微生物量的影响[J]. 草地学报,2015,23(6):1190-1196
[40] Liu D,Huang Y M,An S S,et al. Soil physicochemical and microbial characteristics of contrasting land-use types along soil depth gradients[J]. Catena,2018(162):345-353

三江源农牧交错区土壤微生物碳、氮以及群落碳代谢特征对一年生禾豆混播的响应

Response of Soil Microbial Biomass C and N,C Metabolism Characteristics of Microbes to Grass-Legume Mixtures of Annual Artificial Grassland in Sanjiangyuan Region

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]	杨冲, 王文颖, 刘攀, 周华坤, 索南吉, 刘艳方, 关晋宏. 三江源区不同高寒草地植物矿物元素含量特征及分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 52-61.
[2]	汪鹏斌, 宋美娟, 童永尚, 王玉霞, 徐长林, 李珍, 鱼小军. 保护播种对高寒区刈割型混播草地产草量及品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1818-1827.
[3]	谢开云, 孟翔, 徐珍珍, 张力文, 万江春, 颜安, 李陈建. 新疆半干旱地区不同种类混播草地的牧草产量和营养价值研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1835-1842.
[4]	于铁峰, 郝凤, 张永亮, 高凯. 沙地豆禾混播草地土壤酶与土壤养分对混播比例的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1217-1223.
[5]	李兴龙, 师尚礼, 黄宗昌, 李革革, 吴芳, 张辉辉. 黄土丘陵区不同饲草混播模式对种间关系的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1318-1326.
[6]	潘越, 周冀琼, 郭川, 杨喆, 刘琳, 闫艳红, 赵艳兰, 刘珊, 孙飞达. 丛枝菌根真菌与根瘤菌对3种豆禾混播植物种间互作的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 644-654.
[7]	李满有, 马忠仁, 王斌, 杨雨琦, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区2个苜蓿品种不同行比混播模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[8]	王斌, 董秀, 李满有, 杨雨琦, 兰剑. 不同播量拉巴豆与青贮玉米混播对草地生产性能及牧草品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 828-834.
[9]	李思达, 刘文辉, 张永超, 秦燕, 李文. 青海扁茎早熟禾混播草地生产性能与种间关系的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2827-2837.
[10]	谢开云, 孙伶俐, 张力文, 郑万菊, 万江春, 赵云. 菌根真菌和根瘤菌接种对紫花苜蓿和无芒雀麦混播牧草生物量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 182-188.
[11]	喻岚晖, 王杰, 廖李容, 张超, 刘国彬. 青藏高原退化草甸土壤微生物量、酶化学计量学特征及其影响因素[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1702-1710.
[12]	秦燕, 刘勇, 张永超, 梁国玲, 刘文辉. 不同混播比例对燕麦和箭筈豌豆混播草地植物生长特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1768-1774.
[13]	张永亮, 于铁峰, 郝凤. 豆禾混播牧草碳氮磷钾生态化学计量特征对施肥与混播比例的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1386-1394.
[14]	姚泽英, 李军, 宋连昭, 刘春阳, 姚泽军, 刘贵河. 垂穗披碱草与紫花苜蓿不同时期交叉混播效果研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1454-1459.
[15]	姚泽英, 李军, 宋连昭, 刘春阳, 姚泽军, 刘贵河. 张家口坝上地区豆-禾牧草混播效果研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 1076-1082.