不同乳酸菌组合对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.02.022

草地学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2): 388-395.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.02.022

不同乳酸菌组合对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响

王丽学^1,2, 韩静³, 陈龙宾³, 余新越⁴, 刘景喜³, 马毅³, 霍文娟⁵

1. 天津市农业科学院信息研究所, 天津 300192;
2. 天津市农业动物繁育与健康养殖重点实验室, 天津 300384;
3. 天津市农业科学院畜牧兽医研究所, 天津 300381;
4. 天津师范大学地理与环境科学学院, 天津 300387;
5. 天津市农业科学院农产品保鲜与加工技术研究所, 天津 300381

收稿日期:2020-09-25 修回日期:2020-10-16 出版日期:2021-02-15 发布日期:2021-02-25
通讯作者: 马毅, 霍文娟
作者简介:王丽学(1983-),女,内蒙古宁城人,博士,副研究员,主要从事牧草栽培与加工利用研究,E-mail:wanglixue0066@126.com
基金资助:
天津市农业科技成果转化项目（201901190）；天津市科技计划项目（19ZXBTSN00150，19ZXBTSN00190）；现代农业（奶牛）产业技术体系建设专项（CARS-36）资助

Effects of Various Lactic Acid Bacteria Combinations on Bacterial Community Structure of Alfalfa Silage

WANG Li-xue^1,2, HAN Jing³, CHEN Long-bin³, YU Xin-yue⁴, LIU Jing-xi³, MA Yi³, HUO Wen-juan⁵

1. Information Institute, Tianjin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tianjin 300192, China;
2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Breeding and Healthy Husbandry, Tianjin 300384, China;
3. Information Institute of Animal Science and Veterinary Research, Tianjin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tianjin 300381, China;
4. School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China;
5. Institute of Agricultural Products Preservation and Processing Technology, Tianjin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tianjin 300381, China

Received:2020-09-25 Revised:2020-10-16 Online:2021-02-15 Published:2021-02-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探讨不同乳酸菌互作对苜蓿（Medicago sativa）青贮细菌群落结构的影响，以2种植物乳杆菌、乳酸片球菌、戊糖片球菌及凝结芽孢杆菌形成的6种乳酸菌组合按1.5 mL·kg^-1的添加量制作苜蓿青贮，以等量蒸馏水替代添加剂作为对照，45 d后运用高通量测序分析细菌群落结构。结果表明，各苜蓿青贮的优势乳酸菌群均为厚壁菌门（Firmicates）的乳杆菌属（Lactobacillus）和片球菌属（Pediococcus），二者相对丰度之和为65.4%~79.0%，其中含植物乳杆菌处理高于对照和含凝结芽孢杆菌处理；与对照相比，乳酸菌组合处理提高了菌群Chao1和ACE指数但降低了Simpson和Shannon指数；6个乳酸菌组合处理中，含凝结芽孢杆菌处理组与对照相似性较高，对苜蓿青贮细菌群落影响较小；相关分析表明，苜蓿青贮菌群结构和多样性可较好地解释其营养品质的变化。综上，乳酸菌组合在一定程度上改善了苜蓿青贮的细菌群落结构，其中含植物乳杆菌的组合效果较好。

关键词: 乳酸菌组合, 苜蓿, 青贮, 细菌, 群落结构

Abstract: To explore the interaction of various lactic acid bacteria on the bacterial community structure of alfalfa silage,the experiment was conducted with six lactic acid bacteria combinations of Lactobacillus plantarum (No. ACCC11016,No. CICC20765),Pediococcus acidilactici (No. CGMCC 1.4),Pediococcus pentosaceus (CICC 22737),and Bacillus coagulans (No. ACCC10229). The lactic acid bacteria combination was used to make alfalfa silage at the dosage of 1.5 mL·kg^-1,the treatment with equivalent distilled water replacing additive was as the control,and the bacterial community was analyzed after 45 d through high throughput sequencing methods. The results showed that the dominant lactic acid bacteria community were Lactobacillus and Pediococcus belonging to Firmicates, and the relative abundance was 65.4%~79.0%,in which the relative abundance of the treatment containing L. plantarum was higher than that of the control and the treatment containing B. coagulans. Compared with the control,the indices of bacteria community richness (Chao1 and ACE index) increased while the community diversity indices (Simpson and Shannon) decreased. Among the six lactic acid bacteria combinations,the treatments containing B. Coagulans had higher similarity with the control,indicating that it had few effects on bacterial community of alfalfa silage. The correlation analysis showed that the bacteria structure and diversity of alfalfa silage could well explain the change of nutrient quality. In conclusion,the lactic acid bacteria combinations could improve the bacteria community structure of alfalfa silage,in which the combination containing L. plantarum was superior to the combinations containing B. coagulans.

Key words: Lactic acid bacteria combinations, Alfalfa, Silage, Bacteria, Community structure

中图分类号:

王丽学, 韩静, 陈龙宾, 余新越, 刘景喜, 马毅, 霍文娟. 不同乳酸菌组合对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(2): 388-395.

WANG Li-xue, HAN Jing, CHEN Long-bin, YU Xin-yue, LIU Jing-xi, MA Yi, HUO Wen-juan. Effects of Various Lactic Acid Bacteria Combinations on Bacterial Community Structure of Alfalfa Silage[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(2): 388-395.

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.1007-0435.2021.02.022

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2021/V29/I2/388

参考文献

[1] 张吉明,赵燕梅,许庆方,等. 不同品种、刈割时期及添加剂处理的紫花苜蓿总皂苷含量研究[J]. 草地学报,2015,23(4):859-864
[2] 许庆方,玉柱,李胜利,等. 甲酸或绿汁发酵液对苜蓿青贮影响的研究[J]. 畜牧兽医学报,2008(12):1709-1714
[3] 李光耀,张力君. 苜蓿青贮添加剂及其应用进展[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学,2013,34(10):32-34
[4] Contreras-Govea F E. Microbial inoculant effects on silage and in vitro ruminal fermentation,and microbial biomass estimation for alfalfa,BMR corn,and corn silages[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology,2011,163(1):2-10
[5] 包万华,卜登攀,周凌云,等. 青贮饲料添加剂应用的研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧兽医,2012,39(008):124-128
[6] 侯新强,崔卫东,张慧涛. 青贮饲料中微生物添加剂的应用研究[J]. 饲料研究,2009,3:20-22
[7] 杨艳,智健飞,严学兵,等. 添加乳酸菌剂后苜蓿青贮料发酵的动态变化[J]. 中国畜牧杂志,2014,50(11):41-45
[8] 刘晗璐,桂荣,塔娜. 乳酸菌青贮添加剂的研究与应用[J]. 中国饲料,2006,23:28-32
[9] 李翠霞,刁其玉,闫贵龙. 不同种类微生物对青贮发酵及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 饲料工业,2009,30(5):52-55
[10] Filya I,Muck I,Contreras-Govea R E. Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage:Fermentation products and nutritive value[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2007,90:5108-5114
[11] Driehuis F,Oude Elferink S J W H,Van Wikselaar P G. Fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of grass silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri,with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria[J]. Grass Forage Science,2001,56:330-343
[12] Kleinschmit D H,Kung L. The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 and Pediococcus pentosaceus R1094 on the fermentation of corn silage[J]. Journal of Dairy Science,2006,89:3999-4004
[13] 马召稳,李元晓,梁含,等. 苜蓿青贮中微生物种群分析及主要菌种的筛选鉴定[J]. 草业科学,2019,36(11):2980-2988
[14] 王旭哲,张凡凡,马春晖,等. 同/异型乳酸菌对青贮玉米开窖后品质及微生物的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2018,34(10):296-304
[15] Rajabi R,Tahmasbi R,Dayani O,et al. Chemical composition of alfalfa silage with waste date and its feeding effect on ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbial protein synthesis in sheep[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition,2017,101(3):466-474
[16] Chen L,Li J F,Dong Z H,et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants and fibrolytic enzymes on the fermentation quality,in vitro degradability,ruminal variables and microbial communities of high-moisture alfalfa silage[J]. Grassland Science,2019,65:216-225
[17] Agarussi M C N,Pereira O G,Silva V P,et al. Fermentative profile and lactic acid bacterial dynamics in non-wilted and wilted alfalfa silage in tropical conditions[J]. Molecular Biology Reports,2019,46:451-460
[18] Yuan X J,Li J F,Dong Z H,et al. The reconstitution mechanism of napier grass microiota during the ensiling of alfalfa and their contributions to fermentation quality of silage[J]. Bioresource Technology,2019,297:122391
[19] 陈鑫珠,高承芳,刘景,等. 绿汁发酵液中的微生物多样性及其对菌糠发酵品质的影响[J]. 草地学报,2019,27(1):199-210
[20] 商振达,谭占坤,李家奎,等. 种植时间对西藏地区青贮玉米发酵品质和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2019,27(2):488-496
[21] 张玲,席琳乔,张凡凡,等. 残次枣粉添加青贮苜蓿中微生物、发酵和营养品质动态规律[J]. 新疆农业科学,2019,56(10):1929-1938
[22] Wang C,He L W,Xing Y Q,et al. Fermentation quality and microbial community of alfalfa and stylo silage mixed with Moringa oleifera leaves[J]. Bioresource Technology,2019,284:240-247
[23] Silva V P,Pereira O G,Leandro E S,et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria with bacteriocinogenic potential on the fermentation profile and chemical composition of alfalfa silage in tropical conditions[J]. Journal of Dairy Sence,2016,99(3):1895-1902
[24] Zheng M L,Niu D Z,Jiang D,et al. Dynamics of microbial community during ensiling direct-cut alfalfa with and without LAB inoculant and sugar[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2017,122:1456-1470
[25] Wu B Y L,Zhang Q,Liu Z K,et al. Bacterial communities in alfalfa and corn silages produced in large-scale stack and bunker silos in China[J]. Grassland Science,2014,60(4):247-251
[26] 卢强,撒多文,都帅,等. 盐碱地苜蓿青贮品质及微生物群落的研究[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2020(2):96-100,150
[27] Li D X,Ni K K,Zhang Y C,et al. Influence of lactic acid bacteria,cellulase,cellulase-producing Bacillus pumilus and their combinations on alfalfa silage quality[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,2018,17(12):172-186
[28] Ogunade I M,Jiang Y,Cervantes A A P, et al. Bacterial diversity and composition of alfalfa silage as analyzed by Illumina MiSeq sequencing:Effects of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and silage additives[J]. Journal of Dairy ence,2017,101(3):2048-2059
[29] 王丽学,韩静,陈龙宾,等. 5种乳酸菌对苜蓿青贮营养和发酵品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究,2019,1:104-108
[30] Mahanna W C. Silage fermentation and additive use in North America. In:Silage production from seed to animal,Proceedings[M]. New York:NRAES,1993:85-95
[31] 闫晶,陆冰圆,席华悦,等. 外源添加剂对黄贮小麦秸秆产甲烷潜力及微生物群落的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2020,36(15):252-260
[32] 李宝明,杨织瑞. 乳酸菌添加剂对青贮饲料中微生物菌群的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医杂志,2016,35(1):13-17
[33] Ni K K,Minh T T,Tlu T T M,et al. Comparative microbiota assessment of wilted Italian ryegrass,whole crop corn,and wiltered alfalfa silage using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing[J]. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology,2017,101:1385-1394

不同乳酸菌组合对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响

Effects of Various Lactic Acid Bacteria Combinations on Bacterial Community Structure of Alfalfa Silage

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]	张振华, 刘振杰, 陈白洁, 李以康. 枯落物添加对三江源区退化高寒草甸土壤碳矿化的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 156-164.
[2]	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.
[3]	卢家顶, 杨旭, 朱晓艳, 崔亚垒, 王成章, 李德锋, 史莹华. 河南地区21个粮饲兼用型青贮玉米品种综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1950-1958.
[4]	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.
[5]	马冉冉, 袁洁, 张文洁, 许能祥, 顾洪如. 堆放时间对西兰花尾菜青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2107-2114.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	杜昭昌, 王红, 闫艳红, Muhammad Tahir, 韦潇, 曾泰儒, 李洪亮. 稻壳和麦麸对鲜玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1549-1554.
[12]	吴硕, 邹璇, 王明亚, 张庆. 陈皮柑汁对柱花草和水稻秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1565-1570.
[13]	郑敏娜, 梁秀芝, 韩志顺, 康佳惠, 陈燕妮. 不同改良措施对盐碱土土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1200-1209.
[14]	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.
[15]	常明. 火烧后亚高山草甸恢复过程中物种组成和群落特征变化规律的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1286-1293.