棉隆土壤消毒对高山甘蓝根肿病土壤细菌群落结构的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19030071

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究旨在科学评价棉隆土壤消毒对高山根肿病土壤细菌群落结构的影响,为土壤消毒防治根肿病提供理论依据。利用细菌16S核糖体基因高通量测序技术,研究棉隆土壤消毒对高山甘蓝根肿病土壤细菌群落的影响。高通量测序共得到9445细菌分类单元(operational taxonomic units,OTUs),其中2327细菌OTUs(24.64%)为3个处理共有。棉隆处理土壤细菌群落结构在门和属水平与对照较为类似,但部分分类单元的丰度发生较大改变。棉隆处理土壤4种细菌α多样性指数均与对照无显著性差异(P>0.05)。β多样性指数分析显示,棉隆与氟啶胺处理的距离较为接近,而与对照较远。Metastats分析显示,同对照比较,棉隆处理有1个门和24个属的细菌的丰度发生显著性改变,其中土壤有益菌的丰度显著增加,而氟啶胺处理有4个门和16个属的细菌丰度检测到显著性改变。以上结果说明,棉隆处理对高山土壤细菌多样性无显著影响,对细菌群落结构的影响小于氟啶胺处理,且有利于土壤细菌群落结构的恢复和重建。

关键词: 土壤消毒, 棉隆, 甘蓝, 根肿病, 微生物组, 微生物多样性

Abstract:

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of soil disinfection with dazomet (DA) on bacterial communities in the soil with cabbage clubroot disease at the high mountain area, aiming to control cabbage clubroot disease by soil disinfection. High throughput sequencing technology of bacterial 16S ribosomal genes was utilized to study the effect of dazomet (DA) soil disinfection on soil bacterial community structures of cabbage clubroot disease at the high mountain area. High throughput sequencing gained 9445 bacterial OTUs (operational taxonomic units), of which 2327 bacterial OTUs (24.64%) were commonly detected in three treatments. The community structures of bacteria at phylum and genus level in the DA-treated soil were similar to those in CK, but a part of phyla and genera had greater changes in abundance. All four types of bacterial α diversity indexes in the DA-treated soil had no significant difference with CK (P>0.05). Analysis of β diversity index showed that the distance in the DA treatment was closer to the fluazinam treatment, but was farther to CK. Metastats analysis demonstrated that, compared to CK, there were 1 phylum and 24 genera of bacteria with significant changes in abundance in the DA treatment, of which soil beneficial bacteria were significantly increased, whereas there were 4 phyla and 16 genera of bacteria that were detected to have significant changes in abundance in the fluazinam treatment. The above results showed that soil disinfection with DA had no significant effect on bacterial diversities, and less influence on bacterial community structures than fluazinam, and was benefit to the recovery and re-construction of soil bacterial community structures.

Key words: soil disinfection, dazomet, cabbage, clubroot disease, microbiome, microbial diversity

中图分类号:

Q939.96

胡洪涛, 朱志刚, 焦忠久, 闵勇, 邱正明. 棉隆土壤消毒对高山甘蓝根肿病土壤细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(16): 120-127.

Hu Hongtao, Zhu Zhigang, Jiao Zhongjiu, Min Yong, Qiu Zhengming. Effect of Soil Disinfection with Dazomet on Soil Bacterial Community Structures of Cabbage Clubroot Disease at High Mountain Area[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(16): 120-127.

图/表 8

参考文献 27

[1]	邱正明 . 我国高山蔬菜产业发展现状与产业技术需求[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2017,1(7):9-12.
[2]	方智远, 张扬勇, 刘玉梅, 等 .高山( 高原 ) 夏菜中的甘蓝[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2010,1(19):12-13.
[3]	Geoffrey R Dixon . The Occurrence and Economic Impact of Plasmodiophora brassicae and Clubroot Disease[J]. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 2009,28(3):194-202. doi: 10.1007/s00344-009-9090-y URL
[4]	Wallenhammar A C . Prevalence of Plasmodiophora brassicae in a spring oilseed rape growing area in central Sweden and factors influencing soil infestation levels[J]. Plant pathology, 1996,45(4):710-719. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.1996.d01-173.x URL
[5]	王秋霞, 颜冬冬, 王献礼 , 等. 土壤熏蒸剂研究进展[J]. 植物保护学报, 2017,44(4):529-543.
[6]	Mao L, Jiang H, Wang Q , et al. Efficacy of soil fumigation with dazomet for controlling ginger bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum) in China[J]. Crop Protection, 2017,100:111-116. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.06.013 URL
[7]	莫娟, 刘小娟, 王文慧 , 等. 3种土壤消毒剂对芹菜根腐病的田间防效[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018,1(9):51-53.
[8]	胡洪涛, 朱志刚, 焦忠久 , 等. 棉隆土壤消毒对高山甘蓝根肿病的防效及土壤真菌群落的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2019,38(3):25-31.
[9]	Edgar R C . Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST[J]. Bioinformatics, 2010,26:2460-2461. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 URL
[10]	Desantis T Z, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N , et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2006,72:5069-5072. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03006-05 URL
[11]	Chao A, Shen T J . Nonparametric prediction in species sampling[J]. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 2004,9:253-269. doi: 10.1198/108571104X3262 URL
[12]	Chao A, Yang M K . Stopping rules and estimation for recapture debugging with unequal failure rates[J]. Biometrika, 1993,80:193-201. doi: 10.1093/biomet/80.1.193 URL
[13]	Shannon C E . A mathematical theory of communication[J]. The Bell System Technical Journal, 1948,27:623-656. doi: 10.1002/bltj.1948.27.issue-4 URL
[14]	Simpson E H . Measurement of Diversity[J]. Nature, 1949,163:688. doi: 10.1038/163688a0 URL
[15]	White J R, Nagarajan N, Pop M . Statistical methods for Detecting Differentially Abundant Features in Clinical Metagenomic Samples[J]. PLOS Comput Biol, 2009,5(4):e1000352. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000352 URL
[16]	赵书军, 邱正明, 徐大兵 , 等. 高山蔬菜产区土壤障碍因子分析及消减技术[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018,1(9):86-89.
[17]	周晓肖, 郭成根, 邵佳佳 , 等. 氟啶胺防治青花菜根肿病技术研究[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018,1(11):60-64.
[18]	魏英 . 50%福帅得防治结球甘蓝根肿病试验初报[J]. 北京农业, 2013(5):122-123.
[19]	李雄亚和曹坳程. 国内溴甲烷必要用途豁免趋势外发展[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2017,1(11):7-9.
[20]	张庆华, 曾祥国, 韩永超 , 等. 土壤熏蒸剂棉隆和生物菌肥对草莓连作土壤真菌多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2018,45(5):1048-1060. doi: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.170507 URL
[21]	李军见和王培. 棉隆处理土壤克服设施草莓连作障碍效果评价[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2018,64(10):64-66.
[22]	王广印, 郭卫丽, 陈碧华 , 等. 棉隆及与生物菌肥配施对大棚秋番茄生长、产量及病虫草害的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(2):48-52.
[23]	徐少卓, 王义坤, 王柯 , 等. 不同浓度棉隆熏蒸对老龄苹果园土壤微生物环境的动态影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(2):290-297,342.
[24]	胡兰, 杨威, 徐婧 , 等. 棉隆与生化黄腐酸对设施土壤真菌多样性的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2014,45(2):217-220.
[25]	杨叶青, 范琳娟, 刘奇志 , 等. 棉隆和氯化苦熏蒸对重茬草莓土壤线虫群落及养分含量的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2018,45(4):725-733.
[26]	范琳娟, 刘奇志, 宋兆欣 , 等. 温室重茬草莓土壤施用棉隆和氯化苦效果评价[J]. 农药, 2017,56(4):293-296.
[27]	Figuerola E M, Guerrero L D, Rosa S M , et al. Bacterial Indicator of Agricultural Management for Soil under No-Till Crop Production[J]. PLoS One, 2012,7(11):e51075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051075 URL

门名	T1			T2		CK
门名	相对丰度	较对照增加	较T2增加	相对丰度	较对照增加	相对丰度
Actinobacteria	49.54±2.93	9.53	-6.90	53.21±2.47	17.64	45.23±4.51
Proteobacteria	18.54±4.1	2.21	2.09	18.16±0.9	0.11	18.14±0.33
Chloroflexi	13.83±0.6	-12.30	21.10	11.42±2.97	-27.58	15.77±1.86
Acidobacteria	8.71±0.58	-20.82	-4.29	9.1±1	-17.27	11±2.31
Gemmatimonadetes	4.9±0.94	1.87	25.64	3.9±0.74	-18.92	4.81±0.89
Planctomycetes	1.62±0.35	-16.49	13.29	1.43±0.08	-26.29	1.94±0.16
Nitrospirae	0.76±0.26	20.63	49.02	0.51±0.13	-19.05	0.63±0.37
Bacteroidetes	0.58±0.22	-1.69	-3.33	0.6±0.1	1.69	0.59±0.07
Verrucomicrobia	0.56±0.26	24.44	-9.68	0.62±0.15	37.78	0.45±0.26
Armatimonadetes	0.2±0.07	-50.00	-31.03	0.29±0.08	-27.50	0.4±0.18

门名	T1			T2		CK
门名	相对丰度	较对照增加	较T2增加	相对丰度	较对照增加	相对丰度
Actinobacteria	49.54±2.93	9.53	-6.90	53.21±2.47	17.64	45.23±4.51
Proteobacteria	18.54±4.1	2.21	2.09	18.16±0.9	0.11	18.14±0.33
Chloroflexi	13.83±0.6	-12.30	21.10	11.42±2.97	-27.58	15.77±1.86
Acidobacteria	8.71±0.58	-20.82	-4.29	9.1±1	-17.27	11±2.31
Gemmatimonadetes	4.9±0.94	1.87	25.64	3.9±0.74	-18.92	4.81±0.89
Planctomycetes	1.62±0.35	-16.49	13.29	1.43±0.08	-26.29	1.94±0.16
Nitrospirae	0.76±0.26	20.63	49.02	0.51±0.13	-19.05	0.63±0.37
Bacteroidetes	0.58±0.22	-1.69	-3.33	0.6±0.1	1.69	0.59±0.07
Verrucomicrobia	0.56±0.26	24.44	-9.68	0.62±0.15	37.78	0.45±0.26
Armatimonadetes	0.2±0.07	-50.00	-31.03	0.29±0.08	-27.50	0.4±0.18

属名	T1			T2		CK
属名	相对丰度	较对照增加	较T2增加	相对丰度	较对照增加	相对丰度
Solirubrobacter	3.16±0.34	-25.82	-19.59	3.93±0.47	-7.75	4.26±0.79
Blastococcus	2.94±1.44	24.05	-24.62	3.9±0.75	64.56	2.37±1.56
Roseiflexus	1.92±0.53	-31.43	2.13	1.88±0.93	-32.86	2.8±0.83
RB41	0.91±0.25	-66.91	-41.67	1.56±0.79	-43.27	2.75±1.28
Nocardioides	1.79±0.23	65.74	17.76	1.52±0.53	40.74	1.08±0.66
Pseudonocardia	1.15±0.2	16.16	-37.84	1.85±0.41	86.87	0.99±0.56
Rubrobacter	0.75±0.14	-62.31	-25.74	1.01±0.1	-49.25	1.99±0.26
Mycobacterium	1.79±0.85	110.59	65.74	1.08±0.31	27.06	0.85±0.16
Lentzea	1.6±0.64	201.89	0.63	1.59±0.4	200.00	0.53±0.12
Streptomyces	1.26±0.35	17.76	21.15	1.04±0.21	-2.80	1.07±0.66
Variibacter	0.98±0.11	-13.27	-9.26	1.08±0.2	-4.42	1.13±0.12

属名	T1			T2		CK
属名	相对丰度	较对照增加	较T2增加	相对丰度	较对照增加	相对丰度
Solirubrobacter	3.16±0.34	-25.82	-19.59	3.93±0.47	-7.75	4.26±0.79
Blastococcus	2.94±1.44	24.05	-24.62	3.9±0.75	64.56	2.37±1.56
Roseiflexus	1.92±0.53	-31.43	2.13	1.88±0.93	-32.86	2.8±0.83
RB41	0.91±0.25	-66.91	-41.67	1.56±0.79	-43.27	2.75±1.28
Nocardioides	1.79±0.23	65.74	17.76	1.52±0.53	40.74	1.08±0.66
Pseudonocardia	1.15±0.2	16.16	-37.84	1.85±0.41	86.87	0.99±0.56
Rubrobacter	0.75±0.14	-62.31	-25.74	1.01±0.1	-49.25	1.99±0.26
Mycobacterium	1.79±0.85	110.59	65.74	1.08±0.31	27.06	0.85±0.16
Lentzea	1.6±0.64	201.89	0.63	1.59±0.4	200.00	0.53±0.12
Streptomyces	1.26±0.35	17.76	21.15	1.04±0.21	-2.80	1.07±0.66
Variibacter	0.98±0.11	-13.27	-9.26	1.08±0.2	-4.42	1.13±0.12

分组	门			属
分组	总数	上调	下调	总数	上调	下调
T1-CK	1	0	1	24	13	11
T2-CK	4	1	3	16	11	5
T1-T2	1	1	0	10	8	2
总数	6			39