甲酸和木醋液对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0082

中国农学通报 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 92-101.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0082

所属专题：生物技术；植物保护；畜牧兽医

• 畜牧·动物医学·蚕·蜂 • 上一篇下一篇

甲酸和木醋液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:2021-01-25 修回日期:2021-07-15 出版日期:2022-01-15 发布日期:2022-02-25
通讯作者: 马毅,霍文娟
作者简介:王丽学,女,1983年出生,内蒙古宁城人,助理研究员,博士,研究方向为牧草栽培与利用、草地生态。通信地址：300192 天津市南开区白堤路268号农科大厦1905室,天津市农业科学院信息研究所,E-mail： wanglixue0066@126.com。
基金资助:
天津市农业科技成果转化项目“高产奶牛粗饲料结构优化技术的转化与示范”(201901190);天津市科技计划项目“紫花苜蓿绿色高效青贮添加剂研究及应用”(19ZXBTSN00150);天津市科技计划项目“中小型奶牛场提质增效关键技术集成应用”(19ZXBTSN00190)

Effects of Formic Acid and Wood Vinegar on Bacterial Community Composition of Alfalfa Silage

WANG Lixue¹^,²(), HAN Jing³, CHEN Longbin³, YU Xinyue⁴, LIU Jingxi³, MA Yi³(), HUO Wenjuan⁵()

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

Received:2021-01-25 Revised:2021-07-15 Online:2022-01-15 Published:2022-02-25
Contact: MA Yi,HUO Wenjuan

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨抑制型青贮添加剂对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响,以木醋液和甲酸为添加剂,按6 mL/kg的剂量与干物质含量为(23.02±0.70)%的苜蓿混匀制作青贮,以等量蒸馏水替换添加剂的处理作为对照,45天后运用高通量测序技术分析苜蓿青贮的细菌群落结构。结果表明,对照组以变形菌门(Proteobacteria)肠杆菌科(Enterobacteriaceae)未知属为优势,以厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)肠球菌属(Enterococcus)为次优势;木醋液组则以厚壁菌门肠球菌属为优势,以变形菌门肠杆菌科未知属为次优势;甲酸组以蓝藻细菌门链型植物目(Streptophyta）未知科属为优势。与对照组相比,苜蓿青贮中肠球菌属丰度在木醋液组显著提高而在甲酸组显著降低,木醋液和甲酸组均显著降低了肠杆菌科丰度且甲酸组降幅显著高于木醋液组;甲酸组显著提高了细菌群落丰富度指数(Chao1和ACE)但降低了优势度指数(Simpson)。主成分分析表明,苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构与其营养和发酵主要指标可解释苜蓿青贮88.786%的信息,在样品分布上,木醋液组居甲酸组和对照组之间但更趋向于对照组。综上,甲酸和木醋液均改善了苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构,其中甲酸主要是抑制菌群发酵,而木醋液则有助于促进乳酸菌发酵。

关键词: 甲酸, 木醋液, 苜蓿, 细菌, 群落结构

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of inhibitory silage additives on bacterial community composition of alfalfa silage, the experiment was conducted with formic acid and wood vinegar as the additives, alfalfa silage was made by mixing alfalfa with dry matter content of (23.02±0.70) % with the additive of 6 mL/kg, the treatment with equivalent distilled water replacing additive was used as the control, and the bacterial community was analyzed through High-throughput sequencing method after 45 days. The results showed that in the control group, the Enterobacteriaceae unknown genus of Proteobacteria was dominant, followed by Enterococcus of Firmicutes; in the wood vinegar treatment, the Enterococcus of Firmicutes was dominant, followed by Enterobacteriaceae unknown genus of Proteobacteria; while in the formic acid treatment, the dominant bacteria community was unknown family and genus of Streptophyta in Cyanobacteria. Compared with the control, the relative abundance of Enterococcus was increased significantly in the wood vinegar treatment, but decreased significantly in the formic acid treatment; both of the two additives significantly reduced the relative abundance of Enterobacteriaceae, and the decrease of formic acid treatment was significantly higher than that of wood vinegar treatment; the formic acid treatment significantly increased the abundance indices (Chao1 and ACE) of bacterial community but decreased the dominance index (Simpson). According to the principal component analysis, the indices of bacteria community and main nutrition and fermentation quality could explain 88.786% information of alfalfa silage. From the distribution of samples, the distribution of wood vinegar treatment was between the formic acid treatment and the control but closer to the control. In conclusion, according to the bacterial community analysis, both the formic acid and wood vinegar could improve the bacterial community composition of alfalfa silage, in which formic acid could mainly inhibite bacterial fermentation but wood vinegar is helpful to promote lactic acid bacteria fermentation.

Key words: formic acid, wood vinegar, alfalfa, bacteria, community composition

中图分类号:

王丽学, 韩静, 陈龙宾, 余新越, 刘景喜, 马毅, 霍文娟. 甲酸和木醋液对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(2): 92-101.

WANG Lixue, HAN Jing, CHEN Longbin, YU Xinyue, LIU Jingxi, MA Yi, HUO Wenjuan. Effects of Formic Acid and Wood Vinegar on Bacterial Community Composition of Alfalfa Silage[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(2): 92-101.

图/表 5

参考文献 28

[1]	王媛, 王雁萍, 郝湘妹, 等. 苜蓿青贮乳酸菌的筛选及其对苜蓿青贮发酵的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(2):377-382.
[2]	SARICICEK B Z, KILIC U. Effect of different additives on the nutrient composition, in vitro gas production and silage quality of alfalfa silage[J]. Asian journal of animal and veterinary advances, 2011(6):618-626.
[3]	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.
[4]	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.
[5]	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 synjournal in sheep[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2017, 101(3):466-474. doi: 10.1111/jpn.2017.101.issue-3 URL
[6]	CHEN Lei, 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. doi: 10.1111/grs.v65.4 URL
[7]	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. doi: 10.1007/s11033-018-4494-z URL
[8]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122391 URL
[9]	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. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.10.019
[10]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.129 URL
[11]	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.
[12]	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. doi: 10.1111/jam.2017.122.issue-6 URL
[13]	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. doi: 10.1111/grs.2014.60.issue-4 URL
[14]	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.
[15]	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.
[16]	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.
[17]	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.
[18]	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(8):124-128.
[19]	马春晖, 夏艳军, 韩军, 等. 不同青贮添加剂对紫花苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(1):128-133.
[20]	MUNGKUNKAMCHAO T, KESMALA T, PIMRATCH S, et al. Wood vinegar and fermented bioextracts: Natural products to enhance growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)[J]. Scientia horticulturae, 2013, 154:66-72. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2013.02.020 URL
[21]	王丽学, 何峰, 韩静, 等. 不同肥料和青贮添加剂对苜蓿青贮的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2018(5):48-54.
[22]	YUAN X J, Wen A Y, DESTA S T, et al. Effects of four short-chain fatty acids or salts on dynamics of fermentation and microbial characteristics of alfalfa silage[J]. Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 2017, 97(9):2759-2766. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2017.97.issue-9 URL
[23]	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.
[24]	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.
[25]	NI K K, MINH T T, TU T T M, et al. Comparative microbiota assessment of wilted Italian ryegrass, whole crop corn, and wilted alfalfa silage using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing[J]. Applied microbiology & biotechnology, 2017, 101:1385-1394.
[26]	王凤林, 张莉娟, 孟媛, 等. 不同比例微生物组合对玉米秸秆青贮品质的影响[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2017, 36(11):4701-4706.
[27]	乔江涛, 郭荣波, 袁宪正, 等. 玉米秸秆厌氧降解复合菌系的微生物群落结构[J]. 环境科学, 2013, 34(4):1531-1539.
[28]	王雅雅. 几种典型农业废弃物高含固率厌氧共发酵产气性能与协同机理研究[D]. 北京:中国农业大学, 2018.

门	A组	B组	C组
厚壁菌门	40.345±4.670b	55.687±9.941c	12.996±6.315a
变形菌门	57.726±5.904c	37.050±9.919b	21.771±4.252a
蓝细菌门	1.710±1.220a	6.047±3.643a	61.775±4.649b
放线菌门	0.170±0.042a	0.982±1.136ab	2.651±1.412b
酸杆菌门	0.021±0.012a	0.114±0.086a	0.239±0.030b
拟杆菌门	0.024±0.013a	0.089±0.045a	0.512±0.140b
绿弯菌门	0.001±0.001a	0.014±0.012ab	0.039±0.022b
梭杆菌门	0.002±0.002a	0.003±0.003a	0.004±0.000a
浮霉菌门	0.000±0.000a	0.001±0.001a	0.002±0.002a

门	A组	B组	C组
厚壁菌门	40.345±4.670b	55.687±9.941c	12.996±6.315a
变形菌门	57.726±5.904c	37.050±9.919b	21.771±4.252a
蓝细菌门	1.710±1.220a	6.047±3.643a	61.775±4.649b
放线菌门	0.170±0.042a	0.982±1.136ab	2.651±1.412b
酸杆菌门	0.021±0.012a	0.114±0.086a	0.239±0.030b
拟杆菌门	0.024±0.013a	0.089±0.045a	0.512±0.140b
绿弯菌门	0.001±0.001a	0.014±0.012ab	0.039±0.022b
梭杆菌门	0.002±0.002a	0.003±0.003a	0.004±0.000a
浮霉菌门	0.000±0.000a	0.001±0.001a	0.002±0.002a

门	属	A组	B组	C组
厚壁菌门	肠球菌属	35.041±1.985b	45.026±7.950c	5.089±4.652a
	芽孢杆菌属	0.074±0.030a	0.289±0.172a	4.325±2.860b
	乳杆菌目未知科属	0.872±0.689a	0.844±0.327a	0.112±0.103a
	乳杆菌科未知属	0.083±0.079a	2.074±1.859a	0.147±0.093a
	乳杆菌属	2.479±2.439a	0.140±0.119a	0.026±0.012a
	片球菌属	0.177±0.106a	1.277±1.065a	0.131±0.090a
	明串珠菌科未知属	0.017±0.014a	3.533±6.052a	0.041±0.047a
	明串珠菌属	0.880±0.824a	0.314±0.268a	0.044±0.012a
	乳球菌属	0.124±0.014a	1.028±0.707b	1.358±0.231b
变形菌门	肠杆菌科未知属	48.302±1.627c	30.798±9.769b	8.444±3.864a
	甲基杆菌属	0.199±0.166a	0.475±0.407a	1.413±1.014a
	农杆菌属	0.012±0.003a	0.075±0.060a	0.648±0.634a
	羽扇豆属	0.000±0.000a	0.002±0.001a	1.172±0.584b
	鞘脂单胞菌属	0.017±0.008a	0.103±0.085a	1.298±0.465b
	肠杆菌属	1.119±1.103a	0.090±0.005a	0.014±0.003a
	特拉布斯氏菌属	7.078±3.044b	2.812±1.765ab	0.139±0.131a
	黄单胞菌科未知属	0.002±0.002a	0.054±0.050a	2.055±2.052a
蓝细菌门	链型植物目未知科属	1.709±1.221a	6.041±3.036a	61.747±4.682b
放线菌门	微杆菌科未知属	0.001±0.000a	0.006±0.001a	0.341±0.006b

门	属	A组	B组	C组
厚壁菌门	肠球菌属	35.041±1.985b	45.026±7.950c	5.089±4.652a
	芽孢杆菌属	0.074±0.030a	0.289±0.172a	4.325±2.860b
	乳杆菌目未知科属	0.872±0.689a	0.844±0.327a	0.112±0.103a
	乳杆菌科未知属	0.083±0.079a	2.074±1.859a	0.147±0.093a
	乳杆菌属	2.479±2.439a	0.140±0.119a	0.026±0.012a
	片球菌属	0.177±0.106a	1.277±1.065a	0.131±0.090a
	明串珠菌科未知属	0.017±0.014a	3.533±6.052a	0.041±0.047a
	明串珠菌属	0.880±0.824a	0.314±0.268a	0.044±0.012a
	乳球菌属	0.124±0.014a	1.028±0.707b	1.358±0.231b
变形菌门	肠杆菌科未知属	48.302±1.627c	30.798±9.769b	8.444±3.864a
	甲基杆菌属	0.199±0.166a	0.475±0.407a	1.413±1.014a
	农杆菌属	0.012±0.003a	0.075±0.060a	0.648±0.634a
	羽扇豆属	0.000±0.000a	0.002±0.001a	1.172±0.584b
	鞘脂单胞菌属	0.017±0.008a	0.103±0.085a	1.298±0.465b
	肠杆菌属	1.119±1.103a	0.090±0.005a	0.014±0.003a
	特拉布斯氏菌属	7.078±3.044b	2.812±1.765ab	0.139±0.131a
	黄单胞菌科未知属	0.002±0.002a	0.054±0.050a	2.055±2.052a
蓝细菌门	链型植物目未知科属	1.709±1.221a	6.041±3.036a	61.747±4.682b
放线菌门	微杆菌科未知属	0.001±0.000a	0.006±0.001a	0.341±0.006b

甲酸和木醋液对苜蓿青贮细菌群落结构的影响

Effects of Formic Acid and Wood Vinegar on Bacterial Community Composition of Alfalfa Silage

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	廖河庭, 郑尧, 王宁, 安树伟, 顾玲玲, 陈家长. 苏北不同地区藕虾种养模式浮游生物群落结构特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(8): 156-164.
[2]	陈义勇, 周波, 黎健龙, 唐颢, 崔莹莹, 吴文浩, 刘嘉裕, 唐劲驰. 茶饼病病叶表面微生物多样性及病害真菌的分离鉴定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(6): 116-123.
[3]	尧贺敏, 汤梅, 巩雪花, 金梦军, 杨成德. 青海高寒草地牧草拮抗内生细菌的筛选、鉴定及促生功能测定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(6): 124-128.
[4]	缪凡, 刘鑫, 林岗, 陈燕婷, 刘燕飞, 郑怡. 坛紫菜贝壳丝状体白斑病附生细菌及藻际细菌群落特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(5): 154-164.
[5]	黄颖博, 罗凡, 龚雪蛟, 王迎春, 李兰英, 刘东娜, 尧渝. 有机肥对土壤微生物群落特征影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(3): 88-96.
[6]	洪森荣, 朱盈盈, 李紫莹, 胡明艳, 欧阳克蕙. 盐胁迫下金花菜和紫花苜蓿试管苗的转录组分析及其耐盐基因筛选[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(3): 111-118.
[7]	范立民, 王庆, 陈曦, 裘丽萍, 孟顺龙, 宋超, 苏永腾, 胡庚东, 陈家长. 浮床空心菜对罗非鱼养殖池塘水体微生态环境影响方式分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(2): 142-151.
[8]	孙慧, 吴中能, 苗婷婷, 刘俊龙, 苏晓华, 丁昌俊, 曹志华, 闫彩霞, 王涛. 不同施肥处理对杨树林地土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(2): 36-43.
[9]	提俊阳, 张玉芹, 杨恒山, 张瑞富, 邰继承, 萨如拉, 韩镁琪. 豆米轮作对春玉米土壤固氮细菌群落结构及多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(2): 44-50.
[10]	孙歌, 接伟光, 胡崴, 张颖智, 乔巍, 魏丽娜, 姜怡彤, 白莉. 菌根真菌及菌根辅助细菌对农作物发育的影响研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 88-92.
[11]	孙树晴, 丁炜, 孙瑞, 张希财, 兰国玉, 陈伟, 杨川, 吴志祥. 不同林龄橡胶林土壤细菌群落组成及多样性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(9): 93-100.
[12]	刘青松, 贾艳丽, 肖宇, 郭志顶, 纪明妹, 赵忠祥, 黄素芳, 岳明强, 刘震, 阎旭东, 徐玉鹏. 盐胁迫对苜蓿生理性状和生长性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(8): 96-101.
[13]	周天美, 周新伟, 陆静, 李梦琳, 翟维杰, 董林林, 陆长婴, 施林林. PBAT/PPC可降解地膜在豇豆生产中的应用研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(36): 62-66.
[14]	韩亚静, 王欣宇, 历佳月, 黄群义, 王瀚婷, 叶乐夫, 付雪. 2种叶面肥对黄瓜-蓟马的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(34): 113-119.
[15]	沙月霞, 黄泽阳, 魏照清. 生物菌剂撒施对宁夏石嘴山盐碱地微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(34): 82-90.