2种生防菌对澳蜡花扦插生根及其根际、根内微生物多样性的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0332

中国农学通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (16): 110-121.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0332

2种生防菌对澳蜡花扦插生根及其根际、根内微生物多样性的影响

王丽花¹(), 孙爱青², 瞿素萍¹, 杨维¹, 陈敏¹, 杨秀梅¹()

¹ 云南省农业科学院花卉研究所/云南省花卉育种重点实验室/国家观赏园艺工程技术研究中心，昆明 650205
² 北京林业大学，北京 100083

收稿日期:2026-04-27 修回日期:2026-06-15 出版日期:2026-08-25 发布日期:2026-08-20
通讯作者:
杨秀梅，女，1977年出生，云南建水人，研究员，硕士，主要从事花卉病害识别及防控技术研究工作。通信地址：650205 云南昆明盘龙区北京路2238号省农科院花卉所，Tel：0871-65892602，E-mail：yangxm77@sina.com。
作者简介:
王丽花，女，1977年出生，云南祥云人，研究员，学士，主要从事花卉病虫害防控及质量控制技术研究工作。通信地址：650205 云南昆明盘龙区北京路2238号省农科院花卉所，Tel：0871-65892602，E-mail：867514549@qq.com。
基金资助:
中央引导地方科技发展资金“新特澳蜡盆花规模化生产技术集成与应用研究”(202407AC110002)

Effects of Two Biocontrol Bacteria on Cutting Rooting and Diversity of Rhizosphere and Endophytic Microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum

WANG Lihua¹(), SUN Aiqing², QU Suping¹, YANG Wei¹, CHEN Min¹, YANG Xiumei¹()

¹ Flower Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agriculture Science/Yunnan Key Laboratory for Flower Breeding/National Engineering Research Center for Ornamental Horticulture, Kunming 650205
² Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083

Received:2026-04-27 Revised:2026-06-15 Published:2026-08-25 Online:2026-08-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究枯草芽孢杆菌(Bacillus subtilis)和木霉菌(Trichoderma harzianum)对澳蜡花(Chamelaucium ciliatum)扦插生根效果及根际、根内微生物多样性和群落结构的调控作用，以‘中白’澳蜡花插穗为材料，设置对照（CK，喷施75%百菌清）、枯草芽孢杆菌处理(BS)和木霉菌处理(TH)，开展扦插试验，并结合扩增子、宏基因组及代谢组分析，评估不同处理对澳蜡花扦插生根能力的影响。结果表明，BS处理组的生根率最高(85.94%)，较CK组(58.59%)提升27.35%；TH处理组平均单株根重最大(112.34 mg)，较CK组(87.63 mg)提升28.19%，且BS、TH处理组的根系更新鲜丰满，无黄褐根和偏根。微生物群落分析显示，BS组的根内生细菌中，变形菌门(77.75%)、拟杆菌门(4.20%)、厚壁菌门(1.98%)的丰度显著高于CK组，且富集酸微菌目及短根瘤菌属等兼具促生和抗逆功能的菌群；TH组的根际微生物物种OTU数达2821个，特有类群达559个，多样性最高。代谢组分析发现，BS组的根系代谢物显著富集去氧腺苷等参与嘌呤代谢的相关物质，TH组显著富集L-谷氨酰胺等与丙氨酸-天冬氨酸-谷氨酸代谢相关物质，且2组的多肽类物质占比（BS组91.50%、TH组95.47%）均高于CK组(91.15%)。综上，枯草芽孢杆菌和木霉菌可通过调控根际与根内微生物群落结构，并优化根系代谢途径，显著提升澳蜡花的扦插生根效果，其中，枯草芽孢杆菌在提高生根率方面优势更为突出。研究结果可为澳蜡花的高效扦插繁育提供重要的科学依据。

关键词: 澳蜡花, 扦插生根, 枯草芽孢杆菌, 木霉菌, 根际微生物, 代谢组

Abstract:

This study aimed to explore the regulation of Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum on cutting rooting, rhizosphere and endophytic microbes diversity and community structure of Chamelaucium ciliatum. Using the cuttings of the cultivar ‘Zhong Bai’ as materials, three treatments were set up: control (CK, sprayed with 75% chlorothalonil), Bacillus subtilis (BS), and Trichoderma (TH). A cutting experiment was conducted, combined with amplicon, metagenomic and metabolomic sequencing, to analyze the effects of different treatments on cutting rooting and the diversity of rhizosphere and endophytic microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum. The results showed that the rooting rate of the BS group was the highest (85.94%), which was 27.35% higher than that of the CK group (58.59%). The average root weight per plant of the TH group was the largest (112.34 mg), increased by 28.19% compared with the CK group (87.63 mg). Moreover, the root systems in the BS and TH groups were fresher and stronger, without yellow-brown roots or deformed roots. Microbial community analysis showed that the relative abundances of Proteobacteria (77.75%), Bacteroidetes (4.20%) and Firmicutes (1.98%) in root endophytic bacteria of the BS group were significantly higher than those in the CK group, and growth-promoting and stress-resistant functional bacteria such as Acidimicrobiales and Bradyrhizobium were enriched. The number of OTUs of rhizosphere microorganisms in the TH group reached 2821, with 559 unique groups, showing the highest diversity. Metabolomic analysis revealed that purine metabolism-related substances such as deoxyadenosine were significantly enriched in the BS group, while alanine-aspartate-glutamate metabolism-related substances such as L-glutamine were significantly enriched in the TH group. The proportions of polypeptide substances in the two groups (91.50% in BS and 95.47% in TH) were both higher than that in the CK group (91.15%). In conclusion, Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma can significantly improve the cutting rooting effect of Chamelaucium ciliatum by regulating the community structure of rhizosphere and endophytic microbes and optimizing root metabolic pathways. Among them, Bacillus subtilis has more prominent advantages in increasing the rooting rate, and has important application potential in the efficient cutting propagation of Chamelaucium ciliatum.

Key words: Chamelaucium ciliatum, cutting rooting, Bacillus subtilis, Trichoderma, rhizosphere microorganisms, metabolome

中图分类号:

S432植物病害及其防治

王丽花, 孙爱青, 瞿素萍, 杨维, 陈敏, 杨秀梅. 2种生防菌对澳蜡花扦插生根及其根际、根内微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(16): 110-121.

WANG Lihua, SUN Aiqing, QU Suping, YANG Wei, CHEN Min, YANG Xiumei. Effects of Two Biocontrol Bacteria on Cutting Rooting and Diversity of Rhizosphere and Endophytic Microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(16): 110-121.

图/表 11

参考文献 52

[1]	LIM J H, KIM S D. Synergistic plant growth promotion by the indigenous auxins-producing PGPR Bacillus subtilis AH18 and Bacillus licheniforims K11[J]. Journal of the Korean society for applied biological chemistry, 2009, 52(5):531-538. doi: 10.3839/jksabc URL
[2]	KHALID A H, NAJEH H K, YASS Y. The role of bacteria Bacillus subtilis in improving rooting response of mung bean (Vigna ratiata) cuttings[J]. Journal of contemporary medical sciences, 2016, 2(7):88-92.
[3]	YASAR E, SEZAI E, AYHAN H, et al. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on rooting and root growth of kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) stem cuttings[J]. Biological research, 2010, 43(1):91-98. doi: /S0716-97602010000100011 pmid: 21157636
[4]	SAGAR A, YADAV S S, SAYYED R Z, et al. Bacillus subtilis: a multifarious plant growth promoter, biocontrol agent, and bioalleviator of abiotic stress[C].// ISLAM M T, RAHMAN M, PANDEY P. Bacilli in agrobiotechnology, Bacilli in climate resilient agriculture and bioprospecting. Springer, Cham: 2022:561-580.
[5]	刘鲁峰, 狄义宁, 何丽莲, 等. 内生枯草芽孢杆菌B9促生长效果及产吲哚乙酸(IAA)能力研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2020, 35(2):227-234.
[6]	张子颖, 许家来, 李现道, 等. 绿色木霉配施高碳基肥料对烤烟生长及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2016, 22(5):79-86.
[7]	丁玥琪. 烟田拮抗微生物的互作及其应用效果研究[D]. 洛阳: 河南科技大学, 2017.
[8]	张丽荣, 陈杭, 康萍芝, 等. 木霉制剂在西瓜土壤中定殖能力及其对根际土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(21):49-53.
[9]	周红姿, 祁凯, 赵晓燕, 等. 杏鲍菇菌糠木霉发酵物对大棚土壤的改良效果[J]. 福建农业学报, 2017, 32(12):1359-1364.
[10]	付兴飞, 胡发广, 程金焕, 等. 木霉菌防控农业害虫的研究综述[J]. 生物灾害科学, 2022, 45(3):266-274.
[11]	张凌萱, 孙影. 生防真菌之木霉菌的应用[J]. 广东蚕业, 2020, 54(6):113-114.
[12]	ZAHRAN Z, NOR N M, DIENG H, et al. Laboratory efficacy of mycoparasitic fungi (Aspergillus tubingensis and Trichoderma harzianum) against tropical bed bugs (Cimex hemipterus) (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)[J]. Asian pacific journal of tropical biomedicine, 2017, 7(4):288-293.
[13]	程洪斌, 刘晓桥, 陈红漫. 枯草芽孢杆菌防治植物真菌病害研究进展[J]. 上海农业学报, 2006, 22(1):109-112.
[14]	董慧, 徐兴. 枯草芽孢杆菌的生防作用机制[J]. 农家之友(理论版), 2008(4):29-31.
[15]	彭清忠, 张惟材, 朱厚础. 枯草杆菌表达系统的研究进展[J]. 生物技术通讯, 2001, 12(3):220-225.
[16]	杨宝敏, 姜家琳, 杨月华, 等. 哈茨木霉菌对砂糖橘苗木的促生作用及差异代谢物的分析[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2022, 18(2):103-112.
[17]	李艳娟, 刘博, 庄正, 等. 哈茨木霉与绿色木霉对杉木种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(9):2961-2966.
[18]	张风革. 哈茨木霉诱变菌株T-E5及其生物有机肥对黄瓜生长的影响及机理研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015.
[19]	刘明鑫. 木霉菌对黄瓜促生作用与立枯病防效的研究[D]. 大庆: 黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2018.
[20]	杨立宾, 宋瑞清, 邓勋, 等. 哈茨木霉T28发酵液提取物对致病疫霉的抑菌作用及有效成分[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(7):118-122.
[21]	甘金佳, 毛玲莉, 孙成荣, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌在番茄病害防治上的应用与研究进展[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2021(8):42-48.
[22]	周晓馥, 张欣玥, 蔡汶妤, 等. 哈茨木霉对黄瓜幼苗促生作用的影响[J]. 吉林师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 41(3):93-99.
[23]	扈进冬, 吴远征, 魏艳丽, 等. 木霉拌种剂对小麦根际土壤真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 山东科学, 2019, 32(1):46-51. doi: 10.3976/j.issn.1002-4026.2019.01.007
[24]	龙伟, 黄广远, 姚小华, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌和哈茨木霉菌对油茶容器苗生长的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2023, 43(3):1-11.
[25]	EDGAR R C, HAAS B J, CLEMENTE J C, et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection[J]. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011, 27(16):2194-200.
[26]	POLLOCK J, GLENDINNING L, WISEDCHANWET T, et al. The madness of microbiome:Attempting to find consensus “Best Practice” for 16S microbiome studies[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2018, 84(7):e02627-17.
[27]	KNIGHT R, VRBANAC A, TAYLOR B C, et al. Best practices for analysing microbiomes[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2018, 16(7):410-422. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0029-9 pmid: 29795328
[28]	WANT E J, WILSON I D, GIKA H, et al. Global metabolic profiling procedures for urine using UPLC-MS[J]. Nature protocols, 2010, 5(6):1005-1018. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2010.50 pmid: 20448546
[29]	DUNN W B, BROADHURST D, BEGLEY P, et al. Procedures for large-scale metabolic profiling of serum and plasma usinggas gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry[J]. Nature protocols, 2011, 6(7):1060-1083. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2011.335
[30]	DAI W D, XIE D C, LU M L, et al. Characterization of white tea metabolome: Comparison against green and black tea by a nontargeted metabolomics approach[J]. Food research international, 2017, 96:40-45. doi: S0963-9969(17)30102-3 pmid: 28528106
[31]	YANG C B, ZHANG X P, NI H J, et al. Soil carbon and associated bacterial community shifts driven by fine root traits along a chronosequence of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) plantations in subtropical China[J]. Science of the total environment, 2021, 752(1):142333. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142333 URL
[32]	YAN K R, ZHANG Y H, YANG C B, et al. First report of sweet potato feathery mottle virus infecting Chrysanthemum morifolium in China[J]. Plant disease, 2020, 104(8):1562. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-10-19-2178-PDN URL
[33]	YAN S, ZHAO J, REN T, et al. Correlation between soil microbial communities and tobacco aroma in the presence of different fertilizers[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2020, 151:112454. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112454 URL
[34]	孔兵兵, 王清, 蒋标, 等. 根际促生菌共发酵菌液育苗基质对辣椒育苗的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2026, 42(6):326-339. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1077
[35]	TRIPATHI S K, SINGH K P, SINGH P K. Temporal changes in spatial pattern of fine root mass and nutrient concentrations in Indian bamboo savanna[J]. Applied vegetation science, 1999, 2:229-238. doi: 10.2307/1478986 URL
[36]	BLAGODATSKAYA E, LITTSCHWAGER J, LAUERER M, et al. Plant traits regulating N capture define microbial competition in the rhizosphere[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2014, 61:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.01.002 URL
[37]	王丽花, 杨秀梅, 张艺萍, 等. 木霉菌对切花月季根际、根内微生物多样性影响及霜霉病防效的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(10):69-78. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0250
[38]	CHENG W. Rhizosphere priming effect: Its functional relationships with microbial turnover, evapotranspiration, and C-N budgets[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2009, 41:1795-1801. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.04.018 URL
[39]	VERZEAUX J, ALAHMAD A, HABBIB H, et al. Cover crops prevent the deleterious effect of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial diversity by maintaining the carbon content of ploughed soil[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 281:49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.035 URL
[40]	AI C, LIANG G, SUN J, et al. Reduced dependence of rhizosphere microbiome on plant-derived carbon in 32-year long-term inorganic and organic fertilized soils[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2015, 80:70-78. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.028 URL
[41]	YANG J F, DUAN Y M, ZHANG R Q, et al. Connecting soil dissolved organic matter to soil bacterial community structure in a long-term grass-mulching apple orchard[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2020, 149:112344. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112344 URL
[42]	FLORINE D, NICOLAS T, GILLES C, et al. Temporal dynamics of soil microbial communities below the seedbed under two contrasting tillage regimes[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2017, 8:1127. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01127 pmid: 28674527
[43]	BEYTER D, TANG P Z, BECKER S, et al. Diversity productivity and stability of an industrial microbial ecosystem[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2016, 82:2494-2505. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03965-15 URL
[44]	LEMANCEAU P, MARON P A, MAZURIER S, et al. Understanding and managing soil biodiversity: A major challenge in agroecology[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2014, 35:67-81. doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0247-0 URL
[45]	DELGADO-BAQUERIZO M, MAESTRE F T, REICH P B, et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems[J]. Nature communications, 2016, 7:10541. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10541
[46]	MALLON C A, VAN E J D, SALLES J F. Microbial invasions: the process, patterns, and mechanisms[J]. Trends in microbiology, 2015, 23:719-729. doi: S0966-842X(15)00176-6 pmid: 26439296
[47]	RAZA W, WEI Z, LING N, et al. Effect of organic fertilizers prepared from organic waste materials on the production of antibacterial volatile organic compounds by two biocontrol Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains[J]. Biotechnology journal, 2016, 227:43-53.
[48]	CHEN L, BROOKES P C, XU J, et al. Structural and functional differentiation of the root-associated bacterial microbiomes of perennial ryegrass[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2016, 98:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.04.004 URL
[49]	SOUZA R C, CANTÃO M E, ATR V, et al. Soil metagenomics reveals differences under conventional and no-tillage with crop rotation or succession[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2013, 72:49-61. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.05.021 URL
[50]	MENDES L W, RAAIJMAKERS J M, HOLLANDER M D, et al. Influence of resistance breeding in common bean on rhizosphere microbiome composition and function[J]. The ISME journal, 2017, 12:212-224. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.158 URL
[51]	ROSSI M F, MELLO B, SCHRAGO C G. Performance of hidden markov models in recovering the standard classification of glycoside hydrolases[J]. Evolutionary bioinformatics, 2017, 13:117693431770340.
[52]	WEI Y, WU D, WEI D, et al. Improved lignocellulose-degrading performance during straw composting from diverse sources with actinomycetes inoculation by regulating the key enzyme activities[J]. Bioresource technology, 2019, 271:66-74. doi: S0960-8524(18)31334-8 pmid: 30265954

处理	生根成活种苗数/株	生根率/%	单株根重/mg
BS	110±7.9a	85.94±6.2a	101.64±2.2b
TH	91±4.6b	71.09±3.6b	112.34±3.2a
CK	75±5.3c	58.59±4.1c	87.63±2.4c

处理	生根成活种苗数/株	生根率/%	单株根重/mg
BS	110±7.9a	85.94±6.2a	101.64±2.2b
TH	91±4.6b	71.09±3.6b	112.34±3.2a
CK	75±5.3c	58.59±4.1c	87.63±2.4c

物种	CK1	CK2	CK3	平均	BS1	BS2	BS3	平均	TH1	TH2	TH3	平均
变形菌门	75.87	78.91	78.00	77.59	73.97	79.53	79.73	77.75	85.13	78.66	83.47	82.42
放线菌门	15.28	11.66	13.34	13.43	10.99	12.44	11.49	11.64	7.64	8.22	5.04	6.97
拟杆菌门	3.39	5.07	3.64	4.03	7.15	3.05	2.41	4.20	2.09	5.38	6.60	4.69
厚壁菌门	1.02	0.82	1.01	0.95	2.10	1.13	2.71	1.98	2.11	2.72	1.94	2.26
酸杆菌门	0.51	0.46	1.46	0.81	1.27	1.33	0.78	1.13	0.59	1.40	0.81	0.93
类衣原体	1.93	0.99	0.75	1.22	0.88	0.95	0.79	0.87	0.73	0.93	0.46	0.71
疣微菌门	0.48	0.32	0.31	0.37	1.44	0.23	0.47	0.71	0.61	1.27	0.40	0.76
螺旋体门	0.12	0.29	0.13	0.18	0.36	0.13	0.68	0.39	0.33	0.35	0.22	0.30
TM6	0.29	0.25	0.39	0.31	0.23	0.44	0.18	0.29	0.17	0.11	0.07	0.12
绿菌门	0.08	0.12	0.25	0.15	0.29	0.07	0.14	0.16	0.10	0.19	0.23	0.17
绿弯菌门	0.23	0.14	0.09	0.15	0.23	0.08	0.08	0.13	0.05	0.15	0.19	0.13
浮霉菌门	0.20	0.27	0.11	0.20	0.17	0.08	0.11	0.12	0.06	0.19	0.02	0.09
未分类细菌	0.17	0.12	0.06	0.12	0.24	0.16	0.12	0.17	0.14	0.09	0.11	0.12
TM7	0.23	0.07	0.21	0.17	0.13	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.03	0.05	0.07	0.05
装甲菌门	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.05	0.17	0.07	0.05	0.10	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.04
蓝细菌门	0.01	0.25	0.04	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.09	0.04	0.00	0.04
FBP	0.01	0.11	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.00	0.02
迷踪菌门	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.00	0.03
纤维杆菌门	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.03	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
软皮菌类门	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.08	0.04
其他	0.10	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.13	0.06	0.03	0.07	0.03	0.10	0.27	0.13

物种	CK1	CK2	CK3	平均	BS1	BS2	BS3	平均	TH1	TH2	TH3	平均
变形菌门	75.87	78.91	78.00	77.59	73.97	79.53	79.73	77.75	85.13	78.66	83.47	82.42
放线菌门	15.28	11.66	13.34	13.43	10.99	12.44	11.49	11.64	7.64	8.22	5.04	6.97
拟杆菌门	3.39	5.07	3.64	4.03	7.15	3.05	2.41	4.20	2.09	5.38	6.60	4.69
厚壁菌门	1.02	0.82	1.01	0.95	2.10	1.13	2.71	1.98	2.11	2.72	1.94	2.26
酸杆菌门	0.51	0.46	1.46	0.81	1.27	1.33	0.78	1.13	0.59	1.40	0.81	0.93
类衣原体	1.93	0.99	0.75	1.22	0.88	0.95	0.79	0.87	0.73	0.93	0.46	0.71
疣微菌门	0.48	0.32	0.31	0.37	1.44	0.23	0.47	0.71	0.61	1.27	0.40	0.76
螺旋体门	0.12	0.29	0.13	0.18	0.36	0.13	0.68	0.39	0.33	0.35	0.22	0.30
TM6	0.29	0.25	0.39	0.31	0.23	0.44	0.18	0.29	0.17	0.11	0.07	0.12
绿菌门	0.08	0.12	0.25	0.15	0.29	0.07	0.14	0.16	0.10	0.19	0.23	0.17
绿弯菌门	0.23	0.14	0.09	0.15	0.23	0.08	0.08	0.13	0.05	0.15	0.19	0.13
浮霉菌门	0.20	0.27	0.11	0.20	0.17	0.08	0.11	0.12	0.06	0.19	0.02	0.09
未分类细菌	0.17	0.12	0.06	0.12	0.24	0.16	0.12	0.17	0.14	0.09	0.11	0.12
TM7	0.23	0.07	0.21	0.17	0.13	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.03	0.05	0.07	0.05
装甲菌门	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.05	0.17	0.07	0.05	0.10	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.04
蓝细菌门	0.01	0.25	0.04	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.09	0.04	0.00	0.04
FBP	0.01	0.11	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.00	0.02
迷踪菌门	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.00	0.03
纤维杆菌门	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.03	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
软皮菌类门	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.08	0.04
其他	0.10	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.13	0.06	0.03	0.07	0.03	0.10	0.27	0.13

处理	Chao1	Faith's PD	Features	Shannon	Simpson
TH	730.51	61.65	730.33	7.02	0.97
BS	805.34	67.30	805.00	7.65	0.98
CK	990.12	77.08	989.00	7.80	0.98

2种生防菌对澳蜡花扦插生根及其根际、根内微生物多样性的影响

Effects of Two Biocontrol Bacteria on Cutting Rooting and Diversity of Rhizosphere and Endophytic Microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 52

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]	颜宏, 陈太春, 冯志珍, 陈志杰, 徐进, 许西梅, 董振, 付博. 耕作措施对小麦土壤理化性质、微生物群落及产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(8): 110-119.
[2]	彭翠仙, 王灿, 杨玉玲, 李玲, 李桂琳, 孙宏伟, 陶永宏. 不同生长年限野生叠鞘石斛根际土壤微生物群落的结构特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(7): 130-140.
[3]	凌金锋, 黄峰, 王燕, 林培华, 董易之, 宋晓兵, 崔一平, 林接英. 5种绿色食品生产适用药剂对荔枝麻点病的防效评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(6): 195-200.
[4]	杨可昕, 汪子怡, 李娅娟, 杨鑫云, 农成芬, 李成云, 王一. 全基因组分析稻瘟菌生防菌CY-1抑菌机制[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(3): 91-98.
[5]	李国东. 枯草芽孢杆菌BS-1菌株作用机理初探及防效评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(2): 198-202.
[6]	任雨嘉, 冯健, 高大伟, 张小亮, 闻玮玮, 姜晓辉. 干燥方式对茶叶代谢物检测效率的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(13): 179-188.
[7]	程崖芝, 张姗姗, 钟小丽, 李安杰, 谢海斌, 吕勋, 李雪山, 戴培刚, 张兴伟, 周东新. 烘烤和晾制对雪茄烟叶代谢物转化结果的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(12): 177-185.
[8]	彭翠仙, 王灿, 杨玉玲, 李桂琳, 李玲, 宋阳梅, 赵大伟, 陶永宏. 麻栗坡野生叠鞘石斛天然孕育小苗根际微生物多样性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(11): 84-91.
[9]	夏佳淼, 邓晓霞, 林芮竹, 杜亚彤, 王竞红, 蔺吉祥. 种子休眠与解除休眠的组学技术研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(1): 43-59.
[10]	王丽丽, 朱诗君, 卢晓红, 金树权. 木霉菌W1生物有机肥对滨海番茄种植的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(7): 100-106.
[11]	符梅, 李桂花, 罗文龙, 骆善伟, 郭巨先. 基于广泛靶向代谢组学的芋头代谢物和抗氧化酶活性的差异分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(6): 118-125.
[12]	赵鑫鑫, 韦云东, 周时艺, 陈蕊蕊, 李军, 郑华. 基于根袋法的不同木薯品种根际微生态差异研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(31): 60-71.
[13]	唐桂梅, 黄国林, 赵凡, 刘洋, 张力, 李卫东, 肖晓玲. 药茶用菊花扦插效果的量化评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(3): 42-47.
[14]	王灿, 徐杰, 赵大伟, 石瑶, 孙宏伟, 袁理春, 周琼, 张云波, 周明敏. 基于代谢组学的文山本地蘘荷种质资源评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(29): 30-37.
[15]	吴文娟, 吕伯龙. 龙眼果皮和种子的非靶向代谢组学分析、抗氧化和α-葡萄糖苷酶抑制活性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(25): 134-143.

处理	原始Reads数/条		原始Reads大小		有效Reads数/条		有效Reads占比/%
处理	条	平均	GB	平均	条	平均	百分比	平均
BS1	21725677	22099953	6.52	6.63	20719411	21135398	95.37	95.64
BS2	23469774		7.04		22432483		95.58
BS3	21104409		6.33		20254299		95.97
TH1	21411425	21579952	6.42	6.47	20482319	20661742	95.66	95.75
TH2	22461304		6.74		21482338		95.64
TH3	20867128		6.26		20020568		95.94
CK1	23211608	22517507	6.96	6.97	22217282	21579130	95.72	95.83
CK2	23224058		6.97		22295088		96.00
CK3	21116855		6.97		20225019		95.78

处理	原始Reads数/条		原始Reads大小		有效Reads数/条		有效Reads占比/%
处理	条	平均	GB	平均	条	平均	百分比	平均
BS1	21725677	22099953	6.52	6.63	20719411	21135398	95.37	95.64
BS2	23469774		7.04		22432483		95.58
BS3	21104409		6.33		20254299		95.97
TH1	21411425	21579952	6.42	6.47	20482319	20661742	95.66	95.75
TH2	22461304		6.74		21482338		95.64
TH3	20867128		6.26		20020568		95.94
CK1	23211608	22517507	6.96	6.97	22217282	21579130	95.72	95.83
CK2	23224058		6.97		22295088		96.00
CK3	21116855		6.97		20225019		95.78