4种周年轮作模式对耕作层土壤微生物的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0809

中国农学通报 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (20): 73-80.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0809

所属专题：生物技术；资源与环境

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

4种周年轮作模式对耕作层土壤微生物的影响

张河庆¹(), 吴婕¹, 韩帅¹, 席亚东¹(), 李跃建², 梁根云²

¹四川省农业科学院植物保护研究所/农业农村部西南作物有害生物综合治理重点实验室,成都 610066
²四川省农业科学院园艺研究所/蔬菜种质与品种创新四川省重点实验室,成都 610066

收稿日期:2021-08-20 修回日期:2021-11-04 出版日期:2022-07-15 发布日期:2022-08-23
通讯作者: 席亚东
作者简介:张河庆,男,1986年出生,河南漯河人,助理研究员,硕士,研究方向：植物保护。通信地址：610066 成都市静居寺路20号四川省农业科学院植物保护研究所,Tel：028-84590050,E-mail： 759214612@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家现代农业产业技术体系四川蔬菜创新团队“蔬菜病虫害综合防治与质量安全”(川农函(2019)427号);“十四五”四川省农作物及畜禽育种攻关“主要农作物抗病虫性鉴定和监测技术研究与应用（育种攻关项目）”(21ZDYF2184);四川省现代农业学科建设推进工程“蔬菜新病害的鉴定及重要病原菌致病机理研究”(2021XKJS087)

Effects of Four Annual Rotation Patterns on Soil Microbial Community

ZHANG Heqing¹(), WU Jie¹, HAN Shuai¹, XI Yadong¹(), LI Yuejian², LIANG Genyun²

¹Institute of Plant Protection, Sichuan Academy of Agriculture Sciences/Key Laboratory of Integrated Pest Management on Crops in Southwest, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Chengdu 610066
²Horticulture of Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agriculture Sciences/Vegetable Germplasm Innovation and Variety Improvement Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610066

Received:2021-08-20 Revised:2021-11-04 Online:2022-07-15 Published:2022-08-23
Contact: XI Yadong

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为明确不同轮作模式下耕作层土壤微生物群落的变化,揭示水旱轮作有益于蔬菜可持续生产的潜在机理。本文设计4种常见的轮作模式,在同一地理区域固定试验田块进行长期轮作试验,并利用高通量测序技术测定土壤中真菌的ITS1区域序列和细菌的16S rDNA的V3-V4可变区序列,进行土壤微生物多样性分析。结果表明：Alpha多样性分析表明,在4种周年轮作模式下,耕作层土壤真菌群落多样性发生了显著变化,水旱轮作模式(SH)的Shannon指数显著高于嫁接模式(JJ)和蔬菜轮作LZ模式(LZ)的,而与蔬菜轮作LD模式(LD)的无显著差异。耕作层土壤细菌群落多样性和丰富度均发生显著变化,SH模式的Shannon指数和ACE指数均显著高于LD模式的,且SH模式的Shannon指数显著高于其他模式的。主坐标分析表明,4种周年轮作模式间,耕作层土壤微生物群落发生显著分化,SH模式和LZ模式均各自成组,JJ模式与LD模式聚为一组。组间物种差异显著性分析表明,SH模式有7个属真菌和26个属细菌的丰富度显著高于其他模式的,LD和LZ模式分别有4个属真菌和7个属细菌的丰富度显著高于其他模式的,JJ模式只有1个属细菌的丰富度显著高于其他模式的。不同轮作模式长期周年轮作下耕作层土壤微生物群落发生了显著变化。长期水旱轮作提高了土壤微生物群落多样性,增加了有益菌种类和相对丰度,更有利于蔬菜可持续生产。

关键词: 水旱轮作, 微生物多样性, 高通量测序, 黄瓜, 枯萎病, 镰刀菌

Abstract:

To clarify the changes of soil microbial community in the cultivated layer under different crop rotation patterns, and to reveal the potential mechanism of paddy and dry crop rotation which is beneficial to the sustainable production of vegetables, in this paper, we designed 4 common crop rotation patterns, fixed the test plots in the same geographic area for long-term crop rotation experiments, and used high-throughput sequencing technology to determine the sequence of the ITS1 region of fungi in the soil and the V3-V4 variable region sequence of the 16S rDNA of bacteria. Soil microbial diversity analysis was conducted. Alpha diversity analysis shows that the soil fungal community diversity in the cultivated layer changes significantly under the four annual rotation patterns, and the Shannon index of the water and dry rotation pattern (SH) is significantly higher than that of the graft pattern (JJ) and vegetable rotation LZ pattern (LZ), and has no significant difference with vegetable rotation LD pattern (LD). The diversity and richness of soil bacterial communities in the cultivated layer change significantly. The Shannon index and ACE index of the SH pattern are significantly higher than those of the LD pattern, and the Shannon index of the SH pattern is significantly higher than that of other patterns. The principal coordinate analysis shows that among the four annual rotation patterns, the soil microbial communities in the cultivated layer are significantly differentiated. The SH and LZ patterns are grouped separately, and the JJ and LD patterns are grouped together. Significant analysis of species differences between groups shows that the SH pattern has 7 genera of fungi and 26 genera of bacteria that are significantly richer than other patterns; the LD and LZ have 4 genera of fungi and 7 genera of bacteria, respectively, their abundance is significantly higher than other patterns; only one genus of bacteria in JJ pattern has significantly higher abundance than other patterns. Significant changes take place in the soil microbial communities in the cultivated layer under long-term annual rotations of different crop rotation patterns. Long-term paddy-upland rotation could increase the diversity of soil microbial communities, enrich the types and relative abundance of beneficial bacteria, and is more conducive to the sustainable production of vegetables.

Key words: paddy-upland rotation, microbial diversity, high-throughput sequencing, cucumber, blight, Fusarium

中图分类号:

S154.36

张河庆, 吴婕, 韩帅, 席亚东, 李跃建, 梁根云. 4种周年轮作模式对耕作层土壤微生物的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(20): 73-80.

ZHANG Heqing, WU Jie, HAN Shuai, XI Yadong, LI Yuejian, LIANG Genyun. Effects of Four Annual Rotation Patterns on Soil Microbial Community[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(20): 73-80.

图/表 7

参考文献 30

[1]	BERENDSEN R L, PIETERSE C M J, Bakker P A. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health[J]. Trends in plant science, 2012, 17(8):478-486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001 URL
[2]	SCHLATTER D, KINKEL L, THOMASHOW L, et al. Disease suppressive soils: new insights from the soil microbiome[J]. Phytopathology, 2017, 107(11):1284-1297. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-17-0111-RVW URL
[3]	王孝林, 王二涛. 根际微生物促进水稻氮利用[J]. 植物学报, 2019, 54(3):285-287. doi: 10.11983/CBB19060
[4]	薛英龙, 李春越, 王苁蓉, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌促进植物摄取土壤磷的作用机制[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(6):10-20.
[5]	NUMAN M, BASHIR S, KHAN Y, et al. Plant growth promoting bacteria as an alternative strategy for salt tolerance in plants: a review[J]. Microbiological research, 2018, 209:21-32. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2018.02.003 URL
[6]	BHARTI N, BARNAWAL D. Amelioration of salinity stress by PGPR:ACC deaminase and ROS scavenging enzymes activity. In: PGPR Amelioration in Sustainable Agriculture[M]. Woodhead publishing, 2019:85-106.
[7]	黄化刚, 吕立新, 张艳茗, 等. 微生物帮助烟草抗旱的机理及其应用[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(9):3099-3110. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201709.013
[8]	MENDES R, RAAIJMAKERS J M. Cross-kingdom similarities in microbiome functions[J]. The ISME journal, 2015, 9(9):1905-1907. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.7 URL
[9]	PUTTEN W H, BRADFORD M A, BRINKMAN E P, et al. Where, when and how plant-soil feedback matters in a changing world[J]. Functional ecology, 2016, 30(7):1109-1121. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12657 URL
[10]	HAAS D, DéFago G. Biological control of soil-borne pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2005, 3(4):307-319. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1129 URL
[11]	MAKATE C, WANG R, MAKATE M, et al. Crop diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: adaptive management for environmental change[J]. SpringerPlus, 2016, 5(1):1135. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2802-4 URL
[12]	ZHANG L C, HUANG W, XIAO W, et al. Comparison of Soil Enzyme Activity and Microbial Community Structure between Rapeseed-Rice and Rice-Rice Plantings[J]. International journal of agriculture and bioligy, 2018, 20(8):1801-1808.
[13]	HOU P F, CHIEN C H, CHIANG-HSIEH Y F, et al. Paddy-upland rotation for sustainable agriculture with regards to diverse soil microbial community[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8(1):1-9.
[14]	STEINAUER K, CHATZINOTAS A, EISENHAUER N. Root exudate cocktails: the link between plant diversity and soil microorganisms?[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2016, 6(20):7387-7396. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2454 URL
[15]	GRUNERT O, ROBLES-AGUILAR A A, HERNANDEZ-SANABRIA E, et al. Tomato plants rather than fertilizers drive microbial community structure in horticultural growing media[J]. Scientific reports, 2019, 9(1):1-15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 URL
[16]	ZHOU X G, ZHANG J, PAN D, et al. p-Coumaric can alter the composition of cucumber rhizosphere microbial communities and induce negative plant-microbial interactions[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2018, 54:363-372. doi: 10.1007/s00374-018-1265-x URL
[17]	ZHOU X G, WU F. Vanillic acid changed cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) seedling rhizosphere total bacterial, Pseudomonas and Bacillus spp. communities[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8:4929. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23406-2 URL
[18]	AIL-ALI A, DERAVEL J, KRIER F,et al. Biofilm formation is determinant in tomato rhizosphere colonization by Bacillus velezensis FZB42[J]. Environmental science and pollution research, 2018,25, 30:29910-29920.
[19]	ALAM K M, ZHANG T, YAN Y L, et al. Transcriptional Analysis of Pseudomonas stutzeri A1501 Associated with Host Rice[J]. Advances in microbiology, 2016, 6(3):210-221. doi: 10.4236/aim.2016.63021 URL
[20]	SUGIYAMA A, YAZAKI K. Root exudates of legume plants and their involvement in interactions with soil microbes. Secretions and exudates in biological systems[M]. Springer, Berlin,Heidelberg, 2012:27-48.
[21]	DACHEV M, BíNa D, SOBOTKA R, et al. Unique double concentric ring organization of light harvesting complexes in Gemmatimonas phototrophica[J]. PLoS biology, 2017, 15(12):e2003943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003943 URL
[22]	DAIMS H, LEBEDEVA E V, PJEVAC P, et al. Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria[J]. Nature, 2015, 528(7583):504-509. doi: 10.1038/nature16461 URL
[23]	TANGAROMSUK J, POKETHITIYOOK P, KRUATRACHUE M, et al. Cadmium biosorption by Sphingomonas paucimobilis biomass[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2002, 85(1):103-105. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00066-4 URL
[24]	LIU S W, XU M, TUO L, et al. Phycicoccus endophyticus sp. nov., an endophytic actinobacterium isolated from Bruguiera gymnorhiza[J]. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology, 2016, 66(3):1105-1111. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000842 URL
[25]	JIN D C, KONG X, LI H H, et al. Patulibacter brassicae sp. nov., isolated from rhizosphere soil of Chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris)[J]. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology, 2016, 66(12):5056-5060. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.001469 URL
[26]	何英, 张屹, 朱菲莹, 等. 西瓜枯萎病不同发病阶段根际微生物群落结构分析[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2019(9):47-50.
[27]	HUYNH T T T. Biocontrol potential of Bradyrhizobium japonicum against soybean sudden death syndrome[D]. Iowa State: Iowa State university department of plant pathology and microbiology, 2019:11-50.
[28]	OSHKIN I Y, KULICHEVSKAYA I S, RIJPSTRA W I C, et al. Granulicella sibirica sp. nov., a psychrotolerant acidobacterium isolated from an organic soil layer in forested tundra, West Siberia[J]. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology, 2019, 69(4):1195-1201. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.003290 URL
[29]	GROSSI C E M, FANTINO E, SERRAL F, et al. Methylobacterium sp. 2A is a plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria that has the potential to improve potato crop yield under adverse conditions[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2020, 11:1-15. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00001 URL
[30]	尹彦舒, 崔曼, 崔伟国, 等. 大蒜连作障碍形成机理的研究进展[J]. 生物资源, 2018, 40(2):141-147.

群落	轮作模式	OTU数	ACE指数	Shannon指数
土壤真菌群落	JJ	171.00±37.55a	182.92±37.36a	3.30±0.23a
	LD	192.25±9.20a	200.11±7.09a	3.72±0.12ab
	LZ	226.50±21.27a	231.30±21.86a	3.23±0.17a
	SH	246.75±30.13a	265.26±25.85a	3.92±0.08b
土壤细菌群落	JJ	891.50±154.48ab	915.18±164.09ab	5.33±0.15a
	LD	825.00±53.66a	849.55±58.00a	5.01±0.13a
	LZ	991.75±46.32ab	1030.53±54.98ab	5.23±0.10a
	SH	1147.00±15.25b	1176.49±11.94b	5.89±0.11b

群落	轮作模式	OTU数	ACE指数	Shannon指数
土壤真菌群落	JJ	171.00±37.55a	182.92±37.36a	3.30±0.23a
	LD	192.25±9.20a	200.11±7.09a	3.72±0.12ab
	LZ	226.50±21.27a	231.30±21.86a	3.23±0.17a
	SH	246.75±30.13a	265.26±25.85a	3.92±0.08b
土壤细菌群落	JJ	891.50±154.48ab	915.18±164.09ab	5.33±0.15a
	LD	825.00±53.66a	849.55±58.00a	5.01±0.13a
	LZ	991.75±46.32ab	1030.53±54.98ab	5.23±0.10a
	SH	1147.00±15.25b	1176.49±11.94b	5.89±0.11b

轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%				轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%
轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH	轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH
LD	Trichoderma	3	7.64	2.82	3.35	SH	Acrostalagmus	0	0.01	0	0.16
	Talaromyces	0.15	0.5	0.05	0.05		Dactylella	0	0	0.01	0.25
	Symmetrospora	0	0.15	0.01	0.03		Ilyonectria	0	0.03	0.14	0.45
	Spencerozyma	0	0.18	0	0		Oidiodendron	0.08	0.28	0.11	1.1
LZ	Ramicandelaber	0	0	0.16	0.03		Simplicillium	0	0	0.01	0.23
	Pyrenochaetopsis	0.01	0	1.39	0.37		Ustilaginoidea	0	0	0.23	1.1
	Nigrospora	0	0	3.94	0.62		Rhizophagus	0.01	0.01	0	0.07
	Conlarium	0.05	0.04	0.18	0.06

轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%				轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%
轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH	轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH
LD	Trichoderma	3	7.64	2.82	3.35	SH	Acrostalagmus	0	0.01	0	0.16
	Talaromyces	0.15	0.5	0.05	0.05		Dactylella	0	0	0.01	0.25
	Symmetrospora	0	0.15	0.01	0.03		Ilyonectria	0	0.03	0.14	0.45
	Spencerozyma	0	0.18	0	0		Oidiodendron	0.08	0.28	0.11	1.1
LZ	Ramicandelaber	0	0	0.16	0.03		Simplicillium	0	0	0.01	0.23
	Pyrenochaetopsis	0.01	0	1.39	0.37		Ustilaginoidea	0	0	0.23	1.1
	Nigrospora	0	0	3.94	0.62		Rhizophagus	0.01	0.01	0	0.07
	Conlarium	0.05	0.04	0.18	0.06

轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%				轮作模式	属	相对丰度值/%
轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH	轮作模式	属	JJ	LD	LZ	SH
SH	p_Acidobacteria	0.252	0.058	0.360	1.680	SH	Reyranella	0.109	0.060	0.235	0.613
	f_Acidobacteriaceae	0.020	0.019	0.109	0.737		Phenylobacterium	0.175	0.072	0.185	0.405
	f_Blastocatellaceae	0.011	0.004	0.010	0.289		Steroidobacter	0.015	0.000	0.045	0.227
	Blastocatellaceae_RB41	0.035	0.000	0.016	0.219		Altererythrobacter	0.083	0.064	0.061	0.190
	p_Acidobacteria_o_Subgroup_7	0.009	0.000	0.010	0.173		Polycyclovorans	0.011	0.000	0.016	0.186
	p_Acidobacteria_c_Subgroup_6	0.014	0.002	0.029	0.144		f_Comamonadaceae	0.005	0.011	0.008	0.174
	Phycicoccus	0.060	0.028	0.020	0.249		f_BIrii41	0.035	0.013	0.033	0.173
	Iamia	0.006	0.000	0.015	0.134		Dokdonella	0.017	0.010	0.016	0.172
	Patulibacter	0.008	0.000	0.019	0.116		Nitrosospira	0.038	0.014	0.026	0.115
	Gaiella	0.018	0.024	0.011	0.103		o_Chthoniobacterales	0.022	0.000	0.030	0.180
	Chitinophaga	0.034	0.014	0.049	0.444	LD	Mizugakiibacter	8.547	12.341	5.829	3.952
	Niastella	0.002	0.000	0.027	0.192		p_Saccharibacteria	2.129	4.213	1.068	1.912
	Flavisolibacter	0.018	0.011	0.019	0.108		f_ODP1230B8.23	0.919	3.105	1.084	0.450
	p_Chloroflexi_c_KD4-96	0.451	0.253	0.661	0.999		f_Acetobacteraceae	1.073	1.599	1.093	0.784
	f_Anaerolineaceae	0.018	0.005	0.021	0.364		f_Rhodospirillaceae	0.899	1.355	0.689	0.845
	Nitrolancea	0.164	0.179	0.177	0.321		Alkanibacter	0.162	0.260	0.077	0.016
	Chloroflexi	0.026	0.021	0.020	0.116		Bdellovibrio	0.143	0.223	0.059	0.090
	Gemmatimonas	0.789	0.319	0.750	1.656	LZ	p_Acidobacteria	1.081	1.569	6.140	0.402
	Gemmatirosa	0.106	0.066	0.041	0.323		Acidibacter	1.781	1.975	3.208	1.923
	p_Latescibacteria	0.026	0.000	0.034	0.397		Aquicella	0.545	0.800	1.505	0.549
	Nitrospira	0.222	0.183	0.519	1.013		Bradyrhizobium	0.463	0.404	1.070	0.737
	o_Nitrospirales_f_0319-6A21	0.022	0.000	0.022	0.185		Granulicella	0.266	0.398	0.846	0.404
	Sphingomonas	1.255	1.107	1.645	3.771		Methylovirgula	0.045	0.084	0.180	0.057
	f_Nitrosomonadaceae	0.217	0.074	0.415	2.433		Roseiarcus	0.018	0.021	0.142	0.079
	Pseudolabrys	0.692	0.439	1.039	1.503	JJ	Methylobacterium	0.127	0.030	0.011	0.006
	Haliangium	0.308	0.209	0.392	1.094

4种周年轮作模式对耕作层土壤微生物的影响

Effects of Four Annual Rotation Patterns on Soil Microbial Community

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 30

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]	陈道, 王新, 江山, 张洁, 吴祖建, 丁新伦. 福建地区草莓斑驳病毒全基因组测序和分子变异分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(6): 94-101.
[2]	王岩, 王丽伟, 赵洪颜, 赵敏, 杨洪岩. 不同人参栽培土壤养分及微生物群落组成特征解析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(5): 60-68.
[3]	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.
[4]	刘坤, 孙文松, 沈宝宇, 张天静. 辽宁新宾人参根腐病病原真菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(32): 86-91.
[5]	陈柳宏, 赵春雷, 王希, 李彦丽, 丁广洲, 陈丽. 单细胞转录组测序技术及其在植物研究中的应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(3): 87-93.
[6]	吕薇, 李胜男, 冯国军, 杨晓旭, 刘畅, 闫志山, 刘大军. 外源褪黑素降低黄瓜体内霜霉威残留的生理生化分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(28): 107-113.
[7]	石丽红, 孙梅, 唐海明, 文丽, 李超, 程凯凯, 李微艳, 肖小平. 不同施肥模式下稻田土壤氮组分及微生物多样性研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(27): 106-110.
[8]	李小艳, 倪畅, 刘旭. 不同防治方法对设施黄瓜根结线虫的防治效果[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 130-133.
[9]	贺磊, 孙恩惠, 邓涛, 雍宬, 范肖东, 黄红英. 樟树加工剩余物育苗容器对黄瓜幼苗生长及生理特征的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 38-46.
[10]	银珊珊, 周国彦, 顾博文, 武春成, 闫立英, 谢洋. 褪黑素引发对干旱胁迫下黄瓜幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(19): 30-36.
[11]	张倩, 张国威, 商侃侃. 不同强化处理措施对铜污染土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(14): 96-103.
[12]	姜莉莉, 郭腾达, 宫庆涛, 武海斌, 孙瑞红. 不同物候期晚熟桃‘秋彤’微生物群落结构分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(1): 44-52.
[13]	魏倩倩, 郑瑞瑞, 陈云坤, 胡春艳, 冯雪, 曹挥. 3种植物提取物对6种枯萎病菌的生物活性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(9): 155-159.
[14]	杜宜新, 石妞妞, 阮宏椿, 连金番, 甘林, 陈福如. 银川大豆根腐病病原鉴定及种衣剂对其防治效果[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(8): 103-109.
[15]	万人源, 马会杰, 蒋宾, 杨丽冉, 周大鹏, 和明珠, 杨广容. 茶园土壤真菌群落组成及影响因素研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(33): 88-97.