不同施肥处理对杨树林地土壤微生物群落的影响

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0149

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土壤微生物多样性是提高人工林土壤生产力的重要因素之一，由于杨树二代林土壤退化严重，为了提高退化土地的土壤微生物多样性，找出合适的肥料配比方案，以安徽北方5年生杨树二代林为研究对象，进行连续4年的施肥试验后，采集土壤样品，采用高通量测序技术分析不同施肥处理杨树林地土壤微生物群落变化特征，并与环境因子进行RDA分析。结果表明：杨树二代林中，占优势细菌属的有MND1、Gaiella、小梨形菌属(Pirellula)及RB41，土壤表层施肥和未施肥土壤细菌菌属差异显著。蜡蚧菌属(Lecanicillium)、被孢霉属(Mortierella)及镰刀菌属(Fusarium) 3种菌属为真菌优势菌属，真菌群落在土层中分布相关性较小。施用氮肥250 g/株、磷肥500 g/株、有机肥500 g/株及土壤改良生物菌肥200 g/株和氮肥125 g/株、磷肥500 g/株、钾肥75 g/株及土壤改良生物菌肥100 g/株其表层土壤的细菌分布较均匀且多样性较高，这两种施肥方案适合改善林地表层土壤细菌群落多样性。施用氮肥500 g/株、钾肥75 g/株、有机肥500 g/株及土壤改良生物菌肥150 g/株和氮肥250 g/株、磷肥750 g/株、钾肥25 g/株、土壤改良生物菌肥150 g/株其真菌在土壤深层的物种分布较均匀且多样性较高，这两种施肥方案适合改善林地深层土壤真菌群落多样性。脲酶对土壤细菌及真菌菌属群落组成影响均较大，是杨树林地重要的土壤环境因子。

关键词: 杨树, 肥料, 微生物群落结构, 土壤环境因子, RDA分析

Abstract:

Soil microbial diversity is one of the important factors to improve soil productivity in planted forests. Due to the serious soil degradation of the second-generation Poplar forest and with the aim of improving the soil microbial diversity of degraded land and finding out the suitable ratio of fertilizer solution, 5-year-old second-generation Poplar forests in northern Anhui were used as the study objects. After 4 consecutive years of fertilization experiment, soil samples were collected, and high-throughput sequencing technology was used to analyze the change characteristics of soil microbial communities in Poplar forests under different fertilization treatments with an RDA analysis of environmental factors. The results showed that the MND1, Gaiella, Pirellula and RB41 were the dominant bacterial genera in the second-generation Poplar forest, and there were significant differences of bacterial genus between fertilized soil surface and unfertilized soil. Lecanicillium, Mortierella and Fusarium were 3 dominant fungal genera and the distribution of fungal communities in the soil layer was less relevant. Application of nitrogen fertilizer 250 g/plant, phosphate fertilizer 500 g/plant, organic fertilizer 500 g/plant and soil improvement biological bacterial fertilizer 200 g/plant and application of nitrogen fertilizer 125 g/plant, phosphate fertilizer 500 g/plant, potash fertilizer 75 g/plant and soil improvement biological bacterial fertilizer 100 g/plant had a more uniform distribution and higher diversity of bacteria in the surface soil, and were suitable for improving the diversity of forest surface soil bacterial community. Application of nitrogen fertilizer 500 g/plant, potash fertilizer 75 g/plant, organic fertilizer 500 g/plant and soil improvement biological bacterial fertilizer 150 g/plant and application of nitrogen fertilizer 250 g/plant, phosphate fertilizer 750 g/plant, potash fertilizer 25 g/plant and soil improvement biological bacterial fertilizer 150 g/plant had a more uniform distribution of species and a higher diversity of fungi in the deep soil, and were suitable for improving the diversity of forest deep soil fungal community. Urease had a great influence on the community composition of soil bacteria and fungi, and can be an important soil environmental factor in Poplar forest land.

Key words: Poplar, fertilizer, microbial community structure, soil environmental factors, RDA analysis

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.

SUN Hui, WU Zhongneng, MIAO Tingting, LIU Junlong, SU Xiaohua, DING Changjun, CAO Zhihua, YAN Caixia, WANG Tao. Effects of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Microbial Communities in Poplar Forest Land[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(2): 36-43.

图/表 11

参考文献 28

[1]	惠昊, 王亚茹, 林鑫宇, 等. 不同森林经营模式对土壤氮含量及酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020(420):1-10.
[2]	ISEBRANDS J G, RICHARDSON J. Popalrs and willows-trees for society and the environment[M]. The food and agriculture organization of the united nations and CABI, 2014,650-651.
[3]	韩亚飞, 伊文慧, 王文波, 等. 基于高通量测序技术的连作杨树人工林土壤细菌多样性研究[J]. 山东大学学报(理学版), 2014, 49(5):1-6.
[4]	姜啸虹, 尹杰. 杨树速生丰产林土壤退化原因分析及恢复对策[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2010, 43(4):68-71.
[5]	佘婷. 杨树人工林林下植被对土壤微生物特性的影响[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2019.
[6]	PHILIPPOT L, RAAIJMAKERS J M, LEMANCEAU P, et al. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2013, 11:789-799. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3109 pmid: 24056930
[7]	张雅坤, 彭赛, 宋倩云, 等. 不同施肥模式对杨树人工林土壤微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 40(5):1-8.
[8]	FANG X M, ZHANG X F, CHEN F S, et al. Phosphorus addition alters the response of soil organic carbondecomposition to nitrogen deposition in a subtropical forest[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2019, 133:119-128. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.03.005 URL
[9]	周伟, 徐莉, 余元春, 等. 沼液施肥对杨树林地土壤微生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 林业科技开发, 2015, 29(1):49-51.
[10]	刘捷豹, 陈光水, 郭剑芬, 等. 森林土壤酶对环境变化的响应研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(1):110-117.
[11]	鲍勇, 高颖, 曾晓敏, 等. 中亚热带3种典型森林土壤碳氮含量和酶活性的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(4):508-516. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2017.0311
[12]	NGUYEN N H, SONG Z, BATES S T, et al. An open annota-tion tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecologicalguild[J]. Fungal ecology, 2016, 20(1):241-248. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006 URL
[13]	邓娇娇, 朱旭文, 张岩, 等. 辽西北风沙区不同人工林土壤真菌群落结构及功能特征[J]. 林业科学研究, 2020, 33(1):44-54.
[14]	TEDER L, SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ S, KOLJALG U, et al. High-level classi-fication of the Fungi and a tool for evolutionary ecologicalanalyses[J]. Fungal diversity, 2018, 90(1):135-159. doi: 10.1007/s13225-018-0401-0 URL
[15]	张树萌, 黄懿梅, 倪银霞, 等. 宁南山区人工林草对土壤真菌群落的影响[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018, 38(4):1449-1458.
[16]	张军. 黑土区防护林土壤质量评价及其土壤细菌多样性研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2020.
[17]	谭秀梅, 王华田, 孔令刚, 等. 杨树人工林连作土壤中酚酸积累规律及对土壤微生物的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(理学版), 2008, 43(1):14-19.
[18]	孙家兴, 赵玉森, 辛颖, 等. 黑土区不同林龄杨树农田防护林土壤养分变化[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2018, 46(3):59-62,90.
[19]	卢伟伟, 耿慧丽, 张伊蕊, 等. 生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(4):143-149.
[20]	YOON-SEONG J, SANG-CHEOL P, JEONGMIN L, et al. Improved pipeline for reducing erroneous identification by 16S rRNA sequences using the Illumina MiSeq platform[J]. Journal of microbiology, 2015,(53) 10:60-69.
[21]	WILLIAMS S, FOSTER P, LITTLEWOOD D. The complete mitochondrial genome of a turbinid vetigastropod from Miseq Illumina sequencing of genomic DNA and steps towards a resolved gastropod phylogeny[J]. Gene, 2014, 533:38-47. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.10.005 pmid: 24120625
[22]	汪其同, 高明宇, 刘梦玲, 等. 基于高通量测序的杨树人工林根际土壤真菌群落结构[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(4):1177-1183. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201704.004
[23]	MICHELSEN C F, PEDAS P, GLARING M A, et al. Bacterial diversityin greenlandic soils as affected by potato cropping and inorganic versus organic fertilization[J]. Polar biology, 2014, 37(1):61-71. doi: 10.1007/s00300-013-1410-9 URL
[24]	王国兵, 郭娇娇, 曹国华, 等. 不同施肥模式对杨树人工林土壤微生物生物量C、N、P的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 40(5):1-7.
[25]	任嘉红, 李浩, 刘辉, 等. 吡咯伯克霍尔德氏菌JK-SH007对杨树根际微生物数量及功能多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(5):126-133.
[26]	姬广海. 溶杆菌属及其在植物病害防治中的研究进展[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2011, 26(1):124-130.
[27]	张颖, 杨悦, 韦庆慧, 等. 鞘氨醇单胞菌的特性及应用研究进展[J]. 化学与生物工程, 2021, 38(3):6-13.
[28]	鹿连明, 杜丹超, 胡秀荣, 等. 三种侵染柑橘木虱的蜡蚧菌属真菌的生物学特性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(10):1738-1744. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2016.10.16

Group	Sobs	Shannon	Chao1	Ace	Goods_coverage
CK-B	3347.00	9.34	4138.42	4182.58	0.9837
CK-M	3055.00	9.15	3881.71	3986.47	0.9824
CK-T	3455.33	9.80	4272.29	4287.36	0.9826
No7-B	3438.67	9.84	4051.53	4063.65	0.9874
No7-M	3319.33	9.72	3976.34	3944.28	0.9868
No7-T	3495.00	9.88	4203.44	4236.30	0.9836
No8-B	3322.33	9.74	4084.36	4081.54	0.9850
No8-M	3409.33	9.74	4119.42	4156.46	0.9855
No8-T	3432.33	9.85	4164.05	4219.20	0.9834
No11-B	3296.67	9.43	3998.44	4029.59	0.9862
No11-M	3523.33	9.75	4224.76	4224.76	0.9864
No11-T	3552.33	9.86	4280.66	4289.15	0.9860
No12-B	3449.67	9.63	4181.76	4199.78	0.9865
No12-M	3496.00	9.83	4257.92	4257.81	0.9852
No12-T	3511.33	9.84	4237.53	4229.56	0.9855
No13-B	3540.67	9.75	4138.10	4165.27	0.9885
No13-M	3201.67	9.46	3791.41	3837.76	0.9870
No13-T	3381.67	9.77	4025.50	4063.67	0.9861
No14-B	3240.00	9.45	3956.09	3997.14	0.9858
No14-M	3275.67	9.44	4058.64	4075.16	0.9843
No14-T	3362.33	9.59	4042.36	4127.13	0.9847

Group	Sobs	Shannon	Chao1	Ace	Goods_coverage
CK-B	3347.00	9.34	4138.42	4182.58	0.9837
CK-M	3055.00	9.15	3881.71	3986.47	0.9824
CK-T	3455.33	9.80	4272.29	4287.36	0.9826
No7-B	3438.67	9.84	4051.53	4063.65	0.9874
No7-M	3319.33	9.72	3976.34	3944.28	0.9868
No7-T	3495.00	9.88	4203.44	4236.30	0.9836
No8-B	3322.33	9.74	4084.36	4081.54	0.9850
No8-M	3409.33	9.74	4119.42	4156.46	0.9855
No8-T	3432.33	9.85	4164.05	4219.20	0.9834
No11-B	3296.67	9.43	3998.44	4029.59	0.9862
No11-M	3523.33	9.75	4224.76	4224.76	0.9864
No11-T	3552.33	9.86	4280.66	4289.15	0.9860
No12-B	3449.67	9.63	4181.76	4199.78	0.9865
No12-M	3496.00	9.83	4257.92	4257.81	0.9852
No12-T	3511.33	9.84	4237.53	4229.56	0.9855
No13-B	3540.67	9.75	4138.10	4165.27	0.9885
No13-M	3201.67	9.46	3791.41	3837.76	0.9870
No13-T	3381.67	9.77	4025.50	4063.67	0.9861
No14-B	3240.00	9.45	3956.09	3997.14	0.9858
No14-M	3275.67	9.44	4058.64	4075.16	0.9843
No14-T	3362.33	9.59	4042.36	4127.13	0.9847

Group	Sobs	Shannon	Chao1	Ace	Goods_coverage
CK-B	513.33	4.31	779.13	836.08	0.9982
CK-M	554.67	4.90	862.81	911.51	0.9979
CK-T	587.67	4.16	880.48	934.70	0.9979
No7-B	611.33	4.37	995.38	1024.38	0.9974
No7-M	525.67	4.62	868.17	918.65	0.9979
No7-T	583.00	3.94	885.05	908.06	0.9980
No8-B	578.67	4.40	947.62	1032.92	0.9976
No8-M	546.33	4.44	865.69	899.47	0.9979
No8-T	546.67	4.49	841.31	858.01	0.9981
No11-B	531.00	5.06	860.73	905.13	0.9980
No11-M	516.33	4.02	797.82	835.71	0.9981
No11-T	538.33	4.48	841.62	895.02	0.9980
No12-B	662.67	5.40	1010.74	1065.36	0.9976
No12-M	612.00	4.76	930.80	981.24	0.9977
No12-T	631.33	5.56	1020.06	1028.16	0.9977
No13-B	648.00	4.17	1029.11	1030.55	0.9976
No13-M	537.67	5.27	784.96	822.39	0.9980
No13-T	685.00	5.02	991.91	1039.54	0.9974
No14-B	625.00	5.06	935.43	984.31	0.9979
No14-M	657.00	4.73	998.05	999.13	0.9977
No14-T	651.00	4.49	1008.68	994.98	0.9977

Group	Sobs	Shannon	Chao1	Ace	Goods_coverage
CK-B	513.33	4.31	779.13	836.08	0.9982
CK-M	554.67	4.90	862.81	911.51	0.9979
CK-T	587.67	4.16	880.48	934.70	0.9979
No7-B	611.33	4.37	995.38	1024.38	0.9974
No7-M	525.67	4.62	868.17	918.65	0.9979
No7-T	583.00	3.94	885.05	908.06	0.9980
No8-B	578.67	4.40	947.62	1032.92	0.9976
No8-M	546.33	4.44	865.69	899.47	0.9979
No8-T	546.67	4.49	841.31	858.01	0.9981
No11-B	531.00	5.06	860.73	905.13	0.9980
No11-M	516.33	4.02	797.82	835.71	0.9981
No11-T	538.33	4.48	841.62	895.02	0.9980
No12-B	662.67	5.40	1010.74	1065.36	0.9976
No12-M	612.00	4.76	930.80	981.24	0.9977
No12-T	631.33	5.56	1020.06	1028.16	0.9977
No13-B	648.00	4.17	1029.11	1030.55	0.9976
No13-M	537.67	5.27	784.96	822.39	0.9980
No13-T	685.00	5.02	991.91	1039.54	0.9974
No14-B	625.00	5.06	935.43	984.31	0.9979
No14-M	657.00	4.73	998.05	999.13	0.9977
No14-T	651.00	4.49	1008.68	994.98	0.9977