Effects of Tillage Patterns on Functional Diversity of Soil Microbial Community in Maize Field

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-005

Abstract

Abstract:

To improve the soil fertility of black soil, maize straw returning and tillage patterns were selected and investigated. This study was based on the experiment of different tillage patterns in Gongzhuling City, Jilin Province, three straw returning tillage patterns were set up: straw chopping and returning to the field and ploughing (CK), stubble height returning to field, the alternately planting of broad line and narrow line + straw mulching + rapid straw decomposition maturing agent (KZF), straw chopping and returning to the field and ploughing + rapid straw decomposition maturing agent (SF). Biolog ECO-plate methods were used to analyze the response of soil microbial functional diversity to different tillage patterns in maize field of black soil. The results indicated that the average well color development (AWCD) values of different tillage patterns increased significantly with the extension of culture time. During the cultivation period, the change of AWCD values was as follows: KZF>SF>CK. After 144 hours of culture, the AWCD values of KZF and SF were significantly higher than that of CK. There was no significant difference in Shannon index (H), Dominance index (D) and Shannon evenness index (E) among different tillage patterns. The principal component analysis showed that tillage patterns significantly affected the ability of soil microorganisms to utilize carbon sources. Carbohydrates, amino acids and carboxylic acids were the main carbon source utilized by the microbial communities. The treatments of stubble height returning to field, the alternately planting of broad line and narrow line + straw mulching + rapid straw decomposition maturing agent (KZF) and straw chopping and returning to the field and ploughing + rapid straw decomposition maturing agent (SF) improved the activity and functional diversity of the soil microbial community.

Key words: tillage pattern, continuous cropping of corn, microbial community functional diversity, Biolog, carbon source utilization

CLC Number:

S154.36

Gao Jingjing, Liu Hongmei, Yang Dianlin, Li Ruiying, Zhu Ping, Gao Hongjun, Li Jing, Zhang Xiuzhi, Peng Chang. Effects of Tillage Patterns on Functional Diversity of Soil Microbial Community in Maize Field[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(3): 98-104.

Figures/Tables 6

References 27

[1]	Pankhurst C E, Ophel K K, Doube B M, et al. Biodiversity of soil microbial communities in agricultural systems[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 1996,5:197-209. doi: 10.1007/BF00055830 URL
[2]	李学垣, 王启发, 徐凤琳. 稻草还田对土壤钾、磷、锌的吸附-解吸及其有效性的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2000,9(3):227-232.
[3]	姬艳艳, 张贵龙, 张瑞, 等. 耕作方式对农田土壤微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013,29(6):117-123.
[4]	罗希茜, 郝晓晖, 陈涛, 等. 长期不同施肥对稻田土壤微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(2):740-748.
[5]	Nianxun X, Juliette M G B. Interactive effects of precipitation and nitrogen spatial pattern on carbon use and functional diversity in soil microbial communities[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016,100:207-210. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.11.030 URL
[6]	毕江涛, 贺达汉, 沙月霞, 等. 荒漠草原不同植被类型土壤微生物群落功能多样性[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009,27(5):149-155.
[7]	刘淑梅, 孙武, 张瑜, 等. 小麦季不同耕作方式对砂姜黑土玉米农田土壤微生物特性及酶活性的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2018,26(1):103-107.
[8]	刘琪, 乔月静, 高志强. 夏闲期不同耕作措施对旱地小麦根际土壤微生物的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2019,47(1):65-68.
[9]	Carpenter-boggs L, Peter D S, Mike J L, et al. Soil microbial properties under permanent grass, conventional tillage, and no-till management in South Dakota[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2003,71:15-23.
[10]	Nivelle E, Verzeaux J, Habbib H, et al. Functional response of soil microbial communities to tillage, cover crops and nitrogen fertilization[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016,108:147-155. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.08.004 URL
[11]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M].第三版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[12]	刘红梅, 张海芳, 皇甫超河, 等. 长期氮添加对贝加尔针茅草原土壤微生物群落多样性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2017,36(4):709-717.
[13]	袁颖红, 樊后保, 刘文飞, 等. 模拟氮沉降对杉木人工林(Cunninghamia lanceolata)土壤酶活性及微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013,45(1):120-128.
[14]	任万军, 刘代银, 吴锦秀, 等. 免耕高留茬抛秧对稻田土壤肥力和微生物群落的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009,20(4):817-822.
[15]	Ekenler M, Tabatabai M A. Tillage and residue management effects on β-glucosaminidase activity in soils[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003,35:871-874. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00094-4 URL
[16]	农传江, 王宇蕴, 徐智, 等. 有机物料腐熟剂对玉米和水稻秸秆还田效应的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2016,25(1):34-41.
[17]	青格尔, 高聚林, 王振, 等. 玉米秸秆低温降解复合菌系GF-20的促分解作用及对土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2016,24(3):153-161.
[18]	张红, 吕家珑, 曹莹菲, 等. 不同植物秸秆腐解特性与土壤微生物功能多样性研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2014,51(4):743-752.
[19]	Raj D, Antil R S. Evaluation of maturity and stability parameters of composts prepared from agro-industrial wastes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011,102(3):2868-2873. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.077 URL pmid: 21075622
[20]	董立国, 袁汉民, 李生宝, 等. 玉米免耕秸秆覆盖对土壤微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010,19(2):444-446.
[21]	于建光, 常志州, 黄红英, 等. 秸秆腐熟剂对土壤微生物及养分的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2010,29(3):563-570.
[22]	王丹丹, 周亮, 黄胜奇, 等. 耕作方式与秸秆还田对表层土壤活性有机碳组分与产量的短期影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2013,32(4):735-740.
[23]	强学彩, 袁红莉, 高旺盛, 等. 秸秆还田量对土壤CO₂释放和土壤微生物量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004,15(3):469-472.
[24]	张电学, 韩志卿, 刘微, 等. 不同促腐条件下玉米秸秆直接还田的生物学效应研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2005,11(6):742-749. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2005.0606 URL
[25]	甄静, 杜志敏, 李冠杰, 等. 复合菌剂对玉米秸秆的降解及土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2019,53(5):791-798.
[26]	黄召存, 陈娇, 熊瑛, 等. 保护性耕作对蚕豆根际土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018,36(3):79-85.
[27]	梁伟, 崔德杰, 柳新伟, 等. 一年两作栽培模式下保护性耕作对土壤团聚体及微生物的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019,51(1):98-103,127.

处理	Shannon多样性指数	优势度指数	均匀度指数
KZF	4.034±0.119a	0.979±0.011a	0.993±0.018a
SF	3.949±0.137a	0.974±0.020a	0.989±0.031a
CK	3.828±0.131a	0.973±0.019a	0.994±0.021a

处理	Shannon多样性指数	优势度指数	均匀度指数
KZF	4.034±0.119a	0.979±0.011a	0.993±0.018a
SF	3.949±0.137a	0.974±0.020a	0.989±0.031a
CK	3.828±0.131a	0.973±0.019a	0.994±0.021a

碳源	碳源类型	PC1	PC2
碳水类	β-甲基-D-葡萄糖苷	0.990	0.126
	D-半乳糖酸γ-内酯	0.214	-0.976
	D-木糖	-0.815	0.520
	i-赤藓糖醇	0.805	-0.031
	D-甘露醇	0.947	-0.197
	N-乙酰-D 葡萄糖氨	-0.336	0.880
	D-纤维二糖	0.992	-0.024
	α-D-葡萄糖-1-磷酸	0.986	0.126
	α-D-乳糖	-0.223	-0.804
	D, L-α-磷酸甘油	0.756	0.648
氨基酸类	L-精氨酸	-0.705	-0.705
	L-天门冬酰胺	0.923	-0.372
	L-苯丙氨酸	0.140	0.892
	L-丝氨酸	0.926	-0.365
	L-苏氨酸	0.978	0.178
	甘氨酰-L-谷氨酸	0.941	0.329
羧酸类	丙酮酸甲酯	-0.013	-0.999
	D-半乳糖醛酸	-0.631	0.759
	α-丁酮酸	0.526	0.847
	D-苹果酸	0.974	0.167
	γ-羟丁酸	0.527	-0.847
	衣康酸	0.096	0.964
	D-葡糖胺酸	-0.947	-0.274
多聚物类	吐温40	0.981	0.146
	吐温80	0.929	0.121
	α-环式糊精	-0.738	0.442
	肝糖	-0.087	-0.248
酚酸类	2-羟基苯甲酸	0.976	0.179
酚酸类	4-羟基苯甲酸	0.054	0.998
胺类	苯乙胺	0.071	0.996
胺类	腐胺	-0.351	-0.796

碳源	碳源类型	PC1	PC2
碳水类	β-甲基-D-葡萄糖苷	0.990	0.126
	D-半乳糖酸γ-内酯	0.214	-0.976
	D-木糖	-0.815	0.520
	i-赤藓糖醇	0.805	-0.031
	D-甘露醇	0.947	-0.197
	N-乙酰-D 葡萄糖氨	-0.336	0.880
	D-纤维二糖	0.992	-0.024
	α-D-葡萄糖-1-磷酸	0.986	0.126
	α-D-乳糖	-0.223	-0.804
	D, L-α-磷酸甘油	0.756	0.648
氨基酸类	L-精氨酸	-0.705	-0.705
	L-天门冬酰胺	0.923	-0.372
	L-苯丙氨酸	0.140	0.892
	L-丝氨酸	0.926	-0.365
	L-苏氨酸	0.978	0.178
	甘氨酰-L-谷氨酸	0.941	0.329
羧酸类	丙酮酸甲酯	-0.013	-0.999
	D-半乳糖醛酸	-0.631	0.759
	α-丁酮酸	0.526	0.847
	D-苹果酸	0.974	0.167
	γ-羟丁酸	0.527	-0.847
	衣康酸	0.096	0.964
	D-葡糖胺酸	-0.947	-0.274
多聚物类	吐温40	0.981	0.146
	吐温80	0.929	0.121
	α-环式糊精	-0.738	0.442
	肝糖	-0.087	-0.248
酚酸类	2-羟基苯甲酸	0.976	0.179
酚酸类	4-羟基苯甲酸	0.054	0.998
胺类	苯乙胺	0.071	0.996
胺类	腐胺	-0.351	-0.796

主成分	碳水类	氨基酸类	羧酸类	多聚物类	酚酸类	胺类
PC1 PC2	7.064	4.613	3.714	2.735	1.030	0.422
PC1 PC2	4.332	2.841	4.857	0.957	1.177	1.792