Microbial Agents Mixed with Saline-alkaline Soil: Effect of Prevention of Stem Basal Rot and Growth-promoting on Maize

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0077

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim is to develop microbial agents that promote the maize growth and prevent maize stem basal rot in saline-alkaline soil in Yinbei of Ningxia. The microorganisms with high saline tolerance were used as experimental materials, the antagonistic bacteria against Fusarium and other pathogens were screened and the ability to produce enzyme and compatibility were detected using plate antagonistic culture. In addition, the effects of prevention of maize stem basal rot and growth-promoting were tested relying on the microbial agents mixed with saline-alkaline soil in field trail. The results showed that four antifungal bacteria were screened against a variety of pathogens such as Fusarium with high producing enzyme ability among 237 saline-alkaline isolates. Strains B-2 and N-16 were identified as Bacillus sonorensis, N-17 as B. pumilus, and B-26 as B. paralicheniformis. The four strains could not inhibit each other, and microbial agents contained the mix powder of the four strains, soil conditioner, microelement and vector. The preventive effect of microbial agents YF or JF mixed with saline-alkaline soil against the maize stem basal rot could reach beyond 60%, showing evident growth-promoting and yield-increasing effect. Microbial agents YF or JF mixed with saline-alkaline soil could promote maize growth and prevent maize stem basal rot in Yinbei of Ningxia, and the study has certain significance for effective use of saline-alkaline soil.

Key words: microbial agent, saline-alkaline soil, maize stem base rot, preventive effect, growth-promoting effect

CLC Number:

S476

Sha Yuexia, Li Mingyang, Wu Shunhua, Zhang Ang. Microbial Agents Mixed with Saline-alkaline Soil: Effect of Prevention of Stem Basal Rot and Growth-promoting on Maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(5): 75-82.

Figures/Tables 10

References 23

[1]	夏婷, 杨建国, 魏玉清. 旱作盐碱农田洗盐措施效果评价[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017,45(9):228-231.
[2]	肖国举, 秦萍, 罗成科, 等. 犁翻与旋耕施用脱硫石膏对改良碱化土壤的效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010,19(2):433-437.
[3]	李磊, 樊丽琴, 吴霞, 等. 秸秆还田对盐碱地土壤物理性质、酶活性及油葵产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019,28(12):1-8.
[4]	王启龙, 卢楠, 魏样. 不同改良措施对定边盐碱地土壤理化性质、黑麦草生长及产量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019,47(11):282-286.
[5]	郑普山, 郝保平, 冯悦晨, 等. 不同盐碱地改良剂对土壤理化性质、紫花苜蓿生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012,20(9):1216-1221.
[6]	杨明金, 张勃, 王海军, 等. 聚丙烯酰胺和磷石膏对土壤导水性能的影响研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2009,40(4):747-750.
[7]	刘国红, 朱育菁, 刘波, 等. 玉米根际土壤芽胞杆菌的多样性[J]. 农业生物技术学报, 2014,22(11):1367-1379.
[8]	Schwyn B, Neilands J B. Universal chemical-assay for the detection and determination of siderophores[J]. AnalyticalBiochemistry, 1987,160(1):47-56.
[9]	Reimmann C, Beyeler M, Latifi A, et al. The global activator GacA of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO positively controls the production of the autoinducer N-butyryl-homoserine lactone and the formation of the virulence factors pyocyanin, cyanide, and lipase[J]. Molecular Microbiology, 1997,24:309-319. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.3291701.x URL pmid: 9159518
[10]	Cattelan M E, Hartel P Q, Fuhrmann J J. Screening of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to promote early soybean growth[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1999,6(3):1670-1680.
[11]	东秀珠, 蔡妙英. 常见细菌系统鉴定手册[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001.
[12]	Barbosa L O, Lima J S, Es SV C M, et al. Compatibility and combination of selected bacterial antagonists in the biocontrol of sisal bole rot disease[J]. Biological Control, 2018(63):595-605.
[13]	王明华. 改良剂对苏打盐碱土及玉米生理特性的影响[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2016.
[14]	王晓鸣, 吴全安, 张培坤. 硫酸锌防治玉米茎基腐病的研究[J]. 植物保护, 1999(2):23-25.
[15]	李保军, 张兰松, 朱静, 等. 氮磷钾锌对玉米茎基腐病及产量的影响. 河北农业科学, 2016,20(4):41-44.
[16]	刘彩霞. 耐盐碱微生物的筛选及在盐碱土团聚体形成中的作用[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2011.
[17]	杨丹丹. 岱山盐场可培养嗜盐菌的多样性及菌株产酶特性研究[D]. 杭州:杭州师范大学, 2012.
[18]	杜传英, 李海涛, 刘荣梅, 等. 东北地区耐盐芽胞杆菌筛选统计及初步鉴定[J]. 生物技术通报, 2014(4):179-187.
[19]	王小英, 刘国红, 刘波, 等. 青海茶卡盐湖嗜盐碱芽胞杆菌资源分析[J]. 福州大学学报:自然科学版, 2017,45(5):761-769.
[20]	马芸, 谢占玲, 李德英, 等. 青藏高原药用植物内生细菌多样性研究[J]. 生物技术通报, 2010(6):234-239.
[21]	阿吉艾克拜尔, 邵孝侯, 常婷婷, 等. 中国盐碱地改良技术和方法综述[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013,16:7269-7271.
[22]	宋燕飞, 金忠华, 孙丹丹. 盐碱胁迫下复合微生物菌剂对玉米根系性状的影响[J]. 杂粮作物, 2008,28(3):160-162.
[23]	El-Komy H M A, Abdel-Samad H M, Hetta A M A, et al. Possibleroles of nitrogen fixation and mineral uptake induced by rhizobacterial inoculation on salt tolerance of maize[J]. Polish Journal of Microbiology, 2004,53(1):53-60. URL pmid: 15330268

病原菌	菌株B-2/%	菌株N-16/%	菌株N-17/%	菌株B-26/%
尖孢镰刀菌	44.00±0.33	36.84±0.88	40.91±0.56	41.50±0.37
西瓜枯萎病菌	70.27±0.81	76.32±0.15	70.00±0.34	54.02±0.58
串珠镰刀菌	64.89±0.52	37.50±1.02	38.89±0.24	60.61±0.63
立枯丝核菌	20.00±0.44	31.25±0.71	37.50±0.83	33.33±0.57
烟草黑胫病菌	79.48±0.29	77.84±0.48	70.22±0.37	77.25±0.42
稻瘟病菌	84.12±0.09	65.04±0.75	66.83±0.28	88.01±0.46

病原菌	菌株B-2/%	菌株N-16/%	菌株N-17/%	菌株B-26/%
尖孢镰刀菌	44.00±0.33	36.84±0.88	40.91±0.56	41.50±0.37
西瓜枯萎病菌	70.27±0.81	76.32±0.15	70.00±0.34	54.02±0.58
串珠镰刀菌	64.89±0.52	37.50±1.02	38.89±0.24	60.61±0.63
立枯丝核菌	20.00±0.44	31.25±0.71	37.50±0.83	33.33±0.57
烟草黑胫病菌	79.48±0.29	77.84±0.48	70.22±0.37	77.25±0.42
稻瘟病菌	84.12±0.09	65.04±0.75	66.83±0.28	88.01±0.46

菌株名称	淀粉酶/cm	蛋白酶/cm	葡聚糖酶/cm	纤维素酶/cm	嗜铁素
菌株B-2	2.10±0.11	0.52±0.92	0.54±0.57	0.67±0.34	-
菌株N-16	1.93±0.49	0.82±0.37	-	0.55±0.55	-
菌株N-17	-	0.70±0.09	-	0.73±0.22	-
菌株B-26	1.70±0.36	0.40±0.08	0.40±0.36	0.70±0.83	+

菌株名称	淀粉酶/cm	蛋白酶/cm	葡聚糖酶/cm	纤维素酶/cm	嗜铁素
菌株B-2	2.10±0.11	0.52±0.92	0.54±0.57	0.67±0.34	-
菌株N-16	1.93±0.49	0.82±0.37	-	0.55±0.55	-
菌株N-17	-	0.70±0.09	-	0.73±0.22	-
菌株B-26	1.70±0.36	0.40±0.08	0.40±0.36	0.70±0.83	+

处理	出苗率/%		株高/cm		茎粗（第一节间周长）/cm
处理	出苗率	促进率	株高	促进率	茎粗	促进率
YF	78.94±4.39 a	107.75±3.62	64.27±1.11 a	46.68±0.97	9.67±0.24 a	48.54±0.34
JF	67.12±5.39 ab	72.65±4.15	64.00±1.39 a	45.97±1.24	9.27±0.19 a	43.48±0.22
CK	41.67±8.95 b	/	43.87±0.99 b	/	6.51±0.31 b	/