Effect of Rice-rapeseed Annual Tillage Patterns on Soil Microecology

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0457

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the response mechanism of soil microecology to rice-rapeseed system annual tillage patterns, a rice-rapeseed rotation experiment was conducted on the long-term no-tillage direct seeding soil of Dongting Lake area of north Hunan. The differences of soil enzyme activity, microorganism quantity, diversity and microbial community function between the double no-tillage direct seeding (DNT) and double rotary-tillage transplantation (DT) were compared to illustrate the effects of different tillage patterns on soil microecology. The metagenomic sequencing showed that there were similar bacterial types under the two patterns, the bacterial diversity was higher under DNT, but the fungal diversity under DT was higher. Function analysis illustrated that the relative abundance of aerobic and facultative anaerobic prokaryotes was higher in DNT; the relative abundance of prokaryotes related to nitrogen metabolism was higher in DNT, while the relative abundance of prokaryotes related to carbon metabolism was higher in DT. The number of culturable bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and nitrifying bacteria in DNT soil was significantly lower than that in DT, while the number of ammonifying bacteria was significantly increased. Enzyme activity analysis showed that urease activity of DNT was 58.12% higher than that of DT, while the activities of invertase, phosphatase and cellulase decreased by 28.57%, 11.00% and 57.73%, respectively. The results indicated that the DNT rice-rapeseed rotation system was beneficial to improve the bacteria diversity, and the relative abundance of aerobic and facultative anaerobic prokaryotes, and was conductive to the transformation and utilization of nitrogen in the soil. The study provides a basis for the selection of reasonable tillage patterns of rice-rapeseed system in Dongting Lake area.

Key words: no-tillage, direct seeding, soil microorganism, soil enzyme activity, metagenomic sequencing, tillage pattern

CLC Number:

S344.17

Gao Dujuan, Liu Xinglu, Lan Zhibin, Zhao Yang, Chen Youde, Zhou Bin, Lv Yanmei, Luo Xianfu, Tang Shanjun. Effect of Rice-rapeseed Annual Tillage Patterns on Soil Microecology[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(16): 74-81.

Figures/Tables 7

References 32

[1]	范明生, 江荣风, 张福锁, 等. 水旱轮作系统作物养分管理策略[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008(2):202-210.
[2]	杭玉浩, 王强盛, 许国春, 等. 稻田土壤养分特性对不同耕作方式的生态响应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017,33(10):106-112.
[3]	王玲玲, 董春华, 罗尊长, 等. 湘东稻-油轮作区氮磷利用效率对化肥减施的响应[J]. 核农学报, 2018,32(2):353-361.
[4]	殷志遥, 黄丽, 薛斌, 等. 稻-油轮作下保护性耕作对土壤肥力的影响及评价[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017,25(11):1604-1614.
[5]	冯福学, 黄高宝, 于爱忠, 等. 不同保护性耕作措施对武威绿洲灌区冬小麦水分利用的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009,20(5):1060-1065.
[6]	Gu Y, Zhang X, Tu S, et al. Soil microbial biomass, crop yields, and bacterial community structure as affected by long-term fertilizer treatments under wheat-rice cropping[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2009,45(3):246.
[7]	李会琳, 张静, 王岚, 等. 土地利用方式改变对两种酸性土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 西华师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2017,38(4):373-381.
[8]	张传更, 高阳, 张立明, 等. 水分管理措施对施用有机肥麦田土壤酶活性和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2018,37(2):38-44.
[9]	王娟英, 许佳慧, 吴林坤, 等. 不同连作年限怀牛膝根际土壤理化性质及微生物多样性[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(17):5621-5629.
[10]	邓巧玲, 何俊峰, 李继福, 等. 长期秸秆还田对水旱轮作土壤结构及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 长江大学学报:自科版, 2018,15(2):14-18,40.
[11]	Xun W, Li W, Xiong W, et al. Diversity-triggered deterministic bacterial assembly constrains community functions[J]. Nature Communications, 2019,10(1):3833. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11787-5 URL
[12]	顾克军, 张传辉, 顾东祥. 短期不同秸秆还田与耕作方式对土壤养分与稻麦周年产量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017,30(6):1408-1413.
[13]	吴建富, 潘晓华, 王璐, 等. 双季抛栽条件下连续免耕对水稻产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2010,43(15):3159-3167.
[14]	李光宇, 吴次芳. 土壤微生物研究在农田质量评价中的应用[J]. 土壤学报, 2018,55(3):20-33.
[15]	Karlen D L, Cambardella C A, Kovar J L, et al. Soil quality response to long-term tillage and crop rotation practices[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2013,133(5):54-64. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.05.013 URL
[16]	Mbuthia L, Acosta-Martínez V, Debryun J, et al. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: implications for soil quality[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2015,89:24-34. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.06.016 URL
[17]	熊鸿焰, 李廷轩, 张锡洲, 等. 水旱轮作后免耕水稻微生物数量和生物量的变化特征研究[J]. 土壤, 2008,40(6):920-925.
[18]	费裕翀, 路锦, 刘丽, 等. 铝胁迫对不同林分土壤中杉木幼苗根际土壤酶活性和微生物的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020,48(1):75-79.
[19]	王宁, 南宏宇, 冯克云, 等. 化肥减量配施有机肥对棉田土壤微生物生物量、酶活性和棉花产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020,31(1):173-181.
[20]	魏俊杰, 洪坚平. 无机有机肥配施生物炭对复垦土壤酶活性以及磷形态的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019,34(6):170-176.
[21]	李耀霞, 郁继华, 张国斌, 等. 灌水上限和施肥量对温室番茄根际土壤酶及微生物活性的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2019,58(24):128-132.
[22]	Dong W, Liu E, Yan C, et al. Impact of no tillage vs. conventional tillage on the soil bacterial community structure in a winter wheat cropping succession in northern China[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2017,80:35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.03.001 URL
[23]	Sengupta A, Dick W A. Bacterial community diversity in soil under two tillage practices as determined by pyrosequencing[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2015,70(3):853-859. doi: 10.1007/s00248-015-0609-4 pmid: 25930203
[24]	高云超, 朱文珊, 陈文新. 秸秆覆盖免耕土壤真菌群落结构与生态特征研究[J]. 生态学报, 2001,21(10):1704-1710.
[25]	Kinoshita R, Schindelbeck R R, Van Es H M. Quantitative soil profile-scale assessment of the sustainability of long-term maize residue and tillage management[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2017,174:34-44.
[26]	Sharma P, Singh G, Singh R P. Conservation tillage and optimal water supply enhances microbial enzyme (glucosidase, urease and phosphatase) activities in fields under wheat cultivation during various nitrogen management practices[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2013,59, 911-928. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2012.690143 URL
[27]	Tyler H L. Bacterial community composition under long-term reduced tillage and no till management[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2019,126(6).
[28]	Moulin L, Munive A, Dreyfus B, et al. Nodulation of legumens by members of the β-subclass of proteobacteria[J]. Nature, 2001,411:948-950. pmid: 11418858
[29]	Mendes R, Kruijt M, Bruijin I, et al. Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease suppressive bacteria[J]. Science, 2011,332:1097-1100. doi: 10.1126/science.1203980 URL
[30]	Hermans S, Buckley H, Case B, et al. Bacteria as emerging indicators of soil condition[J]. Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 2016,83(1):e02826.
[31]	Zhao X, Liu S, Pu C, et al. Crop yields under no-till farming in China: A meta-analysis[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017,84:67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2016.11.009 URL
[32]	Márcio R N, Es H M V, Schindelbeck R, et al. No-till and cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield[J]. Geoderma, 2018,328:30-43. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.031 URL

耕作方式	16S						ITS
耕作方式	OUTnum	Shannon index	Chao1 index	ACE index	Simpson	coverage	OUTnum	Shannon index	Chao1 index	ACE index	Simpson	coverage
DNT	5552	7.31	7946.04	8115.33	2.05e-03	0.96	1089	4.55	1171.75	1190.73	0.045	1.00
DT	5272	7.19	7618.15	8330.97	2.35e-03	0.96	1008	4.82	1091.91	1091.75	0.030	1.00

耕作方式	16S						ITS
耕作方式	OUTnum	Shannon index	Chao1 index	ACE index	Simpson	coverage	OUTnum	Shannon index	Chao1 index	ACE index	Simpson	coverage
DNT	5552	7.31	7946.04	8115.33	2.05e-03	0.96	1089	4.55	1171.75	1190.73	0.045	1.00
DT	5272	7.19	7618.15	8330.97	2.35e-03	0.96	1008	4.82	1091.91	1091.75	0.030	1.00

耕作方式	脲酶/(mg/g)	转化酶/(mg/g)	磷酸酶/(mg/g)	纤维素酶/(mg/g)	过氧化氢酶/(mol/L)
DNT	8.76±0.99aA	0.05±0.01bB	13.46±0.19bB	3.17×10^-3bB	0.98±0.08aA
DT	5.54±0.46bB	0.07±0.01aA	15.11±0.60aA	7.50×10^-3aA	1.03±0.07aA

耕作方式	脲酶/(mg/g)	转化酶/(mg/g)	磷酸酶/(mg/g)	纤维素酶/(mg/g)	过氧化氢酶/(mol/L)
DNT	8.76±0.99aA	0.05±0.01bB	13.46±0.19bB	3.17×10^-3bB	0.98±0.08aA
DT	5.54±0.46bB	0.07±0.01aA	15.11±0.60aA	7.50×10^-3aA	1.03±0.07aA

耕作方式	细菌	真菌	放线菌	氨化细菌	反硝化细菌	硝化细菌
DNT	3.20×10⁵bB	8.00×10²bB	6.77×10³bB	4.13×10⁵aA	1.40×10⁶aA	3.00×10³bB
DT	5.67×10⁶aA	1.60×10³aA	1.16×10⁴aA	1.20×10⁵bB	1.40×10⁶aA	2.50×10⁴aA