Effects of Different Agronomic Measures on Strawberry Continuous Cropping Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0675

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the impact of different agronomic measures on soil environment, the strawberry field in Changping of Beijing, which has continuous cropping of strawberry for many years, was taken as research object. Field experiment with summer fallowing as control was established to investigate the impact of two different agronomic measures, which were strawberry-rice rotation and soil disinfection with chloropicrin fumigation, on the soil physical and chemical properties, enzyme activities and microbial flora. The results showed that: compared with those under summer fallowing, soil pH and ammonium nitrogen of topsoil (0-20 cm) under strawberry-rice rotation increased by 3.18% and 44.3%, respectively, but salt accumulation and nitrate nitrogen decreased by 33% and 21.23%, respectively. Both the peroxidase and urease activity increased by 23.4% and 6.1%, respectively, while the number of soil bacteria and the ratio of bacteria /fungi increased by 9.86% and 100%, respectively, indicating that the soil changed from fungi type to bacteria type, and soil-borne diseases were reduced. Soil disinfection with chloropicrin fumigation could effectively kill 96.7% of fungi and prevent soil diseases. But soil disinfection could kill other soil microbes and disturb soil balance. Therefore, strawberry-rice rotation has great potential to control soil-borne pathogens in continuous cropping soil and could improve soil condition as a non-chemical method of agriculture, and it will be a new way of green control of soil-borne diseases.

Key words: strawberry, continuous cropping obstacle, strawberry-rice rotation, chloropicrin fumigation, physical and chemical properties of soil, enzyme activity, microbial flora

CLC Number:

S668.4

CAO Caihong, CAO Lingling, ZHU Ning, CHEN Jiahe, ZHAO Liqun, TIAN Yanan, ZHANG Baojie, HE Bingqing. Effects of Different Agronomic Measures on Strawberry Continuous Cropping Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(18): 107-112.

Figures/Tables 4

References 36

[1]	宗静, 王琼, 马欣, 等. 北京市草莓产业发展现状与问题对策[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018(7):14-18.
[2]	甄文超, 代丽, 胡同乐. 连作对草莓生长发育和根部病害发生的影响[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2004, 27(5):68-71.
[3]	王宁, 张锴, 郭建明, 等. 土壤消毒技术在国外草莓栽培中的应用综述[J]. 现代农业科技, 2014(12):143-144,146.
[4]	张玉娟. 草莓重茬障碍防治措施[J]. 福建农业科技, 2014(12):31-32.
[5]	刘奇志, 李星月, 刘艳斌, 等. 国内外草莓连作障碍与综合治理研究进展[J]. 中国果树, 2012(11):58-61.
[6]	KLOSE S, ACOSTA-MARTÍNEZ V, AJWA H A. Microbial community composition and enzyme activities in a sandy loam soil after fumigation with methyl bromide or alternative biocides[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2005, 38(6):1243-1254. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.09.025 URL
[7]	LADD J N, BRISBANE P G, BUTLER J H A, et al. Stuidies on soil fumigation.III: effects on enzyme activities, bacterial numbers and extractable ninhydrin reactive compounds[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 1976, 8(4):255-260. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(76)90053-5 URL
[8]	JAWSON M D, FRANZLUEBBERS A J, GALUSHA D K. Soil fumigation within monoculture and rotations: response of corn and mycorrhizae[J]. Agronomy journal, 1993, 85(6):1174-1180. doi: 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500060016x URL
[9]	王方艳, 王秋霞, 颜冬冬, 等. 二甲基二硫熏蒸对保护地连作土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(4):890-896.
[10]	黄新琦, 温腾, 孟磊, 等. 土壤快速强烈还原对于尖孢镰刀菌的抑制作用[J]. 生态报, 2014,34.
[11]	张子龙, 李凯明, 杨建忠, 等. 轮作对三七连作障碍的消减效应研究[J]. 西南大学学报:自然科学版, 2015, 37(8):39-46.
[12]	MOWLICK S, TAKEHARA T, KAKU N, et al. Proliferation of diversified clostridial species during biological soil disinfestation incorporated with plant biomass under various conditions[J]. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2013, 97(18):8365-8379. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4532-z URL
[13]	李文娇, 杨殿林, 赵建宁, 等. 长期连作和轮作对农田土壤生物学特性的影响研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 3l(3):173-178.
[14]	杨祥田, 周翠, 李建辉, 等. 不同轮作方式下大棚草莓产量及土壤生物学特性[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 19(2):312-315.
[15]	吴根良, 忻雅, 童建新, 等. 不同前作对设施草莓土壤环境动态变化和经济效益的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2012, 24(2):232-237.
[16]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[17]	许光辉, 郑洪元. 土壤微生物分析方法手册[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986:91-109.
[18]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986:260-360.
[19]	ZIMMERMANN S, FREY B. Soil respiration and microbial properties in an acid forest soil: Effects of wood ash[J]. soil biology and biochemistry, 2002, 34:1727-1737. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00160-8 URL
[20]	MANI R, NORIHARU A, VARA P M N, et al. Potential of siderophore-producing bacteria for improving heavy metal phytoextraction[J]. Trends in biotechnology, 2010, 28(3):142-149. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.12.002 URL
[21]	曹慧, 孙辉, 杨浩, 等. 土壤酶活性及其对土壤质量的指示研究进展[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2003, 9(1):105-109.
[22]	孙瑞莲, 赵秉强, 朱鲁生, 等. 长期定位施肥对土壤酶活性的影响及其调控土壤肥力的作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2003, 9(4):406-410.
[23]	MOORHEAD D L, LINLINS A E. Elevated CO₂ alters belowground exoenzyme acetivities in tussock tundra[J]. Plant and soil, 1997, 189:321-329. doi: 10.1023/A:1004246720186 URL
[24]	林先贵, 胡君利. 土壤微生物多样性的科学内涵及其生态服务功能[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):892-900.
[25]	费颖恒, 黄艺, 严昌荣, 等. 大棚种植对农业土壤环境的胁迫[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2008, 27(1):243-247.
[26]	泷岛. 防治连作障碍的措施[J]. 日本土壤肥料学杂志, 1983, 21:170-178.
[27]	戴建军, 宋朋慧, 闫暮春, 等. 不同种植方式对苗期大豆、玉米根际土壤酶活性及微生物量碳、氮的影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2013, 44(2):17-22.
[28]	王丽红, 谭晓莲, 郭晓冬, 等. 不同轮作方式对马铃薯土壤酶活性及微生物数量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2016, 34(5):109-113.
[29]	范琳娟, 刘奇志, 宋兆欣, 等. 温室重茬草莓土壤施用棉隆和氯化苦效果评价[J]. 农药, 2017, 56(4):293-296.
[30]	运翠霞, 严昌荣, 徐明泽, 等. 不同消毒方式对土壤酶活性及土传病原真菌消减的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2020, 25(12):86-96.
[31]	孙艳艳, 蒋桂英, 刘建国, 等. 加工番茄连作对农田土壤酶活性及微生物区系的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(13):3599-3607.
[32]	卜东欣, 张超, 张鑫, 等. 熏蒸剂威百亩对土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(15):227-23.
[33]	马吉平, 陈庆隆, 王洪秀, 等. 除草剂氯嘧磺隆对6种土壤酶活性影响研究[J]. 江西农业学报, 2014, 26(6):29-33.
[34]	曹莉, 秦舒浩, 张俊莲, 等. 轮作豆科牧草对连作马铃薯田土壤微生物菌群及酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3):139-145.
[35]	ZHANG H, ZHANG G L. Microbial biomass carbon and total organic carbon of soils as affected by rubber cultivation[J]. Pedosphere, 2003, 13(4):353-357.
[36]	王光华, 金剑, 韩晓增, 等. 不同土地管理方式对黑土土壤微生物量碳和酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2007, 18(6):1275-1280.

编号	土壤处理	土层深度/cm	有机质含量/(g/kg)	水解性氮/(mg/kg)	有效P/(mg/kg)	有效K/(mg/kg)
A-1	夏季闲置	0~20	66.30±1.10 a	269.46±6.28 aa	182.27±4.72 a	301.19±7.69 a
B-1	水稻轮作后	0~20	41.36±1.31 b	135.83±14.54 b	67.88±10.06 b	163.48±5.47 ab
C-1	消毒后	0~20	69.83±2.05 a	248.20±18.22 a	174.81±7.23 a	249.05±37.85 b
A-2	夏季闲置	20~40	18.40±1.73 b	51.38±7.74 b	87.81±4.54 b	144.10±7.21 b
B-2	水稻轮作后	20~40	34.18±0.65 a	83.19±10.36 aa	76.78±6.97 b	192.95±9.08 a
C-2	消毒后	20~40	18.40±1.34 b	71.01±4.81 ab	76.78±6.97 b	144.10±7.23 b
土壤养分指标（极高标准）			>25	>120	>90	>155

编号	土壤处理	土层深度/cm	有机质含量/(g/kg)	水解性氮/(mg/kg)	有效P/(mg/kg)	有效K/(mg/kg)
A-1	夏季闲置	0~20	66.30±1.10 a	269.46±6.28 aa	182.27±4.72 a	301.19±7.69 a
B-1	水稻轮作后	0~20	41.36±1.31 b	135.83±14.54 b	67.88±10.06 b	163.48±5.47 ab
C-1	消毒后	0~20	69.83±2.05 a	248.20±18.22 a	174.81±7.23 a	249.05±37.85 b
A-2	夏季闲置	20~40	18.40±1.73 b	51.38±7.74 b	87.81±4.54 b	144.10±7.21 b
B-2	水稻轮作后	20~40	34.18±0.65 a	83.19±10.36 aa	76.78±6.97 b	192.95±9.08 a
C-2	消毒后	20~40	18.40±1.34 b	71.01±4.81 ab	76.78±6.97 b	144.10±7.23 b
土壤养分指标（极高标准）			>25	>120	>90	>155

编号	土壤处理	土层深度/cm	pH	盐分含量/(mg/kg)	NH₄⁺-N/(mg/kg)	NO₃^—N/(mg/kg)
A-1	夏季闲置	0~20	6.84±0.14 b	181.61±4.33 a	14.02±0.75 b	26.70±1.48 a
B-1	水稻轮作后	0~20	7.07±0.13 a	123.23±9.33 c	31.46±0.17 a	21.03±0.62 b
C-1	消毒后	0~20	6.80±0.42 b	133.77±1.58 a	25.76±9.72 a	20.32±0.31 b
A-2	夏季闲置	20~40	6.94±0.13 b	96.73±1.68 a	12.45±0.56 c	8.93 ±0.92 b
B-2	水稻轮作后	20~40	7.26±0.09 a	52.09±6.06 b	20.89±1.53 a	14.24±0.31 a
C-2	消毒后	20~40	6.76±0.09 b	92.21±4.73 a	16.69±0.12 b	14.36±0.37 a

编号	土壤处理	土层深度/cm	pH	盐分含量/(mg/kg)	NH₄⁺-N/(mg/kg)	NO₃^—N/(mg/kg)
A-1	夏季闲置	0~20	6.84±0.14 b	181.61±4.33 a	14.02±0.75 b	26.70±1.48 a
B-1	水稻轮作后	0~20	7.07±0.13 a	123.23±9.33 c	31.46±0.17 a	21.03±0.62 b
C-1	消毒后	0~20	6.80±0.42 b	133.77±1.58 a	25.76±9.72 a	20.32±0.31 b
A-2	夏季闲置	20~40	6.94±0.13 b	96.73±1.68 a	12.45±0.56 c	8.93 ±0.92 b
B-2	水稻轮作后	20~40	7.26±0.09 a	52.09±6.06 b	20.89±1.53 a	14.24±0.31 a
C-2	消毒后	20~40	6.76±0.09 b	92.21±4.73 a	16.69±0.12 b	14.36±0.37 a

编号	土壤处理	土层深度/cm	H₂O₂酶活/(U/g)	脲酶活/(U/g)	蔗糖酶活/(U/g)
A-1	夏季闲置	0~20	167.09±2.97 b	113.37±1.690 a	13.03±0.04 a
B-1	水稻轮作后	0~20	177.36±3.28 a	139.92±16.19 a	13.11±0.01 a
C-1	消毒后	0~20	162.49±5.93 b	120.09±16.41 a	11.73±0.93 a
A-2	夏季闲置	20~40	157.94±0.24 a	86.37±10.74 ab	13.03±0.02 a
B-2	水稻轮作后	20~40	156.37±8.52 ab	60.72±6.930 b	13.04±0.05 a
C-2	消毒后	20~40	144.77±0.36 b	103.37±9.45 a	8.04±1.051 b