Impact of Microbial Agent Broadcast Application on Microbial Community Structure of Saline-alkali Soil in Shizuishan of Ningxia

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1189

Abstract

Abstract:

Saline-alkali soil is a reserved cultivated land resource with high value. The soil microbial community can be used as one of the biological evaluation indicators to measure the soil quality. Illumina MiSeq technology was used to detect the ITS and 16S rRNA sequence of the samples. The regulating effects of two microbial agents on the micro-ecological environment of saline-alkali soil in Shizuishan of Ningxia were analyzed. The results showed that the broadcast application of microbial agent YF and JF could reduce the pH of saline-alkali soil and improve the nutrient status. In addition, the richness index, diversity index and evenness index of fungal and bacterial communities increased significantly. The relative abundances of Fusarium and Aspergillus in fungal community were reduced by more than 40%. The relative abundances of Arthrobacter, Sphingomonas and Nocardioides in bacterial community were increased above 8.0%. The broadcast application of microbial agents reduced the operational taxonomic units (OTU) number of soil fungal and bacterial communities compared to the empty control. The environmental factors, including soil nitrate nitrogen, organic matter, K, C, N, P and pH, had significant effect on microbial community of saline-alkali soil. Therefore, the broadcast application of the two microbial agents can improve the saline-alkali soil quality as well as the soil micro-ecological environment in Shizuishan of Ningxia.

Key words: microbial agent, broadcast application, Shizuishan in Ningxia, saline-alkali soil, microbial community structure

CLC Number:

S476

SHA Yuexia, HUANG Zeyang, WEI Zhaoqing. Impact of Microbial Agent Broadcast Application on Microbial Community Structure of Saline-alkali Soil in Shizuishan of Ningxia[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(34): 82-90.

Figures/Tables 15

References 40

[1]	王遵亲. 中国盐渍土[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1993.
[2]	边荣荣, 孙兆军, 李向辉, 等. 西北盐碱地改良利用技术研究现状及展望[J]. 宁夏工程技术, 2016, 15(4):404-408.
[3]	PANDA A K, DAS A B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2005, 60(3):324-349. pmid: 15590011
[4]	韩亚琦, 唐宇丹, 张少英, 等. 盐胁迫抑制槲栎2变种光合作用的机理研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2007, 27(3):583-587.
[5]	宋日, 吴春胜, 牟金明, 等. 深松土对玉米根系生长发育的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2000, 22(4):73-75,80.
[6]	李芙荣, 杨劲松, 吴亚坤, 等. 不同秸秆埋深对苏北滩涂盐渍土水盐动态变化的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(6):1101-1107.
[7]	秦都林, 王双磊, 刘艳慧, 等. 滨海盐碱地棉花秸秆还田对土壤理化性质及棉花产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(7):1030-1042.
[8]	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.
[9]	王景艳, 邓力群, 隆小华, 等. 滨海盐溃化土壤引种油葵的试验研究[J]. 土壤, 2008, 40(1):121-124.
[10]	MUNNS R, JAMES R A, XU B, et al. Wheat grain yield on saline soils is improved by an ancestral Na⁺transporter gene[J]. Nature biotechnology, 2012, 30:360-364. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2120 URL
[11]	鲁凯珩, 金杰人, 肖明. 微生物肥料在盐碱土壤中的应用展望[J]. 微生物学通报, 2019, 46(7):1695-1705.
[12]	沙月霞, 王晨曦, 邢敏, 等. 微生物菌剂拌土对玉米农田土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(5):138-142,146.
[13]	LIA H S, LEI P, PANGA X, et al. Enhanced tolerance to salt stress in canola (Brassica napus L.) seedlings inoculated with the halotolerant Enterobacter cloacae HSNJ4[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2017, 119:26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.05.033 URL
[14]	SARKAR A, GHOSH P K, PRAMANIK K, et al. A halotolerant Enterobacter sp. displaying ACC deaminase activity promotes rice seedling growth under salt stress[J]. Research in microbiology, 2018, 169:20-32. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2017.08.005 URL
[15]	沙月霞, 邢敏, 李明洋, 等. 微生物菌剂拌土对玉米茎基腐病的预防和促生效果[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(4):141-144.
[16]	余美, 芮孝芳. 宁夏盐碱地改良利用研究进展[J]. 水利水电科技进展, 2006, 26(6):85-90.
[17]	吴晓卫, 付瑞敏, 郭彦钊, 等. 耐盐碱微生物复合菌剂的选育、复配及其对盐碱地的改良效果[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(6):346-349.
[18]	苟宇波. 宁夏盐碱地不同改良模式对土壤理化性质和植物功能性状的影响[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2017.
[19]	NADEEM S M, AHMAD M, ZAHIR Z A, et al. The role of mycorrhizae and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in improving crop productivity under stressful environments[J]. Biotechnology advance, 2014, 32:429-448. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.12.005 URL
[20]	侯景清, 王旭, 陈玉海, 等. 乳酸菌复合制剂对盐碱地改良及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(4):710-718.
[21]	范娜, 彭之东, 白文斌, 等. 微生物菌剂对土壤酶活性及高粱生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(2):185-192. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0484
[22]	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.
[23]	BAI R, WANG J T, DENG Y, et al. Microbial community and functional structure significantly varied among distinct types of paddy soils but responded differently along gradients of soil depth layers[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2017, 8:945. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00945 pmid: 28611747
[24]	水燕, 徐增洪, 刘国锋. 不同土壤深度对宁夏石嘴山盐碱地细菌菌群多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(10):3597-3606.
[25]	代金霞, 田平雅, 张莹, 等. 银北盐渍化土壤中6 种耐盐植物根际细菌群落结构及其多样性[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(8):2705-2714.
[26]	李明, 毕江涛, 王静. 宁夏不同地区盐碱化土壤细菌群落多样性分布特征及其影响因子[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(4):1316-1330.
[27]	沙月霞, 李明洋, 伍顺华, 等. 微生物菌剂拌土对盐碱地玉米茎基腐病的预防及促生效果[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(5):75-82.
[28]	高雪峰, 韩国栋, 张国刚. 短花针茅荒漠草原土壤微生物群落组成及结构[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(15):5129-5136.
[29]	张爱梅, 韩雪英, 王嘉, 等. 马衔山中国沙棘根瘤内共生细菌多样性研究[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(1):294-301.
[30]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:25-108.
[31]	ZHONG W, GU T, WANG W, et al. The effects of mineral fertilizer and organic manure on soil microbial community and diversity[J]. Plant and soil, 2010, 326:511-522. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-9988-y URL
[32]	WU Y P, LI Y P, ZHENG C Y, et al. Organic amendment application influence soil organism abundance in saline alkali soil[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2013, 54:32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.10.006 URL
[33]	段雪娇. 微生物菌剂对水稻土土壤微生物数量及酶活性的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2015.
[34]	李凤霞, 王学琴, 郭永忠, 等. 宁夏不同类型盐渍化土壤微生物区系及多样性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(5):107-111.
[35]	YANG J, MA L A, JIANG H C, et al. Salinity shapes microbial diversity and community structure in surface sediments of the Qinghai- Tibet an Lakes[J]. Scientific reports, 2016, 6:25078. doi: 10.1038/srep25078 URL
[36]	柴晓彤, 顾金凤, 毛亮, 等. 微生物菌肥对盐渍化土壤中盐分离子及有机质含量的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2017(1):78-84.
[37]	ADEKUNLE V A J, DAFIEWHARE H B, AJIBODE O F. Microbia population and diversity as influenced by soil pH and organic matter in different forest ecosystems[J]. Pakistan journal of biological sciences, 2005, 8:1478-1484. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2005.1478.1484 URL
[38]	王晶晶, 樊伟, 崔珺, 等. 氮磷添加对亚热带常绿阔叶林土壤微生物群落特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(24):8361-8373.
[39]	MBARKI S, CERDÀ A, BRESTIC M, et al. Vineyard compost supplemented with Trichoderma harzianum T78 improve saline soil quality[J]. Land degradation & development, 2017, 28(3):1028-1037 doi: 10.1002/ldr.2554 URL
[40]	SANDHYA V, ALI S Z. The production of exopolysaccharide by Pseudomonas putida GAP-P45 under various abiotic stress conditions and its role in soil aggregation[J]. Microbiology, 2015, 84(4):512-519. doi: 10.1134/S0026261715040153 URL

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)
JF	8.00b	19.40±0.34a	326.00±0.19b	0.79±0.01a	1.06±0.02a	3.97±0.49a	111.00±9.64ab
YF	8.00b	17.40±0.54b	359.33±0.06a	0.73±0.02b	1.06±0.02a	4.11±0.28a	131.83±16.65a
CK	8.78±0.08a	16.50±0.28b	288.33±0.19c	0.67±0.03c	1.05±0.05a	2.16±0.41b	134.73±8.97a

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)
JF	8.00b	19.40±0.34a	326.00±0.19b	0.79±0.01a	1.06±0.02a	3.97±0.49a	111.00±9.64ab
YF	8.00b	17.40±0.54b	359.33±0.06a	0.73±0.02b	1.06±0.02a	4.11±0.28a	131.83±16.65a
CK	8.78±0.08a	16.50±0.28b	288.33±0.19c	0.67±0.03c	1.05±0.05a	2.16±0.41b	134.73±8.97a

处理	丰富度Chao	多样性Simpson	覆盖度	均匀度Simpsoneven	序列数量	OTU数量
CK	161±2.25b	0.08±0.02a	1	0.08±0.01a	69031±1878.61a	497±9.54a
YF	164±3.02a	0.04±0.31b	1	0.05±0.02b	57374±8036.22a	541±74.41a
JF	171±3.37a	0.05±0.26b	1	0.06±0.02b	70920±1244.29a	456±17.13a

处理	丰富度Chao	多样性Simpson	覆盖度	均匀度Simpsoneven	序列数量	OTU数量
CK	161±2.25b	0.08±0.02a	1	0.08±0.01a	69031±1878.61a	497±9.54a
YF	164±3.02a	0.04±0.31b	1	0.05±0.02b	57374±8036.22a	541±74.41a
JF	171±3.37a	0.05±0.26b	1	0.06±0.02b	70920±1244.29a	456±17.13a

处理	丰富度Chao	多样性Simpson	覆盖度	均匀度Simpsoneven	序列数量	OTU数量
CK	796±16.91b	0.02±0.03a	1	0.11±0.01a	57581±3755.83a	3066±29.48a
YF	822±23.15a	0.01±0.04b	1	0.09±0.02b	53018±3844.69a	2694±37.56b
JF	810±7.36a	0.01±0.02b	1	0.09±0.02b	47762±2258.17a	2773±178.65ab