Effects of Microbial Organic Fertilizers on Yield and Quality of Taro and Soil Microbial Populations

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0070

Abstract

Abstract:

Microbial organic fertilizers have gradually attracted more attention in improving crop quality and yield. To explore the effects of microbial organic fertilizer on stress resistance, yield and quality of taro can provide a scientific basis for the application of biological bacterial fertilizer in taro production. In this study, the ‘Tanbu Binlang’ taro was used as the material, and four different fertilization treatments were designed by applying microbial organic fertilizer and compound fertilizer. Indicators related to yield, nutrient quality and antioxidant activity were investigated. Moreover, in-depth exploration of the distribution and the metabolic regulation characteristics of soil microbial populations were also studied. The results showed that compared with the traditional fertilization method (CK) of fermented and decomposed peanut bran, applying microbial organic fertilizer with top-dressing of 75 kg/hm²potassium sulfate fertilizer (T1) promoted the contents of nutrients such as Vc, total phenols, total flavonoids, amylose and crude fiber, as well as the contents of phosphorus in taro. Applying microbial organic fertilizers with top-dressing of 150 kg/hm²potassium sulfate fertilizers (T3) had the highest yield, and Vc, total phenols, amylose, crude fiber and total potassium contents. Applying microbial organic fertilizers with top-dressing of 112.5 kg/hm²potassium sulfate fertilizers (T2) had the highest total nitrogen and total phosphorus contents, as well as the highest SOD and CAT activities and MDA content. In addition, applying microbial organic fertilizers could effectively promote the abundance of Welchiella, Bacillus and Candida acidophilus in soil, facilitate nucleotide metabolism and DNA recombination, replication and repair efficiency, and improve protein translation efficiency, which was beneficial to amino acid metabolism and yield of taro. Therefore, this study emphasized that during the production process of taro, the application of appropriate amount of microbial organic fertilizer as the base fertilizer and appropriate amount of potassium sulfate fertilizer as top-dressing could be beneficial to improving the yield and quality of taro.

Key words: taro, physiological quality, different fertilizer treatments, soil microorganisms, microbiome

GUO Juxian, LI Guihua, FU Mei, LIU Xianming, LUO Wenlong, LUO Shanwei, LIU Yutao. Effects of Microbial Organic Fertilizers on Yield and Quality of Taro and Soil Microbial Populations[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(3): 20-27.

Figures/Tables 9

References 35

[1]	李莎, 王敬涵, 戴瑞, 等. 芋头淀粉及其提取工艺的研究进展[J]. 食品工程, 2019(3):6-9.
[2]	段文倩, 孙河龙, 金书情, 等. 中国绿色药膳房-芋头的药食功效研究[J]. 中西医结合心血管病电子杂志, 2018, 6(21):26.
[3]	常蕾, 汪翔. 世界芋头产业发展现状综述[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(2):57-59.
[4]	戴修纯, 罗燕羽, 黄绍力, 等. 广东省芋头产业现状与发展对策[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(6):126-135.
[5]	黄新芳, 柯卫东, 刘义满, 等. 芋优异种质资源鉴定评价研究[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2013(18):85-91.
[6]	李庆典, 杨永平, 李颖, 等. 中国芋种质资源的遗传多样性及分类研究[J]. 湖南农业大学学报, 2004, 30(5):424-428.
[7]	于继英, 田子罡, 徐美娟, 等. 我国芋头资源分布和饲用情况[J]. 当代畜牧, 2018(33):22-26.
[8]	廖玉琴, 曾小梅, 沈清标. “六月红”芋适宜的有机肥和氮钾肥施用量试验[J]. 福建稻麦科技, 2017, 35(4):28-31.
[9]	杨孔涛, 丁心慧, 陈发忠, 等. 微生物菌剂对作物产量及品质的影响[J]. 湖北农机化. 2018, 209(8):51-52.
[10]	谢修志, 谢向坚. 光合细菌菌液对蔬菜品质影响的初报[J]. 广东农业科学, 2009(12):86-87.
[11]	彭桂香, 张茜, 杨芳, 等. 光合细菌sbg11培养条件的优化及施用于生菜上的效果[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012, 39(23):78-81.
[12]	杨芳, 田俊岭, 杨盼盼, 等. 高效光合细菌菌剂对番茄品质、土壤肥力及微生物特性的影响[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2014(1):49-54.
[13]	王涛, 乔卫花, 李玉奇, 等. 轮作和微生物菌肥对黄瓜连作土壤理化性状及生物活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2011, 42(3):578-583.
[14]	马慧媛. 微生物菌剂施用对设施茄子根际土壤养分和细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(1):140-150.
[15]	高逸, 杨悦, 易欣欣, 等. 设施生菜种植与T1菌肥处理对土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2020, 25(6):63-67.
[16]	李静, 聂继云, 李海飞, 等. Folin-酚法测定水果及其制品中总多酚含量的条件[J]. 果树学报, 2008(1):126-131.
[17]	宋元清, 王艳平, 毛远菁. 分光光度法测定芦笋中总黄酮的含量[J]. 化学分析计量, 2005, 14(4):52-53.
[18]	王春霞, 孙领霞, 刘满英. 双波长分光光度法测定河北省多种粮豆作物中直、支链淀粉含量[J]. 光谱实验室, 1999, 16(3):259-261.
[19]	方鑫豹, 庞荣丽, 郭琳琳, 等.NY/T 2017—2011.植物中氮、磷、钾的测定[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011:1-5.
[20]	何毓光. 芋污斑病的综合防治技术[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2021(3):41-42.
[21]	陈慧君. 微生物肥料菌种应用与效果分析[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2013.
[22]	VESSEY J K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers[J]. Plant and soil, 2003, 255(2):571-586. doi: 10.1023/A:1026037216893 URL
[23]	肖树涛. 嘉有黄腐酸微生物菌剂在冬小麦上的应用研究[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2019(2):46-48.
[24]	耿丽平, 李小磊, 赵全利, 等. 添加微生物菌剂对小麦产量及土壤生物学性状的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017(5):50-54.
[25]	田俊岭, 贺广生, 王军, 等. 生物菌肥对盆栽烟草品质的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2016, 43(7):11-17.
[26]	WANG D, YI W, ZHOU Y, et al. Intercropping and N application enhance soil dissolved organic carbon concentration with complicated chemical composition[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2021, 210:104979. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.104979 URL
[27]	LUO R, KUZYAKOV Y, LIU D, et al. Nutrient addition reduces carbon sequestration in a tibetangrassland soil: disentangling microbial and physical controls[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2020, 144(2):107764. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107764 URL
[28]	LIN Y, YE G, KUZYAKOVY, et al. Long-term manure application increases soil organic matterand aggregation, and alters microbialcommunity structure and keystone taxa[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2019, 134:187-196. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.03.030 URL
[29]	MA C, CHEN X, ZHANG J, et al. Linking chemical structure of dissolved organic carbon and microbial community composition with submergence-induced soil organic carbon mineralization[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 692:930-939. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.286 URL
[30]	LIC, LIU X, MENG M, et al. The use of biology ecomicroplates to compare the effects of sulfuric and nitric acid rain on the metabolic functions of soil microbial communities in a subtropical plantation within the Yangtze River Delta region[J]. Catena, 2021, 198(3):105039. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.105039 URL
[31]	WANG XY, BIAN Q, JIANG Y, et al. Organic amendments drive shifts in microbial community structure and keystone taxa which increase C mineralization across aggregate size classes[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2021, 153:108062. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108062 URL
[32]	WANG D, ZHAO P, XIANG R, et al. Nitrogen fertilization overweighs intercropping in promotion of dissolved organic carbon concentration and complexity in potato-cropped soil[J]. Plant and soil, 2021,462.
[33]	张晓冰, 杨星勇, 杨永柱, 等. 芽孢杆菌促进植物生长机制研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(3):73-80.
[34]	崔晓, 徐艳霞, 刘俊杰, 等. 芽孢杆菌在农业生产中的应用[J]. 土壤与作物, 2019, 8(1):32-42.
[35]	张丽娟, 曲继松, 郭文忠, 等. 微生物菌肥对黄河上游地区设施土壤微生物及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2014(5):32-36,99.

处理	2月25日基肥	4月17日追肥	6月17日追肥
CK	花生麸3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥75
T1	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥75
T2	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥112.5
T3	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥150

处理	2月25日基肥	4月17日追肥	6月17日追肥
CK	花生麸3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥75
T1	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥75
T2	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥112.5
T3	微生物有机肥3750	复合肥300	复合肥375，硫酸钾肥150

处理	地上部分重/kg	单株母芋重/kg	单株子芋总质量/kg	健康芋头比例/%	母芋产量/(g/hm²)	母芋密度/(g/cm³)
CK1	0.545±0.156ab	1.072±0.258a	0.735±0.261a	80.2%	15436.8±0.435bB	0.926±0.133a
T1	0.308±0.066bc	1.123±0.206a	0.588±0.095a	95.5%	19203.3±0.163aA	0.994±0.120a
T2	0.310±0.122bc	1.153±0.264a	0.693±0.208a	96.0%	19923.84±0.454aA	0.977±0.106a
T3	0.215±0.073c	1.238±0.143a	0.697±0.226a	95.0%	21392.64±0.350aA	0.891±0.072ab

处理	地上部分重/kg	单株母芋重/kg	单株子芋总质量/kg	健康芋头比例/%	母芋产量/(g/hm²)	母芋密度/(g/cm³)
CK1	0.545±0.156ab	1.072±0.258a	0.735±0.261a	80.2%	15436.8±0.435bB	0.926±0.133a
T1	0.308±0.066bc	1.123±0.206a	0.588±0.095a	95.5%	19203.3±0.163aA	0.994±0.120a
T2	0.310±0.122bc	1.153±0.264a	0.693±0.208a	96.0%	19923.84±0.454aA	0.977±0.106a
T3	0.215±0.073c	1.238±0.143a	0.697±0.226a	95.0%	21392.64±0.350aA	0.891±0.072ab

处理	Vc含量/ (mg/100 g FW)	总糖含量/ (mg/g DW)	总酚含量/ (mg/g DW)	总黄酮含量/ (mg/g DW)	直链淀粉含量/ (mg/g DW)	支链淀粉含量/ (mg/g DW)	粗纤维含量/ %
CK	5.50±0.23b	625.77±4.79b	1.85±0.08c	1.35±0.03a	55.06±0.35c	346.63±2.72c	1.39±0.11c
T1	7.15±0.45a	604.58±3.68a	2.08±0.027b	1.39±0.01a	61.78±1.11b	314.59±2.54a	1.67±0.02b
T2	5.40±0.48b	600.46±7.51b	2.19±0.03ab	1.42±0.12a	59.89±1.87b	339.49±4.71c	1.79±0.05ab
T3	7.43±0.16a	605.32±4.66b	2.35±0.13a	1.38±0.07a	73.64±1.63a	308.90±2.79b	1.93±0.12a