Effects on Fruit Quality and Soil Environment of Continuous Cropping Strawberry: Microbial Agents Combined with Soil Conditioner

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0632

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the effects of microbial agent combined with soil conditioner on continuous cropping strawberry, ‘Mengjin’ strawberry was selected as the test material. The fruit quality of 4 generations of strawberry was systematically investigated, soil enzyme activity and microbial diversity of rhizosphere soil were determined at the end of the study. The results showed that the activities of acid phosphatase, urease, sucrase and catalase of T₃ (microbial agent combined with soil conditioner) were increased by 49.9%, 40.7%, 54.4% and 80.5% respectively compared with the control. In the 1-4 generations of strawberry, the soluble solids of treatment T₃ were increased by 8.36%, 7.52%, 8.18% and 7.99% respectively; the solid acid ratio were increased by 14.14%, 12.78%, 14.55% and 15.60% respectively; the contents of Vc were increased by 7.30%, 7.68%, 6.02% and 6.76% respectively. Compared with the control, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota and Firmicutes treated with T₂ (microbial agent only) were increased by 12.71%, 173.38% and 297.14% respectively, and those treated with T₃ increased by 17.23%, 56.18% and 180.0% respectively. This study provided a reference basis for the application of microbial agents and soil conditioner on continuous cropping soil.

Key words: microbial agents, soil conditioner, quality of strawberry, enzyme activity

WANG Lili, ZHU Shijun, SHEN Lan, JIN Shuquan. Effects on Fruit Quality and Soil Environment of Continuous Cropping Strawberry: Microbial Agents Combined with Soil Conditioner[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(23): 39-44.

Figures/Tables 5

References 28

[6]	刘继培, 刘唯一, 周婕, 等. 施用腐植酸和生物肥对草莓品质、产量及土壤农化性状的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2015, 32(1):54-59.
[7]	COTA L V, MAFFIA L A, MIZUBUTI E S G, et al. Biological control of strawberry gray mold by clonostachys rosea under field conditions[J]. Biological control, 2008, 46(3):515-522. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.04.023 URL
[8]	谢巧娟. 不同有机肥对草莓生长结果的影响[J]. 中国南方果树, 2017, 46(3):135-138.
[9]	LAL R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition[J]. Food security, 2009, 1(1):45-57. doi: 10.1007/s12571-009-0009-z URL
[10]	王丽丽, 朱诗君, 狄蕊, 等. 微生物菌肥菌剂对番茄生长发育和产量品质的影响[J]. 土壤与作物, 2022, 11(1):88-95.
[11]	温丹, 王晓, 孙凯宁, 等. 不同形态微生物菌剂对不结球白菜生长和品质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(5):1777-1782. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202105.021
[12]	侯乐梅, 孟瑞青, 乜兰春, 等. 不同微生物菌剂对基质酶活性和番茄产量及品质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(8):2520-2526. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201608.015
[13]	刘一江, 都林娜, 康华靖. 微生物菌剂对水稻植株形状、产量及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2019, 25(6):39-42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2019.06.010
[14]	索琳娜, 马杰, 刘宝存, 等. 土壤调节剂应用现状及施用风险研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(6):1141-1149.
[15]	孙学武, 于天一, 沈浦, 等. 土壤调理剂对花生产量品质和土壤理化形状的影响[J]. 2018, 47(1):43-46.
[16]	戴黎, 杜延全, 朱建强. 几种土壤调理剂改良大棚种植草莓土壤的效果[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(2):276-282.
[17]	黄文茂, 易伦, 彭思云, 等. PGPR复合微生物菌剂对辣椒生长及根际土壤微生物结构的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(1):195-201.
[18]	王丽丽, 袁赛飞, 吴凯. 一株用于防治番茄青枯病的解淀粉芽孢杆菌及其应用[P]. 中国, 3458278:2016-5-20.
[19]	CHEN Y, XU Y, ZHOU T, et al. Biocontrol of fusarium wilt disease in strawberries using bioorganic fertilizer fortified with bacillus licheniformis x-1 and bacillus methylotrophic us z-1[J]. Biotech, 2020, 10(2):1-14. doi: 10.3390/biotech10010001 URL
[20]	KHALIL N H, AGAH R J. Effect of chemical, organic and bio fertilization on growth and yield of strawberry plant[J]. Int’l journal of advances in chemical engg& biological sciences, 2017, 4(1):5.
[1]	姜洁, 龚一富, 郭蓉, 等. 海藻生物肥对草莓产量和品质的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(5):1032-1037. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.05.1032
[2]	谭昌华, 代汉平, 雷家军. 世界草莓生产与贸易现状及发展趋势(上)[J]. 世界农业, 2003, 45(5):10-12.
[3]	宁波市统计局. 2010年宁波统计年鉴[M]. 宁波: 中国统计出版社, 2010:144-145.
[4]	张庆华, 曾祥国, 韩永超, 等. 土壤熏蒸剂棉隆和生物菌肥对草莓连作土壤真菌多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2018, 45(5):1048-1060.
[5]	CAO K, WANG S. Autotoxicity and soil sickness of strawberry(fragaria×ananassa)[J]. Allelopathy journal, 2007, 20(1):103-114.
[21]	韩海蓉, 李屹, 陈来生, 等. 设施辣椒连作对土壤理化性状、酶活性及微生物区系的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3):237-242.
[22]	张美存, 程田, 多立安, 等. 微生物菌剂对草坪植物高茅草生长与土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 14(37):4763-4769.
[23]	胡亚杰, 韦建玉, 张纪利, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌对植烟土壤养分含量与酶活性的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2019, 33(6):561-566.
[24]	许景钢, 孙涛, 李嵩. 我国微生物肥料的研发及其在农业生产中的应用[J]. 作物杂志, 2016(1):1-6.
[25]	范丙全. 我国生物肥料研究与应用进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6):1602-1613.
[26]	李忠, 江立庚, 唐荣华, 等. 连作对花生土壤酶活性、养分含量和植株产量的影响[J]. 土壤, 2018, 50(3):491-497.
[27]	TU C, WEI J, GUAN F, et al. Biochar and bacteria inoculated biochar enhanced Cd and Cu immobilization and enzymatic activity in a polluted soil[J]. Environment international, 2020, 137:76-105.
[28]	辛冰牧, 刘亚, 朱德斌, 等. 应用Illumina MiSeq高通量测序技术分析活性银离子处理饮用水微生物多样性[J]. 载人航天, 2017, 23(6):824-828.

指标	处理	第1代果	第2代果	第3代果	第4代果
可溶性固形物/%	T₁	11.3±0.1b	11.0±0.2ab	10.8±0.2c	10.8±0.3b
	T₂	11.6±0.1ab	11.2±0.2ab	11.2±0.2b	11.1±0.3a
	T₃	11.7±0.2a	11.4±0.6a	11.5±0.1a	11.3±0.2a
	CK	10.8±0.3c	10.6±0.2b	10.6±0.1c	10.4±0.1c
可滴定酸/%	T₁	0.71±0.02ab	0.71±0.01a	0.70±0.02ab	0.71±0.02a
	T₂	0.69±0.02bc	0.66±0.04a	0.68±0.01b	0.68±0.03ab
	T₃	0.69±0.01c	0.67±0.02a	0.68±0.01b	0.66±0.02b
	CK	0.73±0.01a	0.71±0.01a	0.72±0.01a	0.71±0.01a
固酸比	T₁	15.9±0.4b	15.5±0.4ab	15.1±0.7b	15.2±0.6bc
	T₂	16.7±0.4a	17.0±1.3a	16.3±0.2a	16.3±1.0ab
	T₃	16.9±0.3a	17.0±0.4a	16.9±0.2a	17.0±0.3a
	CK	14.8±0.2c	15.1±0.4b	14.8±0.4b	14.7±0.2c
Vc/(μg/mL)	T₁	86.7±3.01b	92.2±2.50bc	91.0±1.05c	90.4±1.22c
	T₂	91.7±0.95a	96.4±2.17ab	93.3±0.36b	93.5±1.30b
	T₃	93.1±2.12a	97.3±2.32a	96.9±0.47a	96.8±1.42a
	CK	86.7±1.06b	90.3±0.40c	91.4±1.25c	90.7±1.16c

指标	处理	第1代果	第2代果	第3代果	第4代果
可溶性固形物/%	T₁	11.3±0.1b	11.0±0.2ab	10.8±0.2c	10.8±0.3b
	T₂	11.6±0.1ab	11.2±0.2ab	11.2±0.2b	11.1±0.3a
	T₃	11.7±0.2a	11.4±0.6a	11.5±0.1a	11.3±0.2a
	CK	10.8±0.3c	10.6±0.2b	10.6±0.1c	10.4±0.1c
可滴定酸/%	T₁	0.71±0.02ab	0.71±0.01a	0.70±0.02ab	0.71±0.02a
	T₂	0.69±0.02bc	0.66±0.04a	0.68±0.01b	0.68±0.03ab
	T₃	0.69±0.01c	0.67±0.02a	0.68±0.01b	0.66±0.02b
	CK	0.73±0.01a	0.71±0.01a	0.72±0.01a	0.71±0.01a
固酸比	T₁	15.9±0.4b	15.5±0.4ab	15.1±0.7b	15.2±0.6bc
	T₂	16.7±0.4a	17.0±1.3a	16.3±0.2a	16.3±1.0ab
	T₃	16.9±0.3a	17.0±0.4a	16.9±0.2a	17.0±0.3a
	CK	14.8±0.2c	15.1±0.4b	14.8±0.4b	14.7±0.2c
Vc/(μg/mL)	T₁	86.7±3.01b	92.2±2.50bc	91.0±1.05c	90.4±1.22c
	T₂	91.7±0.95a	96.4±2.17ab	93.3±0.36b	93.5±1.30b
	T₃	93.1±2.12a	97.3±2.32a	96.9±0.47a	96.8±1.42a
	CK	86.7±1.06b	90.3±0.40c	91.4±1.25c	90.7±1.16c

土壤酶种类	酸性磷酸酶/ [μmol/(h·g)]	脲酶/ [mg/(d·g)]	蔗糖酶/ [mg/(d·g)]	过氧化氢酶/ [mmol/(h·g)]
T₁	0.75±0.02c	0.34±0.05bc	3.63±0.44bc	0.30±0.04b
T₂	0.81±0.04b	0.40±0.04ab	4.40±0.26ab	0.34±0.02ab
T₃	0.89±0.02a	0.44±0.02a	5.20±0.59a	0.38±0.04a
CK	0.60±0.03d	0.32±0.03c	3.37±0.12c	0.21±0.02c

土壤酶种类	酸性磷酸酶/ [μmol/(h·g)]	脲酶/ [mg/(d·g)]	蔗糖酶/ [mg/(d·g)]	过氧化氢酶/ [mmol/(h·g)]
T₁	0.75±0.02c	0.34±0.05bc	3.63±0.44bc	0.30±0.04b
T₂	0.81±0.04b	0.40±0.04ab	4.40±0.26ab	0.34±0.02ab
T₃	0.89±0.02a	0.44±0.02a	5.20±0.59a	0.38±0.04a
CK	0.60±0.03d	0.32±0.03c	3.37±0.12c	0.21±0.02c

指标	Chao	Observed species	Simpson	Shannon
T₁	1441.4±27.9a	1438.7±29.9a	0.986±0.01b	9.11±0.05b
T₂	1420.7±38.8a	1448.1±21.0a	0.993±0.00a	9.31±0.05a
T₃	1454.3±38.1a	1466.4±21.7a	0.994±0.00a	9.31±0.05a
CK	1437.9±18.9a	1480.9±19.5a	0.983±0.01b	9.09±0.02b