Impact of Compound Antibiotics on Lettuce Seed Germination and Soil Enzyme Activity

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0832

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of antibiotics and changes in irrigation water source on lettuce, soil and their changes in time on the 3rd and 7th day of incubation, seed germination and stress tests were designed with the addition of 11 common antibiotics at compound contamination levels (0, 2.2, 5.5 and 11 mg/kg) and two different irrigation water sources, and samples were collected twice during germination. The results showed that most of the lettuce seed germination indices (e.g., seed germination potential, germination percentage, fresh weight, and seedling length) were not significantly different in the treatment group compared to the control group. Root length of lettuce seeds was significantly inhibited when the concentration of addition of antibiotics was 11 mg/kg and the source of irrigation water was reclaimed water. During the sampling period (3rd and 7th day of incubation), the addition of antibiotics and the change in irrigation water source did not disturb the normal functioning of the antioxidant system of lettuce seeds. Soil urease and soil alkaline phosphatase activities increased in most of the treatment groups from the 3rd to the 7th day of incubation, and there was a significant difference between some treatment groups and the control group. Soil enzyme activities were more sensitive to the addition of antibiotics than plant germination indexes and plant enzyme activities.

Key words: antibiotics, composite pollution, lettuce, seed germination, antioxidant enzyme, reclaimed water, ecological risk

GUO Jiayi, YU Yilei, LI Wenyan, LV Cuicui, LIU Chaojie. Impact of Compound Antibiotics on Lettuce Seed Germination and Soil Enzyme Activity[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(25): 52-58.

Figures/Tables 8

References 35

[1]	国家统计局. 中国卫生统计年鉴-2020[M]. 北京: 中国协和医科大学出版社, 2020.
[2]	HU X, ZHOU Q, LOU Y. Occurrence and source analysis of typical veterinary antibiotics in manure, soil, vegetables and groundwater from organic vegetable bases, northern China[J]. Environmental pollution, 2010; 158(9):2992-2998. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.05.023 pmid: 20580472
[3]	司雄元, 熊科胜, 徐慧敏, 等. 磺胺-磺胺二甲基嘧啶污染对小白菜生长和生理指标的影响及相关性分析[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018, 34(6):554-562.
[4]	徐秋桐, 鲍陈燕, 章明奎. 土壤中土霉素对12种农作物幼苗毒性阈值研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2014, 20(9):16-17.
[5]	ZIOLKOWSKA A, PIOTROWICZ-CIESLAK A I, MARGAS M, et al. Accumulation of tetracycline, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline in PEA (Pisum sativum L.)[J]. Fresenius environmental bulletin, 2015, 24(4a):1386-1391.
[6]	傅悦, 赵媛媛, 俞花美, 等. 土霉素胁迫下小白菜种子萌发对橡胶废水沼液的响应[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(6):1223-1229. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.06.026
[7]	魏瑞成, 裴燕, 政晓丽, 等. 金霉素和其代谢物胁迫对小白菜幼苗生长和抗氧化酶活性及累积效应的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2011, 20(5):102-110.
[8]	崔丙健, 高峰, 胡超, 等. 不同再生水灌溉方式对土壤-辣椒系统中细菌群落多样性及病原菌丰度的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(11):5151-5163.
[9]	李竞, 马红霞, 郑恩峰. 再生水灌溉对园林植物叶片生理及根际土壤特性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(4):70-76.
[10]	陈欣瑶, 肖祖飞, 祝妍华, 等. 铜和强力霉素复合污染对土壤微生物与酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(4):957-967.
[11]	夏军, 张永勇. 雄安新区建设水安全保障面临的问题与挑战[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(11):1199-1205.
[12]	徐桂红. 再生水滴灌对辣椒和番茄生长、产量和品质的影响[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2019.
[13]	吴文勇, 许翠平, 刘洪禄, 等. 再生水灌溉对果菜类蔬菜产量及品质的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(1):36-40.
[14]	莫宇. 再生水灌溉对氮素利用效率及土壤酶活性的影响研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2021.
[15]	焦志华, 黄占斌, 李勇, 等. 再生水灌溉对土壤性能和土壤微生物的影响研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2010, 29(2):319-323.
[16]	梁晶, 伍海兵, 张浪, 等. 雄安新区土壤肥力特征分析与评价[J]. 福建林业科技, 2023, 50(1):58-65.
[17]	贾亮亮, 田晓华, 刘华杰. 安新县地下水多组分含量分析及水质评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(14):78-83. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0134
[18]	王卫中, 迟荪琳, 徐卫红. 四环素类抗生素对土壤-生菜系统的生物效应及其迁移降解特性[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(3):1545-1558.
[19]	熊志强, 霍朝晨, 张炜然, 等. 牛粪堆肥过程中土霉素降解及其与微生物群落结构的关系[J]. 土壤与作物, 2018, 7(2):111-119.
[20]	郑曦, 张凯. 常见抗生素对玉米种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 种子, 2019, 38(11):51-56.
[21]	肖明月, 安婧, 纪占华, 等. 六种常见抗生素对小白菜种子萌发及生理特性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(10):2775-2781.
[22]	邓世杰, 马辰宇, 严岩, 等. 3种抗生素对黑麦草种子萌发的生态毒性效应[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2019, 14(3):279-285.
[23]	范惠冬, 王厚继, 李阿红, 等. 粪肥中残留抗生素对不同蔬菜种子萌发过程中胚根伸长及子叶叶绿素合成的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2022(3):54-59.
[24]	孙艳红, 贾艳霞, 刘海萍, 等. 常见抗生素对蔬菜种子萌发和活力的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2012(20):29-31.
[25]	李萌, 杨磊, 季剑南, 等. 3种抗生素对白菜种子萌发的影响[J]. 种子, 2017, 36(3):102-105.
[26]	范硕. 外源生物炭缓解抗生素对油菜胁迫的机理研究[D]. 聊城: 聊城大学, 2023.
[27]	徐秋桐, 鲍陈燕, 章明奎. 土壤抗生素污染对3种蔬菜种子萌发及根系生长的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2014, 26(9):37-43.
[28]	VITTORIA PINNA M, CASTALDI P, DEIANA P, et al. Sorption behavior of sulfamethazine on unamended and manure-amended soils and short-term impact on soil microbial community[J]. Ecotoxicology & environmental safety, 2012, 84:234-242.
[29]	周椿富, 于锐, 王翔, 等. 抗生素对不同土壤中酶活性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(11):2234-2241. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.11.015
[30]	韩洋. 再生水不同灌水水平对土壤质量及致病菌分布的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2019.
[31]	黄佳, 杨甜, 李泽林, 等. 不同浓度四环素和土霉素对生菜生长的影响及生态毒性[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2022, 28(4):995-1001.
[32]	CLEUVERS M. Aquatic ecotoxicity of pharmaceuticals including the assessment of combination effects[J]. Toxicology letters, 2003, 142:185-194. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4274(03)00068-7 pmid: 12691712
[33]	宫晓双, 安婧, 张立娜, 等. 典型抗生素复合污染对小白菜生长发育的毒理效应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(2):541-547.
[34]	张天莹. 两种典型抗生素对小麦幼苗生态毒性效应的影响[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2020.
[35]	李阳, 王文全, 吐尔逊·吐尔洪. 再生水灌溉对葡萄叶片抗氧化酶和土壤酶的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2015, 51(3):295-301.

处理	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	鲜重/g	根长/mm	苗长/mm
CK-G	72.3±25.15a	89.3±4.51a	1.1±0.37a	17.7±2.55ab	65.1±12.50a
G1	89.0±8.54a	94.7±3.79a	1.1±0.15a	17.7±1.69ab	59.7±2.01a
G2	94.0±4.58a	92.0±4.00a	1.0±0.15a	18.6±1.76a	63.4±2.50a
G3	91.7±3.06a	94.3±1.16a	1.2±0.16a	18.1±1.14ab	65.2±3.35a
CK-R	91.3±5.13a	94.7±4.16a	1.2±0.16a	17.5±3.01ab	68.9±6.82a
R1	89.7±4.51a	95.3±3.06a	1.0±0.19a	17.0±3.65ab	61.3±5.86a
R2	92.0±2.00a	92.0±4.00a	1.1±0.23a	17.8±1.12ab	63.2±1.91a
R3	83.3±7.77a	82.3±10.02a	0.9±0.21a	12.0±1.76b	55.6±7.61a

处理	发芽势/%	发芽率/%	鲜重/g	根长/mm	苗长/mm
CK-G	72.3±25.15a	89.3±4.51a	1.1±0.37a	17.7±2.55ab	65.1±12.50a
G1	89.0±8.54a	94.7±3.79a	1.1±0.15a	17.7±1.69ab	59.7±2.01a
G2	94.0±4.58a	92.0±4.00a	1.0±0.15a	18.6±1.76a	63.4±2.50a
G3	91.7±3.06a	94.3±1.16a	1.2±0.16a	18.1±1.14ab	65.2±3.35a
CK-R	91.3±5.13a	94.7±4.16a	1.2±0.16a	17.5±3.01ab	68.9±6.82a
R1	89.7±4.51a	95.3±3.06a	1.0±0.19a	17.0±3.65ab	61.3±5.86a
R2	92.0±2.00a	92.0±4.00a	1.1±0.23a	17.8±1.12ab	63.2±1.91a
R3	83.3±7.77a	82.3±10.02a	0.9±0.21a	12.0±1.76b	55.6±7.61a