Effect of 5 Strains of Nitrogen-fixing Bacteria on Maize Growth and Antistress Enzyme in Different Saline-alkali Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0121

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the effects of nitrogen-fixing bacteria on maize growth and antistress enzyme in different saline-alkali soils, five nitrogen-fixing bacteria were selected, including Bacillus stratosphericus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus aerophilus and Serratia liquefaciens, and the effects of nitrogen-fixing bacteria on the growth, root morphology and antistress enzyme activities of maize were studied by pot experiments using the liquid medium without inoculation of nitrogen-fixing bacteria as the control. The results showed that the five nitrogen-fixing bacteria could increase the growth and root morphology indexes of maize, and promote the dry matter accumulation of maize in saline-alkali soil. Compared with the control, the aboveground dry matter of the five nitrogen-fixing bacteria was increased by 22.22%, 62.96%, 44.44%, 40.74% and 37.04% in mild saline-alkali soil, respectively. The aboveground dry matter in severe saline-alkali soil was increased by 29.41%, 29.41%, 41.18%, 23.53% and 11.76%, respectively. The five nitrogen-fixing bacteria increased the activities of antioxidant enzymes such as CAT, SOD and POD in maize in mild and severe saline-alkali soil, and significantly decreased the content of malondialdehyde (MDA). A comprehensive analysis of the membership function method showed that Bacillus subtilis had the best effect on the growth promotion and stress resistance of maize in mild saline-alkali soil, while Bacillus cereus had the best effect on growth promotion and stress resistance of maize in severe saline-alkali soil. The study indicates that the application of nitrogen-fixing bacteria can effectively enhance the adaptability and productivity of maize in saline-alkali soils, holding significant practical value.

Key words: nitrogen-fixing bacteria, saline-alkali soil, maize growth, antioxidant enzyme activity, root morphology, growth promotion

JI Yan, ZHANG Wenming, LIU Jizhi, HAN Xuyan, LI Mei. Effect of 5 Strains of Nitrogen-fixing Bacteria on Maize Growth and Antistress Enzyme in Different Saline-alkali Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(18): 14-21.

Figures/Tables 7

References 49

[1]	陈文涛, 郭丽琢, 剡斌, 等. 改良剂对盐碱地燕麦生长及土壤物理性状的调控效应[J/OL]. 甘肃农业大学学报,1-12[2024-04-18]. http://kns.cnki.net/ kcms/detail/62.1055.s.20231205.1903.130.html.
[2]	杨涌, 王连祥, 张永珊, 等. 菏泽市盐碱地红花规范化种植技术[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2023, 614(2):195-196,202.
[3]	张颖. 水产养殖治理盐碱地现状调查及对策研究[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2022.
[4]	张彬, 杨宁, 王迪, 等. 国内外盐碱地改良技术比较及对吉林省的启示[J]. 现代营销(上旬刊), 2023(3):113-115.
[5]	HASSANI A, AZAPAGIC A, SHOKRI N. Global predictions of primary soil salinization under changing climate in the 21st century[J]. Nature communications, 2021, 12(1):6663-6680. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26907-3 pmid: 34795219
[6]	郭世乾, 崔增团, 高飞, 等. 甘肃省盐碱耕地治理模式与实施路径[J]. 甘肃农业, 2023(4):14-18.
[7]	马永辉, 刘娟. 宁夏引黄灌区盐碱地治理措施研究进展[J]. 农业与技术, 2023, 43(16):56-59.
[8]	MEENA M D, YADAV R K, NARJARY B, et al. Municipal solid waste (MSW): strategies to improve salt affected soil sustainability: a review[J]. Waste management, 2019,84:38-53.
[9]	王健, 李傲瑞. 我国盐碱地改良技术综述[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(21):182-183.
[10]	ZHAO W, ZHOU Q, TIAN Z, et al. Apply biochar to ameliorate soda saline-alkali land, improve soil function and increase corn nutrient availability in the Songnen Plain[J]. Science of the total environment, 2020,722:137428.
[11]	ZHAO Y G. Combined application of a straw layer and flue gas desulphurization gypsum to reduce soil salinity and alkalinity[J]. Pedosphere, 2020, 30(2):10.
[12]	杨劲松, 姚荣江, 王相平, 等. 中国盐渍土研究:历程、现状与展望[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(1):10-27.
[13]	OMARI R A, ADDO E S, MATEY D M, et al. Influence of organicinputs with mineral fertilizer on maize yield and soil microbialbiomass dynamics in different seasons in a tropical acrisol[J]. Environmental sustainability, 2020, 3(6):45-47.
[14]	黄铖程, 刘景辉, 杨彦明. 生物菌肥对盐碱地燕麦生理特性及土壤速效养分的影响[J]. 北方农业学报, 2018, 46(5):57-61.
[15]	王磊. 微生物堆肥法改良黄河三角洲盐碱地作用的研究[J]. 绿色科技, 2019(13):120-123.
[16]	李欣. 微生物菌剂对盐碱胁迫下玉米幼苗的促生效果研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2023.
[17]	秦宝军. 高效固氮菌选育与土壤培肥研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2010.
[18]	毛晓洁, 王新民, 赵英, 等. 多功能固氮菌筛选及其在土壤生态修复中的应用[J]. 生物技术通报, 2017, 33(10):148-155. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2017-0678
[19]	BARUA S, TRIPATHI S, CHAKRABORTY A, et al. Characterization and crop production efficiency of diazotrophic bacterial isolates from coastal saline soils[J]. Microbiological research, 2012, 167(2):95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2011.04.001 pmid: 21596539
[20]	卢秋雁, 孔慧清, 陶家法, 等. 耐氨固氮菌对蔬菜作物生长的促进作用研究[J]. 土壤与环境, 1999(1):50-52.
[21]	FISCHER R A, EDMEADES G O. Breeding and cereal yield progress[J]. Crop science, 2010,50:S-85-S-98.
[22]	王慧桥. 滨海盐渍土优势固氮菌的分离鉴定及其对小麦玉米生长的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2018.
[23]	程杰杰, 殷超凡, 萨尔山别克·热阿合曼, 等. 固氮菌Kosakonia radicincitans GXGL-4A对玉米和水稻的促生作用及其根际定殖动态[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(2):33-37.
[24]	周玉乾, 寇思荣, 何海军, 等. 甘肃省玉米产业发展现状及对策[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2017(9):72-75.
[25]	张树庚, 陈丽萍, 冯宜梅, 等. 早熟宜机收玉米新品种武农科213的选育[J]. 中国种业, 2023(7):110-112.
[26]	郑世英, 商学芳, 余晓帅, 等. 盐胁迫下不同盐敏感型玉米抗氧化酶活性的变化[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 42(1):1-5.
[27]	俞书傲, 樊爽爽. 我国农业区主要粮食作物化肥施用情况分析——化肥施用核算与相对适宜度评价[J]. 经济研究导刊, 2023(23):27-30.
[28]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理与技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
[29]	王群, 刘朝巍, 徐文娟. 紫外分光光度法测定玉米过氧化氢酶活性新进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(15):159-165. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16020031
[30]	毛达如. 植物营养研究方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社,2000:43-79.
[31]	HUANG G, CHAI Q, FENG F, et al. Effects of different tillage systems on soil properties, root growth, grain yield, and water use efficiency of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Arid Northwest China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2012, 11(8):1286-1296.
[32]	边成贵. 植物根际菌盐碱条件下促生的应用[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2021.
[33]	李冬莹. 松嫩平原耐盐碱促生菌的筛选鉴定及其植物促生作用研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江大学, 2022.
[34]	赵卫松, 郭庆港, 于稳欠, 等. 解淀粉芽胞杆菌PHODB35的溶磷特性及其对番茄的促生作用[J]. 微生物学报, 2020, 60(7):1370-1383.
[35]	张悦. 植物促生菌对盐胁迫下大豆生长的调控作用研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2023.
[36]	AAQIL M K, SAJJAD A, LATIF A K, et al. Halotolerant rhizobacterial strains mitigate the adverse effects of NaCl stress in soybean seedlings[J/OL]. Biomed research international, 2019, http://doiorg/10.1155/2019/9530963.
[37]	彭青枝, 皮美美, 曹亨云, 等. 硼对油菜不同品种酶活性和根系活力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1996(3):233-237.
[38]	曹莹, 黄瑞冬, 曹志强. 铅胁迫对玉米生理生化特性的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2005(3):63-66.
[39]	鲁剑巍, 陈防, 刘冬碧, 等. 钾素水平对油菜酶活性的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2002(1):62-63,67.
[40]	陈浩维, 邓明华, 黄尧瑶, 等. 干旱胁迫对玫瑰花瓣膜脂过氧化及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2018, 38(5):885-893.
[41]	段强, 姜兴印, 鲍静, 等. 吡虫啉拌种对高产夏玉米幼苗生长及其保护酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(9):2482-2486.
[42]	王华笑. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌YM6对盐胁迫下玉米促生作用及机理研究[D]. 银川: 北方民族大学, 2020.
[43]	梁洪榜, 赵丽, 周云鹏, 等. 盐碱地应用根际促生菌对土壤改良、作物产量与品质的影响——基于Meta分析[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(6):1257-1264.
[44]	王飞飞, 张善平, 邵立杰, 等. 夏玉米不同土层根系对花后植株生长及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(19):4007-4017. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.19.006
[45]	GUO H C, YORK L M. Maize with fewer nodal roots allocates mass to more lateral and deep roots that improve nitrogen uptake and shoot growth[J]. Journal of experimental botany, 2019, 70(19):5299-5309. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erz258 pmid: 31145788
[46]	LI P C, PAN T, WANG H M, et al. Natural variation of Zm HKT1 affets root morphology in maize at the seeding stage[J]. Planta, 2019, 249(3):879-889.
[47]	杜冬冬. 盐碱条件下植物根际菌促生作用的研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2020.
[48]	陈胜男. 自生固氮菌对玉米、小麦根际微生态调控机制的研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2012.
[49]	王君正, 张琪, 高子星, 等. 两种微生物菌剂对有机基质袋培秋黄瓜产量、品质及根际环境的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(14):3077-3087. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.14.013

基本理化性能	有机质/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	含盐量/(g/kg)
轻度盐碱土	28.15	3.72	37.51	214.21	1.57
重度盐碱土	13.63	0.69	12.23	160.31	6.23

基本理化性能	有机质/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	含盐量/(g/kg)
轻度盐碱土	28.15	3.72	37.51	214.21	1.57
重度盐碱土	13.63	0.69	12.23	160.31	6.23

菌株	同温层芽孢杆菌	枯草芽孢杆菌	蜡样芽孢杆菌	嗜气杆菌	液化沙雷氏菌
葡萄糖	+	+	+	+	-
乳糖	+	+	+	+	+
蔗糖	+	+	+	+	-
乙酰甲基乙醇	-	-	-	-	+
甲基红	+	+	+	+	-
吲哚	+	+	+	+	+
柠檬酸盐	-	-	-	-	-
苯丙氨酸脱氢酶	-	-	-	-	-
革兰氏染色	G+	G+	G+	G+	G-
明胶	+	+	+	+	+

菌株	同温层芽孢杆菌	枯草芽孢杆菌	蜡样芽孢杆菌	嗜气杆菌	液化沙雷氏菌
葡萄糖	+	+	+	+	-
乳糖	+	+	+	+	+
蔗糖	+	+	+	+	-
乙酰甲基乙醇	-	-	-	-	+
甲基红	+	+	+	+	-
吲哚	+	+	+	+	+
柠檬酸盐	-	-	-	-	-
苯丙氨酸脱氢酶	-	-	-	-	-
革兰氏染色	G+	G+	G+	G+	G-
明胶	+	+	+	+	+

菌株	同温层芽孢杆菌	枯草芽孢杆菌	蜡样芽孢杆菌	嗜气杆菌	液化沙雷氏菌
IAA/(mg/L)	1.54±0.01	1.61±0.01	1.62±0.02	1.58±0.01	0.93±0.02
无机磷/(mg/L)	1.69±0.03	1.73±0.01	1.75±0.02	1.64±0.11	1.61±0.13
有机磷(HD/CD)	1.18±0.01	1.24±0.02	1.21±0.02	1.17±0.03	-
固氮量/(mg/L)	20.98±0.2	21.98±0.2	22.04±0.1	21.25±0.1	8.91±0.1
铁载体	+	+	+	+	+