Impact of Different Microbial Agents Combined with Soil Disinfectants on Soil Microenvironment

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0573

Abstract

Abstract:

Selecting the facility vegetable planting plots with severe continuous cropping obstacles in Hangzhou as the experimental sites, the research investigated the improvement effect of different microbial agents combined with soil disinfectants on the soil microenvironment under the facility vegetable planting mode, as well as their impact on the prevention and control of clubroot disease and yield of Chinese cabbage. The results showed that the combination of three microbial agents and soil disinfectants could reduce the incidence rate of Chinese cabbage clubroot disease, improve the soil environment, enhance soil physicochemical properties, and increase the yield of Chinese cabbage. Among them, the combination of No.1 microbial agent could better improve soil nutrients, No.2 microbial agent had a better effect on the prevention and control of clubroot disease, and No.3 microbial agent had the most significant effect on improving the biological and economic yield of Chinese cabbage. In summary, the combination of soil disinfectant and No.3 microbial agent had a better effect.

Key words: microbial agents, soil disinfectant, clubroot, soil environment, yield, facility vegetable cultivation, continuous cropping of vegetables

YUAN Hangjie, SU Guijun, YANG Wenye, LOU Ling, SHEN Jianguo, WANG Jingwen. Impact of Different Microbial Agents Combined with Soil Disinfectants on Soil Microenvironment[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(10): 109-114.

Figures/Tables 9

References 21

[1]	沈瑞清, 张萍, 康萍芝, 等. 根际微生物与植物病害关系的研究进展[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2006(5):46-47.
[2]	杭州市统计局, 国家统计局杭州调查队. 杭州统计年鉴(2023)[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2023.
[3]	黄春生, 熊明. 连作障碍的产生原因及改善途径[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2010(5):62-64.
[4]	卢维宏, 张乃明, 包立, 等. 我国设施栽培连作障碍特征与成因及防治措施的研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(4):651-658.
[5]	余海英, 李廷轩, 周健民. 设施土壤次生盐渍化及其对土壤性质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2005, 37(6):581-586.
[6]	文方芳. 种植年限对设施大棚土壤次生盐渍化与酸化的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2016(4):49-53.
[7]	高晶霞, 高昱, 吴雪梅, 等. 辣椒连作土壤微生物群落及土壤离子对微生物菌剂的响应[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020(8).
[8]	章艺, 马新焱, 余红瑞, 等. 十字花科作物根肿病综合防治研究进展[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2022(10):27-37.
[9]	陈秀萍. 禄丰县十字花科蔬菜根肿病的发生与防治[J]. 现代农村科技, 2012(20):19-20.
[10]	万海英, 李林, 覃章辉, 等. 杀菌剂及生防菌对白菜根肿病和土壤微生物的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2023(3):8-15.
[11]	杨楠, 谭雪莲, 郭天文, 等. 施加微生物菌剂对马铃薯根际土壤细菌多样性的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(5):781-790.
[12]	王子凡, 李燕, 张庆银, 等. 微生物菌剂对设施番茄主要病害及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6):102-112.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007.
[14]	林先贵. 土壤微生物研究原理与方法[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010.
[15]	宁夏吴标检测服务研究院(有限公司), 宁夏大学, 银川能源学院, 等. T/NAIA 011—2020,土壤脲酶活性的测定苯酚钠-次氯酸钠比色法[S]. 2020.
[16]	曹承绵, 张志明, 周礼恺. 几种土壤蛋白酶活性测定方法的比较[J]. 土壤通报, 1982, 13(2):39-40.
[17]	CASIDA L C J R, KLEIN D A, SANTORO T. Soil dehydrogenase activity[J]. Soil science, 1964,98:371-376.
[18]	陈小均, 何海永, 王莉爽, 等. 土壤环境因子对十字花科根肿病发生的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2020, 48(3):60-63.
[19]	刘震, 桑立君, 杨学达, 等. 土壤环境因素对玉米纹枯病菌菌核生长影响[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2022(1):17-20.
[20]	秦绍龙, 祁桥伟, 刘杰, 等. 氯氧消毒剂对设施土壤生物学性质的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 47(10):106-112.
[21]	张树生. 微生物有机肥缓解黄瓜枯萎病的生物学效应及其作用机制[D]. 江苏: 南京农业大学, 2009.

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	全盐/(g/kg)
CK	4.81	30.50	186.00	216.30	211.00	1.40
T1	4.93	30.40	181.00	200.90	215.00	1.20
T2	4.60	33.60	219.00	299.40	231.00	1.30
T3	4.84	30.55	187.00	218.40	230.00	1.10
T4	5.02	32.50	198.00	256.10	222.00	1.30

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	全盐/(g/kg)
CK	4.81	30.50	186.00	216.30	211.00	1.40
T1	4.93	30.40	181.00	200.90	215.00	1.20
T2	4.60	33.60	219.00	299.40	231.00	1.30
T3	4.84	30.55	187.00	218.40	230.00	1.10
T4	5.02	32.50	198.00	256.10	222.00	1.30

处理	脲酶	蛋白酶	磷酸酶	脱氢酶
CK	8.60	76.30	2.04	71.60
T1	3.10	32.20	1.80	65.70
T2	5.10	34.10	2.10	60.50
T3	5.20	36.70	2.00	64.10
T4	4.50	32.50	1.91	61.40

处理	脲酶	蛋白酶	磷酸酶	脱氢酶
CK	8.60	76.30	2.04	71.60
T1	3.10	32.20	1.80	65.70
T2	5.10	34.10	2.10	60.50
T3	5.20	36.70	2.00	64.10
T4	4.50	32.50	1.91	61.40