Research Progress on Soil Microbial Community and Soil Metabolism Under Organic Mulching Conditions in Vineyards

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0810

Abstract

Abstract:

Against the backdrop of prominent soil management issues in traditional vineyards, organic mulching is a crucial measure for achieving sustainable soil management. This practice enhances soil fertility, improves soil structure, and regulates the microclimate within vineyards. However, there are relatively few studies on soil microorganisms and soil metabolism under organic mulching in vineyards at present. Research has found that organic mulching significantly enhances soil bacterial diversity and enriches key fungal functional groups such as lignin degradation by driving multi-stage decomposition processes. More importantly, organic coverage increases the accumulation of metabolites such as carbohydrates, organic acids, and lipids, activating core metabolic pathways and optimizing nutrient cycling efficiency The synergistic interaction network formed between microorganisms and metabolites further strengthens the functional stability of soil ecosystems in vineyards. This study provides a theoretical support for soil management and sustainable agriculture in vineyards, while also outlining future research directions in this field.

Key words: vineyard, organic mulching, humification, soil microbial community, soil metabolism, nutrient cycling

YANG Siqi, ZHAO Xinru, ZHANG Junxiang, LI Yang, ZHANG Liang, XUE Tingting. Research Progress on Soil Microbial Community and Soil Metabolism Under Organic Mulching Conditions in Vineyards[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(4): 146-155.

Figures/Tables 3

References 94

[1]	LI R, LI Q, PAN L. Review of organic mulching effects on soil and water loss[J]. Archives of agronomy and soil science, 2020, 67(1):136-151. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2020.1718111 URL
[2]	陈玉萌. 生草覆盖下有机无机肥配施对黄土高原旱地苹果产量品质及水氮利用的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2024:14-32.
[3]	CHEN G, LIU S, XIANG Y, et al. Impact of living mulch on soil C:N:P stoichiometry in orchards across China: A meta-analysis examining climatic, edaphic, and biotic dependency[J]. Pedosphere, 2020, 30(2):181-189. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(20)60003-0 URL
[4]	FURMANCZYK E M, MALUSÀ E, KOZACKI D, et al. Insights into the belowground biodiversity and soil nutrient status of an organic apple orchard as affected by living mulches[J]. Agriculture, 2024, 14(2):293. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14020293 URL
[5]	GEBRETSADIKAN T, MUNRO P, FORGE T A, et al. Mulching improved soil fertility, plant growth and productivity, and postharvest deficit irrigation reduced water use in sweet cherry orchards in a semi-arid region[J]. Archives of agronomy and soil science, 2023, 69(8):1419-1436. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2022.2095621 URL
[6]	高琪, 刘树泽, 李红红, 等. 梨树废弃枝条还田对土壤和梨树的影响[J]. 农业工程, 2025, 15(10):59-62.
[7]	LUCCHETTA M, ZULUAGA M Y A, MONTERISI S, et al. Innovative approaches to soil health: Evaluating pruning waste compost, inoculated compost, and mineral fertilizer in a controlled growth chamber for sustainable vineyard practices[J]. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 2025, 9:1504761. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1504761 URL
[8]	ZHUANG Y, WANG H, TAN F, et al. Rhizosphere metabolic cross-talk from plant-soil-microbe tapping into agricultural sustainability: Current advance and perspectives[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2024, 210:108619. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108619 URL
[9]	MA Y, WANG H, KANG Y, et al. Small molecule metabolites drive plant rhizosphere microbial community assembly patterns[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2025, 16:1503537. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1503537 URL
[10]	TIAN T, SUN B, SHI H, et al. Sucrose triggers a novel signaling cascade promoting Bacillus subtilis rhizosphere colonization[J]. The ISME Journal, 2021, 15(9):2723-2737. doi: 10.1038/s41396-021-00966-2 URL
[11]	WEI B, BI J, QIAN X, et al. Organic manure amendment fortifies soil health by enriching beneficial metabolites and microorganisms and suppressing plant pathogens[J]. Agronomy, 2025, 15(2):429. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15020429 URL
[12]	ZAPPELINI C, DEQUIEDT S, TRIPIED J, et al. Ecological impact of conventional, organic and biodynamic viticultural systems and associated practices on soil microbiota in different French territories[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 2025, 392:109748. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2025.109748 URL
[13]	DUAN X, LUO T, DING Y, et al. The impact of vineyard mulch on soil quality and biological diversity[J]. Agriculture, 2025, 15(9):927. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15090927 URL
[14]	BELMONTE S A, CELI L, STAHEL R J, et al. Effect of long-term soil management on the mutual interaction among soil organic matter, microbial activity and aggregate stability in a vineyard[J]. Pedosphere, 2018, 28(2):288-298. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60015-3 URL
[15]	姜亦文, 相广庆, 王辉, 等. 葡萄园不同土壤管理模式对土壤理化性状及细菌群落的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2019(4):32-38.
[16]	李悦. 贺兰山东麓葡萄园自然生草对土壤理化性质和微生物多样性的影响研究[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2023:20-29.
[17]	ȘERDINESCU A, ION M, FÎCIU L, et al. The impact of conservative soil maintenance practices in vineyards on soil microbial diversity and on the biodiversity of useful and harmful entomofauna[J]. Romanian agricultural research, 2023, 40:327-334. doi: 10.59665/rar URL
[18]	刘传和, 贺涵, 邵雪花, 等. 不同覆盖处理对菠萝园土壤代谢物和细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2024, 40(7):247-258. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-1183
[19]	刘美霞, 刘秀, 赵燕, 等. 地膜覆盖对旱作春玉米农田土壤微生物碳源代谢的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(22):9213-9225.
[20]	张瑞雪, 杨洪强, 徐颖, 等. 不同覆盖材料对夏秋苹果根区土壤硝酸盐代谢的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(8):2452-2458.
[21]	孟晶, 李敏敏, 王新宇, 等. 葡萄园生草技术[J]. 河北果树, 2024(4):33.
[22]	王鉴佳. 不同覆盖类型及覆盖作物对风沙土养分含量和酶活性的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2025:2-57.
[23]	王春栋, 韩星, 袁丽芳, 等. 葡萄园生草研究进展[J]. 河南农业科学, 2025, 54(10):42-50.
[24]	刘思. 贺兰山东麓葡萄园行内覆盖对微域生态环境、葡萄及葡萄酒品质的影响[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2019.
[25]	颜亚赛, 钟晓敏, 段鑫垚, 等. 不同覆盖处理对葡萄园土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2023(3):1-9.
[26]	QIN T, WANG L, ZHAO J, et al. Effects of straw mulching thickness on the soil health in a temperate organic vineyard[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12(11):1751. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12111751 URL
[27]	杨帆, 张亮, 程春颖, 等. 保护性耕作措施对酿酒葡萄园土壤的改良效果及作用机制[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2026.
[28]	侯婷, 闫鹏科, 庞群虎, 等. 行内覆盖对果园土壤特性及酿酒葡萄产量和品质的影响[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2019, 53(6):869-875.
[29]	王小龙, 刘凤之, 史祥宾, 等. 行内生草对葡萄根系生长和土壤营养状况的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(S1):230-237. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.S1.037
[30]	庞群虎, 王竞, 孙权, 等. 生草覆盖对酿酒葡萄园土壤养分及浆果品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(8):1833-1838.
[31]	李晓娜, 闫林峰, 赵春桥, 等. 行间生草覆盖对延怀盆地葡萄园沙化土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(S1):315-321. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191153
[32]	VOŘÍŠKOVÁ J, DOBIÁŠOVÁ P, ŠNAJDR J, et al. Chemical composition of litter affects the growth and enzyme production by the saprotrophic basidiomycete Hypholoma fasciculare[J]. Fungal ecology, 2011, 4(6):417-426. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2011.03.005 URL
[33]	BALDRIAN P, VOŘÍŠKOVÁ J, DOBIÁŠOVÁ P, et al. Production of extracellular enzymes and degradation of biopolymers by saprotrophic microfungi from the upper layers of forest soil[J]. Plant soil, 2011, 338(1-2):111-125. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0324-3 URL
[34]	黄俊杰, 陆雅海. 土壤拟杆菌与梭菌分解多糖类有机物质的研究进展与展望[J]. 微生物学通报, 2022, 49(3):1147-1157.
[35]	刘超, 姜雨晴, 武梦真, 等. 葡萄枝条降解菌的筛选及复合菌液降解效果研究[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2025(2):53-61.
[36]	雷琬莹, 李娜, 滕培基, 等. 农田生态系统有机物料腐解过程及土壤培肥机制研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(9):1393-1408.
[37]	孙晓丹, 叶钰倩, 王刚, 等. 有机物覆盖的土壤环境效应作用机制研究现状与展望[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(6):103-112.
[38]	刘魏魏, 杨培龙, 刘滢, 等. 秸秆饲料化过程中木质素生物降解的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2024, 36(8):4782-4794. doi: 10.12418/CJAN2024.410
[39]	BALESTRINI V P, PINTO O H B, SIMMONS B A, et al. Analysis of novel bacterial metagenome-assembled genomes from lignin-degrading microbial consortia[J]. Current research in microbial sciences, 2024, 7:100302. doi: 10.1016/j.crmicr.2024.100302 URL
[40]	QIAN X, SHEN G, WANG Z, et al. Co-composting of livestock manure with rice straw: Characterization and establishment of maturity evaluation system[J]. Waste management, 2014, 34(2):530-535. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.007 pmid: 24188923
[41]	MARTÍNEZ A T, SPERANZA M, RUIZ-DUEÑAS F J, et al. Biodegradation of lignocellulosics: Microbial, chemical, and enzymatic aspects of the fungal attack of lignin[J]. International microbiology, 2005, 8(3):195-204. pmid: 16200498
[42]	KELLEHER B P, SIMPSON A J. Humic substances in soils: Are they really chemically distinct?[J]. Environmental science & technology, 2006, 40(15):4605-4611. doi: 10.1021/es0608085 URL
[43]	NDZELU B S, DOU S, ZHANG X. Changes in soil humus composition and humic acid structural characteristics under different corn straw returning modes[J]. Soil research, 2020, 58(5):452-460. doi: 10.1071/SR20025 URL
[44]	张弛. 基于Meta分析和模拟的秸秆还田方式对土壤腐殖物质组分累积影响研究[D]. 吉林: 吉林农业大学, 2023:26-48.
[45]	CUI J, HOLDEN N M. The relationship between soil microbial activity and microbial biomass, soil structure and grassland management[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2015, 146:32-38. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2014.07.005 URL
[46]	DLAMINI P, SEKHOHOLA-DLAMINI L M, COWAN A K. Editorial: Soil-microbial interactions[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2023, 14:1213834. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1213834 URL
[47]	RABBI S M F, WARREN C R, SWARBRICK B, et al. Microbial decomposition of organic matter and wetting-drying promotes aggregation in artificial soil but porosity increases only in wet-dry condition[J]. Geoderma, 2024, 447:116924. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.116924 URL
[48]	ZHANG S, WANG Y, SUN L, et al. Organic mulching positively regulates the soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions in tea plantation[J]. BMC Microbiology, 2020, 20(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s12866-020-01794-8 pmid: 32349665
[49]	周伟, 孙向阳, 李素艳, 等. 有机覆盖对城市森林土壤有机碳矿化及其氧化稳定性特征的影响[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(4):779-786.
[50]	HENDGEN M, HOPPE B, DÖRING J, et al. Effects of different management regimes on microbial biodiversity in vineyard soils[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8(1):9393. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27743-0 pmid: 29925862
[51]	VUKICEVICH E, LOWERY T, HART M. Effects of living mulch on young vine growth and soil in a semi-arid vineyard[J]. Vitis, 2019, 58(3):113-122.
[52]	BURNS K N, BOKULICH N A, CANTU D, et al. Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by vineyard management[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2016, 103:337-348. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.007 URL
[53]	LONGA C M O, NICOLA L, ANTONIELLI L, et al. Soil microbiota respond to green manure in organic vineyards[J]. Journal of applied microbiology, 2017, 123(6):1547-1560. doi: 10.1111/jam.13606 pmid: 28990280
[54]	CHOU M, VANDEN HEUVEL J, BELL T H, et al. Vineyard under-vine floor management alters soil microbial composition, while the fruit microbiome shows no corresponding shifts[J]. Scientific reports, 2018, 8(1):11039. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29346-1
[55]	PINGEL M, REINEKE A, LEYER I. A 30-years vineyard trial: Plant communities, soil microbial communities and litter decomposition respond more to soil treatment than to N fertilization[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 2019, 272:114-125. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.11.005 URL
[56]	李云乐, 乔玉辉, 孙振钧, 等. 不同土壤培肥措施下农田有机物分解的生态过程[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(6):1933-1939.
[57]	PASCAULT N, RANJARD L, KAISERMANN A, et al. Stimulation of different functional groups of bacteria by various plant residues as a driver of soil priming effect[J]. Ecosystems, 2013, 16(5):810-822. doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9650-7 URL
[58]	JANSSON J K, HOFMOCKEL K S. Soil microbiomes and climate change[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2020, 18(1):35-46. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0265-7 pmid: 31586158
[59]	BALDRIAN P. Microbial activity and the dynamics of ecosystem processes in forest soils[J]. Current opinion in microbiology, 2017, 37:128-134. doi: S1369-5274(16)30156-4 pmid: 28689057
[60]	OSONO T. Ecology of ligninolytic fungi associated with leaf litter decomposition[J]. Ecological research, 2007, 22(6):955-974. doi: 10.1007/s11284-007-0390-z URL
[61]	JACTEL H, MOREIRA X, CASTAGNEYROL B. Tree diversity and forest resistance to insect pests: Patterns, mechanisms, and prospects[J]. Annual review of entomology, 2021, 66:277-296. doi: 10.1146/ento.2021.66.issue-1 URL
[62]	BOER W D, FOLMAN L B, SUMMERBELL R C, et al. Living in a fungal world: Impact of fungi on soil bacterial niche development[J]. FEMS Microbiology reviews, 2005, 29(4):795-811. pmid: 16102603
[63]	金彩悦, 李海林, 瞿广飞, 等. 土壤微生物代谢模式及其环境影响研究进展[J]. 环境化学, 2023, 42(9):3188-3198.
[64]	汪雪, 刘晓静, 王静, 等. 连续间作下的紫花苜蓿/燕麦根系与碳氮代谢特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3):85-96. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023143
[65]	刘灵芝, 吕德国, 秦嗣军, 等. 生草覆盖‘寒富’苹果园土壤优势细菌的碳代谢特征研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2011, 38(10):1837-1846.
[66]	赵一锴. 长期秸秆覆盖和氮肥施用对土壤碳氮过程影响的微生物作用机制[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2023:16-45.
[67]	肖怡, 李峥, 黄容, 等. 有机物料还田对稻田土壤DOM碳源代谢能力的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(7):3884-3894.
[68]	WU H, CUI H, FU C, et al. Unveiling the crucial role of soil microorganisms in carbon cycling: A review[J]. Science of the total environment, 2024, 909:168627. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168627 URL
[69]	WANG J, LIN X, AN X, et al. Mangrove afforestation as an ecological control of invasive Spartina alterniflora affects rhizosphere soil physicochemical properties and bacterial community in a subtropical tidal estuarine wetland[J]. PeerJ, 2024, 12:e18291. doi: 10.7717/peerj.18291 URL
[70]	TANG S, MA Q, MARSDEN K A, et al. Microbial community succession in soil is mainly driven by carbon and nitrogen contents rather than phosphorus and sulphur contents[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2023, 180:109019. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109019 URL
[71]	GAO D, ZHOU X, DUAN Y, et al. Wheat cover crop promoted cucumber seedling growth through regulating soil nutrient resources or soil microbial communities?[J]. Plant and soil, 2017, 418(1-2):459-475. doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3307-9 URL
[72]	HAO D, SU X, XIE H, et al. Effects of tillage patterns and stover mulching on N₂O production, nitrogen cycling genes and microbial dynamics in black soil[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2023, 345:118458. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118458 URL
[73]	YUAN L, LI J, LEI N, et al. Stover mulching in no-tillage farming reduces ammonia volatilization in the Mollisol of Northeast China: Insights from gross N transformation dynamics[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2024, 240:106068. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2024.106068 URL
[74]	SARITHA M, KUMAR P, PANWAR N R, et al. Plant response to novel organo-mineral fertilizers based on selective enrichment of P-and K-solubilizing microorganisms in soil[J]. Journal of soil science and plant nutrition, 2021, 21(3):2392-2402. doi: 10.1007/s42729-021-00530-z
[75]	JINDO K, AUDETTE Y, OLIVARES F L, et al. Biotic and abiotic effects of soil organic matter on the phytoavailable phosphorus in soils: A review[J]. Chemical and biological technologies in agriculture, 2023, 10(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s40538-023-00401-y pmid: 37026154
[76]	BELOPUKHOV S L, GRIGORYEVA M V, BAGNAVETS N L, et al. The influence of agrotechnologies of organic farming on the content of humus, phosphorus and potassium in the soil[J]. Brazilian journal of biology, 2023, 83:e275585. doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.275585 URL
[77]	SASSE J, MARTINOIA E, NORTHEN T. Feed your friends: Do plant exudates shape the root microbiome?[J]. Trends in plant science, 2018, 23(1):25-41. doi: S1360-1385(17)30199-1 pmid: 29050989
[78]	VELOSO M G, DICK D P, COSTA J B D, et al. Cropping systems including legume cover crops favour mineral-organic associations enriched with microbial metabolites in no-till soil[J]. Soil research, 2019, 57(8):851-858. doi: 10.1071/SR19144 URL
[79]	VELOSO M G, ANGERS D A, CHANTIGNY M H, et al. Mineral-organic associations are enriched in both microbial metabolites and plant residues in a subtropical soil profile under no-tillage and legume cover cropping[J]. Soil research, 2022, 60(6):590-600. doi: 10.1071/SR21151 URL
[80]	LI C, XIE Y, LIAO Y, et al. Interplanting potato with grapes improved yield and soil nutrients by optimizing the interactions of soil microorganisms and metabolites[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2024, 15:1404589. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1404589 URL
[81]	JONES D L W U. Organic acids in the rhizosphere- A critical review[J]. Plant and soil, 1998, 205(1):25-44. doi: 10.1023/A:1004356007312
[82]	LIU X, LIU H, ZHANG Y, et al. Straw return drives soil microbial community assemblage to change metabolic processes for soil quality amendment in a rice-wheat rotation system[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2023, 185:109131. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109131 URL
[83]	陈浩楠, 马丫然, 高亚苗, 等. 覆盖种植下土壤中代谢物-微生物及枸杞产量的响应[J]. 土壤学报, 2025, 62(5):1571-1584.
[84]	DONG M, ZHOU H, WANG J, et al. Responses of soil microbial metabolism, function and soil quality to long-term addition of organic materials with different carbon sources[J]. Biochar, 2024, 6:80. doi: 10.1007/s42773-024-00367-6
[85]	CHEN Q, SONG Y, AN Y, et al. Soil microorganisms: Their role in enhancing crop nutrition and health[J]. Diversity, 2024, 16(12):734. doi: 10.3390/d16120734 URL
[86]	ZHANG H, HUANG M, ZHANG W, et al. Silver nanoparticles alter soil microbial community compositions and metabolite profiles in unplanted and cucumber-planted soils[J]. Environmental science and technology, 2020, 54(6):3334-3342. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07562 pmid: 32088952
[87]	MASSALHA H, KORENBLUM E, THOLL D, et al. Small molecules below-ground: The role of specialized metabolites in the rhizosphere[J]. The plant journal, 2017, 90(4):788-807. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13543 pmid: 28333395
[88]	郭俏, 肖莉, 李进, 等. 绿肥介导的土壤代谢物-微生物变化缓解草莓自毒并增产提质[J]. 土壤学报, 2024, 61(3):836-847.
[89]	ARAFAT Y, UD DIN I, TAYYAB M, et al. Soil sickness in aged tea plantation is associated with a shift in microbial communities as a result of plant polyphenol accumulation in the tea gardens[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2020, 11:601. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00601 pmid: 32547573
[90]	FITZSIMMONS L F, FLEMER S, WURTHMANN A S, et al. Small-molecule inhibition of choline catabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other aerobic choline-catabolizing bacteria[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011, 77(13):4383-4389. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00504-11 URL
[91]	O'DONNELL V B. New appreciation for an old pathway: The Lands Cycle moves into new arenas in health and disease[J]. Biochemical society transactions, 2022, 50(1):1-11. doi: 10.1042/BST20210579 pmid: 35225335
[92]	LI W, LIU X, XIA Q, et al. Untargeted metabolomics to study changes in soil microbial community in response to tillage practices[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2024, 199:105409. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105409 URL
[93]	WIESENBAUER J, GORKA S, JENAB K, et al. Preferential use of organic acids over sugars by soil microbes in simulated root exudation[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2025, 203:109738. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2025.109738 URL
[94]	JONES D L, DENNIS P G, OWEN A G, et al. Organic acid behavior in soils-misconceptions and knowledge gaps[J]. Plant and soil, 2003, 248(1/2):31-41. doi: 10.1023/A:1022304332313

位置	处理方式	影响	有机覆盖下优势菌门/属	参考文献
中国山东	自然生草、人工种植狗牙草、人工种植高羊茅覆盖	清耕、使用除草剂、自然生草、种植狗牙草、种植高羊茅的土壤细菌OTU总数分别为1896、1994、1963、2040和2027，与清耕相比，自然生草与种植狗牙草的土壤特有OTU数更多	Rhizobium、Bacillus、 Nitrospira、Sulfrubrobacter、 Rhodanobacter、Mesorhizobium	[15]
中国宁夏	自然生草覆盖	自然生草处理显著提高了土壤细菌和真菌的OTU数量与丰富度指数，尤其是在生长后期	Proteobacteria、Actinobacteria、 Ascomycota、Basidiomycota	[16]
德国莱茵高	添加生物动力制备的堆肥和蓍草、洋甘菊、荨麻、蒲公英、缬草和橡树皮等植物制备物	基于总体样本平均值，有机管理下的土壤细菌物种丰富度（平均2723种）显著高于集成管理（平均2609种），有覆盖的土壤中真菌丰富度平均达615种，显著高于无覆盖的树下土壤（平均537种）	Proteobacteria、Planctomycetes、 Actinobacteria、Acidobacteria、 Firmicutes、Bacteroidetes、 Chloroflexi、Verrucomicrobia、 Gemmatimonadetes、Chlamydiae	[50]
美国加利福尼亚州	非谷物草覆盖、豆科+谷物作物覆盖、豆科+谷物+芥菜作物覆盖、豆科覆盖、芥菜覆盖、无作物覆盖	有机覆盖显著改变了土壤细菌群落结构。与非谷物草覆盖以外的其他处理（包括豆科、芥菜及自然植被）相比，非谷物草覆盖土壤中放线菌门相对丰度提高1.48倍，浮霉菌纲提高1.33倍；芥菜覆盖土壤中厚壁菌门丰度比无芥菜的处理高1.54倍	Actinobacteria、Planctomycetes、 Firmicutes、Tenericutes	[52]
意大利特伦蒂诺- 南蒂罗尔	豆科植物和禾本科植物覆盖	有机覆盖的土壤中细菌和真菌的OTU数量显著高于有机和生物动力管理的土壤，行间种植绿肥的土壤平均细菌OTU数量为10480，其他处理的土壤平均细菌OTU数量为8970和8850；行间种植绿肥的土壤平均真菌OTU数量为1230，其他处理的土壤平均真菌OTU数量为1150和1140	Actinobacteria、Proteobacteria、 Acidobacteria、Gemmatimonadetes、 Ascomycota、Basidiomycota、 Zygomycota	[53]
德国莱茵高	禾本科植物混合覆盖	有机覆盖处理下真菌OTU平均数量为134个，高于耕作处理的116个，显著促进了真菌的丰富度，覆盖处理富集了偏好稳定、酸性环境的微生物	Acidobacteria、Actinobacteria、 Verrucomicrobia	[55]

位置	处理方式	影响	有机覆盖下优势菌门/属	参考文献
中国山东	自然生草、人工种植狗牙草、人工种植高羊茅覆盖	清耕、使用除草剂、自然生草、种植狗牙草、种植高羊茅的土壤细菌OTU总数分别为1896、1994、1963、2040和2027，与清耕相比，自然生草与种植狗牙草的土壤特有OTU数更多	Rhizobium、Bacillus、 Nitrospira、Sulfrubrobacter、 Rhodanobacter、Mesorhizobium	[15]
中国宁夏	自然生草覆盖	自然生草处理显著提高了土壤细菌和真菌的OTU数量与丰富度指数，尤其是在生长后期	Proteobacteria、Actinobacteria、 Ascomycota、Basidiomycota	[16]
德国莱茵高	添加生物动力制备的堆肥和蓍草、洋甘菊、荨麻、蒲公英、缬草和橡树皮等植物制备物	基于总体样本平均值，有机管理下的土壤细菌物种丰富度（平均2723种）显著高于集成管理（平均2609种），有覆盖的土壤中真菌丰富度平均达615种，显著高于无覆盖的树下土壤（平均537种）	Proteobacteria、Planctomycetes、 Actinobacteria、Acidobacteria、 Firmicutes、Bacteroidetes、 Chloroflexi、Verrucomicrobia、 Gemmatimonadetes、Chlamydiae	[50]
美国加利福尼亚州	非谷物草覆盖、豆科+谷物作物覆盖、豆科+谷物+芥菜作物覆盖、豆科覆盖、芥菜覆盖、无作物覆盖	有机覆盖显著改变了土壤细菌群落结构。与非谷物草覆盖以外的其他处理（包括豆科、芥菜及自然植被）相比，非谷物草覆盖土壤中放线菌门相对丰度提高1.48倍，浮霉菌纲提高1.33倍；芥菜覆盖土壤中厚壁菌门丰度比无芥菜的处理高1.54倍	Actinobacteria、Planctomycetes、 Firmicutes、Tenericutes	[52]
意大利特伦蒂诺- 南蒂罗尔	豆科植物和禾本科植物覆盖	有机覆盖的土壤中细菌和真菌的OTU数量显著高于有机和生物动力管理的土壤，行间种植绿肥的土壤平均细菌OTU数量为10480，其他处理的土壤平均细菌OTU数量为8970和8850；行间种植绿肥的土壤平均真菌OTU数量为1230，其他处理的土壤平均真菌OTU数量为1150和1140	Actinobacteria、Proteobacteria、 Acidobacteria、Gemmatimonadetes、 Ascomycota、Basidiomycota、 Zygomycota	[53]
德国莱茵高	禾本科植物混合覆盖	有机覆盖处理下真菌OTU平均数量为134个，高于耕作处理的116个，显著促进了真菌的丰富度，覆盖处理富集了偏好稳定、酸性环境的微生物	Acidobacteria、Actinobacteria、 Verrucomicrobia	[55]