The Response of Soil Microbial Quantity and Enzyme Activity to Water and Carbon Control Regulation in Paddy Fields

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0242

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the changes of soil microbial quantity and enzyme activity in water and carbon control regulated paddy fields, the variation rules of soil microbial quantity, catalase activity and sucrase activity with soil depth under different water and carbon treatments were studied based on field and laboratory experiments. The results showed that with the increase of soil depth, soil catalase activity increased first and then decreased, and soil microbial quantity and soil sucrase activity decreased. Compared with conventional fertilization management, organic fertilizer and straw incorporation had no significant effect on soil catalase activity in paddy fields, while they had a greater impact on soil microbial quantity and soil sucrase activity. Compared with flooded irrigation, controlled irrigation improved soil catalase activity. Under different fertilization conditions, the effect of controlled irrigation on soil microbial quantity and soil sucrase activity in paddy fields was not consistent. In general, the combination of controlled irrigation with organic fertilizer application and straw incorporation could improve the amount of soil microbial quantity, catalase activity, and sucrase activity. Besides, the combined effect of controlled irrigation with organic fertilizer application was more prominent. When controlled irrigation was combined with organic fertilizer application and straw incorporation, the average values of soil colonies, soil catalase activity, and soil sucrase activity in the 0-40 cm soil layer increased by 1.73×10⁵-3.83×10⁵ and 2.33×10⁴-2.43×10⁵, 1.82%-4.14% and 2.95%-5.66%, 30.47%-64.25% and -25.04%-20.98%, respectively.

Key words: controlled irrigation, paddy field, soil microbial quantity, soil enzyme activity, straw incorporation, organic fertilizer

CLC Number:

Lin Xiuyan, Jiang Zewei, Chen Xi, Zhang Shuna, Dai Huidong, Yang Shihong. The Response of Soil Microbial Quantity and Enzyme Activity to Water and Carbon Control Regulation in Paddy Fields[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(7): 75-80.

Figures/Tables 3

References 25

[1]	丁翠, 李琦, 郭楚玲, 等. 酸性矿山废水对稻田土壤微生物菌群结构的影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2019,39(9):3080-3089.
[2]	刘旻霞, 李瑞, 张灿, 等. 兰州市南山季节性土壤微生物特征及影响因素[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018,38(7):2722-2730.
[3]	曹慧, 孙辉, 杨浩, 等. 土壤酶活性及其对土壤质量的指示研究进展[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2003,9(1):105-109.
[4]	万忠梅, 宋长春土壤酶活性对生态环境的响应研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2009,40,(4):951-956.
[5]	Zhu J, Peng H, Ji X H, et al. Effects of reduced inorganic fertilization and rice straw recovery on soil enzyme activities and bacterial community in double-rice paddy soils[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2019,94.
[6]	Liu Y R, Hou H Q, Ji J H, et al. Long-term fertilizer (organic and inorganic) input effects on soil microbiological characteristics in hydromorphic paddy soils in China[J]. Soil Research, 2019,57(5):459-466.
[7]	杜林森, 唐美铃, 祝贞科, 等. 长期施肥对不同深度稻田土壤碳氮水解酶活性的影响特征[J]. 环境科学, 2018,39(8):3901-3909.
[8]	王桂跃, 苏婷, 韩海亮, 等. 长期施肥对水田和旱地土壤微生物群落结构、活性碳氮及酶活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018,30(5):817-824.
[9]	姜利红, 谢桂先, 刘强, 等. 有机无机肥配施对双季稻田土壤微生物和碳库的影响[J]. 湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2018,44(3):295-300.
[10]	李娜, 范树茂, 陈梦凡, 等. 生物炭与秸秆还田对水稻土碳氮转化及相关酶活性的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2017,48(4):431-438.
[11]	Yang S H, Xiao Y N, Xu J Z, et al. Effect of straw return on soil respiration and NEE of paddy fields under water-saving irrigation[J]. Plos One, 2018,13(10). URL pmid: 30379954
[12]	马向前, 周德庆. 双歧杆菌和乳酸菌的一种简便快速计数法[J]. 微生物学报, 1997,37(1):62-64.
[13]	邓欧平, 李翰, 熊雷, 等. 秸秆、猪粪混施对麦田根际土壤过氧化氢酶与蔗糖酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤, 2018,50(1):86-92.
[14]	尚杰, 耿增超, 陈心想, 等. 生物炭对土壤酶活性和糜子产量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015,33(2):146-151,158.
[15]	桂娟, 陈小云, 刘满强, 等. 节水与减氮措施对稻田土壤微生物和微动物群落的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016,27(1):107-116.
[16]	张素, 熊东红, 校亮, 等. 干湿交替对土壤性质影响的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2017,48(3):762-768.
[17]	张威, 张旭东, 何红波, 等. 干湿交替条件下土壤氮素转化及其影响研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010,29(4):783-789.
[18]	Fierer N, Schimel J P. Effects of drying-rewetting frequency on soil carbon and nitrogen transformations[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2002,34(6):777-787.
[19]	胡亚林, 汪思龙, 颜绍馗. 影响土壤微生物活性与群落结构因素研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2006,37(1):170-176.
[20]	Jia Q M, Kamran M, Ali S, et al. Deficit irrigation and fertilization strategies to improve soil quality and alfalfa yield in arid and semi-arid areas of northern China[J]. Peerj, 2018,6. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6210 URL pmid: 30671288
[21]	李涛龙. 玉米亏缺补偿灌溉节水机理与阈值参数研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2017.
[22]	万忠梅, 吴景贵. 土壤酶活性影响因子研究进展[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2005,33(6):87-92.
[23]	刘善江, 夏雪, 陈桂梅, 等. 土壤酶的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011,27(21):1-7.
[24]	沈建国, 王忠, 李丹, 等. 不同有机物投入对新垦耕地红壤肥力及蔬菜生长的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019,39(1):85-90.
[25]	孙颖, 赵晓会, 和文祥, 等. 绿肥对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2011,20(3):115-119.

生育期	土层	CO	TO	CS	TS	CF	TF
分蘖期	0~10 cm	450000	350000	550000	430000	210000	140000
	10~20 cm	220000	240000	340000	260000	90000	80000
	20~40 cm	80000	50000	70000	50000	40000	10000
拔节孕穗期	0~10 cm	1220000	1370000	960000	870000	740000	620000
	10~20 cm	870000	980000	540000	480000	480000	540000
	20~40 cm	60000	50000	30000	100000	40000	80000
乳熟期	0~10 cm	850000	760000	360000	440000	120000	370000
	10~20 cm	560000	450000	260000	210000	30000	220000
	20~40 cm	360000	210000	70000	120000	0	30000

生育期	土层	CO	TO	CS	TS	CF	TF
分蘖期	0~10 cm	450000	350000	550000	430000	210000	140000
	10~20 cm	220000	240000	340000	260000	90000	80000
	20~40 cm	80000	50000	70000	50000	40000	10000
拔节孕穗期	0~10 cm	1220000	1370000	960000	870000	740000	620000
	10~20 cm	870000	980000	540000	480000	480000	540000
	20~40 cm	60000	50000	30000	100000	40000	80000
乳熟期	0~10 cm	850000	760000	360000	440000	120000	370000
	10~20 cm	560000	450000	260000	210000	30000	220000
	20~40 cm	360000	210000	70000	120000	0	30000