Effects of Borreria latifolia on Microbial Community Structure Characteristics in Hilly Orchards in South China

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0480

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the ecological effects of planting Borreria latifolia on soil nutrients and microbes in hilly orchards of south China, the effects of sod culture with Borreria latifolia in a hilly litchi orchard on soil basic physicochemical indexes and soil microbial communities were compared with those of sod culture with natural grass and clear tillage. The results showed that compared with natural grass and clear tillage, sod culture with Borreria latifolia significantly increased the contents of soil organic matter and available nitrogen. Sod culture with Borreria latifolia and natural grass significantly increased the soil bacterial Shannon and Simpson diversity indices relative to the clear tillage, but had no significant effect on the α-diversity of fungi. The bacterial Chao1 and PD_whole_tree indices were positively correlated with soil available potassium, and the fungal Shannon index was positively correlated with soil organic matter. A total of 44 bacterial phyla were detected in soil of the litchi orchard, among which Acidobacteria (23.63%-34.87%), Proteobacteria (20.62%-28.57%) and Chloroflexi (9.64%-23.85%) were the dominant bacterial phyla. A total of 13 fungal phyla were detected, among which Ascomycota (55.97%-69.67%), Basidiomycota (7.28%-10.94%) and Glomeromycota (1.15%-3.41%) were the dominant fungal phyla. For fungi at the level of genus, the relative abundance of Archaeorhizomyces in the soil treated with Borreria latifolia accounted for 20.91%, which was dramatically greater than those in the soil of sod culture with natural grass and clear tillage. The redundancy analysis of the relative abundance of dominant microbial groups and soil physicochemical properties showed that soil organic matter, available nitrogen and available potassium had greater impacts on bacterial and fungal community structure. To sum up, sod culture with Borreria latifolia in hilly orchards of south China could increase soil nutrient levels, and improve soil bacterial and fungal community structure and diversity.

Key words: Borreria latifolia, hilly orchard, soil nutrients, soil microbes, Archaeorhizomycetales

ZHANG Taijie, ZHANG Chun, GUO Wenlei, TIAN Xingshan. Effects of Borreria latifolia on Microbial Community Structure Characteristics in Hilly Orchards in South China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(17): 26-36.

Figures/Tables 10

References 36

[1]	赵荣芳, 陈惠阳, 谢勇, 等. 广东省主要水果种植面积和产量发展历史与现状分析[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2013, 19(18):60-63,66.
[2]	张纯, 郭文磊, 张泰劼, 等. 广东农田杂草防控的问题与对策[J]. 广东农业科学, 2020, 47(12):98-108.
[3]	冉海燕, 兰献敏, 陈仕红, 等. 果园以草治草研究进展[J]. 农技服务, 2019, 36(2):68,70.
[4]	何莉莉, 杨慧敏, 钟哲科, 等. 生草栽培对桃园土壤养分特性及细菌群落的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(19):179-183.
[5]	翁伯琦, 王义祥, 黄毅斌, 等. 生草栽培下果园土壤固碳潜力研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2013, 22(6):931-934.
[6]	WEI H, XIANG Y, LIU Y, et al. Effects of sod cultivation on soil nutrients in orchards across China: A meta-analysis[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2017, 169:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2017.01.009 URL
[7]	付学琴, 刘琚珥, 黄文新. 南丰蜜橘园自然生草对土壤微生物和养分及果实品质的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2015, 42(8):1551-1558. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2015-0023
[8]	焦润安, 张舒涵, 李毅, 等. 生草影响果树生长发育及果园环境的研究进展[J]. 果树学报, 2017, 34(12):1610-1623.
[9]	GALLON M, TREZZI MM, DIESEL F, et al. Environmental factors' action on the germination process and initial growth of weeds of Rubiaceae family[J]. South African journal of botany, 2018, 117:26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2018.04.009 URL
[10]	潘介春, 徐石兰, 丁峰, 等. 生草栽培对龙眼果园土壤理化性质和微生物学性状的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2019(6):59-64.
[11]	纪红, 尹爱国, 岳茂峰, 等. 阔叶丰花草对荔枝园杂草群落特征及物种多样性的影响[J]. 生物安全学报, 2021, 30(2):150-155.
[12]	张泰劼, 郭文磊, 张纯, 等. 阔叶丰花草与果园几种常见杂草的生理生态特性比较[J]. 广东农业科学, 2020, 47(6):70-77.
[13]	张泰劼, 田兴山, 张纯, 等. 阔叶丰花草与2种菊科植物之间的化感作用[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(7):2211-2218. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202007.004
[14]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[15]	王中堂, 沙建川, 解小锋, 等. 枣园生草处理对土壤养分和细菌群落的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(2):456-465. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.02.0456
[16]	刘业萍, 毛云飞, 胡艳丽, 等. 苹果园生草对土壤微生物多样性、酶活性及碳组分的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(10):1792-1805.
[17]	马昕伶, 秦文婧, 刘凯, 等. 竹豆间种对柑橘园土壤化学性质及微生物碳源代谢特征的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(5):200-206.
[18]	王依, 陈成, 马拦妮, 等. 行间生草对秦岭北麓猕猴桃园土壤养分、pH值的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(15):59-65. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18010144
[19]	张俊伶, 张江周, 申建波, 等. 土壤健康与农业绿色发展:机遇与对策[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(4):783-796
[20]	王清奎, 汪思龙, 冯宗炜, 等. 土壤活性有机质及其与土壤质量的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2005(3):513-519.
[21]	郭晓睿, 宋涛, 邓丽娟, 等. 果园生草对中国果园土壤肥力和生产力影响的整合分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(11):4021-4028. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202111.021
[22]	葛顺峰, 姜远茂, 陈倩, 等. 土壤有机质含量对平邑甜茶生长及氮素吸收和损失的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(1):81-84.
[23]	曹永. 梨园生草对土壤养分及果品质量的影响[J]. 西北园艺(综合), 2018(3):61-62.
[24]	马震珠, 魏倩倩, 李尚玮, 等. 覆盖和埋置白三叶对黄土高原苹果园土壤细菌多样性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(5):143-151.
[25]	肖力婷, 杨慧林, 黄文新, 等. 生草栽培对南丰蜜橘园土壤微生物群落结构与功能特征的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(1):190-200. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.01.0190
[26]	CARNEY K M, MATSON P A. Plant communities, soil microorganisms, and soil carbon cycling: does altering the world belowground matter to ecosystem functioning[J]. Ecosystems, 2005, 8(8):928-940. doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0047-0 URL
[27]	魏倩倩, 杨文权, 韩明玉, 等. 白三叶返园对苹果园土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2016, 33(3):385-392.
[28]	薛晓敏, 王来平, 韩雪平, 等. 不同树盘覆盖对矮砧苹果园土壤微生物群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(4):1528-1536.
[29]	赵柏霞, 闫建芳, 潘凤荣. 樱桃果园生草对土壤微生态的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(4):889-895.
[30]	MENG H, LI K, NIE M, et al. Responses of bacterial and fungal communities to an elevation gradient in a subtropical montane forest of China[J]. Applied microbiology & biotechnology, 2013, 97(5):2219-2230.
[31]	HARTMAN W H, RICHARDSON C J, VILGALYS R, et al. Environmental and anthropogenic controls over bacterial communities in wetland soils[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105(46):17842-17847. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808254105 pmid: 19004771
[32]	LI X, SUN M L, ZHANG H H, et al. Use of mulberry-soybean intercropping in salt-alkali soil impacts the diversity of the soil bacterial community[J]. Microbial biotechnology, 2016, 9(3):293-304. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12342 pmid: 26892826
[33]	MENKIS A, URBINA H, JAMES T Y, et al. Archaeorhizomyces borealis sp. nov. and a sequence-based classification of related soil fungal species[J]. Fungal biology, 2014, 118(12):943-955. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2014.08.005 URL
[34]	PINTO-FIGUEROA E A, SEDDON E, YASHIRO E, et al. Archaeorhizomycetes spatial distribution in soils along wide elevational and environmental gradients reveal co-abundance patterns with other fungal saprobes and potential weathering capacities[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2019, 10:656. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00656 URL
[35]	CARRINO-KYKER S R, KLUBER L A, PETERSEN S M, et al. Mycorrhizal fungal communities respond to experimental elevation of soil pH and P availability in temperate hardwood forests[J]. FEMS microbiology ecology, 2016, 92(3):fiw024. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiw024 URL
[36]	管鸿智, 黄荣珍, 王金平, 等. 红壤区退化林地表土真菌群落结构对土壤改良措施的响应[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(1):494-501.

处理		OUTs	香农指数	辛普森指数	Chao1指数	谱系多样性指数
细菌	BL	2735	8.93±0.21a	0.992±0.002a	3024±211ab	170.76±7.4a
	NG	3055	9.34±0.12a	0.994±0.001a	3442±55a	182.97±2.82a
	CT	2412	8.36±0.15b	0.986±0.003b	2707±120b	157.45±12.43a
真菌	BL	436	3.80±0.26a	0.814±0.044a	490±51a	126.14±12.22a
	NG	571	4.51±0.29a	0.879±0.025a	627±37a	169.38±8.39a
	CT	420	4.69±0.43a	0.879±0.038a	449±71a	129.68±19.53a

处理		OUTs	香农指数	辛普森指数	Chao1指数	谱系多样性指数
细菌	BL	2735	8.93±0.21a	0.992±0.002a	3024±211ab	170.76±7.4a
	NG	3055	9.34±0.12a	0.994±0.001a	3442±55a	182.97±2.82a
	CT	2412	8.36±0.15b	0.986±0.003b	2707±120b	157.45±12.43a
真菌	BL	436	3.80±0.26a	0.814±0.044a	490±51a	126.14±12.22a
	NG	571	4.51±0.29a	0.879±0.025a	627±37a	169.38±8.39a
	CT	420	4.69±0.43a	0.879±0.038a	449±71a	129.68±19.53a

多样性指数		pH	有机质	速效N	速效P	速效K
细菌	香农指数	0.411	0.302	0.374	0.432	0.692
	辛普森指数	0.027	0.475	0.490	0.581	0.414
	Chao1指数	0.289	0.253	0.276	0.503	0.704^**
	谱系多样性指数	0.597	0.011	0.095	0.101	0.755^**
真菌	香农指数	0.469	-0.551^*	-0.379	-0.340	0.284
	辛普森指数	0.477	-0.389	-0.193	-0.182	0.266
	Chao1指数	0.111	0.105	0.145	0.355	0.285
	谱系多样性指数	0.251	-0.116	-0.067	0.185	0.248

多样性指数		pH	有机质	速效N	速效P	速效K
细菌	香农指数	0.411	0.302	0.374	0.432	0.692
	辛普森指数	0.027	0.475	0.490	0.581	0.414
	Chao1指数	0.289	0.253	0.276	0.503	0.704^**
	谱系多样性指数	0.597	0.011	0.095	0.101	0.755^**
真菌	香农指数	0.469	-0.551^*	-0.379	-0.340	0.284
	辛普森指数	0.477	-0.389	-0.193	-0.182	0.266
	Chao1指数	0.111	0.105	0.145	0.355	0.285
	谱系多样性指数	0.251	-0.116	-0.067	0.185	0.248

微生物类群	比较组		微生物类群	比较组
微生物类群	BL-NG	BL-CT	微生物类群	BL-NG	BL-CT
细菌门水平	P值	P值	细菌属水平	P值	P值
酸杆菌门 Acidobacteria	0.656	0.001	Bryobacter	0.845	0.110
变形菌门 Proteobacteria	0.780	0.093	Candidatus_Solibacter	0.938	0.373
绿弯菌门 Chloroflexi	0.543	0.203	Acidibacter	0.919	0.155
放线菌门 Actinobacteria	0.296	0.203	酸热菌属 Acidothermus	0.838	0.635
厚壁菌门 Firmicutes	0.301	0.790	鞘氨醇单胞菌属Sphingomonas	0.152	0.276
疣微菌门 Verrucomicrobia	0.915	0.025	Occallatibacter	0.614	0.999
浮霉菌门 Planctomycetes	0.586	0.533	unidentified_Acidobacteriia	0.532	0.991
拟杆菌门 Bacteroidetes	0.236	0.192	慢生根瘤菌属Bradyrhizobium	0.434	0.037
芽单胞菌门 Gemmatimonadetes	0.636	0.945	unidentified_Verrucomicrobiae	0.927	0.016
奇古菌门 Thaumarchaeota	0.252	0.928	unidentified_Burkholderiaceae	0.179	0.986
真菌门水平	P值	P值	真菌属水平	P值	P值
子囊菌门 Ascomycota	0.692	0.364	古根菌属 Archaeorhizomyces	0.008	0.003
担子菌门 Basidiomycota	0.873	0.792	青霉属 Penicillium	0.466	0.551
球囊菌门 Glomeromycota	0.787	0.252	梅奇酵母属 Metschnikowia	0.999	0.396
壶菌门 Chytridiomycota	0.974	0.787	镰刀菌属 Fusarium	0.161	0.963
被孢霉门 Mortierellomycota	0.053	0.918	柱隔孢属 Ramularia	0.089	0.083
毛霉门 Mucoromycota	0.725	0.219	丝孢菌属 Scedosporium	0.384	0.999
罗兹菌门 Rozellomycota	0.730	0.353	木霉属 Trichoderma	0.252	0.995
			Sulzbacheromyces	0.999	0.391
			壳二孢属 Ascochyta	0.392	0.401
			Saitozyma	0.111	0.735