Effects on Maize Stalk Fermentation: Straw Degrading Bacteria

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0603

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the effect of straw-degrading strains on straw fermentation, the straw degradation strains screened from straw compost (a), compost (b), straw returning soil (c), sheep manure (d), and the main straw decomposing agent (E) in the production were used as the test materials, and compared with the sterilized distilled water (CK1), the corn straw was inoculated at 20℃ for fermentation. The physicochemical properties, straw maturity and microbial quantity of 45, 52, 59 days fermentation were determined, and the fermentation broth with good degradation effect was selected. The fermentation broth was diluted with soil extract, and the corn was cultured in the culture broth. The agronomic characters and physiological indexes of the seedlings were determined to study the process of straw fermentation. During the observation period of fermentation, the activity of filter paper enzyme and cellulase in treatment B was more stable, the content of nitrogen was higher, and had no effect on the germination rate of seeds, the seedling height, root length, root number, root-shoot ratio, root fresh weight, chlorophyll content, SOD and POD activities of roots were significantly increased. Inoculation of straw degradation strains could accelerate straw degradation and enhance stress resistance of maize seedlings.

Key words: corn stalk, fermentation, straw-degrading bacteria, maize seedlings, hydroponics

YANG Taoyang, SA Rula, YE Ruhan, YANG Hengshan, HAN Feng, WU Qingyun. Effects on Maize Stalk Fermentation: Straw Degrading Bacteria[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(27): 45-51.

Figures/Tables 7

References 46

[1]	丁文成, 李书田, 黄绍敏. 氮肥管理和秸秆腐熟剂对-(15)N标记玉米秸秆氮有效性与去向的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(14):2725-2736. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2016.14.007
[2]	胡立峰, 裴宝琦, 翟学军. 论秸秆功能演化及秸秆腐解剂效应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(19):134-138.
[3]	张电学, 韩志卿, 刘微, 等. 不同促腐条件下秸秆直接还田对土壤养分时空动态变化的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2005(3):360-364.
[4]	张楠, 刘杰, 于洪久, 等. 寒地玉米秸秆生物腐熟后断裂拉力值和减重值的变化[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2020(7):68-70.
[5]	李春杰, 孙涛, 张兴义. 秸秆腐熟剂对寒地玉米秸秆降解率和土壤理化性状影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2015, 30(S1):507-510. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2015.S1.091
[6]	王旭东, 陈鲜妮, 王彩霞, 等. 农田不同肥力条件下玉米秸秆腐解效果[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009, 25(10):252-257.
[7]	王雪鑫. 还田模式和腐熟剂对玉米秸秆腐解特征及土壤养分含量的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2020.
[8]	杨丽丽, 周米良, 邓小华, 等. 不同腐熟剂对玉米秸秆腐解及养分释放动态的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(30):32-37. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16010027
[9]	杨莉琳, 丁新泉, 张晓媛, 等. 华北还田夏玉米秸秆快速启动腐熟的研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(6):133-138.
[10]	匡恩俊, 迟凤琴, 宿庆瑞, 等. 3种腐熟剂促进玉米秸秆快速腐解特征[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2014, 31(5):432-436.
[11]	勉有明, 李荣, 侯贤清, 等. 秸秆还田配施腐熟剂对砂性土壤性质及滴灌玉米生长的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2020, 34(10):2343-2351. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2020.10.2343
[12]	农传江, 王宇蕴, 徐智, 等. 有机物料腐熟剂对玉米和水稻秸秆还田效应的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2016, 25(1):34-41.
[13]	文平兰, 赵九红, 梁明华, 等. 不同腐解剂在麦秸秆还田中的腐解作用[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013, 41(4):1511-1512.
[14]	杨志臣, 吕贻忠, 张凤荣, 等. 秸秆还田和腐熟有机肥对水稻土培肥效果对比分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2008(3):214-218.
[15]	ROCA-PEREZ L, MARTINEZ C, MARCILLA P, et al. Composting rice straw with sewage sludge and compost effects on the soil-plant system[J]. Chemosphere, 2008, 75(6):781-787. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.12.058 URL
[16]	于宗波, 杨恒山, 萨如拉, 等. 不同质地土壤玉米秸秆还田配施腐熟剂效应的研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(4):234-240.
[17]	ZHAO S G, DIABY M, ZHENG N, et al. Sequential action of different fiber-degrading enzymes enhances the degradation of corn stover[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12(2):181. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12020181 URL
[18]	HAN Y, LIU W Y, CHANG N, et al. Exploration of β-glucosidase-producing microorganisms community structure and key communities driving cellulose degradation during composting of pure corn straw by multi-interaction analysis[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2022, 325:116694. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116694 URL
[19]	SHEN Q, TANG J W, SUN H, et al. Straw waste promotes microbial functional diversity and lignocellulose degradation during the aerobic process of pig manure in an ectopic fermentation system via metagenomic analysis[J]. Science of the total environment, 2022, 838(P1):PP 155637.
[20]	龚振平, 邓乃榛, 宋秋来, 等. 基于长期定位试验的松嫩平原还田玉米秸秆腐解特征研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(8):139-145.
[21]	黄婷苗, 郑险峰, 王朝辉. 还田玉米秸秆氮释放对关中黄土供氮和冬小麦氮吸收的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(14):2785-2795. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.14.010
[22]	匡恩俊, 迟凤琴, 宿庆瑞, 等. 不同还田方式下玉米秸秆腐解规律的研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2012, 20(2):99-101,106.
[23]	钱海燕, 杨滨娟, 黄国勤, 等. 秸秆还田配施化肥及微生物菌剂对水田土壤酶活性和微生物数量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2012, 21(3):440-445. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906(2012)03-0440-06
[24]	解媛媛, 谷洁, 高华, 等. 微生物菌剂酶制剂化肥不同配比对秸秆还田后土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2010, 17(2):233-238.
[25]	ZHANG X, BORJIGIN Q, GAO J L, et al. Community succession and straw degradation characteristics using a microbial decomposer at low temperature[J]. Plos one, 2022, 17(7):e0270162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270162 URL
[26]	赵先龙. 玉米秸秆腐解液化感效应及典型化感物质分离鉴定[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2014.
[27]	李晶, 赵先龙, 乔天长, 等. 秸秆腐解液对玉米幼苗的生理效应及酚酸类化感成分的检测[J]. 核农学报, 2015, 29(9):1799-1805. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2015.09.1799
[28]	李变娥, 孙小雪, 李凌绪, 等. 玉米秸秆的化感活性物质:对羟基肉桂酸类化合物和对羟基苯甲醛[J]. 杂草学报, 2021, 39(3):51-60.
[29]	RAMAKRISHNAN M S, SHANMUGHAM V, RAZACK S A, et al. Effect of allelochemicals from leaf leachates of on inhibition of some essential seed germination enzymes in green gram, red gram, black gram, and chickpea[J]. International scholarly research notices, 2014, 2014:108682.
[30]	LI N C, TONG M M, GLIBERT P M. Effect of allelochemicals on photosynthetic and antioxidant defense system of Ulva prolifera[J]. Aquatic toxicology, 2020, 224:105513. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2020.105513 URL
[31]	ADHIKARY S P. Efficacy of rice stubble allelochemicals on vegetative growth parameters of some oil yielding crops[J]. International journal of trend in scientific research and development, 2019, 3(2):1-12.
[32]	LIU J K, XIE M, LI X Z, et al. Main allelochemicals from the rhizosphere soil of Saussurea lappa (Decne.) Sch. Bip. and their effects on plants' antioxidase systems[J]. Molecules, 2018, 23(10):2506. doi: 10.3390/molecules23102506 URL
[33]	胡帅珂. 水稻秸秆化感物质对水稻生长发育的影响及消除化感影响的研究[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2012.
[34]	姚澜, 萨如拉, 范富, 等. 化感物质对玉米种子及苗期生长特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(6):1-4. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18110098
[35]	王佳佳, 奚永兰, 常志州, 等. 秸秆快腐菌(Streptomyces rochei)对还田麦秸化感物质的响应[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2016, 32(5):1081-1087.
[36]	萨如拉, 张雪婷, 杨恒山, 等. 秸秆发酵液对玉米种子萌发及幼苗生长特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(18):14-18. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0284
[37]	HUANG H J, WANG H M, JORGE M. Vivanco, et al. Shift of allelochemicals from sorghum halepense in the soil and their effects on the soil's bacterial community[J]. Weed biology and management, 2017, 17(4):161-168. doi: 10.1111/wbm.2017.17.issue-4 URL
[38]	刘苹, 赵海军, 李庆凯, 等. 三种酚酸类化感物质对花生根际土壤微生物及产量的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2018, 40(1):101-109. doi: 10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2018.01.013
[39]	周宝利, 李燕, 李东, 等. 化感物质松香酸对辣椒种子萌发、幼苗生长及根际微生物的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2010, 25(5):155-160. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2010.05.032
[40]	周宝利, 韩琳, 尹玉玲, 等. 化感物质棕榈酸对茄子根际土壤微生物组成及微生物量的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2010, 41(3):275-278.
[41]	JIN M C, GUAN H, ZHANG W J, et al. High level of iron inhibited maize straw decomposition by suppressing microbial communities and enzyme activities[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(6):1286. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12061286 URL
[42]	WANG K K, HU W S, XU Z Y, et al. Seasonal temporal characteristics of in situ straw decomposition in different types and returning methods[J]. Journal of soil science and plant nutrition, 202, 222(4):4228-4240.
[43]	MIN X Y, SONG D G, MA M T, et al. Effects of agronomic measures on decomposition characteristics of wheat and maize straw in China[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(19):12199. doi: 10.3390/su141912199 URL
[44]	HUANG B, JIA H J, HAN X B, et al. Effects of biocontrol bacillus and fermentation bacteria additions on the microbial community, functions and antibiotic resistance genes of prickly ash seed oil meal-biochar compost[J]. Bioresource technology, 2021, 340:125668. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125668 URL
[45]	KUMAR A, SINGH S, KUMAR P, et al. Fungal consortium and nitrogen supplementation stimulates soil microbial communities to accelerate in situ degradation of paddy straw[J]. Environmental sustainability, 2022, 5(2):161-171. doi: 10.1007/s42398-022-00225-w
[46]	PAGLIAI M, VIGNOZZI N, PELLEGRINI S. Soil structure and the effect of management practices[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2004, 79(2):131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.07.002 URL

处理	发酵45 d		发酵52 d		发酵59 d
处理	pH	电导率/(S/m)	pH	电导率/(S/m)	pH	电导率/(S/m)
A	7.46Aa	0.64Aa	7.63Aa	0.70Aa	7.72Aa	0.60Aa
B	7.61Aa	0.77Aa	7.57Aa	0.74Aa	7.90Aa	0.67Aa
C	7.74Aa	0.55Aa	7.63Aa	0.58Aa	8.08Aa	0.72Aa
D	7.53Aa	0.65Aa	7.68Aa	0.69Aa	8.08Aa	0.86Aa
E	7.71Aa	0.70Aa	7.62Aa	0.61Aa	7.94Aa	0.55Aa
CK1	7.83Aa	0.58Aa	7.57Aa	0.61Aa	7.77Aa	0.64Aa

处理	发酵45 d		发酵52 d		发酵59 d
处理	pH	电导率/(S/m)	pH	电导率/(S/m)	pH	电导率/(S/m)
A	7.46Aa	0.64Aa	7.63Aa	0.70Aa	7.72Aa	0.60Aa
B	7.61Aa	0.77Aa	7.57Aa	0.74Aa	7.90Aa	0.67Aa
C	7.74Aa	0.55Aa	7.63Aa	0.58Aa	8.08Aa	0.72Aa
D	7.53Aa	0.65Aa	7.68Aa	0.69Aa	8.08Aa	0.86Aa
E	7.71Aa	0.70Aa	7.62Aa	0.61Aa	7.94Aa	0.55Aa
CK1	7.83Aa	0.58Aa	7.57Aa	0.61Aa	7.77Aa	0.64Aa

处理	发酵45 d		发酵52 d		发酵59 d
处理	氮含量/%	E4/E6值	氮含量/%	E4/E6值	氮含量/%	E4/E6值
A	1.50Ab	4.85ABab	1.21Ab	4.15Aab	1.24Ab	3.78Aa
B	1.63Ab	4.60ABab	1.51Ab	3.50Aab	1.34Aa	3.45Aa
C	2.11Ab	4.85ABab	1.49Ab	3.68Aab	1.18Ab	3.33Aa
D	2.32Ab	3.03Bb	1.50Ab	3.02Ab	1.12Ab	2.97Aa
E	3.16Aa	4.42ABab	2.09Aa	3.24Ab	1.40Aa	3.17Aa
CK1	2.75Aa	6.77Aa	1.97Aa	5.09Aa	1.68Aa	3.43Aa

处理	发酵45 d		发酵52 d		发酵59 d
处理	氮含量/%	E4/E6值	氮含量/%	E4/E6值	氮含量/%	E4/E6值
A	1.50Ab	4.85ABab	1.21Ab	4.15Aab	1.24Ab	3.78Aa
B	1.63Ab	4.60ABab	1.51Ab	3.50Aab	1.34Aa	3.45Aa
C	2.11Ab	4.85ABab	1.49Ab	3.68Aab	1.18Ab	3.33Aa
D	2.32Ab	3.03Bb	1.50Ab	3.02Ab	1.12Ab	2.97Aa
E	3.16Aa	4.42ABab	2.09Aa	3.24Ab	1.40Aa	3.17Aa
CK1	2.75Aa	6.77Aa	1.97Aa	5.09Aa	1.68Aa	3.43Aa

处理	发酵45 d		发酵52 d		发酵59 d
处理	滤纸酶活性	纤维素酶活性	滤纸酶活性	纤维素酶活性	滤纸酶活性	纤维素酶活性
A	2.83Aa	4.95Aa	1.73Aa	1.73Aa	1.70Aa	2.15Aa
B	1.87Bb	1.73Cc	1.93Aa	1.93Aa	1.71Aa	1.85Aa
C	2.63Aa	1.62Cc	1.72Aa	1.72Aa	1.67Aa	1.92Aa
D	2.69Aa	3.47Bb	1.67Aa	1.67Aa	1.71Aa	1.77Aa
E	1.84Bb	1.70Cc	1.88Aa	1.88Aa	1.67Aa	2.03Aa
CK1	1.88Bb	1.69Cc	1.70Aa	1.70Aa	1.67Aa	1.67Aa