Risk and Microbial Community Characteristics of Antibiotics in Soil of Solar Greenhouse with Pig Manure Application: A Case Study of Solar Greenhouse in Yongqing County, Hebei Province

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0443

Abstract

Abstract:

In recent years, the facility planting industry has developed rapidly. Organic fertilizers derived from livestock and poultry manure have become widely used in facility planting. Animal manure is one of the primary sources of antibiotics in the soil of facility planting. These antibiotics can be absorbed by crops and transmitted through the food chain, ultimately posing a threat to human health. The study focused on the impact of antibiotic residues in pig manure organic fertilizer on the ecological risk and biodiversity of soil antibiotics in a solar greenhouse in Yongqing County, Hebei Province, a major vegetable planting county. By measuring the types and contents of antibiotics in pig manure and greenhouse soil, the ecological risk of various antibiotics was evaluated using the risk quotient method; the characteristics of the microbial community were determined using metagenomic methods, and the impact of antibiotic residues on soil microbial diversity was explored. The results showed that: (1) seven typical veterinary antibiotics were detected in pig manure and greenhouse soil samples, namely sulfamethoxazole (SM2), norfloxacin(NOR), Ciprofloxacin(CIP), Enrofloxacin(ENR), Tetracycline(TC), Oxytetracycline(OTC) and Chloramphenicol(CTC). (2) The concentrations of enrofloxacin and aureomycin in pig manure were the highest, with RQ values of 28.26 and 1.23, both greater than 1.0, indicating a high ecological risk. The highest concentrations of enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline were observed in the soil of the greenhouse where pig manure was used, with RQ values ranged from 0.1 to 1.0, indicating moderate ecological risks. (3) The application of pig manure organic fertilizer had a certain impact on the microbial community structure in greenhouse soil, changing the abundance ranking of dominant microbial communities. Specially, the fourth dominant bacterial phylum in the soil treated with pig manure had changed from Archaea to Chloroflexi. Research had shown that applying pig manure led to an increase in the relative abundance of Nocardioides, bacteria capable of producing antibiotics, which reached more than twice that of the control group.

Key words: solar greenhouse, antibiotics, pig manure, soil, microbial community characteristics, poultry and livestock manure organic fertilizers, antibiotic residues, ecological risk, microbial diversity, Nocardioides

ZHAO Yunyun, HE Fen, YIN Yilei, PAN Shoujiang, JIAN Baoquan, QI Yue, ZHU Limei. Risk and Microbial Community Characteristics of Antibiotics in Soil of Solar Greenhouse with Pig Manure Application: A Case Study of Solar Greenhouse in Yongqing County, Hebei Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(35): 82-88.

Figures/Tables 6

References 33

[1]	白金顺, 王伟红, 李艳丽, 等. 我国猪粪中四环素类抗生素残留及好氧堆肥消减研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(3):231-238.
[2]	邹韵, 张园, 陈明龙, 等. 我国畜禽粪肥还田对农田土壤抗性基因积累的影响综述[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2023(4):220-229.
[3]	张书源, 吴建强, 沙晨燕, 等. 畜禽粪肥施用对果园土壤细菌群落多样性影响[J]. 武汉大学学报(理学版), 2022, 68(6):644-654.
[4]	周家昊, 孙万春, 俞巧钢, 等. 3种有机肥部分替代化肥对春茶产量与品质的影响[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 49(1):79-85.
[5]	晁赢, 付钢锋, 阎祥慧, 等. 有机肥对作物品质、土壤肥力及环境影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29):103-107. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0631
[6]	杨威, 狄彩霞, 李季, 等. 我国有机肥原料及商品有机肥中四环素类抗生素的检出率及含量[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(9):1487-1495.
[7]	CHUNG H S, LEE Y J, RAHMAN M, et al. Uptake of the veterinary antibiotics chlortetracycline, enrofloxacin, and sulphathiazole from soil by radish[J]. Science of the total environment, 2017,605-606:322-331.
[8]	WANG W Z, CHI S L, XU W H, et al. Influence of long-term chicken manure application on the concentration of soil tetracycline antibiotics and resistant bacteria variations[J]. Applied ecology and environmental research, 2018, 16(2):1143-1153.
[9]	国家统计局. 2021年中国统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2022.
[10]	彭秋, 王卫中, 徐卫红. 重庆市畜禽粪便及菜田土壤中四环素类抗生素生态风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(10):4757-4766.
[11]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 中国农业大学, 南京农业大学, 等. 525-2021,有机肥料[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2021:2-4.
[12]	GUERIT I, BOCQUENE G, JAMES A, et al. Environmental risk assessment: A critical approach of the European TGD in an in situ application[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2008, 71(1):291-300. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.01.020 pmid: 18378309
[13]	殷勤. 施用猪场粪水对种植土地土壤理化性状及菌群组成的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2019.
[14]	杜忍让, 王一民, 王刚弟, 等. 发酵猪粪对果园土壤pH及有机质含量影响研究[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2018, 39(11):75-78.
[15]	潘霞, 陈励科, 卜元卿, 等. 畜禽有机肥对典型蔬果地土壤剖面重金属与抗生素分布的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2012, 28(5):518-525.
[16]	曹胜男, 梁玉婷, 易良银, 等. 施粪肥土壤中抗生素的提取条件优化及残留特征[J]. 环境工程学报, 2017, 11(11):6169-6176.
[17]	高俊敏, 舒心, 侯先宇, 等. 村镇水土环境中抗生素的污染特征及来源解析[J]. 中国环境科学, 2021, 41(12):5827-5836.
[18]	李威, 李佳熙, 李吉平, 等. 我国不同环境介质中的抗生素污染特征研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(1):205-214. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201902002
[19]	李余杰. 畜禽粪污中FQs类抗生素的污染水平及在紫色土中迁移转化研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2020.
[20]	赵富强, 高会, 张克玉, 等. 中国典型河流水域抗生素的赋存状况及风险评估研究[J]. 环境污染与防治, 2021, 43(1):94-102.
[21]	GARCIA-GALAN M J, DIAZ-CRUZ M S, BARCELO D. Occurrence of sulfonamide residues along the Ebro river basin Removal in wastewater treatment plants and environmental impact assessment[J]. Environmental International, 2011, 37(2):462-473.
[22]	HALLING-SØRENSEN B, HOLTEN LÜTZHØFT H C, ANDERSEN H R, et al. Environmental risk assessment of antibiotics: Trimethoprim comparison of mecillinam, and ciprofloxacin[J]. Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2000, 46:53-58.
[23]	BENOǏT F, Raphael M, Bernard V, et al. Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment[J]. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2009, 23(5):1344-1354
[24]	SUJUNG P, KYUNGHO C. Hazard assessment of commonly used agricultural antibiotics on aquatic ecosystems[J]. Ecotoxicology, 2008, 17:526-538. doi: 10.1007/s10646-008-0209-x pmid: 18449638
[25]	KOLAR B, ARNUS L, JERETIN B, et al. The toxic effect of oxytetracycline and trimethoprim in the aquatic environment[J]. Chemosphere, 2014, 115:75-80. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.049 pmid: 24703011
[26]	ZHAO F, YANG L, CHEN L, et al. Soil contamination with antibiotics in typical peri-urban area in eastern China: Seasonal variation, risk assessment, and microbial responses[J]. Journal of environmental sciences, 2019, 79(5):200-212.
[27]	赵震雄, 张宇轩, 王丽平, 等. 基于文献计量学的农业种植环境中抗生素抗性基因的研究进展[J]. 环境科学研究, 2023, 36(12):2393-2406.
[28]	LESAULNIER C, PAPAMICHAIL D, MCCORKLE S, et al. Elevated atmospheric CO2 affects soil microbial diversity associated with trembling aspen[J]. Environmental microbiology, 2008, 10(4):926-941. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01512.x pmid: 18218029
[29]	CHAUDHRY V, REHMAN A, MISHRA A, et al. Changes in bacterial community structure of agricultural land due to long-term organic and chemical amendments[J]. Microbial ecology, 2012, 64(2):450-460. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0025-y pmid: 22419103
[30]	理鹏, 吴建强, 沙晨燕, 等. 粪肥和有机肥施用对稻田土壤微生物群落多样性影响[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(9):4262-4272.
[31]	PODOSOKORSKAYA O A, BONCH-OSMOLOVSKAYA E A, NOVIKOV A A, et al. Ornatilinea apprima gen. nov., sp nov., a cellulolytic representative of the class Anaerolineae[J]. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology, 2012, 63:86-92.
[32]	韩宇柔, 徐卫红. 养殖场及周边环境介质中抗生素生态风险及微生物多样性特征[J]. 环境科学, 2024, 45(11):6594-6603.
[33]	SUN Y, GUO Y, SHI M, et al. Effect of antibiotic type and vegetable species on antibiotic accumulation in soil-vegetable system, soil microbiota, and resistance genes[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 263:128099.DOI:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128099.

样品编号	有机质含量/%	重金属含量/(mg/kg)
样品编号	有机质含量/%	Cr	Cu	Zn	As	Cd	Pb
CK	5.19	4.65	2.76	5.35	1.51	0.18	13.65
Z1	7.35	2.35	3.54	8.70	0.48	0.19	8.70
Z2	6.90	2.50	3.02	6.35	0.64	0.15	10.22
Z3	7.95	2.10	2.65	7.77	0.45	0.22	11.58
平均值	7.40	2.32	3.07	7.61	0.52	0.19	10.17
ZF	20.45	38.59	10.45	43.42	2.27	0.23	4.49

样品编号	有机质含量/%	重金属含量/(mg/kg)
样品编号	有机质含量/%	Cr	Cu	Zn	As	Cd	Pb
CK	5.19	4.65	2.76	5.35	1.51	0.18	13.65
Z1	7.35	2.35	3.54	8.70	0.48	0.19	8.70
Z2	6.90	2.50	3.02	6.35	0.64	0.15	10.22
Z3	7.95	2.10	2.65	7.77	0.45	0.22	11.58
平均值	7.40	2.32	3.07	7.61	0.52	0.19	10.17
ZF	20.45	38.59	10.45	43.42	2.27	0.23	4.49

序号	简称	敏感物种	EC₅₀/(mg/L)	PENC_water/(μg/kg)	K_d/(L/Kg)	PENC_soil/(μg/kg)	文献来源
1	SM2	Green algae	19.520	19.520	16.550	323.056	[20]
2	NOR		22.000	22.000	1.349	29.678	[21]
3	CIP		1.100	1.100	419.000	460.900	[22]
4	ENR	Blue-green alage	0.049	0.049	260.000	12.740	[23]
5	TC	Blue-green alage	0.090	0.090	1093.000	98.370	[24]
6	OTC	Green algae	0.170	0.170	680.000	115.600	[25]
7	CTC	Inflated duckweed	0.219	0.219	1288.250	282.127	[26]

序号	简称	敏感物种	EC₅₀/(mg/L)	PENC_water/(μg/kg)	K_d/(L/Kg)	PENC_soil/(μg/kg)	文献来源
1	SM2	Green algae	19.520	19.520	16.550	323.056	[20]
2	NOR		22.000	22.000	1.349	29.678	[21]
3	CIP		1.100	1.100	419.000	460.900	[22]
4	ENR	Blue-green alage	0.049	0.049	260.000	12.740	[23]
5	TC	Blue-green alage	0.090	0.090	1093.000	98.370	[24]
6	OTC	Green algae	0.170	0.170	680.000	115.600	[25]
7	CTC	Inflated duckweed	0.219	0.219	1288.250	282.127	[26]

序号	抗生素名称	RQ
序号	抗生素名称	CK	Z1	Z2	Z3	ZF
1	SM2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01
2	NOR	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.41
3	CIP	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.20
4	ENR	0.00	0.11	0.12	0.12	28.06
5	TC	0.00	0.05	0.05	0.06	0.46
6	OTC	0.01	0.11	0.09	0.08	0.19
7	CTC	0.01	0.06	0.07	0.13	1.23