Regulation Effect of Biochar on Bacterial Community in Cotton Field Soil under Saline Water Drip Irrigation

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0236

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the regulation effects of biochar application on soil physicochemical properties and bacterial communities in cotton field soil under long-term saline water irrigation, based on long-term saline water (8.04 dS/m) irrigation, three treatments were set up for field positioning experiments: no nitrogen fertilizer application (N₀), nitrogen fertilizer treatment (N₃₆₀) and biochar combined with nitrogen fertilizer treatment (BC). Determination of soil bacterial community composition was conducted by high-throughput sequencing technology. The results showed that compared with N₀ treatment, N₃₆₀ treatment significantly increased soil electrical conductivity and total nitrogen, but significantly decreased soil pH and available phosphorus content; BC treatment significantly increased soil water content, electrical conductivity, total carbon, total nitrogen and available potassium content. Compared with N₀ treatment, N₃₆₀ and BC decreased the Shannon and Simpson indices of bacterial communities, while N₃₆₀ treatment increased the Chao 1 and ACE indices. The dominant bacteria at phylum level were Proteobacteria, Acidobacteriota and Actinobacteriota; the dominant bacteria at genus level were Nitrosospira, RB41 and Sphingomonas. N₃₆₀ treatment increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteriota and Firmicutes, but decreased the relative abundance of Actinobacteriota, Gemmatimonadota and Thermoplasmatota; BC treatment increased the relative abundance of Actinobacteriota, Nitrospirota and Chloroflexi, while decreased the relative abundance of Acidobacteriota, Bacteroidota and Verrucomicrobiota. LEfSe analysis showed that both N₃₆₀ and BC treatments reduced the number of potential biomarkers of bacteria. The RDA results showed a significant correlation between soil bacterial community structure and soil total nitrogen and available potassium content. Nitrogen fertilizer and Biochar combined with nitrogen fertilizer can regulate soil physicochemical properties, thus regulating soil bacterial community structure, which can form dominant species to adapt to salt environment.

Key words: saline water irrigation, biochar, nitrogen fertilizer, cotton field soil, bacterial community

YE Yang, XIANG Guiqin, GUO Xiaowen, MIN Wei, GUO Huijuan. Regulation Effect of Biochar on Bacterial Community in Cotton Field Soil under Saline Water Drip Irrigation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(6): 91-100.

Figures/Tables 11

References 55

[1]	刘赛华, 杨广, 张秋英, 等. 典型荒漠植物梭梭在咸水滴灌条件下土壤水盐运移特性[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(1):52-60.
[2]	贾咏霖, 屈忠义, 丁艳宏, 等. 不同灌溉方式下施用生物炭对土壤水盐运移规律及玉米水分利用效率的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2020, 39(8):44-51.
[3]	闵伟, 侯振安, 冶军, 等. 长期咸水滴灌棉田土壤微生物活性及群落功能多样性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(11):2950-2958.
[4]	王丽渊, 丁松爽, 刘国顺. 生物质炭土壤改良效应研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2014(3):1-6.
[5]	吴忠东, 王卫华, 张照录, 等. 咸淡组合淋洗对土壤水盐分布特征的影响[J]. 排灌机械工程学报, 2014, 32(12):1085-1090.
[6]	ALBDAIWI R N, KHYAMI H H, AYAD J Y, et al. Isolation and characterization of halotolerant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from durum wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. durum) cultivated in saline areas of the dead sea region[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2019, 10:1639-1655. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01639 URL
[7]	肖颖. 盐分对辽河口湿地土壤有机碳矿化的影响[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳大学, 2016.
[8]	曾维爱, 杨昭玥, 黄洋, 等. 长期连作农田土壤细菌群落结构和共现网络拓扑性质对土壤理化性质的响应[J]. 微生物学报, 2022, 62(6):2403-2416.
[9]	FIERER N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2017, 15(10):579-590. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87 pmid: 28824177
[10]	PANKE B K, POOLE A C, GOODRICH J K, et al. Selection on soil microbiomes reveals reproducible impacts on plant function[J]. The isme journal, 2015, 9(4):980-989. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.196 URL
[11]	ZHOU Z J, DU C W, LI T, et al. Biodegradation of a biochar-modifed materborne polyacrylate membrane coating for controlled-release fertilizer and its efects on soil bacterial community profiles[J]. Environmental science and pollution research, 2015, 22(11):8672-8682. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-4040-z URL
[12]	VAN Z L, KIMBER S, MORRIS S, et al. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility[J]. Plant and soil, 2010, 327(1):235-246. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x URL
[13]	荣飞龙, 蔡正午, 覃莎莎, 等. 酸性稻田添加生物炭对水稻生长发育及产量的影响-基于5年大田试验[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(13):4413-4424.
[14]	侯建伟, 邢存芳, 卢志宏, 等. 不同秸秤生物炭对贵州黄壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(23):4485-4495. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.23.008
[15]	贺超卉, 董文旭, 胡春胜, 等. 生物质炭对土壤N₂O消耗的影响及其微生物影响机理[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2019, 27(9):1301-1308.
[16]	胡庆兰, 杨凯, 王金贵. 地膜覆盖及不同施肥处理对根际土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2023, 32(3):429-439.
[17]	XU C C, ZHANG K H, ZHU W Y, et al. Large losses of ammonium-nitrogen from a rice ecosystem under elevated CO₂[J]. Science advances, 2020, 6(42).
[18]	SANCHEZ P A. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa[J]. Science, 2002, 295:2019-2020. doi: 10.1126/science.1065256 URL
[19]	XU H J, WANG X H, LI H, et al. Biochar impacts soil microbial community composition and nitrogen cycling in an acidic soil planted with rape[J]. Environ. sci. technol, 2014, 48(16):9391-9399. doi: 10.1021/es5021058 URL
[20]	JU X T, XING G X, CHEN X P, et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems[J]. Proceedings of the national academy sciences USA, 2009, 106:3041-3046. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813417106 URL
[21]	周永学, 陈静, 李远, 等. 棉秆还田对咸水滴灌棉田土壤酶活性和细菌群落结构多样性的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(4):2192-2203.
[22]	杜思垚, 陈静, 刘佳炜. 基于宏基因组学揭示咸水滴灌对棉田土壤微生物的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(2):1104-1119.
[23]	郭慧楠. 生物炭对咸水滴灌棉田土壤的改良效应研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2021.
[24]	郭晓雯, 陈静, 鲁晓宇, 等. 生物炭和秸秆还田对微咸水滴灌棉田土壤真菌群落结构多样性的影响[J/OL]. 环境科学:1-16[2022-09-03].
[25]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,1981.
[26]	赵林艳, 官会林, 向萍, 等. 白及根腐病植株根际土壤微生物群落组成特征分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(2):67-74. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2021-0757
[27]	张文. 咸水滴灌对棉田土壤N₂O排放的影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2016.
[28]	马丽娟, 张慧敏, 侯振安, 等. 长期咸水滴灌对土壤氨氧化微生物丰度和群落结构的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(12):2797-2807.
[29]	冯棣, 张俊鹏, 孙池涛, 等. 咸水灌溉棉田保证棉花优质高产的土壤盐度指标控制[J]. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(24):87-94.
[30]	ZHU M, WANG Q, SUN Y, et al. Effects of oxygenated brackish water on germination and growth characteristics of wheat[J]. Agricultural water management, 2021, 245:106520. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106520 URL
[31]	王罕博, 张栓堂, 焦艳平, 等. 不同氮肥与矿化度水平微咸水喷灌对冬小麦光合特征及产量的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2022, 39(1):99-106.
[32]	张文, 周广威, 闵伟, 等. 长期咸水滴灌对棉花产量、土壤理化性质和N₂O排放的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2014, 33(8):1583-1590.
[33]	赵士诚, 魏美艳, 仇少君, 等. 氮肥管理对秸秆还田下土壤氮素供应和冬小麦生长的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(2):20-25.
[34]	路怡青, 朱安宁, 张佳宝, 等. 免耕和秸秆还田对潮土酶活性及微生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(5):894-898.
[35]	霍竹, 付晋锋, 王璞. 秸秆还田和氮肥施用对夏玉米氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 土壤, 2005, 37(2):202-204.
[36]	杜思垚, 郭晓雯, 王芳霞, 等. 施用生物炭对咸水滴灌棉田土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(3):571-580.
[37]	李涛, 何春娥, 葛晓颖, 等. 秸秆还田施氮调节碳氮比对土壤无机氮、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(12):1633-1642.
[38]	孙媛, 任广鑫, 冯永忠, 等. 秸秆还田和施氮对土壤水热因子及呼吸速率的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 43(3):146-152.
[39]	郭实荣, 胡昆, 邱孺, 等. 生物炭对酸性土壤改良研究进展[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2017, 40(4):3.
[40]	刘琪, 高志强, 杨珍平, 等. 合理氮肥用量改善冬小麦土壤耕层细菌群落结构及理化性质研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(30):77-84. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1058
[41]	戴雅婷, 闫志坚, 解继红, 等. 基于高通量测序的两种植被恢复类型根际土壤细菌多样性研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2017, 54(3):735-748.
[42]	李明, 毕江涛, 王静. 宁夏不同地区盐碱化土壤细菌群落多样性分布特征及其影响因子[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(4):1316-1330.
[43]	郭晓雯, 杜思垚, 王芳霞, 等. 长期咸水滴灌对棉田土壤细菌和真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12):2909-2923. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.006
[44]	付博阳, 张钧浩, 杨明晓, 等. 追氮时期对强筋小麦根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2022, 45(3):1-8. doi: 10.13320/j.cnki.jauh.2022.0036
[45]	SAMAEI M R, MORTAZAVI S B, BAKHSHI B, et al. Isolation genetic identification, and degradation characteristics of n hexadecane degrading bacteria from tropical areas in Iran[J]. Fresenius environmental bulletin, 2013, 22(4):1304-1312.
[46]	LIU J J, SUI Y Y, YU Z H, et al. High throughput sequencing analysis of biogeographical distribution of bacterial communities in the black soils of northeast China[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2014, 70:113-122. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.014 URL
[47]	丁凯, 张毓婷, 张俊红, 等. 不同密度杉木林对林下植被和土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(1):62-73.
[48]	ZHENG X, WANG Z, ZHU Y, et al. Effects of a microbial restoration substrate on plant growth and rhizosphere bacterial community in a continuous tomato cropping greenhouse[J]. Scientific reports, 2020, 10:13729. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70737-0 pmid: 32792530
[49]	DING S, ZHOU D, WEI H, et al. Alleviating soil degradation caused by watermelon continuous cropping obstacle: application of urban waste compost[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 262:128387. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128387 URL
[50]	向君亮, 刘权, 申永瑞, 等. 松嫩草原盐碱土细菌多样性分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(2):62-68.
[51]	杨阳, 章妮, 蒋莉莉, 等. 青海湖高寒草地土壤理化性质及微生物群落特征对模拟降水的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5):1043-1052. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.05.021
[52]	BERGMANN G T, BATES S T, EILERS K G, et al. The under-recognized dominance of Verrucomicrobia in soil bacterial communities[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2011, 43(7):1450-1465. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.012 URL
[53]	CRITS C A, DIAMOND S, BUTTERFIELD C N, et al. Novel soil bacteria possess diverse genes for secondary metabolite biosynthesis[J]. Nature, 2018, 558(7710):440-454. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0207-y
[54]	VESELA A B, FRANC M, PELANTOVA H, et al. Hydrolysis of benzonitrile herbicides by soil actinobacteria and metabolite toxicity[J]. Biodegradation, 2010, 21(5):761-770. doi: 10.1007/s10532-010-9341-4 pmid: 20204468
[55]	张翰林, 白娜玲, 郑宪清, 等. 秸秆还田与施肥方式对稻麦轮作土壤细菌和真菌群落结构与多样性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(3):531-539.

处理	含水量/%	电导率/(dS/m)	pH	全碳/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)
N₀	15.13±0.002b	0.95±0.020c	7.73±0.026b	25.42±0.742b	0.76±0.004c	180±6.110b	42.10±0.941a
N₃₆₀	14.80±0.007b	1.30±0.001b	7.48±0.040c	25.83±0.678b	0.83±0.0012b	183±2.309b	25.44±1.286b
BC	17.21±0.004a	1.52±0.008a	7.87±0.015a	31.97±0.546a	0.87±0.002a	379±8.185a	36.03±5.048a

处理	含水量/%	电导率/(dS/m)	pH	全碳/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)
N₀	15.13±0.002b	0.95±0.020c	7.73±0.026b	25.42±0.742b	0.76±0.004c	180±6.110b	42.10±0.941a
N₃₆₀	14.80±0.007b	1.30±0.001b	7.48±0.040c	25.83±0.678b	0.83±0.0012b	183±2.309b	25.44±1.286b
BC	17.21±0.004a	1.52±0.008a	7.87±0.015a	31.97±0.546a	0.87±0.002a	379±8.185a	36.03±5.048a

处理	Coverage	Shannon指数	Simpson指数	Chao 1指数	ACE指数
N₀	99.2%	9.703a	0.997a	3288a	3307a
N₃₆₀	98.9%	9.555a	0.996a	3382a	3432a
BC	99.1%	9.579a	0.996a	3204a	3223a

处理	Coverage	Shannon指数	Simpson指数	Chao 1指数	ACE指数
N₀	99.2%	9.703a	0.997a	3288a	3307a
N₃₆₀	98.9%	9.555a	0.996a	3382a	3432a
BC	99.1%	9.579a	0.996a	3204a	3223a