Response of Soil Nutrients and Microbial Communities to Increased Application of Mushroom Dreg in Albic Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0180

Abstract

Abstract:

Albic soil is one of the typical low-yielding soil types in Heilongjiang Province, which poor nutrient and soil barrier issues limit the crop growth and sustainable development. Mushroom dreg, rich in nutrients and microbial activity, is considered as an effective soil amendment. However, the changes in soil biochemistry caused by mushroom compost application on albic soil were unclear. Therefore, this study conducted field experiments and combined high-throughput sequencing technology into three treatment groups: CK (unfertilized control), T₂ (standard fertilization supplemented with 3 t/hm² of mushroom compost), and T₁ (standard fertilization control). The effects of mushroom compost on soil nutrients and microbial community characteristics and their interaction were analyzed. The study results found that adding mushroom dregs could improve the pH of albic soil and increase the overall nutrient content, enhance the richness and diversity of soil fungi, reduce the diversity and abundance of soil bacteria, increase the richness and diversity of soil fungi in some key phyla, such as Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Mucoromycota, Ascomycota and Chytridiomycota, with a trend of separation in the community structure of soil microorganisms. The main factors influencing the changes in soil bacterial and fungal communities were soil pH, total phosphorus, organic matter, and total potassium. This study not only contributed to an in-depth understanding of the mechanism of action of mushroom dreg in improving albic soil, but also provided technical support for the sustainable utilization of albic soil.

Key words: albic soil, mushroom dreg, soil nutrient, microbial community, soil reclamation

ZHANG Nan, PAN Xue, LIU Jie, YU Hongjiu, ZHANG Bo, DU Hailun, LIU Fengman, HAO Shuai. Response of Soil Nutrients and Microbial Communities to Increased Application of Mushroom Dreg in Albic Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(2): 49-55.

Figures/Tables 6

References 34

[1]	LIU Z J, ZHOU W, SHEN J B, et al. Soil quality assessment of Albic soils with different productivities for eastern China[J]. Soil & tillage research, 2014, 140(2):74-81.
[2]	麻福芳, 孔丽娟, 徐光耀, 等. 江西省食用菌废弃物的利用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(9):1797-1800. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20200928
[3]	郭远, 宋爽, 高琪, 等. 食用菌菌渣资源化利用进展[J]. 食用菌学报, 2022, 29(2):103-114.
[4]	陈卫红, 石晓旭. 我国农林废弃物的应用与研究现状[J]. 现代农业科技, 2017(18):148-149.
[5]	孙晓晴, 解永进, 李浩清. 食用菌菌糠饲料化及其他资源利用化研究进展[J]. 现代食品, 2023, 29(7):19-21.
[6]	陈露丹. 不同菌渣配施化肥对玉麦轮作土壤养分、重金属和微生物群落的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2023.
[7]	吴一格, 蒋雨洲, 张吉立, 等. 增施腐殖化木耳菌渣对玉米养分和产量的影响[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2023, 35(6):7-13.
[8]	李晓甜. 菌渣利用对设施黄瓜连作土壤特性及植株生长的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2022.
[9]	王雪东. 大球盖菇菌渣对连作茄子生长及土壤环境的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2022.
[10]	李孝良, 徐克琴, 肖瑞, 等. 肥料与石膏配施对滨海盐土玉米生长及养分吸收的影响[J]. 安徽科技学院学报, 2011, 25(6):23-28.
[11]	肖婧, 王传杰, 黄敏, 等. 生物质炭对设施大棚土壤性质与果蔬产量影响的整合分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(1):228-236.
[12]	滕青, 曾梦凤, 林慧凡, 等. 菌渣还田对生菜生长、土壤养分及酶活性的影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(6):30-36. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18100082
[13]	李奕赞, 张江周, 贾吉玉, 等. 农田土壤生态系统多功能性研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(5):1177-1189.
[14]	NANNIPIERI P, ASCHER J, CECCHERINI M T, et al. The links between microbial diversity and soil functions; proceedings of the international workshop on innovative soil-plant systems for sustainable agricultural practices, Izmir, Turkey, F Jun 03-07, 2002[C].2003.
[15]	荣勤雷. 有机肥/秸秆替代化肥模式对设施菜田土壤团聚体微生物特性的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2018.
[16]	郭慧婷, 高静, 张强, 等. 有机肥对我国酸性和碱性土壤pH的影响差异及原因[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2024, 30(3):496-503.
[17]	曹宏杰, 倪红伟. 土壤微生物多样性及其影响因素研究进展[J]. 国土与自然资源研究, 2015(3):85-88.
[18]	涂敏, 蔡海滨, 彭延麟, 等. 橡胶树红根病患病与健康植株根际土壤微生物结构及多样性分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(12):3639-3645. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.12.034
[19]	李玉娇, 刘星, 吴大付, 等. 温室黄瓜连作对土壤真菌数量和群落结构的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(1):194-204. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20190712
[20]	吴美玲, 田晋文. 基于GIS和地统计学的黔西北农业园区土壤养分空间变异特征研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(17):48-53. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18050038
[21]	朱晓锋, 蔡淑琳, 苏卓文, 等. 果园脐腹小蠹伴生(共生)真菌群落组成及功能分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3):691-399. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.03.019
[22]	朱怡, 吴永波, 安玉亭. 基于高通量测序的禁牧对土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(17):7137-7146.
[23]	JIAO F, ZHANG D D, CHEN Y, et al. Effects of long-term straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer reduction on soil microbial diversity in black soil in Northeast China[J]. Agronomy-basel, 2023, 13(8).
[24]	金章利, 刘高鹏, 周明涛, 等. 山地草地土壤微生物群落对土壤养分的指示作用[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(11):2638-2645.
[25]	周伟, 郑伟, 周娟, 等. 菌渣有机肥对菠菜生长与土壤肥力的影响研究[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2023, 42(4):78-82.
[26]	安祥瑞, 江尚焘, 谢昶琰, 等. 减施化肥配施有机肥对荔枝园土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(4):1099-1108. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.031
[27]	徐爽. 香菇菌渣对不同质地土壤团聚体组成的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(4):540-546.
[28]	徐爽, 阚雨晨. 食用菌菌渣对黄褐土团聚体组成的影响[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2023, 69(1):59-65.
[29]	乔赵崇, 王炯琪, 赵海超, 等. 种植模式对冀西北坝上土壤活性有机质和碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(6):1139-1146. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.06.009
[30]	陈文博. 长期菌渣还田对土壤有机碳稳定性、酶活性和微生物多样性的影响[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2021.
[31]	耿和田, 王旭东, 石思博, 等. 菌渣与化肥配施对稻田土壤微生物群落组成及多样性的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(4):2338-2347.
[32]	焦晓丹, 吴凤芝. 土壤微生物多样性研究方法的进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2004(6):789-792.
[33]	WU X, ZHANG T, ZHAO J, et al. Variation of soil bacterial and fungal communities from fluvo-aquic soil under chemical fertilizer reduction combined with organic materials in north China Plain[J]. Journal of soil science and plant nutrition, 2020.
[34]	SCHNECKER J R, WILD B, HOFHANSL F, et al. Effects of soil organic matter properties and microbial community composition on enzyme activities in cryoturbated arctic soils[J]. Plos one, 2014.

处理	pH	有机质	全氮	全磷	全钾
CK	6.18±0.02 b	32.75±0.27 b	1.56±0.01 b	0.61±0.01 a	20.97±0.11 b
T1	6.18±0.02 b	32.93±0.20 b	1.68±0.01 a	0.63±0.03 a	22.64±0.25 a
T2	6.25±0.01 a	35.73±0.57 a	1.71±0.03 a	0.63±0.01 a	23.07±0.26 a

处理	pH	有机质	全氮	全磷	全钾
CK	6.18±0.02 b	32.75±0.27 b	1.56±0.01 b	0.61±0.01 a	20.97±0.11 b
T1	6.18±0.02 b	32.93±0.20 b	1.68±0.01 a	0.63±0.03 a	22.64±0.25 a
T2	6.25±0.01 a	35.73±0.57 a	1.71±0.03 a	0.63±0.01 a	23.07±0.26 a

处理	细菌			真菌
处理	Shannon指数	Ace指数	Coverage指数	Shannon指数	Ace指数	Coverage指数
T1	6.60±0.03	3543.97±101.96	0.99±0.0003	3.34±0.51	650.14±35.50	0.99±0.0001
T2	6.54±0.03	3391.15±97.31	0.99±0.0003	4.39±0.06	720.53±37.04	0.99±0.0001

处理	细菌			真菌
处理	Shannon指数	Ace指数	Coverage指数	Shannon指数	Ace指数	Coverage指数
T1	6.60±0.03	3543.97±101.96	0.99±0.0003	3.34±0.51	650.14±35.50	0.99±0.0001
T2	6.54±0.03	3391.15±97.31	0.99±0.0003	4.39±0.06	720.53±37.04	0.99±0.0001