施用生物菌剂对棉田土壤细菌群落多样性及种群结构的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2021.12.013

新疆农业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (12): 2256-2264.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2021.12.013

• 植物保护·园艺特产·土壤肥料·节水灌溉·农业生态环境·农业装备工程与机械化 • 上一篇下一篇

施用生物菌剂对棉田土壤细菌群落多样性及种群结构的影响

刘海洋¹(), 王伟¹, 张仁福¹, 雷斌², 姚举¹()

1.新疆农业科学院植物保护研究所/农业部西北荒漠绿洲作物有害生物综合治理重点实验室,乌鲁木齐 830091
2.新疆农业科学院核技术生物技术研究所,乌鲁木齐 830091

收稿日期:2020-09-24 出版日期:2021-12-20 发布日期:2021-12-31
通信作者: 姚举
作者简介:刘海洋(1982-),男,山东人,副研究员,博士,研究方向为棉花病害综合防控与基础研究,(E-mail) liuhaiyang001@163.com
基金资助:
新疆维吾尔自治区科技支疆项目计划(2019E0244);天山创新团队计划(2020D140011);新疆农业科学院青年科技骨干创新能力培养项目(xjnkq-2020015)

Influence of Biofertilizers on Community Diversity and Population Structure of Soil Bacteria in Cotton Field

LIU Haiyang¹(), WANG Wei¹, ZHANG Renfu¹, LEI Bin², YAO Ju¹()

1. Key Laboratory of Integrated Crop Pest Management in Northwestern Oasis of China,MOARA,P.R China/ Institute of Plant Protection,Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Urumqi 830091,China
2. Institute of Nuclear Technology and Biotechnology, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830091, China

Received:2020-09-24 Online:2021-12-20 Published:2021-12-31
Correspondence author: YAO Ju
Supported by:
Science and technology support project of Xinjiang autonomous region(2019E0244);Tianshan innovation team program(2020D140011);Project of renovation capacity building for the young Sci-Tech talents sponsored by Xinjiang academy of agricultural sciences(xjnkq-2020015)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的研究生物菌剂对棉田土壤细菌群落多样性及种群结构的影响,分析生物菌剂对新疆棉田土壤微生态的改善效应,为提高棉花土传病害的生物防治与化肥减施技术提供依据。方法采集施用生物菌剂及对照棉田10~20 cm土壤,检测土壤理化性质并利用Illumina Hiseq 2500 PE250高通量测序平台分析土壤细菌多样性。结果施用生物菌剂且停施头水肥后,土壤中全氮、有机质、速效钾含量分别下降28.7%、27.5%和31.9%,全磷、速效氮含量没有下降,全钾含量变化不大。施用生物菌剂后土壤中细菌的ACE、Chaol、Shannon指数与对照相比均无显著差异,与常规管理棉田相比停施头水肥后土壤细菌的ACE、Chaol丰富度指数显著降低。施用生物菌剂与对照相比能够影响土壤微生物群落组成,在减施化肥的情况下影响程度降低。施用生物菌剂且停施头水肥与常规管理棉田的土壤细菌种群之间没有显著差异标记。生物菌剂处理中芽孢杆菌属的丰度均高于对照,呈现出逐年增加的趋势,而假单胞菌属的丰度在生物菌剂处理中均低于对照,溶杆菌属、链霉菌属的丰度在不同处理中无一致规律。结论棉田停施头水肥显著降低了土壤细菌的丰度,施用生物菌剂未对棉田土壤细菌的多样性和种群结构造成显著影响,增加了棉田土壤中有益细菌芽孢杆菌属的丰度。在新疆棉花耕作系统中,持续施用生物菌剂以形成作物根际微生物保护层,维持作物根际的健康。

关键词: 化肥减施; 高通量测序; 细菌多样性; 聚类分析; 芽孢杆菌属

Abstract:

【Objective】 To investigate the influence of biofertilizers on community diversity and population structure of soil bacteria in cotton field, reveal how biofertilizers have improved the microbial ecology of soil in cotton field of Xinjiang, and provide a basis for improving the biological control of soil-borne diseases and reducing the application of chemical fertilizers in cotton field. 【Methods】 The soil at the depth of 0-20 cm was collected from the cotton field applying biofertilizers (the experimental group) and the cotton field applying water (the control group). The physical and chemical properties of soil were tested. The bacterial diversity of soil was analyzed by using Illumina Hiseq 2500 PE250 (a high-throughput sequencing platform). 【Results】 After biofertilizers were applied and the application of mixed water fertilizer (the manure of fermented night-soil mixed with water) was suspended, the content of total nitrogen, organic matter and available potassium in soil decreased by 28.7%, 27.5% and 31.9%, respectively. The content of total phosphorus and available nitrogen did not decrease, but the content of total potassium changed a little. The ACE, Chaol and Shannon indexes of soil bacteria in the experimental group had no significant difference from those in the control group after the application of biofertilizers. However, the abundance of soil bacteria decreased significantly after the suspended application of mixed water fertilizer. A cluster analysis indicated that biofertilizers affected the composition of soil microbial community, but their influence decreased when the application of chemical fertilizers was reduced. No significant difference was found in soil bacterial population between the experimental group (the cotton field where biofertilizers were applied and the application of mixed water fertilizer was suspended) and the control group (the cotton field following a conventional management model). The abundance of Bacillus in the experimental group was higher than that in the control group and increased year by year. The abundance of Pseudomonas in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group. The abundance of Lysobacter and Streptomyces did not show a consistent variation tendency. 【Conclusion】 Biofertilizers have no significant effect on the diversity and population structure of soil bacteria in cotton field, but increase the abundance of Bacillus (a kind of beneficial bacteria). It is suggested that biofertilizers should be continuously applied in the cotton farming system of Xinjiang to form a protective layer of microorganisms at rhizosphere and finally maintain a healthy rhizosphere.

Key words: fertilizer reduction; high-throughput sequencing; bacterial community diversity; cluster analysis; Bacillus

中图分类号:

S435.621

刘海洋, 王伟, 张仁福, 雷斌, 姚举. 施用生物菌剂对棉田土壤细菌群落多样性及种群结构的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(12): 2256-2264.

LIU Haiyang, WANG Wei, ZHANG Renfu, LEI Bin, YAO Ju. Influence of Biofertilizers on Community Diversity and Population Structure of Soil Bacteria in Cotton Field[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(12): 2256-2264.

图/表 5

表1 2019年试验田土壤养分与理化性质

Table 1 Soil nutrients and physicochemical properties of the experimental plots in 2019

处理 Treatment	pH值 pH value	总盐 Total salt (g/kg)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g/kg)	全磷 Total phosphorus (g/kg)	全钾 Total potassium (g/kg)	有机质 Organic matter (g/kg)	速效氮 Available nitrogen (mg/kg)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg/kg)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg/kg)
Biofer1	8.79	2.3	0.28	0.60	14.25	5.55	27.0	9.2	65.0
CK₁	8.87	2.5	0.44	0.32	14.58	8.42	24.0	9.9	117.0
Biofer2	8.81	1.3	0.42	0.43	14.58	9.97	43.5	18.0	67.0
CK₂	7.99	4.7	0.54	0.43	14.51	12.62	43.5	19.2	83.0

表2 生物菌剂不同年份施用后棉田土壤细菌多样性指数

Table 2 Diversity index of soil bacteria in cotton field after applying biofilm in different years

取样年度 Sampling year	处理 Treatment	ACE指数 ACE index	Chao指数 Chao1 index	香农指数 Shannon index
2017年	Biofer	1 704.9±57.9^a	1 728.0±63.2^a	6.34±0.11^a
	CK	1 681.7±67.1^a	1 691.5±72.1^a	6.26±0.12^a
	B-Biofer	1 695.9±23.6^a	1 699.7±34.1^a	6.20±0.08^a
	B-CK	1 675.4±29.6^a	1 684.6±34.0^a	6.25±0.08^a
2018年	Biofer	1 667.6±45.7^a	1 686.9±42.0^a	6.33±0.04^a
2018年	CK	1 680.6±34.1^a	1 694.1±46.8^a	6.30±0.06^a
2019年	Biofer1	970.7±109.5^b	997.9±119.7^b	5.48±2.17^a
	CK₁	1 154.6±36.3^a	1 228.0±57.7^a	5.32±0.49^a
	Biofer2	974.6±66.9^b	820.6±106.1^b	4.44±0.66^a
	CK₂	1 119.9±96.3^a	1 003.6±74.9^a	4.30±0.56^a

图1 生物菌剂不同年份施用后棉田土壤细菌群落聚类注:a:2017年试验站病圃各处理土壤;b:2018年试验站各处理土壤;c:2019年试验站1号棉田各处理土壤;d:2019年试验站2号棉田各处理土壤

Fig.1 Cluster analysis of soil bacteria in cotton field after applying biofilm in different years Note: a:soilsof different treatment in disease nursery of test station in 2017; b: soils of different treatment of test station in 2018; c: soils of different treatment in No.1 cotton field of test station in 2019; d: soils of different treatment in No.2 cotton field of test station in 2019

图2 生物菌剂不同年份施用后棉田土壤细菌群落显著差异注:a:2017库尔勒棉花病圃各处理土壤;b:2018年试验站各处理棉田土壤;c:2019年试验站1号棉田各处理土壤;d:2019年试验站2号棉田各处理土壤

Fig.3 Significant difference analysis of soil bacteria in cotton field after applying biofilm in different years Note: a: soils of different treatment in disease nursery of test station in 2017; b: soils of different treatment of test station in 2018; c: soils of different treatment in No.1 cotton field of test station in 2019; d: soils of different treatment in No.2 cotton field of test station in 2019

表3 4种主要细菌种群在不同处理土壤中的丰度值

Table 3 Abundance values of 4 major bacterial populations in soils of different treatments

取样年度 Samplingyear	处理 Treatment	芽孢杆菌属 Bacillus (%)	链霉菌属 Streptomyces (%)	溶杆菌属 Lysobacter (%)	假单胞菌属 Pseudomonas (%)
2017年	Biofer	0.21	0.48	0.28	0.37
	CK	0.15	0.44	0.27	0.40
	B-Biofer	0.10	0.75	0.66	0.57
	B-CK	0.12	0.64	0.83	0.31
2018年	Biofer	1.72	0.74	1.31	1.64
2018年	CK	1.30	1.22	1.14	2.59
2019年	Biofer1	2.78	0.20	0.10	0.48
	CK₁	1.01	0.18	0.11	0.63
	Biofer2	3.43	0.15	0.60	0.83
	CK₂	2.48	0.06	0.05	0.87

参考文献 27

[1]	刘海洋, 姚举, 张仁福, 等. 黄萎病不同发生程度棉田中土壤微生物多样性[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(5):1619-1629.
	LIU Haiyang, YAO Ju, ZHANG Renfu, et al. Analysis of soil microbial diversity in cotton fields differing in occurrence of cotton Verticillium wilt in Xinjiang[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018,38(5):1619-1629.
[2]	鹿秀云, 马平, 李社增. 防治棉花黄萎病的生防细菌NCD-2的田间效果评价及其鉴定[J]. 植物病理学报, 2005,35(5):451-455.
	LU Xiuyun, MA Ping, LI Shezeng. Evaluation of biocontrol potential of a bacterial strain NCD-2 against Cotton Verticillium wilt in field trials[J]. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2005,35(5):451-455.
[3]	李社增, 马平, 刘杏忠, 等. 利用拮抗细菌防治棉花黄萎病[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2001,20(5):422-425.
	LI Shezeng, MA Ping, LIU Xingzhong, et al. Biological control of cotton Verticillium wilt by antagonistic bacteria[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2001,20(5):422-425.
[4]	魏娇洋, 冯龙, 陈英化, 等. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌X-278片剂的研制、定殖及田间防效[J]. 农药学学报, 2014,16(3) : 347-353.
	WEI Jiaoyang, FENG Long, CHEN Yinghua, et al. Development, colonization and field control effect of antiamyloidosis Bacillus x-278 tablets[J]. Journal of Pesticide Science, 2014,16(3):347-353.
[5]	曾红, 杨生强. 棉花黄萎病菌拮抗细菌TUBP1 的分离鉴定及其防病作用[J]. 棉花学报, 2014,26(5):445-451.
	ZENG Hong, YANG Shengqiang. Isolation, identification, and antifungal activity of the antagonistic bacterial strain TUBP1 against Verticillium dahliae Kleb[J]. Cotton Science, 2014,26(5):445-451.
[6]	张冬冬, 李术娜, 郭晓军, 等. 一株棉花黄萎病拮抗芽胞细菌的分离鉴定及活性检测[J]. 棉花学报, 2012,24(4):358-362.
	ZHANG Dongdong, LI Shuna, GUO Xiaojun, et al. Isolation, identification and activity of an antagonistic spore bacterium against cotton Verticillium wilt[J]. Cotton Science, 2012,24(4):358-362.
[7]	翟枫, 段军娜, 张鑫, 等. 棉花黄萎病拮抗细菌LW-4的筛选鉴定及其防治效果[J]. 植物保护学报, 2014,41(3):379-380.
	ZHAI Feng, DUAN Junna, ZHANG Xin, et al. Screening, identification and control effects of antagonistic bacterium LW-4 against cotton Verticillium wilt[J]. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 2014,41(3):379-380.
[8]	张慧, 杨兴明, 冉炜, 等. 土传棉花黄萎病拮抗菌的筛选及其生物效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2008,45(6):1095-1101.
	ZHANG Hui, YANG Xingming, RAN Wei, et al. Screening of bacteria antagonistic against soil-borne cotton Verticillium wilt and their biological effect onthesoil-cotton system[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008,45(6):1095-1101.
[9]	李斌, 谢关林, 陈若霞, 等. 耕作与栽培方式对瓜类土壤细菌数量及枯萎病拮抗细菌分布的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2006,17(10):1937-1940.
	LI Bin, XIE Guanlin, CHEN Ruoxia, et al. Effects of cropping system and cultivation pattern on bacterial populations and anti -fusarium wilt bacteria in melon soils[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2006,17(10):1937-1940.
[10]	李胜华, 谷丽萍, 刘可星. 有机肥配施对番茄土传病害的防治及土壤微生物多样性的调控[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009,15(4):965-969.
	LI Shenghua, GU Liping, LIU Kexing. Effects of combined application of organic fertilizers on the control of soilborne diseases andthe regulation of soil microbial diversity[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2009,15(4):965-969.
[11]	Marschner P, Yang C.H, Lieberei R, et al. Soil and plant specific effects on bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2001,33(11):1437-1445.
[12]	Tóth Z, Táncsics A, Kriszt B, et al. Extreme effects of drought on composition of the soil bacterial community and decomposition of plant tissue[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2017,Doi: 10.1111/ejss.12429.
[13]	Suzuki C, Nagaoka K, Shimada A, et al. Bacterial communities are more dependent on soil type than fertilizer type, but the reverse is true for fungal communities[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2009, (55):80-90.
[14]	Luo J, Ran W, Hu J, et al. Application of Bio-Organic Fertilizer Significantly Affected Fungal Diversity of Soils[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2010,74(6):2039.
[15]	Preem J K, Truu J, Truu M, et al. Bacterial community structure and its relationship to soil physico-chemical characteristics in alder stands with different management histories[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2012, (49):10-17.
[16]	Yang L, Tan L, Zhang F, et al. Duration of continuous cropping with straw return affects the composition and structure of soil bacterial communities in cotton fields[J]. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2017,64(3):167-181.
[17]	Shen W, Ni Y, Gao N, et al. Bacterial community composition is shaped by soil secondary salinization and acidification brought on by high nitrogen fertilization rates[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, (108):76-83.
[18]	Bainard L D, Hamel C, Gan Y. Edaphic properties override the influence of crops on the composition of the soil bacterial community in a semiarid agro ecosystem[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, (105):160-168.
[19]	Meng M, Lin J, Guo X, et al. Impacts of forest conversion on soil bacterial community composition and diversity in subtropical forests[J]. Catena, 2019, (175):167-173.
[20]	Zhao Q, Dong C, Yang X, et al. Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt disease for Cucumis melo melon using bio-organic fertilizer[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2011,47(1):67-75.
[21]	Sui J, Ji C, Wang X, et al. A plant growth-promoting bacterium alters the microbial community of continuous cropping poplar trees' rhizosphere[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2019,126(4):1209-1220.
[22]	Li R, Tao R, Ling N, et al. Chemical, organic and bio-fertilizer management practices effect on soil physicochemical property and antagonistic bacteria abundance of a cotton field: Implications for soil biological quality[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2017, (167):30-38.
[23]	Chen D, Wang X, Zhang W, et al. Persistent organic fertilization reinforces soil-borne disease suppressiveness of rhizosphere bacterial community[J]. Plant and Soil, 2020, (452):313-328.
[24]	Shin K, Van Diepen G, Blok W, et al. Variability of Effective Micro-organisms (EM) in bokashi and soil and effects on soil-borne plant pathogens[J]. Crop Protection, 2017, (99):168-176.
[25]	Giotis C, Markelou E, Theodoropoulou A, et al. Effect of soil amendments and biological control agents (bcas) on soil-borne root diseases caused by Pyrenochaeta lycopersici and Verticillium albo-atrum in organic greenhouse tomato production systems[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2009,123(4):387-400.
[26]	Lihua L, Jincai M, Ibekwe A, et al. Cucumber Rhizosphere Microbial Community Response to Biocontrol Agent Bacillus subtilis B068150[J]. Agriculture, 2015,6(1):2.
[27]	Larkin R P, Brewer M T. Effects of biological amendments on soil microbiology and soilborne potato diseases in different cropping systems[J]. Phytopathology, 2005,(95):S56.

施用生物菌剂对棉田土壤细菌群落多样性及种群结构的影响

Influence of Biofertilizers on Community Diversity and Population Structure of Soil Bacteria in Cotton Field

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	王朋, 郑凯, 赵杰银, 高文举, 龙遗磊, 陈全家, 曲延英. 陆地棉种质资源材料的耐热性评价及指标筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2081-2090.
[2]	王丹丹, 李燕, 张庆银, 李世东, 庞永超, 马琨芝, 马龙, 牛瑞生, 钟增明, 齐连芬, 师建华. 不同微生物菌处理对番茄土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2248-2257.
[3]	黄倩楠, 马尔合巴·艾司拜尔, 邹辉, 王彩荣, 艾力买买提·库尔班, 孙娜, 雷钧杰. 新疆冬小麦种质资源主要农艺性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1050-1058.
[4]	杨植, 董梦怡, 王振磊, 闫芬芬, 吴翠云, 王玖瑞, 刘孟军, 林敏娟. 基于TPA法枣酸枣杂交F₁果实质地与裂果对比分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 608-615.
[5]	马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388.
[6]	王威, 徐乐, 樊艳星, 王帆, 马艳明, 唐中华. 鹰嘴豆种子代谢产物的GC-MS分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(12): 2962-2972.
[7]	岳丽, 王卉, 山其米克, 再吐尼古丽·库尔班, 涂振东. 基于高通量测序的甜高粱青贮饲料中微生物群落分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2742-2750.
[8]	李春艳, 刘芳婷, 张王斌. 基于高通量测序对引起苹果外观异常病原的鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 171-177.
[9]	杨明花, 王倩, 周新丽, 艾合买提江·马合木提, 彭云承, 艾尔居玛·吐卢汗, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 侯丽丽, 刘强. 玉米杂交组合性状及产量的多重分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2114-2122.
[10]	李岳雁, 李玉姗, 王帆, 郭雅文, 王飞燕, 高杰, 宋羽. 不同品种番茄果实性状遗传多样性及聚类分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2147-2157.
[11]	邵华伟, 孟阿静, 唐燕, 周燕, 程新瑛, 唐蕾, 王新勇. 化肥减施增施黄腐酸磷酸二氢钾水溶配方肥对骏枣生长及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2192-2199.
[12]	彭宇, 闫会转, 肖中林, 贾凯, 燕存尧, 王妍欣. 不同施肥处理对盆栽辣椒土壤酶活性及土壤微生物含量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2200-2208.
[13]	李选文, 熊智, 王金华, 周艺萍, 熊忠平. 思茅松毛虫成虫肠道细菌多样性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2276-2287.
[14]	由佳辉, 高林, 冯琳骄, 买迪妮阿依·买买提, 周龙, 李树德. 17个葡萄砧木品种叶片解剖结构与抗旱性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8): 1896-1906.
[15]	袁雷, 吉雪花, 张国儒, 石林媛, 郭河瑶, 唐亚萍, 杨涛, 杨生保. 52份辣椒主要果实性状的遗传多样性及聚类分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(8): 1935-1944.