-
香蕉(Musa spp.)起源于亚洲东南部,被联合国粮农组织认定为第4大粮食作物[1-2]。世界上约有130个种植香蕉的国家,中国是世界上最早种植香蕉的国家之一。我国香蕉主要种植区域分布在广东、广西、海南、福建、云南和台湾[3]。香蕉具有生长周期短和产量高等特点,但同样伴随着大量的香蕉秸秆等农业废弃物[4]。有研究表明,长期的秸秆还田对土壤细菌群落的丰富度与多样性具有积极影响[5]、能改变土壤微生物群落结构[6]。不同秸秆还田方式也会影响土壤微生物的群落结构或群落组成,如土壤微生物的群落结构随着还田量和沟埋深度的增加而变化[7],还田秸秆的新鲜程度也影响着土壤微生物群落等[8]。香蕉秸秆含有蛋白质、纤维素、维生素和某些微量元素[9-10],是一种营养丰富的植物资源,然而有关香蕉秸秆不同还田方式对土壤微生物群落影响的研究鲜见报道。土壤微生物在农业生态系统中发挥着不可替代的作用[11],土壤微生物群落还能影响作物的生长[12],同时土壤微生物也是影响土壤质量的主要因素之一。研究表明,土壤微生物的组成改变土壤中C的含量[13],土壤微生物动态变化与土壤中N和C的含量具有相关性[14],而且土壤酶活性是由微生物丰度决定的[15]。顾美英等[16]发现,不同秸秆还田方式对土壤微生物数量影响差异显著。不同秸秆还田方式均能提高土壤微生物活性和丰富度指数[17]。笔者通过研究香蕉秸秆在不同模式下还田对土壤中微生物群落的影响,旨在找出适宜的还田模式,为香蕉秸秆还田技术提供理论依据。
-
3个处理(CK、F、T)的微生物群落(图1)都包含相同的真菌门(Ascomycota、Basidiomycota、Chytridiomycota、Glomeromycota、Microsporidia、Zygomycota),其中Ascomycota的相对丰度最高,分别为81.1%、54.7%、68.3%。3个处理在细菌门水平(Acidoacteria、Actinobacteria、Bacteroidetes、candidate division WPS-1、Chloroflxi、Firmicutes、Gemmatimonadetes、Planctomycetes、Proteomcetes、Verrucomicrobia、Others)中,Acidoacteria、Actinobacteria、Proteomcetes为优势菌种,且相对丰度均大于10%。图2是相对丰度大于1%的微生物分类属,真菌属水平分析结果表明,T、F、CK处理的Fusarium相对丰度分别为2.6%、14.3%、15.5%。在细菌最丰富的分类属中,各处理中GP6为优势菌种,且相对丰度均大于18%。
-
单因素方差分析(ANOVA)结果(表1)表明,不同秸秆还田处理间细菌群落丰富度(Chao1)和多样性(Shannon)存在显著差异。与无香蕉秸秆还田处理(CK)相比,掩埋还田处理(T)的土壤微生物群落的丰富度和多样性最显著。与香蕉秸秆自然还田处理(F)相比,掩埋还田处理(T)的土壤微生物群落的丰富度更高,但不同处理间真菌群落丰富度和多样性差异不显著。
表 1 不同处理间土壤微生物群落丰富度与多样性
Table 1. Soil microbial community richness and diversity between treatments
处理 Treatments 群落丰富度 Community richness 群落多样性 Community diversity Chao1 ACE Shannon Invsimpson 16S rRNA CK 3 832.78±116.90c 3 865.18±92.21c 6.54±0.18b 220.55±91.28a F 3 999.52±153.05b 4 035.82±113.97b 6.70±0.03a 267.79±26.92a T 4 393.32±78.78a 4 480.35±32.31a 6.76±0.07a 266.50±37.83a ITS CK 839.97±60.92ab 839.77±57.59ab 4.40±0.24a 29.21±5.72a F 799.36±38.18b 795.57±36.08b 4.26±0.33a 21.29±7.69a T 924.46±116.94a 931.55±96.38a 4.21±0.24a 21.55±8.53a 注:不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。
Notes: Values followed by different letters mean significant difference between treatments (P < 0.05). -
聚类分析结果(图3)表明,15个土壤样品的微生物群落群落结构明显分为3组,分别为3个香蕉秸秆还田处理。利用主坐标分析(图4)不同香蕉秸秆还田处理对土壤微生物群落的影响。从图4-a可知,真菌群落的前两个主坐标解释了各样本的34.37%的变化。第1主坐标(PCoA1)T和F处理的真菌群落与CK处理分离良好,第2个主坐标(PCoA2)结果表明,3个处理之间明显分离。细菌群落的前两个主坐标解释了各样本的35.99%的变化,且3个处理间的群落分离效果与真菌群落的分离效果相似(图4-b)。土壤真菌与细菌OTU分布结果(图5)表明:CK、F、T处理真菌独有OTU数量与细菌独有OTU数量分别为580、685、548和429、792、387。CK与F,T处理真菌共有OTU数量和细菌共有OTU数量分别为187、185和429、265,F与T真菌和细菌共有OTU数量分别为230、744。
Effects of Fresh Harvested Banana Foliage on the Soil Microbial Community Structures
-
摘要: 采用土壤室内培养的方法,以香蕉秸秆不同还田模式为试验唯一变量因素,设置3个处理(无秸秆还田CK;将香蕉秸秆覆盖到土壤表层,作为秸秆自然还田处理F;将土壤与香蕉秸秆彻底混合,作为秸秆掩埋还田处理T),分析香蕉秸秆不同还田模式下的微生物群落差异,以期揭示香蕉秸秆的不同还田模式对土壤微生物的影响。结果表明:T、F处理与CK处理相比,真菌门中Basidiomycota相对丰度分别增加1.3%和2.8%;细菌门中Acidobacteria相对丰度分别增加5.1%和1.1%,Actinobacteria的相对丰度分别增加1.9%和3.2%。处理间Fusarium相对丰度大小顺序为CK>F>T。处理间细菌群落的丰富度(SChao1)和多样性(HShannon)大小顺序均为T>F>CK,真菌群落并无明显差异。聚类分析表明,T处理土壤微生物群落结构与CK处理明显不同。主坐标分析和OTU数量分布结果表明,T处理土壤微生物群落结构与F处理相近。本研究结果显示,T处理增加了土壤细菌群落的丰富性与多样性,改变了土壤微生物的群落结构,同时提高了具有分解功能的微生物分类属的相对丰度,并显著降低了病原菌的相对丰度。Abstract: Soil samples collected from a banana plantation in Hongxing Farm, Lingao, Hainan, were potted, and fresh harvested foliage (leaves and pseudostems) collected from the banana plantation were grounded and returned to the potted soil for indoor culture to analyze the difference of soil microbial communities in the potted soil for revelation of the effects of soil returning of the fresh harvested foliage on soil microorganism. Three treatments were arranged: soil without banana foliage (control, CK); soil mulched with banana foliage (F); soil mixed with banana foliage (T). The results showed that the relative abundance of fungal phylum Basidiomcota in the T and F treatments increased by 1.3% and 2.8%, respectively, as compared with the CK, while the relative abundance of bacterial phylum Acidobacteria increased by 5.1% and 1.1%, respectively, and that of Actinobacteria increased by 1.9%, 3.2%, respectively. The relative abundance of Fusarium between treatments was in the order of CK>F>T. The bacterial community richness (SChao1) and diversity (HShannon) between the treatments were in the order of T>F>CK, and no difference was observed in fungal communities between the treatments. Cluster analysis showed that the structure of soil microbial community in the treatment T was significantly different from that of CK. Principal coordinate analysis and OTU distribution showed that the structure of soil microbial community in the treatment T was similar to that in the treatment F. It is concluded that the treatment T increased the richness and diversity of soil bacterial community, changed the structure of soil microbial community, improved the relative abundance of microorganisms that have a decomposition function, and significantly reduced the relative abundance of pathogen Fusarium.
-
表 1 不同处理间土壤微生物群落丰富度与多样性
Table 1 Soil microbial community richness and diversity between treatments
处理 Treatments 群落丰富度 Community richness 群落多样性 Community diversity Chao1 ACE Shannon Invsimpson 16S rRNA CK 3 832.78±116.90c 3 865.18±92.21c 6.54±0.18b 220.55±91.28a F 3 999.52±153.05b 4 035.82±113.97b 6.70±0.03a 267.79±26.92a T 4 393.32±78.78a 4 480.35±32.31a 6.76±0.07a 266.50±37.83a ITS CK 839.97±60.92ab 839.77±57.59ab 4.40±0.24a 29.21±5.72a F 799.36±38.18b 795.57±36.08b 4.26±0.33a 21.29±7.69a T 924.46±116.94a 931.55±96.38a 4.21±0.24a 21.55±8.53a 注:不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。
Notes: Values followed by different letters mean significant difference between treatments (P < 0.05). -
[1] 李玉萍, 方佳. 中国香蕉产业现状与发展对策研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(8): 443 − 447. [2] 张汉荣, 刘长全, 朱建荣. 我国香蕉科技研究的几点思考与建议[J]. 热带农业科学, 2006, 26(6): 55 − 58. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-2196.2006.06.016 [3] 雷武逵. 香蕉产业升级配套技术及对策研究[J]. 广西农业科学, 2008, 39(3): 397 − 400. [4] 熊月林, 崔运花. 香蕉纤维的研究现状及其开发应用前景[J]. 纺织学报, 2007, 28(9): 122 − 124. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9721.2007.09.032 [5] YANG L, TAN L L, ZHANG F H, 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, 2018, 64(3): 167 − 181. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2017-0443 [6] ZHAO S C, LI K J, ZHOU W, et al. Changes in soil microbial community, enzyme activities and organic matter fractions under long-term straw return in north-central China [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 216: 82 − 88. [7] YANG H S, MENG Y, FENG J X, et al. Direct and indirect effects of long-term ditch-buried straw return on soil bacterial community in a rice–wheat rotation system [J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2020, 31(7): 851 − 867. [8] SU Y, LV J L, YU M, et al. Long-term decomposed straw return positively affects the soil microbial community [J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2020, 128(1): 138 − 150. doi: 10.1111/jam.14435 [9] 朱晓闯, 张喜瑞, 李粤, 等. 我国香蕉秸秆回收利用现状研究[J]. 价值工程, 2011, 30(34): 273 − 274. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4311.2011.34.192 [10] 郑侃, 张喜瑞, 梁栋, 等. 香蕉茎秆机械化处理利用的现状与分析[J]. 农机化研究, 2014(3): 239 − 241. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-188X.2014.03.056 [11] BENDER S F, WAGG C, VAN D H MGA. An Underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability [J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2016, 31(6): 440 − 452. [12] LAU J A, LENNON J T. Evolutionary ecology of plant-microbe interactions: soil microbial structure alters selection on plant traits [J]. New Phytologist, 2011, 192(1): 215 − 224. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03790.x [13] ZHAO F Z, REN C J, ZHANG L, et al. Changes in soil microbial community are linked to soil carbon fractions after afforestation [J]. European Journal of Soil ence, 2018, 69(2): 370 − 379. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12525 [14] CHENG J R, ZHANG W, ZHONG Z K, et al. Differential responses of soil microbial biomass, diversity, and compositions to altitudinal gradients depend on plant and soil characteristics [J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 610-611: 750. [15] DELGADO-BAQUERIZO M, GRINYER J, REICH PB, et al. Relative importance of soil properties and microbial community for soil functionality: insights from a microbial swap experiment [J]. Functional Ecology, 2016, 30(11): 1862 − 1873. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12674 [16] 顾美英, 唐光木, 葛春辉, 等. 不同秸秆还田方式对和田风沙土土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(4): 489 − 498. [17] BALOTA E L, FILHO A C, ANDRADE D S, et al. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on microbial biomass and C and N mineralization in a Brazilian Oxisol [J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2004, 77(2): 137 − 145. [18] MBUTHIA L W, ACOSTA-MARTíNEZ V, DEBRUYN J, et al. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality [J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2015, 89: 24 − 34. [19] DANIEL J Y, JOHN R, LU F C. Evidence for cleavage of lignin by a brown rot basidiomycete [J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2008, 10(7): 1844 − 9. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01605.x [20] QI Y Z, ZHEN W C, LI H Y. Allelopathy of decomposed maize straw products on three soil-born diseases of wheat and the analysis by GC-MS [J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2015, 14(1): 88 − 97. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60795-4 [21] CHEN Z M, WANG H Y, LIU X W, et al. Changes in soil microbial community and organic carbon fractions under short-term straw return in a rice–wheat cropping system [J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2017, 165: 121 − 127. [22] ABDULLA H M, EL-SHATOURY S A. Actinomycetes in rice straw decomposition [J]. Waste Management, 2007, 27(6): 850 − 853. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.006 [23] ZAITLIN B, TURKINGTON K, PARKINSON D, et al. Effects of tillage and inorganic fertilizers on culturable soil actinomycete communities and inhibion of fungi by specific actinomycetes [J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2004, 26(1): 60 − 62. [24] GARBEVA P, VAN VEEN J A, VAN ELSAS J D. Micobial diversity in soil: Selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness [J]. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 2004, 42(1): 243 − 270. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.012604.135455 [25] SUDINI H, LILES M R, ARIAS C R, et al. Exploring soil bacterial communities in different peanut-cropping sequences using multiple molecular approaches [J]. Phytopathology, 2011, 101(7): 819 − 827. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-11-10-0310