Effects of rotating different crops with cigar tobacco on the rhizosphere soil bacterial community

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240158

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of rotating different crops with cigar tobacco on the structure and function of the rhizosphere soil bacterial community, and to further optimize the green cultivation model of cigar tobacco, this study utilized high-throughput sequencing technology to analyze the characteristics of the rhizosphere soil bacterial community under four treatments: continuous cropping of cigar tobacco (C1), cigar tobacco-marigold rotation (C2), cigar tobacco-maize rotation (C3), and cigar tobacco-rice rotation (C4). The results showed that compared with the C1 treatment, the C2 and C4 treatments significantly (p<0.05) increased the richness of the rhizosphere soil bacterial community, while the C3 treatment significantly decreased it. The dominant bacterial phylum were consistent across all treatments, primarily including Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Gemmatimonadota, and Acidobacteriota. Principal component analysis (PCA) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) revealed that the bacterial community structures of the C1 and C2 treatments were more similar. In terms of function, the relative abundance of phototrophy, photoautotrophy and oxygenic photoautotrophy functions were generally lower in the rotation treatments (C2, C3, C4) than in C1, while the relative abundances of chemoheterotrophy and aerobic chemoheterotrophy were higher. In conclusion, rotating cigar tobacco with marigold or rice may alleviate continuous cropping obstacles by enhancing rhizosphere soil bacterial richness, enriching beneficial bacterial communities, and improving organic matter degradation capacity.

Key words: cigar tobacco, crop rotation, continuous cropping, rhizosphere soil bacteria, community structure

CLC Number:

S572

FANG Bao, HE Guoyou, SHEN Junru, TANG Xubing, REN Longhui, ZHEN Anzhong, LAN Yufeng, KONG Chuisi. Effects of rotating different crops with cigar tobacco on the rhizosphere soil bacterial community[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(11): 2772-2778.

Figures/Tables 9

References 15

[16]	张邦喜, 顾小凤, 张萌, 等. 轮作对贵州烤烟农艺和经济性状及真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2022, 54(9): 81-87.
[17]	LI T, LI Y Z, GAO X C, et al. Rhizobacterial communities and crop development in response to long-term tillage practices in maize and soybean fields on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. CATENA, 2021, 202: 105319.
[18]	郭瑾. 耐盐硫酸盐还原菌的筛选及其降低盐藻砷含量研究[D]. 天津: 天津科技大学, 2021.
[19]	马瑞瑞, 高小丽, 崔雯雯, 等. 芸豆连作田土壤酶活性和养分含量研究[J]. 华北农学报, 2013, 28(5): 157-162.
[20]	倪苗, 成善汉, 韩旭, 等. 轮作不同叶菜对连作豇豆土壤养分及微生物特性的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2019(5): 64-69.
[21]	王天乐, 王晓娟, 刘恩科, 等. 甘蓝、菜豆和玉米不同轮作组合对淡褐土细菌群落和作物产量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(2): 375-386.
[22]	孙倩, 吴宏亮, 陈阜, 等. 不同作物轮作对谷田土壤酶活性和土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(12): 2385-2393.
[23]	刘素, 吴宏亮, 陈倬, 等. 连作年限影响芹菜根际土壤微生物群落结构及功能类群[J]. 中国农业气象, 2023, 44(5): 372-385.
[24]	宋秀丽, 黄瑞龙, 柯彩杰, 等. 不同种植方式对连作土壤细菌群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(3): 487-496.
[1]	许美玲, 贺晓辉, 宋玉川, 等. 72份雪茄烟种质资源的鉴定评价和聚类分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2017, 23(5): 41-58.
[2]	王洁. 海南茄衣采收成熟度及调制发酵技术研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2015.
[3]	陶健, 刘好宝, 辛玉华, 等. 古巴Pinar del Rio省优质雪茄烟种植区主要生态因子特征研究[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2016, 22(4): 62-69.
[4]	王琰琰, 刘国祥, 向小华, 等. 国内外雪茄烟主产区及品种资源概况[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(3): 93-98.
[5]	马桂妹, 谭涛, 杨东, 等. 云南江城雪茄烟根结线虫病的病原鉴定及生物源氨气熏蒸的防治效果研究[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 45(1): 211-217.
[6]	王蓓蓓. 轮作及生物有机肥防控香蕉土传枯萎病的土壤微生物机制研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015.
[7]	张旭龙, 马淼, 吴振振, 等. 不同油葵品种对盐碱地根际土壤酶活性及微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(5): 1659-1666.
[8]	柴志伟. 生姜不同产地土壤细菌群落结构分析及施肥的影响探究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2021.
[9]	BERZSENYI Z, GYÖRFFY B, LAP D. Effect of crop rotation and fertilisation on maize and wheat yields and yield stability in a long-term experiment[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2000, 13(2/3): 225-244.
[10]	EL ZAHAR HAICHAR F, MAROL C, BERGE O, et al. Plant host habitat and root exudates shape soil bacterial community structure[J]. The ISME Journal, 2008, 2(12): 1221-1230.
[11]	XIAO L, HUANG Y M, ZENG Q C, et al. Soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass response to crop types on the terraces of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2018, 18(5): 1971-1980.
[12]	HARTMAN K, VAN DER HEIJDEN M G A, WITTWER R A, et al. Cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming[J]. Microbiome, 2018, 6(1): 14.
[13]	NIU J J, RANG Z W, ZHANG C, et al. The succession pattern of soil microbial communities and its relationship with tobacco bacterial wilt[J]. BMC Microbiology, 2016, 16(1): 233.
[14]	陈玉蓝, 林正全, 拓阳阳, 等. 烟蒜轮作对易感病烟田土壤真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(4): 972-980.
[25]	陈丹梅, 陈晓明, 梁永江, 等. 轮作对土壤养分、微生物活性及细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(12): 56-65.
[26]	徐新雯, 林正全, 拓阳阳, 等. 烟蒜轮作对烟株根际土壤细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(9): 1917-1924.
[15]	伍晓丽, 潘媛, 赵晓, 等. 玄参与烟草轮作对根际土壤养分、酶活性及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(1): 58-64.

处理	原始读数	清洁读数	有效读数	序列长度/bp	有效率/%
C1	79 871	79 761	73 832	50 575	92.57
C2	79 948	79 836	73 639	49 779	92.48
C3	80 205	80 094	73 976	52 413	92.36
C4	79 868	79 739	72 456	46 978	92.24

处理	原始读数	清洁读数	有效读数	序列长度/bp	有效率/%
C1	79 871	79 761	73 832	50 575	92.57
C2	79 948	79 836	73 639	49 779	92.48
C3	80 205	80 094	73 976	52 413	92.36
C4	79 868	79 739	72 456	46 978	92.24

处理	OTU数	覆盖率/%	Ace指数	Chao1指数	Simpson指数	Shannon指数	PD whole tree指数
C1	2 003±50 c	99.58	2 144 b	2 157 b	0.998 3 b	10.041 8 b	133.266 8 c
C2	2 177±12 a	99.57	2 294 a	2 292 a	0.998 9 a	10.131 9 a	152.251 9 a
C3	1 721±32 d	99.66	1 825 c	1 815 c	0.996 9 c	9.375 8 c	129.698 1 d
C4	2 124±10 b	99.51	2 259 a	2 259 a	0.998 2 b	10.021 0 b	148.277 4 b

处理	OTU数	覆盖率/%	Ace指数	Chao1指数	Simpson指数	Shannon指数	PD whole tree指数
C1	2 003±50 c	99.58	2 144 b	2 157 b	0.998 3 b	10.041 8 b	133.266 8 c
C2	2 177±12 a	99.57	2 294 a	2 292 a	0.998 9 a	10.131 9 a	152.251 9 a
C3	1 721±32 d	99.66	1 825 c	1 815 c	0.996 9 c	9.375 8 c	129.698 1 d
C4	2 124±10 b	99.51	2 259 a	2 259 a	0.998 2 b	10.021 0 b	148.277 4 b

处理	门	纲	目	科	属	种
C1	28.0±0.5 a	68.0±2.0 a	174.0±10.5 b	279.0±3.5 b	420.0±12.5 b	457.0±6.5 b
C2	26.0±1.0 a	64.0±0 a	169.0±5.5 c	265.0±0.0 c	403.0±8.5 b	446.0±2.5 b
C3	28.0±0.25 a	62.0±1.0 a	160.0±2.5 c	260.0±2.3 c	364.0±5.5 c	401.0±1.0 c
C4	32.0±0 a	88.0±2.5 a	208.0±22.5 a	326.0±13.5 a	462.0±2.0 a	495.0±8.0 a