Effects of tree species on soil microbial diversity in Strobilanthes sarcorrhiza understory intercropping system

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240425

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigated the soil of Strobilanthes sarcorrhiza interplanted with different tree species in Huangyan District, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province. The differences in available trace elements under various interplanting patterns were analyzed, and high-throughput sequencing was employed to examine the effects of different interplanting combinations on the soil microbial community structure. The results showed that in the loquat forest, interplanting with S. sarcorrhiza led to a significant increase (p<0.05) in soil available iron content from 79.83 mg·kg^-1 to 155.33 mg·kg^-1 with increasing planting years, while the available zinc content significantly decreased from 5.57 mg·kg^-1 to 3.90 mg·kg^-1. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) indicated structural differences in the soil microbial communities among different interplanting combinations, demonstrating that interplanting patterns can alter microbial composition. Correlation analysis further revealed significant relationships between the relative abundance of specific soil microorganisms and the content of available trace elements.

Key words: soil microbiota, high-throughput sequencing, microbial diversity, Strobilanthes sarcorrhiza, interplanting

CLC Number:

S567.239

CHENG Yufang, WU Jiang, WANG Ping, WANG Yin, NI Haizhi, YAN Bangguo, CHEN Fangyong. Effects of tree species on soil microbial diversity in Strobilanthes sarcorrhiza understory intercropping system[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(11): 2764-2771.

Figures/Tables 6

References 24

[1]	郑朝宗. 浙江植物志:第六卷[M]. 杭州: 浙江科学技术出版社, 1993: 87-88.
[2]	江苏省植物研究所. 新华本草纲要:第二册[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1991.
[3]	张水利, 陈柳蓉, 朱安东, 等. 菜头肾的形态组织鉴定[J]. 中药材, 1999, 22(10): 502-503.
[4]	甘慈尧. 浙南本草新编[M]. 北京: 中国中医药出版社, 2016.
[5]	胡欣欣. 浅议温州民间验方七肾汤的应用[J]. 浙江中医杂志, 2015, 50(2):131.
[6]	伍思宇, 李宝财, 李纪元, 等. 不同树种林下套种金花茶土壤微生物多样性分析[J]. 广西林业科学, 2021, 50(2): 115-124.
[7]	刘跃钧, 蒋燕锋, 姚理武, 等. 林药复合经营对锥栗林耕作层土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 经济林研究, 2019, 37(4): 20-26.
[8]	张俊华, 张翼, 李明. 药用植物宁夏枸杞(Lycium barbarum L.) 土壤细菌群落演替特征[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(3): 686-695.
[9]	曹莉, 秦舒浩, 张俊莲, 等. 轮作豆科牧草对连作马铃薯田土壤微生物菌群及酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 139-145.
[10]	曹云, 马艳. 间套作防治作物土传枯萎病的研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(3): 466-473.
[11]	陈方永, 王平, 程玉芳, 等. 菜头肾林下仿野生不同栽培方式对其品质影响研究[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2023(5): 91-96.
[12]	TEMPLER P, FINDLAY S, LOVETT G. Soil microbial biomass and nitrogen transformations among five tree species of the Catskill Mountains, New York, USA[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(4): 607-613.
[13]	FIERER N, SCHIMEL J P, HOLDEN P A. Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(1): 167-176.
[14]	张胜男, 闫德仁, 黄海广, 等. 短期封育对科尔沁沙地榆树疏林土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(9): 2860-2867.
[15]	ALLISON S D, MARTINY J B H. Colloquium paper: resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008, 105(Suppl 1): 11512-11519.
[16]	LI H, YE D D, WANG X G, et al. Soil bacterial communities of different natural forest types in Northeast China[J]. Plant and Soil, 2014, 383(1): 203-216.
[17]	许振羽, 李学鹏, 杜宇, 等. 桑树根际土壤微生物对间作和施氮的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(6): 1983-1992.
[18]	LAUBER C L, STRICKLAND M S, BRADFORD M A, et al. The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008, 40(9): 2407-2415.
[19]	郑灏, 杨志坚, 冯金玲, 等. 不同林下套种模式对油茶幼林根区土壤化学特性及微生物的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 44(2): 147-153.
[20]	REN C J, 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, 2018, 610/611: 750-758.
[21]	斯林林, 徐静, 曹凯, 等. 绿肥种植对红壤旱地生土细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1864-1875.
[22]	梁满, 孟维伟, 陈志德, 等. 施氮水平对花生根际土壤微生物群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2023, 55(2): 78-83.
[23]	HUANG Z D, WANG P, PU Z X, et al. Effects of mancozeb on citrus rhizosphere bacterial community[J]. Microbial Pathogenesis, 2021, 154: 104845.
[24]	欧光敏, 郑良豹, 梁红, 等. 猕猴桃林下套种大豆土壤微生物群落结构分析[J]. 广东农业科学, 2024, 51(1): 63-72.

样品编号	有效铁含量	有效锰含量	有效铜含量	有效锌含量	有效硼含量	有效钼含量
PP-1	79.83±2.29 c	9.63±0.20 b	2.31±0.03 a	5.57±0.15 a	0.38±0.01 ab	0.27±0.01 a
PP-2	117.33±4.16 b	15.60±0.10 a	2.37±0.01 a	5.14±0.05 b	0.33±0.01 b	0.26±0.01 a
PP-3	155.33±8.96 a	9.64±0.36 b	2.01±0.05 b	3.90±0.06 c	0.40±0.06 a	0.29±0.03 a

样品编号	有效铁含量	有效锰含量	有效铜含量	有效锌含量	有效硼含量	有效钼含量
PP-1	79.83±2.29 c	9.63±0.20 b	2.31±0.03 a	5.57±0.15 a	0.38±0.01 ab	0.27±0.01 a
PP-2	117.33±4.16 b	15.60±0.10 a	2.37±0.01 a	5.14±0.05 b	0.33±0.01 b	0.26±0.01 a
PP-3	155.33±8.96 a	9.64±0.36 b	2.01±0.05 b	3.90±0.06 c	0.40±0.06 a	0.29±0.03 a

样品编号	土壤细菌					土壤真菌
样品编号	Chao1 指数	Ace 指数	Shannon 指数	Simpson 指数	覆盖率	Chao1 指数	Ace 指数	Shannon 指数	Simpson 指数	覆盖率
PP-1	4 429.12	4 577.41	6.70	0.004	0.984	891.15	898.02	4.23	0.057	0.987
PP-2	5 030.82	5 160.64	6.87	0.003	0.990	970.79	966.55	4.61	0.026	1.000
PP-3	4 171.72	4 359.84	6.42	0.007	0.997	1 038.59	1 028.54	4.02	0.069	0.995
SM-1	3 552.34	3 646.62	6.20	0.007	0.988	936.35	937.30	4.03	0.083	0.990
SM-2	4 298.57	4 420.55	6.58	0.005	0.990	772.10	775.06	3.23	0.173	0.989
SS-1	4 720.86	4 906.13	6.77	0.004	0.985	1 606.44	1 599.75	4.68	0.046	1.000
SS-2	4 939.86	5 095.16	6.87	0.004	0.990	1 350.68	1 344.20	5.12	0.020	0.997
XS-1	5 151.75	5 396.47	6.85	0.004	0.987	1 476.63	1 471.70	5.52	0.016	0.995
XS-2	4 596.13	4 760.40	6.72	0.005	1.000	1 094.30	1 093.75	4.88	0.024	0.988
YM-1	3 679.33	3 794.64	6.49	0.005	0.990	663.51	665.20	3.16	0.123	0.992
YM-2	3 021.98	3 101.02	5.98	0.009	0.992	687.25	693.40	4.06	0.040	1.000

样品编号	土壤细菌					土壤真菌
样品编号	Chao1 指数	Ace 指数	Shannon 指数	Simpson 指数	覆盖率	Chao1 指数	Ace 指数	Shannon 指数	Simpson 指数	覆盖率
PP-1	4 429.12	4 577.41	6.70	0.004	0.984	891.15	898.02	4.23	0.057	0.987
PP-2	5 030.82	5 160.64	6.87	0.003	0.990	970.79	966.55	4.61	0.026	1.000
PP-3	4 171.72	4 359.84	6.42	0.007	0.997	1 038.59	1 028.54	4.02	0.069	0.995
SM-1	3 552.34	3 646.62	6.20	0.007	0.988	936.35	937.30	4.03	0.083	0.990
SM-2	4 298.57	4 420.55	6.58	0.005	0.990	772.10	775.06	3.23	0.173	0.989
SS-1	4 720.86	4 906.13	6.77	0.004	0.985	1 606.44	1 599.75	4.68	0.046	1.000
SS-2	4 939.86	5 095.16	6.87	0.004	0.990	1 350.68	1 344.20	5.12	0.020	0.997
XS-1	5 151.75	5 396.47	6.85	0.004	0.987	1 476.63	1 471.70	5.52	0.016	0.995
XS-2	4 596.13	4 760.40	6.72	0.005	1.000	1 094.30	1 093.75	4.88	0.024	0.988
YM-1	3 679.33	3 794.64	6.49	0.005	0.990	663.51	665.20	3.16	0.123	0.992
YM-2	3 021.98	3 101.02	5.98	0.009	0.992	687.25	693.40	4.06	0.040	1.000