Effect of the application of compound microbial agents on grape yield and quality

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20228281

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the application effect of compound microbial agents in grape production, field experiments were carried out to determine the effects of compound microbial agents on grape yield, quality and rhizosphere microbial community. The results showed that compared with the control, the application of compound microbial agents and chemical fertilizers could increase the yield, bunch weight and vitamin C content of grapes, reduce the content of titratable acid, increase the number of bacteria and actinomycetes, and decrease the number of fungi. Therefore, the application of compound microbial agents and chemical fertilizers can significantly improve the economic and ecological benefits of grape production.

Key words: compound microbial agents, grapes, yield, quality, soil microorganisms

CLC Number:

S614.2

LYU Luqiong, ZHAO Qi, GUO Junning, XU Jie, LI Bin, HAN Jinqing, WANG Yanli. Effect of the application of compound microbial agents on grape yield and quality[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1383-1386.

Figures/Tables 3

References 19

[1]	关棣锴, 聂继云, 李志霞, 等. 葡萄及其制品营养与功能的研究进展[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2017, 17(6): 142-146.
[2]	杨振锋, 聂继云, 李静, 等. 主要国际组织和贸易国对葡萄中农药最大残留限量的规定[J]. 山西果树, 2007(3): 39-41.
[3]	BAYDAR N G, ÖZKAN G, SAĞDIÇ O. Total phenolic contents and antibacterial activities of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) extracts[J]. Food Control, 2004, 15(5): 335-339.
[4]	南阳. 清徐县葡萄产业发展研究: 以葡峰山庄为例[D]. 太谷: 山西农业大学, 2015.
[5]	唐贤, 梁丰, 徐明岗, 等. 长期施用化肥对农田土壤pH影响的整合分析[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2020, 42(3): 316-321.
[6]	王明友, 杨秀凤, 郑宪和, 等. 复合微生物菌剂对番茄的光合特性及产量品质的影响[J]. 土壤肥料, 2004(4): 37-39.
[7]	ELNAHAL A S M, EL-SAADONY M T, SAAD A M, et al. The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth promotion, and sustainable agriculture: a review[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2022, 162(4): 759-792.
[8]	CHEN Y H, LI S S, LIU N, et al. Effects of different types of microbial inoculants on available nitrogen and phosphorus, soil microbial community, and wheat growth in high-P soil[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2021, 28(18): 23036-23047.
[9]	宋以玲, 于建, 陈士更, 等. 复合微生物菌剂对棉花生理特性及根际土壤微生物和化学性质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2019, 51(3): 477-487.
[10]	吕鹏超, 王成慧, 林悦香, 等. 复合微生物菌剂对温室黄瓜生长和品质的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2020, 26(17): 47-49, 131.
[11]	张丽荣, 陈杭, 康萍芝, 等. 不同微生物菌剂对番茄产量及土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2013, 52(22): 5452-5454, 5518.
[12]	柳晓磊, 齐钊, 闫臻, 等. 复合微生物菌剂与氨基酸水溶肥组合施用对香蕉土壤理化性质及微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(1): 151-158.
[13]	梁琨, 刘全祥, 潘磊庆, 等. 基于高光谱和CARS-IRIV算法的‘库尔勒香梨’可溶性固形物含量检测[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2018, 41(4): 760-766.
[14]	赵连俊. 水果中维生素C含量测定的研究[J]. 当代化工, 2008, 37(6): 672-673.
[15]	MIRANSARI M. Soil microbes and plant fertilization[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2011, 92(5): 875-885.
[16]	唐珺, 赵光毅. 复合微生物菌剂在设施辣椒上的肥效试验[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2022(17): 23-25, 29.
[17]	张曼丽, 李鹏, 陈剑山, 等. 复合微生物菌剂对设施栽培哈密瓜土壤根结线虫的抑制效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2015, 35(11): 59-61.
[18]	MAHAPATRA S, YADAV R, RAMAKRISHNA W. Bacillus subtilis impact on plant growth, soil health and environment: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2022, 132(5): 3543-3562.
[19]	SÁNCHEZ-MONTESINOS B, DIÁNEZ F, MORENO-GAVÍRA A, et al. Role of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum as plant-growth promoter in horticulture[J]. Agronomy, 2020, 10(7): 1004.

处理	小区产量/ kg	折合667 m² 产量/kg	667 m²肥料投入/元	667 m²经济效益/元
对照	125.6±4.7 c	1 395.9	2 482.5	19 852.3
常规施肥	134.1±2.3 b	1 490.0	2 032.5	21 807.5
复合菌剂+常规施肥	145.3±4.0 a	1 614.4	2 482.5	23 348.6

处理	小区产量/ kg	折合667 m² 产量/kg	667 m²肥料投入/元	667 m²经济效益/元
对照	125.6±4.7 c	1 395.9	2 482.5	19 852.3
常规施肥	134.1±2.3 b	1 490.0	2 032.5	21 807.5
复合菌剂+常规施肥	145.3±4.0 a	1 614.4	2 482.5	23 348.6

处理	串重/g	可溶性固形物含量/%	V_C含量/ (μg·mL^-1)	可滴定酸含量/%
对照	679.3±2.2 c	16.0±1.3 a	72.2±0.5 c	14.2±0.4 a
常规施肥	820.0±1.6 b	16.5±0.8 a	75.9±1.3 b	13.1±0.3 b
复合菌剂+常规施肥	860.0±2.4 a	16.9±0.9 a	81.3±0.7 a	12.9±0.4 b

处理	串重/g	可溶性固形物含量/%	V_C含量/ (μg·mL^-1)	可滴定酸含量/%
对照	679.3±2.2 c	16.0±1.3 a	72.2±0.5 c	14.2±0.4 a
常规施肥	820.0±1.6 b	16.5±0.8 a	75.9±1.3 b	13.1±0.3 b
复合菌剂+常规施肥	860.0±2.4 a	16.9±0.9 a	81.3±0.7 a	12.9±0.4 b

处理	细菌/ (10⁸ CFU·g^-1)	真菌/ (10⁵ CFU·g^-1)	放线菌/ (10⁵ CFU·g^-1)
对照	6.0	2.9	2.1
常规施肥	7.2	2.3	2.4
复合菌剂+常规施肥	9.3	2.2	2.7