Effects of different microbial agents on rhizosphere microbial community of flue-cured tobacco

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240614

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of different microbial fertilizers on the soil microbial community diversity of flue-cured tobacco roots, the soil physical and chemical properties, microbial community diversity and structure composition of flue-cured tobacco soil treated with different microbial fertilizers were analyzed. The results showed that the organic matter, total nitrogen and available phosphorus content of flue-cured tobacco soil increased after treatment with different microbial fertilizers, while the pH value of soil did not change significantly. Compared with the CK treatment, the organic matter, total nitrogen and available phosphorus content of the T2 treatment increased by 31.36%, 43.48%, and 23.95%, respectively. The bacterial and fungal diversity and richness of T2 treatment in the soil increased. The dominant bacterial phylum of T2 treatment was Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteria. The dominant fungal phylum of T2 treatment was Ascomycota, unclassified_k__Fungi, and Basidiomycota. In summary, microbial fertilizer treatment increased soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus content and affected the composition of soil microbial community.

Key words: flue-cured tobacco, microbial agent, rhizosphere microorganism, community diversity

CLC Number:

S572

HE Xiaobing, BU Yating, XU Yueqi, HUANG Kunpeng, CHEN Xuchu, JIA Zhibin, SUN Jutao. Effects of different microbial agents on rhizosphere microbial community of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(12): 2869-2877.

Figures/Tables 9

References 42

[1]	陈晨, 牛莉莉, 孙善兴, 等. 烟草优质高效栽培关键技术的应用分析[J]. 种子科技, 2021, 39(21): 45-46.
[2]	王怀嵩, 张涛. 农业土壤健康评价体系研究进展[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2022, 38(9): 1093-1100.
[3]	刘洪坤, 严贤春. 不同耕作方式对果园土壤养分和微生物活性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(3): 499-504.
[4]	江文娟, 汤萌萌, 汪甜甜, 等. 宣城市耕地质量等级及土壤养分空间分布特征[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(1): 36-44.
[5]	高洁, 武红旗, 李新梅, 等. 近40年阜康市耕层土壤养分变化特征[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(10): 2294-2302.
[6]	梁路, 张卫杰, 徐博涵, 等. 有机无机肥配施影响土壤肥力与土壤环境的研究进展[J]. 河南农业科学, 2022, 51(3): 1-11.
[7]	万连杰, 李俊杰, 张绩, 等. 有机肥替代化肥技术研究进展[J]. 北方园艺, 2021(11): 133-142.
[8]	桑文, 赵亚光, 张凤华. 化肥减量配施有机液体肥对土壤微生物群落结构多样性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(11): 2584-2590.
[9]	蒲俊宇, 李忠义, 钟菊新, 等. 绿肥配施氮肥对岩溶区稻田土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 微生物学报, 2022, 62(6): 2417-2432.
[10]	王磊元, 李风娟, 秦翠兰. 施用不同土壤改良剂对准格尔盆地盐碱地的改良作用[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(16): 259-264.
[11]	ZHENG Y F, HAN X B, ZHAO D L, et al. Exploring biocontrol agents from microbial keystone taxa associated to suppressive soil: a new attempt for a biocontrol strategy[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021, 12: 655673.
[12]	李进, 张立丹, 刘芳, 等. 碱性肥料对香蕉枯萎病发生及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2016, 22(2): 429-436.
[13]	高芬, 闫欢, 王梦亮, 等. 土壤微生物菌群变化对土传病害的影响及生物调控[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(13): 160-164.
[14]	李丽, 韩周, 张昀, 等. 减氮配施微生物菌剂对水稻根系发育及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(4): 932-939.
[15]	占新华, 蒋延惠, 徐阳春, 等. 微生物制剂促进植物生长机理的研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1999, 5(2): 97-105.
[16]	黄阔, 江其鹏, 姚晓远, 等. 微生物菌剂对烟草根结线虫及根际微生物群落多样性的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(5): 36-43.
[17]	胡亚杰, 王生才, 卢健, 等. 微生物菌剂喷施对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2018, 32(3): 213-216.
[18]	张娜, 朱艳, 肖娴, 等. 沼泽红假单胞菌与枯草芽孢杆菌混施对水稻根域细菌多样性与功能的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(1): 58-71.
[19]	赵诣, 王振华, 杨磊, 等. 微藻配施枯草芽孢杆菌对烟田土壤化学性质和细菌群落的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2024, 46(1): 241-250.
[20]	夏青, 刘子豪, 张晶清, 等. 强还原处理配施枯草芽孢杆菌对百合土壤酚酸的影响[J]. 土壤, 2023, 55(5): 1016-1024.
[21]	陆洪省, 张雪, 高宇婷, 等. 哈茨木霉SKD-ZX-1的鉴定、发酵及其生防效果[J]. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(11): 132-140.
[22]	ZHU C W, WEN H J, ZHANG Y X, et al. Characteristics of Cd isotopic compositions and their genetic significance in the lead-zinc deposits of SW China[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2013, 56(12): 2056-2065.
[23]	王政, 刘久羽, 李智, 等. 施用不同有益菌剂对长期连作烤烟根际土壤微生态的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2024, 37(3): 612-621.
[24]	姚少雄, 周蓓蓓, 李晓晴, 等. 哈茨木霉菌与有机肥复配强化植物修复强酸性重金属污染土壤的效果及机理[J]. 土壤通报, 2023, 54(4): 937-946.
[25]	姚晨虓, 李小杰, 刘畅, 等. 3株拮抗烟草尖孢镰刀菌的木霉菌筛选鉴定及促生防病效果评价[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2022, 28(4): 96-105.
[26]	孙冰冰, 李伟, 魏军, 等. 生防芽孢杆菌的研究进展[J]. 天津农业科学, 2015, 21(12): 102-107.
[27]	朱洪江, 王勇, 刘东阳, 等. 哈茨木霉对烟草青枯病田间控制效果及生物学性状的影响[J]. 植物医生, 2019(5): 26-31.
[28]	周长安. 新型高效肥料美国普利登(SW)鱼蛋白有机肥[J]. 北京农业, 2010(13): 43-44.
[29]	EPELDE L, BECERRIL J M, HERNÁNDEZ-ALLICA J, et al. Functional diversity as indicator of the recovery of soil health derived from Thlaspi caerulescens growth and metal phytoextraction[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2008, 39(3): 299-310.
[30]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[31]	PITTA D W, PARMAR N, PATEL A K, et al. Bacterial diversity dynamics associated with different diets and different primer pairs in the rumen of Kankrej cattle[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11): e111710.
[32]	敖金成, 李永梅, 李博. 连作烟田健株与感染根腐病烟株根际土壤细菌群落多样性研究[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(4): 198-204.
[33]	孙建平, 刘雅辉, 左永梅, 等. 盐地碱蓬根际土壤细菌群落结构及其功能[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(10): 1618-1629.
[34]	KANOKRATANA P, UENGWETWANIT T, RATTANACHOMSRI U, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and metabolic potential of a primary tropical peat swamp forest microbial community by metagenomic analysis[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2011, 61(3): 518-528.
[35]	WAGG C, DUDENHÖFFER J H, WIDMER F, et al. Linking diversity, synchrony and stability in soil microbial communities[J]. Functional Ecology, 2018, 32(5): 1280-1292.
[36]	ROSAS-MEDINA M, MACIÁ-VICENTE J G, PIEPENBRING M. Diversity of fungi in soils with different degrees of degradation in Germany and Panama[J]. Mycobiology, 2019, 48(1): 20-28.
[37]	林春英, 李希来, 张玉欣, 等. 黄河源区高寒沼泽湿地土壤微生物群落结构对不同退化的响应[J]. 环境科学, 2021, 42(8): 3971-3984.
[38]	MISHRA M, DAS M T, THAKUR I S. Mammalian cell-line based toxicological evaluation of paper mill black liquor treated in a soil microcosm by indigenous alkalo-tolerant Bacillus sp.[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2014, 21(4): 2966-2976.
[39]	李娟, UWAREMWE C, 冷艳, 等. 节杆菌属细菌处理有机物和重金属污染物的研究进展[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2017, 40(10): 89-97.
[40]	马潇洋, 于存. 8种杀菌剂对尖孢镰刀菌的抑菌能力和田间防治效果[J]. 西部林业科学, 2023, 52(2): 69-74.
[41]	张向民. 镰刀菌属分类学研究历史与现状[J]. 菌物研究, 2005, 3(2): 59-62.
[42]	DENG Z Y, WANG Y C, XIAO C C, et al. Effects of plant fine root functional traits and soil nutrients on the diversity of rhizosphere microbial communities in tropical cloud forests in a dry season[J]. Forests, 2022, 13(3): 421.

处理	操作
CK	常规施肥
T1	常规施肥+施加枯草芽孢杆菌菌剂
T2	常规施肥+施加哈茨木霉菌菌剂
T3	常规施肥+施加酶解鱼蛋白微生物菌剂

处理	操作
CK	常规施肥
T1	常规施肥+施加枯草芽孢杆菌菌剂
T2	常规施肥+施加哈茨木霉菌菌剂
T3	常规施肥+施加酶解鱼蛋白微生物菌剂

处理	总氮含量/ (g·kg^-1)	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	pH值
CK	0.69	16.01	72.58	16.7	128	8.54
T1	0.93	19.32	79.24	23.7	128	8.57
T2	0.99	21.03	74.06	20.7	127	8.58
T3	0.90	18.01	79.98	23.9	131	8.45

处理	总氮含量/ (g·kg^-1)	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	有效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	pH值
CK	0.69	16.01	72.58	16.7	128	8.54
T1	0.93	19.32	79.24	23.7	128	8.57
T2	0.99	21.03	74.06	20.7	127	8.58
T3	0.90	18.01	79.98	23.9	131	8.45

类型	处理	Ace	Chao1	Shannon	Simpson	覆盖度/%
细菌	CK	3 842.02±50.21 a	3 713.16±41.11 a	6.60±0.07 a	0.004 9±0.000 7 b	96.14
	T1	3 819.63±87.36 a	3 677.70±83.40 a	6.65±0.04 a	0.004 4±0.000 4 b	96.20
	T2	4 010.25±90.22 a	3 871.41±79.42 a	6.72±0.04 a	0.004 1±0.000 3 b	95.96
	T3	3 971.98±221.02 a	3 815.80±219.62 a	6.16±0.08 b	0.021 0±0.007 1 a	95.83
真菌	CK	587.14±4.24 a	592.36±11.79 a	3.98±0.02 a	0.045 9±0.000 6 b	99.80
	T1	553.21±54.12 a	558.27±62.07 a	3.86±0.09 a	0.045 5±0.004 7 b	99.79
	T2	515.64±40.94 a	517.45±45.64 a	4.07±0.08 a	0.038 6±0.004 0 b	99.84
	T3	574.38±17.45 a	569.08±2.50 a	3.84±0.13 a	0.062 3±0.010 9 a	99.79