Effect of Different Fertilization Measures on the Diversity of Soil Bacteria Communities in Fed oats （Avena sativa L.）

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0512

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to investigate the diversity of bacterial community in oat rhizosphere soil under different fertilization treatments， 7 treatments were set including no fertilization （CK）， commercial fertilizer only （T2） and commercial fertilizer combined with organic fertilizer according to ratios of 9∶1 （T3）， 8∶2 （T4）， 7∶3 （T5）， 6∶4 （T6） and 5∶5 （T7）. The contents of soil nutrient and the diversity of bacterial community were analyzed. The results showed that， compared with CK， the treatments of commercial fertilizer combined with organic fertilizer increased significantly the contents of available potassium and available phosphorus， and decreased significantly the content of soluble salt. Among 7 treatments， the biomass of oat in T4 treatment was highest. At the phylum level， a total of 28 taxas were obtained from samples of 7 treatments. Compared the bacterial communities among treatments， linear discriminant analysis effect size （LEfSe） found that the dominant bacterial communities of T4 and T5 treatments were more conducive to soil forward succession and plant growth. The results of redundancy analysis （RDA） showed that the contents of total nitrogen， available phosphorus， organic carbon and organic potassium had more significant effects on the bacterial community. Comprehensive analysis showed that T4 treatment was more conducive to the sustainable production of soil and plants.

Key words: combined application of inorganic and organic fertilizers, fed oats, soil, bacterial community

摘要：

为探讨不同施肥处理下燕麦根际土壤细菌群落多样性的差异，设置不施肥（CK）、仅施用商用化肥（T2）和商用化肥与有机肥分别按照9∶1（T3）、8∶2（T4）、7∶3（T5）、6∶4（T6）和5∶5（T7）的比例配施共7个处理，研究不同处理对土壤养分状况和细菌群落多样性的影响。结果表明，与CK相比，无机-有机肥料配施时，土壤有效钾和有效磷含量明显提高，可溶解性盐含量显著降低，其中T4处理的燕麦生物量最高。在门水平上，7个处理的土壤细菌样品共获得28个类群，使用线性判别分析效应大小对各处理进行比较，发现T4、T5处理中的优势菌群更有利于土壤正向演替和植物生长。不同环境因素变化对不同微生物菌群的影响不同，冗余分析（redundancy analysis，RDA）表明土壤全氮、有效磷、有机碳和有机钾含量对细菌群落有显著影响。综合分析表明，T4处理的土壤化学特性和优势菌群更有利于土壤和植物可持续生产。

关键词: 无机-有机肥料配施, 饲用燕麦, 土壤, 细菌群落

CLC Number:

S512.6

Jiangang JIN, Zaifang TIAN, Minna ZHENG, Jiahui KANG. Effect of Different Fertilization Measures on the Diversity of Soil Bacteria Communities in Fed oats （Avena sativa L.）[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(3): 152-160.

靳建刚, 田再芳, 郑敏娜, 康佳惠. 不同施肥措施对饲用燕麦土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 152-160.

Figures/Tables 8

References 26

1	陈宝书.牧草饲料作物栽培学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2001:10-23.
	CHEN B S. Forage and Forage Crop Cultivation Studies [M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2001:10-23.
2	赵秀芳,戎郁萍,赵来喜.我国燕麦种质资源的收集和评价[J].草业科学,2007,24(3)36-40.
	ZHAO X F, RONG Y P, ZHAO L X. The collection of oat (Avena sativa) in China [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2007, 24(3):36-40.
3	李刚,郑敏娜,李荫藩.饲用燕麦品种在晋北农牧交错区的生产性能和营养价值研究[J].中国农业科技导报,2021,23(12):42-53.
	LI G, ZHENG M N, LI Y F. Study on the production performance and nutritional value of fed oat varieties in northern Shanxi province [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021, 23(12):42-53.
4	侯龙鱼,朱泽义,杨杰,等.我国饲草用燕麦现状、问题和潜力[J].西南民族大学学报(自然科学版),2019,45(3):248-253.
	HOU L Y, ZHU Z Y, YANG J, et al.. Current status, problems and potentials of forage oat in China [J]. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. (Nat. Sci.), 2019, 45(3):248-253.
5	李生仪,孙延亮,赵俊威,等.施氮对苜蓿根际土壤微生物数量、酶活性及干草产量的影响[J].中国草地学报,2022, 44(4):113-119.
	LI S Y, SUN Y L, ZHAO J W, et al.. Effect of nitrogen application on microbial quantity, enzyme activity and hay yield in alfalfa rhizosphere [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2022, 44(4):113-119.
6	VOURLITIS G L, ZORBA G, PASQUINII S C, et al.. Chronic nitrogen deposition enhances nitrogen mineralization potential of semiarid shrubland soils [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. J., 2007, 123(1):836-842.
7	ZEGLIN L H, STURSOVA M, SINSABAUGH R L, et al.. Microbial responses to nitrogen addition in three contrasting grassland ecosystems [J]. Oecologia, 2007, 154(2):349-359.
8	郑敏娜,梁秀芝,韩志顺,等.不同改良措施对盐碱土土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J].草地学报,2021,29(6):1200-1210.
	ZHENG M N, LIANG X Z, HAN Z S, et al.. Effects of different improvement measures on the diversity of soil bacteria communities in salt-alkali soil [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2021, 29(6):1200-1210.
9	商丽荣,万里强,李向林.有机肥对羊草草原土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J].中国农业科学,2020,53(13):2614-2624.
	SHANG L R, WAN L Q, LI X L. Effects of organic fertilizer on soil bacterial community diversity in Leymus chinensis steppe [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2020, 53(13):2614-2624.
10	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析［M］.北京：中国农业出版社，2001：1-495.
11	WU M, QIN H, CHEN Z, et al.. Effect of long-term fertilization on bacterial composition in rice paddy soil [J]. Biol. Fert. Soils, 2011, 47:397-405.
12	DAQUIADO A R, KUPPUSAMY S, KIM S Y, et al.. Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial community diversity in long-term fertilized paddy field soil [J]. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2016, 108:84-91.
13	ZHONG W H, GU T, WANG W, et al.. The effects of mineral fertilizer and organic manure on soil microbial community and diversity [J]. Plant Soil, 2010, 326(1/2):511-522.
14	樊晓刚,金轲,李兆君,等.不同施肥和耕作制度下土壤微生物多样性研究进展[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2010,16(3) :744-751.
	FAN X G, JIN K, LI Z J, et al.. Progress in soil microbial diversity under different fertilization and tillage systems [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2010, 16(3):744-751.
15	ZHAO J, ZHANG R F, XUE C, et al.. Pyrosequencing reveals contrasting soil bacterial diversity and community structure of two main winter wheat cropping systems in China [J]. Microb. Ecol., 2014, 67: 443-453.
16	苏贝贝,张英,道日娜.4种豆科栽培牧草根际土壤细菌群落分布特征研究[J].草地学报,2021,29(2):250-258.
	SU B B, ZHANG Y, DAO R N. Distribution of bacterial communities in rhizosphere of four legume cultivated grasses [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2021, 29(2):250-258.
17	SUN R, ZHANG X, GUO X, et al.. Bacterial diversity in soils subjected to long-term chemical fertilization can be more stably maintained with the addition of livestock manure than wheat straw [J]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2015, 88(9):9-18.
18	GE G, LI Z, FAN F, et al.. Soil biological activity and their seasonal variations in response to long-term application of organic and inorganic fertilizers [J]. Plant Soil, 2010, 326:31-44.
19	XU J, LIU S J, SONG S R, et al.. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence decomposition and the associated soil microbial community under different soil phosphorus availability [J]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2018, 20:181-190.
20	KOPECKY J, KYSELKOVA M, OMELKA M, et al.. Actinobacterial community dominated by a distinct clade in acidic soil of a waterlogged deciduous forest [J]. FEMS Microb. Ecol., 2011, 78(2):386-394.
21	SUN J, ZHANG Q, ZHOU J, et al.. Pyrosequencing technology reveals the impact of different manure doses on the bacterial community in apple rhizosphere soil [J]. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2014, 78:28-36.
22	卡着才让, 德科加, 徐成体.不同施肥时间及施氮水平对高寒草甸生物量和土壤养分的影响[J].草地学报, 2015, 23(4): 726-732.
	KA Z C R, DE K J, XU C T, et al.. The effects of different fertilization time and nitrogen application levels on biomass and soil nutrients in Alpine meadow [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2015, 23(4): 726-732.
23	CHEN X, JIANG N, CHEN Z H, et al.. Response of soil phoD phosphatase gene to long-term combined applications of chemical fertilizers and organic materials [J]. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2017, 119(10):197-204.
24	LI M, JAIN S, DICK G J. Genomic and transcriptomic resolution of organic matter utilization among deep-sea bacteria in Guaymas basin hydrothermal plumes [J/OL]. Front. Microbiol., 2016, 7: 1125 [2022-05-10]. .
25	LINO T, MORI K, UCHINO Y, et al.. Ignavibacterium album gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderately thermophilic anaerobic bacterium isolated from microbial mats at a terrestrial hot spring and proposal of Ignavibacteria classis nov., for a novel lineage at the periphery of green sulfur bacteria [J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2010, 60(6):1376-1382.
26	XUN W B, HUANG T, ZHAO J, et al.. Environmental conditions rather than microbial inoculum composition determine the bacterial composition, microbial biomass and enzymatic activity of reconstructed soil microbial communities [J]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2015, 90(11):10-18.

处理 Treatment	全氮 TN/%	速效氮 AN/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 AK/（mg·kg^-1）	速效磷 AP/（mg·kg^-1）	有机碳SOC/（g·kg^-1）	可溶解性盐SS/（g·kg^-1）	株高 PH/cm	干草产量 Y/（kg·hm^-2）
CK	3.10±0.22 a	182.46±9.24 a	189.36±21.02 c	8.49±0.69 b	32.18±0.12 a	3.83±0.06 a	89.36±4.35 c	6 888.75±709.48 c
T2	3.25±0.21 a	185.62±10.76 a	219.34±45.36 bc	9.88±0.25 b	30.25±3.26 a	2.63±0.05 b	92.68±3.97 bc	7 684.70±606.58 b
T3	3.51±0.09 a	177.67±2.13 a	205.34±25.31 bc	9.34±1.36 b	29.18±2.64 a	2.40±0.03 b	97.21±2.96 b	7 729.66±883.55 b
T4	3.52±0.28 a	194.32±14.32 a	263.14±56.34 b	11.09±0.96 a	32.09±4.39 a	1.62±0.35 c	107.32±5.34 a	9 245.55±992.84 a
T5	3.47±0.16 a	187.26±3.69 a	259.12±16.98 b	10.23±0.98 ab	32.34±1.28 a	1.61±0.12 c	101.25±6.78 ab	8 976.04±712.23 ab
T6	3.56±0.26 a	179.32±6.90 a	229.41±15.24 bc	9.21±1.24 b	29.32±2.22 a	1.54±0.01 c	98.36±4.31 b	8 706.09±785.26 ab
T7	3.40±0.17 a	170.36±5.98 a	298.99±30.67 a	9.82±0.06 b	30.11±4.35 a	1.53±0.03 c	98.45±2.57 b	8 178.99±861.23 b

处理 Treatment	全氮 TN/%	速效氮 AN/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 AK/（mg·kg^-1）	速效磷 AP/（mg·kg^-1）	有机碳SOC/（g·kg^-1）	可溶解性盐SS/（g·kg^-1）	株高 PH/cm	干草产量 Y/（kg·hm^-2）
CK	3.10±0.22 a	182.46±9.24 a	189.36±21.02 c	8.49±0.69 b	32.18±0.12 a	3.83±0.06 a	89.36±4.35 c	6 888.75±709.48 c
T2	3.25±0.21 a	185.62±10.76 a	219.34±45.36 bc	9.88±0.25 b	30.25±3.26 a	2.63±0.05 b	92.68±3.97 bc	7 684.70±606.58 b
T3	3.51±0.09 a	177.67±2.13 a	205.34±25.31 bc	9.34±1.36 b	29.18±2.64 a	2.40±0.03 b	97.21±2.96 b	7 729.66±883.55 b
T4	3.52±0.28 a	194.32±14.32 a	263.14±56.34 b	11.09±0.96 a	32.09±4.39 a	1.62±0.35 c	107.32±5.34 a	9 245.55±992.84 a
T5	3.47±0.16 a	187.26±3.69 a	259.12±16.98 b	10.23±0.98 ab	32.34±1.28 a	1.61±0.12 c	101.25±6.78 ab	8 976.04±712.23 ab
T6	3.56±0.26 a	179.32±6.90 a	229.41±15.24 bc	9.21±1.24 b	29.32±2.22 a	1.54±0.01 c	98.36±4.31 b	8 706.09±785.26 ab
T7	3.40±0.17 a	170.36±5.98 a	298.99±30.67 a	9.82±0.06 b	30.11±4.35 a	1.53±0.03 c	98.45±2.57 b	8 178.99±861.23 b

处理 Treatment	序列数 Raw read	OTU数量Number of OTUs	覆盖度 Good’s coverage	Ace指数 Ace index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Chao1指数 Chao l index
CK	777 095	1 533±35.23 b	0.999 0±0.00 a	820.16±36.21 c	8.21±1.23 bcd	858.71±12.31 d
T2	77 453	1 748±38.96 a	0.999 2±0.00 a	996.07±38.22 c	7.86±1.11 cd	1 052.72±14.33 cd
T3	68 494	1 375±29.64 c	0.999 8±0.01 a	953.15±37.26 c	8.26±1.20 bcd	1 022.57±13.98 cd
T4	77 349	1 680±37.12 a	0.999 4±0.01 a	1 457.67±41.23 a	8.36±1.19 bc	1 485.35±15.94 a
T5	77 839	1 352±28.11 c	0.996 5±0.00 a	1 241.51±40.62 b	7.76±1.05 d	1 252.65±14.35 bc
T6	77 219	1 388±28.31 c	0.999 0±0.00 a	1 497.45±42.54 a	8.93±1.15 a	1 531.94±16.01 a
T7	78 013	1 213±26.86 c	0.999 7±0.00 a	1 360.74±41.78 ab	8.64±1.12 ab	1 431.60±15.87 ab

处理 Treatment	序列数 Raw read	OTU数量Number of OTUs	覆盖度 Good’s coverage	Ace指数 Ace index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Chao1指数 Chao l index
CK	777 095	1 533±35.23 b	0.999 0±0.00 a	820.16±36.21 c	8.21±1.23 bcd	858.71±12.31 d
T2	77 453	1 748±38.96 a	0.999 2±0.00 a	996.07±38.22 c	7.86±1.11 cd	1 052.72±14.33 cd
T3	68 494	1 375±29.64 c	0.999 8±0.01 a	953.15±37.26 c	8.26±1.20 bcd	1 022.57±13.98 cd
T4	77 349	1 680±37.12 a	0.999 4±0.01 a	1 457.67±41.23 a	8.36±1.19 bc	1 485.35±15.94 a
T5	77 839	1 352±28.11 c	0.996 5±0.00 a	1 241.51±40.62 b	7.76±1.05 d	1 252.65±14.35 bc
T6	77 219	1 388±28.31 c	0.999 0±0.00 a	1 497.45±42.54 a	8.93±1.15 a	1 531.94±16.01 a
T7	78 013	1 213±26.86 c	0.999 7±0.00 a	1 360.74±41.78 ab	8.64±1.12 ab	1 431.60±15.87 ab

环境因子 Environmental factor	相关系数 Correlation coefficient	P值P value
全氮TN	0.213 4	0.004
速效氮AN	0.413 6	0.004
速效钾AK	0.483 2	0.050
速效磷AP	0.589 6	0.001
有机碳SOC	0.493 1	0.003
可溶解性盐SS	0.096 7	0.050