种植海水稻对滨海盐土化学性质和微生物群落影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0294

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究种植海水稻对滨海盐土微生物群落的影响及其与环境因子间的关系，以不种植海水稻的含盐0.2%（CK1）和0.6%（CK2）的土壤为对照组，以在0.2%和0.6%盐度种植‘海稻86’的土壤为处理组（S1、S2），研究不同处理下土壤的化学性质、养分含量和微生物群落结构。结果表明，种植海水稻后，土壤腐殖质、速效磷、速效钾含量较对照组显著提升，在抽穗期，S1和S2处理分别为19.26 g·kg^-1、40.61 mg·kg^-1、98.33 mg·kg^-1和17.42 g·kg^-1、34.79 mg·kg^-1、88.69 mg·kg^-1；同时，种植海水稻提升了土壤碱解氮、铵态氮、硝态氮的含量，且均在抽穗期时含量最高。种植海水稻后，处理组土壤的微生物生物量碳（microbial biomass carbon，MBC）、微生物生物量氮（microbial biomass nitrogen，MBN）含量及微生物呼吸活性（microbial respiratory activity，MR）较对照组显著增加，在抽穗期，S1处理较CK1显著增加190.42%、234.13%和93.33%；S2处理较CK2显著增加195.33%、184.26%和108.14%。同时种植海水稻对滨海盐土微生物群落结构多样性影响显著，S1处理对微生物群落优势菌相对丰度的提高显著优于S2处理。S1处理中，伯克氏菌科（Burkholderiaceae）、噬几丁质菌科（Chitinophagaceae）、嗜甲基菌科（Methylophilaceae）、吡啶单胞菌科（Pyrinomonadaceae）、鞘脂单胞菌科（Sphingomonadaceae）、芽囊藻科（Blastocatellaceae）、亚硝化单胞菌科（Nitrosomonadaceae）的相对丰度较CK1分别显著提升75.63%、4.01%、54.67%、65.03%、99.11%、49.93%、119.75%。S2处理中，伯克氏菌科（Burkholderiaceae）、嗜甲基菌科（Methylophilaceae）、芽囊藻科（Blastocatellaceae）、亚硝化单胞菌科（Nitrosomonadaceae）相对丰度较CK2分别显著29.83%、28.17%、148.84%、44.81%。相关性表明土壤pH与伯克氏菌科和嗜甲基菌科的相对丰度呈极显著正相关；土壤腐殖质、碱解氮、铵态氮和硝态氮含量与吡啶单胞菌科和芽囊藻科的相对丰度呈极显著正相关。

关键词: 海水稻, 盐土, 土壤化学性质, 微生物生物量, 微生物群落结构

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of sea rice cultivation on microbial community of coastal saline soil and its relationship with environmental factors， the soils with 0.2% and 0.6% salt concentration were as materials， in which sea rice was grown as treatment groups （S1 and S2） and no plant as control groups（CK1 and CK2）. The chemical properties， nutrient content and microbial community structure of soil under different treatments were determined. The results showed that， after planting sea rice， the contents of humus， available phosphorus and available potassium significant increased， which peaked at 19.26 g·kg^-1， 40.61 mg·kg^-1， 98.33 mg·kg^-1 and 17.42 g·kg^-1， 34.79 mg·kg^-1， 88.69 mg·kg^-1 under S1 and S2 treatments in the heading stage， respectively. At the same time， the contents of alkali-hydrolytic nitrogen， ammonium nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen of soil significantly increased after planting sea rice， and the contents were the highest at heading stage. Compared with the control group， the microbial biomass carbon （MBC）， microbial biomass nitrogen （MBN） and microbial respiratory activity （MR） under treatment groups increased significantly， which increased 190.42%， 234.13% and 93.33% in S1 treatment， 195.33%， 184.26% and 108.14% in S2 treatment， respectively. At the same time， the planting sea rice had significant effects on the diversity of coastal saline soil microbial community structure. The relative abundances of dominant microfloras under S1 treatment were significantly higher than those under S2 treatment. Under S1 treatment， the relative abundances of Burkholderiacea， Chitinophagacea， Methylophilacea， Pyrinomonadaceae， Sphingomonadaceae， Blastocatellaceae increased significantly by 75.63%， 4.01%， 54.67%， 65.03%， 99.11%， 49.93%， 119.75%， respectively. Under S2 treatment， the relative abundances of Burkholderiacea， Methylophilacea， Blastocatellaceae， Nitrosomonadaceae increased significantly by 29.83%， 28.17%， 148.84%， 44.81%， respectively. Correlation analysis showed that pH of soil was extremely significant positively correlated with the relative abundance of Burkholderiaceae and Methylophilaceae， while the contents of Humus， the soil alkali-hydrolytic nitrogen， ammonium nitrogen， nitrate nitrogen were extremely significant positively correlated with the relative abundance of Pyrinomonadaceae and Blastocatellaceae.

Key words: sea rice, saline soils, soil chemistry, microbial biomass, microbial community structure

中图分类号:

S156.4

李慧君, 张伟健, 吴伟健, 李高洋, 陈艺杰, 黄枫城, 黄永相, 蔺中, 甄珍. 种植海水稻对滨海盐土化学性质和微生物群落影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(9): 147-156.

Huijun LI, Weijian ZHANG, Weijian WU, Gaoyang LI, Yijie CHEN, Fengcheng HUANG, Yongxiang HUANG, Zhong LIN, Zhen ZHEN. Effects of Sea Rice on Soil Chemical Properties and Microbial Community Structure in Coastal Solonchaks[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(9): 147-156.

图/表 6

图1 不同处理下土壤的化学性质注：同一时期不同小写字母表示不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 1 Chemical properties of soil under different treatmentsNote： Different lowercase letters in same period indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level.

图2 不同处理下土壤的微生物数量和活性注：同一时期不同小写字母表示不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 2 Microbial amount and bioactivity of soil under different treatmentsNote： Different lowercase letters in same period indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level.

表1 种植海水稻对土壤微生物丰度和多样性的α多样性指数

Table 1 Alpha diversity index of soil microbial abundance and diversity under sea rice cultivation

样本 Sample	Richness指数 Richness index	Chao1指数 Chao 1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index
CK1	3 660±37 c	3 661.0±29.5 c	8.44±0.48 a	0.012 9±0.001 7 d
CK2	3 077±12 d	3 078.1±22.9 d	7.50±0.48 b	0.075 3±0.010 1 c
S1	3 947±14 a	3 947.8±26.6 a	9.01±0.44 a	0.594 0±0.016 2 a
S2	3 837±29 b	3 837.8±4.70 b	8.97±0.31 a	0.275 0±0.019 8 b

图3 不同处理下的微生物群落结构组成

Fig. 3 Composition of microbial community under different treatments

图4 不同处理下的土壤微生物群落结构（科水平）聚类热图

Fig. 4 Heat map of soil microbial community structure （family level） under different treatments

图5 土壤化学因子与科水平下优势菌的相关性分析注： **表示在P<0.01水平显著相关。

Fig. 5 Correlation analysis between soil chemical factors and dominant bacteria at family levelNote： ** indicates significant correlation at P<0.01 level.

参考文献 33

1	孔涛, 张德胜, 徐慧, 等. 盐碱地及其改良过程中土壤微生物生态特征研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2014, 46(4): 581-588.
	KONG T, ZHANG D S, XU H, et al.. Microbial ecological characteristics of alkaline-saline lands and its amelioration process: a review [J]. Soils, 2014, 46(4): 581-588.
2	赵记伍. 海稻86盐碱耐性鉴定及耐性特征解析[D]. 荆州: 长江大学, 2020.
	ZHAO J W. Identification of salt-alkali tolerance and analysis of tolerance characteristics of Oceanrice 86 [D]. Jingzhou: Yangtze University, 2020.
3	宋沙沙, 苟宇波, 何欣燕, 等. 改良剂对盐碱土的改良效应及垂柳生长的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2017, 39(5): 89-97.
	SONG S S, GOU Y B, HE X Y, et al.. Effect of modifier application on saline-alkali land amelioration and weeping willow growth [J]. J. Beijing For. Univ., 2017, 39(5): 89-97.
4	赵英, 王丽, 赵惠丽, 等. 滨海盐碱地改良研究现状及展望[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(3): 67-74.
	ZHAO Y, WANG L, ZHAO H L, et al.. Research status and prospect of saline-alkali land amelioration in the Coastal region of China [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2022, 38(3):67-74.
5	李燕, 张敏, 宁朋, 等. 外源NO对盐胁迫下中华常春藤生理特性的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2022, 58(1): 207-213.
	LI Y, ZHANG M, NING P, et al.. Effects of exogenous NO on physiological characteristics of Hedera nepalensis var. sinensis under salt stress [J]. Acta Phytophysiol. Sin., 2022, 58(1):207-213.
6	PANDIT A, RAI V, SHARMA T R, et al.. Differentially expressed genes in sensitive and tolerant rice varieties in response to salt-stress [J]. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol., 2011, 20(2): 149-154.
7	李琳, 向丹, 武亚芬, 等. 长期不同施肥方式对日光温室番茄土壤养分和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(2): 415-422.
	LI L, XIANG D, WU Y F, et al.. Effects of long-term different fertilization patterns on soil nutrients and microbial community structure of tomato in a solar greenhouse [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2022, 33(2): 415-422.
8	陆嘉惠, 吕新, 梁永超, 等. 新疆胀果甘草幼苗耐盐性及对NaCl胁迫的离子响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(9): 839-850.
	LU J H, LYU X, LIANG Y C, et al.. Salt tolerance of Glycyrrhiza inflata seedlings in Xinjiang and its ion response to salt stress [J]. J. Plant Ecol., 2013, 37(9): 839-850.
9	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000: 85-96.
	LU R K. Methods for Soil Agrochemical Analysis [M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000: 85-96.
10	VANCE E D, BROOKES P C, JENKINSON D S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C [J]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 1987, 19(6): 703-707.
11	薛琼琼, 赵露露, 王云霞, 等. 盐生植物耐盐性研究进展[J].中国野生植物资源, 2021, 40(5): 60-65.
	XUE Q Q, ZHAO L L, WANG Y X, et al.. Research process on salt tolerance of halophytes [J]. Chin. J. Wild Plant Resour., 2021, 40(5): 60-65.
12	刘晓忠, 王志霞, 李建坤, 等. 低盐锻炼提高水稻幼苗耐盐性及其与活性氧毒害的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 1997, 11(1): 33-38.
	LIU X Z, WANG Z X, LI J K, et al.. Enhances salt tolerance in rice seedlings included by low concentration of NaCl and its relationship to the toxicity of active oxygen [J]. Chin. J. Rice Sci., 1997, 11(1): 33-38.
13	顾寅钰, 衣葵花, 梁晓艳, 等. 不同盐胁迫条件对芹菜根部土壤的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(9): 1801-1803.
	GU Y Y, YI K H, LIANG X Y, et al.. Effects of different salt stress conditions on celery root soil [J]. J. Zhejiang Agric. Sci., 2020, 61(9): 1801-1803.
14	王洋, 张瑞, 刘永昊, 等. 水稻对盐胁迫的响应及耐盐机理研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2022, 36(2): 105-117.
	WANG Y, ZHANG R, LIU Y H, et al.. Research progress on response and salt tolerance mechanism of rice to salt stress [J]. Chin. J. Rice Sci., 2022, 36(2): 105-117.
15	孙立才, 崔士友, 张蛟, 等. 江苏滨海盐土脱盐技术及应用前景[J]. 农学学报, 2021, 11(1): 27-31.
	SUN L C, CUI S Y, ZHANG J, et al.. Coastal saline soil in Jiangsu: desalting technologies and application prospect [J]. J. Agron., 2021, 11(1): 27-31.
16	JIN Z M, WANG C H, LIU Z P, et al.. Physiological and ecological characters studies on Aloe vera under soil salinity and seawater irrigation [J]. J. Process. Biochem., 2007, 42(4): 710-714.
17	应永庆, 傅庆林, 郭彬, 等. 腐殖酸对滨海盐土土壤性质及水稻产量的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(22): 121-123, 131.
	YING Y Q, FU Q L, GUO B, et al.. Effects of humic acid on soil properties and rice yield in coastal saline soil [J]. Anhui Agric. Sci. Bull., 2021, 27(22): 121-123, 131.
18	MAVI M S, MARSCHNER P. Salinity affects the response of soil microbial activity and biomass to addition of carbon and nitrogen [J]. Soil Res., 2013, 51(1): 68-75.
19	彭木, 訾晓雪, 尚娲, 等. 不同土地利用方式对大庆地区土壤理化性质、酶活性与微生物数量的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015, 43(10): 79-84.
	PENG M, ZI X X, SHANG W, et al.. Effect of different land use on soil physicochemical properties, enzyme activity and microorganism quantity in Daqing [J]. J. Northeast Agric. Univ., 2015, 43(10): 79-84.
20	梅杰, 周国英. 不同林龄马尾松林根际与非根际土壤微生物、酶活性及养分特征[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2011, 31(4): 46-49.
	MEI J, ZHOU G Y. Study of rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere microbial, enzyme activity and nutrients element content of soil in different stand ages pinus massoniana forest [J]. J. Central South. Univ. For. Technol., 2011, 31(4): 46-49.
21	蔡妙珍, 罗安程, 章永松, 等. 水稻根表铁膜对磷的富集作用及其与水稻磷吸收的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2003,2003(2): 94-97.
	CAI M Z, LUO A C, ZHANG Y S, et al.. Adsorption of phosphate by iron plaque on rice roots in relation to phosphate uptake by rice [J]. Chin. J. Rice Sci., 2003, 17(2): 187-190.
22	WU N, SHI W C, LIU W W, et al.. Differential impact of bt-transgenic rice plantings on bacterial community in three niches over consecutive years [J/OL]. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2021, 223: 112569 [2022-02-03]. .
23	CHEN L, LI F, LI W, et al.. Organic amendment mitigates the negative impacts of mineral fertilization on bacterial communities in Shajiang black soil [J/OL]. Appl. Soil. Ecol., 2020, 150:103457 [2022-02-03]. .
24	CAMPOS M, RILLING J I, ACUA J J, et al.. Spatiotemporal variations and relationships of phosphorus, phosphomonoesterases, and bacterial communities in sediments from two Chilean rivers [J/OL]. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 776:145782 [2022-02-03]. .
25	WANG M, ZHAO S W, WANG L F, et al.. Salt stress-induced changes in microbial community structures and metabolic processes result in increased soil cadmium availability [J/OL]. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 782(4):147125 [2022-02-03]. .
26	QIN C, LIU X F, YI R, et al.. Methane oxidation coupled to denitrification under microaerobic and hypoxic conditions in leach bed bioreactors [J]. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 649(2):1-11.
27	GUO J, ZHENG Y Y, TENG J H, et al.. Characteristics of spatial distribution for microbial ecology inside and outside source water reservoir [J/OL]. J. Clean Prod., 2021, 311(1):127697 [2022-02-03]. .
28	WANG M, XIE X Y, WANG M Z, et al.. The bacterial microbiota in florfenicol contaminated soils:The antibiotic resistome and the nitrogen cycle [J/OL]. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 259:113901 [2022-02-03]. .
29	WU A L, JIAO X Y, WANG J S, et al.. Sorghum rhizosphere effects reduced soil bacterial diversity by recruiting specific bacterial species under low nitrogen stress [J/OL]. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 770:144742 [2022-02-03]. .
30	ITTISUPORNRAT S, PHETRAK A, THEEPHARAKSAPAN S, et al.. Effect of prolonged sludge retention times on the performance of membrane bioreactor and microbial community for leachate treatment under restricted aeration [J/OL]. Chemosphere, 2021, 284:131153 [2022-02-03]. .
31	CHUN S J, KIM Y J, CUI Y S, et al.. Ecological network analysis reveals distinctive microbial modules associated with heavy metal contamination of abandoned mine soils in Korea [J/OL]. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 289:117851 [2022-02-03]. .
32	景宇鹏, 李跃进, 姚一萍, 等. 盐渍化土壤酶活性及其与微生物、理化因子的关系[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2016, 18(2): 128-138.
	JING Y P, LI Y J, YAO Y P, et al.. Enzyme activities of saline-alkali soil and its relationship with soil microbial biomass and physicochemical factor [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2016, 18(2): 128-138.
33	WILHELM R C, ES H M V, BUCKLEY D H. Predicting measures of soil health using the microbiome and supervised machine learning [J/OL]. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2021, 164:108472 [2022-02-03]. .

[1]	李峰, 殷丛培, 殷冉, 王凡, 韩永亮, 杨志敏, 刘建成. 燕麦根际土壤细菌多样性对盐胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(1): 153-165.
[2]	王莉莉, 殷丛培, 李峰, 杨志敏, 刘芳明, 林柏松, 刘晓静, 刘海军, 孙靖, 单东东, 崔江慧, 张振清. 马铃薯根际土壤细菌群落结构及其对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(6): 58-69.
[3]	李佳, 张宇, 孙丽英, 范长华, . 不同改良剂对滨海盐土区稻田综合温室效应的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(11): 164-171.
[4]	高林1,王新伟1,申国明1,田峰2,陈前锋2,张明发2,张成省1*. 不同连作年限植烟土壤细菌和真菌群落结构差异[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(8): 147-152.
[5]	王佩雯1,朱金峰2,任志广1,陈征1,许自成1*. 不同土壤改良剂处理下连作植烟土壤化学性质及土壤酶活性的耦合分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(4): 82-91.
[6]	张明艳1,张继光1*,申国明1,张忠锋1,蔡宪杰2,薛林3. 烟田土壤微生物群落结构及功能微生物的研究现状与展望[J]. , 2014, 16(5): 115-122.