添加不同类型水稻秸秆对植烟连作土壤微生物群落的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0234

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (1): 233-240.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0234

• 生物制造资源生态 • 上一篇

添加不同类型水稻秸秆对植烟连作土壤微生物群落的影响

熊橙梁¹(), 张庆富¹, 姚未远¹, 夏滔¹, 许庆平², 周喜新³, 张毅³, 陈丽鹃⁴, 杨柳¹()

^1.湖南省烟草公司长沙市公司宁乡市分公司，长沙 410600
^2.湖南省烟草职工培训中心，湖南湘潭 411101
^3.湖南农业大学生物科学技术学院，长沙 410000
^4.湖南农业大学农学院，长沙 410128

收稿日期:2023-03-28 接受日期:2023-07-26 出版日期:2025-01-15 发布日期:2025-01-21
通讯作者: 杨柳
作者简介:熊橙梁 E-mail：39140871@qq.com；
基金资助:
湖南省烟草公司长沙市公司科技项目(20-22A07);湖南省教育厅资助科研项目(20A230);湖南省教育厅优秀青年科学研究项目(21B0185)

Effects of Different Types of Rice Straw Addition on Soil Microbial Communities Under Continuous Tobacco Cropping

Chengliang XIONG¹(), Qingfu ZHANG¹, Weiyuan YAO¹, Tao XIA¹, Qingping XU², Xixin ZHOU³, Yi ZHANG³, Lijuan CHEN⁴, Liu YANG¹()

^1.Ningxiang Branch，Changsha Municipal Tobacco Company，Hunan Procincial Tobacco Corporation，Changsha 410000，China
^2.Hunan Tobacco Staff Training Center，Hunan Xiangtan 411101，China
^3.College of Biological Science and Technology，Hunan Agricultural University，Changsha 410000，China
^4.College of Agriculture，Hunan Agricultural University，Changsha 410128，China

Received:2023-03-28 Accepted:2023-07-26 Online:2025-01-15 Published:2025-01-21
Contact: Liu YANG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究添加不同类型水稻秸秆对烤烟连作土壤细菌群落的影响，以无添加土壤为对照（CK），分别添加新鲜水稻秸秆（FS）和腐熟水稻秸秆（RS），利用高通量测序分析3种处理下不同时间（0、7、30、60、90 d）土壤细菌和真菌的群落组成及多样性。结果表明，新鲜水稻秸秆和腐熟水稻秸秆能够显著提高土壤微生物群落的多样性和丰富度。FS和RS处理90 d后显著提高了土壤细菌的Chao1指数、Shannon指数和Simpson指数及真菌的Chao1指数。群落结构组成分析表明，FS和RS处理提高了变形菌门（Proteobacteria）、螺旋体门（Spirochaetes）和疣微菌门（Verrucomicrobia）的相对丰度；其中FS处理还增加了担子菌门（Basidiomycota）的相对丰度，降低了壶菌门（Chytridiomycota）和罗兹菌门（Rozellomycota）的相对丰度；RS处理增加了子囊菌门（Ascomycota）和担子菌门（Basidiomycota）的相对丰度，降低了结合菌门（Zygomycota）和壶菌门（Chytridiomycota）的相对丰度。综上所述，添加新鲜水稻秸秆和腐熟水稻秸秆均能改变土壤细菌和真菌的群落构成，改善植烟连作土壤的健康状态。相较于添加腐熟水稻秸秆处理，添加新鲜水稻秸秆处理会导致致病性真菌丰度的增加。

关键词: 水稻秸秆, 秸秆还田, 微生物群落, 植烟连作土壤, Illumina MiSeq测序

Abstract:

In order to study the effects of adding different types of rice straw on soil bacterial communities under continuous cropping of flue-cured tobacco， fresh rice straw （FS） and rotted rice straw （RS） were added in soil， with no straw as control （CK）. The community composition and diversity of soil bacteria and fungi at different times （0， 7， 30， 60 and 90 d） under 3 treatments were studied by high-throughput sequencing. The results showed that fresh rice straw and rotted rice straw could significantly improve the diversity and richness of soil microbial community. After 90 d in FS and RS treatments， the Chao 1 index， Shannon index and Simpson index of bacteria and the Chao 1 index of fungi were significantly improved. The analysis of community structure composition showed that FS and RS treatments increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria， Spirochaetes and Verrucomicrobia. FS treatment increased the relative abundance of Basidiomycota， and decreased the relative abundances of Chytridiomycota and Rozellomycota. RS treatment increased the relative abundances of Ascomycota and Basidiomycota， and decreased the relative abundances of Zygomycota and Chytridiomycota. In summary， the addition of fresh rice straw and rotted rice straw could change the community composition of soil bacteria and fungi， improve the health status of soil with continuous cropping of flue-cured tobacco. Compared with rotted rice straw treatment， fresh rice straw treatment increased the abundance of pathogenic fungi.

Key words: rice straw, straw return, microbial community, continuous cropping soil of flue-cured tobacco, Illumina MiSeq sequencing

中图分类号:

S154.36

熊橙梁, 张庆富, 姚未远, 夏滔, 许庆平, 周喜新, 张毅, 陈丽鹃, 杨柳. 添加不同类型水稻秸秆对植烟连作土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(1): 233-240.

Chengliang XIONG, Qingfu ZHANG, Weiyuan YAO, Tao XIA, Qingping XU, Xixin ZHOU, Yi ZHANG, Lijuan CHEN, Liu YANG. Effects of Different Types of Rice Straw Addition on Soil Microbial Communities Under Continuous Tobacco Cropping[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(1): 233-240.

图/表 5

参考文献 28

1	任洪利,张婷,张沁怡,等.秸秆还田与土壤微生物组健康[J].福建师范大学学报(自然科学版),2022,38(5):79-85.
	REN H L, ZHANG T, ZHANG Q Y, et al.. Crop straw incorporation an soil microbial community health [J]. J. Fujian Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.), 2022, 38(5):79-85.
2	李春雅,王炎伟,王荣,等.秸秆还田方式对东北水稻土理化性质及微生物群落的影响[J].微生物学报,2022,62(12):4811-4824.
	LI C Y, WANG Y W, WANG R, et al.. Effect of straw returning method on physicochemical properties and microbial community of paddy soil in Northeast China [J]. Acta Microbiol. Sin., 2022, 62(12):4811-4824.
3	王美琦,刘银双,黄亚丽,等.秸秆还田对土壤微生态环境影响的研究进展[J].微生物学通报,2022,49(2):807-816.
	WANG M Q, LIU Y S, HUANG Y L, et al.. Research progress on effects of straw incorporation on soil micro-ecological environment [J]. Microbiol. China, 2022, 49(2):807-816.
4	田慎重,宁堂原,王瑜,等.不同耕作方式和秸秆还田对麦田土壤有机碳含量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(2):373-378.
	TIAN S Z, NING T Y, WANG Y, et al.. Effects of different tillage methods and straw-returning on soil organic carbon content in a winter wheat field [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2010, 21(2):373-378.
5	马永良,宇振荣,江永红,等.两种还田模式下玉米秸秆分解速率的比较[J].生态学杂志,2002(6):68-70.
	MA Y L, YU Z R, JIANG Y H, et al.. Comparison of decomposition rates of maize straw between two kinds of straw incorporation [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2002(6):68-70.
6	孙汉印,姬强,王勇,等.不同秸秆还田模式下水稳性团聚体有机碳的分布及其氧化稳定性研究[J].农业环境科学学报,2012,31(2):369-376.
	SUN H Y, JI Q, WANG Y, et al.. The distribution of water-stable aggregate-associated organic carbon and its oxidation stability under different straw returning modes [J]. J. Agron. Environ. Sci., 2012, 31(2):369-376.
7	刘晓霞,陶云彬,章日亮,等.秸秆还田对作物产量和土壤肥力的短期效应[J].浙江农业科学,2017,58(3):508-510, 513.
8	张岳芳,孙国峰,周炜,等.保护性耕作对南方稻麦两熟高产农田土壤碳库特性的影响[J].西南农业学报,2015,28(3):1155-1160.
	ZHANG Y F, SUN G F, ZHOU W, et al.. Effects of conservation tillage on soil carbon pool from high production rice-wheat double cropping systems in South China [J]. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci., 2015, 28(3):1155-1160.
9	潘剑玲,代万安,尚占环,等.秸秆还田对土壤有机质和氮素有效性影响及机制研究进展[J].中国生态农业学报,2013,21(5):526-535.
	PAN J L, DAI W A, SHANG Z H, et al.. Review of research progress on the influence and mechanism of field straw residue incorporation on soil organic matter and nitrogen availability [J]. Chin. J. Eco-Agric., 2013, 21(5):526-535.
10	吴建峰,林先贵.土壤微生物在促进植物生长方面的作用[J].土壤,2003(1):18-21.
	WU J F, LIN X G. Effects of soil microbes on plant growth [J]. Soils, 2003(1):18-21.
11	KIRK J L, BEAUDETTE L A, HART M, et al.. Methods of studying soil microbial diversity [J]. J. Microbiol. Methods, 2004, 58(2):169-188.
12	TARDY V, MATIEU O, LEVEQUE J, et al.. Stability of soil microbial structure and activity depends on microbial diversity [J]. Environ. Microbiol. Rep., 2014, 6(2):173-183.
13	DRZEWIECKA D. Significance and roles of Proteus spp. bacteria in natural environments [J]. Microbial Ecol., 2016, 72(4):741-758.
14	李胜华,谷丽萍,刘可星,等.有机肥配施对番茄土传病害的防治及土壤微生物多样性的调控[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2009,15(4):965-969.
	LI S H, GU L P, LIU K X, et al.. Effects of combined application of organic fertilizers on the control of soilborne diseases and the regulation of soil microbial diversity [J]. J. Plant Nutr. Fert., 2009, 15(4):965-969.
15	杨希淼,于济菘,王冰,等.秸秆还田对土壤养分供应及微生物群落的影响[J].智慧农业导刊,2022,2(18):50-52.
16	BU R, REN T, LEI M, et al.. Tillage and straw-returning practices effect on soil dissolved organic matter, aggregate fraction and bacteria community under rice-rice-rapeseed rotation system [J/OL]. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 2020, 287:106681 [2023-02-20]. .
17	濮永瑜,包玲凤,杨佩文,等.生物有机肥调控的碱性植烟土壤微生物群落多样性特征[J].西南农业学报,2022,35(4):780-789.
	PU Y Y, BAO L F, YANG P W, et al.. Diversity characteristics of microbial communities in alkaline tobacco-growing soils regulated by bio-organic fertilizers [J]. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci., 2022, 35(4):780-789.
18	刘艳慧,王双磊,李金埔,等.棉花秸秆还田对土壤微生物数量及酶活性的影响[J].华北农学报,2016,31(6):151-156.
	LIU Y H, WANG S L, LI J P, et al.. Effects of cotton straw returning soil on soil microbes quantites and enzyme activities [J]. Acta Agric. Boreali-Sin., 2016, 31(6):151-156.
19	郭振威,李永山,陈梦妮,等.长期秸秆还田和施用有机肥对连作棉田土壤化学性质及微生物数量的影响[J].中国农业大学学报,2022,27(11):177-186.
	GUO Z W, LI Y S, CHEN M N, et al.. Effects of long-term straw returning and organic fertilizer application on the soil chemical properties and microbial quantity of continuous cropping cotton field [J]. J. China Agric. Univ., 2022, 27(11):177-186.
20	SU Y, YU M, XI H, et al.. Soil microbial community shifts with long-term of different straw return in wheat-corn rotation system [J]. Sci. Rep., 2020, 10(1):1-10.
21	BAI N, ZHANG H, ZHOU S, et al.. Long-term effects of straw return and straw-derived biochar amendment on bacterial communities in soil aggregates [J]. Sci. Rep., 2020, 10(1):78-91.
22	ZHAO S, QIU S, XU X, et al.. Change in straw decomposition rate and soil microbial community composition after straw addition in different long-term fertilization soils [J]. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2019, 138: 123-133.
23	LIU W, QIU K, XIE Y, et al.. Years of sand fixation with Caragana korshinskii drive the enrichment of its rhizosphere functional microbes by accumulating soil N [J/OL]. PeerJ, 2022, 10:e14271 [2023-02-20]. .
24	陈鹤,陶晔,毛振镀,等.环境微生物研究中机器学习算法及应用[J].微生物学报,2022,62(12):4646-4662.
	CHEN H, TAO Y, MAO Z D, et al.. A review of machine learning algorithms for environmental microbiology [J]. Acta Microbiol. Sci., 2022, 62(12):4646-4662.
25	TALWAR C, NAGAR S, KUMAR R, et al.. Defining the environmental adaptations of genus devosia: insights into its expansive short peptide transport system and positively selected genes [J]. Sci. Rep., 2020, 10(1):1-18.
26	CHAUDHARY D K, KIM J. Flavobacterium naphthae sp. Nov., isolated from oil-contaminated soil [J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2018, 68(1):305-309.
27	SPETIK M, BERRAF-TEBBAL A, CECHOVA J, et al.. Occurrence of pseudonectria foliicola causing volutella blight on boxwood in Czech Republic [J/OL]. Plant Dis., 2020, 104(5):1547 [2023-02-20]. .
28	VAZQUEZ H M V, AREVALO G L, JAEN C D, et al.. Effect of glomus mosseae and entrophospora colombiana on plant growth, production, and fruit quality of ‘Maradol’papaya (Carica papaya L.) [J]. Sci. Hortic., 2011, 128(3):255-260.

处理Treatment	时间 Time/d	细菌 Bacteria			真菌 Fungi
处理Treatment	时间 Time/d	Chao 1指数 Chao 1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index	Chao 1指数 Chao 1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index
CK	0	6 778.73±168.64 aα	10.07±0.06 aα	0.994±0.001 abα	1 267.86±64.63 aα	5.81±0.59 aα	0.891±0.05 aα
	7	6 090.28±240.30 bα	9.18±0.10 cα	0.989±0.001 cα	1 152.71±89.30 aα	6.55±0.58 aα	0.960±0.01 aα
	30	5 466.09±163.70 cβ	9.46±0.18 bα	0.994±0.001 aα	984.51±57.58 bα	5.56±1.52 aα	0.879±0.14 aα
	60	5 041.45±118.89 dβ	9.30±0.01 bcβ	0.994±0.001 aα	882.96±95.19 bα	4.73±1.71 aα	0.805±0.22 aα
	90	4 479.65±133.60 eβ	8.95±0.07 dβ	0.993±0.001 bβ	923.21±65.21 bα	5.77±0.91 aα	0.920±0.06 aα
FS	0	5 107.28±67.21 bβ	6.76±0.34 cγ	0.841±0.020 cβ	699.46±37.78 bcβ	4.23±0.17 bβ	0.847±0.03 bα
	7	4 736.01±68.90 cγ	7.78±0.47 bβ	0.958±0.020 bβ	682.19±56.76 cβ	4.26±0.54 bβ	0.861±0.05 bβ
	30	5 879.78±135.73 aα	9.56±0.12 aα	0.994±0.010 aα	775.45±20.20 abβ	5.00±0.24 abα	0.889±0.03 bα
	60	5 976.58±36.36 aα	9.79±0.15 aα	0.995±0.010 aα	815.25±54.72 aα	5.37±0.01 aα	0.941±0.01 aα
	90	5 881.53±296.28 aα	9.85±0.05 aα	0.995±0.010 aα	741.97±47.84 abβ	4.75±0.95 abα	0.881±0.09 bα
RS	0	4 661.44±107.76 cγ	8.21±0.08 dβ	0.984±0.001 cα	727.56±59.11 aβ	3.82±0.60 bcβ	0.807±0.10 bα
	7	5 141.73±33.45 bβ	8.70±0.02 cα	0.991±0.001 bα	577.32±45.76 bβ	3.41±0.22 cβ	0.812±0.14 bβ
	30	6 078.94±181.70 aα	9.40±0.19 bα	0.994±0.001 aα	742.72±24.97aβ	5.18±0.22 abα	0.930±0.01 aα
	60	6 092.23±321.92 aα	9.62±0.12 abα	0.995±0.001 aα	775.42±48.39 aα	5.28±0.23 aα	0.927±0.02 aα
	90	6 019.86±89.75 aα	9.81±0.18 aα	0.996±0.001 aα	763.53±98.36 aβ	5.14±1.37 abα	0.879±0.13 abα

处理Treatment	时间 Time/d	细菌 Bacteria			真菌 Fungi
处理Treatment	时间 Time/d	Chao 1指数 Chao 1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index	Chao 1指数 Chao 1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index
CK	0	6 778.73±168.64 aα	10.07±0.06 aα	0.994±0.001 abα	1 267.86±64.63 aα	5.81±0.59 aα	0.891±0.05 aα
	7	6 090.28±240.30 bα	9.18±0.10 cα	0.989±0.001 cα	1 152.71±89.30 aα	6.55±0.58 aα	0.960±0.01 aα
	30	5 466.09±163.70 cβ	9.46±0.18 bα	0.994±0.001 aα	984.51±57.58 bα	5.56±1.52 aα	0.879±0.14 aα
	60	5 041.45±118.89 dβ	9.30±0.01 bcβ	0.994±0.001 aα	882.96±95.19 bα	4.73±1.71 aα	0.805±0.22 aα
	90	4 479.65±133.60 eβ	8.95±0.07 dβ	0.993±0.001 bβ	923.21±65.21 bα	5.77±0.91 aα	0.920±0.06 aα
FS	0	5 107.28±67.21 bβ	6.76±0.34 cγ	0.841±0.020 cβ	699.46±37.78 bcβ	4.23±0.17 bβ	0.847±0.03 bα
	7	4 736.01±68.90 cγ	7.78±0.47 bβ	0.958±0.020 bβ	682.19±56.76 cβ	4.26±0.54 bβ	0.861±0.05 bβ
	30	5 879.78±135.73 aα	9.56±0.12 aα	0.994±0.010 aα	775.45±20.20 abβ	5.00±0.24 abα	0.889±0.03 bα
	60	5 976.58±36.36 aα	9.79±0.15 aα	0.995±0.010 aα	815.25±54.72 aα	5.37±0.01 aα	0.941±0.01 aα
	90	5 881.53±296.28 aα	9.85±0.05 aα	0.995±0.010 aα	741.97±47.84 abβ	4.75±0.95 abα	0.881±0.09 bα
RS	0	4 661.44±107.76 cγ	8.21±0.08 dβ	0.984±0.001 cα	727.56±59.11 aβ	3.82±0.60 bcβ	0.807±0.10 bα
	7	5 141.73±33.45 bβ	8.70±0.02 cα	0.991±0.001 bα	577.32±45.76 bβ	3.41±0.22 cβ	0.812±0.14 bβ
	30	6 078.94±181.70 aα	9.40±0.19 bα	0.994±0.001 aα	742.72±24.97aβ	5.18±0.22 abα	0.930±0.01 aα
	60	6 092.23±321.92 aα	9.62±0.12 abα	0.995±0.001 aα	775.42±48.39 aα	5.28±0.23 aα	0.927±0.02 aα
	90	6 019.86±89.75 aα	9.81±0.18 aα	0.996±0.001 aα	763.53±98.36 aβ	5.14±1.37 abα	0.879±0.13 abα

[1]	赵炳地, 张久明, 朱莹雪, 匡恩俊, 袁佳慧, 迟凤琴, 孙磊, 李宁. 不同秸秆还田量对土壤团聚体及有机碳含量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(1): 193-200.
[2]	王吉平, 卢铁东, 梁芷姮, 张野, 苏天明, 何铁光. 不同来源微生物对葡萄枝条猪粪共堆肥过程的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(9): 224-233.
[3]	张继东, 张亚雄, 程伟, 蒲莉, 柳路行, 王亚明. 生物质炭和有机肥配施对苹果重茬育苗地土壤理化性质和微生物群落特征的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(8): 213-222.
[4]	王子凡, 李燕, 张庆银, 王丹丹, 师建华, 耿晓彬, 田东良, 钟增明, 赵晓明, 齐连芬. 微生物菌剂对设施番茄主要病害及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6): 102-112.
[5]	强敬雯, 王晚晴, 唐曼玉, 张娜, 武双, 华威, 邵恒煊, 程艳玲. 厨余垃圾厌氧消化对沼气微生物及环境的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6): 159-169.
[6]	张昱, 张洪波, 张瑜瑜, 陈丽娟, 赵明方, 夏云. 玫瑰秸秆与牲畜粪污厌氧消化特性及微生物群落研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(5): 201-211.
[7]	周旭东, 韩天华, 申云鑫, 施竹凤, 贺彪, 杨明英, 裴卫华, 何永宏, 杨佩文. 4种轮作模式下长期连作烟田土壤微生态的响应特征[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 174-187.
[8]	张二豪, 刘盼盼, 何萍, 简阅, 徐雨婷, 陈诚欣, 禄亚洲, 兰小中, 索朗桑姆. 甘青青兰根际土壤理化性质及微生物群落结构特征分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 201-213.
[9]	刘威, 赵园园, 陈小龙, 史宏志. 土壤含水率对豫中植烟土壤微生物群落多样性及氮循环功能基因丰度的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(1): 214-225.
[10]	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.
[11]	邵社刚, 李婷, 柳勇, 林兰稳, 张东, 倪栋, 李俊杰, 朱立安. 外源菌剂对稻秆腐解及微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(9): 166-177.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	董林林, 查金芳, 沈明星, 王海候, 施林林, 陶玥玥, 周新伟, 陆长婴. 长期秸秆还田对稻麦轮作区土壤有机碳组分构成的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(3): 166-175.
[15]	孙沉沉, 马兰, 吴永红, 俞元春. 吲哚乙酸对周丛生物去除水体中氮磷的影响及机理[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(3): 204-209.

添加不同类型水稻秸秆对植烟连作土壤微生物群落的影响

Effects of Different Types of Rice Straw Addition on Soil Microbial Communities Under Continuous Tobacco Cropping

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics