荞麦轮作对云南栽培马铃薯根际土壤酶活和微生物的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0227

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨连作和与苦荞（KQ）轮作对云南省3个马铃薯主栽品种根际土壤酶活性、微生物数量和产量的影响，以马铃薯主栽品种‘合作88’（HZ88）、‘丽薯6号’（LS6H）、‘青薯9号’（QS9H）为试验材料，对不同处理下根际土壤的蔗糖酶、蛋白酶、脲酶、纤维素酶活性和微生物数量以及马铃薯产量、品质进行分析。结果表明，KQ-HZ88、KQ-LS6H、KQ-QS9H轮作处理的马铃薯单株产量分别较HZ88-HZ88、LS6H-LS6H、QS9H-QS9H连作处理显著增加76.32%、80.95%、90.91%，还原糖含量显著降低38.71%、18.42%、21.43%。与3年连作相比，HZ88-KQ-HZ88和KQ-HZ88-KQ、LS6H-KQ-LS6H和KQ-LS6H-KQ、QS9H-KQ-QS9H和KQ-QS9H-KQ轮作处理的土壤蔗糖酶活性分别较HZ88-HZ88-HZ88、LS6H-LS6H-LS6H、QS9H-QS9H-QS9H连作处理显著增加8.54%和14.00%、22.73%和34.25%、18.13%和25.12%；细菌数量显著增加19.05%（P>0.05）和92.86%、75.68%和72.97%、67.11%和73.21%。土壤酶活性及微生物数量的变化可能是引起云南地区马铃薯连作障碍的重要原因之一，轮作可有效改善根际土壤酶活性，增加土壤中有益菌数量，缓解连作障碍。

关键词: 马铃薯, 连作, 苦荞轮作, 土壤酶活性, 土壤微生物

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effects of continuous cropping and tartary buckwheat （KQ） rotation on rhizosphere soil enzyme activity， microbial quantity and yield of 3 main potato varieties in Yunnan province， the main potato varieties ‘Hezuo 88’ （HZ88）， ‘Lishu 6’ （LS6H） and ‘Qingshu 9’ （QS9H） were used as experimental materials. The activities of sucrase， protease， urease， cellulase， microbial quantity in rhizosphere soil and potato yield under different treatments were analyzed. The results showed that， compared with HZ88-HZ88， LS6H-LS6H and QS9H-QS9H treatments， the yields per potato plant of KQ-HZ88， KQ-LS6H and KQ-QS9H rotation treatments were significantly increased by 76.32%， 80.95% and 90.91%， respectively， the reducing sugar contents were significantly reduced by 38.71%， 18.42% and 21.43%， respectively. Compared with HZ88-HZ88-HZ88， LS6H-LS6H and QS9H-QS9H-QS9H treatments， the soil sucrase activities of HZ88-KQ-HZ88， KQ-HZ88-KQ， LS6H-KQ-LS6H， KQ-LS6H-KQ and QS9H-KQ-QS9H， KQ-QS9H-KQ rotation treatments were significantly increased by 8.54%， 14.00%， 22.73%， 34.25%， 18.13%， 25.12%， respectively， and the numbers of bacteria were significantly increased by 19.05%（P>0.05）， 92.86%， 75.68%， 72.97%， 67.11%， 73.21%， respectively. The changes of soil enzyme activity and microbial quantity might be one of the important reasons for potato continuous cropping obstacles in Yunnan region. Rotation could effectively improve rhizosphere soil enzyme activity， increase the number of beneficial bacteria in the soil， and alleviate continuous cropping obstacles.

Key words: potato, continuous cropping, rotation with tartary buckwheat, soil enzyme activity, soil microorganism

中图分类号:

S154.3

杜洋洋, 包媛媛, 刘项宇, 张新永. 荞麦轮作对云南栽培马铃薯根际土壤酶活和微生物的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(5): 192-200.

Yangyang DU, Yuanyuan BAO, Xiangyu LIU, Xinyong ZHANG. Effects of Tartary Buckwheat Rotation on Enzyme Activities and Microorganisms in Rhizosphere Soil of Cultivated Potato in Yunnan Province[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(5): 192-200.

图/表 4

参考文献 42

1	叶新.优质马铃薯品种(系)合作88号[J].致富天地,2010(5):39.
2	李莉娟.丽薯6号在生产中的前景[J].云南农业,2014(6):43-44.
3	刘姣姣,杨丽娟,李振涛,等.连作对设施栽培番茄生长发育及产量的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2013,44(5):581-584.
	LIU J J, YANG L J, LI Z T, et al.. Effects of tomato plant growth and yield in facility continuous cropping system hydroponics [J]. J. Shenyang Agric. Univ., 2013, 44(5):581-584.
4	卢成达,李阳,孙迪,等.连作对土壤及谷子产量的影响[J].现代农业科技,2018(13):19,22.
5	彭思健,秦勇,许红军,等.不同连作和轮作年限对加工番茄产量的影响[J].天津农业科学,2013,19(12):76-79.
	PENG S J, QIN J, XU H J, et al.. Effects of different continuous cropping and rotation years on yield of processing tomato [J]. J. Tianjin Agric. Sci., 2013, 19(12):76-79.
6	王志刚,郭天文,徐伟慧.大棚韭菜连作对产量和品质及土壤养分状况的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2006,41(6):34-37.
	WANG Z G, GUO T W, XU W H. Influence of continuous cropping in plastic shed cover on the yield and quality of Chinese chives and soil nutrients [J]. J. Gansu Agric. Univ., 2006, 41(6):34-37.
7	GONNETY J T, ASSÉMIEN E F L, GUÉI A M, et al.. Effect of land-use types on soil enzymatic activities and chemical properties in semi-deciduous forest areas of Central-West Côte d'Ivoire [J]. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc., 2012, 16(4):478-485.
8	孙艳艳,蒋桂英,刘建国,等.加工番茄连作对农田土壤酶活性及微生物区系的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(13):3599-3607.
	SUN Y Y, JIANG G Y, LIU J G, et al.. Effects of continuous cropping tomato for processing on soil enzyme activities and microbial flora [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2010, 30(13):3599-3607.
9	李琼芳.不同连作年限麦冬根际微生物区系动态研究[J].土壤通报,2006,37(3):563-565.
	LI Q F. Dynamics of the microbial flora in the liriope rhizosphere and out rhizosphere during continuous cropping years [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2006, 37(3):563-565.
10	孙权,陈茹,宋乃平,等.宁南黄土丘陵区马铃薯连作土壤养分、酶活性和微生物区系的演变[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(6):208-212.
	SUN Q, CHEN R, SONG N P, et al.. Change trends of soil nutrients, enzyme activities, and microbial composition in continuous potato cropping system in semi-arid and cool hilly area of Ningxia [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv., 2010, 24(6):208-212.
11	付敬锋.烟薏轮作对薏苡产量和品质的影响[D].贵阳:贵州大学,2022.
	FU J F. Effects of tobacco-coix rotation on yield and quality of coix [D]. Guiyang: Guizhou Univerdity, 2022.
12	唐朝辉,郭峰,张佳蕾,等.甘薯花生轮作对花生生理及产量品质的影响[J].中国油料作物学报,2020, 42(6):1002-1009.
	TANG C H, GUO F, ZHANG J L, et al.. Effect of sweet potato and peanut rotation on physiological characteristics and yield and quality of peanut [J]. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci., 2020, 42(6):1002-1009.
13	瞿飞,杨静,赵夏云,等.菌-菜轮作对土壤质量及蔬菜品质的影响[J].中国食用菌,2021,40(11):32-36.
	QU F, YANG J, ZHAO X Y, et al.. Effects of edible fungus-vegetable rotation on soil quality and vegetable quality [J]. Edible Fungi China, 2021, 40(11):32-36.
14	尹国丽,蔡卓山,陶茸,等.不同草田轮作方式对土壤肥力、微生物数量及自毒物质含量的影响[J].草业学报,2019,28(3):42-50.
	YIN G L, CAI Z S, TAO R, et al.. Effects of different crop rotations on soil nutrient, microorganism abundance and soi allelochemical levels in alfalfa [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2019, 28(3):42-50.
15	祖勒胡玛尔·乌斯满江.甘草连作、轮作不同种植模式对土壤理化性质与微生物数量的影响[D].乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2016.
	Wusimanjiang Zulehumaer. Research on physical-chemical properties and micro-bial amount in soil with continuous cropping、crop rotation systems of licorice [D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2016.
16	孟祥佳,刘洋,黎妍妍,等.烟草-荞麦轮作对烟草黑胫病防治及土壤微生态的调控作用[J].南方农业学报,2022,53(6):1525-1535.
	MENG X J, LIU Y, LI Y Y, et al.. Effects of tobacco-buckwheat rotation on regulation of tobacco black shank prevention and control and soil microenvironment [J]. J. Southern Agric., 2022, 53(6):1525-1535.
17	罗茜.不同轮作方式与种植年限对植烟土壤肥力因子的影响[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2015.
	LUO Q. The influence of tobacco-growing soil fertility factors under different cropping rotations and cutivation years in Sichuan province [D]. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2015.
18	虎德钰,毛桂莲,许兴.不同草田轮作方式对土壤微生物和土壤酶活性的影响[J].西北农业学报,2014,23(9):106-113.
	HU D Y, MAO G L, XU X, et al.. Effects of different grass-crop rotation on edaphon and enzyme activity in soil [J]. Acta Agric. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2014, 23(9):106-113.
19	周俐利.荞麦根系分泌液对甘蓝根肿病的抑制效果及其抑病机理研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2017.
	ZHOU L L. Study on the control effect of buckwheat root exudates on cabbage clubroot disease and its mechanism of prevention [D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2017.
20	关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1986:1-376.
21	钱存柔,黄仪秀.微生物学实验教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:1-282.
22	KOTROCZÓ Z, VERES Z, FEKETE I, et al.. Soil enzyme activity in response to long-term organic matter manipulation [J]. Soil Boil. Biochem., 2014, 70:237-243.
23	刘垠霖.连作年限对党参生长、土壤理化性状及酶活性的影响研究[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2021.
	LIU Y L. Effects of continuous cropping years on the growth of Codonopsis pilosula, soil physical and chemical properties and enzyme activities [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2021.
24	妙佳源,李夏,周达,等.连作对谷子土壤酶活性及养分的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2016,34(3):123-126, 152.
	MIAO J Y, LI X, ZHOU D, et al.. Effects of foxtail millet continuous cropping on soil enzyme activities and nutrients [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas., 2016, 34(3):123-126, 152.
25	白艳茹,马建华,樊明寿.马铃薯连作对土壤酶活性的影响[J].作物杂志,2010(3):34-36.
	BAI Y R, MA J H, FAN M S. Effect of potato continuous cropping on activities of soil enzymes [J]. Crops, 2010(3):34-36.
26	熊湖,郑顺林,张德银,等.轮作与连作对马铃薯生长及土壤酶活性的影响[J].福建农业学报,2022,37(1):25-32.
	XIONG H, ZHENG S L, ZHANG D Y, et al.. Potato growth and soil enzyme activities as affected by rotation or continuous cropping cultivation [J]. Fujian J. Agric. Sci., 2022, 37(1):5-32.
27	王劲松,樊芳芳,郭珺,等.不同作物轮作对连作高粱生长及其根际土壤环境的影响[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(7):2283-2291.
	WANG J S, FAN F F, GUO J, et al.. Effects of different crop rotations on growth of continuous cropping sorghum and its rhizo-sphere soil micro-environment [J].Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2016, 27(7):2283-2291.
28	马艳丽,王鹏.连作对土壤酶活性影响的研究进展[J].防护林科技,2013(4):34-35, 61.
29	张翼,张长华,王振民,等.连作对烤烟生长和烟地土壤酶活性的影响[J].中国农学通报,2007(12):211-215.
	ZHANG Y, ZHANG C H, WANG Z M, et al.. The effects on the yields of flue-cured tobacco and activities of main soil enzymes [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2007(12):211-215.
30	QIN S, YEBOAH S, CAO L, et al.. Breaking continuous potato cropping with legumes improves soil microbial communities, enzyme activities and tuber yield [J/OL]. PloS One, 2017, 12(5):e0175934 [2023-02-20]. .
31	孙倩,吴宏亮,陈阜,等.不同作物轮作对谷田土壤酶活性和土壤细菌群落的影响[J].生态环境学报,2020,29(12):2385-2393.
	SUN Q, WU H L, CHEN F, et al.. Effects of soil enzyme activity and bacterial community under different crop rotations [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2020, 29(12):2385-2393.
32	何天久,吴巧玉,曾宪浩,等.马铃薯连作障碍形成机制与调控措施研究进展[J].江苏农业科学,2016,44(4):1-4.
33	谭雪莲,郭天文,刘高远.马铃薯连作土壤微生物特性与土传病原菌的相互关系[J].灌溉排水学报,2016,35(8):30-35.
	TAN X L, GUO T W, LIU G Y. Interrelation between soil microbial characters and borne pathogen of potato continuous cropping [J]. J. Irrig. Drain., 2016, 35(8):30-35.
34	SHARMA S K, RAMESH A, SHARMA M P, et al.. Microbial community structure and diversity as indicators for evaluating soil quality [J]. Biodiversity Biofuels Agrofor. Conserv. Agric., 2011, 5:317-358.
35	韩海蓉,李屹,陈来生,等.设施辣椒连作对土壤理化性状、酶活性及微生物区系的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2021(3):237-242.
	HAN H R, LI Y, CHEN L S, et al.. Effects of continuous pepper cultivation on soil physical and chemical properties, enzyme activity and microbial flora [J]. China Soils Fert., 2021(3):237-242.
36	肖新,朱伟,杜超,等.轮作与施肥对滁菊连作土壤微生物特性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2015,26(6):1779-1784.
	XIAO X, ZHU W, DU C, et al.. Effects of crop rotation and bio-organic manure on soil microbial characteristics of Chrysanthemum cropping system [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2015, 26(6):1779-1784.
37	许艳丽,王光华,韩晓增.连、轮作大豆土壤微生物生态分布特征与大豆根部病虫害关系的研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,1995,11(4):311-314.
38	吴凤芝,刘德,王东凯,等.大棚番茄不同连作年限对根系活力及其品质的影响[J].东北农业大学学报,1997,28(1):33-38.
	WU F Z, LIU D, WANG D K, et al.. The effects of different years of continuous cropping on the vital-itg of root systems and their qualities in the plastic house tomatoes [J]. J. Northeast Agric. Univ., 1997, 28(1):34-39.
39	徐小军,王瑞,张桂兰,等.连作对设施甜瓜生长和光合作用以及养分吸收和产量品质的影响[J].果树学报,2018,35(4):449-457.
	XU X J, WANG R, ZHANG G L, et al.. Effects of continuous cropping on growth and photosynthesis and nutriaent absorption as well as yield and quality traits of melon grown in green-house [J]. J. Fruit Sci., 2018, 35(4):449-457.
40	高剑华,田恒林,沈艳芬,等.不同轮作方式对马铃薯产量和病害的影响[C]//中国作物学会马铃薯专业委员会.马铃薯产业与农村区域发展.哈尔滨: 地图出版社,2013:382-384.
41	李冰圳.连作及轮作对蒙古黄芪根际微生物多样性及其品质的影响[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古大学,2019.
	LI B Z. Effects of continuous cropping and rotation on rhizosphere microorganism diversity and quality of astragalus [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University, 2019.
42	金莉.不同蔬菜轮作对温室番茄连作基质微生物多样性及番茄生长的影响[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2020.
	JIN L. Effects of different vegetable rotation on microbial diversity of tomato continuous cropping substrate and tomato growth in greenhouse [D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2020.

指标 Index	年份 Year	处理Treatment
指标 Index	年份 Year	HZ88-HZ88-HZ88	LS6H-LS6H-LS6H	QS9H-QS9H-QS9H	KQ-KQ-KQ	HZ88-KQ-HZ88	LS6H-KQ-LS6H	QS9H-KQ-QS9H	KQ-HZ88-KQ	KQ-LS6H-KQ	KQ-QS9H-KQ
蔗糖酶活性 Sucrase activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	21.55 αbc	22.82 αabc	23.70 αa	21.78 αbc	21.09 βc	22.19 βabc	23.63 βa	22.86 αab	22.64 βabc	22.06 βabc
	2021	20.28 αc	20.08 βc	19.74 βc	23.93 αb	32.79 αa	32.83 αa	35.65 αa	20.17 βc	21.21 βbc	19.70 γc
	2022	20.72 αf	19.36 βg	21.62 αβef	22.92 αcd	22.49 βde	23.76 βc	25.54 βb	23.62 αcd	25.99 αab	27.05 αa
蛋白酶活性 Proteinase activity/ （µg·g^-1）	2020	40.17 αcd	46.43 αab	47.34 αa	37.24 βde	42.69 βbc	47.61 αa	50.20 αβa	37.81 βde	35.12 βe	37.58 γde
	2021	44.41 αab	29.73 βd	34.88 βc	41.14 αβb	40.44 βb	47.91 αa	45.62 βa	40.57 βb	34.65 βc	44.44 βab
	2022	45.05 αe	44.61 αe	46.70 αde	44.55 αe	49.80 αcd	51.04 αbc	54.55 αb	60.40 αa	40.47 αf	53.47 αbc
脲酶活性 Urease activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	0.20 βb	0.28 βa	0.19 βb	0.14 γc	0.20 γb	0.28 γa	0.19 γb	0.15 βc	0.15 βc	0.15 γc
	2021	0.21 βd	0.23 γc	0.17 βe	0.27 βb	0.31 βa	0.31 βa	0.30 βa	0.16 βe	0.16 βe	0.21 βd
	2022	0.39 αd	0.40 αcd	0.42 αcd	0.50 αa	0.40 αcd	0.42 αcd	0.43 αc	0.46 αb	0.42 αcd	0.41 αcd
纤维素酶活性 Cellulase activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	0.09 βbc	0.10 αab	0.08 βbc	0.10 βab	0.09 γbc	0.11 βa	0.08 γc	0.11 βa	0.11 αa	0.10 βab
	2021	0.13 αcd	0.09 αd	0.12 αcd	0.14 αc	0.24 αa	0.18 αb	0.25 αa	0.15 αbc	0.13 αc	0.12 βcd
	2022	0.06 γd	0.08 αd	0.11 αbc	0.16 αa	0.13 βb	0.12 βb	0.10 βc	0.11 βbc	0.12 αbc	0.16 αa

指标 Index	年份 Year	处理Treatment
指标 Index	年份 Year	HZ88-HZ88-HZ88	LS6H-LS6H-LS6H	QS9H-QS9H-QS9H	KQ-KQ-KQ	HZ88-KQ-HZ88	LS6H-KQ-LS6H	QS9H-KQ-QS9H	KQ-HZ88-KQ	KQ-LS6H-KQ	KQ-QS9H-KQ
蔗糖酶活性 Sucrase activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	21.55 αbc	22.82 αabc	23.70 αa	21.78 αbc	21.09 βc	22.19 βabc	23.63 βa	22.86 αab	22.64 βabc	22.06 βabc
	2021	20.28 αc	20.08 βc	19.74 βc	23.93 αb	32.79 αa	32.83 αa	35.65 αa	20.17 βc	21.21 βbc	19.70 γc
	2022	20.72 αf	19.36 βg	21.62 αβef	22.92 αcd	22.49 βde	23.76 βc	25.54 βb	23.62 αcd	25.99 αab	27.05 αa
蛋白酶活性 Proteinase activity/ （µg·g^-1）	2020	40.17 αcd	46.43 αab	47.34 αa	37.24 βde	42.69 βbc	47.61 αa	50.20 αβa	37.81 βde	35.12 βe	37.58 γde
	2021	44.41 αab	29.73 βd	34.88 βc	41.14 αβb	40.44 βb	47.91 αa	45.62 βa	40.57 βb	34.65 βc	44.44 βab
	2022	45.05 αe	44.61 αe	46.70 αde	44.55 αe	49.80 αcd	51.04 αbc	54.55 αb	60.40 αa	40.47 αf	53.47 αbc
脲酶活性 Urease activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	0.20 βb	0.28 βa	0.19 βb	0.14 γc	0.20 γb	0.28 γa	0.19 γb	0.15 βc	0.15 βc	0.15 γc
	2021	0.21 βd	0.23 γc	0.17 βe	0.27 βb	0.31 βa	0.31 βa	0.30 βa	0.16 βe	0.16 βe	0.21 βd
	2022	0.39 αd	0.40 αcd	0.42 αcd	0.50 αa	0.40 αcd	0.42 αcd	0.43 αc	0.46 αb	0.42 αcd	0.41 αcd
纤维素酶活性 Cellulase activity/ （mg·g^-1）	2020	0.09 βbc	0.10 αab	0.08 βbc	0.10 βab	0.09 γbc	0.11 βa	0.08 γc	0.11 βa	0.11 αa	0.10 βab
	2021	0.13 αcd	0.09 αd	0.12 αcd	0.14 αc	0.24 αa	0.18 αb	0.25 αa	0.15 αbc	0.13 αc	0.12 βcd
	2022	0.06 γd	0.08 αd	0.11 αbc	0.16 αa	0.13 βb	0.12 βb	0.10 βc	0.11 βbc	0.12 αbc	0.16 αa

指标 Index	年份 Year	处理Treatment
指标 Index	年份 Year	HZ88-HZ88-HZ88	LS6H-LS6H-LS6H	QS9H-QS9H-QS9H	KQ- KQ-KQ	HZ88-KQ-HZ88	LS6H-KQ-LS6H	QS9H-KQ-QS9H	KQ-HZ88-KQ	KQ-LS6H-KQ	KQ-QS9H-KQ
细菌 Bacteria/ （10⁶ CFU·g^-1）	2020	6.03 αbc	6.93 αb	5.20 αc	9.70 αa	5.83 βbc	7.07 βb	5.83 βbc	10.53 αa	10.77 αa	10.93 αa
	2021	5.07 βe	6.20 αd	2.83 βf	6.37 βd	10.00 αb	8.93 αc	11.30 αa	6.43 γd	6.37 βd	6.07 βd
	2022	4.20 γcd	3.70 βd	3.77 αβd	6.70 βb	5.00 βc	6.50 βb	6.30 βb	8.10 βa	6.40 βb	6.53 βb
真菌 Fungi/ （10² CFU·g^-1）	2020	3.67 γb	2.67 βb	1.67 γb	11.67 αa	4.33 βb	2.00 γb	2.00 γb	10.00 βa	11.67 αβa	13.67 βa
	2021	52.33 αa	22.00 αbc	19.00 βcd	14.00 αdef	17.67 αcde	5.00 βg	13.00 βef	10.00 βf	16.00 αdef	25.00 αb
	2022	13.00 βde	19.33 αc	41.00 αa	15.00 αcd	13.67 αde	16.33 αcd	36.33 αb	16.33 αcd	9.00 βef	6.00 γf
放线菌 Actinomycetes/ （10⁵ CFU·g^-1）	2020	7.33 αb	6.93 βb	5.23 βc	10.73 αβa	7.57 βb	7.40 βb	5.37 γc	10.20 αa	10.77 αa	10.67 αa
	2021	7.90 αc	9.60 αab	6.77 αc	9.23 βb	9.80 αab	10.83 αa	10.70 αa	11.03 αa	10.77 αa	9.80 αab
	2022	5.90 βbc	5.30 γbc	5.43 βbc	12.40 αa	6.33 γbc	5.20 γc	6.97 βb	11.90 αa	11.87 αa	11.40 αa
总计 Total/ （10⁶ CFU·g^-1）	2020	6.77 αbcd	7.63 αbc	5.72 αd	10.77 αa	6.59 βbcd	7.81 βb	6.37 βcd	11.55 αa	11.84 αa	12.00 αa
	2021	5.86 βe	7.16 αd	3.51 βf	7.29 βd	10.98 αb	10.02 αc	12.37 αa	7.54 γd	7.45 βd	7.05 βd
	2022	4.79 γcd	4.23 βd	4.31 αβd	7.94 βb	5.63 βc	7.02 βb	7.00 βb	9.29 βa	7.59 βb	7.67 βb

指标 Index	年份 Year	处理Treatment
指标 Index	年份 Year	HZ88-HZ88-HZ88	LS6H-LS6H-LS6H	QS9H-QS9H-QS9H	KQ- KQ-KQ	HZ88-KQ-HZ88	LS6H-KQ-LS6H	QS9H-KQ-QS9H	KQ-HZ88-KQ	KQ-LS6H-KQ	KQ-QS9H-KQ
细菌 Bacteria/ （10⁶ CFU·g^-1）	2020	6.03 αbc	6.93 αb	5.20 αc	9.70 αa	5.83 βbc	7.07 βb	5.83 βbc	10.53 αa	10.77 αa	10.93 αa
	2021	5.07 βe	6.20 αd	2.83 βf	6.37 βd	10.00 αb	8.93 αc	11.30 αa	6.43 γd	6.37 βd	6.07 βd
	2022	4.20 γcd	3.70 βd	3.77 αβd	6.70 βb	5.00 βc	6.50 βb	6.30 βb	8.10 βa	6.40 βb	6.53 βb
真菌 Fungi/ （10² CFU·g^-1）	2020	3.67 γb	2.67 βb	1.67 γb	11.67 αa	4.33 βb	2.00 γb	2.00 γb	10.00 βa	11.67 αβa	13.67 βa
	2021	52.33 αa	22.00 αbc	19.00 βcd	14.00 αdef	17.67 αcde	5.00 βg	13.00 βef	10.00 βf	16.00 αdef	25.00 αb
	2022	13.00 βde	19.33 αc	41.00 αa	15.00 αcd	13.67 αde	16.33 αcd	36.33 αb	16.33 αcd	9.00 βef	6.00 γf
放线菌 Actinomycetes/ （10⁵ CFU·g^-1）	2020	7.33 αb	6.93 βb	5.23 βc	10.73 αβa	7.57 βb	7.40 βb	5.37 γc	10.20 αa	10.77 αa	10.67 αa
	2021	7.90 αc	9.60 αab	6.77 αc	9.23 βb	9.80 αab	10.83 αa	10.70 αa	11.03 αa	10.77 αa	9.80 αab
	2022	5.90 βbc	5.30 γbc	5.43 βbc	12.40 αa	6.33 γbc	5.20 γc	6.97 βb	11.90 αa	11.87 αa	11.40 αa
总计 Total/ （10⁶ CFU·g^-1）	2020	6.77 αbcd	7.63 αbc	5.72 αd	10.77 αa	6.59 βbcd	7.81 βb	6.37 βcd	11.55 αa	11.84 αa	12.00 αa
	2021	5.86 βe	7.16 αd	3.51 βf	7.29 βd	10.98 αb	10.02 αc	12.37 αa	7.54 γd	7.45 βd	7.05 βd
	2022	4.79 γcd	4.23 βd	4.31 αβd	7.94 βb	5.63 βc	7.02 βb	7.00 βb	9.29 βa	7.59 βb	7.67 βb

指标 Index	年份 Year	处理Treatment
指标 Index	年份 Year	HZ88-HZ88-HZ88	LS6H-LS6H-LS6H	QS9H-QS9H-QS9H	HZ88-KQ-HZ88	LS6H-KQ-LS6H		QS9H-KQ-QS9H		KQ-HZ88-KQ	KQ-LS6H-KQ		KQ- QS9H-KQ
单株产量 Yield per plant/kg	2020	0.39 βa	0.42 βa	0.44 βa	0.39 a	0.43 a		0.41 a		—		—		—
	2021	0.38 βcd	0.42 βc	0.33 γd	—		—		—	0.67 b	0.76 a		0.63 b
	2022	0.76 αc	0.87 αab	0.75 αc	0.77 c	0.84 b		0.92 a		—		—		—
淀粉含量 Starch content/%	2020	14.49 αβa	10.88 βc	13.13 αab	14.35 a	10.92 c		12.67 b		—		—		—
	2021	15.41 αa	11.91 βc	11.28 αc	—		—		—	14.10 ab	12.77 bc		12.89 bc
	2022	13.29 βb	15.53 αa	12.03 αb	15.16 a	12.96 b		13.18 b		—		—		—
还原糖含量 Reducing sugar content/%	2020	0.12 γc	0.18 γab	0.15 βbc	0.12 c	0.19 a		0.13 c		—		—		—
	2021	0.31 αb	0.38 αa	0.28 αb	—		—		—	0.19 c	0.31 b		0.22 c
	2022	0.27 βa	0.26 βa	0.17 βb	0.13 c	0.13 c		0.18 b		—		—		—