Effects of Biochar Fertilizer on Rhizosphere Flora and Physicochemical Properties of Flue-cured Tobacco Susceptible to Root Knot Nematode

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0848

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the effect of biochar fertilizer on tobacco root knot nematode disease and rhizosphere soil， a field experiment was conducted to study the effect of different amounts of biochar fertilizer on rhizosphere soil of tobacco plant with root knot nematode disease. The results showed that the disease index of tobacco root knot nematode disease could significantly reduced by applying enzyme biocarbon fertilizer in the mixed pond when the amount of conventional fertilization was reduced by 10%. When 350 g·plant^-1 enzyme biocarbon fertilizer was applied in the mixed pond， the control effect of tobacco root knot nematode disease was better， reaching 23.98%， the agronomic characters of tobacco plants were better， the activities of catalase， urease and phosphatase in rhizosphere soil were higher， the contents of phenolic acid in rhizosphere soil decreased， and allelopathy and autotoxicity weakened. The number of soil fungi in each treatment increased first and then decreased with the advance of growth period. When 350 g·plant^-1 enzyme biocarbon fertilizer was applied， the bacterial number in the rhizosphere soil decreased gradually with the growth period. The number of fungi in the soil at each growth stage was high， the number of bacteria was low， and the value of fungi/bacteria was high. Above results indicated that， in tobacco planting， 10% reduction in fertilization and 350 g·plant^-1 application of enzyme biocarbon fertilizer in the pond could increase the number of fungi in the soil， reduce the number of bacteria in the soil， significantly improve soil fertility and enzyme activity， which provided scientific basis for biocarbon fertilizer to regulate the rhizosphere microecology of susceptible root knot nematodes.

Key words: biochar fertilizer, tobacco, root knot nematode disease, rhizosphere soil

摘要：

为明确生物炭肥对烟草根结线虫病及根际土壤的影响，通过田间试验研究拌塘施用不同量生物炭肥对烟草根结线虫病株根际土壤的影响。结果表明，常规施肥减量10%拌塘施用酵素生物炭肥能够显著降低烟草根结线虫病的病情指数，其中酵素生物炭肥施用量为350 g·株^-1时，根结线虫病防治效果较好，防治效果达23.98%，且烟株农艺性状表现较好；根际土壤中过氧化氢酶、脲酶和磷酸酶活性较高，酚酸物质含量降低，化感自毒作用减弱。各处理土壤真菌数量均随生育期的推进呈先增高后降低趋势，其中酵素生物炭肥施用量为350 g·株^-1时，根际土壤中的细菌量随生育期推进逐步降低。各生育期土壤中均表现为真菌数量较高，细菌数量较低，真菌/细菌值较高，说明在烟草种植中，减量施肥10%同时拌塘施用酵素生物炭肥350 g·株^-1能提高土壤中真菌数量，降低土壤中细菌数量，显著提高土壤肥力及土壤酶活性，为生物炭肥对易感根结线虫病根际微生态调控提供了科学依据。

关键词: 生物炭肥, 烟草, 根结线虫病, 根际土壤

CLC Number:

S572

Yahong ZHAO, Qianyu HU, Rong XIA, Zhijiang WANG, Yonghui XIE, Xianwen YE, Lei YU, Ying QI, Shaowu YANG, Zhiqin XUE, Zhixing WU, Feiyan HUANG, Tianhua HAN. Effects of Biochar Fertilizer on Rhizosphere Flora and Physicochemical Properties of Flue-cured Tobacco Susceptible to Root Knot Nematode[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2024, 26(4): 206-214.

赵娅红, 胡骞予, 夏融, 王志江, 谢永辉, 叶贤文, 余磊, 齐颖, 羊绍武, 薛至勤, 吴治兴, 黄飞燕, 韩天华. 生物炭肥对易感根结线虫病烤烟根际菌群和理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(4): 206-214.

Figures/Tables 6

References 33

1	STANTON J M, O'BRIEN P C, SCHIPKE L G, et al.. Species of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) affecting obacco in north Queensland, including two new host races of M. arenaria [J]. Aus. Plant Pathol., 1992, 21(4):150-157.
2	HUANG K, JIANG Q P, LIU L H, et al.. Exploring the key microbial changes in the rhizosphere that affect the occurrence of tobacco root-knot nematodes [J/OL]. AMB Express, 2020, 10(1):72 [2022-09-05]. .
3	张涵, 焦永吉, 赵世民, 等. 利用生态炭肥修复土壤防治烟草根结线虫病与黑胫病[J]. 烟草科技, 2016, 49(6): 30-35.
	ZHANG H, JIAO Y J, ZHAO S M, et al.. Effects of eco-biochar fertilizer on soil renovating and control of tobacco root-knot nematode and black shank [J]. Tob. Sci. Technol., 2016, 49(6):30-35.
4	朱贤朝, 王彦亭, 王智发. 中国烟草病害[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2002: 1-350.
5	邱雪柏. 烟草根结线虫生物防治研究进展[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2010, 38(7): 121-124.
	QIU X B. Research progress on biological control of tobacco root-knot nematode [J]. Guizhou Agric. Sci., 2010, 38(7):121-124.
6	陈泽斌, 夏振远, 徐胜光, 等. 烟草抗根结线虫内生细菌的筛选及防效研究[J], 中国烟草学报, 2015, 21(6): 71-75.
	CHEN Z B, XIA Z Y, XU S G, et al.. Gscreening of tobacco endophytic bacteria resistant to Meloidogyne spp. and itscontrol effect [J]. Acta Tab. Sin., 2015, 21(6): 71-75.
7	孙曙华, 周黎, 夏振远, 等. 微生物制剂灭线宁防治烟草根结线虫病的研究与应用[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2002, 8(1): 30-33.
	SUN S H, ZHOU L, XIA Z Y, et al.. Study of microorganic nematicide to control tobacco root-knot nematodes [J]. Acta Tab. Sin., 2002, 8(1): 30-33.
8	杨树军, 雷丽萍, 祝明亮, 等. 烟草根结线虫生物防治方法应用研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2004, 17(): 151-154.
	YANG S J, LEI L P, ZHU M L, et al.. Screening of the parasitical fungi of root knot nematode in tobacco [J]. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci., 2004, 17(S1): 151-154.
9	杨友才, 黄晓辉, 龚理, 等. 烟草内生菌对烟草根结线虫病的防治效果[J]. 生态学杂志, 2009, 28(11): 2269-2272.
	YANG Y C, HUANG X H, GONG L, et al.. Controlling effect of tobacco endophyte against tobacco root-knot nematode disease [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2009, 28(11): 2269-2272.
10	郝丽霞, 程智慧, 孟焕文, 等. 设施番茄套作大蒜的生物和生态效应[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(19): 5316-5326.
	HAO L X, CHENG Z H, MENG H W, et al.. Biological and ecological effect of interplanting tomato [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2010, 30(19): 5316-5326.
11	陈敏, 杜相革. 生物炭对土壤特性及烟草产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(1): 80-83.
	CHEN M, DU X G. Effect of biochar on soil properties and yield and quality of tobacco [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2015(1): 80-83.
12	万惠霞, 冯小虎, 张文梅, 等. 生态炭肥防治烟草青枯病及其土壤微生态学机理分析[J]. 江西农业学报, 2015, 27(6): 92-97.
	WAN H X, FENG X H, ZHANG W M, et al.. Control effect of eco-biochar on tobacco bacterial wilt and its soi microecological mechanism [J]. Acta Agric. Jiangxi, 2015, 27(6): 92-97.
13	刘欢欢, 董宁禹, 柴升, 等. 生态炭肥防控小麦根腐病效果及对土壤健康修复机理分析[J]. 植物保护学报, 2015, 42(4): 504-509.
	LIU H H, DONG N Y, CHAI S, et al.. Effects of eco-char on controlling wheat root-rot and the mechanism of renovating soil health [J]. J. Plant Prot., 2015, 42(4): 504-509.
14	ZWIETEN L V, KIMBER S, MORRIS S, et al.. Efects of bio-char from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic per-form ance and soil fertility [J]. Plant Soil, 2010, 327: 235-246.
15	KIMETU J M, LEHMANN J. Stability and stabilisation of biochar and green manure in soil with diferent organic carbon contents [J]. Aus. J. Soil Res., 2010, 48(7): 577-585.
16	LEHMANN J, GAUNT J, RONDON M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems-a review [J]. Mitig. Adap. Strateg. Global Change, 2006, 11: 403-427.
17	STEINER C, GLASER B, TEIXEIRA W G, et al.. Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferrasol amended with compost and charcoal [J]. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci., 2008, 171(6): 893-899.
18	CHAN K Y, VAN Z L, MESZAROS I, et al.. Agronomic values of green waste biochar as a soil amendment [J]. Aus. J. Soil Res., 2007, 45(8): 629-634.
19	邓万刚, 吴鹏豹, 赵庆辉, 等. 低量生物质炭对2种热带牧草产量和品质的影响研究初报[J]. 草地学报, 2010, 18(6): 844-853.
	DENG W G, WU P B, ZHAO Q H, et al.. The effect of biochar on grass yield and quality [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2010, 18 (6): 844-853.
20	曲晶晶, 郑金伟, 郑聚锋, 等. 小麦秸秆生物质炭对水稻产量及晚稻氮素利用率的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2012, 28(3): 288-293.
	QU J J, ZHENG J W, ZHENG J F, et al.. Effects of wheat-straw-based biochar on yield of rice and nitrogen use efficiency of late rice [J]. J. Ecol. Rural Environ., 2012, 28(3): 288-293.
21	孙大荃, 孟军, 张伟明, 等. 生物炭对棕壤大豆根际微生物的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2011, 42(5): 521-526.
	SUN D Q, MENG J, ZHANG W M, et al.. Effect of biochar on soybean rhizosphere microbes from brown earth soil [J]. J. Shenyang Agric. Univ., 2011, 42(5): 521-526.
22	黄超, 刘丽君, 章明奎. 生物质炭对红壤性质和黑麦草生长的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2011, 37(4): 439-445.
	HUANG C, LIU L J, ZHANG M K. Effects of biochar on properties of red soil and ryegrass growth [J]. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Agric. Life Sci.), 2011, 37(4): 439-445.
23	万杰, 李志芳, 张庆忠, 等. 生物质炭和氮肥配施对菠菜产量和硝酸盐含量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(10): 1946-1952.
	WANG J, LI Z F, ZHANG Q Z, et al.. Impacts of biochar and nitrogen fertilizer on spinach yield and tissue nitrate content from a pot experiment [J]. J. Agro-Environ. Sci., 2011, 30(10): 1946-1952.
24	张晗芝, 黄云, 刘钢, 等. 生物炭对玉米苗期生长、养分吸收及土壤化学性状的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(11): 2713-2717.
	ZHANG H Z, HUANG Y, LIU G, et al.. Effects of biochar on corn growth, nutrient uptake and soil chemical properties in seeding stage [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2010, 19(11): 2713-2717.
25	HUANG W, JI H, GHEYSEN G, et al.. Biochar-amended pottingmedium reduces the susceptibility of rice to root-knot nematode infections [J]. BMC Plant Biol., 2015, 15(1): 1-15.
26	陈威, 胡学玉, 张阳阳, 等. 番茄根区土壤线虫群落变化对生物炭输入的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(6): 998-1003.
	CHEN W, HU X Y, ZHANG Y Y, et al.. Rsponse of nematode community in tomato rhizosphere soil to biochar input [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2015, 24(6): 998-1003.
27	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 烟草病虫害分级及调查方法:GB∕T 23222—2008 [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
28	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 1-495.
29	关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986: 1-512.
30	荣思川, 师尚礼, 孙灿灿. 苜蓿植株及根际土壤中主要酚酸和香豆素物质含量测定[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(5): 931-938.
	RONG S C, SHI S L, SUN C C. Determination of coumarins and major phenolic acids in plant and rhizosphere soil of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) [J]. Soils, 2016, 48(5): 931-938.
31	路怡青, 朱安宁, 张佳宝, 等. 免耕和秸秆还田对潮土酶活性及微生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(5): 894-898.
	LU Y Q, ZHU A N, ZHANG J B, et al.. Effects of no-tillage and straw-return on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass [J]. Soils, 2013, 45(5):894-898.
32	李锐, 刘瑜, 褚贵新. 不同种植方式对绿洲农田土壤酶活性与微生物多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(2): 490-496.
	LI R, LIU Y, CHU G X. Effects of different cropping patterns on soil enzyme activities and soil microbial community diversity in oasis farmland [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2015, 26(2): 490-496.
33	李贺勤, 刘奇志, 张林林, 等. 草莓连作土壤酚酸类物质积累对土壤线虫的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(1): 169-175.
	LI H Q, LIU Q Z, ZHANG L L, et al.. Accumulation of phenolic acids in the monocultured strawberry soils and their effect on soil nematodes [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2014, 33(1): 169-175.

处理Treatment	发病率 Incidence rate/%	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control efficiency/%
T250	100	83.65±0.88 a	4.08±0.70 b
T300	100	69.43±1.81 b	20.31±2.28 a
T350	100	66.23±1.21 c	23.98±2.60 a
CK	100	87.12±0.58 a	—

处理Treatment	发病率 Incidence rate/%	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control efficiency/%
T250	100	83.65±0.88 a	4.08±0.70 b
T300	100	69.43±1.81 b	20.31±2.28 a
T350	100	66.23±1.21 c	23.98±2.60 a
CK	100	87.12±0.58 a	—

移栽后时间 Time after transplanting/d	处理 Treatment	株高 Plant height/cm	有效叶片数 Number of effective blades	节距 Pitch/cm	茎围 Stem circumference/cm	最大叶长 Maximum leaf length/cm	最大叶宽 Maximum leaf width/cm
30	T250	32.67±1.02 a	8.67±0.71 a	5.83 0.10 ab	2.33±0.22 ab	45.33±0.20 a	19.00±0.11 b
	T300	33.67±0.50 a	8.33±1.13 a	6.50±0.56 a	3.00±0.58 a	46.83±0.19 a	24.17±0.46 a
	T350	38.83±0.20 a	8.67±0.80 a	6.53±0.26 a	2.97±0.57 a	47.17±0.08 a	24.50±0.23 a
	CK	22.67±1.03 c	7.00±0.20 b	4.00±1.12 b	1.83±0.15 b	34.50±0.89 b	16.67±0.31 c
60	T250	91.67±0.19 b	16.00±0.47 a	10.00±2.01 ab	4.33±0.14 a	70.67±2.05 a	30.00±0.04 a
	T300	88.67±1.33 b	16.67±1.25 a	11.00±0.87 a	3.78±0.32 b	65.33±1.18 ab	30.00±1.04 a
	T350	123.33±1.66 a	17.33±1.19 a	12.00±0.11 a	4.78±0.39 a	71.67±1.49 a	31.00±1.77 a
	CK	56.67±1.01 c	12.67±0.95 b	9.50±0.94 b	4.22±0.07 a	61.00±2.11 b	28.67±0.75 b
90	T250	133.67±3.78 a	19.33±0.47 a	12.83±1.40 a	4.00±0.54 a	72.33±1.92 a	36.00±1.79 a
	T300	128.00±2.13 a	19.33±1.25 a	12.50±1.75 a	3.78±1.22 a	68.33±0.88 a	34.00±2.07 a
	T350	134.67±2.08 a	19.00±1.19 a	12.90±0.20 a	4.30±0.81 a	66.33±0.11 ab	36.33±0.42 a
	CK	105.67±3.72 b	17.67±0.95 a	9.83±0.02 b	3.44±0.07 b	64.33±2.14 b	31.67±1.40 b

移栽后时间 Time after transplanting/d	处理 Treatment	株高 Plant height/cm	有效叶片数 Number of effective blades	节距 Pitch/cm	茎围 Stem circumference/cm	最大叶长 Maximum leaf length/cm	最大叶宽 Maximum leaf width/cm
30	T250	32.67±1.02 a	8.67±0.71 a	5.83 0.10 ab	2.33±0.22 ab	45.33±0.20 a	19.00±0.11 b
	T300	33.67±0.50 a	8.33±1.13 a	6.50±0.56 a	3.00±0.58 a	46.83±0.19 a	24.17±0.46 a
	T350	38.83±0.20 a	8.67±0.80 a	6.53±0.26 a	2.97±0.57 a	47.17±0.08 a	24.50±0.23 a
	CK	22.67±1.03 c	7.00±0.20 b	4.00±1.12 b	1.83±0.15 b	34.50±0.89 b	16.67±0.31 c
60	T250	91.67±0.19 b	16.00±0.47 a	10.00±2.01 ab	4.33±0.14 a	70.67±2.05 a	30.00±0.04 a
	T300	88.67±1.33 b	16.67±1.25 a	11.00±0.87 a	3.78±0.32 b	65.33±1.18 ab	30.00±1.04 a
	T350	123.33±1.66 a	17.33±1.19 a	12.00±0.11 a	4.78±0.39 a	71.67±1.49 a	31.00±1.77 a
	CK	56.67±1.01 c	12.67±0.95 b	9.50±0.94 b	4.22±0.07 a	61.00±2.11 b	28.67±0.75 b
90	T250	133.67±3.78 a	19.33±0.47 a	12.83±1.40 a	4.00±0.54 a	72.33±1.92 a	36.00±1.79 a
	T300	128.00±2.13 a	19.33±1.25 a	12.50±1.75 a	3.78±1.22 a	68.33±0.88 a	34.00±2.07 a
	T350	134.67±2.08 a	19.00±1.19 a	12.90±0.20 a	4.30±0.81 a	66.33±0.11 ab	36.33±0.42 a
	CK	105.67±3.72 b	17.67±0.95 a	9.83±0.02 b	3.44±0.07 b	64.33±2.14 b	31.67±1.40 b

移栽后时间 Time after transplanting/d	处理 Treatment	对羟基苯甲酸 4-hydroxybenzoic acid	香草酸 Vanillic acid	丁香酸 Syringic acid	4-香豆酸 p-coumaric acid	阿魏酸 Ferulic acid	肉桂酸 Cinnamic acid
30	T250	—	2.17±0.50 b	2.87±0.27 c	4.79±0.09 b	1.66±0.19 e	1.16±0.03 e
	T300	0.50±0.01 d	0.31±0.16 de	0.20±0.01 e	0.50±0.22 f	0.05±0.01 f	2.38±0.24 d
	T350	—	—	0.14±0.02 e	0.57±0.06 f	—	0.59±0.02 f
	CK	0.22±0.11 e	—	1.42±0.09 d	1.37±0.10 de	2.85±0.18 cd	11.31±0.06 c
60	T250	0.53±0.01 d	3.24±0.45 a	3.78±0.03 b	5.68±0.01 a	2.35±0.11 d	2.56±0.23 cd
	T300	0.58±0.08 cd	0.45±0.24 d	1.43±0.16 d	1.27±0.26 e	1.56±0.17 e	3.12±0.01 bc
	T350	0.54±0.07 d	0.12±0.03 e	1.23±0.08 d	1.56±0.23 d	1.53±0.25 e	2.98±0.25 c
	CK	0.53±0.05 d	1.23±0.20 c	2.89±0.27 c	2.49±0.12 c	3.96±0.01 b	15.46±0.18 b
90	T250	0.78±0.09 b	3.89±0.43 a	4.23±0.22 ab	5.96±0.11 a	3.33±0.08 bc	3.78±0.08 b
	T300	0.60±0.01 c	0.52±0.11 d	1.56±0.03 d	1.89±0.21 d	2.01±0.04 de	3.42±0.22 b
	T350	0.61±0.11 c	0.48±0.11 d	2.68±0.11 c	2.13±0.09 cd	2.35±0.04 d	3.41±0.20 b
	CK	0.95±0.07 a	3.56±0.29 a	4.98±0.16 a	5.43±0.15 a	5.48±0.09 a	19.20±0.05 a