不同覆盖处理对菠萝园土壤代谢物和细菌群落结构的影响

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-1183

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 探测不同覆盖处理对菠萝园土壤微生态环境的影响。【方法】 以未覆盖为对照（CK），比较研究了聚乙烯地膜（PM）、无纺布（NW）和可降解地膜（BF）覆盖下菠萝营养生长期土壤理化性状、酶活性以及细菌群落结构、代谢物的差异。【结果】 与CK相比，NW土壤中有效磷以及BF土壤中全氮含量显著提高；3种覆盖下土壤的过氧化氢酶和蔗糖酶活性显著降低，但PM土壤的蛋白酶、BF的酸性磷酸酶活性显著提高。与CK相比，PM土壤的放线菌数量减少；NW的细菌数量增多，放线菌减少；BF土壤的真菌和细菌数量增多，放线菌减少。16S测序表明3种覆盖的细菌菌群多样性均低于CK，其中BF的菌群丰度相对最高。与CK相比，PM、NW、BF土壤共筛选到17种显著差异代谢物，主要包括糖类、有机酸、含氮化合物和醇类代谢物，3种覆盖处理中BF土壤的糖类代谢物积累最高。CCA分析表明，pH影响土壤菌群结构发生分异，土壤养分、酶活性与细菌群落结构存在正相关。【结论】 3种覆盖处理中NW有利于维持营养生长期菠萝园土壤相对稳定的微生态环境。

关键词: 覆盖, 菠萝, 土壤理化性状, 代谢物, 细菌群落结构

Abstract:

【Objective】 The aim of this work is to investigate the effects of different mulching treatments on the soil microecological environment in pineapple orchard. 【Method】 Taking the un-mulched soil as the control（CK）, the differences in physicochemical properties, microbial abundance, bacterial community structure, and metabolites of the soils of mulching treatments with polyethylene mulch（PM）, non-woven fabric（NW）and biodegradable film（BF）were compared and measured, respectively. 【Result】 Compared with CK, PM significantly increased the activity of protease, whereas, decreased the activities of catalase and sucrase. NW significantly increased the content of available P, and decreased the activities of catalase and sucrase. Similarly, BF significantly increased the contents of total N, available P, and the activity of acid phosphatase, and decreased soil pH and the activities of catalase and sucrase. Compared with CK, PM significantly increased the community of actinomycetes. NW significantly increased the community of bacteria, while decreased the actinomycetes. BF significantly increased the communities of bacteria and fungi, while decreased the actinomycetes. The bacterial 16S high-throughput sequencing profiling suggested that the diversity of CK was higher than those of the three mulching treatments, and the bacteria abundance of BF was the highest among the three treatments and CK. Metabolites analysis indicated that there were 17 differential accumulated metabolites in the soils of three comparison groups with CK, mainly including carbohydrates, acids, nitrogen compounds and alcohols. And BF accumulated the highest sugar metabolites in the three mulching treatments. CCA analysis showed that soil pH affected the differentiation of bacterial community structure, and soil nutrients and enzyme activities were positively correlated with bacterial community structure. 【Conclusion】 Among the three mulching treatments, NW would benefit to maintain the relatively stable microecological environment of soil during the vegetative growth period of pineapple.

Key words: mulching-practices, pineapple, physiochemical properties of soil, soil metabolites, bacterial community structure

刘传和, 贺涵, 邵雪花, 何秀古. 不同覆盖处理对菠萝园土壤代谢物和细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2024, 40(7): 247-258.

LIU Chuan-he, HE Han, SHAO Xue-hua, HE Xiu-gu. Analysis of Differential Metabolites and Bacterial Community Structure in the Soils of a Pineapple Orchard under Different Mulching Treatments[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2024, 40(7): 247-258.

图/表 12

参考文献 45

[1]	广东农村统计年鉴编辑委员会. 广东农村统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2022.
	The editorial board of guangdong rural statistical yearbook. Guangdong rural statistical yearbook[M]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2022.
[2]	刘传和, 凡超. 地膜/网纱覆盖对冬季菠萝园小环境及菠萝生长和果实品质特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2016, 36(1): 139-146.
	Liu CH, Fan C. Regulation of film/gauze covering on micro-environmental factors in pineapple plantation and its effects on growth and quality properties of pineapple[J]. Acta Bot Boreali Occidentalia Sin, 2016, 36(1): 139-146.
[3]	刘传和, 刘岩, 廖美敬, 等. 地膜覆盖对菠萝植株生物量的影响及其成本分析[J]. 广东农业科学, 2011, 38(9): 29-31.
	Liu CH, Liu Y, Liao MJ, et al. Effects of film mulching on biomass of pineapple plants and analysis of production cost[J]. Guangdong Agric Sci, 2011, 38(9): 29-31.
[4]	刘传和, 刘岩, 易干军, 等. 地膜覆盖对菠萝植株生长及土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2010, 41(5): 1105-1109.
	Liu CH, Liu Y, Yi GJ, et al. Effects of film mulching on vegetative growth of pineapple and soil physicochemical properties[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2010, 41(5): 1105-1109.
[5]	胥子航, 王睿, 等. 地膜和秸秆覆盖提高春玉米产量与氮肥利用效率[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(11): 1991-2003.
	Xu ZH, Wang R, et al. Plastic film and straw mulching improve yield and nitrogen use efficiency of spring maize[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2023, 29(11): 1991-2003.
[6]	曹晓庆, 李璐, 张锋伟, 等. 五种常见可降解地膜的研究应用现状和展望[J]. 核农学报, 2023, 37(5): 1076-1087. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1000-8551.2023.05.1076
	Cao XQ, Li L, Zhang FW, et al. Research and application status of five common types of degradable mulching films[J]. J Nucl Agric Sci, 2023, 37(5): 1076-1087. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1000-8551.2023.05.1076
[7]	马兆嵘, 刘有胜, 张芊芊, 等. 农用塑料薄膜使用现状与环境污染分析[J]. 生态毒理学报, 2020, 15(4): 21-32.
	Ma ZR, Liu YS, Zhang QQ, et al. The usage and environmental pollution of agricultural plastic film[J]. Asian J Ecotoxicol, 2020, 15(4): 21-32.
[8]	杜彩娴, 麦景郁, 曾莉莎, 等. 冬瓜地不同覆盖栽培对土壤微生物和理化性状的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2017(22): 64-67.
	Du CX, Mai JY, Zeng LS, et al. Effect of different covering cultivation on soil microorganisms and physical chemical properties of wax gourd field[J]. J Changjiang Veg, 2017(22): 64-67.
[9]	吕汉强, 赵文花, 等. 聚乳酸可降解地膜对绿洲灌区玉米产量和农田水热特性的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2022, 57(5): 72-79, 88.
	Lyu HQ, Zhao WH, et al. Effects of polylactic acid degradable film on maize yield and soil hydrothermal characteristics in oasis irrigation area[J]. J Gansu Agric Univ, 2022, 57(5): 72-79, 88.
[10]	周天美, 周新伟, 陆静, 等. PBAT/PPC可降解地膜在豇豆生产中的应用研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(36): 62-66. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1174
	Zhou TM, Zhou XW, Lu J, et al. Application of PBAT/PPC degradable mulch film in cowpea(Vigna sinensis)production[J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2022, 38(36): 62-66.
[11]	史长青. 重金属污染对水稻土酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 1995, 26(1): 34-35.
	Shi CQ. Effect of heavy metal pollution on enzyme activity in paddy soil[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 1995, 26(1): 34-35.
[12]	中国科学院南京土壤研究所微生物室. 土壤微生物研究法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985.
	Institute of soil science, Chinese academy of sciences. Soil microorganism research method[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1985.
[13]	赵兰坡, 姜岩. 土壤磷酸酶活性测定方法的探讨[J]. 土壤通报, 1986, 17(3): 138-141.
	Zhao LP, Jiang Y. Discussion on determination method of soil phosphatase activity[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 1986, 17(3): 138-141.
[14]	蔡红, 沈仁芳. 改良茚三酮比色法测定土壤蛋白酶活性的研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2005, 42(2): 306-313.
	Cai H, Shen RF. Determination of soil protease activity with modifiedninhydrin colorimetry[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2005, 42(2): 306-313.
[15]	Berg J, Brandt KK, Al-Soud WA, et al. Selection for Cu-tolerant bacterial communities with altered composition, but unaltered richness, via long-term Cu exposure[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2012, 78(20): 7438-7446.
[16]	王雪花, 任晔, 冯均科, 等. 不同覆盖方式对土壤肥力和马铃薯产量的影响[J]. 蔬菜, 2021(11): 25-29.
	Wang XH, Ren Y, Feng JK, et al. Effects of different mulching methods on soil fertility and potato yield[J]. Vegetables, 2021(11): 25-29.
[17]	曹慧, 孙辉, 杨浩, 等. 土壤酶活性及其对土壤质量的指示研究进展[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2003, 9(1): 105-109.
	Cao H, Sun H, Yang H, et al. A review soil enzyme activity and its indication for soil quality[J]. Chin J Appl Environ Biol, 2003, 9(1): 105-109.
[18]	林英杰, 高芳, 张佳蕾, 等. 不同种植方式对花生土壤微生物生物量及活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(9): 2323-2328.
	Lin YJ, Gao F, Zhang JL, et al. Soil microbial biomass and respiration rate under effects of different planting patterns of peanut[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2010, 21(9): 2323-2328.
[19]	张晓英, 刘艳香, 姜春玲. 生物降解地膜对土壤理化性质及花生产量的影响[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2021(10): 171-172.
	Zhang XY, Liu YX, Jiang CL. Effects of biodegradable plastic film on soil physical and chemical properties and peanut yield[J]. Agric Dev Equip, 2021(10): 171-172.
[20]	Lu XK, Mao QG, Gilliam FS, et al. Nitrogen deposition contributes to soil acidification in tropical ecosystems[J]. Glob Chang Biol, 2014, 20(12): 3790-3801.
[21]	Cai JP, Luo WT, Liu HY, et al. Precipitation-mediated responses of soil acid buffering capacity to long-term nitrogen addition in a semi-arid grassland[J]. Atmos Environ, 2017, 170: 312-318.
[22]	孙梦媛, 刘景辉, 赵宝平, 等. 全覆膜垄作种植对旱作马铃薯生长和土壤特性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(5): 262-269, 276.
	Sun MY, Liu JH, Zhao BP, et al. Effects of full-film mulching and ridging planting on the rainfed potato growth and soil characteristics[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2018, 32(5): 262-269, 276.
[23]	Lu XF, Gilliam FS, Guo JY, et al. Decrease in soil pH has greater effects than increase in above-ground carbon inputs on soil organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems of China under nitrogen enrichment[J]. J Appl Ecol, 2022, 59(3): 768-778.
[24]	Ye CL, Chen DM, Hall SJ, et al. Reconciling multiple impacts of nitrogen enrichment on soil carbon: plant, microbial and geochemical controls[J]. Ecol Lett, 2018, 21(8): 1162-1173. doi: 10.1111/ele.13083 pmid: 29781214
[25]	Song BZ, Zhang J, Hu JH, et al. Temporal dynamics of the arthropod community in pear orchards intercropped with aromatic plants[J]. Pest Manag Sci, 2011, 67(9): 1107-1114. doi: 10.1002/ps.2156 pmid: 21480464
[26]	Rodrigues MÂ, Correia CM, Claro AM, et al. Soil nitrogen availability in olive orchards after mulching legume cover crop residues[J]. Sci Hortic, 2013, 158: 45-51.
[27]	邹丽娜, 柳婷婷, 等. 麻地膜覆盖对番茄根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(2): 371-378. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20220312
	Zou LN, Liu TT, Li WL, et al. Effect of bast-fiber film mulching on soil microbial community rhizosphere soil of tomato[J]. J Zhejiang Agric Sci, 2023, 64(2): 371-378.
[28]	沈鹏飞, 王威雁, 李彤, 等. 陕西洛川苹果园不同覆盖措施对土壤性质、细菌群落及果实产量和品质的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2019, 46(5): 817-831.
	Shen PF, Wang WY, Li T, et al. Effects of different mulching measures on soil properties, bacterial community, fruit yield and quality of Luochuan apple orchard in Shaanxi Province[J]. Acta Hortic Sin, 2019, 46(5): 817-831.
[29]	隋虹杰, 成慧娟, 等. 不同覆膜方式对高粱生长发育和土壤微生物的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(15): 133-138.
	Sui HJ, Cheng HJ, Wang LX, et al. Influences of different mulching methods on sorghum growth and soil microorganism[J]. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2019, 47(15): 133-138.
[30]	徐锴, 赵德英, 闫帅, 等. 覆盖对梨园土壤微生物、梨树生长及果实品质的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2020(6): 46-49.
	Xu K, Zhao DY, Yan S, et al. Effects of mulching on soil microorganism, pear tree growth and fruit quality in pear orchard[J]. China Fruits, 2020(6): 46-49.
[31]	罗玲, 刘伟, 钟奇, 等. 不同覆盖材料对避雨葡萄园土壤生物活性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(2): 66-74.
	Luo L, Liu W, Zhong Q, et al. Effects of different mulching materials on soil biological activities in sheltered vineyard[J]. Soil Fertil Sci China, 2020(2): 66-74.
[32]	张京社, 陈园园, 阎世江. 多年秸秆覆盖对设施蔬菜土壤养分及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(8): 217-222.
	Zhang JS, Chen YY, Yan SJ. Effects of multi-year straw mulching on soil nutrients and microbial diversity of facility vegetables[J]. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2023, 51(8): 217-222.
[33]	倪丽佳, 李非里, 刘秋亚, 等. 地膜覆盖对土壤微生态环境的影响[J]. 浙江工业大学学报, 2011, 39(4): 407-410.
	Ni LJ, Li FL, Liu QY, et al. Influence of plastic film mulching on soil micro-ecological environment[J]. J Zhejiang Univ Technol, 2011, 39(4): 407-410.
[34]	刘株秀, 刘俊杰, 徐艳霞, 等. 不同大豆连作年限对黑土细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(12): 4337-4346.
	Liu ZX, Liu JJ, Xu YX, et al. Effects of continuous cropping years of soybean on the bacterial community structure in black soil[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(12): 4337-4346.
[35]	Shen CC, Ni YY, Liang WJ, et al. Distinct soil bacterial communities along a small-scale elevational gradient in alpine tundra[J]. Front Microbiol, 2015, 6: 582. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00582 pmid: 26217308
[36]	Zhang B, Liang C, et al. Variations in soil microbial communities and residues along an altitude gradient on the northern slope of Changbai Mountain, China[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(6): e66184.
[37]	Rani A, Sharma A, Rajagopal R, et al. Bacterial diversity analysis of larvae and adult midgut microflora using culture-dependent and culture-independent methods in lab-reared and field-collected Anopheles stephensi-an Asian malarial vector[J]. BMC Microbiol, 2009, 9: 96.
[38]	张彧娜, 周晓果, 温远光, 等. 喀斯特地区三种人工林土壤微生物群落结构特征[J]. 广西植物, 2022, 42(6): 938-950.
	Zhang YN, Zhou XG, Wen YG, et al. Characteristics of soil microbial community structure of three plantations in a Karst region[J]. Guihaia, 2022, 42(6): 938-950.
[39]	刘传和, 贺涵, 等. 不同连作年限菠萝园土壤差异代谢物和细菌群落结构分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(8): 162-175. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2021-0273
	Liu CH, He H, et al. Analysis of differential metabolites and bacterial community structure in soils of a pineapple orchard in different continuous-cropping years[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2021, 37(8): 162-175.
[40]	Johnson DB, Quatrini R. Acidophile microbiology in space and time[J]. Curr Issues Mol Biol, 2020, 39: 63-76. doi: 10.21775/cimb.039.063 pmid: 32083998
[41]	刘传和, 贺涵, 何秀古, 等. 转录组与代谢组联合分析菠萝网纱覆盖防寒机制[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(11): 58-69. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2022-0203
	Liu CH, He H, He XG, et al. Unveiling the mechanisms of pineapple responding to anti-chilling by gauze covering in winter via transcriptome and metabolome profiling[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2022, 38(11): 58-69.
[42]	朱丽霞, 章家恩, 刘文高. 根系分泌物与根际微生物相互作用研究综述[J]. 生态环境, 2003, 12(1): 102-105.
	Zhu LX, Zhang JE, Liu WG. Review of studies on interactions between root exudates and rhizopheric microorganisms[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2003, 12(1): 102-105.
[43]	于方玲, 孙冰玉, 元野, 等. 连作对烤烟叶片淀粉和还原糖含量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(4): 1824-1825.
	Yu FL, Sun BY, Yuan Y, et al. Effects of continuous cropping on contents of starch and reducing sugar in the leaves of flue-cured tobacco[J]. J Anhui Agric Sci, 2010, 38(4): 1824-1825.
[44]	刘晓芳, 黄晓东, 孔健. 不同的碳源、氮源及碳氮比对微生物溶磷的影响[J]. 山东大学学报: 理学版, 2005, 40(2): 121-124.
	Liu XF, Huang XD, Kong J. Effect of C, N sources and m_C/m_N ratio on the phosphate solubilization of Aspergillus niger ML2 and ML4[J]. J Shandong Univ Nat Sci, 2005, 40(2): 121-124.
[45]	曹萌豪, 陈林, 庞丹波, 等. 宁夏压砂地种植年限对土壤代谢产物的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2023, 42(S1): 76-81.
	Cao MH, Chen L, Pang DB, et al. Effect of planting years on soil metabolites in sand-pressed land in Ningxia[J]. J Irrig Drain, 2023, 42(S1): 76-81.

处理 Treatment	pH	有机质 Organic matter/（g·kg^-1）	全氮 Total N/（g·kg^-1）	有效磷 Available P/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 Available K/（mg·kg^-1）
CK	3.99±0.06 a	36.83±1.62 a	1.53±0.03 b	57.00±5.49 b	24.33±2.40 b
PM	3.87±0.10 ab	35.87±1.01 a	1.50±0.06 b	68.50±7.05 ab	14.33±1.67 b
NW	4.09±0.12 a	37.57±1.15 a	1.57±0.03 b	105.27±19.06 a	16.67±0.67 b
BF	3.62±0.07 b	38.23±1.37 a	1.97±0.07 a	95.67±15.08 ab	69.33±22.41 a

处理 Treatment	pH	有机质 Organic matter/（g·kg^-1）	全氮 Total N/（g·kg^-1）	有效磷 Available P/（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 Available K/（mg·kg^-1）
CK	3.99±0.06 a	36.83±1.62 a	1.53±0.03 b	57.00±5.49 b	24.33±2.40 b
PM	3.87±0.10 ab	35.87±1.01 a	1.50±0.06 b	68.50±7.05 ab	14.33±1.67 b
NW	4.09±0.12 a	37.57±1.15 a	1.57±0.03 b	105.27±19.06 a	16.67±0.67 b
BF	3.62±0.07 b	38.23±1.37 a	1.97±0.07 a	95.67±15.08 ab	69.33±22.41 a

处理 Treatment	脲酶 Urease/ （mg·（kg·h）^-1）	过氧化氢酶Catalase/（mL·（g·h）^-1）	酸性磷酸酶 Acid phosphatase/（µg·（g·h）^-1）	蔗糖酶 Sucrase/ （mL·（kg·h）^-1）	纤维素酶 Cellulase/ （mL·（kg·h）^-1）	蛋白酶 Protease/ （µg·（g·h）^-1）
CK	213.33±3.48 a	3.20±0.39 a	172.33±17.85 b	26.02±3.85 a	1.44±0.30 a	1.21±0.12 b
PM	185.33±2.40 a	0.77±0.14 c	166.00±7.51 b	3.34±0.23 b	1.82±0.30 a	4.56±0.43 a
NW	198.67±4.48 a	1.85±0.26 b	169.33±8.84 b	9.58±1.97 b	0.58±0.08 b	2.17±0.23 b
BF	227.67±34.27 a	1.83±0.30 b	240.33±5.33 a	5.10±1.17 b	1.33±0.19 ab	1.86±0.44 b

处理 Treatment	脲酶 Urease/ （mg·（kg·h）^-1）	过氧化氢酶Catalase/（mL·（g·h）^-1）	酸性磷酸酶 Acid phosphatase/（µg·（g·h）^-1）	蔗糖酶 Sucrase/ （mL·（kg·h）^-1）	纤维素酶 Cellulase/ （mL·（kg·h）^-1）	蛋白酶 Protease/ （µg·（g·h）^-1）
CK	213.33±3.48 a	3.20±0.39 a	172.33±17.85 b	26.02±3.85 a	1.44±0.30 a	1.21±0.12 b
PM	185.33±2.40 a	0.77±0.14 c	166.00±7.51 b	3.34±0.23 b	1.82±0.30 a	4.56±0.43 a
NW	198.67±4.48 a	1.85±0.26 b	169.33±8.84 b	9.58±1.97 b	0.58±0.08 b	2.17±0.23 b
BF	227.67±34.27 a	1.83±0.30 b	240.33±5.33 a	5.10±1.17 b	1.33±0.19 ab	1.86±0.44 b

处理Treatment	细菌Bacteria（×10⁶ CFU·g^-1）	真菌Fungi（× 10³ CFU·g^-1）	放线菌Actinomycetes（×10⁴ CFU·g^-1）
CK	2.45±0.52 b	8.07±1.62 b	8.2±1.02 a
PM	1.7±0.25 b	2.98±2.52 b	1.81±1.08 b
NW	4.23±0.79 a	5.66±0.65 b	2.51±1.92 b
BF	4.26±0.27 a	17.93±3.76 a	1.42±0.57 b