酚酸降解菌耐盐芽胞杆菌YNK-FB0022对番茄枯萎病罹病土壤微生物多样性的影响

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1115

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的阐明具酚酸降解活性的耐盐芽胞杆菌YNK-FB0022对罹病土壤微生物多样性和群落结构的调控作用，验证其对番茄枯萎病的防控效果，为连作番茄枯萎病的生物防控提供理论依据。方法本研究采集红河地区频发番茄枯萎病的连作土壤，设置4个室内盆栽试验处理：空白对照组（CK）、添加苯甲酸组（CK1，模拟连作土壤酚酸累积胁迫环境）、添加苯甲酸+YNK-FB0022菌液组（T1）、添加YNK-FB0022菌液组（T2），通过测定番茄枯萎病病情指数与农艺性状，分析土壤理化性质、土壤酶活性及土壤微生物群落结构，结合结构方程模型解析耐盐芽胞杆菌YNK-FB0022对番茄枯萎病的防控作用。结果与CK相比，YNK-FB0022菌液处理，显著提高番茄株高（15.92%）、茎粗（10.92%）和根长（11.45%）（P<0.05）；与土壤碳、氮、磷循环相关的蔗糖酶、脲酶和酸性磷酸酶活性分别显著提高33.25%、72.06%、74.69%（P<0.05）。T2处理下，细菌α多样性的Ace指数较CK显著提高12.07%，真菌Ace指数和Chao1指数分别显著降低17.83%和16.52%；Beta多样性PCA分析显示，T2处理的细菌和真菌群落与CK、CK1处理显著分离，而CK与CK1处理群落聚集度高、差异不显著（P<0.05）。微生物群落结构结果表明，细菌优势门中放线菌门（Actinobacteriota）和真菌优势门中球囊菌门（Glomeromycota）丰度显著增加，细菌群落结构组成显著影响番茄枯萎病病情指数，且菌株处理增加了细菌网络结构的复杂性；结构方程模型分析结果表明，YNK-FB0022通过改善土壤理化指标、提高土壤酶活性、增强微生物网络结构复杂性从而降低番茄枯萎病病情指数，达到病害防控的效果。结论耐盐芽胞杆菌YNK-FB0022通过改善土壤理化性质、提高土壤酶活性、有效调控罹病土壤微生物多样性与群落结构、增加微生物网络结构复杂性，对番茄枯萎病有较好的防控效果，是一株极具潜力的生防菌株。

关键词: 耐盐芽胞杆菌, 生物活性, 番茄枯萎病, 微生物多样性

Abstract:

Objective To clarify the regulatory effect of salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 with phenolic acid-degrading activity on the microbial diversity and community structure of diseased soil, verify its control efficacy against tomato fusarium wilt, and provide a theoretical basis for the biological control of tomato fusarium wilt in continuous cropping systems. Method In this study, continuous cropping soil frequently affected by tomato fusarium wilt was collected from the Honghe region, and four indoor pot experiment treatments were set up: blank control group (CK), benzoic acid addition group (CK1, simulating the phenolic acid accumulation stress environment in continuous cropping soil), benzoic acid + YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution addition group (T1), and YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution addition group (T2). By determining the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt and agronomic traits, analyzing soil physicochemical properties, the control mechanism of salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 on tomato fusarium wilt was clarified. Result Compared with CK, the YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution treatment significantly increased tomato plant height (15.92%), stem diameter (10.92%), and root length (11.45%) (P<0.05); the activities of sucrase, urease, and acid phosphatase—key enzymes involved in soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles— significantly increased by 33.25%, 72.06%, and 74.69% (P<0.05), respectively. Under T2 treatment, the Ace index of bacterial α-diversity significantly increased by 12.07% compared with CK, while the fungal Ace index and Chao1 index significantly decreased by 17.83% and 16.52% respectively. Beta diversity PCA analysis showed that the bacterial and fungal communities in T2 treatment were significantly separated from those in CK and CK1 treatments, while the communities in CK and CK1 treatments had high aggregation and no significant difference (P<0.05). The results of microbial community structure showed that the abundance of Actinobacteriota (a dominant bacterial phylum) and Glomeromycota (a dominant fungal phylum) significantly increased; the composition of bacterial community structure had a significant impact on the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt, and the strain treatment increased the complexity of the bacterial network structure. The results of SEM analysis indicated that YNK-FB0022 reduced the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt by improving soil physicochemical indicators, increasing soil enzyme activities, and enhancing the complexity of microbial network structure, thereby achieving disease control. Conclusion Salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 demonstrates a promising control effect on tomato fusarium wilt by improving soil physicochemical properties, enhancing soil enzyme activities, effectively regulating the microbial diversity and community structure of diseased soil, and increasing the complexity of microbial network structure. It is a biocontrol strain with great potential.

Key words: Bacillus halotolerans, biological activity, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, microbial diversity

王宇, 廖永琴, 贾健鹏, 刘鑫, 施竹丽, 施竹凤, 普特, 何飞飞, 杨佩文. 酚酸降解菌耐盐芽胞杆菌YNK-FB0022对番茄枯萎病罹病土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1115.

WANG Yu, LIAO Yong-qin, JIA Jian-peng, LIU Xing, SHI Zhu-li, SHI Zhu-feng, PU Te, HE Fei-fei, YANG Pei-wen. Effects of Phenolic Acid-degrading Bacterium Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 on Microbial Diversity in Soil Infected with Tomato Fusarium Wilt[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1115.

图/表 11

表1 不同处理下土壤理化指标变化

Table 1 Changes in soil physical and chemical indexes under different treatments

指标 Index	CK	CK1	T1	T2
pH	7.66±0.00a	7.40±0.10a	7.65±0.01a	7.65±0.01a
有机质 Organic matter （g/kg）	35.50±0.23b	34.92±0.14c	35.68±0.30b	36.63±0.20a
全氮 Total nitrogen （g/kg）	1.60±0.00b	1.62±0.00a	1.59±0.02b	1.55±0.00c
全磷 Total phosphorus （g/kg）	1.65±0.00b	1.67±0.00a	1.67±0.00a	1.62±0.00b
全钾 Total potassium （g/kg）	10.79±0.05a	10.75±0.05a	10.66±0.11ab	10.55±0.07b
水解性氮 Hydrolyzed nitrogen （mg/kg）	113.12±0.00a	107.83±0.57c	107.11±0.92c	107.16±0.00c
有效磷 Available phosphorus （mg/kg）	68.36±0.92a	66.47±0.87a	66.39±0.65a	63.07±0.39b
速效钾 Fast-acting potassium （mg/kg）	159.11±2.12b	146.19±3.80c	163.23±1.40b	179.30±1.20a
电导率 Electrical conductivity （μS/cm）	197.17±0.15a	175.40±0.53c	188.40±0.36b	172.00±0.20 d
交换性钙 Exchangeable calcium （mg/kg）	3 178.21±14.29b	3 234.98±2.60a	3 192.41±17.14ab	3 101.58±22.49c
交换性镁 Exchangeable magnesium （mg/kg）	445.73±3.80bc	461.26±9.93a	454.64±3.35ab	453.03±4.98ab
有效铜 Effective copper （mg/kg）	5.03±0.11a	4.89±0.15ab	4.57±0.14ab	4.73±0.35b
有效锌 Effective zinc （mg/kg）	3.91±0.08b	3.65±0.09c	3.82±0.05b	4.08±0.04a
有效铁 Effective iron （mg/kg）	27.55±1.54a	27.36±0.06b	27.51±0.49c	27.74±1.20b
有效锰 Available manganese （mg/kg）	23.85±0.45a	22.55±0.91a	22.53±0.39a	23.90±0.93a
有效硼 Available boron （mg/kg）	1.36±0.00c	1.52±0.00b	1.59±0.00a	1.35±0.01c
容重 Bulk density （g/cm³）	0.96±0.02ab	0.92±0.06bc	0.81±0.06 d	0.86±0.41cd
孔隙度 Porosity （%）	69.96±0.40a	65.05±0.15c	66.78±0.56b	63.86±0.34 d

图1 不同处理下蔗糖酶（A）、酸性磷酸酶（B）和脲酶（C）活性的变化CK：清水对照；CK1：苯甲酸处理；T1：苯甲酸+菌株YNK-FB0022菌液处理；T2：YNK-FB0022菌液处理；不同字母代表不同的显著性（P<0.05）

Fig. 1 Changes in the activities of sucrase (A), acid phosphatase (B), and urease (C) under different treatmentsCK: Water Control. CK1: Benzoic acid treatment. T1: Benzoic acid + strain YNK-FB0022 treatment. T2: YNK-FB0022 treatment. Different letters represent different significance (P<0.05)

表2 不同处理对番茄幼苗生长的影响和对番茄枯萎病的防效

Table 2 Effects of different treatments on tomato seedling growth and control of tomato fusarium wilt

处理 Treatment	株高Plant height （cm）	茎粗Stem thick （mm）	根长Root length （cm）	根重Root weight （g）	病情指数Disease index	防效Control effect （%）
CK	26.20±3.30b	4.03±0.37b	7.86±0.09b	1.23±0.06a	47.50±0.24a	-
CK1	24.60±2.95b	3.97±0.40bc	5.56±0.64c	0.98±0.04c	31.62±0.19b	-
T1	26.13±3.38b	4.17±0.37b	7.92±0.31b	1.04±0.07bc	25.52±0.48c	46.27
T2	30.37±3.00a	4.47±0.44a	8.76±0.20a	1.26±0.09a	20.17±0.19 d	57.54

图2 不同理化指标对病情指数的重要性分析、各指标与病情指数相关性分析A：各理化指标随机森林分析；B：AK（速效钾）与病情指数相关性；C：AN（水解性氮）与病情指数相关性；D：AP（有效磷）与病情指数相关性；E：SC（蔗糖酶）与病情指数相关性；F：ACP（酸性磷酸酶）与病情指数相关性；G：UE（脲酶）与病情指数相关性

Fig. 2 Analysis of importance of different physical and chemical indexes to disease index and correlation between each index and disease indexA: Random forest analysis of physical and chemical indicators. B: Correlation between AK (available potassium) and disease index. C: Correlation between AN (Hydrolyzed nitrogen) and disease index. D: Correlation between AP (available phosphorus) and disease index. E: Correlation between SC (Sucrase) and disease index. F: Correlation between ACP (Acid phosphatase) and disease index. G: Correlation between UE (urease) and disease index

表3 不同处理下细菌真菌多样性指数变化

Table 3 Changes in diversity indexes of bacteria and fungi under different treatments

处理 Treatment	细菌多样性 Bacterial diversity				真菌多样性 Fungal diversity
处理 Treatment	Ace	Chao 1	Shannon	Simpson 1-D	Ace	Chao 1	Shannon	Simpson 1-D
CK	3 371.60±79.05a	2 969.31±25.94a	6.28±0.36a	0.004 1±0.00a	450.75±21.33a	446.46±11.58a	3.21±0.14a	0.14±0.00a
CK1	3 319.25±86.47a	3 143.62±28.47a	6.36±0.23a	0.003 4±0.00a	421.21±18.96a	425.78±45.36a	3.58±0.27a	0.08±0.00a
T1	3 276.56±32.46a	3 223.40±32.68a	6.41±0.05a	0.004 9±0.00a	385.00±36.69b	385.82±24.56b	3.25±0.34a	0.07±0.00a
T2	3 778.66±26.97b	3 298.09±90.45a	6.60±0.10a	0.007 0±0.00a	370.37±14.89b	372.70±17.89b	3.01±0.11a	0.05±0.00a

图3 不同处理下细菌优势菌门丰度变化（A）、细菌群落主成分分析（B）、细菌优势菌门对病情指数的重要性（C）（P<0.05）

Fig. 3 Abundance of dominant phyla (A), principal component analysis of bacterial community (B) and importance of dominant phyla to disease index under different treatments (C)(P<0.05)

图4 不同处理下真菌优势菌门丰度变化（A）、真菌群落主成分分析（B）、真菌优势菌门对病情指数的重要性（C）

Fig. 4 Change of fungal dominant phylum abundance under different treatments (A), principal component analysis of fungal community (B), and the importance of fungal dominant phylum to disease index (C)

图5 土壤微生物群落结构与土壤环境的相关性分析A：细菌群落结构与土壤指标相关性分析；B：真菌群落结构与土壤指标相关性分析

Fig. 5 Correlation analysis between soil microbial community structure and soil environmentA: Correlation analysis between bacterial community structure and soil index. B: Correlation analysis between fungal community structure and soil index

图6 不同处理下微生物的生态网络结构A：细菌生态网络结构；B：真菌生态网络结构

Fig. 6 Ecological network structure of microorganism under different treatmentsA: Bacterial ecological network structure. B: Fungal ecological network structure

表4 不同处理下真菌细菌微生态网络结构属性

Table 4 Structural properties of microecological network of fungi and bacteria under different treatments

处理Treatment	细菌多样性 Bacterial diversity				真菌多样性 Fungal diversity
处理Treatment	CK	CK1	T1	T2	CK	CK1	T1	T2
节点 Nodes	49	50	50	50	42	42	44	42
边 Edges	386	406	402	426	70	70	113	69
网络密度 Network density	0.387	0.389	0.408	0.587	0.146 3	0.170 73	0.279 07	0.142 5
模块化指数 Modular indices	0.607	0.618	0.624	0.654	0.826	0.73	0.607	0.817
正连接边 Positive edge	182	210	204	214	37	52	102	55
负连接边 Negative edge	204	196	198	212	33	18	11	14

图7 番茄枯萎病影响因素SEM模型分析数字代表路径系数大小，*号表示显著性水平，虚线表示无显著影响

Fig. 7 Analysis of influencing factors of tomato fusarium wilt by SEM modelNumbers indicatepath coefficients, asterisks indicate significance level, and dotted lines indicate no significant effects

参考文献 38

[1]	Panke-Buisse K, Poole AC, Goodrich JK, et al. Selection on soil microbiomes reveals reproducible impacts on plant function [J]. ISME J, 2015, 9(4): 980-989.
[2]	Wang X, Xiao C, Ji C, et al. Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria for controlling root rot disease of Chinese jujube [J]. J Appl Microbiol, 2021, 130(3): 926-936.
[3]	钟淑敏, 廖晓兰. 作物自毒作用研究进展 [J]. 作物研究, 2022, 36(3): 269-274, 286.
	Zhong SM, Liao XL. Review of research progress on crops autotoxicity [J]. Crop Res, 2022, 36(3): 269-274, 286.
[4]	Zhu W, Liu JW, Ye JL, et al. Effects of phytotoxic extracts from peach root bark and benzoic acid on peach seedlings growth, photosynthesis, antioxidance and ultrastructure properties [J]. Sci Hortic, 2017, 215: 49-58.
[5]	李勇, 王梓, 龙期良, 等. 人参幼根对苯甲酸胁迫的形态学响应及基因差异表达 [J]. 中国现代中药, 2017, 19(7): 995-1000.
	Li Y, Wang Z, Long QL, et al. Morphological response of ginseng root to benzoic acid and differential genes expression analysis [J]. Mod Chin Med, 2017, 19(7): 995-1000.
[6]	孙秀, 王秀峰, 魏珉, 等. 肉桂酸降解真菌的筛选及其降解液对黄瓜种子发芽的影响 [J]. 园艺学报, 2014, 41(4): 765-772.
	Sun X, Wang XF, Wei M, et al. Screening and identification of cinnamic acid-degrading fungis and the effect of degradation liquid on the cucumber germination [J]. Acta Hortic Sin, 2014, 41(4): 765-772.
[7]	王兴祥, 张桃林, 戴传超, 等. 连作花生土壤障碍原因及消除技术研究进展 [J]. 土壤, 2010, 42(4): 505-512.
	Wang XX, Zhang TL, Dai CC, et al. Advance in mechanism and countermeasures of peanut succession monocropping obstacles [J]. Soils, 2010, 42(4): 505-512.
[8]	Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D, et al. Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations [J]. Biol Rev, 2012, 87(1): 52-71.
[9]	王洁, 王蓓蓓, 尚方剑, 等. 香草兰酚酸类自毒物质降解菌的筛选和鉴定及其抑菌效果 [J]. 热带生物学报, 2022, 13(6): 595-604.
	Wang J, Wang BB, Shang FJ, et al. Screening, identification and antimicrobial activity of microbial strains degrading autotoxic phenolic acids in the rhizosphere of vanilla [J]. Journal of Tropical Biology, 2022, 13(6): 595-604.
[10]	王丹丹, 孙丽, 于宏, 等. 花生种子相关促生菌分离鉴定及功能评价 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2023, 50(11): 4852-4862.
	Wang DD, Sun L, Yu H, et al. Isolation, identification, and functional characterization of plant growth-promoting bacteria from peanut seeds [J]. Microbiol China, 2023, 50(11): 4852-4862.
[11]	李华玮, 赵绪永, 李鹏坤. 作物连做障碍中酚酸类物质的生物降解研究 [J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(18): 168-173.
	Li HW, Zhao XY, Li PK. Research on biodegradation effect to phenolic acid in even cook obstacles [J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2011, 27(18): 168-173.
[12]	Shen YX, Shi ZF, Zhao JY, et al. Whole genome sequencing provides evidence for Bacillus velezensis SH-1471 as a beneficial rhizosphere bacterium in plants [J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13: 20929.
[13]	Vurukonda SSKP, Vardharajula S, Shrivastava M, et al. Enhancement of drought stress tolerance in crops by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria [J]. Microbiol Res, 2016, 184: 13-24.
[14]	刘慧迪, 黄继宁, 成志军, 等. 作物镰刀菌枯萎病及其生物防治的研究进展 [J]. 植物医学, 2022, 1(5): 8-22.
	Liu HD, Huang JN, Cheng ZJ, et al. Research progress on crop Fusarium wilt disease and its biological control [J]. Plant Health Med, 2022, 1(5): 8-22.
[15]	廖永琴, 王楠, 申云鑫, 等. 三株酚酸降解菌的筛选与鉴定及其生物活性 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2024, 51(6): 2193-2214.
	Liao YQ, Wang N, Shen YX, et al. phenolic acid-degrading bacterial strains: screening, identification, and biological activities [J]. Microbiol China, 2024, 51(6): 2193-2214.
[16]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析 [M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	Bao SD. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis [M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[17]	周旭东, 韩天华, 申云鑫, 等. 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.
	Zhou XD, Han TH, Shen YX, et al. Response characteristics of soil microecology in long-term continuous cropping tobacco field under 4 rotation patterns [J]. J Agric Sci Technol, 2024, 26(3): 174-187.
[18]	中华人民共和国农业部. 土壤检测第13部分:土壤交换性钙和镁的测定: [S]. 北京:中国标准出版社,2006.
	Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. Soil Testing.Part 13: Method for determination of soil exchangeable calcium and magnesium: [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006.
[19]	Li JY, Zhao QQ, Wuriyanghan H, et al. Biocontrol bacteria strains Y4 and Y8 alleviate tobacco bacterial wilt disease by altering their rhizosphere soil bacteria community [J]. Rhizosphere, 2021, 19: 100390.
[20]	李娜, 信会男, 赖宁, 等. 不同土地利用方式对农田土壤有机碳组分及土壤微生物量碳的影响 [J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(10): 1789-1796.
	Li N, Xin HN, Lai N, et al. Effects of different land-use methods on the organic carbon composition and soil microbial biomass carbon of farmland soil [J]. Arid Zone Res, 2024, 41(10): 1789-1796.
[21]	焦硕,戚杰军,刘纪爱,等.旱区土壤微生物组与土壤健康评价 [J]. 土壤学报, 2023, 60(5): 1350-1362.
	Jiao S, Qi JJ, Liu JA, et al. Soil microbiome and soil health assessment in arid regions [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2023, 60(5): 1350-1362.
[22]	杨颖,郭志英,潘恺,等.基于生态系统多功能性的农田土壤健康评价 [J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(2): 461-475.
	Yang Y, Guo ZY, Pan K, et al. Farmland soil health assessment based on ecosystem multi-functionality [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2022, 59(2): 461-475.
[23]	东秀珠, 蔡妙英. 常见细菌系统鉴定手册 [M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001.
	Dong XZ, Cai MY. Handbook of identification of common bacterial systems [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2001.
[24]	Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. Soil microbiomes and climate change [J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2020, 18(1): 35-46.
[25]	马慧媛, 黄媛媛, 刘胜尧, 等. 微生物菌剂施用对设施茄子根际土壤养分和细菌群落多样性的影响 [J]. 微生物学通报,2020, 47(1): 140-150.
	Ma HY, Huang YY, Liu SY, et al. Effects of microbial agents on nutrient and bacterial community diversity in rhizosphere soil of eggplant cultivated in facilities [J]. Microbiol China, 2020, 47(1): 140-150.
[26]	黄文茂, 韩丽珍, 王欢, 等. 两株芽胞杆菌对花生幼苗生长及其根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(11): 3551-3563.
	Huang WM, Han LZ, Wang H, et al. Effects of two Bacillus spp. strains on the growth of peanut seedling and microbial community structure in rhizosphere soil [J]. Microbiol China, 2020, 47(11): 3551-3563.
[27]	Keshri J, Mody K, Jha B. Bacterial community structure in a semi-arid haloalkaline soil using culture independent method [J]. Geomicrobiol J, 2013, 30(6): 517-529.
[28]	张继东, 张亚雄, 程伟, 等. 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.
	Zhang JD, Zhang YX, Cheng W, et al. Effects of combined application of biochar and organic fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties and microbial community characteristics in apple recropping field [J]. J Agric Sci Technol, 2024, 26(8): 213-222.
[29]	Hannula SE, Boschker HTS, de Boer W, et al. ¹³C pulse-labeling assessment of the community structure of active fungi in the rhizosphere of a genetically starch-modified potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivar and its parental isoline [J]. New Phytol, 2012, 194(3): 784-799.
[30]	Guseva K, Darcy S, Simon E, et al. From diversity to complexity: Microbial networks in soils [J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2022, 169: 108604.
[31]	Zhang JH. Soil microbial richness predicts ecosystem multifunctionality through co-occurrence network complexity in alpine meadow [J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2022, 42(7): stxb202108162255.
[32]	Liu HW, Zhang XK, Zhang GZ, et al. Partial organic substitution weakens the negative effect of chemical fertilizer on soil micro-food webs [J]. J Integr Agric, 2022, 21(10): 3037-3050.
[33]	雷进田, 刘俊杰, 刘株秀, 等. 保护性耕作增强了真菌群落生态网络稳定性 [J]. 微生物学报, 2023, 63(7): 2835-2847.
	Lei JT, Liu JJ, Liu ZX, et al. Conservation tillage enhanced the stability of fungal community network [J]. Acta Microbiol Sin, 2023, 63(7): 2835-2847.
[34]	Berry D, Widder S. Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks [J]. Front Microbiol, 2014, 5: 219.
[35]	孔丽丽, 尹彩侠, 侯云鹏, 等. 松嫩平原水稻高产高效氮肥运筹模式研究 [J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(8): 1435-1448.
	Kong LL, Yin CX, Hou YP, et al. Nitrogen fertilizer management for high yield and high efficiency of rice in the Songnen plain [J]. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2023, 29(8): 1435-1448.
[36]	Li XG, Chen DL, Carrión VJ, et al. Author Correction: Acidification suppresses the natural capacity of soil microbiome to fight pathogenic Fusarium infections. [J]. Nat Commun, 2023, 14: 6188.
[37]	Gao C, Xu L, Montoya L, et al. Co-occurrence networks reveal more complexity than community composition in resistance and resilience of microbial communities [J]. Nat Commun, 2022, 13: 3867.
[38]	刘继培, 汪洪, 李书因, 等. 草浆造纸木质素对土壤性质和小白菜生长的影响 [J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(10): 2018-2023.
	Liu JP, Wang H, Li ST, et al. Soil properties and cabbage growth as influenced by application of lignins derived from straw pulping [J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2011, 30(10): 2018-2023.