生物技术通报 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (3): 79-91.doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2021-0467
收稿日期:
2021-04-09
出版日期:
2022-03-26
发布日期:
2022-04-06
作者简介:
谢田朋,女,博士,副教授,研究方向:药用植物生态;E-mail: 基金资助:
XIE Tian-peng(), LIU Na, LIU Yue-min, QU Xin, BO Shuang-qin, JING Ming()
Received:
2021-04-09
Published:
2022-03-26
Online:
2022-04-06
摘要:
为实现当归种植中“化肥农药减量增效”的绿色发展目标,探讨化肥减量配施一种中药源植物生长调节剂对当归质量和根际土壤细菌群落的影响,为该中药源调节剂改善当归质量的机理提供科学依据。以当归为研究对象,设置常规量化肥(CK)、中药源调节剂配施化肥(T1)、中药源调节剂配施80%化肥(T2)、中药源调节剂配施60%化肥(T3)4个处理,测定当归5个生长期的生长指标、病情指标、产量、根际土壤理化指标等,并通过16S rDNA扩增子测序分析根际土壤细菌群落的变化。结果表明:(1)生长早期T1组和T2组的当归根长、芦头直径、地下生物量显著高于其他组,成药期CK组当归根部蚜虫出现率、蚜虫密度、病情等级、发病率均高于其他组,且产量最低,T2组产量最高,比CK组增产2.61倍;(2)全生长期当归根际土壤盐分、铵态氮含量、有效钾含量在组间差异不显著。有机质含量仅在苗期的CK组中高于其他组,其他时期组间无差异。有效磷含量在全生长期组间变化较大,pH值随着化肥减量逐渐增加;(3)全生长期当归根际土壤细菌群落多样性在组间无差异,门水平上群落结构组成一致,变形菌门(Proteobacteria)、拟杆菌门(Bacteroidetes)、厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)、放线菌门(Actinobacteria)、芽单胞菌门(Gemmatimonadetes)、酸杆菌门(Acidobacteria)为优势菌群;(4)属水平优势菌群为黄杆菌属(Flavobacterium)、鞘氨醇单胞菌属(Sphingomonas)、假单胞菌属(Pseudomonas)、拟杆菌属(Bacteroides)、MND1属、鞘氨醇杆菌属(Pedobacter)、柠檬酸杆菌属(Citrobacter)、Ellin6067属、芽单胞菌属(Gemmatimonas)、马赛菌属(Massilia)、鞘脂菌属(Sphingobium)、溶杆菌属(Lysobacter)、Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium属、Haliangium属和硝化螺旋菌属(Nitrospira)。其中假单胞菌属、柠檬酸杆菌属、Ellin6067属和马赛菌属丰度在当归不同生长时期存在组间显著差异,但仅有假单胞菌属丰度与当归根部生长指标显著正相关,与病情指标显著负相关,且CK组的假单胞菌属在早期和成药期较其他组显著降低。化肥减量配施中药源植物生长调节剂可促进当归早期根部生长,改善成药期根腐病病情,提高产量。该中药源调节剂通过增加当归根际土壤中假单胞菌属丰度促进当归质量的提升。
谢田朋, 柳娜, 刘越敏, 曲馨, 薄双琴, 景明. 化肥减量配施中药源植物生长调节剂对当归质量和根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(3): 79-91.
XIE Tian-peng, LIU Na, LIU Yue-min, QU Xin, BO Shuang-qin, JING Ming. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction and Application of Plant Growth Regulators from Traditional Chinese Medicine on the Quality and Its Bacterial Community in Rhizosphere Soil[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2022, 38(3): 79-91.
处理 Treatment | 氮肥 Nitrogen fertilizer /(kg·m-2) | 磷肥 Phosphorus fertilizer /(kg·m-2) | 中药源调节剂 Regulator from traditional Chinese medicine /(kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 4.5 | 3.7 | 0 |
T1 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 10 |
T2 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 10 |
T3 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 10 |
表1 施肥方式
Table 1 Fertilization method
处理 Treatment | 氮肥 Nitrogen fertilizer /(kg·m-2) | 磷肥 Phosphorus fertilizer /(kg·m-2) | 中药源调节剂 Regulator from traditional Chinese medicine /(kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 4.5 | 3.7 | 0 |
T1 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 10 |
T2 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 10 |
T3 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 10 |
采收时期 Collection period | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Plant height | 地上部生物量 Aboveground biomass | 根长 Root length | 芦头直径 Main root diameter | 地下部生物量 Underground biomass |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 1.31±0.01a | 1.94±0.03a | 0.98±0.03c | 0.63±0.03c | 1.37±0.02bc |
T1 | 1.24±0.03ab | 1.81±0.06ab | 1.09±0.02ab | 0.75±0.01ab | 1.49±0.01ab | |
T2 | 1.16±0.02b | 1.73±0.05b | 1.13±0.02a | 0.78±0.02a | 1.61±0.03a | |
T3 | 1.12±0.02b | 1.54±0.07c | 1.03±0.02bc | 0.69±0.01bc | 1.34±0.04c | |
D2 | CK | 1.54±0.02a | 2.80±0.07a | 0.86±0.03b | 0.71±0.04b | 1.46±0.06b |
T1 | 1.49±0.02a | 2.69±0.07a | 0.86±0.05b | 0.78±0.06a | 1.83±0.12a | |
T2 | 1.36±0.02b | 2.22±0.05c | 1.02±0.04a | 0.77±0.02a | 2.05±0.08a | |
T3 | 1.37±0.01b | 2.45±0.04b | 0.88±0.03b | 0.74±0.03b | 1.82±0.10a | |
D3 | CK | 1.68±0.01a | 3.67±0.03a | 1.15±0.02a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.65±0.05b |
T1 | 1.67±0.01a | 3.49±0.03b | 1.15±0.01a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.71±0.05b | |
T2 | 1.65±0.01a | 3.46±0.05b | 1.13±0.02a | 1.13±0.01a | 2.89±0.03a | |
T3 | 1.59±0.01b | 3.26±0.05c | 1.09±0.03a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.47±0.06c | |
D4 | CK | 1.66±0.01b | 3.79±0.03abc | 1.18±0.01a | 1.14±0.01a | 3.06±0.03a |
T1 | 1.70±0.01a | 3.90±0.05a | 1.18±0.01a | 1.15±0.03a | 3.07±0.05a | |
T2 | 1.64±0.01b | 3.69±0.04c | 1.18±0.01a | 1.09±0.02a | 2.94±0.04a | |
T3 | 1.66±0.01b | 3.77±0.04b | 1.15±0.02a | 1.09±0.02a | 2.96±0.05a | |
D5 | CK | 1.65±0.01c | 3.75±0.04b | 1.27±0.02a | 1.22±0.02a | 3.26±0.04a |
T1 | 1.71±0.01a | 3.97±0.05a | 1.31±0.01a | 1.26±0.02a | 3.34±0.04a | |
T2 | 1.70±0.01a | 4.01±0.05a | 1.31±0.02a | 1.27±0.02a | 3.36±0.04a | |
T3 | 1.68±0.01b | 3.90±0.06a | 1.29±0.02a | 1.21±0.03a | 3.26±0.06a |
表2 中药源植物生长调节剂与化肥减量对当归生长指标的影响
Table 2 Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and application of plant growth regulators from traditional Chinese medicine on the growth traits of A. sinensis
采收时期 Collection period | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Plant height | 地上部生物量 Aboveground biomass | 根长 Root length | 芦头直径 Main root diameter | 地下部生物量 Underground biomass |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 1.31±0.01a | 1.94±0.03a | 0.98±0.03c | 0.63±0.03c | 1.37±0.02bc |
T1 | 1.24±0.03ab | 1.81±0.06ab | 1.09±0.02ab | 0.75±0.01ab | 1.49±0.01ab | |
T2 | 1.16±0.02b | 1.73±0.05b | 1.13±0.02a | 0.78±0.02a | 1.61±0.03a | |
T3 | 1.12±0.02b | 1.54±0.07c | 1.03±0.02bc | 0.69±0.01bc | 1.34±0.04c | |
D2 | CK | 1.54±0.02a | 2.80±0.07a | 0.86±0.03b | 0.71±0.04b | 1.46±0.06b |
T1 | 1.49±0.02a | 2.69±0.07a | 0.86±0.05b | 0.78±0.06a | 1.83±0.12a | |
T2 | 1.36±0.02b | 2.22±0.05c | 1.02±0.04a | 0.77±0.02a | 2.05±0.08a | |
T3 | 1.37±0.01b | 2.45±0.04b | 0.88±0.03b | 0.74±0.03b | 1.82±0.10a | |
D3 | CK | 1.68±0.01a | 3.67±0.03a | 1.15±0.02a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.65±0.05b |
T1 | 1.67±0.01a | 3.49±0.03b | 1.15±0.01a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.71±0.05b | |
T2 | 1.65±0.01a | 3.46±0.05b | 1.13±0.02a | 1.13±0.01a | 2.89±0.03a | |
T3 | 1.59±0.01b | 3.26±0.05c | 1.09±0.03a | 1.12±0.02a | 2.47±0.06c | |
D4 | CK | 1.66±0.01b | 3.79±0.03abc | 1.18±0.01a | 1.14±0.01a | 3.06±0.03a |
T1 | 1.70±0.01a | 3.90±0.05a | 1.18±0.01a | 1.15±0.03a | 3.07±0.05a | |
T2 | 1.64±0.01b | 3.69±0.04c | 1.18±0.01a | 1.09±0.02a | 2.94±0.04a | |
T3 | 1.66±0.01b | 3.77±0.04b | 1.15±0.02a | 1.09±0.02a | 2.96±0.05a | |
D5 | CK | 1.65±0.01c | 3.75±0.04b | 1.27±0.02a | 1.22±0.02a | 3.26±0.04a |
T1 | 1.71±0.01a | 3.97±0.05a | 1.31±0.01a | 1.26±0.02a | 3.34±0.04a | |
T2 | 1.70±0.01a | 4.01±0.05a | 1.31±0.02a | 1.27±0.02a | 3.36±0.04a | |
T3 | 1.68±0.01b | 3.90±0.06a | 1.29±0.02a | 1.21±0.03a | 3.26±0.06a |
处理 Treatment | 蚜虫出现率 Aphid emergence rate /% | 蚜虫密度 Aphid density /(Aphids·cm-2) | 病情指数 Disease index/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 产量 Yield /(kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 84.0±7.4a | 12.20±1.39a | 43.22±1.50a | 88.0±6.6a | 1.85±0.158c |
T1 | 52.0±10.1b | 11.44±1.60a | 25.37±1.32b | 52.2±10.1b | 2.88±0.139b |
T2 | 40.1±10.0b | 11.96±1.53a | 24.98±1.57b | 48.0±19.1b | 4.83±0.260a |
T3 | 48.2±10.0b | 11.36±1.62a | 22.77±1.42b | 40.1±10.0b | 3.01±0.085b |
表3 中药源植物生长调节剂与化肥减量对当归产量和病情的影响
Table 3 Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and application of plant growth regulators from traditional Chinese medicine on the yield and disease of A. sinensis
处理 Treatment | 蚜虫出现率 Aphid emergence rate /% | 蚜虫密度 Aphid density /(Aphids·cm-2) | 病情指数 Disease index/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 产量 Yield /(kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 84.0±7.4a | 12.20±1.39a | 43.22±1.50a | 88.0±6.6a | 1.85±0.158c |
T1 | 52.0±10.1b | 11.44±1.60a | 25.37±1.32b | 52.2±10.1b | 2.88±0.139b |
T2 | 40.1±10.0b | 11.96±1.53a | 24.98±1.57b | 48.0±19.1b | 4.83±0.260a |
T3 | 48.2±10.0b | 11.36±1.62a | 22.77±1.42b | 40.1±10.0b | 3.01±0.085b |
蚜虫出现率Aphid emergence rate | 蚜虫密度Aphid density | 病情指数Disease index | 发病率Incidence rate | |
---|---|---|---|---|
蚜虫出现率Aphid emergence rate | 1 | |||
蚜虫密度Aphid density | 0.921** | 1 | ||
病情指数Disease index | 0.288** | 0.304** | 1 | |
发病率Incidence rate | 0.224* | 0.292** | 0.869** | 1 |
表4 当归病情指标间的相关性
Table 4 Correlation between disease indexes of A. sinensis
蚜虫出现率Aphid emergence rate | 蚜虫密度Aphid density | 病情指数Disease index | 发病率Incidence rate | |
---|---|---|---|---|
蚜虫出现率Aphid emergence rate | 1 | |||
蚜虫密度Aphid density | 0.921** | 1 | ||
病情指数Disease index | 0.288** | 0.304** | 1 | |
发病率Incidence rate | 0.224* | 0.292** | 0.869** | 1 |
采收时期Collection period | 处理 Treatment | pH | 盐分 Salinity/ (mg·kg-1) | 有机质Organic matter /(g·kg-1) | 氨态氮Ammonia nitrogen/(mg·kg-1) | 有效磷Available phosphorus /(mg·kg-1) | 有效钾Available potassium /(mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 7.30±0.05c | 219.17±10.44a | 62.96±1.67a | 86.71±5.00a | 53.82±2.30b | 244.73±18.11a |
T1 | 7.33±0.03bc | 173.50±15.03a | 53.64±2.30b | 71.89±3.86a | 61.29±0.48ab | 254.53±15.28a | |
T2 | 7.43±0.03b | 171.67±7.78a | 53.25±2.03b | 74.20±8.04a | 64.22±2.91a | 229.43±9.10a | |
T3 | 7.57±0.03a | 187.42±29.61a | 52.32±1.21b | 83.49±6.74a | 57.00±6.50ab | 232.01±14.35a | |
D2 | CK | 7.50±0.05b | 204.17±11.02a | 54.12±2.00a | 81.49±10.15a | 47.16±1.09b | 264.73±3.32a |
T1 | 7.63±0.06b | 173.33±20.63a | 53.97±1.91a | 70.10±5.52a | 66.63±2.64a | 247.87±23.13a | |
T2 | 7.67±0.08ab | 179.17±12.67a | 51.00±1.52a | 77.69±11.33a | 67.55±6.23a | 266.12±22.25a | |
T3 | 7.87±0.06a | 195.83±21.75a | 53.00±2.08a | 93.42±12.61a | 53.78±9.90ab | 249.67±26.87a | |
D3 | CK | 7.43±0.08b | 270.83±46.95a | 56.00±7.02a | 31.08±2.08c | 147.53±13.79a | 426.00±29.48a |
T1 | 7.83±0.12a | 152.08±16.27a | 54.33±8.09a | 55.82±7.97b | 134.6±17.10a | 448.67±23.21a | |
T2 | 7.43±0.08b | 252.08±41.82a | 54.33±3.48a | 93.63±3.48a | 126.63±12.51a | 460.77±19.30a | |
T3 | 7.87±0.12a | 210.42±20.83a | 55.00±6.92a | 107.69±11.16a | 144.67±14.84a | 424.85±5.60a | |
D4 | CK | 7.47±0.06a | 152.08±9.081a | 49.33±5.36a | 15.42±1.79a | 60.36±2.55ab | 289.27±10.65a |
T1 | 7.63±0.06a | 147.92±17.05a | 45.11±1.52a | 26.36±3.62a | 76.23±3.17ab | 271.50±17.81a | |
T2 | 7.73±0.08a | 133.33±28.94a | 45.31±1.73a | 43.88±21.38a | 67.53±8.05a | 277.93±30.22a | |
T3 | 7.73±0.12a | 110.42±2.08a | 46.33±2.33a | 32.85±3.98a | 40.66±16.74b | 268.67±39.31a | |
D5 | CK | 7.73±0.14b | 89.58±11.60a | 50.67±2.18a | 35.74±1.48a | 83.52±5.57a | 59.95±9.93a |
T1 | 8.13±0.03ab | 104.17±42.28a | 53.21±8.54a | 30.41±1.38a | 44.45±2.29bc | 44.64±8.09a | |
T2 | 8.33±0.18a | 97.92±36.14a | 51.33±2.02a | 27.83±5.01a | 35.82±4.43c | 35.21±4.23a | |
T3 | 8.40±0.17a | 66.67±4.16a | 52.67±4.05a | 38.18±1.13a | 57.99±7.26b | 45.03±5.66a |
表5 中药源植物生长调节剂与化肥减量对当归根际土壤理化性质的影响
Table 5 Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and application of plant growth regulators from traditional Chinese medicine on the physical and chemical properties of rhizosphere soil of A. sinensis
采收时期Collection period | 处理 Treatment | pH | 盐分 Salinity/ (mg·kg-1) | 有机质Organic matter /(g·kg-1) | 氨态氮Ammonia nitrogen/(mg·kg-1) | 有效磷Available phosphorus /(mg·kg-1) | 有效钾Available potassium /(mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 7.30±0.05c | 219.17±10.44a | 62.96±1.67a | 86.71±5.00a | 53.82±2.30b | 244.73±18.11a |
T1 | 7.33±0.03bc | 173.50±15.03a | 53.64±2.30b | 71.89±3.86a | 61.29±0.48ab | 254.53±15.28a | |
T2 | 7.43±0.03b | 171.67±7.78a | 53.25±2.03b | 74.20±8.04a | 64.22±2.91a | 229.43±9.10a | |
T3 | 7.57±0.03a | 187.42±29.61a | 52.32±1.21b | 83.49±6.74a | 57.00±6.50ab | 232.01±14.35a | |
D2 | CK | 7.50±0.05b | 204.17±11.02a | 54.12±2.00a | 81.49±10.15a | 47.16±1.09b | 264.73±3.32a |
T1 | 7.63±0.06b | 173.33±20.63a | 53.97±1.91a | 70.10±5.52a | 66.63±2.64a | 247.87±23.13a | |
T2 | 7.67±0.08ab | 179.17±12.67a | 51.00±1.52a | 77.69±11.33a | 67.55±6.23a | 266.12±22.25a | |
T3 | 7.87±0.06a | 195.83±21.75a | 53.00±2.08a | 93.42±12.61a | 53.78±9.90ab | 249.67±26.87a | |
D3 | CK | 7.43±0.08b | 270.83±46.95a | 56.00±7.02a | 31.08±2.08c | 147.53±13.79a | 426.00±29.48a |
T1 | 7.83±0.12a | 152.08±16.27a | 54.33±8.09a | 55.82±7.97b | 134.6±17.10a | 448.67±23.21a | |
T2 | 7.43±0.08b | 252.08±41.82a | 54.33±3.48a | 93.63±3.48a | 126.63±12.51a | 460.77±19.30a | |
T3 | 7.87±0.12a | 210.42±20.83a | 55.00±6.92a | 107.69±11.16a | 144.67±14.84a | 424.85±5.60a | |
D4 | CK | 7.47±0.06a | 152.08±9.081a | 49.33±5.36a | 15.42±1.79a | 60.36±2.55ab | 289.27±10.65a |
T1 | 7.63±0.06a | 147.92±17.05a | 45.11±1.52a | 26.36±3.62a | 76.23±3.17ab | 271.50±17.81a | |
T2 | 7.73±0.08a | 133.33±28.94a | 45.31±1.73a | 43.88±21.38a | 67.53±8.05a | 277.93±30.22a | |
T3 | 7.73±0.12a | 110.42±2.08a | 46.33±2.33a | 32.85±3.98a | 40.66±16.74b | 268.67±39.31a | |
D5 | CK | 7.73±0.14b | 89.58±11.60a | 50.67±2.18a | 35.74±1.48a | 83.52±5.57a | 59.95±9.93a |
T1 | 8.13±0.03ab | 104.17±42.28a | 53.21±8.54a | 30.41±1.38a | 44.45±2.29bc | 44.64±8.09a | |
T2 | 8.33±0.18a | 97.92±36.14a | 51.33±2.02a | 27.83±5.01a | 35.82±4.43c | 35.21±4.23a | |
T3 | 8.40±0.17a | 66.67±4.16a | 52.67±4.05a | 38.18±1.13a | 57.99±7.26b | 45.03±5.66a |
采收时期 Collection period | 处理 Treatment | 测序覆盖度 Goods coverage | 物种数 Observed species | Chao1 指数 Chao1 index | Shannon 指数 Shannon index | Simpson 指数 Simpson index | 谱系多样性指数 PD whole tree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 0.98±0.01a | 2714.10±30.78a | 3424.92±50.69a | 9.28±0.06a | 0.99±0.01a | 94.90±1.06a |
T1 | 0.98±0.01a | 2125.58±355.46a | 2828.25±423.61a | 8.02±0.66a | 0.98±0.01a | 77.42±10.15a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 2434.18±292.71a | 3342.80±326.26a | 7.87±0.48a | 0.96±0.01a | 88.08±8.48a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 2851.94±136.92a | 3869.01±125.57a | 8.61±0.33a | 0.98±0.01a | 100.30±3.33a | |
D2 | CK | 0.99±0.01a | 2897.98±113.83a | 3516.22±158.61a | 9.26±0.07a | 0.99±0.01a | 101.46±2.95a |
T1 | 0.99±0.01a | 3013.84±113.72a | 3638.01±125.73a | 9.40±0.15a | 0.99±0.01a | 107.47±3.54a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 3167.06±136.38a | 3890.72±140.38a | 9.24±0.17a | 0.99±0.01a | 110.78±3.91a | |
T3 | 0.99±0.01a | 3116.44±109.61a | 3734.60±168.74a | 9.54±0.08a | 0.99±0.01a | 112.25±3.01a | |
D3 | CK | 0.98±0.03a | 2486.92±243.71a | 3134.68±313.61a | 8.70±0.71a | 0.98±0.01a | 95.78±6.79a |
T1 | 0.98±0.02a | 2316.38±354.18a | 2953.28±414.23a | 8.38±0.91a | 0.97±0.02a | 91.44±10.46a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.02a | 2098.02±184.79a | 2745.46±181.05a | 8.41±0.27a | 0.98±0.01a | 84.37±4.72a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 2303.70±207.19a | 2930.39±211.82a | 8.34±0.86a | 0.97±0.02a | 92.36±6.14a | |
D4 | CK | 0.96±0.02a | 2315.26±54.18b | 3042.80±88.54a | 9.15±0.15a | 0.99±0.01a | 89.76±2.02a |
T1 | 0.96±0.01a | 2555.02±55.31a | 3290.41±82.82a | 9.55±0.08a | 0.99±0.01a | 96.38±1.57a | |
T2 | 0.96±0.02a | 2425.48±79.61ab | 3242.25±105.08a | 9.17±0.12a | 0.99±0.01a | 92.92±2.33a | |
T3 | 0.96±0.02a | 2416.14±16.78ab | 3167.25±67.20a | 9.30±0.17a | 0.99±0.01a | 93.36±0.65a | |
D5 | CK | 0.98±0.01a | 3002.36±105.14a | 3761.14±109.82a | 9.08±0.21a | 0.99±0.01a | 112.46±3.06a |
T1 | 0.98±0.01a | 2918.90±244.51a | 3731.57±186.28a | 8.78±0.51a | 0.99±0.01a | 109.92±7.27a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 3157.50±123.55a | 3911.02±134.13a | 9.50±0.13a | 0.99±0.01a | 115.81±3.73a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 3144.66±45.06a | 3945.55±49.99a | 9.49±0.07a | 0.99±0.01a | 114.94±1.84a |
表6 中药源植物生长调节剂与化肥减量对当归根际土壤细菌Alpha多样性指数的影响
Table 6 Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and application of plant growth regulators from traditional Chinese medicine on the Alpha diversity index of rhizosphere soil of A. sinensis
采收时期 Collection period | 处理 Treatment | 测序覆盖度 Goods coverage | 物种数 Observed species | Chao1 指数 Chao1 index | Shannon 指数 Shannon index | Simpson 指数 Simpson index | 谱系多样性指数 PD whole tree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | CK | 0.98±0.01a | 2714.10±30.78a | 3424.92±50.69a | 9.28±0.06a | 0.99±0.01a | 94.90±1.06a |
T1 | 0.98±0.01a | 2125.58±355.46a | 2828.25±423.61a | 8.02±0.66a | 0.98±0.01a | 77.42±10.15a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 2434.18±292.71a | 3342.80±326.26a | 7.87±0.48a | 0.96±0.01a | 88.08±8.48a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 2851.94±136.92a | 3869.01±125.57a | 8.61±0.33a | 0.98±0.01a | 100.30±3.33a | |
D2 | CK | 0.99±0.01a | 2897.98±113.83a | 3516.22±158.61a | 9.26±0.07a | 0.99±0.01a | 101.46±2.95a |
T1 | 0.99±0.01a | 3013.84±113.72a | 3638.01±125.73a | 9.40±0.15a | 0.99±0.01a | 107.47±3.54a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 3167.06±136.38a | 3890.72±140.38a | 9.24±0.17a | 0.99±0.01a | 110.78±3.91a | |
T3 | 0.99±0.01a | 3116.44±109.61a | 3734.60±168.74a | 9.54±0.08a | 0.99±0.01a | 112.25±3.01a | |
D3 | CK | 0.98±0.03a | 2486.92±243.71a | 3134.68±313.61a | 8.70±0.71a | 0.98±0.01a | 95.78±6.79a |
T1 | 0.98±0.02a | 2316.38±354.18a | 2953.28±414.23a | 8.38±0.91a | 0.97±0.02a | 91.44±10.46a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.02a | 2098.02±184.79a | 2745.46±181.05a | 8.41±0.27a | 0.98±0.01a | 84.37±4.72a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 2303.70±207.19a | 2930.39±211.82a | 8.34±0.86a | 0.97±0.02a | 92.36±6.14a | |
D4 | CK | 0.96±0.02a | 2315.26±54.18b | 3042.80±88.54a | 9.15±0.15a | 0.99±0.01a | 89.76±2.02a |
T1 | 0.96±0.01a | 2555.02±55.31a | 3290.41±82.82a | 9.55±0.08a | 0.99±0.01a | 96.38±1.57a | |
T2 | 0.96±0.02a | 2425.48±79.61ab | 3242.25±105.08a | 9.17±0.12a | 0.99±0.01a | 92.92±2.33a | |
T3 | 0.96±0.02a | 2416.14±16.78ab | 3167.25±67.20a | 9.30±0.17a | 0.99±0.01a | 93.36±0.65a | |
D5 | CK | 0.98±0.01a | 3002.36±105.14a | 3761.14±109.82a | 9.08±0.21a | 0.99±0.01a | 112.46±3.06a |
T1 | 0.98±0.01a | 2918.90±244.51a | 3731.57±186.28a | 8.78±0.51a | 0.99±0.01a | 109.92±7.27a | |
T2 | 0.98±0.01a | 3157.50±123.55a | 3911.02±134.13a | 9.50±0.13a | 0.99±0.01a | 115.81±3.73a | |
T3 | 0.98±0.01a | 3144.66±45.06a | 3945.55±49.99a | 9.49±0.07a | 0.99±0.01a | 114.94±1.84a |
指标 Index | 假单胞菌属Pseudomonas | 柠檬酸杆菌属Citrobacter | Ellin6067 | 马赛菌属Massilia |
---|---|---|---|---|
株高 Plant height | 0.079 | -0.190 | 0.249* | -0.191 |
地上部生物量 Aboveground biomass | 0.060 | -0.170 | 0.134 | -0.128 |
根长 Root length | 0.311* | 0.008 | -0.193 | -0.198 |
芦头直径 Main root diameter | 0.373* | -0.133 | -0.055 | -0.133 |
地下部生物量 Root biomass | 0.387* | -0.146 | 0.021 | -0.191 |
蚜虫出现率 Occurrence rate of aphids | -0.555* | -0.249 | -.0182 | 0.335 |
蚜虫密度 Aphid density | 0.147 | -0.401 | -0.184 | 0.358 |
病情指数 Disease index | -0.462* | 0.057 | -0.363 | 0.246 |
发病率 Incidence rate | -0.473* | 0.211 | -0.015 | 0.424 |
表7 当归根际土壤显著变化细菌属与生长指标和病情指标的相关性
Table 7 Correlation between significant change bacterial genera in the rhizosphere soil of A. sinensis with growth traits and disease traits
指标 Index | 假单胞菌属Pseudomonas | 柠檬酸杆菌属Citrobacter | Ellin6067 | 马赛菌属Massilia |
---|---|---|---|---|
株高 Plant height | 0.079 | -0.190 | 0.249* | -0.191 |
地上部生物量 Aboveground biomass | 0.060 | -0.170 | 0.134 | -0.128 |
根长 Root length | 0.311* | 0.008 | -0.193 | -0.198 |
芦头直径 Main root diameter | 0.373* | -0.133 | -0.055 | -0.133 |
地下部生物量 Root biomass | 0.387* | -0.146 | 0.021 | -0.191 |
蚜虫出现率 Occurrence rate of aphids | -0.555* | -0.249 | -.0182 | 0.335 |
蚜虫密度 Aphid density | 0.147 | -0.401 | -0.184 | 0.358 |
病情指数 Disease index | -0.462* | 0.057 | -0.363 | 0.246 |
发病率 Incidence rate | -0.473* | 0.211 | -0.015 | 0.424 |
[1] | 李文涛, 杨世海. 当归质量评价研究现状[J]. 药物分析杂志, 2013, 33(3):517-523. |
Li WT, Yang SH. Current situation of Angelica sinensis quality evaluation[J]. Chin J Pharm Anal, 2013, 33(3):517-523. | |
[2] | 顾志荣, 师富贵, 王永琦, 等. 不同产地当归药材质量研究进展[J]. 甘肃中医学院学报, 2014, 31(5):80-83. |
Gu ZR, Shi FG, Wang YQ, et al. Research progress on quality of Angelica sinensis from different place of production[J]. J Gansu Coll Tradit Chin Med, 2014, 31(5):80-83. | |
[3] | 谢田朋, 柳娜, 王雅莉, 等. 不同产地当归品质的研究进展[J]. 中医药学报, 2020, 48(1):72-75. |
Xie TP, Liu N, Wang YL, et al. Quality research progress of Angelica sinensis from different regions[J]. Acta Chin Med Pharmacol, 2020, 48(1):72-75. | |
[4] | 毛妍婷, 刘宏斌, 陈安强, 等. 长期施用有机肥对减缓菜田耕层土壤酸化的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(9):1784-1791. |
Mao YT, Liu HB, Chen AQ, et al. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizers on reducing soil acidification of plough layer in vegetable fields[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2020, 29(9):1784-1791. | |
[5] | 邹湘, 易博, 张奇春, 等. 长期施肥对稻田土壤微生物群落结构及氮循环功能微生物数量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(12):2158-2167. |
Zou X, Yi B, Zhang QC, et al. Effects of long-term fertilization on the microbial community structure and the population of N cycle-related functional microorganism in paddy soil[J]. J Plant Nutr Fertil, 2020, 26(12):2158-2167. | |
[6] | 李虹, 李汀贤, 赵凤亮, 等. 香蕉枯萎病发生区域土壤改良:间作对热带土壤微生物区系和pH相关关系的影响[J]. 园艺与种苗, 2017, 37(9):21-27. |
Li H, Li TX, Zhao FL, et al. Soil improvements in banana Fusarium wilt incidence areas:spatial variations and correlations of microbial flora and pH variables in tropical red soils[J]. Hortic Seed, 2017, 37(9):21-27. | |
[7] | 肖婉君. 有机肥和减量化肥对当归成药栽培影响机理的研究[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2020. |
Xiao WJ. Study of influence mechanism of organic fertilizer and reduced chemical fertilizer on Angelica sinensis medicinal formation cultivation[D]. Lanzhou:Gansu Agricultural University, 2020. | |
[8] |
王文丽, 李娟, 赵旭. 生物有机肥对连作当归根际土壤细菌群落结构和根腐病的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(8):2813-2821.
pmid: 31418207 |
Wang WL, Li J, Zhao X. Effects of biological organic fertilizer on rhisosphere soil bacteria community and root rot diseases of continuous cropping Angelica sinensis[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2019, 30(8):2813-2821.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201908.030 pmid: 31418207 |
|
[9] | 张奇茹, 谢英荷, 李廷亮, 等. 有机肥替代化肥对旱地小麦产量和养分利用效率的影响及其经济环境效应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(23):4866-4878. |
Zhang QR, Xie YH, Li TL, et al. Effects of organic fertilizers replacing chemical fertilizers on yield, nutrient use efficiency, economic and environmental benefits of dryland wheat[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2020, 53(23):4866-4878. | |
[10] | 魏晓兰, 吴彩姣, 孙玮, 等. 减量施肥条件下生物有机肥对土壤养分供应及小白菜吸收的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(1):40-44. |
Wei XL, Wu CJ, Sun W, et al. Effect of bio-organic fertilizer on soil nutrient supply and absorption of Bok choy under different decreasing fertilization[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2017, 37(1):40-44. | |
[11] | 白雪纯, 张君红, 冯魁亮, 等. 化肥减量配施有机肥对青贮玉米产量、营养价值及土壤微生物活性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2020, 37(2):348-354. |
Bai XC, Zhang JH, Feng KL, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and application of organic manure on the yield and nutritive value of Zea mays and soil microbial activity[J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2020, 37(2):348-354. | |
[12] | 于会丽, 徐国益, 徐变变, 等. 施用生物菌肥对桃园土壤养分及微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(6):91-97. |
Yu HL, Xu GY, Xu BB, et al. Effects of bio-fertilizer on soil nutrients and microbial functional diversity in peach orchard[J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2020, 38(6):91-97. | |
[13] | 茹淑华, 徐万强, 侯利敏, 等. 连续施用有机肥后重金属在土壤-作物系统中的积累与迁移特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(10):2070-2078. |
Ru SH, Xu WQ, Hou LM, et al. Effects of continuous application of organic fertilizer on the accumulation and migration of heavy metals in soil-crop systems[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2019, 28(10):2070-2078. | |
[14] | 郑茗月, 李海梅, 赵金山, 等. 微生物肥料的研究现状及发展趋势[J]. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(11):52-56. |
Zheng MY, Li HM, Zhao JS, et al. Current situation and developmental trend of microbial fertilizer researches[J]. Acta Agric Jiangxi, 2018, 30(11):52-56. | |
[15] | 柳娜, 张旭东, 王雅莉, 等. “中医农业”模式在当归种植中的作用研究[J]. 中兽医医药杂志, 2019, 38(5):19-21. |
Liu N, Zhang XD, Wang YL, et al. The effect of traditional Chinese compound pesticide and traditional Chinese compound fertilizer on the yield of Angelica Sinensis[J]. J Tradit Chin Vet Med, 2019, 38(5):19-21. | |
[16] | 柳娜, 张夙萍, 谢田朋, 等. 肥药伴侣对岷归重金属元素含量的影响研究[J]. 中兽医医药杂志, 2020, 39(2):73-75. |
Liu N, Zhang SP, Xie TP, et al. Study on the effect of the companion of fertilizer and pesticideon on the content of heavy metals in Angelica sinensis from Min County[J]. J Tradit Chin Vet Med, 2020, 39(2):73-75. | |
[17] | 柳娜, 王雅莉, 张旭东, 等. 中药复方农药与中药复方肥料对当归质量的影响研究[J]. 中药材, 2019, 42(2):267-270. |
Liu N, Wang YL, Zhang XD, et al. Effect of traditional chinese medicine compound pesticide and fertilizer on the quality of Angelica sinensis[J]. J Chin Med Mater, 2019, 42(2):267-270. | |
[18] | 辛中尧, 徐红霞, 陈秀蓉. 枯草芽孢杆菌(Bacillus subtilis)B1、B2菌株对当归、黄芪的防病促进生长效果[J]. 植物保护, 2008, 34(6):142-144. |
Xin ZY, Xu HX, Chen XR. Effect of Bacillus subtilis B1, B2 on Angelica sinensis and Astragalus membranaceus of preventing of disease and growth-promoting[J]. Plant Prot, 2008, 34(6):142-144. | |
[19] | 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000. |
Lu RK. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis method[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Scientech Press, 2000. | |
[20] |
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic:a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data[J]. Bioinformatics, 2014, 30(15):2114-2120.
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 URL |
[21] |
Reyon D, Tsai SQ, Khayter C, et al. FLASH assembly of TALENs for high-throughput genome editing[J]. Nat Biotechnol, 2012, 30(5):460-465.
doi: 10.1038/nbt.2170 URL |
[22] |
Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data[J]. Nat Methods, 2010, 7(5):335-336.
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 pmid: 20383131 |
[23] |
Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, et al. VSEARCH:a versatile open source tool for metagenomics[J]. PeerJ, 2016, 4:e2584.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584 URL |
[24] |
Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, et al. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2007, 73(16):5261-5267.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07 URL |
[25] | Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, et al. The vegan package:Community Ecology Package, 2007.http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/vegan/. |
[26] | 白洋, 钱景美, 周俭民, 等. 农作物微生物组:跨越转化临界点的现代生物技术[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(3):260-265. |
Bai Y, Qian JM, Zhou JM, et al. Crop microbiome:breakthrough technology for agriculture[J]. Bull Chin Acad Sci, 2017, 32(3):260-265. | |
[27] | 徐敏, 叶凡, 赖先荣, 等. HPLC法测定白芥子饮片中白芥子苷的含量[J]. 中国药房, 2016, 27(18):2549-2551. |
Xu M, Ye F, Lai XR, et al. Content determination of sinalbin in Sinapis alba decoction piece by HPLC[J]. China Pharm, 2016, 27(18):2549-2551. | |
[28] | 张鹏, 赵伟琼, 苗莉云, 等. 七叶一枝花根内生细菌多样性分析及促生菌的筛选[J]. 中南民族大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 39(6):596-600. |
Zhang P, Zhao WQ, Miao LY, et al. Diversity analysis of endophytic bacteria in the roots of Paris Polyphylla and screening of growth-promoting bacteria[J]. J South Central Univ Natl:Nat Sci Ed, 2020, 39(6):596-600. | |
[29] | 柴晓虹, 姚拓, 李录山, 等. 12株植物根际促生菌促生功能稳定性评价及鉴定[J]. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(5):68-75. |
Chai XH, Yao T, Li LS, et al. Stability evaluation of growth promoting function and identification of 12 PGPR strains[J]. Grassland Turf, 2020, 40(5):68-75. |
[1] | 谢田朋, 张佳宁, 董永骏, 张建, 景明. 早期抽薹对当归根际土壤微环境的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023, 39(7): 206-218. |
[2] | 申云鑫, 施竹凤, 周旭东, 李铭刚, 张庆, 冯路遥, 陈齐斌, 杨佩文. 三株具生防功能芽孢杆菌的分离鉴定及其生物活性研究[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023, 39(3): 267-277. |
[3] | 李颖, 龙长梅, 蒋标, 韩丽珍. 两株PGPR菌株的花生定殖及对根际细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(9): 237-247. |
[4] | 刘传和, 贺涵, 何秀古, 刘开, 邵雪花, 赖多, 匡石滋, 肖维强. 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. |
[5] | 张雅静, 宋美燕, 张怡静, 房庆, 杨俊, 彭德良, 黄文坤, 彭焕, 朱英波, 孔令安. 兼防黄瓜根腐病和根结线虫病的淡紫拟青霉和哈茨木霉的筛选[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(2): 40-50. |
[6] | 罗亚军, 孙红敏, 何宁, 袁丽杰, 解云英. 西藏沙棘根瘤及根际土壤放线菌分离及抗菌活性研究[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(11): 225-236. |
[7] | 许来鹏, 万鲜花, 孙向丽, 曹艳芳, 李慧, 田亚东, 刘小军, 康相涛, 王彦彬. 畜禽粪肥和秸秆还田对玉米根际微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(9): 137-146. |
[8] | 张淼, 陈裕凤, 陈龙, 黄飘玲, 韦露玲. 不同地区药用植物两面针根际土壤真菌种群多样性差异分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(9): 167-179. |
[9] | 许广, 王梦姣, 邓百万, 郭苗苗. 不同植茶年限茶树根际土壤细菌多样性及群落结构研究[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(3): 124-132. |
[10] | 林淼, 王阔鹏, 陈映良, 孙文婧, 封丽梅, 胡梓轩. 乙醇对瘤胃液接种稻秸的体外发酵产物及细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(2): 91-99. |
[11] | 王永妍, 赵炳赫, 梁广钰, 李云, 徐仰仓. 不同季节使用微生态制剂后养殖海水细菌群落特征[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(2): 126-133. |
[12] | 吴学玲, 周翔宇, 吴晓燕, 罗奎, 顾怡超, 周晗, 廖婉晴, 曾伟民. 四环素降解菌共培养体系构建及废水修复的群落分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(10): 116-126. |
[13] | 洪洁, 康建依, 刘一倩, 高秀芝, 易欣欣. 生菜连作及生菜-菠菜轮作对土壤细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(8): 17-26. |
[14] | 郭珺, 樊芳芳, 王立革, 武爱莲, 郑军. 固碳微生物菌株的分离鉴定及其固碳能力测定[J]. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(1): 90-97. |
[15] | 刘凌燕, 陈志宇, 曾还雄, 林培彬, 金小宝. 美洲大蠊肠道内生微杆菌的分离鉴定及其抑菌活性研究[J]. 生物技术通报, 2018, 34(6): 172-177. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||