Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on the Structure of Bacterial Community in Tea Garden Soil

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2020-1287

Abstract

Abstract:

This work is to study the effect of different nitrogen reduction modes on the bacterial community structure in the underground soil of tea plant. Four nitrogen levels were applied in the soil:16 kg/667 m²pure nitrogen(reducing nitrogen by 55.6%,treatment A),26 kg/667 m² pure nitrogen(reducing nitrogen by 27.8%,treatment B),36 kg/667 m² pure nitrogen(conventional fertilization,treatment C),and no nitrogen application(CK). The 36 samples of rhizosphere and non- rhizosphere soil of 0-20 cm and non- rhizosphere soil of 20-40 cm were sequenced by 16S rRNA,and the community structures of soil bacteria under different nitrogen reduction treatments were analyzed at IonS^5TMXL high-throughput sequencing platform. The results showed that the OTUs of the 0-20 cm rhizosphere and non rhizosphere soil and 20-40 cm non rhizosphere soil were 505,854 and 835 under the A,B and C treatment,respectively. The specific OTUs gradually decreased with the increase of nitrogen application. The bacterial abundance of the soil was higher in the rhizosphere soil and non- rhizosphere soil of 0-20 cm under nitrogen reduction treatment B,with the highest bacterial diversity. The results of soil carbon flux also confirmed that there were more microorganism in soil under nitrogen reduction treatment B. The dominant bacteria in the underground part of the fertilized tea garden at the phylum level were basically nitrogen metabolism related ones,among which there were three dominant groups,namely Proteobacteria,Actinobacteria and Chloroflexi. At the genus level,the dominant bacteria in the rhizosphere soil and non rhizosphere soil were totally different. The diversity of bacterial community in the tea garden soil was more and the abundance was higher under proper nitrogen reduction treatment,and it was mainly concentrated in the rhizosphere and surrounding soil of nutrient absorption and utilization,which is conducive to the efficient utilization of nutrients in tea garden.

Key words: tea, bacteria, nitrogen, 16S amplicon sequencing, root system, soil

XIANG Fen, LI Wei, LIU Hong-yan, YIN Xia, ZENG Ze-xuan, ZHOU Ling-yun. Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on the Structure of Bacterial Community in Tea Garden Soil[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2021, 37(6): 49-57.

Figures/Tables 11

References 22

[1]	吴海宁, 黄志鹏, 唐秀梅, 等. 氮肥减施对花生根际土壤固氮微生物多样性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(16):93-97.
	Wu HN, Huang ZP, Tang XM, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer reduction on the diversity of nitrogen fixing microorganisms in peanut rhizosphere soil[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 47(16):93-97.
[2]	Rousk J, Bååth E, Brookes PC, et al. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a PH gradient in an arable soil[J]. ISME Journal, 2010, 4(10):1340-1351. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.58 URL
[3]	Oberson A, Friesen DK, Rao IM, et al. Phosphorus transformations in an oxisol under contrasting land-use systems:the role of the soil microbial biomass[J]. Plant & Soil, 2001, 237(2):197-210.
[4]	Cleveland CC, Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK, et al. Increases in soil respiration following labile carbon additions linked to rapid shifts in soil microbial community composition[J]. Biogeo Chemistry, 2007, 82(3):229-240.
[5]	Griffith DR, Kladivko EJ, Mannering JV, et al. Long-term tillage and rotation effects on corn growth and yield on high and low organic matter, poorly drained soils[J]. Agronomy Journal, 1988, 80(4).
[6]	Gupta RS, Mok A. Phylogenomics and signature proteins for the alpha proteobacteria and its main groups[J]. BMC Microbiology, 2007, 7(1):106. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-7-106 URL
[7]	杨山, 李小彬, 王汝振, 等. 氮水添加对中国北方草原土壤细菌多样性和群落结构的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(3):739-746.
	Yang S, Li XB, Wang RZ, et al. Effects of nitrogen and water addition on soil bacterial diversity and community structure in temperate grasslands in northern china[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 26(3):739-746.
[8]	田永辉, 魏国雄, 夏绍湄, 等. 茶树不同品种对根际固氮微生物的影响[J]. 广东茶业, 1999(3):22-24.
	Tian YH, Wei GX, Xia SM, et al. Effects of different tea varieties on nitrogen fixing microorganisms in rhizosphere[J]. Guangdong Tea Industry, 1999(3):22-24.
[9]	李俊强, 林利华, 张帆, 等. 施肥模式对茶树根际土壤微生物数量及酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(3):22-28.
	Li JQ, Lin LH, Zhang F, et al. Effect of fertilization regime on soil microbial quantity and enzyme activity in rhizosphere of tea[J]. Research of soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(3):22-28.
[10]	张逸飞, 钟文辉, 李忠佩, 等. 长期不同施肥处理对红壤水稻土酶活性及微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2006, 22(4):39-44.
	Zhang YF, Zhong WH, Li ZP, et al. Effects of long term different fertilization on soil enzyme activity and microbial community functional diversity in paddy soil derived from quaternary red clay[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2006, 22(4):39-44.
[11]	Chao AI, Liang GQ, Sun JW, et al. Responses of extracellular enzyme activities and microbial community in both the rhizosphere and bulk soil to long-term fertilization lpractices in a fluvoaquic soil[J]. Geoderma, 2012, 173-174(2):330-338. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.020 URL
[12]	罗毅, 苏有健, 张永利, 等. 不同施肥处理对茶树根际细菌多样性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(25):177-183.
	Luo Y, Su YJ, Zhang YL, et al. Effect of fertilizer on tea plant rhizosphere bacteria diversity[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(25):177-183.
[13]	张薇, 魏海雷, 高洪文, 等. 土壤微生物多样性及其环境影响因子研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2005, 24(1):48-52.
	Zhang W, Wei HL, Gao HW, et al. Advances of studies on soil microbial diversity and environmental impact factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2005, 24(1):48-52.
[14]	汪华. 茶园土壤微生物群落结构对植茶年限、施肥和高温条件的响应研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2015.
	Wang H. The response of soil microbial community structure to cultivatingage, fertilization and high temperature in tea orchard[D]. Hangzhou:Zhejiang University, 2015.
[15]	李沛翰, 林彦锋, 王凯英, 等. 16S扩增子技术研究海鲜样本菌群结构组成[J]. 军事医学, 2019, 43(4):282-287.
	Li PH, Lin YF, Wang KY, et al. Bacterial community composition of seafood samples based on 16S amplicon sequencing[J]. Military Medicine, 2019, 43(4):282-287.
[16]	李维, 向芬, 周凌云, 等. 氮素减施对茶树光合作用和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(1):93-98.
	Li W, Xiang F, Zhou LY, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer reduction on photosynjournal and nitrogen use efficiency in tea plant[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2020, 39(1):93-98.
[17]	于海玲. 施氮量对土壤微生物群落组成特征的影响研究[D]. 长春:吉林农业大学, 2017.
	Yu HL. Effect of nitrogen application on composition characters of soil microbial communities[D]. Changchun:Jilin Agricultural University, 2017.
[18]	吴林, 苏延桂, 张元明. 模拟降水对古尔班通古特沙漠生物结皮表观土壤碳通量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(13):4103-4113.
	Wu L, Su YG, Zhang YM. Effects of simulated precipitation on apparent carbon flux of biologically crusted soils in the Gurbantunggut Desert in Xinjiang[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(13):4103-4113. doi: 10.5846/stxb URL
[19]	孙锋, 赵灿灿, 何琼杰, 等. 施肥和杂草多样性对土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(18):6023-6031.
	Sun F, Zhao CC, He QJ, et al. Effects of fertilization and diversity of weed species on the soil microbial community[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(18):6023-6031.
[20]	李凤霞, 王世荣, 吴霞, 等. 长期施肥对宁夏灌淤土土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(5):1134-1141.
	Li FX, Wang SR, Wu X, et al. Effect of long-term fertilization on soil microbial diversity in irrigation silting soil of ningxia[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2016, 47(5):1134-1141.
[21]	李金婷, 黄少欣, 韦持章, 等. 不同氮素营养水平对茶树根际土壤微生物的影响及其在养分调控中的作用[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(S1):281-288.
	Li JT, Huang SX, Wei CZ, et al. Effects of different nitrogen levels on tea rhizosphere microbial community and its role in adjusting soil nutrients[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2019, 34(S1):281-288.
[22]	Ruan JY, Gerendás J, Härdter R, et al. Effect of nitrogen form and root-zone PH on growth and nitrogen uptake of tea(Camellia sinensis)plants[J]. Annals of Botany, 2007, 99(2):301-310. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcl258 URL

处理 Treatment	施纯氮 Input of nitrogen/(kg·667 m^-2)	肥料种类 Fertilizer type	施用方式 Application method	施肥量 Fertilizer rate/(kg·667 m^-2)
CK	0	菜籽饼	基肥	0
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	0
		尿素	追肥	0
减氮处理A	16	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	0
减氮处理B	26	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	10
常规施肥C	36	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	20

处理 Treatment	施纯氮 Input of nitrogen/(kg·667 m^-2)	肥料种类 Fertilizer type	施用方式 Application method	施肥量 Fertilizer rate/(kg·667 m^-2)
CK	0	菜籽饼	基肥	0
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	0
		尿素	追肥	0
减氮处理A	16	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	0
减氮处理B	26	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	10
常规施肥C	36	菜籽饼	基肥	9.25
		硫酸钾型复合肥	基肥	6.75
		尿素	追肥	20

种类 Type	土层 Soil layer	施氮水平Nitrogen application level	观察物种 Observed species	Shannon指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	Ace 指数 Ace index	PD进化树 PD whole tree
根际土壤		RCK	583.00±16.41	5.63±0.63	0.94±0.02	723.58±124.19	740.28±110.13	52.12±0.81
		RA	618.00±19.93	5.38±0.63	0.92±0.04	794.38±32.25	783.03±54.51	53.41±0.68
		RB	619.00±14.40	5.76±0.29	0.95±0.01	795.77±49.92	797.12±55.10	54.41±0.67
		RC	547.00±38.90	5.37±0.84	0.93±0.04	724.53±120.64	714.81±103.67	49.08±0.89
非根际土壤	0-20 cm	CK20	1186.00±153.96	8.24±0.84	0.99±0.01	1279.50±124.74	1301.71±139.38	93.92±4.44
		A20	957.00±115.66	7.39±0.41	0.98±0.01	1058.24±150.86	1085.27±159.78	82.99±4.40*
		B20	1069.00±83.16	7.72±0.11	0.99±0.01	1216.84±159.54	1247.27±149.99	88.46±5.92
		C20	1075.00±121.35	7.57±0.27	0.98±0.01	1241.87±170.12	1270.58±161.15	86.69±5.42
	20-40 cm	CK40	1110.00±110.59	7.52±0.30	0.98±0.01	1273.12±48.39	1286.25±53.62	91.49±3.11
		A40	893.00±18.08*	7.13±0.26	0.98±0.01	982.87±36.79*	1014.62±43.91*	74.89±0.72**
		B40	905.00±88.09*	7.04±0.37	0.97±0.02	993.23±156.54*	1029.39±179.62*	78.10±4.75*
		C40	1142.00±95.50	7.99±0.50*	0.99±0.01	1444.91±122.97	1440.32±187.43	102.06±9.56*

种类 Type	土层 Soil layer	施氮水平Nitrogen application level	观察物种 Observed species	Shannon指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	Ace 指数 Ace index	PD进化树 PD whole tree
根际土壤		RCK	583.00±16.41	5.63±0.63	0.94±0.02	723.58±124.19	740.28±110.13	52.12±0.81
		RA	618.00±19.93	5.38±0.63	0.92±0.04	794.38±32.25	783.03±54.51	53.41±0.68
		RB	619.00±14.40	5.76±0.29	0.95±0.01	795.77±49.92	797.12±55.10	54.41±0.67
		RC	547.00±38.90	5.37±0.84	0.93±0.04	724.53±120.64	714.81±103.67	49.08±0.89
非根际土壤	0-20 cm	CK20	1186.00±153.96	8.24±0.84	0.99±0.01	1279.50±124.74	1301.71±139.38	93.92±4.44
		A20	957.00±115.66	7.39±0.41	0.98±0.01	1058.24±150.86	1085.27±159.78	82.99±4.40*
		B20	1069.00±83.16	7.72±0.11	0.99±0.01	1216.84±159.54	1247.27±149.99	88.46±5.92
		C20	1075.00±121.35	7.57±0.27	0.98±0.01	1241.87±170.12	1270.58±161.15	86.69±5.42
	20-40 cm	CK40	1110.00±110.59	7.52±0.30	0.98±0.01	1273.12±48.39	1286.25±53.62	91.49±3.11
		A40	893.00±18.08*	7.13±0.26	0.98±0.01	982.87±36.79*	1014.62±43.91*	74.89±0.72**
		B40	905.00±88.09*	7.04±0.37	0.97±0.02	993.23±156.54*	1029.39±179.62*	78.10±4.75*
		C40	1142.00±95.50	7.99±0.50*	0.99±0.01	1444.91±122.97	1440.32±187.43	102.06±9.56*