微生物学报

Soil properties	NPK	NPKG
Mean count±standard deviation (n=9). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (P<0.05); The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences between groups.
pH	5.35±0.20a	4.74±0.17b
SOC (g/kg)	7.78±0.37b	10.50±0.32a
TN (g/kg)	0.96±0.05b	1.19±0.04a
TP (g/kg)	0.75±0.05a	0.73±0.03a
AN (mg/kg)	90.20±2.67b	121.70±16.30a
AP (mg/kg)	15.90±2.65b	22.53±2.38a

Soil properties	NPK	NPKG
Mean count±standard deviation (n=9). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (P<0.05); The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences between groups.
pH	5.35±0.20a	4.74±0.17b
SOC (g/kg)	7.78±0.37b	10.50±0.32a
TN (g/kg)	0.96±0.05b	1.19±0.04a
TP (g/kg)	0.75±0.05a	0.73±0.03a
AN (mg/kg)	90.20±2.67b	121.70±16.30a
AP (mg/kg)	15.90±2.65b	22.53±2.38a

Soil physical and chemical properties	Fungal abundance			Shannon index
pH	−0.852	0.000	0.635	0.005	0.861	0.000
SOC (g/kg)	0.970	0.000	−0.489	0.040	−0.814	0.000
TN (g/kg)	0.934	0.000	−0.491	0.038	−0.768	0.000
TP (g/kg)	−0.144	0.569	−0.083	0.742	0.025	0.923
AN (mg/kg)	0.798	0.000	−0.638	0.004	−0.866	0.000
AP (mg/kg)	0.818	0.000	−0.532	0.023	−0.744	0.000

Soil physical and chemical properties	Fungal abundance			Shannon index
pH	−0.852	0.000	0.635	0.005	0.861	0.000
SOC (g/kg)	0.970	0.000	−0.489	0.040	−0.814	0.000
TN (g/kg)	0.934	0.000	−0.491	0.038	−0.768	0.000
TP (g/kg)	−0.144	0.569	−0.083	0.742	0.025	0.923
AN (mg/kg)	0.798	0.000	−0.638	0.004	−0.866	0.000
AP (mg/kg)	0.818	0.000	−0.532	0.023	−0.744	0.000

Soil properties	R	P
pH	0.616	0.001
SOC (g/kg)	0.575	0.001
TN (g/kg)	0.538	0.001
TP (g/kg)	0.077	0.237
AN (mg/kg)	0.553	0.001
AP (mg/kg)	0.395	0.002
Yield (g/pot)	0.325	0.001

Soil properties	R	P
pH	0.616	0.001
SOC (g/kg)	0.575	0.001
TN (g/kg)	0.538	0.001
TP (g/kg)	0.077	0.237
AN (mg/kg)	0.553	0.001
AP (mg/kg)	0.395	0.002
Yield (g/pot)	0.325	0.001

Treatment	Taxonomy	P	Relative abundance (%)
NPK	g__Acrocalymma	0.001	0.006
	g__Aspergillus	0.013	0.096
	g__Talaromyces	0.003	0.021
	g__Chloridium	0.036	0.008
	g__Clonostachys	0.001	0.013
	g__Acremonium	0.002	0.004
	g__Fusarium	0.002	0.063
	g__Gibellulopsis	0.037	0.006
	g__Schizothecium	0.003	0.008
	g__Ceratobasidium	0.027	0.003
	g__Entrophospora	0.003	0.003
NPKG	g__Sarcinomyces	0.003	0.007
	g__Acidomelania	0.011	0.004
	g__Pseudogymnoascus	0.004	0.003
	g__Scedosporium	0.008	0.002
	g__Humicola	0.001	0.050
	g__Geminibasidium	0.001	0.058

Treatment	Taxonomy	P	Relative abundance (%)
NPK	g__Acrocalymma	0.001	0.006
	g__Aspergillus	0.013	0.096
	g__Talaromyces	0.003	0.021
	g__Chloridium	0.036	0.008
	g__Clonostachys	0.001	0.013
	g__Acremonium	0.002	0.004
	g__Fusarium	0.002	0.063
	g__Gibellulopsis	0.037	0.006
	g__Schizothecium	0.003	0.008
	g__Ceratobasidium	0.027	0.003
	g__Entrophospora	0.003	0.003
NPKG	g__Sarcinomyces	0.003	0.007
	g__Acidomelania	0.011	0.004
	g__Pseudogymnoascus	0.004	0.003
	g__Scedosporium	0.008	0.002
	g__Humicola	0.001	0.050
	g__Geminibasidium	0.001	0.058

Property	NPK	NPKG
Nodes	368	428
Edges	1 574	2 338
Diameter	17	33
Average degree	8.554	10.925
Average path length	5.704	11.314
Average clustering coefficient	0.698	0.719
Modules	0.883	0.847
Density	0.023	0.026

Property	NPK	NPKG
Nodes	368	428
Edges	1 574	2 338
Diameter	17	33
Average degree	8.554	10.925
Average path length	5.704	11.314
Average clustering coefficient	0.698	0.719
Modules	0.883	0.847
Density	0.023	0.026

添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤真菌群落的影响

PDF下载

赵竟茹 ¹^,² , 晏蒙 ¹^,² , 吴远诺 ¹^,² , 刘天赐 ¹^,² , 李绍兵 ¹^,² , 冷珂 ³ , 项兴佳 ¹^,²^,^* , 刘佳 ³^,^*

微生物学报 | 研究报告 2024,64(2): 581-596

收起

微生物学报 | 研究报告 2024, 64(2): 581-596

添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤真菌群落的影响

全屏

赵竟茹¹^,², 晏蒙¹^,², 吴远诺¹^,², 刘天赐¹^,², 李绍兵¹^,², 冷珂³, 项兴佳¹^,²^,^*, 刘佳³^,^*

作者信息

1 安徽大学资源与环境工程学院, 安徽合肥 230601

2 安徽省湿地生态保护与恢复重点实验室, 安徽合肥 230601

3 江西省农业科学院土壤肥料与资源环境研究所, 江西南昌 330200

Application of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth L.) affects fungal community in upland red soil

Jingru ZHAO¹^,², Meng YAN¹^,², Yuannuo WU¹^,², Tianci LIU¹^,², Shaobing LI¹^,², Ke LENG³, Xingjia XIANG¹^,²^,^*, Jia LIU³^,^*

Affiliations

1 School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

2 Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Hefei 230601, Anhui, China

3 Institute of Soil, Fertilizer, and Resources Environment, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang 330200, Jiangxi, China

出版时间: 2024-02-04 doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20230484

文章导航

摘要

收起

【目的】长期高强度的连作及大量化肥施用导致红壤旱地退化和土传植物病原菌累积。真菌是农业生态系统中与土壤健康密切相关的微生物。本文通过研究土壤真菌群落的变化，探究施用毛叶苕子对红壤旱地农业生态系统的影响。【方法】采用定量聚合酶链式反应和高通量测序技术，研究红壤旱地真菌群落对单施矿质肥(mineral nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilization, NPK)与矿质肥配施毛叶苕子(mineral nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilization with hairy vetch, NPKG) 2种施肥措施的响应。【结果】与对照NPK相比，NPKG显著提高土壤肥力、花生产量和土壤真菌丰度，降低土壤pH和土壤真菌多样性。不同处理显著改变土壤真菌群落组成。与对照NPK相比，NPKG处理土壤腐生营养型真菌相对丰度显著提高37.42%，花生尾孢菌(Cercospora arachidicola)和可可毛色二孢菌(Lasiodiplodia theobromae) 2种花生病原菌相对丰度分别降低89.11%和88.10%。【结论】施用毛叶苕子显著提高了红壤旱地肥力，降低了花生土传病害风险，提高了花生作物产量。因此，施用毛叶苕子有利于我国南方红壤旱地的可持续发展。

关键词

绿肥 / 农业生态系统 / 真菌群落 / 植物病原菌 / 红壤旱地

Abstract

收起

[Objective] The long-term intense continuous cropping and abuse of mineral fertilizers result in the degradation of upland red soil and the accumulation of soil-borne plant pathogens. Fungi are the microorganisms closely related to soil health in agroecosystems. We investigated the changes of soil fungal community to explore the effects of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth L.) application on the agroecosystem with upland red soil.[Methods] We employed quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and high-throughput sequencing (Illumina MiSeq) to investigate the responses of fungal communities to mineral fertilizer (hereinafter referred to as NPK) alone and mineral fertilizer combined with hairy vetch (hereinafter referred to as NPKG) in upland red soil.[Results] Compared with NPK, NPKG increased the soil fertility, peanut yield, and fungal abundance and decreased soil pH and soil fungal diversity. Different treatments significantly altered the soil fungal community composition. Compared with NPK, NPKG increased the relative abundance of saprophytic fungi by 37.42% and decreased the relative abundance ofCercospora arachidicola andLasidiplodia theobromae by 89.11% and 88.10%, respectively.[Conclusion] The application of hairy vetch significantly increased soil fertility, reduced the risk of peanut exposure to soil-borne diseases, and increased peanut yield in the upland red soil. Therefore, the application of hairy vetch was conducive to the sustainable development of upland red soil in southern China.

Key words

green manure / agroecosystem / fungal communities / plant pathogen / upland red soil

引用本文

赵竟茹, 晏蒙, 吴远诺, 刘天赐, 李绍兵, 冷珂, 项兴佳, 刘佳. 添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤真菌群落的影响. 微生物学报, 2024 , 64 (2) : 581 -596 . DOI: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20230484

Jingru ZHAO, Meng YAN, Yuannuo WU, Tianci LIU, Shaobing LI, Ke LENG, Xingjia XIANG, Jia LIU. Application of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth L.) affects fungal community in upland red soil[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2024 , 64 (2) : 581 -596 . DOI: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20230484

正文

收起

在土壤微生物群落中，真菌具有重要的生态学意义。真菌作为土壤中重要的分解者，在土壤养分循环中发挥着重要作用^[1]。在植物有机体分解的早期阶段，真菌比细菌和放线菌更为活跃^[2]。真菌不仅可以改良土壤结构、提高土壤肥力，还与植物的生长发育关系密切，可以为植物提供营养物质^[3]、促进植物生长、保护植物免受生物(病原菌)和非生物(干旱等)的胁迫^[4-5]。另外存在部分真菌是重要的植物病原菌，如常见的禾旋孢腔菌(Cochliobolus sativus)、尖孢镰刀菌(Fusarium oxysporum)等，这些病原菌会引起作物生长发育异常，导致作物产量和品质严重下降^[6]。

施肥被认为是导致土壤微生物群落改变的主要驱动因子^[7]。近几十年，为了提高作物产量，农业生态系统投入大量的化肥。然而，化肥的过度施用对土壤质量和生态环境造成严重的负面影响^[8]。长期施用化肥不仅会导致土壤酸化、土壤板结等问题^[9]，并且会降低土壤真菌多样性、改变真菌的群落结构^[10]，增加农业病虫害的风险^[11]。研究表明施用有机肥料会增加土壤有机质含量、稳定土壤结构^[12]。在有机肥源中，种植并翻压豆科绿肥所取得的环境和社会效益最佳^[13]。豆科绿肥配施化肥可以减少农业生态系统对化肥的过度依赖、保持土壤有机质含量、提高土壤肥力^[14]。然而，目前种植翻压豆科绿肥在水田中应用比较广泛，种植翻压豆科绿肥对红壤旱地土壤肥力、土壤真菌群落和作物产量的影响研究值得深入探讨^[15]。

红壤作为我国南方重要的土壤类型，广泛分布于长江流域及其以南地区，涉及15个省区，面积达218万km²，占全国耕地面积的27.8%^[16]。然而红壤含铁、铝成分较多，有机质少、酸性强、土质黏重^[17]，另外长期施用矿质肥料等不合理的开发利用，导致土壤微生物多样性降低，水土流失严重，土壤肥力持续下降^[18]。红壤已经成为我国南方低产土壤，红壤旱地的退化更为突出。花生是我国南方红壤旱地重要的经济作物，长期单一的种植模式导致红壤旱地花生连作障碍较为普遍，致使土壤中病原微生物富集严重，土传病害加剧，花生产量受到很大影响^[19]。如何培肥改良红壤、充分发挥其生产潜力，提高花生产量是我国南方红壤旱地农业可持续发展亟需解决的问题。

目前关于施用豆科绿肥毛叶苕子对红壤旱地花生产量和真菌群落的影响鲜有报道。本研究利用盆栽试验通过施矿质肥料并配施毛叶苕子，采用定量聚合酶链式反应(quantitative polymerase chain reaction, qPCR)和高通量测序(Illumina MiSeq)技术，从土壤真菌多样性、群落结构和功能等方面探讨施用毛叶苕子对红壤旱地生态系统的影响，以期为改善我国红壤旱地质量、提高花生作物产量、促进农业可持续发展提供理论依据和技术保障。

1 材料与方法

收起

1.1 试验区概况

试验在江西省抚州市东乡区红壤综合试验站露天网室中进行(28°10′59′N，106°35′11′E；海拔50 m)，年平均气温为18 ℃，属于典型的亚热带气候。总降水量为1 189.6 mm。试验地土壤类型为第四纪红黏土母质发育而来的红壤。原始土壤性质为：pH 5.11，总氮(total nitrogen, TN) 1.01 g/kg，土壤有机碳(soil organic carbon, SOC) 8.31 g/kg，碱解氮(alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen, AN) 82.2 mg/kg，有效磷(available phosphorus, AP) 14.4 mg/kg。

1.2 试验设计

试验为花生盆栽试验，每盆盆栽用土5 kg。花生品种选用粤油256，于四月中下旬播种，八月下旬收获。试验共设置2个处理，分别为：(1) 矿质肥(NPK)；(2) 矿质肥+毛叶苕子(NPKG)，每个处理9次重复，共18盆；其中矿质肥施用量为：尿素(含N 46%) 1.30 g/pot，钙镁磷肥(含P₂O₅ 12%) 3.00 g/pot，氯化钾(含K₂O 60%) 1.00 g/pot，为当地田间花生施肥量(N 135 kg/hm², P₂O₅ 81 kg/hm², K₂O 135 kg/hm²)的2倍^[20]，全部基施。毛叶苕子鲜体施用量为：40 g/pot，相当于大田毛叶苕子翻压量2 250 kg/hm²，与土壤拌匀施用。毛叶苕子含水量为88.71%，干基养分含量为：含N 2.57%，含P 0.27%，含K 2.58%。试验中水分管理等措施尽量与田间种植保持一致。

1.3 土壤取样

于2020年7月花生花针期采集土壤。取0−20 cm土壤，用细土钻沿作物不同方向分别取3次土样，混合为一个样品。去除杂质混合均匀后过2 mm土筛，将所得土壤样品分2个部分保存，一部分风干后用于测定土壤理化性质；另一部分放入冰箱−20 ℃保存，用于土壤微生物高通量测序。

1.4 花生产量和土壤理化性质的测定

取每一盆花生植株全部结实荚果，在65 ℃烘箱中烘干至恒重后测定其干重，计算花生产量；土壤pH值采用雷兹互感器(上海)有限公司pH计测定；SOC采用重铬酸钾容量法-外加热法测定；土壤全氮用凯氏定氮法测定；土壤全磷用碱熔-钼锑抗比色法，使用紫外分光光度计测定；土壤碱解氮用碱解扩散法测定；土壤速效磷用0.5 mol/L NaHCO₃浸提法萃取-钼抗比色法测定。

1.5 土壤DNA提取及测序

使用FastDNA^® SPIN试剂盒提取土壤DNA。将提取的DNA溶解在60 μL的TE缓冲液中，并在−20 ℃保存。使用ITS1F (5′-CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA-3′)和ITS2R (5′-GCTGCGTTCTTCATCGATGC-3′)扩增真菌ITS基因区域^[21]。PCR反应体系为50 µL的反应混合物，即：25 µL DNA聚合酶(SYBR^®PremixEx Taq, Takara Bio)；1 µL DNA模板，0.5 µL正向引物，0.5 µL反向引物，23 µL ddH₂O。PCR扩增程序：95 ℃ 5 min；94 ℃ 45 s，55 ℃ 45 s，72 ℃ 45 s，共35个循环；72 ℃延长10 min。扩增产物经2%琼脂糖凝胶电泳检测，将扩增合格的PCR产物送往上海美吉生物公司测序。

测序完成后采用QIIME 1.9.0^[22]对原始数据进行优化和数据质控处理，去除所有的单体和嵌合体，用UCLUST通过97%相似度进行聚类获得操作分类单元(operational taxonomic units, OTUs)，采用RDP数据库(Ribosomal Database Project, RDP)与真菌数据库(Release7.2,http://unite.ut.ee/index.php)进行物种注释分析，获得每个OTU的分类学信息。

1.6 数据分析

利用SPSS 20.0独立样本t检验比较花生产量、土壤理化性质、真菌丰度、OTU richness、Shannon index及真菌优势门、优势属相对丰度的差异；采用非参检验比较花生尾孢菌和可可毛色二孢菌的相对丰度差异。使用Pearson相关分析检验土壤理化性质与土壤真菌丰度、OTU richness、Shannon index的相关性。使用R软件(version 4.1.3)的vegan包进行非度量多维度分析(non-metric multidimensional scaling, NMDS)和相似性分析(ANOSIM; permutations=999)并作图^[23]。利用Mantel test检验土壤理化性质和距离矩阵的相关性程度。采用线性判别分析(line discriminant analysis effect size, LDA effect size)确定不同处理土壤真菌标志物^[24]。使用R软件中labdsv分析包进行指示属分析。利用FUNGuild软件(version 1.0)对OTUs进行功能预测^[25]。利用R软件中的dplyr、igraph和Hmisc分析包构建土壤真菌共现网络，并用Gephi软件(version 0.9.2)进行可视化^[26]。采用Pearson相关性分析研究土壤理化性质与真菌共现网络拓扑特征之间的相关关系。

2 结果与分析

收起

2.1 土壤理化性质和花生产量

土壤理化性质测定结果如表1所示，施加毛叶苕子后土壤pH值下降0.61，说明施用毛叶苕子后引起土壤酸化；相比NPK处理，NPKG处理中土壤有机碳(SOC)、总氮(TN)、碱解氮(AN)和有效磷(AP)含量分别提高35.27%、24.56%、34.84%和41.55%，说明添加毛叶苕子能有效提高土壤养分含量。

NPKG处理显著提高了花生产量，比NPK处理增产16.81%。花生产量与土壤有机碳(SOC,P<0.001)、总氮(TN,P<0.001)和土壤有效磷(AP,P<0.001)含量均呈显著正相关关系(图1)。

2.2 土壤真菌丰度和α多样性

采用定量PCR技术研究土壤真菌丰度，结果显示，相比于NPK组，NPKG处理组真菌的丰度显著增加910%。在所有土壤样品中共获得864 243条真菌高质量序列，每个样本的序列从31 823到66 124不等。由图2可知，相比于NPK组，OTU richness和Shannon index在NPKG处理组中分别降低13.52%和10.12%。使用Pearson相关性分析检验土壤理化性质与土壤真菌丰度、OTU richness、Shannon index的相关性。结果表明，土壤真菌丰度与土壤pH值呈显著负相关，与土壤SOC、TN、AN和AP含量呈显著正相关(P<0.01)。土壤真菌群落多样性指数OTU richness、Shannon index与土壤pH值呈显著正相关(P<0.05)，与土壤SOC、TN、AN和AP含量呈显著负相关(P<0.05) (表2)，通过对以上结果的分析，本研究认为施用毛叶苕子后土壤有机质含量的上升导致土壤真菌丰度显著增加，而土壤pH下降导致真菌多样性显著降低。

2.3 土壤真菌群落组成

采用非度量多维度(NMDS)分析和相似性分析(ANOSIM: permutations=999)研究土壤真菌群落特征，结果显示土壤真菌群落组成在不同处理下存在显著差异(P=0.001；图3)。采用Mantel test分析土壤真菌群落组成与土壤理化性质间的关系。由表3可知，土壤pH (R=0.616,P=0.001)、SOC (R=0.575,P=0.001)、AN (R=0.538,P=0.001)、TN (R=0.553,P=0.001)是影响土壤真菌群落组成改变的主要因素。

土壤真菌的主要优势门类为子囊菌门(Ascomycota, 80.5%)、接合菌门(Zygomycota, 8.2%)、担子菌门(Basidiomycota, 7.5%)、聚合菌门(Glomeromycota, 0.6%)。相比于NPK，NPKG处理担子菌门的相对丰度显著增加78.63%，接合菌门相对丰度显著降低34.18%，而不同处理之间子囊菌门和聚合菌门的相对丰度无显著性差异(图4)。

利用LDA Effect Size (LEfSe)分析评估不同处理间显著富集的生物标识物(图5)，其中在NPK处理组显著富集的真菌有4个纲[圆盘菌纲(Orbiliomycetes)、盘菌纲(Pezizomycetes)、伞菌纲(Agaricomycetes)、座囊菌纲(Dothideomycetes)]和12个目[葡萄座腔菌目(Botryosphaeriales)、刺球壳目(Chaetosphaeriales)、红菇目(Russulales)、格孢腔菌目(Pleosporales)等]；在NPKG处理组显著富集的真菌有1个门[担子菌门(Basidiomycota)]、3个纲[粪壳菌纲(Sordariomycetes)、节担菌纲(Wallemiomycetes)、微球黑粉菌纲(Microbotryomycetes)]和4个目[粪壳菌目(Sordariales)、双担菌目(Geminibasidiales)、黑星菌目(Venturiales)、锁掷酵母目(Sporidiobolales)]。指示物种分析用于鉴别不同处理土壤真菌的指示属，结果表明NPK处理显著富集的真菌属主要有曲霉菌属(Aspergillus)、镰刀菌属(Fusarium)、蓝状菌属(Talaromyces)等11种；NPKG处理中显著富集的真菌属主要为双担菌属(Geminibasidium)、腐质霉属(Humicola)等6种(表4)。

2.4 土壤真菌共现网络

探究不同施肥处理对红壤旱地土壤真菌群落之间互作关系的影响，构建土壤真菌群落共现网络(图6A)，并计算网络的拓扑特性(表5)。网络中一个节点代表一个OTU，边代表物种间的联系，网络中节点、边和度能够代表网络的复杂度。结果表明，NPKG处理相较于NPK网络节点数、边数、平均连通度、平均聚类系数及图密度均明显增加。以自然连通度评价网络稳定性(图6B)，结果表明施加毛叶苕子后网络稳定性更高。

2.5 土壤真菌功能预测分析

对NPK及NPKG土壤真菌群落OTUs进行营养类型功能注释分析(图7A)，共检测出7种营养类型，分别是病原-腐生营养型(pathotroph- saprotroph)、病原-腐生-共生营养型(pathotroph- saprotroph-symbiotroph)、病原营养型(pathotroph)、共生营养型(symbiotroph)、腐生营养型(saprotroph)、腐生-共生营养型(saprotroph-symbiotroph)和病原-共生营养型(pathotroph-symbiotroph)。添加毛叶苕子后病原-腐生营养型和腐生-共生营养型真菌丰度分别降低63.46%和34.21%，腐生营养型真菌相对丰度显著提高37.42%，而其他营养类型的相对丰度在不同处理之间差异不显著。对病原真菌进一步研究发现，添加毛叶苕子后，土壤中花生尾孢菌(Cercospora arachidicola)和可可毛色二孢菌(Lasiodiplodia theobromae)的相对丰度分别下降89.11%和88.1% (图7B)，这说明添加毛叶苕子可能会降低花生致病菌的相对丰度。

3 讨论

收起

3.1 添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤养分含量的影响

本研究发现相比于仅施用矿质肥的传统农业种植方式，配施毛叶苕子显著增加土壤有机碳、总氮、碱解氮和有效磷的含量及作物产量(表1，图1)，这与牛雅琼等^[27]和张久东等^[14]的研究结果一致。土壤中有机碳、氮和磷含量都是土壤肥力的重要指标^[28]，施用毛叶苕子不仅可以提高土壤有机碳含量，还可以提高土壤氮素供应及磷素生物有效性^[29-30]，从而改善土壤肥力，提高作物产量。然而本研究发现施用毛叶苕子降低土壤pH，导致土壤酸化。前人研究也发现施用豆科绿肥会造成土壤酸化^[31]。豆科绿肥含有大量有机氮，氮硝化过程产生氢离子，导致土壤酸化^[32]。另外有研究表明豆科植物生长阶段从土壤中吸收的阳离子可能多于阴离子，它们的根则需分泌质子来维持电荷平衡^[33]，进而引起土壤酸化。虽然施用豆科绿肥毛叶苕子显著增加土壤养分，但是其造成的土壤酸化现象也需要格外关注。

3.2 添加毛叶苕子对土壤真菌多样性及群落结构的影响

土壤pH是影响土壤真菌群落的重要因素^[34]。本研究发现施用毛叶苕子后土壤pH下降，进而改变土壤真菌的生长环境。真菌对土壤pH比较敏感，土壤pH下降导致部分真菌不能适应酸化环境，生长受到抑制或逐渐消亡，进而降低土壤真菌的多样性，改变真菌的群落组成^[35]。同时，施用毛叶苕子增加土壤有机质含量，提高土壤真菌底物水平。在土壤pH下降后适应酸化环境的土壤真菌在大量有机质供应下快速繁殖^[36-37]，显著增加土壤真菌的丰度。

虽然本研究发现施用毛叶苕子降低土壤真菌多样性，但是总体来看，多样性下降的幅度较小。由于微生物存在功能冗余现象，土壤酸化导致真菌多样性的轻微减少并不会使真菌生态功能降低^[38-39]。先前有研究表明土壤多功能性的主要驱动因素是微生物丰度，并非微生物多样性^[39-41]。此外，本研究施用毛叶苕子后土壤真菌网络更为复杂，网络稳定性增强(图6)。具有复杂微生物网络的生态系统对环境扰动变化表现更加稳定，并支持更高的生态多功能性^[42]。因此，施用毛叶苕子增加土壤真菌丰度，促进真菌生态多功能性，对红壤旱地具有积极作用。

3.3 添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤有益真菌类群的影响

不同的施肥方式改变土壤的优势菌群。本研究发现配施毛叶苕子后，土壤中担子菌门(Basidiomycota)、粪壳菌目(Sordariales)、双担菌属(Geminibasidium)和腐质霉属(Humicola)显著富集(图4，表4，图5)。真菌功能预测分析也表明随着毛叶苕子的施加，土壤中腐生营养型真菌显著富集(图7A)。担子菌门与土壤中外源有机质的降解有关^[43-45]，在植物残体降解过程中发挥着重要作用^[44-46]；粪壳菌目具有较强的分解木质素和纤维素的能力^[47]；双担菌属具有分解和释放土壤矿质营养的能力^[48]；腐质霉属^[49-50]可降解纤维素等大分子物质。这类有益菌均可通过降解有机质来提高土壤养分水平^[46-51]。添加毛叶苕子为土壤提供大量外源有机质，有利的生存环境使这类有益菌群逐渐增加^[52]，进而提高土壤养分。因此，施用毛叶苕子引起红壤旱地养分和有益真菌的正反馈作用，有利于作物生长。

3.4 添加毛叶苕子对红壤旱地土壤潜在致病菌的影响

本研究发现土壤中葡萄座腔菌目(Botryosphaeriales)、格孢腔菌目(Pleosporales)、角担菌属(Ceratobasidium)以及镰刀菌属(Fusarium)的相对丰度在NPKG处理中显著降低(表4，图5)。葡萄座腔菌目包含大量植物病原菌^[53]；格孢腔菌目是导致土壤中连作障碍的植物病原菌，主要引起烟草黑星病、小麦根腐病、甜菜叶斑病等病害^[54]；角担菌属是西瓜根腐病的病原^[55]；镰刀菌属的大多数真菌物种都是植物病原菌，可侵染多种经济作物，引起植物的根腐、茎腐、花腐和穗腐等多种病害^[56-57]。本研究重点关注影响花生生长的病原菌。研究发现施用毛叶苕子后，土壤中花生尾孢菌(Cercospora arachidicola)和可可毛色二孢菌(Lasiodiplodia theobromae)相对丰度显著降低(图7B)。花生尾孢菌主要危害花生叶片，导致花生发生褐斑病，严重时可侵害花生植株的叶柄、托叶和茎秆等^[58]；可可毛色二孢菌是一种广泛存在的土传病原真菌^[59]，可导致花生发生茎腐病、烂果病^[60]。施加毛叶苕子显著提高了土壤真菌丰度，改变土壤微生物组成^[61]，进而可能与病原菌形成竞争和拮抗效应^[62]，导致土壤中病原真菌下降。

4 结论

收起

本研究探究了红壤花生旱地施用毛叶苕子对土壤真菌群落结构和功能的影响。与常规矿质施肥相比，配施毛叶苕子显著提高土壤养分含量、真菌丰度和作物产量，并显著改变土壤真菌群落结构。配施毛叶苕子增加土壤中担子菌门、粪壳菌目、双担菌属和腐质霉属等有益菌群的相对丰度，加速土壤有机质的降解，提高土壤肥力；降低葡萄座腔菌目、格孢腔菌目、角担菌属、镰刀菌属、花生尾孢菌和可可毛色二孢菌等植物病原菌的相对丰度，减少病害的发生。本研究详细探讨施用豆科绿肥对红壤旱地生态系统的影响，研究结果对指导实施农业可持续发展具有一定的理论和实践意义。

参考文献

收起

文献

收起

参考文献引证文献

排序方式：

[1]

BARRIOS E.Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity[J].Ecological Economics,2007,64(2):269-285.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.004

[2]

PURAHONG W, WUBET T, LENTENDU G, SCHLOTER M, PECYNA MJ, KAPTURSKA D, HOFRICHTER M, KRÜGER D, BUSCOT F.Life in leaf litter: novel insights into community dynamics of bacteria and fungi during litter decomposition[J].Molecular Ecology,2016,25(16):4059-4074.

https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13739

[3]

孙倩, 吴宏亮, 陈阜, 康建宏.宁夏中部干旱带不同作物根际土壤真菌群落多样性及群落结构[J].微生物学通报,2019,46(11):2963-2972.

SUN Q, WU HL, CHEN F, KANG JH.Fungal community diversity and structure in rhizosphere soil of different crops in the arid zone of central Ningxia[J].Microbiology China,2019,46(11):2963-2972 (in Chinese).

[4]

VANDENKOORNHUYSE P, QUAISER A, DUHAMEL M, LE van A, DUFRESNE A.The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont[J].New Phytologist,2015,206(4):1196-1206.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13312

[5]

郭璞, 邢鹏杰, 宋佳, 吴玲玲, 李彬琦, 司滟汲, 李玉, 冀瑞卿.蒙古栎根系与根区土壤真菌群落组成及与环境因子的关系[J].菌物研究,2022,20(3):173-182.

GUO P, XING PJ, SONG J, WU LL, LI BQ, SI YJ, LI Y, JI RQ.Fungal community in roots and the root zone ofQuercus mongolica and the correlations with the environmental factors[J].Journal of Fungal Research,2022,20(3):173-182 (in Chinese).

[6]

钟丽伟, 谭鸿升, 陈泽斌, 钟宇, 刘佳妮, 魏薇.根际微生物防治土传病害的研究进展[J].昆明学院学报,2022,44(3):75-82.

ZHONG LW, TAN HS, CHEN ZB, ZHONG Y, LIU JN, WEI W.Advances in rhizosphere microbial control of soil-borne plant diseases[J].Journal of Kunming University,2022,44(3):75-82 (in Chinese).

[7]

LI CH, YAN K, TANG LS, JIA ZJ, LI Y.Change in deep soil microbial communities due to long-term fertilization[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2014,75:264-272.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.023

[8]

BINDRABAN PS, DIMKPA C, NAGARAJAN L, ROY A, RABBINGE R.Revisiting fertilisers and fertilisation strategies for improved nutrient uptake by plants[J].Biology and Fertility of Soils,2015,51(8):897-911.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-015-1039-7

[9]

李晓欣, 胡春胜, 程一松.不同施肥处理对作物产量及土壤中硝态氮累积的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(3):38-42.

LI XX, HU CS, CHENG YS.Effects of different fertilizers on crop yields and nitrate accumulation[J].Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas,2003,21(3):38-42 (in Chinese).

[10]

FAN FL, LI ZJ, WAKELIN SA, YU WT, LIANG YC.Mineral fertilizer alters cellulolytic community structure and suppresses soil cellobiohydrolase activity in a long-term fertilization experiment[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2012,55:70-77.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.06.008

[11]

高小朋, 贺晓龙, 任桂梅, 齐向英.化肥不合理施用带来的危害探析[J].农技服务,2011,28(9):1289-1290, 1366.

GAO XP, HE XL, REN GM, QI XY.The harm of fertilizer for unreasonable application[J].Agricultural Technology Service,2011,28(9):1289-1290, 1366 (in Chinese).

[12]

于冰, 宋阿琳, 李冬初, 王伯仁, 范分良.长期施用有机和无机肥对红壤微生物群落特征及功能的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2017(6):58-65.

YU B, SONG AL, LI DC, WANG BR, FAN FL.Influences of long-term application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the structure and function of microbial community in red soil[J].Soils and Fertilizers Sciences in China,2017(6):58-65 (in Chinese).

[13]

张达斌, 姚鹏伟, 李婧, 赵娜, 王峥, 鱼昌为, 曹群虎, 曹卫东, 高亚军.豆科绿肥及施氮量对旱地麦田土壤主要肥力性状的影响[J].生态学报,2013,33(7):2272-2281.

ZHANG DB, YAO PW, LI J, ZHAO N, WANG Z, YU CW, CAO QH, CAO WD, GAO YJ.Effects of two years' incorporation of leguminous green manure on soil properties of a wheat field in dryland conditions[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2013,33(7):2272-2281 (in Chinese).

[14]

张久东, 包兴国, 王婷, 胡志桥, 曹卫东, 杨文玉, 舒秋萍, 李全福, 王健.增施绿肥与降低氮肥对小麦产量和土壤肥力的影响[J].核农学报,2011,25(5):998-1003.

ZHANG JD, BAO XG, WANG T, HU ZQ, CAO WD, YANG WY, SHU QP, LI QF, WANG J.Effect of green manure utilization and reduced N fertilizer on wheat yield and soil fertility[J].Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences,2011,25(5):998-1003 (in Chinese).

[15]

BLANCO-CANQUI H, SCHLEGEL AJ.Implications of inorganic fertilization of irrigated corn on soil properties: lessons learned after 50 years[J].Journal of Environmental Quality,2013,42(3):861-871.

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0451

[16]

徐慧芳, 李淑娟, 李娜, 黄国勤.南方红壤丘陵区旱地多熟种植的发展现状与研究进展[J].生态科学,2022,41(1):213-221.

XU HF, LI SJ, LI N, HUANG GQ.Development situation and recent advance of multiple cropping in upland red soils under hilly regions of south China[J].Ecological Science,2022,41(1):213-221 (in Chinese).

[17]

赵其国, 黄国勤, 马艳芹.中国南方红壤生态系统面临的问题及对策[J].生态学报,2013,33(24):7615-7622.

ZHAO QG, HUANG GQ, MA YQ.The problems in red soil ecosystem in southern of China and its countermeasures[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica,2013,33(24):7615-7622 (in Chinese).

[18]

王蕾, 王艳玲, 李欢, 石嘉琦, 周亦靖.长期施肥下红壤旱地磷素有效性影响因子的冗余分析[J].中国土壤与肥料,2021(1):17-25.

WANG L, WANG YL, LI H, SHI JQ, ZHOU YJ.Redundancy analysis of influencing factors of phosphorus availability in red soil upland under long-term fertilization[J].Soils and Fertilizers Sciences in China,2021(1):17-25 (in Chinese).

[19]

刘毅, 伍先明, 方先兰, 黎为兵, 李祖莹, 曾维莉.江西花生低产原因分析及高产栽培技术对策[J].江西农业学报,2009,21(8):38-39, 43.

LIU Y, WU XM, FANG XL, LI WB, LI ZY, ZENG WL.Cause analysis of low yield of peanut in Jiangxi Province and countermeasures of high yield cultivation techniques[J].Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi,2009,21(8):38-39, 43 (in Chinese).

[20]

王飞, 何春梅, 李清华, 林诚.外源钙水平与花生下针期不同土壤水分对植株生理特性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2013,19(3):623-631.

WANG F, HE CM, LI QH, LIN C.Effects of exogenous calcium and soil moisture at acicula forming stage of peanut on some physiological characteristics of plants[J].Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science,2013,19(3):623-631 (in Chinese).

[21]

CHEN BS, DU KQ, SUN C, VIMALANATHAN A, LIANG XL, LI Y, WANG BH, LU XM, LI LJ, SHAO YQ.Gut bacterial and fungal communities of the domesticated silkworm (Bombyx mori) and wild mulberry-feeding relatives[J].The ISME Journal,2018,12(9):2252-2262.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0174-1

[22]

CAPORASO JG, KUCZYNSKI J, STOMBAUGH J, BITTINGER K, BUSHMAN FD, COSTELLO EK, FIERER N, PEÑA AG, GOODRICH JK, GORDON JI, HUTTLEY GA, KELLEY ST, KNIGHTS D, KOENIG JE, LEY RE, LOZUPONE CA, McDONALD D, MUEGGE BD, PIRRUNG M, REEDER J, et al.QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data[J].Nature Methods,2010,7(5):335-336.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303

[23]

XIANG XJ, GIBBONS SM, LI H, SHEN HH, FANG JY, CHU HY.Shrub encroachment is associated with changes in soil bacterial community composition in a temperate grassland ecosystem[J].Plant and Soil,2018,425(1):539-551.

[24]

SEGATA N, IZARD J, WALDRON L, GEVERS D, MIROPOLSKY L, GARRETT WS, HUTTENHOWER C.Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation[J].Genome Biology,2011,12(6):R60.

https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60

[25]

NGUYEN NH, SONG ZW, BATES ST, BRANCO S, TEDERSOO L, MENKE J, SCHILLING JS, KENNEDY PG.FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild[J].Fungal Ecology,2016,20:241-248.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006

[26]

BASTIAN M, HEYMANN S, JACOMY M.Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks[J].Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,2009,3(1):361-362.

https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937

[27]

牛雅琼, 吴兴洪, 冉斌, 朱青, 张钦, 王文华.豆科绿肥翻压对猕猴桃产质量和土壤肥力的影响[J].北方园艺,2020(5):87-94.

NIU YQ, WU XH, RAN B, ZHU Q, ZHANG Q, WANG WH.Effects of turning leguminous green manure on yield quality and soil fertility of kiwifruit[J].Northern Horticulture,2020(5):87-94 (in Chinese).

[28]

CASTRO LL, WHALEN JK.Ion exchange membranes are sensitive indicators of ammonium and nitrate released from green manures with low C/N ratios[J].European Journal of Soil Biology,2016,77:4-8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.09.001

[29]

周志明, 张立平, 曹卫东, 黄元仿.冬绿肥-春玉米农田生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].生态环境学报,2016,25(4):597-604.

ZHOU ZM, ZHANG LP, CAO WD, HUANG YF.Appraisal of agro-ecosystem services in winter green manure-spring maize[J].Ecology and Environmental Sciences,2016,25(4):597-604 (in Chinese).

[30]

胡怡凡, 刘佳坪, 王子楷, 郭琳钰, 赵普生, 郭涛.轮作提高土壤磷生物有效性改善后茬作物磷素营养[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2021,27(8):1305-1310.

HU YF, LIU JP, WANG ZK, GUO LY, ZHAO PS, GUO T.Rotation increases soil phosphorous bioavailability and improves phosphorous nutrition of the latter crop in rotation[J].Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science,2021,27(8):1305-1310 (in Chinese).

[31]

DOLLING PJ.Effect of lupins and location on soil acidification rates[J].Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,1995,35(6):753-763.

https://doi.org/10.1071/EA9950753

[32]

MAO J, XU RK, LI JY, LI XH.Dicyandiamide enhances liming potential of two legume materials when incubated with an acid ultisol[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2010,42(9):1632-1635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.006

[33]

COVENTRY D, FARHOODI A, XU RK.Managing soil acidification through crop rotations in southern Australia[J].Handbook of Soil Acidity,2003,94:407.

[34]

LIU D, LIU GH, CHEN L, WANG JT, ZHANG LM.Soil pH determines fungal diversity along an elevation gradient in southwestern China[J].Science China Life Sciences,2018,61(6):718-726.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-017-9200-1

[35]

ZHANG XM, LIU W, ZHANG GM, JIANG L, HAN XG.Mechanisms of soil acidification reducing bacterial diversity[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2015,81:275-281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.004

[36]

MARTINY JBH, BOHANNAN BJM, BROWN JH, COLWELL RK, FUHRMAN JA, GREEN JL, HORNER-DEVINE MC, KANE M, KRUMINS JA, KUSKE CR, MORIN PJ, NAEEM S, ØVREÅS L, REYSENBACH AL, SMITH VH, STALEY JT.Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map[J].Nature Reviews Microbiology,2006,4(2):102-112.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1341

[37]

HANSON CA, FUHRMAN JA, HORNER-DEVINE MC, MARTINY JBH.Beyond biogeographic patterns: processes shaping the microbial landscape[J].Nature Reviews Microbiology,2012,10(7):497-506.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2795

[38]

LOUCA S, POLZ MF, MAZEL F, ALBRIGHT MBN, HUBER JA, O'CONNOR MI, ACKERMANN M, HAHN AS, SRIVASTAVA DS, CROWE SA, DOEBELI M, PARFREY LW.Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems[J].Nature Ecology & Evolution,2018,2(6):936-943.

[39]

FREW A, ANTUNES PM, CAMERON DD, HARTLEY SE, JOHNSON SN, RILLIG MC, BENNETT AE.Plant herbivore protection by arbuscular mycorrhizas: a role for fungal diversity?[J].New Phytologist,2022,233(3):1022-1031.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17781

[40]

GARLAND G, EDLINGER A, BANERJEE S, DEGRUNE F, GARCíA-PALACIOS P, PESCADOR DS, HERZOG C, ROMDHANE S, SAGHAI A, SPOR A, WAGG C, HALLIN S, MAESTRE FT, PHILIPPOT L, RILLIG MC, van der HEIJDEN MGA.Crop cover is more important than rotational diversity for soil multifunctionality and cereal yields in European cropping systems[J].Nature Food,2021,2(1):28-37.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00210-8

[41]

WANG T, DUAN Y, LIU GD, SHANG XW, LIU LF, ZHANG KX, LI JQ, ZOU ZW, ZHU XJ, FANG WP.Tea plantation intercropping green manure enhances soil functional microbial abundance and multifunctionality resistance to drying-rewetting cycles[J].Science of the Total Environment,2022,810:151282.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151282

[42]

WAGG C, SCHLAEPPI K, BANERJEE S, KURAMAE EE, van der HEIJDEN MGA.Fungal-bacterial diversity and microbiome complexity predict ecosystem functioning[J].Nature Communications,2019,10:4841.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12798-y

[43]

GAO ZY, HU YY, HAN MK, XU JJ, WANG X, LIU LF, TANG ZH, JIAO WJ, JIN R, LIU M, GUAN ZJ, MA ZM.Effects of continuous cropping of sweet potatoes on the bacterial community structure in rhizospheric soil[J].BMC Microbiology,2021,21(1):1-13.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02060-7

[44]

MA AZ, ZHUANG XL, WU JM, CUI MM, LV D, LIU CZ, ZHUANG GQ.Ascomycota members dominate fungal communities during straw residue decomposition in arable soil[J].PLoS One,2013,8(6):e66146.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066146

[45]

WEBER CF, VILGALYS R, KUSKE CR.Changes in fungal community composition in response to elevated atmospheric CO₂ and nitrogen fertilization varies with soil horizon[J].Frontiers in Microbiology,2013,4:78.

[46]

BLACKWOOD CB, WALDROP MP, ZAK DR, SINSABAUGH RL.Molecular analysis of fungal communities and laccase genes in decomposing litter reveals differences among forest types but no impact of nitrogen deposition[J].Environmental Microbiology,2007,9(5):1306-1316.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01250.x

[47]

PHOSRI C, PÕLME S, TAYLOR AFS, KÕLJALG U, SUWANNASAI N, TEDERSOO L.Diversity and community composition of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a dry deciduous dipterocarp forest in Thailand[J].Biodiversity and Conservation,2012,21(9):2287-2298.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0250-1

[48]

NGUYEN HDT, NICKERSON NL, SEIFERT KA.Basidioascus andGeminibasidium: a new lineage of heat-resistant and xerotolerantBasidiomycetes[J].Mycologia,2013,105(5):1231-1250.

https://doi.org/10.3852/12-351

[49]

崔福绵, 那安, 马建华, 张树政.不同真菌纤维素酶一些生物化学性质的比较[J].真菌学报,1984(1):59-64.

CUI FM, NA A, MA JH, ZHANG SZ.A comparison of some biochemical properties of cellulase from different fungi[J].Mycosystema,1984(1):59-64 (in Chinese).

[50]

杨金燕, 姜于兰, 杨亚曦, 曾琛, 王肸芃.腐质霉属真菌分类的研究进展[J].贵州农业科学,2015,43(8):126-130.

YANG JY, JIANG YL, YANG YX, ZENG C, WANG XP.Advances in taxonomy ofHumicola genera[J].Guizhou Agricultural Sciences,2015,43(8):126-130 (in Chinese).

[51]

MA ZY, XIE Y, ZHU L, CHENG L, XIAO X, ZHOU C, WANG JF.Which of soil microbes is in positive correlation to yields of maize (Zea mays L.)?[J].Plant, Soil and Environment,2017,63(12):574-580.

https://doi.org/10.17221/590/2017-PSE

[52]

DENG JJ, ZHOU YB, ZHU WX, YIN Y.Effects of afforestation withPinus sylvestris var.mongolica plantations combined with enclosure management on soil microbial community[J].PeerJ,2020,8:e8857.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8857

[53]

LIU JK, PHOOKAMSAK R, DOILOM M, WIKEE S, LI YM, ARIYAWANSHA H, BOONMEE S, CHOMNUNTI P, DAI DQ, BHAT JD, ROMERO AI, ZHUANG WY, MONKAI J, GARETH JONES EB, CHUKEATIROTE E, KO TWK, ZHAO YC, WANG Y, HYDE KD.Towards a natural classification ofBotryosphaeriales[J].Fungal Diversity,2012,57(1):149-210.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-012-0207-4

[54]

ZHANG Y, CROUS PW, SCHOCH CL, HYDE KD.Pleosporales[J].Fungal Diversity,2012,53(1):1-221.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0117-x

[55]

MEZA-MOLLER A, RENTERÍA-MARTÍNEZ ME, GUERRA-CAMACHO MA, ROMO-TAMAYO F, OCHOA-MEZA A, MORENO-SALAZAR SF.First report of root rot of watermelon caused byCeratobasidium sp. in Sonora, Mexico[J].Plant Disease,2014,98(6):847.

[56]

WU XZ, LI HL, WANG Y, ZHANG XB.Effects of bio-organic fertiliser fortified byBacillus cereus QJ-1 on tobacco bacterial wilt control and soil quality improvement[J].Biocontrol Science and Technology,2020,30(4):351-369.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2020.1711870

[57]

RAJU KS, CHANDRASEKHARA RAO C, RAJU CA.Genetic variability inFusarium oxysporum isolates causing wilt of tobacco using RAPD markers[J].Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology,2009,39(1):141-143.

[58]

ORNER VA, CANTONWINE EG, WANG XM, ABOUELLEIL A, BOCHICCHIO J, NUSBAUM C, CULBREATH AK, ABDO Z, ARIAS RS.Draft genome sequence ofCercospora arachidicola, causal agent of early leaf spot in peanuts[J].Genome Announcements,2015,3(6):e01281-15.

[59]

SALVATORE MM, ALVES A, ANDOLFI A.Secondary metabolites ofLasiodiplodia theobromae: distribution, chemical diversity, bioactivity, and implications of their occurrence[J].Toxins,2020,12(7):457.

https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12070457

[60]

PHIPPS PM, PORTER DM.Collar rot of peanut caused byLasiodiplodia theobromae[J].Plant Disease,1998,82(11):1205-1209.

https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.11.1205

[61]

LONGA CMO, NICOLA L, ANTONIELLI L, MESCALCHIN E, ZANZOTTI R, TURCO E, PERTOT I.Soil microbiota respond to green manure in organic vineyards[J].Journal of Applied Microbiology,2017,123(6):1547-1560.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13606

[62]

魏勇, 高嵩涓, 曹卫东, 段廷玉.绿肥影响农田土传病害的研究进展[J].草地学报,2021,29(8):1605-1614.

WEI Y, GAO SJ, CAO WD, DUAN TY.Research progress on the influence of green manures on soil-borne diseases in farmlands[J].Acta Agrestia Sinica,2021,29(8):1605-1614 (in Chinese).

2024年第64卷第2期

PDF下载

170

引用本文

BibTeX

文章信息

doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20230484

接收时间：2023-07-18
首发时间：2026-03-18
出版时间：2024-02-04

补充材料

相关文章

文章信息

作者

出版历史

收稿日期：2023-07-18
录用日期：2023-10-18

基金

作者信息

1 安徽大学资源与环境工程学院, 安徽合肥 230601

2 安徽省湿地生态保护与恢复重点实验室, 安徽合肥 230601

3 江西省农业科学院土壤肥料与资源环境研究所, 江西南昌 330200

通讯作者:

参考文献

分享链接

https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/wswxb/CN/10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20230484

分享至

全文二维码

扫描看全文

引用本文

BibTeX

本文的引用情况

2种不同金属材料的力学参数

科 Family	属数 Number of genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)	属 Genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae	2	11	5.26	鹅膏菌属 Amanita	10	4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae	2	12	5.74	丝盖伞属 Inocybe	5	2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae	8	14	6.70	蜡蘑属 Laccaria	5	2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae	3	23	11.00	小皮伞属 Marasmius	6	2.87
				小菇属 Mycena	11	5.26
				光柄菇属 Pluteus	5	2.39
				红菇属 Russula	17	8.13
				栓菌属 Trametes	5	2.39

关闭全屏

BibTeX
EndNote
RefWorks
TxT

Soil properties	NPK	NPKG
Mean count±standard deviation (n=9). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (P<0.05); The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences between groups.
pH	5.35±0.20a	4.74±0.17b
SOC (g/kg)	7.78±0.37b	10.50±0.32a
TN (g/kg)	0.96±0.05b	1.19±0.04a
TP (g/kg)	0.75±0.05a	0.73±0.03a
AN (mg/kg)	90.20±2.67b	121.70±16.30a
AP (mg/kg)	15.90±2.65b	22.53±2.38a

Soil properties

NPK

NPKG

Mean count±standard deviation (n=9). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between groups (P<0.05); The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences between groups.

5.35±0.20a

4.74±0.17b

SOC (g/kg)

7.78±0.37b

10.50±0.32a

TN (g/kg)

0.96±0.05b

1.19±0.04a

TP (g/kg)

0.75±0.05a

0.73±0.03a

AN (mg/kg)

90.20±2.67b

121.70±16.30a

AP (mg/kg)

15.90±2.65b

22.53±2.38a

Soil physical and chemical properties	Fungal abundance			Shannon index
pH	−0.852	0.000	0.635	0.005	0.861	0.000
SOC (g/kg)	0.970	0.000	−0.489	0.040	−0.814	0.000
TN (g/kg)	0.934	0.000	−0.491	0.038	−0.768	0.000
TP (g/kg)	−0.144	0.569	−0.083	0.742	0.025	0.923
AN (mg/kg)	0.798	0.000	−0.638	0.004	−0.866	0.000
AP (mg/kg)	0.818	0.000	−0.532	0.023	−0.744	0.000

Soil physical and chemical properties

Fungal abundance

OTU richness

Shannon index

−0.852

0.000

0.635

0.005

0.861

0.000

SOC (g/kg)

0.970

0.000

−0.489

0.040

−0.814

0.000

TN (g/kg)

0.934

0.000

−0.491

0.038

−0.768

0.000

TP (g/kg)

−0.144

0.569

−0.083

0.742

0.025

0.923

AN (mg/kg)

0.798

0.000

−0.638

0.004

−0.866

0.000

AP (mg/kg)

0.818

0.000

−0.532

0.023

−0.744

0.000

Soil properties	R	P
pH	0.616	0.001
SOC (g/kg)	0.575	0.001
TN (g/kg)	0.538	0.001
TP (g/kg)	0.077	0.237
AN (mg/kg)	0.553	0.001
AP (mg/kg)	0.395	0.002
Yield (g/pot)	0.325	0.001

Soil properties

0.616

0.001

SOC (g/kg)

0.575

0.001

TN (g/kg)

0.538

0.001

TP (g/kg)

0.077

0.237

AN (mg/kg)

0.553

0.001

AP (mg/kg)

0.395

0.002

Yield (g/pot)

0.325

0.001

Treatment	Taxonomy	P	Relative abundance (%)
NPK	g__Acrocalymma	0.001	0.006
	g__Aspergillus	0.013	0.096
	g__Talaromyces	0.003	0.021
	g__Chloridium	0.036	0.008
	g__Clonostachys	0.001	0.013
	g__Acremonium	0.002	0.004
	g__Fusarium	0.002	0.063
	g__Gibellulopsis	0.037	0.006
	g__Schizothecium	0.003	0.008
	g__Ceratobasidium	0.027	0.003
	g__Entrophospora	0.003	0.003
NPKG	g__Sarcinomyces	0.003	0.007
	g__Acidomelania	0.011	0.004
	g__Pseudogymnoascus	0.004	0.003
	g__Scedosporium	0.008	0.002
	g__Humicola	0.001	0.050
	g__Geminibasidium	0.001	0.058

Treatment

Taxonomy

Relative abundance (%)

NPK

g__Acrocalymma

0.001

0.006

g__Aspergillus

0.013

0.096

g__Talaromyces

0.003

0.021

g__Chloridium

0.036

0.008

g__Clonostachys

0.001

0.013

g__Acremonium

0.002

0.004

g__Fusarium

0.002

0.063

g__Gibellulopsis

0.037

0.006

g__Schizothecium

0.003

0.008

g__Ceratobasidium

0.027

0.003

g__Entrophospora

0.003

NPKG

g__Sarcinomyces

0.003

0.007

g__Acidomelania

0.011

0.004

g__Pseudogymnoascus

0.004

0.003

g__Scedosporium

0.008

0.002

g__Humicola

0.001

0.050

g__Geminibasidium

0.001

0.058

Property	NPK	NPKG
Nodes	368	428
Edges	1 574	2 338
Diameter	17	33
Average degree	8.554	10.925
Average path length	5.704	11.314
Average clustering coefficient	0.698	0.719
Modules	0.883	0.847
Density	0.023	0.026

Property

NPK

NPKG

Nodes

368

428

Edges

1 574

2 338

Diameter

Average degree

8.554

10.925

Average path length

5.704

11.314

Average clustering coefficient

0.698

0.719

Modules

0.883

0.847

Density

0.023

0.026