生态环境学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (1): 141-148.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.01.016
收稿日期:
2019-06-10
出版日期:
2020-01-18
发布日期:
2020-03-09
作者简介:
葛应兰(1973年生),女,讲师,研究方向为植物保护学。E-mail: Lanying_ge@126.com
基金资助:
Received:
2019-06-10
Online:
2020-01-18
Published:
2020-03-09
摘要:
利用Illumina-MiSeq高通量测序技术对马铃薯根际与非根际土壤中细菌的16S rDNA基因V3-V4区片段和真菌18S rDNA基因V4区片段进行了测序,研究马铃薯根际与非根际土壤微生物群落多样性及其与土壤养分之间的关系,为马铃薯健康种植提供理论数据。结果表明,(1)马铃薯根际土壤pH显著低于非根际(P<0.05),根际土壤电导率、有机碳、全氮、速效氮和速效磷均显著高于非根际(P<0.05),而根际土壤全磷与非根际差异不显著(P>0.05)。(2)马铃薯根际土壤细菌和真菌均匀度指数(Simpson)、多样性指数(Shannon-Wiener)、ACE、Chao 1均显著高于非根际(P<0.05);而根际土壤细菌和真菌覆盖度(Coverage)、Simpson指数与非根际差异不显著(P>0.05)。(3)马铃薯根际和非根际土壤细菌群落中,优势类群主要是变形菌门(Proteobacteria)、酸杆菌门(Acidobacteria)和芽单胞菌门(Gemmatimonadetes),还包括浮霉菌门(Planctomycetaceae)、放线菌门(Actinobacteria)、拟杆菌门(Bacteroidetes)、厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)、绿弯菌门(Chloroflexi)、疣微菌门(Verrucomicrobia),其中根际土壤细菌酸杆菌门相对丰度高于非根际,变形菌门相对丰度低于非根际。根际和非根际土壤真菌群落中,优势类群主要是子囊菌门(Ascomycota)和担子菌门(Basidiomycota),还有结合菌门(Zygomycota)、壶菌门(Chytridiomycota)、新丽鞭毛菌门(Neocallimastigomycota)、球囊菌门(Glomeromycota)、芽枝菌门(Blastocladiomycota)。(4)主成分分析(PCA)表明,马铃薯根际和非根际土壤细菌和真菌群落具有很好的相似性,并且细菌群落产生明显的分离效应。Pearson相关性分析表明,马铃薯土壤细菌和真菌Coverage、ACE与土壤养分均没有显著相关性(P>0.05);土壤pH与土壤细菌和真菌多样性呈负相关,土壤电导率和全磷与土壤细菌和真菌多样性均没有显著相关性(P>0.05)。(5)冗余分析(RDA)显示,7个土壤环境因子分别解释了细菌86%和真菌82%的总特征值,说明土壤环境因子对马铃薯土壤细菌和真菌多样性有显著影响,其中对土壤细菌和真菌多样性影响较大的有有机碳和全氮,而pH对土壤细菌和真菌多样性影响为负。由此可知,土壤pH值是马铃薯根际土壤微生物多样性的重要影响因子。
中图分类号:
葛应兰, 孙廷. 马铃薯根际与非根际土壤微生物群落结构及多样性特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(1): 141-148.
GE Yinglan, SUN Ting. Soil Microbial Community Structure and Diversity of Potato in Rhizosphere and Non-rhizosphere Soil[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2020, 29(1): 141-148.
Soil type | pH | Electrical conductivity/ (μS∙cm-1) | Soil organic carbon/ (g∙kg-1) | Total nitrogen/ (g∙kg-1) | Total phosphorus/ (g∙kg-1) | Available nitrogen/ (mg∙kg-1) | Available phosphorus/ (mg∙kg-1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 5.63 | 156.23 | 13.26 | 1.16 | 0.86 | 53.02 | 21.46 |
R2 | 5.69 | 123.05 | 15.14 | 1.23 | 0.84 | 68.94 | 19.58 | |
R3 | 5.78 | 147.74 | 12.08 | 1.19 | 0.83 | 68.76 | 16.75 | |
R4 | 5.68 | 103.25 | 14.49 | 1.24 | 0.85 | 59.21 | 17.95 | |
R5 | 5.69 | 167.49 | 13.05 | 1.19 | 0.83 | 60.17 | 19.05 | |
Mean | 5.69 b | 139.55a | 13.60a | 1.20a | 0.84a | 62.02a | 18.96a | |
Non- rhizosphere | NR1 | 7.26 | 105.62 | 10.85 | 0.95 | 0.84 | 35.79 | 13.06 |
NR2 | 7.25 | 98.15 | 9.26 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 36.12 | 15.17 | |
NR3 | 7.14 | 97.36 | 8.79 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 32.08 | 12.41 | |
NR4 | 7.19 | 95.14 | 9.67 | 1.03 | 0.87 | 30.95 | 13.98 | |
NR5 | 7.21 | 100.25 | 10.02 | 1.04 | 0.82 | 34.17 | 12.77 | |
Mean | 7.21 a | 99.30b | 9.72 | 0.97b | 0.84a | 33.82b | 13.48b |
表1 马铃薯根际与非根际土壤养分
Table 1 Soil nutrients of potato in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil
Soil type | pH | Electrical conductivity/ (μS∙cm-1) | Soil organic carbon/ (g∙kg-1) | Total nitrogen/ (g∙kg-1) | Total phosphorus/ (g∙kg-1) | Available nitrogen/ (mg∙kg-1) | Available phosphorus/ (mg∙kg-1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 5.63 | 156.23 | 13.26 | 1.16 | 0.86 | 53.02 | 21.46 |
R2 | 5.69 | 123.05 | 15.14 | 1.23 | 0.84 | 68.94 | 19.58 | |
R3 | 5.78 | 147.74 | 12.08 | 1.19 | 0.83 | 68.76 | 16.75 | |
R4 | 5.68 | 103.25 | 14.49 | 1.24 | 0.85 | 59.21 | 17.95 | |
R5 | 5.69 | 167.49 | 13.05 | 1.19 | 0.83 | 60.17 | 19.05 | |
Mean | 5.69 b | 139.55a | 13.60a | 1.20a | 0.84a | 62.02a | 18.96a | |
Non- rhizosphere | NR1 | 7.26 | 105.62 | 10.85 | 0.95 | 0.84 | 35.79 | 13.06 |
NR2 | 7.25 | 98.15 | 9.26 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 36.12 | 15.17 | |
NR3 | 7.14 | 97.36 | 8.79 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 32.08 | 12.41 | |
NR4 | 7.19 | 95.14 | 9.67 | 1.03 | 0.87 | 30.95 | 13.98 | |
NR5 | 7.21 | 100.25 | 10.02 | 1.04 | 0.82 | 34.17 | 12.77 | |
Mean | 7.21 a | 99.30b | 9.72 | 0.97b | 0.84a | 33.82b | 13.48b |
Soil type | Coverage | Richness | Shannon-Wiener | Evenness | ACE | Chao 1 | Simpson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 0.986 | 5689 | 6.59 | 0.856 | 7962 | 7726 | 0.0089 |
R2 | 0.982 | 5532 | 7.14 | 0.862 | 7859 | 7589 | 0.0076 | |
R3 | 0.983 | 5648 | 6.25 | 0.862 | 7902 | 7814 | 0.0085 | |
R4 | 0.986 | 5613 | 7.49 | 0.854 | 8012 | 7796 | 0.0083 | |
R5 | 0.984 | 5607 | 6.89 | 0.860 | 7895 | 7648 | 0.0084 | |
Mean | 0.984a | 5618a | 6.87a | 0.859a | 7926a | 7715a | 0.0083a | |
Non-rhizosphere | NR1 | 0.980 | 5304 | 5.63 | 0.851 | 7356 | 7213 | 0.0081 |
NR2 | 0.975 | 5316 | 5.96 | 0.849 | 7214 | 7169 | 0.0076 | |
NR3 | 0.979 | 5298 | 6.01 | 0.847 | 7594 | 7058 | 0.0075 | |
NR4 | 0.978 | 5319 | 6.57 | 0.853 | 7362 | 7316 | 0.0073 | |
NR5 | 0.982 | 5326 | 6.63 | 0.851 | 7219 | 7048 | 0.0075 | |
Mean | 0.979a | 5313b | 6.16b | 0.850a | 7349b | 7161b | 0.0076a |
表2 马铃薯根际与非根际土壤细菌多样性
Table 2 Bacterial diversity in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil
Soil type | Coverage | Richness | Shannon-Wiener | Evenness | ACE | Chao 1 | Simpson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 0.986 | 5689 | 6.59 | 0.856 | 7962 | 7726 | 0.0089 |
R2 | 0.982 | 5532 | 7.14 | 0.862 | 7859 | 7589 | 0.0076 | |
R3 | 0.983 | 5648 | 6.25 | 0.862 | 7902 | 7814 | 0.0085 | |
R4 | 0.986 | 5613 | 7.49 | 0.854 | 8012 | 7796 | 0.0083 | |
R5 | 0.984 | 5607 | 6.89 | 0.860 | 7895 | 7648 | 0.0084 | |
Mean | 0.984a | 5618a | 6.87a | 0.859a | 7926a | 7715a | 0.0083a | |
Non-rhizosphere | NR1 | 0.980 | 5304 | 5.63 | 0.851 | 7356 | 7213 | 0.0081 |
NR2 | 0.975 | 5316 | 5.96 | 0.849 | 7214 | 7169 | 0.0076 | |
NR3 | 0.979 | 5298 | 6.01 | 0.847 | 7594 | 7058 | 0.0075 | |
NR4 | 0.978 | 5319 | 6.57 | 0.853 | 7362 | 7316 | 0.0073 | |
NR5 | 0.982 | 5326 | 6.63 | 0.851 | 7219 | 7048 | 0.0075 | |
Mean | 0.979a | 5313b | 6.16b | 0.850a | 7349b | 7161b | 0.0076a |
Soil type | Coverage | Richness | Shannon-Wiener | Evenness | ACE | Chao 1 | Simpson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 0.991 | 956 | 3.05 | 0.752 | 5126 | 673 | 0.0075 |
R2 | 0.992 | 923 | 3.16 | 0.762 | 5019 | 613 | 0.0076 | |
R3 | 0.995 | 968 | 3.25 | 0.771 | 4863 | 625 | 0.0073 | |
R4 | 0.993 | 998 | 3.14 | 0.759 | 4965 | 634 | 0.0072 | |
R5 | 0.989 | 975 | 3.19 | 0.761 | 5012 | 675 | 0.0076 | |
Mean | 0.992a | 964a | 3.16a | 0.761a | 4997a | 644a | 0.0074a | |
Non-rhizosphere | NR1 | 0.986 | 826 | 2.56 | 0.689 | 4362 | 586 | 0.0069 |
NR2 | 0.991 | 841 | 2.34 | 0.652 | 4528 | 546 | 0.0065 | |
NR3 | 0.992 | 816 | 2.16 | 0.687 | 4103 | 553 | 0.0067 | |
NR4 | 0.993 | 749 | 2.27 | 0.632 | 4278 | 571 | 0.0063 | |
NR5 | 0.990 | 765 | 2.31 | 0.647 | 4088 | 582 | 0.0061 | |
Mean | 0.990a | 799b | 2.33b | 0.661a | 4272b | 568b | 0.0065a |
表3 马铃薯根际与非根际土壤真菌多样性
Table 3 Fungal diversity in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil
Soil type | Coverage | Richness | Shannon-Wiener | Evenness | ACE | Chao 1 | Simpson | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhizosphere | R1 | 0.991 | 956 | 3.05 | 0.752 | 5126 | 673 | 0.0075 |
R2 | 0.992 | 923 | 3.16 | 0.762 | 5019 | 613 | 0.0076 | |
R3 | 0.995 | 968 | 3.25 | 0.771 | 4863 | 625 | 0.0073 | |
R4 | 0.993 | 998 | 3.14 | 0.759 | 4965 | 634 | 0.0072 | |
R5 | 0.989 | 975 | 3.19 | 0.761 | 5012 | 675 | 0.0076 | |
Mean | 0.992a | 964a | 3.16a | 0.761a | 4997a | 644a | 0.0074a | |
Non-rhizosphere | NR1 | 0.986 | 826 | 2.56 | 0.689 | 4362 | 586 | 0.0069 |
NR2 | 0.991 | 841 | 2.34 | 0.652 | 4528 | 546 | 0.0065 | |
NR3 | 0.992 | 816 | 2.16 | 0.687 | 4103 | 553 | 0.0067 | |
NR4 | 0.993 | 749 | 2.27 | 0.632 | 4278 | 571 | 0.0063 | |
NR5 | 0.990 | 765 | 2.31 | 0.647 | 4088 | 582 | 0.0061 | |
Mean | 0.990a | 799b | 2.33b | 0.661a | 4272b | 568b | 0.0065a |
图2 基于Weighted unifrac距离的土壤微生物群落的主坐标分析(PCoA)
Fig. 2 Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of soil microbial communities based on Weighted unifrac distance
Type | pH | Electrical conductivity/ (μm∙s-2) | Soil organic carbon/(g∙kg-1) | Total nitrogen/ (g∙kg-1) | Total phosphorus /(g∙kg-1) | Available nitrogen/(mg∙kg-1) | Available phosphorus/(mg∙kg-1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | Coverage | -0.069 | 0.085 | 0.236 | 0.165 | 0.103 | 0.125 | 0.159 |
Richness | -0.125 | 0.165 | 0.762** | 0.703** | 0.206 | 0.563* | 0.246 | |
Shannon | -0.689* | -0.147 | 0.803** | 0.756** | 0.159 | 0.566* | 0.789** | |
Evenness | -0.536* | -0.087 | 0.569* | 0.423 | 0.214 | 0.602* | 0.657* | |
ACE | -0.045 | 0.236 | 0.456 | 0.312 | 0.306 | 0.035 | 0.132 | |
Chao 1 | -0.578* | 0.145 | 0.623* | 0.569* | 0.085 | 0.516* | 0.756** | |
Simpson | -0.602* | 0.263 | 0.578* | 0.603* | 0.063 | 0.549* | 0.711** | |
Fungi | Coverage | -0.085 | -0.016 | 0.321 | 0.201 | 0.085 | 0.085 | 0.209 |
Richness | -0.169 | 0.258 | 0.589* | 0.675* | 0.241 | 0.423 | 0.147 | |
Shannon | -0.587* | -0.144 | 0.703** | 0.756** | 0.015 | 0.569* | 0.604* | |
Evenness | -0.516* | -0.302 | 0.462 | 0.326 | 0.147 | 0.522* | 0.561* | |
ACE | -0.274 | 0.201 | 0.314 | 0.158 | 0.306 | 0.147 | 0.058 | |
Chao 1 | -0.506* | -0.144 | 0.589* | 0.546* | 0.205 | 0.566* | 0.521* | |
Simpson | -0.423 | -0.109 | 0.574* | 0.503* | 0.211 | 0.513* | 0.603* |
表4 土壤养分与土壤细菌和真菌多样性相关性
Table 4 Soil nutrients related to the diversity of soil bacteria and fungi
Type | pH | Electrical conductivity/ (μm∙s-2) | Soil organic carbon/(g∙kg-1) | Total nitrogen/ (g∙kg-1) | Total phosphorus /(g∙kg-1) | Available nitrogen/(mg∙kg-1) | Available phosphorus/(mg∙kg-1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | Coverage | -0.069 | 0.085 | 0.236 | 0.165 | 0.103 | 0.125 | 0.159 |
Richness | -0.125 | 0.165 | 0.762** | 0.703** | 0.206 | 0.563* | 0.246 | |
Shannon | -0.689* | -0.147 | 0.803** | 0.756** | 0.159 | 0.566* | 0.789** | |
Evenness | -0.536* | -0.087 | 0.569* | 0.423 | 0.214 | 0.602* | 0.657* | |
ACE | -0.045 | 0.236 | 0.456 | 0.312 | 0.306 | 0.035 | 0.132 | |
Chao 1 | -0.578* | 0.145 | 0.623* | 0.569* | 0.085 | 0.516* | 0.756** | |
Simpson | -0.602* | 0.263 | 0.578* | 0.603* | 0.063 | 0.549* | 0.711** | |
Fungi | Coverage | -0.085 | -0.016 | 0.321 | 0.201 | 0.085 | 0.085 | 0.209 |
Richness | -0.169 | 0.258 | 0.589* | 0.675* | 0.241 | 0.423 | 0.147 | |
Shannon | -0.587* | -0.144 | 0.703** | 0.756** | 0.015 | 0.569* | 0.604* | |
Evenness | -0.516* | -0.302 | 0.462 | 0.326 | 0.147 | 0.522* | 0.561* | |
ACE | -0.274 | 0.201 | 0.314 | 0.158 | 0.306 | 0.147 | 0.058 | |
Chao 1 | -0.506* | -0.144 | 0.589* | 0.546* | 0.205 | 0.566* | 0.521* | |
Simpson | -0.423 | -0.109 | 0.574* | 0.503* | 0.211 | 0.513* | 0.603* |
Item | Eigenvalue | Species-environmental data | Cumulative percentage of species | Species-cumulative percentage of environment | Total eigenvalue | P | F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | 1 | 0.469 | 0.953 | 46.32 | 56.34 | 0.902 | <0.05 | 32.16 |
2 | 0.267 | 0.921 | 65.87 | 76.91 | ‒ | <0.05 | 8.96 | |
3 | 0.147 | 0.857 | 86.24 | 89.13 | ‒ | <0.05 | 5.32 | |
4 | 0.098 | 0.714 | 91.78 | 93.15 | ‒ | <0.05 | 3.01 | |
Fungi | 1 | 0.623 | 0.921 | 35.98 | 53.52 | 0.862 | <0.05 | 25.17 |
2 | 0.214 | 0.892 | 57.43 | 69.47 | ‒ | <0.05 | 4.62 | |
3 | 0.103 | 0.813 | 79.01 | 82.16 | ‒ | <0.05 | 2.78 | |
4 | 0.085 | 0.629 | 87.53 | 90.13 | ‒ | <0.05 | 0.98 |
表5 冗余分析结果
Table 5 Redundant analysis results
Item | Eigenvalue | Species-environmental data | Cumulative percentage of species | Species-cumulative percentage of environment | Total eigenvalue | P | F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bacteria | 1 | 0.469 | 0.953 | 46.32 | 56.34 | 0.902 | <0.05 | 32.16 |
2 | 0.267 | 0.921 | 65.87 | 76.91 | ‒ | <0.05 | 8.96 | |
3 | 0.147 | 0.857 | 86.24 | 89.13 | ‒ | <0.05 | 5.32 | |
4 | 0.098 | 0.714 | 91.78 | 93.15 | ‒ | <0.05 | 3.01 | |
Fungi | 1 | 0.623 | 0.921 | 35.98 | 53.52 | 0.862 | <0.05 | 25.17 |
2 | 0.214 | 0.892 | 57.43 | 69.47 | ‒ | <0.05 | 4.62 | |
3 | 0.103 | 0.813 | 79.01 | 82.16 | ‒ | <0.05 | 2.78 | |
4 | 0.085 | 0.629 | 87.53 | 90.13 | ‒ | <0.05 | 0.98 |
[1] |
BAKKER M G, CHAPARRO J M, MANTER D K, et al., 2015. Impacts of bulk soil microbial community structure on rhizosphere microbiomes of Zea mays[J]. Plant and Soil, 392(1-2): 115-126.
DOI URL |
[2] |
CARINI P, MARSDEN P J, LEFF J W, et al., 2017. Relic DNA is abundant in soil and obscures estimates of soil microbial diversity[J]. Nature Microbiology, 2(3): 16242.
DOI URL |
[3] |
DENG L, ZENG G, FAN C, et al., 2015. Response of rhizosphere microbial community structure and diversity to heavy metal co-pollution in arable soil[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 99(19): 8259-8269.
DOI URL |
[4] |
DENG Q, CHENG X, HUI D, et al., 2016. Soil microbial community and its interaction with soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics following afforestation in central China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 541: 230-237.
DOI URL |
[5] |
HOU J Y, LIU W X, WANG B B, et al., 2015. PGPR enhanced phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated soil and rhizosphere microbial community response[J]. Chemosphere, 138: 592-598.
DOI URL |
[6] |
LANGE M, EISENHAUER N, SIERRA C A, et al., 2015. Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage[J]. Nature Communications, 6: 6707.
DOI URL |
[7] |
LEFF J W, JONES S E, PROBER S M, et al., 2015. Consistent responses of soil microbial communities to elevated nutrient inputs in grasslands across the globe[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(35): 10967-10972.
DOI URL |
[8] |
LIANG C, JESUS E C, DUNCAN D S, et al., 2016. Switchgrass rhizospheres stimulate microbial biomass but deplete microbial necromass in agricultural soils of the upper Midwest, USA[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 94: 173-180.
DOI URL |
[9] |
LI Z G, ZU C, WANG C, et al., 2016. Different responses of rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil microbial communities to consecutive Piper nigrum L. monoculture[J]. Scientific Reports, 6: 35825.
DOI URL |
[10] |
LLADÓ S, LOPEZ-MONDEJAR R, BALDRIAN P, 2018. Drivers of microbial community structure in forest soils[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 102(10): 4331-4338.
DOI URL |
[11] |
LU H F, LASHARI M S, LIU X Y, et al., 2015. Changes in soil microbial community structure and enzyme activity with amendment of biochar-manure compost and pyroligneous solution in a saline soil from Central China[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 70: 67-76.
DOI URL |
[12] |
MAARASTAWI S A, FRINDTE K, LINNARTZ M, et al., 2018. Crop rotation and straw application impact microbial communities in Italian and Philippine soils and the rhizosphere of Zea mays[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9: 1023.
DOI URL |
[13] |
MELLADO-VAZQUEZ P G, LANGE M, BACHMANN D, et al., 2016. Plant diversity generates enhanced soil microbial access to recently photosynthesized carbon in the rhizosphere[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 94: 122-132.
DOI URL |
[14] |
SHEN Z, RUAN Y, CHAO X, et al., 2015. Rhizosphere microbial community manipulated by 2 years of consecutive biofertilizer application associated with banana Fusarium wilt disease suppression[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 51(5): 553-562.
DOI URL |
[15] |
SHI S, NUCCIO E E, SHI Z J, et al., 2016. The interconnected rhizosphere: high network complexity dominates rhizosphere assemblages[J]. Ecology Letters, 19(8): 926-936.
DOI URL |
[16] |
STEWART C E, ROOSENDAAL D, DENEF K, et al., 2017. Seasonal switchgrass ecotype contributions to soil organic carbon, deep soil microbial community composition and rhizodeposit uptake during an extreme drought[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 112: 191-203.
DOI URL |
[17] |
TASCHEN E, AMENC L, TOURNIER E, et al., 2017. Cereal-legume intercropping modifies the dynamics of the active rhizospheric bacterial community[J]. Rhizosphere, 3(Part 1): 191-195.
DOI URL |
[18] |
UROZ S, OGER P, TISSERAND E, et al., 2016. Specific impacts of beech and Norway spruce on the structure and diversity of the rhizosphere and soil microbial communities[J]. Scientific reports, 6: 27756.
DOI URL |
[19] |
WALTERS W A, JIN Z, YOUNGBLUT N, et al., 2018. Large-scale replicated field study of maize rhizosphere identifies heritable microbes[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28): 7368-7373.
DOI URL |
[20] |
WANG P, MARSH E L, AINSWORTH E A, et al., 2017. Shifts in microbial communities in soil, rhizosphere and roots of two major crop systems under elevated CO2 and O3[J]. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 15019.
DOI URL |
[21] | WHITMAN T, NEURATH R, PERERA A, et al., 2017. Microbial community assembly differs by mineral type in the rhizosphere[J]. bioRxiv, 7: 128850. |
[22] |
ZHALNINA K, LOUIE K B, HAO Z, et al., 2018. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly[J]. Nature Microbiology, 3(4): 470-480.
DOI URL |
[23] |
ZHANG Y, TAO Y, ZHANG H, et al., 2015. Effect of di-n-butyl phthalate on root physiology and rhizosphere microbial community of cucumber seedlings[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 289: 9-17.
DOI URL |
[24] | 孙梦媛, 刘景辉, 赵宝平, 等, 2017. 全膜垄作对旱作马铃薯土壤含水率, 酶活性及产量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 36(4): 1672-3317. |
SUN M Y, LIU J H, ZHAO B P, et al., 2017. Impact of Ridging with Full Plastic-film Mulching on Soil Water, Enzymatic Activities and Yield of Rain-fed Potato[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 36(4): 1672-3317. | |
[25] | 王丽红, 郭晓冬, 谭雪莲, 等, 2016. 不同轮作方式对马铃薯土壤酶活性及微生物数量的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 34(5): 109-113. |
WANG L H, GUO X D, TAN X L, et al., 2016. Effects of different crop rotations on enzyme activities and microbial quantities in potato soil[J]. Agricultural REsearch in Arid Areas, 34(5): 109-113. | |
[26] | 张立超, 何昌福, 张文明, 等, 2017. 不同施肥处理对马铃薯土壤有机质含量及微生物区系的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 52(2): 27-33. |
ZHANG L C, HE C F, ZHANG W M, et al., 2017. Effects of fertilizer treatments on soil organic matter content and microbial flora of potato[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 52(2): 27-33. |
[1] | 李海鹏, 黄月华, 孙晓东, 曹启民, 符芳兴, 孙楚涵. 海南农田不同质地砖红壤及其细菌群落与番茄青枯病发生的关联分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1062-1069. |
[2] | 陈俊芳, 吴宪, 刘啸林, 刘娟, 杨佳绒, 刘宇. 不同土壤水分下元素化学计量对微生物多样性的塑造特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 898-909. |
[3] | 姜永伟, 丁振军, 袁俊斌, 张峥, 李杨, 问青春, 王业耀, 金小伟. 辽宁省主要河流底栖动物群落结构及水质评价研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 969-979. |
[4] | 李阳, 侯志勇, 陈薇, 于晓英, 谢永宏, 黄鑫, 谭佩阳, 李继承, 黎尚林, 杨辉. 大围山高山湿地植物多样性与区系组成研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 643-650. |
[5] | 李善家, 王兴敏, 刘海锋, 孙梦格, 雷雨昕. 河西走廊荒漠植物多样性及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 429-438. |
[6] | 唐海明, 石丽红, 文丽, 程凯凯, 李超, 龙泽东, 肖志武, 李微艳, 郭勇. 长期施肥对双季稻田根际土壤氮素的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 492-499. |
[7] | 宋志斌, 周佳诚, 谭路, 唐涛. 高原河流着生藻类群落沿海拔梯度的变化特征--以西藏黑曲、雪曲为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 274-282. |
[8] | 杨瑞, 孙蔚旻, 李永斌, 郭丽芳, 焦念元. 尾矿先锋植物根际溶磷菌的分离鉴定与其促生研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 166-174. |
[9] | 张立进, 杜虎, 曾馥平, 黄国勤, 宋敏, 宋同清. 喀斯特峰丛洼地植被恢复过程中生产力与多样性关系探讨[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 26-35. |
[10] | 李威闻, 黄金权, 齐瑜洁, 刘小岚, 刘纪根, 毛治超, 高绣纺. 土壤侵蚀条件下土壤微生物生物量碳含量变化及其影响因素的Meta分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 47-55. |
[11] | 李萍, 白小明, 陈鑫, 李娟霞, 冉福, 陈辉, 杨小妮, 康瑞卿. 白三叶入侵对禾本科草坪土壤特性和植物群落的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 70-79. |
[12] | 王洁, 单燕, 马兰, 宋延静, 王向誉. 秸秆/生物质炭协同还田措施对黄河三角洲盐碱土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 90-98. |
[13] | 张林, 周飘, 齐实, 张岱, 伍冰晨, 崔冉冉. 侧柏人工林林分空间结构对林下草本多样性的差异性影响及其关联度[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1794-1801. |
[14] | 王哲, 田胜尼, 张永梅, 张和禹, 周忠泽. 巢湖派河口滩涂植物群落特征研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1823-1831. |
[15] | 陈乐, 卫伟. 西北旱区典型流域土地利用与生境质量的时空演变特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1909-1918. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||