Ecology and Environment ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (1): 141-148.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.01.016
• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2019-06-10
Online:
2020-01-18
Published:
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:
CLC Number:
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.
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.jeesci.com/EN/10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.01.016
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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* |
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 |
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] | LI Haipeng, HUANG Yuehua, SUN Xiaodong, CAO Qimin, FU Fangxing, SUN Chuhan. Correlation Analysis of the Occurrence of the Tomato Bacterial Wilt and Different Types of Texture of Latosols and Its Bacterial Community in Cropland in Hainan [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(6): 1062-1069. |
[2] | CHEN Junfang, WU Xian, LIU Xiaolin, LIU Juan, YANG Jiarong, LIU Yu. Shaping Characteristics of Elemental Stoichiometry on Microbial Diversity under Different Soil Water Contents [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(5): 898-909. |
[3] | JIANG Yongwei, DING Zhenjun, YUAN Junbin, ZHANG Zheng, LI Yang, WEN Qingchun, WANG Yeyao, JIN Xiaowei. Study on Benthic Macroinvertebrates Community Structure and Water Quality Evaluation in Main Rivers of Liaoning Province [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(5): 969-979. |
[4] | LI Yang, HOU Zhiyong, CHEN Wei, YU Xiaoying, XIE Yonghong, HUANG Xin, TAN Peiyang, LI Jicheng, LI Shanglin, YANG Hui. Plant Diversity and Systematic Composition of Alpine Wetlands in Dawei Mountain [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(4): 643-650. |
[5] | LI Shanjia, WANG Xingmin, LIU Haifeng, SUN Mengge, LEI Yuxin. Diversity of Desert Plants in Hexi Corridor and Its Response to Environmental Factors [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(3): 429-438. |
[6] | TANG Haiming, SHI Lihong, WEN Li, CHENG Kaikai, LI Chao, LONG Zedong, XIAO Zhiwu, LI Weiyan, GUO Yong. Effects of Different Long-term Fertilizer Managements on Rhizosphere Soil Nitrogen in the Double-cropping Rice Field [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(3): 492-499. |
[7] | YANG Rui, SUN Weimin, LI Yongbin, GUO Lifang, JIAO Nianyuan. Isolation, Identification and Plant Growth Promotion of Rhizosphere Phosphorus-dissolving Bacteria from Tailings Pioneer Plants [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(1): 166-174. |
[8] | ZHANG Lijin, DU Hu, ZENG Fuping, HUANG Guoqin, SONG Min, SONG Tongqing. Discussion on the Relationship between Productivity and Diversity during Vegetation Restoration in the Karst Peak-cluster Depression [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(1): 26-35. |
[9] | LI Ping, BAI Xiaoming, CHEN Xin, LI Juanxia, RAN Fu, CHEN Hui, YANG Xiaoni, KANG Ruiqing. Effects of Trifolium repens Invasion on Soil Properties and Plant Communities of Gramineous Turfgrass [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(1): 70-79. |
[10] | WANG Jie, SHAN Yan, MA Lan, SONG Yanjing, WANG Xiangyu. Effects of Straw and Biochar Synergistic Returning on the Improvement of Salt-affected Soil in the Yellow River Delta [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2023, 32(1): 90-98. |
[11] | ZHANG Lin, ZHOU Piao, QI Shi, ZHANG Dai, WU Bingchen, CUI Ranran. Difference Influence of Spatial Structure of Platycladus orientalis Plantations on Diversity of Understory Herbaceous and Its Correlation Degree [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(9): 1794-1801. |
[12] | WANG Zhe, TIAN Shengni, ZHANG Yongmei, ZHANG Heyu, ZHOU Zhongze. Study on the Plant Community Characteristics of the Estuary of Pai River in Chaohu Lake [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(9): 1823-1831. |
[13] | CHEN Le, WEI Wei. Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Use and Habitat Quality in A Typical Dryland Watershed of Northwest China [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(9): 1909-1918. |
[14] | WANG Lixiao, LIU Jinxian, CHAI Baofeng. Response of Soil Bacterial Community and Nitrogen Cycle during the Natural Recovery of Abandoned Farmland in Subalpine of the North China [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(8): 1537-1546. |
[15] | LI Tingting, HOU Mengdan, DENG Xinyan, ZHOU Xuping, WANG Shunli, HUANG Dan, ZENG Zhiruo, PENG Tao. Diversity of Epiphytic Bryophytes for Four Vegetation Types in Guizhou Xishui National Nature Reserve [J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(8): 1556-1565. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2021 Editorial Office of ACTA PETROLEI SINICA
Address:No. 6 Liupukang Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, P.R.China, 510650
Tel: 86-010-62067128, 86-010-62067137, 86-010-62067139
Fax: 86-10-62067130
Email: syxb@cnpc.com.cn
Support byBeijing Magtech Co.ltd, E-mail:support@magtech.com.cn