Microsoft Word - 6--曾令涛_new_.doc

Transcription

1 土壤 (Soils), 2016, 48(6): DOI: /j.cnki.tr 蚯蚓堆肥与益生菌配施对土壤肥力及微生物特性的影响 1,2 3 祎 ,2 1,2 1,2 1,2* ( ) (X) (Y) NO 3 -N 14.7% (VCXY) (CDXY) 32.0% 14.4% S144.1 [1 2] [3 5] [6 9] [10 11] [12 13] [14 16] (2016YFD )(2015-Z42) * (jiaguojiao@njau.edu.cn) (1990 ) @njau.edu.cn

2 mm (CON 2 H 4 ) (CaP 2 H 4 O 8 )(KCl) 8424 X (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CGMCC No.5624) Y(Pseudomonas fluorescens CGMCC No.7130) 10 9 cfu/ml cfu/g cfu/g 1 Table 1 ph 表 1 供试土壤和有机堆肥基本性质 Physico-chemical properties of tested soil and organic compost (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ( 2) m 2 8 N kg/hm 2 P 2 O kg/hm 2 K 2 O kg/hm t/hm 2 () 表 2 试验处理及具体施肥情况 Table 2 Information of experimental treatments and fertilization (kg/hm 2 ) CK CF (514) (565)(514) CD (10 500) + CDX (10 500) (48) (C94)(423) + CDY (10 500) (48) (94)(423) + + CDXY (10 500) (48) (94)(423) VC (10 500) + VCX (10 500) (13) (27)(393) + VCY (10 500) (13) (27)(393) + + VCXY (10 500) (13) (27)(393) cm ( )( ) 1.3 [17 19] [20] [21 22] CFC 3,5-

3 Excel 2003 Origin 9 SPSS 20 (P<0.05) (CF) (CD) ph(som) NO 3 -N 14.7% X Y VCXY VC 18.0% VCX CDX 5.8% 表 3 蚯蚓堆肥与益生菌配施对土壤肥力的影响 Table 3 Effects of interaction between vermicompost and probiotics on soil fertility ph SOM NH + 4 -N (mg/kg) NO 3 -N (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) CK 5.6 ± 0.2b 25.5 ± 2.2a 35.8 ± 2.1b 24.7 ± 1.8a 84.0 ± 8.1d 56.8 ± 1.4e 86.4 ± 3.1f 72.0 ± 5.4f ± 12.9e ± 10.5e CF 5.5 ± 0.1b 25.3 ± 1.9a 50.8 ± 2.8a 30.7 ± 1.3a ± 11.2bc 72.0 ± 2.6d ± 4.7a 80.8 ± 4.4ef ± 5.8a ± 7.9a CD 6.1 ± 0.3a 27.2 ± 1.2a 41.0 ± 2.7ab 30.8 ± 4.8a ± 8.1c 99.7 ± 3.6c 98.0 ± 4.5e 84.2 ± 3.8e ± 9.5de ± 9.5d CDX 6.1 ± 0.5a 26.3 ± 1.8a 40.2 ± 2.4ab 30.9 ± 2.1a ± 17.0bc 99.1 ± 3.2c 97.4 ± 5.3e 85.7 ± 6.2de ± 15.5c ± 8.8c CDY 6.0 ± 0.3a 27.2 ± 2.6a 38.9 ± 3.2ab 27.3 ± 3.6a ± 15.5bc ± 4.9bc ± 2.3bc 99.4 ± 3.9ab ± 16.2cd ± 6.0cd CDXY 6.0 ± 0.1a 27.7 ± 2.2a 38.1 ± 4.4ab 28.1 ± 1.8a ± 9.6c ± 6.6bc ± 4.7cd 95.1 ± 1.7bc ± 12.2bc ± 6.5c VC 6.2 ± 0.2a 27.3 ± 2.3a 42.0 ± 3.9ab 30.4 ± 2.5a ± 5.8bc ± 6.1ab ± 7.6e 89.6 ± 5.6cd ± 5.6cd ± 15.2c VCX 6.1 ± 0.6a 26.8 ± 1.3a 41.1 ± 2.0 ab 32.1 ± 6.6a ± 12.0ab ± 8.0a ± 4.6de 93.9 ± 3.9bcd ± 8.7b ± 8.0b VCY 6.2 ± 0.3a 28.0 ± 2.5a 38.3 ± 3.3ab 28.4 ± 3.4a ± 4.7a ± 13.4a ± 3.7abc ± 5.7a ± 8.5cd ± 4.2c VCXY 6.2 ± 0.4a 26.9 ± 3.0a 43.1 ± 3.5ab 28.6 ± 2.6a ± 8.7a ± 3.8ab ± 3.9ab ± 3.5a ± 4.9b ± 5.0b (P<0.05) NO 3 -N NO 3 -N VCXY CDXY 8.8% (MBC)(MBN) (SRR) MBC MBN SRR MBC MBN SRR MBN MBC MBN SRR VCXY MBC MBN CDXY 17.2% 13.1% MBC/MBN MBC/ MBN MBC/MBN CDXY

4 Fig. 1 ( P<0.05 ) 图 1 蚯蚓堆肥与益生菌配施对土壤微生物生物量的影响 Effects of interaction between vermicompost and probiotics on soil microbial biomass (10 7 cfu/g) Table 4 表 4 蚯蚓堆肥与益生菌配施对土壤微生物数量的影响 Effects of interaction between vermicompost and probiotics on soil microbial population (10 4 cfu/g) (10 5 cfu/g) (10 5 cfu/g) (10 5 cfu/g) (10 3 cfu/g) CK 1.3 ± 0.2 f 1.8 ± 0.2 cd 5.5 ± 0.3 e 3.2 ± 0.1 d 5.3 ± 0.3 e 4.2 ± 0.2 a CF 1.6 ± 0.1 ef 2.2 ± 0.1 bc 5.6 ± 0.4 e 3.8 ± 0.3 d 5.1 ± 0.1 e 5.1 ± 0.5 b CD 2.5 ± 0.3 e 2.6 ± 0.2 ab 7.3 ± 0.2 d 4.5 ± 0.2 cd 6.6 ± 0.3 d 1.3 ± 0.2 c CDX 4.8 ± 0.2 c 1.3 ± 0.3 de 7.5 ± 0.5 d 11.2 ± 0.5 ab 6.9 ± 0.7 d 0.7 ± 0.05 c CDY 5.2 ± 0.1 c 1.1 ± 0.1 e 7.1 ± 0.7 d 4.9 ± 0.7 c 8.3 ± 0.6 ab 0.5 ± 0.03 c CDXY 5.0 ± 0.3 c 0.9 ± 0.2 e 7.8 ± 0.4 cd 8.6 ± 0.6 bc 8.1 ± 0.5 bc 0.7 ± 0.1 c VC 3.7 ± 0.4 d 3.2 ± 0.3 a 8.4 ± 0.3 abc 5.3 ± 0.2 c 7.2 ± 0.3 d 1.3 ± 0.2 c VCX 6.4 ± 0.3 ab 1.2 ± 0.2 de 8.0 ± 0.4 bcd 12.3 ± 1.1 a 6.7 ± 0.5 cd 0.6 ± 0.09 c VCY 5.8 ± 0.1 bc 0.8 ± 0.1 e 8.8 ± 0.2 ab 4.4 ± 0.2 cd 9.3 ± 0.5 a 0.7 ± 0.1 c VCXY 6.6 ± 0.3 a 1.5 ± 0.3 de 9.1 ± 0.4 a 9.5 ± 0.7 b 8.9 ± 0.7 ab 0.7 ± 0.04 c VCXY CDXY 32.0% 16.7% VCXY VC 79.2% VCY VC 38.8% MBC/MBN

5 Fig. 2 图 2 蚯蚓堆肥与益生菌配施对土壤酶活性的影响 Effects of interaction between vermicompost and probiotics on soil enzyme activities VC CD VCY VC 12.5% 11.8% VCXY CDXY 14.4% 3 CF NH + 4 -N [3] VC NO 3 -N CD NO 3 -N [23] VC MBC CD 17.3% VCXY CDXY 33.0% 14.4% [24 28] Pant [29] Zhang [30] ( ) VCXY CDXY NO 3 -N MBC 10.8% 17.2%

6 [31 32] ( 5) MBC Davoud [33] (AMF) 表 5 有机堆肥和益生菌对土壤肥力和微生物特性影响的 方差分析 Table 5 Variance analysis of effects of organic compost and probiotics on soil fertility and microbial properties ( ) (1) (3) NH + 4 -N ( ) NO 3 -N ( ) ** ** ** * 3.41 * ** 1.12 * MBC ** ** ** MBN 5.86 * * ** ** ** * ** 7.22 * ** * * 5.05 * ** 7.81 * ** ** 4.57 * * ** P<0.05 P<0.01 [34] [35] [36] [37] 4 [1],,,. [J]., 2012, 44(5): [2],,,. [J]., 2012, 43(4): [3],,,. [J]., 2014, 20(1): [4],,,. [J]., 2012, 18(2): 6 16 [5],,,. [J]., 2015, 47(6): [6] Zaller J G. Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in potting media: Effect on germination, biomass allocation, yield and fruit quality of three tomato varieties[j]. Scientia Horticulture, 2007, 112: [7],,,. [J]., 2012, 23(3): [8] Kumar G C, Bhunia C G, Kumar S C. The effect of vermicompost and other fertilizers on cultivation of tomato plants[j]. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 2011, 2: [9] Oo A N, Iwai C B, Saenjan P, et al. Soil properties and maize growth in saline and non-saline soils using cassava-industrial waste compost and vermicompost with or without earthworms[j]. Land Degradation & Development, 2015, 26(3): [10],,,. [J]., 2015, 35(5): [11] Piromyou P, Buranabanyat B, Piyada T, et al. Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria(pgpr) inoculation

7 on microbial community structure in rhizosphere of forage corn cultivated in Thailand[J]. European Journal Soil Biology, 2011, 47(1): [12],,,. [J]., 2010, 18(2): [13],,,. [J]., 2012, 31(6): [14] Marcotel I, Hernandez T, Garcia C, et al. Influence of one or two successive annual application of organic fertilizers on the enzyme activity of a soil under barley cultivation[j]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 79: [15],,,. [J]., 2010, 21(10): [16] Luo J, Ran W, Hu JA, et al. Application of bio-organic fertilizer significantly affected fungal diversity of soils[j]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2010, 74(6): [17]. (NY ) [S]. :, 2012 [18]. (NY/T )[S]. :, 1995 [19]. (NY/T )[S]. :, 1995 [20]. [M]. :, 2000 [21],,,. [J]., 2014, 20(5): [22] Komada H. Development of selective medium for quantitative isolation of Fusarium oxysporum from natural soil[j]. Review of Plant Protection Research, 1975, 8: [23],,,. 3 [J]., 2014, 46(3): [24],,,. [J]., 2013, 30(6): [25] Su L L, Ta Y W, Pei N L, et al. The use of vermicompost in organic farming: Overview, effect on soil and economic[j]. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 2015, 95(6): [26],,,. [J]., 2013, 27(2): [27] Ilker U, Ismail E T. Short-term effect of vermicompost application on biological properties of an alkaline soil with high lime content from Mediterranean region of Turkey[J]. The Scientific World Journal, 2014: [28],,,. [J]., 2013, 19(5): [29] Pant A, Radovich T J K, Hue N V, et al. Effect of vermicompost tea (Aqueous extract) on pak choi yield, quality, and on soil biological properties[j]. Compost Science & Utilization, 2011, 19(4): [30] Zhang H, Tan S N, Wong W S, et al. Mass spectrometric evidence for the occurrence of plant growth promoting cytokinins in vermicompost tea[j]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2014, 50: [31] Jayakumar P, Natarajan S. Microbial diversity of vermicompost bacteria that exhibit useful agricultural traits and waste management potential[j]. Springer Plus, 2012, 1: 26 [32],,,. [J]., 2014, 46(1): [33] Davoud A, Behnaz A, Abdolhossein A, et al. Effects of Vermicompost and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on soil properties and growth of medicago polymorpha L[J]. Compost Science & Utilization, 2015, 22(3): [34] Tajbakhsh J, Goltapeh E M, Ajit V. Vermicompost as a biological soil amendment (Chapter 13) // Karaca A. Biology of earthworms, soil biology[m]. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2011 [35],,,. [J]., 2014, 33(8): [36],,,. [J]., 2013, 50(1): [37],,. [J]., 2015, 22(2): 79 89

8 Effects of Interaction Between Vermicompost and Probiotics on Soil Fertility and Microbial Properties ZENG Lingtao 1,2, WANG Dongsheng 3, WANG Zhenyi 1, WANG Siqi 1, SHENG Xiongjie 1, CHANG Jiangjie 1,2, LI Huixin 1,2, HU Feng 1,2, JIAO Jiaguo 1,2* (1 College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing , China; 2 Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Solid Organic Waste Resource Utilization, Nanjing , China; 3 Nanjing Institute of Vegetable Science, Nanjing , China) Abstract: The effects of the application of vermicompost mixed with two different functional probiotics Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (X) and Fluorescent pseudomonas (Y) on the fertility and microbial properties of soil were studied under the same nutrient level. The results showed that whether mixed with probiotics or not, compared with chemical fertilizer and conventional compost, vermicompost could improve soil available nutrient contents increase soil microbial biomass and enzyme activities significantly. In terms of soil NO 3 content, the application of vermicompost was 14.7% higher than conventional compost. The application of probiotics promoted the activation of soil nutrients, increased the number of soil bacteria, actinomycetes, bacillus amyloliquefaciens and fluorescent pseudomonas, decreased the number of soil fungi, and improved soil enzyme activities significantly. The application of vermicompost mixed with probiotics was more obvious in increasing soil available nutrient contents, soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, the amounts of soil microbial biomass and enzyme activities than other treatments, and soil bacteria number and invertase of vermicompost mixed with probiotics XY were 32.0% and 14.4% higher than conventional compost mixed with probiotics XY. Variance analysis showed that significant interactions between organic compost and probiotics on soil available phosphorus, available potassium, microbial biomass carbon, bacteria and fungi numbers, urease and invertase activities. These results indicated that the vermicompost mixed with probiotics has significant improving effects on soil fertility and microbial properties, which is a good choice of the replacement of chemical fertilizers for protecting vegetable green production and soil fertilities improvement. Key words: Vermicompost; Probiotics; Soil fertility; Microbial biomass; Enzyme activity