Microsoft Word 刘 钊_new_.doc

Transcription

1 土壤 (Soils), 2016, 48(4): DOI: /j.cnki.tr 黄土丘陵沟壑区典型林地土壤微生物 酶活性和养分特征 (() ) () 4 >>>> S714.3 [1 3] [4 6] [7 8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15 17] [18 20] ( E ~ E N ~ N) ~ m mm (Robinia pseudoacacia)(pinus tabuliformis) (Populus hopeiensis)(populus simonii) (2015BAD07B02) (1991 ) @qq.com

2 (Hippophae rhamnoides) (Caragana korshinskii) 1.2 () 100 m100 m 3 20 m20 m S 8 3 [21] 表 1 立地条件和植被组成 Table 1 Site features and vegetation composition ( ) (m) E ES N E ES N E ES N E ES N E ES N 1.3 [22] ph.. = ,5- [23] (PDA) [24] Microsoft Excel 2010SPSS 22.0 (one-way ANOVA) ( = 0.05) 85% (enrichment ratioer) ER = [( )/] 100% ( 19.56%)(ER = 5.85%) (ER = 39.58%) (ER 4.44% 4.55%)(ER = 42.55%) (ER 5.56% 2.82% 9.68%) (ER = 8.43%) (ER = 11.93%)(ER = 0.87%) (ER = 78.22%)(ER = 8.65%)(ER = 45.56%) (ER = 11.74%) 2.2 3

3 4 707 表 2 根际与非根际土壤养分比较 Table 2 The ph, organic matter and soil nutrient contents in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils ph (g/kg) (g/kg) (g/kg) (g/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) R 8.58±0.18 a 15.16±0.42 a 0.86±0.07 ab 0.49±0.04 efg 15.04±0.55 a 24.12±0.54 a 4.01±0.14 a 89.86±3.47 a S 8.57±0.16 a 12.68±0.72 b 0.90±0.11 a 0.44±0.03 g 15.00±0.52 a 23.34±0.41 a 2.25±0.15 c 72.10±3.92 cde ER (%) R 8.21±0.13 b 12.21±0.87 b 0.67±0.09 cd 0.51±0.04 def 12.81±0.74 bcd 16.33±0.70 d 2.01±0.22 cd 78.31±2.05 bc S 8.42±0.09 ab 10.74±0.45 cd 0.48±0.08 e 0.54±0.06 de 12.54±0.45 cde 14.59±0.48 f 1.85±0.11 d 61.11±3.58 fg ER (%) R 8.71±0.19 a 10.14±0.67 d 0.65±0.06 cd 0.67±0.02 ab 14.87±0.85 a 15.11±0.44 ef 2.26±0.13 c 82.12±4.49 b S 8.67±0.21 a 9.58±0.82 de 0.63±0.03 d 0.47±0.04 fg 15.15±0.73 a 14.87±0.74 f 1.97±0.20 d 70.32±5.71 de ER (%) R 8.64±0.11 a 11.50±0.65 bc 0.77±0.07 bc 0.69±0.02 a 13.81±1.12 ab 19.49±0.49 b 2.87±0.11 b 75.10±3.02 cd S 8.61±0.17 a 10.53±0.61 cd 0.74±0.02 cd 0.71±0.03 a 13.94±0.75 abc 18.32±0.54 c 2.11±0.11 cd 67.21±2.72 def ER (%) R 8.69±0.09 a 8.50±0.31 ef 0.63±0.06 d 0.56±0.04 cd 12.09±0.80 de 16.15±0.61 d 1.51±0.19 e 60.15±4.15 g S 8.71±0.14 a 7.73±0.88 f 0.66±0.07 cd 0.62±0.03 bc 11.15±1.32 e 16.01±0.55 de 1.08±0.09 f 41.04±3.12 h ER (%) R S ER(P<0.05) >> ( 3) % ~ 57.77% 13.64% ~ 67.65% (ER = 16.05%)(ER = 5.45%) (P<0.05) 表 3 根际与非根际土壤微生物数量 Table 3 Abundances of soil microorganisms in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils ( 10 6 cfu/g) ( 10 6 cfu/g) ( 10 6 cfu/g) ( 10 6 cfu/g) R ± 0.53 a 0.57 ± 0.03 a 4.34 ± 0.47 a ± 0.73a S 7.64 ± 0.42 b 0.34 ± 0.02 c 3.89 ± 0.49 ab ± 0.92 b ER (%) R 6.13 ± 0.20 c 0.32 ± 0.05 cd 3.29 ± 0.18 c 9.74 ± 0.72 c S 4.32 ± 0.31 d 0.25 ± 0.02 de 3.06 ± 0.25 c 7.63 ± 0.58 e ER (%) R 5.78 ± 0.71 c 0.31 ± 0.07 cd 3.15 ± 0.37 c 9.24 ± 1.15 cd S 4.98 ± 0.46 d 0.26 ± 0.06 cde 2.97 ± 0.38 c 8.21 ± 0.90 de ER (%) R 7.21 ± 0.69 b 0.47 ± 0.05 b 3.47 ± 0.12 bc ± 0.85 b S 4.57 ± 0.35 d 0.30 ± 0.05 cde 2.99 ± 0.12 c 7.86 ± 0.51 e ER (%) R 4.69 ± 0.21 d 0.25 ± 0.04 de 2.13 ± 0.14 e 7.07 ± 0.38 e S 3.12 ± 0.44 e 0.22 ± 0.01 e 2.02 ± 0.08 e 5.36 ± 0.53 f ER (%)

4 (ER = 31.90%)(ER = 18.87%) (ER = 42.83%) (ER = 14.04%) (ER = 23.38%) (ER = 14.67%) (ER = 24.96%)(ER = 17.21%) 表 4 根际土壤和非根际土壤酶活性比较 Table 4 Soil enzyme activities of the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils (ml/g) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) R 1.05 ± 0.03 a ± 1.78 bc ± a ± 0.38 a S 0.99 ± 0.08 ab ± 1.79 ab ± b ± 0.49 b ER (%) R 0.94 ± 0.19 abc ± 1.46 ab ± d 9.35 ± 0.67 cd S 0.79 ± 0.13 c ± 1.14 bc ± ef 7.48 ± 0.42e ER (%) R 0.83 ± 0.04 bc ± 2.08 ab ± de ± 0.56 b S ± a ± ab ± de 9.66 ± 0.46 c ER (%) R 1.07 ± 0.08 a ± 2.42 a ± c ± 0.57 b S 0.81 ± 0.03 bc ± 1.87 c ± b 9.85 ± 0.48 c ER (%) R 0.83 ± 0.05 bc ± 2.09 abc ± de 8.81 ± 0.53 d S 0.80 ± 0.02 bc ± 1.65 bc ± 29.12f 7.34 ± 0.32 e ER (%) * ( 6) % % %

5 4 709 表 5 根际土壤养分与微生物数量 酶活性相关系数 Table 5 Correlation coefficients between soil nutrients and contents of soil microorganisms and enzyme activities in rhizosphere soils ph * * * 0.891* * ** 0.994** 0.881* * * * 0.948* * 0.917* 0.978** 0.976** 0.934* * * ** 0.936* ** * 0.921* 0.897* * * * * 0.903* 1 * P<0.05 ** P<0.01 表 6 非根际土壤养分与微生物数量 酶活性相关系数 Table 6 Correlation coefficients between soil nutrients and contents of soil microorganisms and enzyme activities in non-rhizosphere soils ph * 0.894* 0.978** * * * * * * 0.934* * * 0.939* * 0.934* 0.903* * * 0.892* 1 7 F 1 F 2 K (F 2 ) (F 3 ) [25] F 1 =0.298x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 F 2 = 0.099x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 F 3 = 0.172x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 x 14

6 表 7 主成分因子载荷矩阵及主成分特征根 Table 7 Factor loading matrix of main composition and principal component eigenvalues F 1 F 2 F (%) (%) ( 8) [26] [27 29] [30] 表 8 主成分因子得分及土壤肥力水平综合得分 Table 8 The scores of principal component factors and soil fertility levels F 1 F 2 F 3 R S R S R S R S R S [31] [18, 32] [33 36] [37]

7 4 711 [38] 3.3 [30, 39] [35] [1] Duan B, Zhang Y, Xu G, et al. Long-term responses of plant growth, soil microbial communities and soil enzyme activities to elevated CO 2 and neighbouring plants[j]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2015, 213: [2] Lynch J. Root architecture and plant productivity[j]. Plant Physiology, 1995, 109(1): 7 [3] Ma B, Zhou Z, Zhang C, et al. The character of phosphorus concentrations in rhizosphere soil of super-xerophytic shrubs[j]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2005, 14: [4] Agnelli A, Massaccesi L, Feudis M D, et al. Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) rhizosphere affects limestone-derived soil under a multi-centennial forest[j]. Plant & Soil, 2015: 1 18 [5] Maltais-Landry G. Legumes have a greater effect on rhizosphere properties (ph, organic acids and enzyme activity) but a smaller impact on soil P compared to other cover crops[j]. Plant & Soil, 2015, 394(1/2): [6] Angst G, Kögel-Knabner I, Kirfel K, et al. Spatial distribution and chemical composition of soil organic matter fractions in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil under European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 264 [7],,,. [J]., 2012, 43(1): [8],,,. [J]., 2015, 52(3): [9],,,. 3 [J]., 2014, 46(3): [10],,. [J]., 2010, 21(8): [11],,,. 4, [J]., 2014, 34(24): [12],,. [J]., 2011, 31(18): [13],,,. 6 [J]., 2012, 23(10): [14],,,. [J]., 2012, 10(5): [15],,,. [J]., 2009, 7(3): [16],. [J]., 2001, 23(2): [17] Fang S, Liu D, Tian Y, et al. Tree species composition influences enzyme activities and microbial biomass in the rhizosphere: A rhizobox approach[j]. PloS. one, 2013, 8(4): e61461 [18],., [J]., 2000, 22(1): [19] Dong Z, Wei T, Zhu Q. Root exudates in Hippophaerhamnoides of different growth states detected by GC-MS[J]. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 2013, 25(18): [20] Wei T, Shi X, Zhu J, et al. Evaluating the health status of Robinia pseudoacacia L. by the root exudates[j]. TIC, 2015, 1(e10): [21] Riley D, Barber S A. Salt accumulation at the soybean (Glycine Max.(L.) Merr.) root-soil interface[j]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1970, 34(1): [22]. [M]. :, 2000

8 [23]. [M]. :, 1986 [24]. [M]. :, 2007 [25]. SPSS for Windows [M]. :, 2000 [26],,,. [J]., 2003, 40(2): [27] Murphy D V, Cookson W R, Braimbridge M, et al. Relationships between soil organic matter and the soil microbial biomass (size, functional diversity, and community structure) in crop and pasture systems in a semi-arid environment[j] Soil Research, 2011, 49(7): [28] Unger M, Leuschner C, Homeier J. Variability of indices of macronutrient availability in soils at different spatial scales along an elevation transect in tropical moist forests (NE Ecuador) [J]. Plant and Soil, 2010, 336(1/2): [29],,,. [J]., 2011, 43(4): [30],,,. [J]., 2010, 31(4): [31],,. [J]. :, 2008, 36(10): [32] Diamantidis G, Effosse A, Potier P, et al. Purification and characterization of the first bacterial laccase in the rhizospheric bacterium Azospirillum lipoferum[j]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2000, 32(7): [33],,,. [J]., 2006, 28(5): 7 11 [34],,,. [J]., 2006, 17(7): [35],,,.., 2005, 16(11): [36],,. [J]., 2014, 51(4): [37],,,. [J]., 2005, 14(1): [38],,,. [J]., 2012, 26(9): [39],,,. [J]., 2013, 37(5):

9 4 713 Microbes, Enzyme Activities and Nutrient Characteristics of Rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere Soils in Forests of Loess Hilly Region LIU Zhao, WEI Tianxing, ZHU Qingke, CHEN Jue, ZHAO Yanmin (Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation of State Forestry Administration, Beijing Forestry University; Engineering Research Center of Forestry Ecological Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing , China) Abstract: In this study, 4 types of forests (Hippophae rhamnoides, Pinustabuliformis, Robiniapseudoacacia and Populussimonii) were chosen to measure microbial abundance, enzyme activities and nutrient characteristics of rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils to make a comprehensive comparison of the soil fertility between rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils. The abundance of soil bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes, the activities of catalase, polyphenol oxidase and urease, soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P), total potassium (K), alkai-hydrolyzadle N, available P and available K were determined and One-way analysis of variance and analysis of correlation were conducted. The results indicated that: 1) the differences of the contents of SOM, available P, alkali-hydrolyzadle N and available K between rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils were significant (P<0.05). SOM and available nutrients accumulated in rhizosphere soil. 2) Microbial abundance and enzyme activities of rhizosphere soil were generally higher than non-rhizosphere soil. With exceptions, catalase activity in Pinustabuliformis and and urease activity in Populussimonii were lower in rhizosphere soil than non-rhizosphere soil. 3) There was a significant correlation between urease activity and abundance of soil bacteria and fungi. There was also a significant correlation between catalase activity and abundance of soil fungi. SOM was significantly correlated with the abundance of soil bacteria and actinomycetic, and urease activity. The soil available P and alkai-hydrolyzadle N contents were significantly correlated with urease activity, and the abundance of soil bacteria and fungi. In non-rhizosphere soil, the correlation of the contents of soil nutrients with soil microbial abundance and soil enzyme activities was lower than that in rhizosphere soil. 4) The comprehensive fertility level of the rhizosphere soil was higher than that of the non-rhizosphere soil. The fertility level of rhizosphere soil followed the order: Hippophae rhamnoides > Populussimonii > Pinustabuliformis > Robiniapseudoacacia > abandoned croplands. The growth of Hippophae rhamnoides can improve soil fertility more effectively than the other species. Hippophae rhamnoides is suitable for afforestation to help improve soil fertility and make contributions to revegetation. Key words: The grain for green project; Soil enzyme activity; Rhizosphere; Non-rhizosphere; Soil nutrients; Soil microbes