Effects of Rubber-cassava Intercropping on Soil Fungal Community Structure in Rhizosphere of Rubber Trees

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.03.026

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effect of rubber-cassava intercropping on the soil fungal community structure in the rhizosphere of rubber trees, the soil physiochemical properties, fungal community structure in the rhizosphere of rubber trees were analyzed by traditional and high-throughput sequencing techniques. Compared to rubber monoculture, the contents of soil alkalide N, available P, available K, organic matter and Shannon index of fungal diversity in the rhizosphere of rubber trees of rubber-cassava intercropping were significantly decreased, but the Simpson index was significantly increased. In addition, there were no significant differences for soil pH and chao1 index. Ascomycota, Zygomycota and Basidiomycota were the three dominant fungi at phylum level for both intercropping and monoculture treatments, but compared to monoculture, the relative abundance of Zygomycota and Basidiomycota were decreased, and Ascomycota was increased to 91.54% in intercropping treatment. At the genus level, the top 10 fungal genera accounted for 61.30%-65.59% of the total genera. The relative abundance of Phyllosticta, Gibberella and Lecythophora were higher in the intercropping treatment. The α-diversity of fungi was not only interfered by the content of soil alkalide nitrogen, available phosphorus and potassium, but was also affected by the content of soil organic matter. It indicated that rubber-cassava intercropping significantly decreased soil nutrients content and fungal diversity in the rhizosphere of rubber trees. Meanwhile, the relative abundance of soil pathogenic fungi in the rhizosphere was also enriched by intercropping treatment.

Key words: rubber tree intercropping with cassava, high-throughput sequencing, rhizosphere soil, fungal community structure

CLC Number:

LIU Zifan,LIU Peipei,YAN Wenjing,MA Xiaowei. Effects of Rubber-cassava Intercropping on Soil Fungal Community Structure in Rhizosphere of Rubber Trees[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(3): 609-614.

Figures/Tables 7

References 32

[1]	郑定华, 袁淑娜, 陈俊明 , 等. 橡胶林下间作广金钱草的产量及药材质量研究[J]. 中药材, 2017,40(12):2765-2771.
[2]	刘敏, 张广宇, 张永北 , 等. 竹荪间作对橡胶园土壤微生物区系与群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(13):295-298.
[3]	黄洁, 周建国, 林世欣 , 等. 对胶园间作木薯的思考及展望[J]. 江西农业学报, 2014,26(1):64-68, 71.
[4]	林位夫, 曾宪海, 谢贵水 , 等. 关于橡胶园间作的思考与实践[J]. 中国热带农业, 2011(4):11-15.
[5]	Larsonde R A. Introduction to floriculture[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
[6]	蔡吉苗, 陈瑶, 潘羡心 , 等. 海南橡胶树棒孢霉落叶病病情调查与病原鉴定[J]. 热带农业科学, 2008,28(5):1-7, 10.
[7]	杨国峰 . 加蓬的胶粮间作系统[J]. 世界热带农业信息, 2000(6):1-2.
[8]	方敏, 徐小蓉, 唐明 , 等. 马缨杜鹃根系微生物群落结构及其变化[J]. 微生物学报, 2019,59(8):1522-1534.
[9]	孙启武, 毛琪 . 浅析微生物对土壤肥力的贡献[J]. 农技服务, 2015,32(9):96.
[10]	Yang H W, Li J, Xiao Y H , et al. An integrated insight into the relationship between soil microbial community and tobacco bacterial wilt disease[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017,8:2179.
[11]	刘培培, 刘子凡, 刘乔颖 , 等. 木薯器官及其混合物水浸提液对橡胶树棒孢霉落叶病病菌的化感作用[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018,39(2):338-342.
[12]	闫文静, 刘子凡, 张婷婷 , 等. 木薯器官及其腐解物水浸液对橡胶树白根病病菌的化感作用[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(1):123-129.
[13]	史芳芳, 李向泉 . 葡萄根际土壤真菌群落多样性分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019,21(7):47-58.
[14]	Agrios G N. Plant Pathology[M]. 5th ed. US: Academic Press, 2005.
[15]	鲍士旦 . 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008.
[16]	高东, 何霞红 . 生物多样性与生态系统稳定性研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010,29(12):2507-2513.
[17]	扈进冬, 吴远征, 魏艳丽 , 等. 木霉拌种剂对小麦根际土壤真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 山东科学, 2019,32(1):46-51.
[18]	Deacon J. Introduction: the fungi and fungal activities[M]//Deacon J. Fungal Biology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2013: 1-15.
[19]	李桥 . 基于高通量测序技术下土壤微生物群落结构的研究[D]. 济南: 山东师范大学, 2014.
[20]	李旭锐, 张燕, 张杰 , 等. 苹果园不同间作模式对土壤理化性质及微生物群落的PLFA分析[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2019,34(3):30-36.
[21]	Concha Meyer A, Eifert J D, Williams R C , et al. Shelf life determination of fresh blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum) stored under controlled atmosphere and ozone[J]. International Journal of Food Science, 2015,2015:164143.
[22]	Berendsen R L, Pieterse C, Bakker P . The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health[J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2012,17(8):478-486.
[23]	Ahonsi M O, Agindotan B O, Gray M E , et al. First report of basal stem rot and foliar blight caused by Pythium sylvaticum on Miscanthus sinensis in Illinois[J]. Plant Disease, 2011,95(5):616.
[24]	徐江兵, 林先贵, 王一明 , 等. 施用茶树菇栽培废料对青菜土壤中微生物学特征的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2012,31(1):131-136.
[25]	秦立金, 于田田, 王佳明 , 等. 黄瓜与西芹间作对黄瓜土壤真菌 ITS 多样性分析[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019,27(4):529-536.
[26]	Yelle D J, Ralph J, Lu F C , et al. Evidence for cleavage of lignin by a brown rot basidiomycete[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2008,10(7):1844-1849.
[27]	张敏, 周鹏, 季永华 . 苦楝一小麦农林复合生态系统土壤真菌群落结构分析[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(10):26-34.
[28]	于莉, 鲍文杰, 张英 , 等. Phoma和Phyllosticta两属分类的研究进展[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 1995,17(4):102-107.
[29]	崔云凤, 黄云, 蒋伶活 . 农业生产上几种重要的赤霉属真菌研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007,23(7):441-446.
[30]	周小露, 宋丽莎, 王利荣 , 等. 黔南州茶园土壤中优势菌株烟曲霉的分离·纯化及鉴定[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018,46(22):115-118.
[31]	Vargas G S, Meriles J, Conforto C , et al. Response of soil microbial communities to different management practices in surface soils of a soybean agroecosystem in Argentina[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2011,47(1):55-60.
[32]	Güsewell S, Gessner M O . N:P ratios influence litter decomposition and colonization by fungi and bacteria in microcosms[J]. Functional Ecology, 2009,23(1):211-219.

种植方式 Cultivation methods	pH	碱解氮 Alkalide nitrogen / (mg∙kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus / (mg∙kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium / (mg∙kg^-1)	有机质 Organic matter /(g∙kg^-1)
单作	5.05±0.02	271.60±6.94^*	34.64±0.13^*	40.75±0.31^*	11.65±0.33^*
间作	4.92±0.03	192.64±10.22	11.58±1.18	34.88±0.17	6.71±0.50

种植方式 Cultivation methods	pH	碱解氮 Alkalide nitrogen / (mg∙kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus / (mg∙kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium / (mg∙kg^-1)	有机质 Organic matter /(g∙kg^-1)
单作	5.05±0.02	271.60±6.94^*	34.64±0.13^*	40.75±0.31^*	11.65±0.33^*
间作	4.92±0.03	192.64±10.22	11.58±1.18	34.88±0.17	6.71±0.50

种植方式 Cultivation methods	原始序列数 Number of origin sequence	有效序列数 Number of available sequence	平均序列长度 Average sequence length /bp	分类单元 OTU	样品覆盖度 Sample coverage
单作	91 027	87 609	352.27	1 010	0.996
间作	83 779	73 883	347.86	1 132	0.994

种植方式 Cultivation methods	原始序列数 Number of origin sequence	有效序列数 Number of available sequence	平均序列长度 Average sequence length /bp	分类单元 OTU	样品覆盖度 Sample coverage
单作	91 027	87 609	352.27	1 010	0.996
间作	83 779	73 883	347.86	1 132	0.994

种植方式 Cultivation methods	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	Simpson指数 Simpson index
单作	1528.1	3.52^*	0.109
间作	1330.4	3.05	0.189^*