Soil Biological Properties in Rhizosphere of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Improved by Magnetic Treatments

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.04.026

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effect of magnetic treatments on the soil fertility and health, the soil biological properties in the rhizosphere of peas were analyzed using pot culture. Five treatments, i.e. No-treatment (CK), iron powder (A), magnetized iron powder (B), magnetized iron powder+0.2 T magnet (C) and 0.2 T magnet treatments (D) were set for analyzing with the high-throughput sequencing technique. The amounts of cultivable bacterial and fungi could be significantly increased by treatment C. Meanwhile, compared to CK, the biomass C, N, P and the activities of β-Glucosidase, Aminopeptidase and Phosphatase were also increased by 34.0%, 46.0%, 44.2% and 24.6%, 23.7%, 31.8% compared to treatment C, respectively. In addition, the indexes of richness and diversity of bacteria, such as Ace, Chao1 and Shannon in treatment C were also significantly higher than those in CK. Moreover, Sneathiella, Desulfurispora and nannocystaceae were the unique bacteria in CK under genus level, but seven different bacterial groups under genus level were showed in treatments A and B. Eleven different bacterial groups were presented in treatment C. And there were only eight different bacterial groups in treatment D. In summary, the biological indicators of soil fertility and health, such as soil cultivable microorganisms, microbial biomass, enzyme activities and bacteria diversity were all significantly improved under treatment C, which used 0.2 T magnet + 5 g magnetized iron powder. It indicated that the soil fertility and ability to resist soil-borne diseases could be promoted by treatment.

Key words: peas, magnetic treatment, bacterial diversity, high-throughput sequencing

CLC Number:

S154.3

ZHANG Chuanjin,REN Kuiyu,GUO Shuang,PANG Shichan,WANG Shuaishuai,YANG Shangdong. Soil Biological Properties in Rhizosphere of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Improved by Magnetic Treatments[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(4): 829-836.

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

[1]	郭世荣, 孙锦, 束胜 , 等. 我国设施园艺概况及发展趋势[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2012(18):1-14.
[2]	董静, 赵志伟, 梁斌 , 等. 我国设施蔬菜产业发展现状[J]. 中国园艺文摘, 2017,33(1):75-77.
[3]	黄绍文, 唐继伟, 李春花 , 等. 我国蔬菜化肥减施潜力与科学施用对策[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(6):1480-1493.
[4]	王荣萍, 余炜敏, 李淑仪 , 等. 华南地区主要蔬菜氮肥肥料利用率研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(25):34-39.
[5]	Liu J, You L, Amini M , et al. A high-resolution assessment on global nitrogen flows in cropland[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010,107(17):8035-8040. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Peng S, Buresh R, Huang J , et al. Strategies for overcoming low agronomic nitrogen use efficiency in irrigated rice systems in China[J]. Field Crops Resouces, 2006,96(1):37-47.
[7]	Shi W, Yao J, Yan F . Vegetable cultivation under greenhouse conditions leads to rapid accumulation of nutrients, acidification andsalinity of soils and groundwater contaminations in South-Eastern China[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2009,83:73-84. DOI URL
[8]	Guo J H, Liu X J, Zhang Y , et al. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands[J]. Science, 2010,327(5968):1008-1010. DOI URL PMID
[9]	依艳丽, 刘孝义 . 磁场对土壤理化和机械物理性状影响的研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 1994(1):84-89. DOI URL
[10]	谢修鸿, 依艳丽, 张大庚 , 等. 磁处理棕壤对磷吸附-解吸特性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2005(4):523-525.
[11]	依艳丽, 庄杰, 武丽艳 , 等. 磁场对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 1991(2):19-26.
[12]	依艳丽, 栗杰, 张大庚 , 等. 磁场对棕壤脲酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2005(4):588-590.
[13]	焦颖, 依艳丽, 栗杰 , 等. 磁场对棕壤微生物量碳的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2005(5):566-569.
[14]	栗杰, 依艳丽, 贺忠科 , 等. 磁处理棕壤对土壤中几种细菌的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2009,40(6):1262-1265.
[15]	Wedepohl K . The composition of the continental crust[J]. Mineralogical Magazine, 1995,59(7):1217-1232.
[16]	林先贵 . 土壤微生物研究原理与方法[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010: 24-85.
[17]	Vance E D, Brookes P C, Jenkinson D S . An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1987,19(6):703-707. DOI URL
[18]	Joergensen R, Brookes P . Ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen measurements of microbial biomass in 0.5 m K₂SO₄ soil extracts[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1990,22(8):1023-1027. DOI URL
[19]	吴金水, 刘守龙, 童成立 , 等. 土壤有机质周转计算机模拟原理[J]. 土壤学报, 2003(5):768-774. DOI URL
[20]	Hayano K . A method for the determination of β-glucosidase activity in soil[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1973,19(2):103-108. DOI URL
[21]	Ladd J N . Properties of proteolytic enzymes extracted from soil[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1972,4(2):227-237. DOI URL
[22]	Tabatabai M A, Bremner J M . Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1969,1(4):301-307. DOI URL
[23]	Matthias H, Alexander S, Rob E , et al. Metagenomic discovery of biomass-degrading genes and genomes from cow ruen[J]. Science, 2011,331(6016):463-467. DOI URL
[24]	Grice E, Kong H, Conlan S , et al. Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome[J]. Science, 2009,324(5931):1190-1192. DOI URL
[25]	赵官成, 梁健, 淡静雅 , 等. 土壤微生物与植物关系研究进展[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2011,31(1):83-88.
[26]	贾洪柏 . 石油污染土壤的微生物修复及对相关土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2013.
[27]	宋福强, 刘宇飞, 范晓旭 . 耕种措施对农田生态系统AM真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 菌物学报, 2018,37(8):988-998.
[28]	代群威, 董发勤, 王勇 , 等. 静磁场对大肠杆菌生长过程的作用机制研究[J]. 生物磁学, 2004(3):21-23.
[29]	马想, 黄晶, 赵惠丽 , 等. 秸秆与氮肥不同配比对红壤微生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018,24(6):1574-1580.
[30]	耿淑英, 付伟章, 王静 , 等. SBR系统外加磁场对微生物群落多样性和处理效果的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2017,38(11):4715-4724.

处理 Treatment	细菌 Bacteria/ (10⁶ CFU·g^-1)	真菌 Fungi/ (10⁴ CFU·g^-1)	放线菌Actinomycetes/ (10⁶ CFU·g^-1)
CK	11.67±0.23^c	4.20±0.19^b	15.86±0.45^a
A	10.33±0.31^d	4.03±0.24^c	14.60±0.43^d
B	11.26±0.47^c	3.97±0.34^c	14.67±0.39^cd
C	14.12±0.56^a	4.77±0.36^a	15.71±0.37^b
D	12.67±0.22^b	4.54±0.39^a	15.34±0.27^c

处理 Treatment	细菌 Bacteria/ (10⁶ CFU·g^-1)	真菌 Fungi/ (10⁴ CFU·g^-1)	放线菌Actinomycetes/ (10⁶ CFU·g^-1)
CK	11.67±0.23^c	4.20±0.19^b	15.86±0.45^a
A	10.33±0.31^d	4.03±0.24^c	14.60±0.43^d
B	11.26±0.47^c	3.97±0.34^c	14.67±0.39^cd
C	14.12±0.56^a	4.77±0.36^a	15.71±0.37^b
D	12.67±0.22^b	4.54±0.39^a	15.34±0.27^c

处理 Treat- ment	微生物生物量碳 Microbial biomass C	微生物生物量氮 Microbial biomass N	微生物生物量磷 Microbial biomass P
CK	145.70±3.62^c	15.00±0.14^e	191.80±3.11^d
A	148.90±4.85^c	17.10±0.26^c	177.20±4.59^e
B	158.70±5.13^b	16.30±0.41^d	238.90±4.88^b
C	195.30±5.22^a	21.90±0.39^a	276.50±4.96^a
D	162.10±4.09^b	18.20±0.27^b	219.70±2.33^c

处理 Treat- ment	微生物生物量碳 Microbial biomass C	微生物生物量氮 Microbial biomass N	微生物生物量磷 Microbial biomass P
CK	145.70±3.62^c	15.00±0.14^e	191.80±3.11^d
A	148.90±4.85^c	17.10±0.26^c	177.20±4.59^e
B	158.70±5.13^b	16.30±0.41^d	238.90±4.88^b
C	195.30±5.22^a	21.90±0.39^a	276.50±4.96^a
D	162.10±4.09^b	18.20±0.27^b	219.70±2.33^c

处理 Treatment	β-葡萄糖苷酶 β-Glucosidase	氨肽酶 Aminopeptidase	磷酸酶 Phosphatase
CK	1.26±0.14^c	9.40±0.23^e	1.32±0.06^d
A	1.23±0.09^c	9.47±0.27^d	1.16±0.07^e
B	1.19±0.07^d	10.35±0.22^c	1.61±0.11^b
C	1.57±0.15^a	11.63±0.19^a	1.74±0.09^a
D	1.35±0.10^b	10.69±0.16^b	1.51±0.08^c