Effect of Streptomyces and Chitosan on the Soil Microbial Activities and Microbiome in Dioscorea oppositifolia L.

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.10.038

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the effect of Streptomyces 30702 and chitosan on the soil microbial activity and microbiome in Dioscorea oppositifolia L., the soil enzyme activity development was measured by colorimetric and titration methods, the change of the bacteria and fungi in soil microbiome was detected using the high-throughput sequencing technology and softwares such as Trimmomatic. The results showed that Streptomyces, chitosan, soil original microorganisms and culture time all affected the activity of urease and catalase in the soil significantly. The soil enzyme activity increased as chitosan concentration rose from 0 to 10.0 g/kg. As growing time went on, the soil enzyme activity increased first and then decreased obviously. Chitosan and Streptomyces interacted obviously. Streptomyces and chitosan increased the species abundance of soil bacteria and reduced the diversity of bacteria, increased the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Ideonella and Cellvibrio, but had little effect on the species abundance and diversity of fungi and there was no significant difference between them and CK, the dominant bacteria genera in the soil were Humicola, Cladosporium, Sphingomonas and uncultured_bacterium_c_subgroup_6. Among them, the species abundance of bacteria in the Streptomyces 30702 2.5 g/kg treatment combined with chitosan was the largest, and the diversity of bacteria in the treatment was the least.

Key words: Streptomyces sp., chitosan, Dioscorea oppositifolia L., soil microbial activity, soil microbiome, interaction effect

CLC Number:

S156

LU Jianming, HUANG Xiaolong, WU Wenqiang, XU Yun, XIA Wei, ZHANG Rongping. Effect of Streptomyces and Chitosan on the Soil Microbial Activities and Microbiome in Dioscorea oppositifolia L.[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2021, 42(10): 3033-3041.

Figures/Tables 9

References 38

[1]	汤洁, 戴兴临, 涂玉琴, 等. 淮山药高效栽培技术研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(4):122-127.
[2]	李月仙, 黄东益, 黄小龙, 等. 山药的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(9):91-96.
[3]	岑家兰, 王雪芳, 黎祖文, 等. 广西八步区淮山生产连作障碍的影响及解决措施[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2016(7):3-4.
[4]	陈伟益, 黄东益, 吴文嫱, 等. 壳聚糖及其衍生物对连作淮山炭疽病的影响[J]. 海南大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 38(2):141-146.
[5]	邹莉, 袁晓颖, 李玲, 等. 连作对大豆根部土壤微生物的影响研究[J]. 微生物学杂志, 2005(2):27-30.
[6]	黄敏. 大田双孢蘑菇连作障碍的土壤微生物学特性研究[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2006.
[7]	黄小龙, 陈吉良, 李建平, 等. 热带药用植物根际放线菌的分离、鉴定及生物活性分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2012(2):121-127.
[8]	王玉. 放线菌剂对连作番茄生理生态及土壤微环境的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2012.
[9]	马云艳, 徐万里, 唐光木, 等. 生防链霉菌配施棉秆炭对连作棉田土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(3):400-409.
[10]	张炳欣, 张平, 陈晓斌. 影响引入微生物根部定殖的因素[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000(6):951-953.
[11]	丛子文, 焦敬华, 周双清, 等. 链霉菌30702的鉴定及其生防特性[J]. 生物技术通报, 2018, 34(6):190-198.
[12]	焦敬华. 山药炭疽病生防菌30702的生防特性及分类鉴定[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2016.
[13]	焦敬华, 黄东益, 吴文嫱, 等. 山药炭疽病菌拮抗放线菌30702菌株的初步鉴定及发酵培养基优化[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(4):775-783.
[14]	Chien P J, Chou C C. Antifungal activity of chitosan and its application to control post-harvest quality and fungal rotting of Tankan citrus fruit (Citrus tankan Hayata)[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2006, 86:1964-1969. DOI URL
[15]	刘清玮, 宋宇鹏. 有机肥对三年生农田栽培人参根际微生态及产量的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2020, 42(4):409-414.
[16]	Bol J F, Linthorst H, Cornelissen B. Plant pathogenesis-related proteins induced by virus infection[J]. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1990, 28(1):113-138. DOI URL
[17]	李宝英. 壳聚糖制剂控制蔬菜土传病害的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005(1):275-277.
[18]	Yuan W M, Crawford D L. Characterization of streptomyces lydicus WYEC108 as a potential biocontrol agent against fungal root and seed rots[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1995, 61(8):3119-3128. DOI PMID
[19]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986.
[20]	刘宇彤, 霍璐阳, 李志国, 等. 不同处理方式对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2019, 35(2):21-26.
[21]	曾宪军, 刘登魁, 朱世民, 等. 不同浓度阿特拉津对三种肥力条件土壤过氧化氢酶的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2005(6):33-35.
[22]	尹淑丽, 麻耀华, 张丽萍, 等. 不同生防菌对黄瓜根际土壤微生物数量及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2012(1):10-14.
[23]	王艳芳, 付风云, 李家家, 等. 甲壳素对连作条件下平邑甜茶幼苗生长及土壤环境的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(19):6218-6225.
[24]	蔡燕飞, 廖宗文, 章家恩, 等. 生态有机肥对番茄青枯病及土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003(3):349-353.
[25]	章家恩, 廖宗文. 试论土壤的生态肥力及其培育[J]. 生态环境, 2004, 9(3):253-256.
[26]	杨红, 徐唱唱, 曹丽花, 等. 米林县不同种植年限蔬菜大棚土壤pH和无机氮变化特征研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2016, 35(12):2397-2404.
[27]	Zhang J, Wang P C, Tian H M, et al. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil microbial community structure and analysis of soil properties with vegetable planted at different years under greenhouse conditions[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2019, 187:1-10. DOI
[28]	Tripathi P, Khare P, Barnawal D, et al. Bioremediation of arsenic by soil methylating fungi: Role of Humicola sp. strain 2WS1 in amelioration of arsenic phytotoxicity in Bacopa monnieri L.[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 716:136758. DOI URL
[29]	Ren J, Xue C, Tian L, et al. Asperelines A-F, peptaibols from the marine-derived fungus Trichoderma asperellum[J]. Journal of Natural Products, 2009, 72(6):1036-1044. DOI URL
[30]	Luo Y, Zhou M, Zhao Q, et al. Complete genome sequence of Sphingomonas sp. Cra20, a drought resistant and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria[J]. Genomics, 2020, 112(5):3648-3657. DOI URL
[31]	段亚冰. 牡丹叶斑病病原真菌鉴定及生物学特性研究[D]. 洛阳: 河南科技大学, 2009.
[32]	Voets J P, Van Hove J K. Purification and cellulolytic activity of Cellvibrio[J]. Nature, 1953, 171(4363):1073-1074.
[33]	Gardner J G. Polysaccharide degradation systems of the saprophytic bacterium Cellvibrio japonicus[J]. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2016, 32(7):1-12. DOI URL
[34]	Voets J P, Van Hove J K. Purification and cellulolytic activity of Cellvibrio.[J]. Nature, 1953, 171(4363):1073-1074.
[35]	谭志远, 彭桂香, 徐培智, 等. 普通野生稻(Oryza rufipogon)内生固氮菌多样性及高固氮酶活性[J]. 科学通报, 2009, 54(13):1885-1893.
[36]	Phillips R P, Fahey T J. Tree species and mycorrhizal associations influence the magnitude of rhizosphere effects[J]. Ecology, 2006, 87(5):1302-1313. PMID
[37]	马海宾, 翟婵婵, 王胜坤, 等. 不同分子量壳聚糖抑菌作用的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(31):267-271.
[38]	陈红丽. 腐熟麦秸对植烟土壤的营养效应及其机理研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2013.

因素Factors	1	2	3	4	5
土壤原始微生物	1（自然土）	0（无菌土）
培养时间/d	7	21	140
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	0	1
壳聚糖/(g·kg^?1)	0.00	0.25	1.00	2.50	10.00

因素Factors	1	2	3	4	5
土壤原始微生物	1（自然土）	0（无菌土）
培养时间/d	7	21	140
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	0	1
壳聚糖/(g·kg^?1)	0.00	0.25	1.00	2.50	10.00

因素 Factors	水平 Levels	脲酶活性 Urease activity /(mg·g^?1·d^?1)	过氧化氢酶活性 Catalase activity /(mL·g^?1)
土壤微生物	1	0.54±0.25^A	2.64±0.20^A
土壤微生物	0	0.24±0.11^C	2.14±0.28^B
壳聚糖/(g·kg^?1)	0.00	0.33±0.19^C	2.33±0.30^B
	0.25	0.35±0.22^C	2.31±0.32^B
	1.00	0.39±0.27^B	2.32±0.32^B
	2.50	0.43±0.26^AB	2.42±0.37^B
	10.00	0.45±0.26^A	2.55±0.39^A
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	0.00	0.38±0.25^B	2.36±0.38^a
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	1.00	0.41±0.24^A	2.41±0.31^a
培育时间/d	7	0.24±0.07^C	2.35±0.40^B
	21	0.56±0.31^A	2.50±0.37^A
	140	0.37±0.16^B	2.31±0.24^B

因素 Factors	水平 Levels	脲酶活性 Urease activity /(mg·g^?1·d^?1)	过氧化氢酶活性 Catalase activity /(mL·g^?1)
土壤微生物	1	0.54±0.25^A	2.64±0.20^A
土壤微生物	0	0.24±0.11^C	2.14±0.28^B
壳聚糖/(g·kg^?1)	0.00	0.33±0.19^C	2.33±0.30^B
	0.25	0.35±0.22^C	2.31±0.32^B
	1.00	0.39±0.27^B	2.32±0.32^B
	2.50	0.43±0.26^AB	2.42±0.37^B
	10.00	0.45±0.26^A	2.55±0.39^A
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	0.00	0.38±0.25^B	2.36±0.38^a
链霉菌 /(10⁶CFU·g^?1)	1.00	0.41±0.24^A	2.41±0.31^a
培育时间/d	7	0.24±0.07^C	2.35±0.40^B
	21	0.56±0.31^A	2.50±0.37^A
	140	0.37±0.16^B	2.31±0.24^B

变异来源 Variation source	平方和Sum of square		均方差Mean square		F值F value		P值P value
变异来源 Variation source	脲酶活性Urease activity	过氧化氢酶活性Catalase activity	脲酶活性Urease activity	过氧化氢酶活性Catalase activity	脲酶活性Urease activity	过氧化氢酶活性Catalase activity	脲酶活性Urease activity	过氧化氢酶活性Catalase activity
培养时间	4.73	1.44	2.37	0.72	686.93	36.25	<0.0001	<0.0001
链霉菌	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	3.66	0.01	0.06	0.92
壳聚糖	0.17	0.56	0.04	0.14	12.27	7.11	<0.0001	<0.0001
时间×链霉菌	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.02	1.33	1.14	0.27	0.33
时间×壳聚糖	0.23	0.06	0.03	0.01	8.46	0.39	<0.0001	0.92
链霉菌×壳聚糖	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.02	2.59	0.84	0.05	0.51
时间×链霉菌×壳聚糖	0.05	0.05	0.01	0.01	1.82	0.34	0.09	0.95
误差	0.20	1.15	0.00	0.02
总和	5.46	3.39