几种改良措施对酸化茶园土壤理化性质和微生物群落结构的影响

doi:10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2022.05.009

茶叶科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 661-671.doi: 10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2022.05.009

几种改良措施对酸化茶园土壤理化性质和微生物群落结构的影响

李艳春¹, 汪航³, 李兆伟³, 叶菁¹, 王义祥^1,2,*

1.福建省农业科学院农业生态研究所福建省红壤山地农业生态过程重点实验室,福建福州 350013;
2.福建省农业科学院土壤肥料研究所,福建福州 350013;
3.福建农林大学生命科学学院,福建福州 350002

收稿日期:2022-02-17 修回日期:2022-03-30 出版日期:2022-10-15 发布日期:2022-10-28
通讯作者: * sd_wolong@163.com
作者简介:李艳春,女,助理研究员,主要从事生态农业方面的研究,lyc7758@163.com。
基金资助:
中央引导地方科技发展专项（2021L3021）、福建省科技厅公益项目（2022R1021003）、福建省农业科学院项目（GJPY2019006、ZYTS2021007、XTCXGC2021010）

Ameliorative Effect of Several Measures on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Community Structures in Acidified Tea Gardens

LI Yanchun¹, WANG Hang³, LI Zhaowei³, YE Jing¹, WANG Yixiang^1,2,*

1. Agricultural Ecology Institute, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fujian Key Laboratory of Agricultural Ecological Process of Red Soil Mountain, Fuzhou 350013, China;
2. Soil and Fertilizer Institute, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fuzhou 350013, China;
3. College of life Science, Fujian Agricultural and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China

Received:2022-02-17 Revised:2022-03-30 Online:2022-10-15 Published:2022-10-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 茶园土壤酸化是制约茶树可持续生产的重要因素,通过田间小区试验分析比较几种措施对茶园土壤的改良效果,以期为茶园酸化土壤改良提供科学依据。试验设置7个处理：全量化肥（常规施肥,NPK）、全量化肥+10 t•hm^-2生物质炭（NPK+BC10）、有机肥替代50%化肥（OM50）、有机肥替代50%化肥+2 t•hm^-2生石灰（OM50+Lime）、有机肥替代50%化肥+10 t•hm^-2生物质炭（OM50+BC10）、有机肥替代50%化肥+20 t•hm^-2生物质炭（OM50+BC20）、有机肥替代50%化肥+40 t•hm^-2生物质炭（OM50+BC40）。连续施用2年后,对茶园土壤酸度、养分和微生物群落进行测定。与NPK相比,OM50+Lime、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理土壤pH分别显著提高1.10、0.49和0.68,盐基饱和度分别显著提高114.01%、55.92%和58.62%。OM50+BC10、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理的土壤有机碳含量分别比NPK处理显著增加了29.68%、41.04%和59.37%。不同处理对土壤硝态氮含量无显著影响,OM50、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理的铵态氮含量比NPK处理分别显著提高了40.27%、44.77%和41.77%。NPK+BC10、OM50+BC10、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理能显著提高土壤微生物活性、微生物群落物种丰富度、多样性和均一性。OM50+BC10、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理显著降低了真菌/细菌比例,表明这3个处理短期内增加了红壤茶园土壤生态系统稳定性,但OM50+Lime处理的革兰氏阴性菌/革兰氏阳性菌比例显著低于对照处理,表明施用生石灰处理的土壤微生物受到的环境胁迫程度高于其他处理。总之,OM50+Lime、OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理对酸化茶园土壤有较好的改良效果,OM50+BC20和OM50+BC40处理对土壤微生物群落性质方面的改良效果更佳。综合考虑改良效应及成本,OM50+BC20为最佳改良方案。

关键词: 茶园土壤, 酸化, 土壤微生物群落, 生物质炭, 石灰, 有机肥

Abstract: Acidification of tea garden soil is an important factor that restricts sustainable production of tea plants. Field plot experiments were conducted to study the effects of several improvement measures on acidified tea soils, which would provide scientific basis to improve the soil quality. The experiment involved several treatments: (1) pure chemical fertilizer (routine fertilization, NPK), (2) chemical fertilizer plus 10 t•hm^-2 biochar (NPK+BC10), (3) organic manure substituted 50% of chemical fertilizer (OM50), (4) organic manure substituted 50% of chemical fertilizer plus lime (OM50+Lime), (5) organic manure substituted 50% of chemical fertilizer plus 10 t•hm^-2 biochar (OM50+BC10), (6) organic manure substituted 50% of chemical fertilizer plus 20 t•hm^-2 biochar (OM50+BC20), and (7) organic manure substituted 50% of chemical fertilizer plus 40 t•hm^-2 biochar (OM50+BC40). After two years of continuous application, soil samples were taken to determine the soil acidity, the nutrient contents, and the microbial community. The microbial community structure was measured using phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) and Biolog technology. Compared with NPK, soil pH were significantly increased by 1.10, 0.49 and 0.68 units, and base saturation were significantly increased by 114.01%, 55.92% and 58.62% in OM50+Lime, OM50+BC20, and OM50+BC40 treatments, respectively. Compared with NPK, soil organic carbon contents under OM50+BC10, OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 treatments were significantly increased by 29.68%, 41.04% and 59.37%, respectively. All treatments had no significant effect on soil nitrate nitrogen content, while the ammonium nitrogen contents under OM50, OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 treatments were significantly increased by 40.27%, 44.77% and 41.77% compared with NPK. NPK+BC10, OM50+BC10, OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 significantly increased soil microbial activity, species richness, diversity and homogeneity of microbial community. OM50+BC10, OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 treatments significantly reduced the ratios of fungi to bacteria, indicating that they increased the stability of soil ecosystem in the short term. The ratio of gram-negative bacteria to gram-positive bacteria under OM50+Lime treatment was significantly lower than that under NPK, which indicates that soil microorganism under OM50+Lime suffered the greater environmental stress than that under other treatments. In summary, OM50+Lime, OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 had obvious improvement effect on acidified tea garden soil, while OM50+BC20 and OM50+BC40 had better improvement effect on soil microbial community properties than OM50+Lime. Simultaneous considering ameliorative effect and cost of economy, OM50+BC20 was the best improvement scheme.

Key words: tea garden soils, acidification, soil microbial community, biochar, lime, organic manure

中图分类号:

S571.1

李艳春, 汪航, 李兆伟, 叶菁, 王义祥. 几种改良措施对酸化茶园土壤理化性质和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2022, 42(5): 661-671. doi: 10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2022.05.009.

LI Yanchun, WANG Hang, LI Zhaowei, YE Jing, WANG Yixiang. Ameliorative Effect of Several Measures on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Community Structures in Acidified Tea Gardens[J]. Journal of Tea Science, 2022, 42(5): 661-671. doi: 10.13305/j.cnki.jts.2022.05.009.

参考文献

[1] 中华人民共和国统计局. 中国统计年鉴2020[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2021.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook 2020 [M]. Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House, 2021.
[2] Han W, Kemmitt S J, Brookes P C.Soil microbial biomass and activity in Chinese tea gardens of varying stand age and productivity[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2007, 39: 1468-1478.
[3] Li Y C, Li Z, Li Z W, et al.Variations of rhizosphere bacterial communities in tea (Camellia sinensis L.) continuous cropping soil by high-throughoput pyrose-quencing approch[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2016, 121: 787-799.
[4] Li Y C, Li Z W, Arafat Y, et al.Studies on fungal communities and functional guilds shift in tea continuous cropping soils by high-throughput sequencing[J]. Annals of Microbilogy, 2020, 70: 7. doi: 10.1186/s13213-020-01555-y.
[5] 于宁, 关连珠, 娄翼来, 等. 施石灰对北方连作烟田土壤酸度调节及酶活性恢复研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2008, 39(4): 849-851.
Yu N, Guan L Z, Lou Y L, et al.Lime application regulates soil acidity and restores enzyme activities in the fields cultivated continuously with tobacco, Northern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2008, 39(4): 849-851.
[6] 唐莉娜, 熊德忠, 张永成, 等. 酸性土壤施石灰对烟稻轮作后效的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2002, 31(4): 517-520.
Tang L N, Xiong D Z, Zhang Y C, et al.Residual effect of lime application on farming system of tobacco-rice in acid soil[J]. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2002, 31(4): 517-520.
[7] 龙光强, 蒋瑀霁, 孙波. 长期施用猪粪对红壤酸度的改良效应[J]. 土壤, 2012, 44(5): 727-734.
Long G Q, Jiang Y J, Sun B.Effects of long-term application of pig manure on ameliorating acidity of red soil[J]. Soils, 2012, 44(5): 727-734.
[8] 徐仁扣. 土壤酸化及其调控研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2): 238-244.
Xu R K.Research progresses in soil acidification and its control[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(2): 238-244.
[9] 孟红旗, 吕家珑, 徐明岗, 等. 有机肥的碱度及其减缓土壤酸化的机制[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18(5): 123-130.
Meng H Q, Lü J L, Xu M G, et al.Alkalinity of organic manure and its mechanism for mitigating soil acidification[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2012, 18(5): 123-130.
[10] 罗玲, 潘宏兵, 钟奇, 等. 石灰和有机肥对芒果园酸性土壤的改良效果及对芒果品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(3): 169-177.
Luo L, Pan H B, Zhong Q, et al.Effects of lime and organic fertilizer on acid soil of mango plantation and mango quality[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2021(3): 169-177.
[11] 张阿凤, 潘根兴, 李恋卿. 生物黑炭及其增汇减排与改良土壤意义[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(12): 2459-2463.
Zhang A F, Pan G X, Li L Q.Biochar and the effect on C stock enhancement, emission reduction of greenhouse gases and soil reclaimation[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2009, 28(12): 2459-2463.
[12] Yuan J H, Xu R K.The amelioration effects of low temperature biochar generated from nine crop residues on an acidic Ultisol[J]. Soil Use and Management, 2011, 27: 110-115.
[13] 吴志丹, 尤志明, 江福英, 等. 生物黑炭对酸化茶园土壤的改良效果[J]. 福建农业学报, 2012, 27(2): 167-172.
Wu Z D, You Z M, Jiang F Y, et al.Ameliorating effect of biochar on acidity of tea garden soil[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 27(2): 167-172.
[14] 王义祥, 辛思洁, 叶菁, 等. 生物炭对强酸性茶园土壤酸度的改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(12): 108-111.
Wang Y X, Xin S J, Ye J, et al.Improvement effect of biochar on soil acidity in strong acidity tea garden[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(12): 108-111.
[15] 王义祥, 黄家庆, 叶菁, 等. 生物炭对酸化茶园土壤性状和真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2021, 41(3): 419-429.
Wang Y X, Huang J Q, Ye J, et al.Effects of biochar application on soil properties and fungi community structure in acidified tea gardens[J]. Journal of Tea Science, 2021, 41(3): 419-429.
[16] 李艳春, 李兆伟, 林伟伟, 等. 施用生物质炭和羊粪对宿根连作茶园根际土壤微生物的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(4): 1273-1282.
Li Y C, Li Z W, Lin W W, et al.Effects of biochar and sheep manure on rhizospheric soil microbial community in continuous ratooning tea orchards[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(4): 1273-1282.
[17] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
Lu R K.Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis [M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000.
[18] Wu L K, Li Z F, Li J, et al.Assessment of shifts in microbial community structure and catabolic diversity in response to Rehmannia glutinosa monoculture[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2013, 67(5): 1-9.
[19] 刘波, 胡桂萍, 郑雪芳, 等. 利用磷脂脂肪酸(PLFAs)生物标记法分析水稻根际土壤微生物多样性[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2010, 24(3): 278-288.
Liu B, Hu G P, Zheng X F, et al.Analysis on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere of rice by phospholipid fatty acids biomarkers[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2010, 24(3): 278-288.
[20] 杨宇虹, 陈冬梅, 晋艳, 等. 不同肥料种类对连作烟草根际土壤微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(1): 105-111.
Yang Y H, Chen D M, Jin Y, et al.Effects of different fertilizers on functional diversities of microbial flora in rhizospheric soil of monoculture tobacco[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011, 37(1): 105-111.
[21] 宁川川, 王建武, 蔡昆争. 有机肥对土壤肥力和土壤环境质量的影响研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(1): 175-181.
Ning C C, Wang J W, Cai K Z.The effects of organic fertilizers on soil fertility and soil environmental quality: a review[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 25(1): 175-181.
[22] 张永春, 汪吉东, 沈明星, 等. 长期不同施肥对太湖地区典型土壤酸化的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2010, 47(3): 465-472.
Zhang Y C, Wang J D, Shen M X, et al.Effects of long-term fertilization on soil acidification in Taihu lake region, China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2010, 47(3): 465-472.
[23] 解开治, 徐培智, 严超, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对南方酸性土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(20): 160-165.
Xie K Z, Xu P Z, Yan C, et al.Study the effects of soil improvement on acid soil in the South of China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2009, 25(20): 160-165.
[24] 胡敏, 向永生, 鲁剑巍. 石灰用量对酸性土壤酸度及大麦幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(20): 3896-3903.
Hu M, Xiang Y S, Lu J W.Effects of lime application rates on soil acidity and barley seeding growth in acidic soils[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(20): 3896-3903.
[25] 李九玉, 赵安珍, 袁金华, 等. 农业废弃物制备的生物质炭对红壤酸度和油菜产量的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2): 334-339.
Li J Y, Zhao A Z, Yuan J H, et al.Amelioration effects of crop residue-derived biochars on soil acidity and canola yield in red soil[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(2): 334-339.
[26] 周桂玉, 窦森, 刘世杰. 生物质炭结构性质及其对土壤有效养分和腐殖质组成的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(10): 2075-2080.
Zhou G Y, Dou S, Liu S J.The structural characteristics of biochar and its effects on soil available nutrients and humus composition[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2011, 30(10): 2075-2080.
[27] 邓玉峰, 田善义, 成艳红, 等. 模拟氮沉降下施石灰对休耕红壤优势植物根际土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 14(21): 1-11.
Deng Y F, Tian S Y, Cheng Y H, et al.Effects of liming on rhizosphere soil communities of dominant plants in fallowed red soil under simulated nitrogen deposition[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 14(21): 1-11.
[28] 何玉亭, 王昌全, 沈杰, 等. 两种生物质炭对红壤团聚体结构稳定性和微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(12): 2333-2342.
He Y T, Wang C Q, Shegn J, et al.Effects of two biochars on red soil aggregate stability and microbial community[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(12): 2333-2342.
[29] 孙凤霞, 张伟华, 徐明岗, 等. 长期施肥对红壤微生物生物量碳氮和微生物碳源利用的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(11): 2792-2798.
Sun F X, Zhang W H, Xu M G, et al.Effects of long-term fertilization on microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen and on carbon source utilization of microbes in a red soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(11): 2792-2798.
[30] 陈法霖, 张凯, 王芸, 等. 引进种桉树人工林取代天然次生林对土壤微生物群落结构和功能的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(22): 8070-8079.
Chen F L, Zhang K, Wang Y, et al.Impacts of converting natural secondary forests to exotic Eucalyptus plantations on structure and function of soil microbial communities[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(22): 8070-8079.
[31] Cavagnaro T R, Cunningham S C, Fitzpatrick S.Pastures to woodlands: changes in soil microbial communities and carbon following reforestation[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 107: 24-32.
[32] 谷晓楠, 贺红士, 陶岩, 等. 长白山土壤微生物群落结构及酶活性随海拔的分布特征与影响因子[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(24): 8374-8384.
Gu X N, He H S, Tao Y, et al.Soil microbial community structure, enzyme activities, and their influencing factors along different altitudes of Changbai Mountain[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(24): 8374-8384.
[33] 李明, 赵建宁, 秦洁, 等. 氮素添加对贝加尔针茅草原土壤团聚体微生物群落的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(3): 1127-1137.
Li M, Zhao J N, Qin J, et al.Effects of nitrogen addition on microbial community in soil aggregates of Stipa Baicalensis Steppe in Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(3): 1127-1137.
[34] Shen C, Xiong J, Zhang H, et al.Soil pH drives the spatial distribution of bacterial communities along elevation on Changbai Mountain[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2012, 57: 204-211.
[35] Wong M T F, Nortcliff S, Swift R S. Method for determining the acid ameliorating capacity of plant residue compost, urban waste compost, farmyard manure and peat applied to tropical soils[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 1998, 29: 2927-2937.

几种改良措施对酸化茶园土壤理化性质和微生物群落结构的影响

Ameliorative Effect of Several Measures on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Community Structures in Acidified Tea Gardens

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	林诚, 陈子聪, 吴一群, 颜明娟. 林地转变为茶园的土壤pH及养分变化特征[J]. 茶叶科学, 2020, 40(2): 186-193.
[2]	樊战辉, 唐小军, 郑丹, 杨琴, 陈光年, 李晓文, 孙家宾. 茶园土壤酸化成因及改良措施研究和展望[J]. 茶叶科学, 2020, 40(1): 15-25.
[3]	牛司耘, 倪康, 赵晨光, 马立锋, 阮建云. 不同地区茶园土壤硝化潜势特征研究[J]. 茶叶科学, 2019, 39(6): 731-741.
[4]	王峰, 单睿阳, 陈玉真, 林栋良, 臧春荣, 陈常颂, 尤志明, 余文权. 闽中某县茶园土壤-茶树-茶汤中镉含量及健康风险评价研究[J]. 茶叶科学, 2018, 38(5): 537-546.
[5]	王峰, 吴志丹, 陈玉真, 江福英, 朱留刚, 张文锦, 翁伯琦, 尤志明. 生物质炭配施氮肥对茶树生长及氮素利用率的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2018, 38(4): 331-341.
[6]	王利民, 黄东风, 李清华, 何春梅, 张辉, 刘彩玲, 栗方亮, 黄毅斌. 不同培肥方式对茶园土壤团聚体中有机碳和全氮分布的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2018, 38(4): 342-352.
[7]	谢珊妮, 宗良纲, 张琪惠, 戴荣波, 潘含岳, 原强. 3种改良剂对强酸性高硒茶园土壤硒有效性调控效果与机理[J]. 茶叶科学, 2017, 37(3): 299-307.
[8]	王峰, 陈玉真, 吴志丹, 江福英, 张文锦, 翁伯琦, 尤志明. 施用生物质炭对酸性茶园土壤氨挥发的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2017, 37(1): 60-70.
[9]	罗毅, 苏有健, 张永利, 夏先江, 宋莉, 王烨军, 廖万有. 茶园芽孢杆菌QM7促生特性及耐酸铝机制初步研究[J]. 茶叶科学, 2016, 36(6): 567-574.
[10]	梁璋成, 何志刚, 刘淑梅, 林晓姿, 李维新. 绿茶对红曲黄酒酿造品质及寒热性影响研究[J]. 茶叶科学, 2016, 36(3): 293-300.
[11]	唐劲驰, 周波, 黎健龙, 唐颢, 操君喜. 蚯蚓生物有机培肥技术（FBO）对茶园土壤微生物特征及酶活性的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2016, 36(1): 45-51.
[12]	刘美雅, 伊晓云, 石元值, 马立锋, 阮建云. 茶园土壤性状及茶树营养元素吸收、转运机制研究进展[J]. 茶叶科学, 2015, 35(2): 110-120.
[13]	肖瑶, 周天山, 李佼, 张佳欣, 余有本. 茶树GDP-D-甘露糖焦磷酸化酶基因cDNA全长的克隆与表达分析[J]. 茶叶科学, 2015, 35(1): 55-63.
[14]	王峰, 陈玉真, 尤志明, 吴志丹, 江福英, 张文锦, 翁伯琦. 不同施氮量对两种茶园土壤硝化作用和pH值的影响[J]. 茶叶科学, 2015, 35(1): 82-90.
[15]	韩晓阳, 李智, 张丽霞, 黄晓琴. 茶园土壤高活性固氮菌的筛选鉴定及接种效果初步研究[J]. 茶叶科学, 2014, 34(5): 497-505.