Effects of Different Earthworms on Continuous Cropping Obstacles in Watermelon-Earthworm Co-culture Pattern
-
摘要:
目的 为了探索种养模式下，不同品种蚯蚓对连作土壤微生态及西瓜长势的影响，阐释蚯蚓防控西瓜连作障碍机制。 方法 基于连作6 a的西瓜设施大棚，以连作障碍成因为切入点，设置不投放蚯蚓（CK）、投放0.6 kg m−2赤子爱胜蚓（T1）、投放0.6 kg m−2威廉环毛蚓（T2）3个处理，监测不同时期土壤微生态、西瓜长势的变化动态，并分析它们之间的相关性。 结果 与CK相比，西瓜移栽前，T1、T2增加了土壤总养分（23.92% ~ 31.90%）、有效养分（10.67% ~ 13.70%）的含量；西瓜种植季，T1、T2显著降低土壤的pH（2.03% ~ 8.25%）、总酚酸（23.98% ~ 60.80%）、容重（3.79% ~ 5.39%）、西瓜枯萎病病原菌的数量（22.93% ~ 59.18%），显著提高了细菌数量、土壤细菌/真菌比值，显著降低了西瓜枯萎病的发病率（10.00%以上），促进了主蔓生长（增加了71.43%以上）。而与T1相比，T2能更好的改善土壤微生态环境，降低连作障碍的发生。 结论 蚯蚓能显著改善土壤微生态，促进西瓜生长，从而缓解连作障碍，而且土壤微生态、西瓜长势均与土壤微生物密切相关。 Abstract:Objective Continuous cropping resulted in soil microbial deterioration and serious soil-borne diseases. Earthworms could improve soil quality, however, there are few studies on the effect of earthworms to alleviate continuous cropping obstacles. This study determined how earthworms affected soil microecology and watermelon growth and the underlying mechanisms in the watermelon-earthworm co-culture pattern. Method Based on a six-year watermelon continuous cropping system, three treatments were selected: no earthworms (CK), inoculated Eisenia fetida with 0.6 kg m−2(T1), inoculated Pheretima guillemi with 0.6 kg m−2 (T2). The changes of soil microecology nutrients, physicochemical properties, allelochemicals, microorganisms, and watermelon growth in different periods were monitored, and the correlation between them was analyzed. Result The results showed that soil total nutrients and available nutrients of T1 and T2 were significantly higher than CK (23.92%-31.90%, 10.67%-13.70%, respectively) at the transplanting period of watermelon seedlings. Compared with CK, T1 and T2 significantly reduced soil pH (2.03%-8.25%), total phenolic acid (23.98%-60.80%), bulk density (3.79%-5.39%), the number of F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum (22.93%-59.18%), and significantly increased the number of bacteria and the ratio of bacteria to fungi. At the same time, T1 and T2 significantly promoted the growth of watermelon (the incidence of Fusarium wilt was reduced by more than 10.00%, and the length of the main vine was increased by more than 71.43%) compared with CK. Compared with T1, T2 was more effective in alleviating continuous cropping obstacles. Correlation analysis showed that soil microorganisms were the primary factor for earthworms to alleviate watermelon continuous cropping obstacles. Conclusion Earthworms significantly improve soil microecology and promote the growth of watermelon, which will alleviate continuous cropping obstacles. Moreover, soil microecology and watermelon growth are closely related to soil microorganisms. -
图 1 不同处理西瓜枯萎病发病率（a）及西瓜植株蔓长（b）的变化
Figure 1. Dynamics of the incidence of Fusarium wilt (a) and vine length (b) under different treatments
表 1 不同处理土壤养分含量的变化
Table 1. Soil nutrient dynamics of different treatments
时期
Period处理
Treatment全氮（g kg–1）
TN全磷（g kg–1）
TP全钾（g kg–1）
TK碱解氮（mg kg–1）
AN有效磷（mg kg–1）
AP有效钾（mg kg–1）
AK有机质（g kg–1）
SOM移栽前 CK 1.46 ± 0.01 b 1.55 ± 0.07 b 23.25 ± 0.35 bc 127.02 ± 0.7 e 54.02 ± 5.64 d 505.00 ± 7.07 c 17.81 ± 0.14 d T1 1.53 ± 0.01 a 1.65 ± 0.06 a 29.25 ± 0.35 a 141.58 ± 3.13 c 68.77 ± 7.65 bc 550.00 ± 14.14 a 22.55 ± 0.35 b T2 1.56 ± 0.01 a 1.71 ± 0.06 a 31.49 ± 0.01 a 150.82 ± 2.33 b 70.32 ± 3.70 b 560.00 ± 28.28 a 23.82 ± 0.45 a 伸蔓期 CK 1.47 ± 0.03 b 1.52 ± 0.16 b 21.64 ± 0.82 c 122.38 ± 5.02 e 53.32 ± 1.27 d 501.33 ± 15.28 c 17.74 ± 0.05 d T1 1.49 ± 0.02 b 1.57 ± 0.03 ab 24.67 ± 1.61 b 135.04 ± 6.85 d 61.57 ± 2.51 c 546.67 ± 20.82 a 20.43 ± 1.04 c T2 1.51 ± 0.04 ab 1.61 ± 0.1 ab 26.33 ± 1.26 b 144.28 ± 2.93 c 64.15 ± 2.41 c 548.00 ± 19.70 a 21.24 ± 0.36 c 盛花期 CK 1.50 ± 0.01 ab 1.52 ± 0.01 b 25.76 ± 0.78 b 133.15 ± 5.56 d 70.55 ± 1,00 b 518.51 ± 17.68 b 18.15 ± 0.35 d T1 1.53 ± 0.01 a 1.59 ± 0.01 ab 29.65 ± 0.21 a 155.24 ± 2.1 b 76.54 ± 1.36 b 551.50 ± 7.78 a 21.10 ± 0.85 c T2 1.56 ± 0.01 a 1.64 ± 0.03 a 33.15 ± 0.21 a 162.12 ± 9.31 a 82.72 ± 2.64 a 560.00 ± 14.14 a 22.01 ± 0.43 b 盛果期 CK 1.50 ± 0.01 ab 1.51 ± 0.01 b 23.75 ± 0.35 bc 129.57 ± 3.74 de 67.38 ± 2.60 c 505.00 ± 21.21 c 17.71 ± 0.14 d T1 1.51 ± 0.05 ab 1.51 ± 0.03 b 24.92 ± 0.30 b 148.45 ± 3.66 c 70.49 ± 4.66 b 512.50 ± 0.71 b 18.45 ± 0.21 d T2 1.52 ± 0.04 a 1.53 ± 0.01 b 26.75 ± 0.81 ab 150.79 ± 7.77 bc 73.62 ± 4.59 b 515.00 ± 12.73 b 18.65 ± 0.21 d 注：CK: 不投放蚯蚓; T1: 投放赤子爱胜蚓0.6 kg m–2; T2投放威廉环毛蚓0.6 kg m–2。表中数据为 3 个数值的平均值 ± 标准差。同列数据后不同字母表示处理间差异显著（P < 0.05）。下同。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同处理土壤理化性质、总酚酸含量的变化
Table 2. Dynamics of physicochemical properties and total phenolic acids under different treatments
时期
Period处理
TreatmentpH 水溶性总盐（%）
TSS阳离子交换量（cmol kg–1）
CEC总酚酸（mg g–1）
TPA容重（g cm–3）
SBD移栽前 CK 7.90 ± 0.04 a 0.17 ± 0.05 c 14.30 ± 0.63 d 52.46 ± 3.34 c 1.32 ± 0.01 a T1 7.74 ± 0.14 b 0.13 ± 0.00 d 14.97 ± 0.99 d 39.88 ± 0.38 d 1.27 ± 0.01 b T2 7.5 ± 0.05 cd 0.13 ± 0.02 d 16.99 ± 0.44 c 34.72 ± 0.77 f 1.25 ± 0.01 bc 伸蔓期 CK 7.92 ± 0.07 a 0.17 ± 0.01 c 16.97 ± 0.79 c 55.42 ± 0.56 b 1.30 ± 0.01 a T1 7.62 ± 0.04 bc 0.16 ± 0.01 c 18.75 ± 1.87 c 39.39 ± 0.56 d 1.25 ± 0.02 bc T2 7.58 ± 0.12 c 0.15 ± 0.03 cd 18.28 ± 1.20 c 34.64 ± 2.06 f 1.24 ± 0.01 bc 盛花期 CK 7.91 ± 0.02 a 0.20 ± 0.01 bc 17.11 ± 0.94 c 58.96 ± 1.25 b 1.30 ± 0.01 a T1 7.59 ± 0.06 c 0.16 ± 0.03 c 18.36 ± 0.83 c 36.69 ± 0.71 d 1.25 ± 0.01 bc T2 7.42 ± 0.06 de 0.17 ± 0.01 c 19.06 ± 0.11 c 32.79 ± 1.48 e 1.23 ± 0.01 cd 盛果期 CK 7.94 ± 0.03 a 0.27 ± 0.02 a 18.27 ± 0.97 c 67.07 ± 1.62 a 1.30 ± 0.01 a T1 7.62 ± 0.01 bc 0.23 ± 0.05 ab 23.48 ± 0.71 b 33.65 ± 1.39 e 1.24 ± 0.01 cd T2 7.29 ± 0.01 e 0.21 ± 0.05 bc 28.34 ± 2.11 a 26.29 ± 2.18 g 1.23 ± 0.01 d
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同处理土壤细菌、真菌及西瓜枯萎病病原菌的变化
Table 3. Dynamics of soil bacteria, fungi and F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum under different treatments
时期
Period处理
Treatment病原菌
FON
x104 Copies g–1细菌
Bacteria
x109 Copies g–1真菌
Fungi
x107 Copies g–1细菌/真菌比值
Ratio of
Bacteria to Fungi移栽前 CK 1.35 ± 0.04 b 6.8 ± 0.18 g 3.84 ± 0.73 b 177.08 T1 0.87 ± 0.05 d 8.88 ± 0.72 f 2.29 ± 0.35 cd 358.52 T2 0.72 ± 0.04 d 10.83 ± 0.68 e 1.97 ± 0.17 d 549.75 伸蔓期 CK 1.57 ± 0.06 b 6.96 ± 0.29 g 3.95 ± 0.29 b 176.20 T1 1.21 ± 0.04 c 10.36 ± 0.71 e 2.45 ± 1.53 c 422.86 T2 1.11 ± 0.03 c 13.65 ± 0.89 d 2.03 ± 0.27 d 672.41 盛花期 CK 2.52 ± 0.06 a 10.02 ± 0.59 e 4.96 ± 0.67 a 202.02 T1 1.26 ± 0.06 c 14.96 ± 1.29 cd 2.84 ± 0.39 bc 526.76 T2 1.29 ± 0.02 bc 19.85 ± 1.46 b 2.59 ± 0.34 c 766.41 盛果期 CK 2.94 ± 0.06 a 10.4 ± 0.64 e 5.17 ± 0.74 a 201.16 T1 1.24 ± 0.04 c 16.38 ± 0.73 c 3.35 ± 0.56 b 488.96 T2 1.20 ± 0.03 c 22.39 ± 2.41 a 2.93 ± 0.14 b 764.16
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 西瓜-蚯蚓种养模式下，西瓜生长指标与土壤微生态因子的相关性性
Table 4. Correlation analysis between watermelon growth indicators and soil factors
相关性系数
CoefficientpH 全氮
TN全磷
TP全钾
TK碱解氮
AV有效磷
AP有效钾
AK有机质
SOM水溶性
总盐
TSS阳离子
交换量
CEC总酚酸
TPA容重
SBD病原菌
FON细菌
Bacteria真菌
Fungi发病率 Pearson 0.533 −0.097 −0.528 −0.277 −0.322 0.11 −0.497 −0.548 0.569 −0.065 0.704* 0.578 0.891** −0.221 0.820** Spearman 0.427 0.076 −0.664 −0.167 −0.1 0.383 −0.333 −0.583 0.529 0.233 0.670* 0.352 0.819** 0.05 0.817** 主蔓长 Pearson −0.605 0.731* −0.17 0.264 0.674* 0.577 0.184 0.720* 0.531 0.894** −0.687* −0.164 −0.525 0.833** −0.073 Spearman −0.536 0.715* −0.05 0.417 0.667* 0.539 0.1 0.683* 0.529 0.900** −0.667* −0.217 −0.596 0.917** 0.033 注：**和*分别表示 P < 0.01 和 P < 0.05 水平显著相关。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 吴凤芝, 赵凤艳, 刘元英. 设施蔬菜连作障碍原因综合分析与防治措施[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2000, 31(3): 241 − 247. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9369.2000.03.007 [2] Huang L F, Song L X, Xia X, et al. Plant-soil feedbacks and soil sickness: from mechanisms to application in agriculture[J]. Journal of chemical ecology, 2013, 39: 232 − 242. [3] 魏晓明, 赵银平, 杨瑞平. 设施西瓜连作障碍及防治措施研究进展[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2016, 29: 1 − 5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-2871.2016.01.001 [4] 胡琴琴. 防放线菌筛选及对西瓜连作障碍修复机制研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2021 [5] 喻景权, 杜尧舜. 蔬菜设施栽培可持续发展中的连作障碍问题[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2000, 31(1): 124 − 126. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2000.01.035 [6] 周开胜. 强还原土壤消毒防控连作障碍效果及影响因素研究[D]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2021. [7] Edwards C A, Fletcher K E. 1988. Interactions between earthworms and microorganisms in organic-matter breakdown[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 1988, 24: 235 − 47. [8] 王 斌, 李 根, 陈 欢, 焦加国, 等. 蚯蚓作用下土壤化学组成和性状的动态变化[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013, 27(3): 273 − 277. doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2013.03.012 [9] Doran J W, Zeiss M R. Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil quality[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2000, 15: 3 − 11. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6 [10] Szczzech M M. Suppressiveness of vermicompost against Fusarium wilt of tomato[J]. Journal of Phytopathology, 2010, 147(3): 155 − 161. [11] 柏彦超, 周雄飞, 赵学辉, 等. 蚓粪基质克服西瓜连作障碍的应用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(08): 212 − 216. [12] Zhao H T, Li T P, Zhang Y, Hu J, et al. Effects of vermicompost amendment as a basal fertilizer on soil properties and cucumber yield and quality under continuous cropping conditions in a greenhouse[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2017, 17: 1 − 13. [13] 曹云娥, 尹 翠, 吴泽帅, 等. 蚯蚓原位堆肥提升番茄连作土壤质量研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(02): 247 − 259. [14] Goswami L, Nath A, Sutradhar S. Application of drum compost and vermicompost to improve soil health, growth, and yield parameters for tomato and cabbage plants[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 200: 243 − 252. [15] Ding Z L, Kheir A M S, Ali O A M, et al. A vermicompost and deep tillage system to improve saline-sodic soil quality and wheat productivity[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 277: 111388. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111388 [16] 申佳丽, 安明远, 魏延风, 等. 三种不同土壤改良剂对黄瓜根际微生物数量和群落代谢功能多样性的影响[J/OL]. 微生物学通报: 1-15[2022-05-13]. [17] 毕艳孟. 蚯蚓缓解草莓连作障碍的效应及机理研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2016. [18] 张娟琴, 李双喜, 郑宪清, 等. 蚯蚓防控西瓜枯萎病的效果及其机理探索[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2020, 36(1): 70 − 76. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2020.01.010 [19] 张娟琴, 郑宪清, 李双喜, 等. 西瓜连作土壤微生态环境对生物耕作的动态响应[J]. 上海农业学报, 2021, 37(2): 81 − 87. doi: 10.15955/j.issn1000-3924.2021.02.15 [20] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版, 1998: 308-365. [21] 吴 萼, 徐 宁, 温美娟. 磷钼酸-磷钨酸盐比色法测定土壤中总酚酸含量[J]. 环境化学, 2000, (1): 67 − 72. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0254-6108.2000.01.012 [22] Fierer N, Jackson J A, Vilgalys R, Jackson R B. Assessment of soil microbial community structure by use of taxon-specific quantitative PCR assays[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2005, 71(7): 4117 − 4120. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.7.4117-4120.2005 [23] 赵 爽, 罗 佳, 凌 宁, 等. 基因宏阵列和荧光定量PCR方法对西瓜枯萎病害土壤中尖孢镰刀菌的快速检测和定量[J]. 土壤学报, 2010, 47(4): 703 − 708. [24] Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, et al. A history of research on the link between microaggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2004, 79(1): 7 − 31. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008 [25] Ngo P T, Rumpel C, Doan T T, et al. The effect of earthworms on carbon storage and soil organic matter composition in tropical soil amended with compost and vermicompost[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2012, 50(9): 214 − 220. [26] 张宝贵. 蚯蚓与微生物的相互作用[J]. 生态学报, 1997, (5): 106 − 110. [27] 张宝贵, 李贵桐, 孙 钊, 王建奎. 两种生态类型蚯蚓几种消化酶活性比较研究[J]. 生态学报, 2001, (6): 978 − 981. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2001.06.020 [28] 郭亚雯, 崔建钊, 孟 延, 等. 设施早熟西瓜和甜瓜的化肥施用现状及减施潜力[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(5): 858 − 868. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.19317 [29] Scullion J, Malik A. Earthworm activity affecting organic matter, aggregation and microbial activity in soil restored after opencast mining for coal[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2000, 32: 119 − 126. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00142-X [30] Hooper D U, Chapin F S, Ewel J J, et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge[J]. Ecological Monographs, 2005, 75(1): 3 − 35. doi: 10.1890/04-0922 [31] Bi Y M, Tian G L, Wang C, et al. Application of leaves to induce earthworms to reduce phenolic compounds released by decomposing plants[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2016, 75: 31 − 37. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.04.007 [32] Zhou, X, Wu, F. Dynamics of the diversity of fungal and Fusarium communities during continuous cropping of cucumber in the greenhouse[J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2012, 80: 469 − 478. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01312.x [33] Stokell J R, HampT J, Steck T R. Examining changes in bacterial abundance in complex communities using next-generation sequencing is enhanced with quantitative PCR[J]. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 2016, 109: 1161 − 1166. doi: 10.1007/s10482-016-0707-4 [34] Props R, Kerckhof F M, Rubbens P, et al. Absolute quantification of microbial taxon abundances[J]. The ISME Journal, 2017, 11(2): 584 − 587. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2016.117 [35] Li X G, Ding C F, Hua K, et al. Soil sickness of peanuts is attributable to modifications in soil microbes induced by peanut root exudates rather than to direct allelopathy[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2014, 78: 149 − 159. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.019 [36] 郎立娜, 孙正骁, 陈元晖, 等. 蚯蚓和细菌对秸秆混粪改良苏打盐碱土碳转化及微生物群落的影响[J/OL]. 农业资源与环境学报: 1-13[2022-05-13]. [37] Wardle D A. The influence of biotic interactions on soil biodiversity[J]. Ecology Letter, 2006, 9: 870 − 886. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00931.x [38] Guo J H, Liu X J, Zhang Y, et al. Significant acidification in major chinese croplands[J]. Science, 2010, 327(5968): 1008 − 1010. doi: 10.1126/science.1182570 [39] Martyn R D. Fusarium wilt of watermelon: 120 years of research[J]. Horticultural Reviews, 2014, 42: 349 − 442. [40] Xiong W, Zhao Q Y, Zhao J, et al. Different continuous cropping spans significantly affect microbial community membership and structure in a Vanilla-grown soil as revealed by deep pyrosequencing[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2015, 70: 209 − 218. doi: 10.1007/s00248-014-0516-0 [41] 卢维宏, 张乃明, 包 立, 等. 我国设施栽培连作障碍特征与成因及防治措施的研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(4): 651 − 658. doi: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2020.04.001 -
点击查看大图
图(1) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 22
- HTML全文浏览量: 11
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
