Effects of Straw Mulching and Film-uncovering on the Bacterial Community of Sloping Farmland Soil and Tobacco Leaf Quality
-
摘要: 选择云南省典型坡耕地烟田,以烤烟K326和玉米秸秆为试材,设置秸秆覆盖和揭膜交互方式的6个处理:对照(CK),为常规栽培模式,不覆秸秆 + 揭膜培土;T1,秸秆覆盖 + 揭膜培土;T2,秸秆覆盖 + 破膜培土;T3,秸秆覆盖 + 不揭膜;T4,不覆秸秆 + 破膜培土;T5,不覆秸秆 + 不揭膜。通过大田小区比较试验,揭示不同处理对坡耕地烟田土壤养分、细菌群落结构及烟叶品质的影响,为云南烟区的坡耕地秸秆覆盖和揭膜提供科学指导。结果表明:相较于CK,1)秸秆覆盖有利于提高红壤坡耕地土壤养分含量水平,但对细菌群落丰富度和多样性不利,以T5处理较有利于提高土壤细菌群落丰富度和多样性,尤其对变形菌门和放线菌门相对丰度影响较大,T2处理明显增加特有细菌数和变形菌门、后壁菌门、浮霉菌门相对丰度;2)秸秆覆盖有利于提高烟草植株上部烟叶化学成分的协调性和感官品质,T1和T2处理B2F等级烟叶的化学成分综合指数分别提高6.1%和1.9%,感官质量综合指数分别提高6.0%和4.5%,在各处理中,以T1处理对提高上部烟叶化学成分协调性和感官品质效果最优,T2次之,T5处理最差。综合而言,秸秆覆盖 + 破膜培土模式更适合于当地坡耕地烟田烟草栽培。Abstract: In the typical sloping tobacco field of Yunnan Province, flue-cured tobacco K326 and corn straw were selected as test materials, and six treatments were set: conventional mode without straw covering and film-uncovering (CK); straw mulching and film-uncovering (T1); straw mulching and film breaking (T2); straw mulching and film-covering (T3); no straw mulching and film breaking (T4); no straw mulching and film-covering (T5). The effects of different treatments on soil nutrients, bacterial community structure and tobacco leaf quality were investigated in order to provide a scientific guidance for straw mulching and film-uncovering of sloping farmland in a flue-cured tobacco planting region of Yunnan Province. The results showed that, compared with CK treatment, 1) straw mulching was beneficial to improve the level of nutrient content of sloping farmland red soil, but was undesirable to richness and diversity of bacterial community, T5 treatment was beneficial to improve richness and diversity of soil bacterial community, especially for Proteobacteria (29.26%) and Acatinobacteria (36.23%) had a greater influence on the relatively abundance, T2 treatment significantly increased the number of endemic bacteria and Proteobacteria (29.10%). Firmicutes (6.75%), Planctomycetes (1.01%) relatively abundance; 2) Straw mulching was beneficial to improve the chemical composition coordination and sensory quality of upper tobacco leaves, the comprehensive index of chemical composition of B2F grade tobacco leaves was increased by 6.1% and 1.9%, and the comprehensive index of sensory quality was increased by 6.0% and 4.5%, respectively, in the processing,by T1 treatment to improve the effect of upper tobacco leaf chemical components and sensory quality of coordination, T2 treatment took second place, and T5 was the worst treatment, As a whole, straw mulching and film breaking mode is more suitable for tobacco cultivation of sloping farmland.
-
Key words:
- Straw mulching /
- Film-uncovering /
- Sloping farmland /
- Bacteria diversity /
- Tobacco leaf quality
-
表 1 不同处理对红壤坡耕地土壤主要化学性状的影响
Table 1. Effects of different treatments on the main chemical characteristics in the sloping farmland
处理
Treatment有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzale nitrogen
(mg/kg)速效磷
Available phosphorus
(mg/kg)速效钾
Available potassium
(mg/kg)pH值
pH valueCK 32.1 ± 4.7bc 37.7 ± 4.1a 11.0 ± 4.3a 345.5 ± 91.7a 5.6 ± 0.3a T1 37.9 ± 1.4ab 42.0 ± 6.3a 15.9 ± 0.7a 430.0 ± 85.2a 5.8 ± 0.1a T2 42.5 ± 2.6a 44.3 ± 3.6a 19.4 ± 5.9a 387.8 ± 50.6a 5.8 ± 0.0a T3 33.9 ± 2.6bc 41.7 ± 5.4a 12.9 ± 4.4a 414.1 ± 94.7a 5.8 ± 0.2a T4 32.9 ± 4.2bc 38.7 ± 4.4a 16.9 ± 1.3a 353.9 ± 15.6a 5.8 ± 0.3a T5 27.7 ± 3.2c 37.3 ± 3.6a 11.8 ± 5.1a 359.2 ± 23.5a 5.9 ± 0.2a 注:同列不同小写字母表示不同处理间存在0.05水平上的差异。下同。 表 2 对坡耕地土壤细菌丰富度和多样性的影响
Table 2. Effects of different treatments on soil bacterial richness and diversity in the sloping farmland
处理
TreatmentShannon指数
Shannon IndexSimpson指数
Simpson IndexSobs指数
Sobs IndexChaol指数
Chaol IndexAce指数
Ace IndexCK 5.05 ± 0.72a 0.0645 ± 0.0594a 1419.0 ± 653.7a 1683.6 ± 941.6ab 1675.8 ± 933.4ab T1 5.40 ± 0.97a 0.0249 ± 0.0265a 1108.3 ± 540.2a 1153.4 ± 565.4b 1147.3 ± 564.6b T2 4.89 ± 1.48a 0.1286 ± 0.1754a 1449.3 ± 710.9a 1657.5 ± 947.5ab 1666.7 ± 988.0ab T3 4.92 ± 1.43a 0.1019 ± 0.1440a 1144.0 ± 616.6a 1265.0 ± 674.1b 1240.4 ± 686.4b T4 5.59 ± 0.28a 0.0244 ± 0.0232a 1595.0 ± 559.7a 1983.7 ± 729.3ab 1972.1 ± 775.6ab T5 5.62 ± 0.09a 0.0296 ± 0.0087a 2131 ± 42.3a 2834.4 ± 91.4a 2831.9 ± 67.14a 表 3 不同处理对B2F等级烟叶化学成分协调性的影响
Table 3. Effects of different treatments on the chemical composition coordination of B2F grade tobacco leaves
处理
Treatment总糖
Total
sugar,
%还原糖
Reducing
sugar,
%氯离子
Cl−,
%总植物碱
Nicotine,
%钾离子
K+,
%总氮
Total
nitrogen,
%淀粉
Starch,
%糖碱比
Ratio of total
sugar to Nicotine氮碱比
Ratio of total
nitrogen
to /NIC钾氯比
Ratio of K+
to Cl−综合指数
Comprehen-
sive indexCK 39.0 ± 3.1a 20.8 ± 1.8abc 0.7 ± 0.0b 3.6 ± 0.1ab 2.2 ± 0.1a 2.2 ± 0.0ab 7.8 ± 1.4B 8.0 ± 1.0a 0.6 ± 0.0b 3.4 ± 0.3ab 80.1 T1 24.8 ± 1.9b 18.3 ± 1.0c 0.6 ± 0.1b 3.2 ± 0.0c 2.5 ± 0.1a 2.5 ± 0.1a 6.7 ± 0.4BC 7.8 ± 0.6a 0.8 ± 0.0a 4.4 ± 0.4a 85.0 T2 28.1 ± 0.8ab 19.2 ± 2.1ab 0.7 ± 0.1b 3.3 ± 0.1b 2.3 ± 0.2a 2.5 ± 0.1a 5.6 ± 0.2B 7.6 ± 0.8a 0.7 ± 0.1ab 3.0 ± 0.4b 81.6 T3 29.2 ± 1.4a 22.6 ± 0.6a 0.7 ± 0.1b 3.7 ± 0.1ab 2.3 ± 0.2a 2.1 ± 0.2b 9.9 ± 1.2A 8.0 ± 0.4a 0.6 ± 0.1b 3.5 ± 0.8ab 79.2 T4 25.1 ± 1.1b 21.5 ± 0.7ab 1.1 ± 0.1a 3.6 ± 0.2ab 2.2 ± 0.3a 2.4 ± 0.1ab 7.9 ± 0.5B 7.0 ± 0.6a 0.7 ± 0.1b 2.2 ± 0.3c 77.6 T5 28.8 ± 0.5a 22.3 ± 1.2a 1.1 ± 0.1a 4.0 ± 0.1a 2.3 ± 0.1a 2.4 ± 0.2ab 7.1 ± 1.4AB 7.2 ± 0.1a 0.6 ± 0.1b 2.1 ± 0.2c 75.9 表 4 不同处理对B2F等级烟叶感官质量的影响
Table 4. Effects of different treatments on the sensory quality of B2F grade tobacco leaves
处理
Treatment香气质
Quality of aroma香气量
Aroma杂气
Mixed gas刺激性
Irritant余味
After test综合指数
Comprehensive indexCK 中等 有 略重 略大 欠适 6.7 T1 较好 尚足 较轻 微有 舒适 7.1 T2 较好 尚足 较轻 微有 较舒适 7.0 T3 较好 尚足 较轻 微有 较舒适 6.8 T4 中等 有 较轻 微有 较舒适 6.7 T5 中偏下 有 略重 略大 滞舌 6.6 注:以0.1分为单位计分 -
[1] 王 伟, 贺莉莎. 云南省坡耕地现状调查及分析[J]. 中国水土保持, 2019, (4): 20 − 23. [2] 金慧芳, 史东梅, 钟义军, 等. 红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量退化特征及障碍因子诊断[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(21): 84 − 91. [3] 金慧芳, 史东梅, 陈正发, 等. 基于聚类及PCA分析的红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价指标[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(7): 155 − 164. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2018.07.020 [4] 成艳红, 黄欠如, 武 琳, 等. 稻草覆盖和香根草篱对红壤坡耕地土壤酶活性和微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(23): 4602 − 4612. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.23.013 [5] 吕 凯, 吴伯志. 秸秆覆盖对坡耕地土壤侵蚀及烤烟经济性状的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(4): 920 − 925. [6] Wischmeier W H. Relation of field-plot runoff to management and physical factors[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am Pro, 1966, 30(2): 272 − 277. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1966.03615995003000020036x [7] 刘柳松, 任红艳, 史学正, 等. 秸秆覆盖对不同初始含水率土壤产沙过程的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(1): 108 − 112. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2010.01.018 [8] Li F M, Wang J, Xu J Z, et al. Productivity and soil response to plastic film mulching durations for spring wheat on entisols in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China[J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2004, 78(1): 9 − 20. [9] Huang Z Q, Xu Z H, Chen C G. Effect of mulching on labile soil organic matter pools, microbial community functional diversity and nitrogen transformations in two hardwood plantations of subtropical Australia[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2008, 40(2): 229 − 239. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.009 [10] Ruidisch M, Bartsch S, Kettering J, et al. The effect of fertilizer best management practices on nitrate leaching in a plastic mulched ridge cultivation system[J]. Agriculture Ecosystem & Environment, 2013, 169: 21 − 23. [11] 吕欣欣, 丁雪丽, 张 彬, 等. 长期定位施肥和地膜覆盖对棕壤团聚体稳定性及其有机碳含量的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境科学, 2018, 35(1): 1 − 10. [12] 魏烁果, 王晓丽, 王发展, 等. 移栽方式与覆膜颜色互作对山地烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(10): 2169 − 2177. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2019.10.05 [13] 龚本华, 李先文, 唐兴贵, 等. 秸秆覆盖对植烟土壤酸碱度及养分状况的影响[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2019, 38(6): 28 − 36. [14] 尚志强, 张晓海, 邵 岩, 等. 秸秆还田和覆盖对烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2006, 39(1): 50 − 53. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0861.2006.01.015 [15] 郑宪滨, 张正杨, 刘国顺, 等. 秸秆覆盖对烟田土壤性状和烟叶质量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2007, 36(10): 47 − 50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2007.10.013 [16] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. [17] 《YC/T 159-2002 烟草及烟草制品 水溶性糖的测定 连续流动法》. [18] 《YC/T 173-2003 烟草及烟草制品 钾的测定 火焰光度法》. [19] 《YC/T 162-2011 烟草及烟草制品 氯的测定 连续流动法》. [20] 《YC/T 160-2002 烟草及烟草制品 总植物碱的测定 连续流动法》. [21] 《YC/T 161-2002 烟草及烟草制品 总氮的测定 连续流动法》. [22] 《YC/T 216-2013 烟草及烟草制品 淀粉的测定 连续流动法》. [23] 中国烟草总公司郑州烟草研究员, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所. 《中国烟草种植区划》, 2009. [24] 《YC/T 138-1998 烟草及烟草制品 感官评价方法》. [25] Edgar R C, Haas B J, Cllemente J C, et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection[J]. Bioinformatics, 2011, 27(16): 2194 − 2200. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 [26] Pitta D W, Parmar N, Patel A K, et al. Bacterial diversity dynamics associated with different diets and different primer pairs in the rumen of Kankrej cattle[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11): 1 − 14. [27] 胡国松, 赵元宽, 曹志洪, 等. 我国主要产烟省烤烟元素组成和化学品质评价[J]. 中国烟草学报, 1997, (3): 36 − 43. [28] 吴殿信, 袁志永, 闫克玉, 等. 烤烟各等级烟叶质量指数的确定[J]. 烟草科技, 2001, 34(12): 9 − 15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0861.2001.12.003 [29] 薄国栋, 于会泳, 王 毅. 秸秆还田对植烟土壤养分及真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(1): 137 − 142. [30] 高 飞, 贾志宽, 张 鹏, 等. 秸秆覆盖对南宁旱作农田活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 2(03): 107 − 111, 117. [31] 吕 凯, 段颖丹, 吴伯志. 秸秆覆盖对种植烤烟坡耕地土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(11): 2450 − 2458. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2019.11.10 [32] 王改玲, 李立科, 郝明德. 产期施肥与秸秆覆盖土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数变化[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(1): 20 − 26. [33] 查永丽, 毛昆明. 不同小麦秸秆覆盖还田量对不同植烟土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 27(2): 215 − 221. [34] 吴 婕, 朱钟麟, 等. 秸秆覆盖还田对土壤理化性质及作物产量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2006, 19(2): 192 − 195. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4829.2006.02.006 [35] 汪可欣, 付 强, 张中昊, 等. 秸秆覆盖与表土耕作对东北黑土根区土壤环境的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2016, 47(3): 131 − 137. [36] 刘恩科, 赵秉强, 李秀英, 等. 不同施肥制度土壤微生物量碳氮变化及细菌群落16S rDNA V3片段PCR产物的DGGE分析[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(3): 1079 − 1085. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.03.031 [37] 熊 茜, 查永丽, 毛昆明, 等. 小麦秸秆覆盖量对烤烟生长及烟叶产质量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2012, 26(6): 649 − 659. [38] 靳志丽, 梁文旭, 胡述泉, 等. 稻草覆盖对土壤理化性状和烤烟产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2007, (3): 20 − 23. [39] 李永涛, 刘仁祥, 邵忠顺, 等. 不同覆盖方式对土壤环境和烤烟生长及产量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2011, 39(11): 70 − 72. [40] 杜永梅, 郭承芳, 张怀宝, 等. 水溶性糖、烟碱、总氮含量与烤烟吃味品质的关系研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2000, (1): 7 − 10. [41] 王树会, 李天福, 邵 岩, 等. 不同烤烟品种和海拔对烟叶中有机酸的影响[J]. 西南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 28(1): 127 − 130. [42] 赵铭钦, 陈秋会, 赵明山, 等. 南阳地区生态条件对不同基因型烤烟品种烟叶化学成分和香气物质含量的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2008, 14(1): 37 − 41. [43] 王 政, 敖金成, 陈廷慧, 等. 硒、硼配施对烟叶品质及硒含量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2018, 47(3): 38 − 43. [44] 刘 棋, 王津军, 封幸兵, 等. 耕作方式对山地烟田土壤物理性状及烤烟根系空间分布的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(11): 1673 − 1681.