踩踏干扰下生物结皮土壤可培养微生物数量

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2018.00013

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 生物结皮显著影响土壤微生物数量和群落组成。干扰是自然界常见现象，可引起生物结皮盖度及组分发生改变，进而导致生物结皮土壤微生物群落结构的变化。以发育8年的生物结皮为研究对象，采用平板培养法，研究了干扰下生物结皮层和其下0~2 cm土壤微生物数量的动态变化。结果表明：（1）干扰第2天不同菌种均有响应。生物结皮层土壤细菌、真菌和放线菌数量波动范围分别为91.2×10⁵~303.5×10⁵ cfu·g^-1，0~487.2×10³ cfu·g^-1和23.0×10⁵~376.1×10⁵ cfu·g^-1；下层0~2 cm波动范围分别为65.6×10⁵~792.3×10⁵ cfu·g^-1，8.0×10³~506.3×10³ cfu·g^-1和17.3×10⁵~801.3×10⁵ cfu·g^-1。（2）生物结皮层和下层0~2 cm土壤细菌数量分别在干扰后第10天和第7天恢复稳定，真菌数量在第16天和第8天趋于平稳，放线菌数量在第8天和第4天恢复稳定。生物结皮层较0~2 cm土壤微生物数量恢复稳定滞后。（3）重新稳定后生物结皮层和下层0~2 cm细菌数量较干扰前分别下降了81.8%和79.6%.生物结皮层真菌数量显著增加，是干扰前的7.43倍；下层0~2 cm真菌数量下降了70.1%。生物结皮层和下层0~2 cm放线菌数量较干扰前分别降低46.5%和72.6%。（4）干扰显著改变土壤微生物群落结构，受影响程度细菌 > 放线菌 > 真菌变为放线菌 > 细菌 > 真菌。干扰可显著影响土壤微生物数量，但是随着时间延长微生物数量又会达到一个新的稳态，在研究微生物对干扰响应时，采样时间是研究结果的一个重要影响因素。

关键词: 生物结皮, 细菌, 真菌, 放线菌, 响应动态

Abstract: Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) exert remarkable influence on soil microorganism quantity and community structure. Disturbance is a ubiquitous natural phenomenon, which may cause changes in the coverage and composition of biocrusts and consequently affect soil microorganisms. The dynamic variation of microorganism quantity of biocrust layer and 0-2 cm soil layers in an eight-year development biocrustal soil were investigated by using plating method in order to reveal the effect of disturbance on soil microorganisms. The results showed that:(1) The quantity of bacteria, fungi and actinomyces changed on the second day since disturbance. Moreover, the fluctuation amplitude of quantity of bacteria, fungi and actinomyces in the biocrust layer were 91.2×10⁵-303.5×10⁵ cfu·g^-1, 0-487.2×10³ cfu·g^-1, and 23.0×10⁵-376.1×10⁵ cfu·g^-1, respectively. The fluctuation amplitude of quantity of bacteria, fungi and actinomyces in 0-2 cm soil layer were 65.6×10⁵-792.3×10⁵ cfu·g^-1, 8.0×10³-506.3×10³ cfu·g^-1 and 17.3×10⁵-801.3×10⁵ cfu·g^-1, respectively. (2) Bacterial quantity in biocrust layer and 0-2 cm soil layers restabilized in the tenth and seventh day after disturbance, respectively. Quantity of fungal in biocrust layer and 0-2 cm layers tended to be stable after 16 and 8 days of disturbance, respectively. Quantity of soil actinomyces in biocrust layer and 0-2 cm soil layers reached a new stabilization in eight and four days since disturbance, respectively. The stable period of soil microbial quantity lagged behind in biocrust layer than 0-2 cm soil layer. (3) Bacterial quantity decreased by 81.8% and 79.6% in biocrust layer and 0-2 cm soil layers in the new stable stage compared to that before disturbance. However, fungal quantity was 7.43 times higher in biocrust layer, and it decreased by 70.1% in 0-2 cm soil layer. Further, quantity of actinomyces decreased by 46.5% and 72.6% in biocrust layer and 0-2 cm soil layers, respectively. (4) Disturbance had a significant effect on soil microbial community structure, the proportion of different soil microorganisms became actinomyces > bacteria > fungi from bacteria > actinomyces > fungi. Results of the study suggested that disturbance can significantly affect soil microbial quantity, but the quantity of microorganisms will reach a new stable status as time goes on. Therefore, the sampling time could be an important influence factor in the study of disturbance on soil microorganisms.

Key words: biocrusts, bacteria, fungi, actinomyces, dynamic response

中图分类号:

S154.3

包天莉, 赵允格, 高丽倩, 石亚芳. 踩踏干扰下生物结皮土壤可培养微生物数量[J]. 中国沙漠, 2019, 39(1): 119-126.

Bao Tianli, Zhao Yunge, Gao Liqian, Shi Yafang. Dynamic of Culturable Microorganisms in Biological Soil Crusts under Trampling Disturbance[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 119-126.

参考文献

[1] Chapin F S,Walker B H,Hobbs R J,et al.Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems[J].Science,1997,277:500-504.
[2] Abbasi M K,Sharif S,Kazmi M,et al.Isolation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on improving growth,yield and nutrient uptake of plants[J]. Plant Biosystems,2011,145:159-168.
[3] Copley J. Ecology goes underground[J].Nature,2000,406:452-454.
[4] Weyens N,Lelie D V D,Aghavi S,et al.Exploiting plant-microbe partnerships to improve biomass production and remediation[J].Trends of Biotechnology,2009,27:591-598.
[5] 于树,汪景宽,李双异.应用PLFA方法分析长期不同施肥处理对玉米地土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J].生态学报,2008(9):4221-4227.
[6] Bissett A,Burke C,Cook P L M,et al. Bacterial community shifts in organically perturbed sediments[J].Environmental Microbiology,2007,9(1):46-60.
[7] Lamb E G,Kennedy N,Siciliano S D.Effects of plant species richness and evenness on soil microbial community diversity and function[J].Plant and Soil,2011,338:483-495.
[8] 马文文,姚拓,靳鹏,等.荒漠草原2种植物群落土壤微生物及土壤酶特征[J].中国沙漠,2014,34(1):176-183.
[9] 周智彬,李培军.塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地人工绿地土壤中微生物的生态分布及其与土壤因子间的关系[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(8):1246-1250.
[10] Yu J,Kidron G J,Pen-Mouratov S,et al.Do development stages of biological soil crusts determine activity and functional diversity in a sand-dune ecosystem?[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2012,51:66-72.
[11] Weber B,Büdel B,Belnap J. Biological Soil Crusts:An Organizing Principle in Drylands[M].Berlin,Germany:Springer-Verlag,2016.
[12] 胡忠旭,赵允格,王一贺.黄土丘陵区不同类型生物结皮下土壤微生物的分布特征[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2017,45(6):105-114.
[13] 高丽倩,赵允格,秦宁强,等.黄土丘陵区生物结皮对土壤可蚀性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(1):105-112.
[14] 杨永胜,卜崇峰,高国雄.毛乌素沙地生物结皮对土壤温度的影响[J].干旱区研究,2012,29(1):352-359.
[15] White P S,Jentsch A.The search for generality in studies of disturbance and ecosystem dynamics[J].Progress in Botany,2001,62:399-449.
[16] Lake P S.Disturbance,patchiness,and diversity in streams[J].Journal of the North American Benthological Society,2000,19:573-592.
[17] Belnap J,Eldridge D.Disturbance and recovery of biological soil crusts[M]//Belnap J,Lange O L.Biological Soil Crusts:Structure,Function and Management. Berlin,Germany:Springer,2003:363-385.
[18] Eldridge D J.Exploring some relationship between biological soil crusts,soil aggregation and wind erosion[J].Journal of Arid Environments,2003,53(4):457-466.
[19] 安慧,徐坤.放牧干扰对荒漠草原土壤性状的影响[J].草业学报,2013,22(4):35-42.
[20] 陈荣毅,张元明,潘伯荣,等.古尔班通古特沙漠土壤养分空间分异与干扰的关系[J].中国沙漠,2007,27(2):257-265.
[21] Mrtensson L,Olsson P A.Reductions in microbial biomass along disturbance gradients in a semi-natural grassland[J].Applied Soil Ecology,2012,62:8-13.
[22] Clegg C D.Impact of cattle grazing and inorganic fertiliser additions to managed grasslands on the microbial community composition of soils[J].Applied Soil Ecology,2006,31(1/2):73-82.
[23] 吴楠,梁少民,王红玲,等.动物践踏干扰对生物结皮中微生物生态分布的影响[J].干旱区研究,2006,23(1):50-55.
[24] Li H,Zhang Y,Kravchenko I,et al.Dynamic changes in microbial activity and community structure during biodegradation of petroleum compounds:a laboratory experiment[J].Journal of Environmental Sciences,2007,19(8):1003-1013.
[25] Chen M,Liu C,Chen P,et al.Dynamics of the microbial community and Fe(Ⅲ)-reducing and dechlorinating microorganisms in response to pentachlorophenol transformation in paddy soil[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials,2016,312:97-105.
[26] 曹煜成,李卓佳,文国樑,等.罗非鱼主养池塘水体微生物群落对碳源代谢的动态变化[J].农业环境科学学报,2014,33(1):172-177.
[27] Zhang H,Sun Z,Liu B,et al.Dynamic changes of microbialcommunities in Litopenaeus vannamei,cultures and the effects of environmental factors[J].Aquaculture,2016,455:97-108.
[28] 杨成德,龙瑞军,陈秀蓉,等.东祁连山高寒灌丛草地土壤微生物量及土壤酶季节性动态特征[J].草业学报,2011,20(6):135-142.
[29] 周义贵,郝凯婕,李贤伟,等.川西亚高山不同土地利用类型对土壤微生物量碳动态特征的影响[J].自然资源学报,2014(11):1944-1956.
[30] Amann R L,Ludwig W. Ribosomal RNA-targeted nucleic acid probes for studies in microbial ecology[J]. FEMS Microbiology Review,2000,24:555-565.
[31] Canan K,Alexander S,Karin J,et al.Transient recovery dynamics of a predator-prey system under press and pulse disturbances[J].BMC Ecology,2017,17(1):13.
[32] Yu J,Kidron G J,Pen-Mouratov S,et al.Do development stages of biological soil crusts determine activity and functional diversity in a sand-dune ecosystem[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2012,51:66-72.
[33] Russell E W.Soil Conditions and Plant Growth[M]. New York,USA:Wiley-Blackwell,1973.
[34] Walker N. Soil microbiology:a critical review[J]. Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Mikrobiologie,2010,17(3):259.
[35] 杨苏生,周俊初.微生物生物学[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.