植被恢复策略对沙地土壤细菌群落结构及潜在功能的影响

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2024.00172

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了解浑善达克沙地不同植被恢复策略下土壤细菌群落结构特征及其潜在生态功能变化，以造林20年的樟子松（Pinus sylvestris）、杨树（Populus）、黄柳（Salix gordejevii）和杨柴（Hedysarum laeve）围封样地为研究对象，并以自然恢复20年的流动沙丘围封样地为对照，通过16S rRNA基因高通量测序、PICRUSt功能预测以及土壤养分含量测定相结合的方式，探讨植被恢复策略对土壤修复的影响。结果表明：杨柴固沙林地变形菌门（Proteobacteria）和拟杆菌门（Bacteroidota）相对丰度较黄柳固沙林分别显著提高41.16%和52.94%；而黄柳固沙林地酸杆菌门（Acidobacteria）和绿弯菌门（Chloroflexi）相对丰度较杨柴固沙林分别显著提高64.59%和55.16%；杨柴和杨树固沙林地富含根瘤菌，其中慢生根瘤菌属、根瘤菌属和中慢生根瘤菌属的相对丰度在杨柴固沙林分别占比3.59%、0.97%和0.80%，在杨树固沙林分别占比3.50%、0.82%和0.83%；樟子松固沙林的标志细菌为γ-变形菌纲。通过PICRUSt功能预测发现，杨柴和杨树固沙林参与抗逆的基因丰度显著升高，杨树固沙林膜运输基因以及杨柴固沙林膜运输和信号转导基因丰度显著提升；樟子松和黄柳固沙林参与自身生长的基因丰度显著升高，樟子松固沙林氨基酸代谢和脂代谢基因丰度显著提升，黄柳固沙林能量代谢和碳水化合物代谢基因丰度显著提升；杨树和杨柴固沙林土壤潜在生态功能较樟子松和黄柳固沙林更稳定。浑善达克沙地不同植被恢复区土壤细菌群落存在显著差异，导致其潜在生态功能不同；相较樟子松、杨树和黄柳固沙林，杨柴固沙林协同土壤固氮细菌对于氮固定和土壤氮积累发挥了重要作用。

关键词: 浑善达克沙地, 植被修复, 细菌群落, 功能预测, 高通量测序

Abstract:

In order to understand soil bacterial community structure characteristics and potential ecological function changes of different afforestation restoration strategies in Hunshandake Sandy land. The enclosed sample plots of Pinus sylvestris， Populus， Salix gordejevii and Hedysarum leave were studied which have been planted in Hunshandak Sandy Land for 20 years. The mobile dune enclosed plots that have been restored naturally for 20 years were used as the control. Through the combination of 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing， PICRUSt function prediction and soil nutrient content determination， the soil restoration of different vegetation restoration strategies in sandy land was investigated. The results showed that：（1） The relative abundances of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidota in the Hedysarum laeve forest were significantly increased by 41.16% and 52.94% respectively， compared with those in the Salix gordejevii forest. The relative abundances of Acidobacteria and Chloroflexi in the Salix gordejevii forest were significantly increased by 64.59% and 55.16% respectively， compared with those in the Hedysarum laeve forest. The relative abundance of Bradyrhizobium， Rhizobium and Mesorhizobium accounted for 3.59%， 0.97% and 0.80% in the Hedysarum laeve forest and 3.50%， 0.82% and 0.83% in the Populus forest， respectively. γ-proteobacteria were the marker bacteria of Pinus sylvestris forest. （2） Through PICRUSt function prediction， the abundance of genes involved in stress resistance was significantly increased. The abundance of membrane transport genes in Populus forest was significantly increased， the abundance of membrane transport and signal transduction genes in Hedysarum laeve forest were significantly increased. The abundance of genes involved in self-growth of Pinus sylvestris forest and Salix gordejevii forest were significantly increased. The abundance of amino acid metabolism and lipid metabolism genes was significantly increased in Pinus sylvestris forest. The abundance of gene in energy metabolism and carbohydrate metabolism of Salix gordejevii forest were significantly increased. These results indicated that the potential ecological function of the sand-fixing forest of Populus forest and Hedysarum laeve forest were more stable than that of Pinus sylvestris forest and Salix gordejevii forest. In conclusion， there were significant differences in soil bacterial communities in different vegetation restoration areas of Hunshandake Sandy Land， which led to different potential functions. Hedysarum laeve forest played an important role in nitrogen fixation and soil nitrogen accumulation in collaboration with soil nitrogen fixing bacteria compared with Pinus sylvestris forest， Populus forest and Salix gordejevii forest.

Key words: Hunshandake Sandy Land, vegetation restoration, bacterial community, function prediction, high-throughput sequencing

中图分类号:

S288

张胜男, 高海燕, 闫德仁, 李俊文, 杨制国, 黄海广, 张雷, 许宏斌. 植被恢复策略对沙地土壤细菌群落结构及潜在功能的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2025, 45(5): 1-12.

Shengnan Zhang, Haiyan Gao, Deren Yan, Junwen Li, Zhiguo Yang, Haiguang Huang, Lei Zhang, Hongbin Xu. Effects of vegetation restoration strategies on soil bacterial community structure and potential functions in sandy land[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(5): 1-12.

图/表 8

图1 研究区位置及采样点注：基于自然资源部标准地图服务网站标准地图（审图号:GS(2019)1719号）制作，底图边界无修改

Fig.1 Study location and sampling sites

表1 不同植被恢复策略土壤养分含量

Table 1 Soil nutrients content of different vegetation restoration strategies

土壤指标	植被类型
土壤指标	CK	ZS	YC	HL	YS
速效氮/（mg∙kg^-1）	15.46±0.83^c	14.19±0.92^c	17.73±1.17^b	16.83±0.97^b	24.45±1.10^a
速效磷/（mg∙kg^-1）	0.90±0.29^b	1.41±0.47^ab	1.74±0.45^a	1.45±0.53^ab	1.61±0.31^a
速效钾/（mg∙kg^-1）	10.56±0.45^b	9.60±2.34^b	14.00±1.41^a	11.68±2.19^ab	14.07±1.93^a
有机质/（g∙kg^-1）	2.51±0.53^bc	1.66±0.27^c	3.04±0.49^b	2.58±0.51^b	4.48±0.91^a
中性蛋白酶/（mg∙d^-1∙g^-1）	4.03±0.88^a	1.83±0.44^b	1.26±0.51^b	1.76±0.47^b	3.59±0.70^a
脲酶/（μg∙g^-1）	353.17±34.60^c	382.27±17.40^bc	347.09±11.92^c	399.91±43.37^b	537.70±31.77^a
蔗糖酶/（mg∙d^-1∙g^-1）	3.56±0.13^bc	2.76±0.36^cd	2.13±0.42^d	4.44±0.56^b	9.03±1.71^a
纤维素酶/（μg∙d^-1∙g^-1）	8.94±2.13^d	13.40±3.75^cd	21.38±4.90^b	17.31±4.98^bc	28.88±3.25^a
中性磷酸酶/（mg∙g^-1）	17.02±4.19^a	9.82±1.89^b	15.69±3.29^a	9.64±2.71^b	20.15±4.07^a
过氧化氢酶/（μg∙h^-1∙g^-1）	1 144.20±23.44^b	1 066.35±35.55^b	883.64±115.60^c	1 116.47±45.52^b	1 289.93±19.18^a
脱氢酶/（μg∙d^-1∙g^-1）	0.93±0.21^b	0.59±0.13^c	0.67±0.17b^c	0.74±0.15^bc	1.41±0.32^a

图2 不同植被恢复策略土壤细菌群落α多样性（A）和主坐标分析（B）注：CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地；YS表示杨树固沙林地。不同字母表示不同植被恢复策略下细菌α多样性差异显著（P<0.05，n=5）

Fig.2 α-diversity （A） and Principal coordinate analysis （B） on soil bacterial communities of different vegetation restoration strategies

图3 不同植被恢复策略下门水平细菌群落组成注：CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地；YS表示杨树固沙林地。不同字母表示不同植被恢复策略下细菌丰度差异显著（P<0.05，n=5）

Fig.3 Bacterial community composition of different vegetation restoration strategies at phylum level

图4 不同植被恢复策略下属水平细菌群落组成注：CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地

Fig.4 Bacterial community composition of different vegetation restoration strategies at genus level

图5 不同植被恢复策略下细菌群落Lefse多级物种差异判别分析注：CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地；YS表示杨树固沙林地

Fig.5 LDA effect size analysis on bacterial community of different vegetation restoration strategies

图6 土壤细菌群落与养分的Mantel test热图分析注：* 0.01<P ≤0.05，** 0.001<P ≤0.01，*** P≤0.001。热图中正相关和负相关的大小由红色和蓝色的深度表示，P>0为正相关，P<0为负相关。不同恢复区细菌群落组成与特定环境因子的相关强度（Mantel's r）由其连接曲线的粗细表示，正相关由实线表示，负相关由虚线表示。蓝色线表示在0.05水平显著相关，灰色线表示在0.05水平不相关。AN表示速效氮；AP表示速效磷；AK表示速效钾；OM表示有机质；Pr表示中性蛋白酶；Ur表示脲酶；Ce表示纤维素酶；Ph表示中性磷酸酶；Ca表示过氧化氢酶；De表示脱氢酶。CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地；YS表示杨树固沙林地

Fig.6 Mantel test heat map analysis of soil bacterial communities and nutrients

图7 不同植被恢复策略土壤细菌群落潜在功能变化注：CK表示对照样地；ZS表示樟子松固沙林地；YC表示杨柴固沙林地；HL表示黄柳固沙林地；YS表示杨树固沙林地。不同字母表示不同植被恢复策略下土壤细菌二级功能差异显著（P<0.05）

Fig.7 Potential functional changes of soil bacterial communities in different vegetation restoration strategies

参考文献 43

[1]	Lyu D， Liu Q， Xie T，et al.Impacts of different types of vegetation restoration on the physicochemical properties of sandy soil［J］.Forests，2023，14（9）：1740.
[2]	Deng L， Peng C， Huang C，et al.Drivers of soil microbial metabolic limitation changes along a vegetation restoration gradient on the Loess Plateau，China［J］.Geoderma，2019，353：188-200.
[3]	Hume A M， Chen H Y， Taylor A R.Intensive forest harvesting increases susceptibility of northern forest soils to carbon，nitrogen and phosphorus loss［J］.Journal of Applied Ecology，2018，55（1）：246-255.
[4]	Lyu D， Yang Y， Zhao W，et al.Effects of different vegetation restoration types on soil hydro-physical properties in the hilly region of the Loess Plateau，China［J］.Soil Research，2022，61（1）：94-105.
[5]	栗忠飞，高吉喜，刘海江，等.内蒙古多伦县4种植被对沙地土壤的修复效应［J］.生态与农村环境学报，2017，33（1）：15-22.
[6]	刘二燕，赵媛媛，周蝶，等.科尔沁-浑善达克沙地2000-2020年土地沙化时空变化格局［J］.中国沙漠，2024，44（4）：46-56.
[7]	马超，李晓婷，项晓铭，等.浑善达克沙地腹地和边缘交错区NDVI演变对气候变化和人类活动的响应［J］.资源科学，2023，45（1）：204-221.
[8]	Gao W， Zheng C， Liu X，et al.NDVI-based vegetation dynamics and their responses to climate change and human activities from 1982 to 2020： a case study in the Mu Us Sandy Land，China［J］.Ecological Indicators，2022，137：108745.
[9]	Lin M， Hou L， Qi Z，et al.Impacts of climate change and human activities on vegetation NDVI in China's Mu Us Sandy Land during 2000-2019［J］.Ecological Indicators，2022，142：109164.
[10]	Zhou W， Li C， Wang S，et al.Effects of vegetation restoration on soil properties and vegetation attributes in the arid and semi-arid regions of China［J］.Journal of Environmental Management，2023，343：118186.
[11]	Pang X， Fatichi S， Lei H，et al.Environmental changes promoted vegetation growth and reduced water yield over the temperate semi-arid grassland of China during 1901-2016［J］.Journal of Hydrology，2023，618：129235.
[12]	He S， Zhang C， Meng F R，et al.Vegetation-cover control of between-site soil temperature evolution in a sandy desertland［J］.Science of the Total Environment，2024，908：168372.
[13]	贺帅.毛乌素沙地土壤水热变化对不同盖度灌丛群落的响应及数值模拟［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2023.
[14]	王德富，董凌勃，李澳，等.毛乌素沙地不同植被恢复类型的土壤碳水效应［J］.水土保持学报，2024，38（3）：101-110.
[15]	Campos A， Suárez G， Laborde J.Analyzing vegetation cover-induced organic matter mineralization dynamics in sandy soils from tropical dry coastal ecosystems［J］.Catena，2020，185：104264.
[16]	Liu X， Huang Z， Havrilla C A，et al.Plant litter crust role in nutrients cycling potentials by bacterial communities in a sandy land ecosystem［J］.Land Degradation & Development，2021，32（11）：3194-3203.
[17]	Mosaad I S M， Gaafar D E M， Al-Anoos M A T，et al.Synergistic effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and mycorrhizal fungi on roselle performance in sandy soils［J］.Egyptian Journal of Soil Science，2024，64（2）：443-457.
[18]	de Holanda S F， Berghahn E， Vargas L K，et al.Plant growth promoting bacteria promote rice growth cultivated in two different sandy soils subjected distinct climates conditions［J］.World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology，2024，40（11）：1-13.
[19]	Wang M， Chen S， Li S，et al.Enhancement of nitrogen cycling and functional microbial flora by artificial inoculation of biological soil crusts in sandy soils of highway slopes［J］.Environmental Science and Pollution Research，2024，31（3）：4400-4411.
[20]	Osburn E D， Yang G， Rillig M C，et al.Evaluating the role of bacterial diversity in supporting soil ecosystem functions under anthropogenic stress［J］.ISME Communications，2023，3（1）：1-10.
[21]	王安林，马瑞，马彦军，等.民勤荒漠绿洲过渡带人工梭梭林土壤细菌群落结构及功能预测［J］.环境科学，2024，45（1）：508-519.
[22]	Gao L， Wang W， Liao X，et al.Soil nutrients，enzyme activities，and bacterial communities in varied plant communities in karst rocky desertification regions in Wushan County，Southwest China［J］.Frontiers in Microbiology，2023，14：1180562.
[23]	黄沛，石涵宇，李卫，等.典型农牧交错带不同植被恢复模式土壤微生物特征及其影响因素：以张家口屯垦林场为例［J］.中南林业科技大学学报，2024，44（10）：138-148.
[24]	裴广廷，李夏，贺同鑫，等.广西喀斯特石漠化区不同植被恢复模式下土壤微生物多样性与群落结构特征及驱动因素分析［J］.地理科学，2024，44（9）：1630-1642.
[25]	安芳娇，牛子儒，刘婷娜，等.干旱区不同植被类型土壤细菌群落结构及代谢功能特征［J/OL］.环境科学，2024：1-13.DOI：10.13227/j.hjkx.202407230 .
[26]	章家恩.生态学常用实验研究方法与技术［M］.北京：化学工业出版社，2007.
[27]	Liu Y， Tang R L， Liu G L，et al.Dicyandiamide addition delay nitrous oxide emission and shift its production pathway from denitrification to incomplete nitrification in maturation phase of composting［J］.Chemical Engineering Journal，2024，495：153225.
[28]	Wang X， Zhou M， Yue H，et al.Effects of different artificial vegetation restoration modes on soil microbial community structure in the soil erosion area of southern China［J］.Catena，2024，237：107803.
[29]	Tian P， Razavi B S， Zhang X，et al.Microbial growth and enzyme kinetics in rhizosphere hotspots are modulated by soil organics and nutrient availability［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2020，141：107662.
[30]	Xu C， Feng Y， Li H，et al.Non-photosynthetic chemoautotrophic CO₂ assimilation microorganisms carbon fixation efficiency and control factors in deep-sea hydrothermal vent［J］.Science of the Total Environment，2023，862：160805.
[31]	Pinhassi J， Berman T.Differential growth response of colony-forming α-and γ-proteobacteria in dilution culture and nutrient addition experiments from Lake Kinneret （Israel），the eastern Mediterranean Sea，and the Gulf of Eilat［J］.Applied and Environmental Microbiology，2003，69（1）：199-211.
[32]	陶佳，雷泽勇，王国晨，等.沙地樟子松人工林叶凋落物的分解与养分释放［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2023，37（12）：131-139.
[33]	Ciria P， Barro R， Perez J，et al.Decomposition and dynamics of poplar leaves on short rotation conditions［C］.In Proceedings of the 17th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition，Hamburg，2009：502-506.
[34]	Wagg C， Hautier Y， Pellkofer S，et al.Diversity and asynchrony in soil microbial communities stabilizes ecosystem functioning［J］.Elife，2021，10：e62813.
[35]	Romaniuk R， Giuffre L， Costantini A，et al.Assessment of soil microbial diversity measurements as indicators of soil functioning in organic and conventional horticulture systems［J］.Ecological Indicators，2011，11（5）：1345-1353.
[36]	Wu Z X， Hao Z P， Sun Y Q，et al.Comparison on the structure and function of the rhizosphere microbial community between healthy and root-rot Panax notoginseng ［J］.Applied Soil Ecology，2016，107：99-107.
[37]	Fagardo C， Garcia-Cantalejo J， Botias P，et al.New insights into the impact of nZVI on soil microbial biodiversity and functionality［J］.Journal of Environmental Science and Health，Part A，2019，54（3）：157-167.
[38]	崔钠淇.微塑料对马铃薯黄萎病发生及其根际微生物群落结构和功能的影响［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古大学，2023.
[39]	Piattelli E， Peltier J， Soutourina O.Interplay between regulatory RNAs and signal transduction systems during bacterial infection［J］.Genes，2020，11（10）：1209.
[40]	杜宇佳，高广磊，陈丽华，等.呼伦贝尔沙区土壤细菌群落结构与功能预测［J］.中国环境科学，2019，39（11）：4840-4848.
[41]	Niu Y Y， Duan Y L， Li Y Q，et al.Soil microbial community responses to short-term nitrogen addition in China's Horqin Sandy Land［J］.PloS One，2021，16（5）：e0242643.
[42]	Wen Y， Zhang G， Zhang W，et al.Distribution patterns and functional characteristics of soil bacterial communities in desert ecosystems of northern China［J］.The Science of the Total Environment，2023：167081.
[43]	朱平.五种沙生植物化学组分与营养价值对比分析及饲用研究［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2023.