Effects of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil enzyme activity under biocrusts in desert areas

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00101

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2): 77-84.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00101

Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil enzyme activity under biocrusts in desert areas

Yanmei Liu¹^,²(), Hangyu Yang³, Fenglian Liu¹, Junjun Wang¹, Lihong Wang¹, Tingting Zhang¹

^1.College of Biological Engineering and Technology，Tianshui Normal University，Tianshui 741001，Gansu，China
^2.Shapotou Desert Research and Experiment Station，Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^3.Gansu Forestry Technological College，Tianshui 741020，Gansu，China

Received:2020-08-03 Revised:2021-08-16 Online:2022-03-20 Published:2022-03-30

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil bacterial-feeding nematodes act as important biological components in soil， which affect soil energy flow and material circulation. However， little was known on the function of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes in desert ecosystems. Sand dune soil under biocrusts in the artificial vegetation areas at the southeast edge of Tengger desert was studied to explore the effects of soil bacteria-feeding nematodes on soil in desert areas. Soil samples of 0-10 cm with cyanobacteria-lichen and moss crusts were collected， and inoculated bacterial-feeding nematodes following the density of 10， 30， 60， 90， 120 and 150 individuals in per gram of soil， respectively. Soils with no bacterial-feeding nematodes were as contrasts. The activities of soil urease， sucrase， dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase were examined to make sure the effects of bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil quality in desert areas. The results showed that soil bacterial-feeding nematodes increased the activities of soil urease， invertase， dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase under biocrusts， and soil enzyme activities increased first and then decreased with increasing the density of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes. The results indicated a mutually beneficial symbiosis between soil bacterial-feeding nematodes and microorganisms. In addition， crust types also significantly affected four studied enzyme activities following the inoculation of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes into soil. Moss crusts has significantly higher soil enzyme activities than that of cyanobacteria-lichen crusts （P<0.05）， indicating that the development of crusts is beneficial to the mutual growth mode between bacterial-feeding nematodes and microorganisms. Therefore， soil bacterial-feeding nematodes could increase soil enzyme activities beneath biocrusts in the artificial vegetation area of the Tengger Desert， indicating that soil bacterial-feeding nematodes could promote the process of soil restoration in desert areas and they are beneficial to the improvement of desert ecosystems.

Key words: soil bacterial-feeding nematodes, biocrusts, soil enzyme activities, crust types

CLC Number:

S154

Yanmei Liu, Hangyu Yang, Fenglian Liu, Junjun Wang, Lihong Wang, Tingting Zhang. Effects of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil enzyme activity under biocrusts in desert areas[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(2): 77-84.

Figures/Tables 4

References 26

1	West N E.Structure and function of microphytic soil crusts in wildland ecosystems of arid tosemi-arid regions［J］.Advances in Ecological Research，1990，20：179-223.
2	Belnap J， Lange O L.Biological soil crust： structure， function and management ［M］.Berlin，Germany：Springer-Verlag，2003.
3	张元明，王雪芹.荒漠地表生物土壤结皮形成与演替特征概述［J］.生态学报，2010，30（16）：4484-4492.
4	Liu Y M， Li X R， Jia R L，et al.Effects of biological soil crusts on soil nematode communities following dune stabilization in the Tengger Desert，Northern China［J］.Applied Soil Ecology，2011，49：118-124.
5	吴纪华，宋慈玉，陈家宽.食微线虫对植物生长及土壤养分循环的影响［J］.生物多样性，2007，15（2）：124-133.
6	Clarholm M.Interactions of bacteria， protozoa and plants leading to mineralization of soil nitrogen［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，1985，17：181-187.
7	Sohlenius B.Abundance，biomass and con tribution to energy flow by soil nematodes in terrestrial ecosystems［J］.Okios，1980，34：186-194.
8	陈小云，李辉信，胡锋，等.食细菌线虫对土壤微生物量和微生物群落结构的影响［J］.生态学报，2004（12）：2825-2831.
9	潘凤娟，韩晓增，邹文秀.土壤生态系统中食细菌线虫与细菌相互作用关系研究［J］.土壤与作物，2017，6（4）：304-311.
10	黄荣霞，周际海，田胜尼，等.石油污染与食细菌线虫对土壤微生物活性及石油降解的影响［J］.环境科学学报，2017，37（11）：4322-4328.
11	毛小芳，李辉信，龙梅，等.不同食细菌线虫取食密度下线虫对细菌数量、活性及土壤氮素矿化的影响［J］.应用生态学报，2005，16（6）：1112-1116.
12	Jiang Y J， Sun B， Jin C，et al.Soil aggregate stratification of nematodes and microbial communities affects the metabolic quotient in an acid soil［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2013，60：1-9.
13	Djigal D， Brauman A， Diop T A，et al.Influence of bacterial-feeding nematodes （Cephalobidae） on soil microbial communities during maize growth［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2004，36（2）：323-331.
14	Carins E J.Methods in nematology［M］//Sasser J N，Jenkins W R.Nematology，Fundamentals and Recent Advances with Emphasis on Plant Parasitic and Soil Forms.Chapel Hill，USA：University of North Carolina Press，1960：33-84.
15	毛小芳，胡锋，李辉信.土壤食细菌线虫的原位富集培养方法［J］.生态学报，2007（2）：650-654.
16	关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法［M］.北京：农业出版社，1986.
17	Liu Y M， Yang H Y， Li X R，et al.Effects of biological soil crusts on soil enzyme activities in revegetated areas of the Tengger Desert，China［J］.Applied Soil Ecology，2014，80：6-14.
18	Tabatabai M A， Bremner J M.Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，1969，1：301-307.
19	Zhou J H， Chen D S， Huang R X，et al.Effects of bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil microbial activity and the microbial community in oil-contaminated soil［J］.Journal of Environmental Management，2019，234：424-430.
20	李贺勤，张林林，刘奇志，等.接种食细菌线虫对连作草莓幼苗生长及其根际土壤酶活性和矿质氮含量影响的研究［J］.中国生物防治学报，2014，30（3）：355-360.
21	胡锋，李辉信，谢涟琪，等.土壤食细菌线虫与细菌的相互作用及其对N、P矿化生物固定的影响及机理［J］.生态学报，1999（6）：914-920.
22	肖海峰，焦家国，胡锋，等.食细菌线虫Caenorhabditis elegans的取食偏好性［J］.生态学报， 2010，30（24）：7101-7105.
23	Bardgett R D， Chan K F.Experimental evidence that soil fauna enhance nutrient mineralization and plant nutrient uptake in montane grassland ecosystems［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，1999，31：1007-1014.
24	Li H X， Hu F.Effect of bacterial-feeding nematode inoculation on wheat growth and N and P up take［J］.Pedosphere，2001，11：57-62.
25	Liu Y M， Li X R， Xing Z S，et al.Responses of soil microbial biomass and community composition to biological soil crusts in the revegetated areas of the Tengger Desert［J］.Applied Soil Ecology，2013，65：52-59.
26	李新荣，张志山，谭会娟，等.我国北方风沙危害区生态重建与恢复：腾格里沙漠土壤水分与植被承载力的探讨［J］.中国科学：生命科学，2014（3）：257-266.

结皮类型	结皮厚度 /mm	沙粒 /%	粉粒 /%	黏粒 /%	有机碳 /(g·kg^-1)	全氮 /(g·kg^-1)	速效氮 /(mg·kg^-1)	全磷 /(g·kg^-1)	速效磷 /（mg·kg^-1）	pH值	线虫密度 /(条·g^-1)
藻-地衣结皮	2—3.5	94.57	4.15	1.31	2.97	0.14	18.28	0.607	18.74	8.05	2.44
藓类结皮	8—20	92.57	5.40	2.07	3.15	0.17	21.00	0.66	21.83	8.05	10.40

结皮类型	结皮厚度 /mm	沙粒 /%	粉粒 /%	黏粒 /%	有机碳 /(g·kg^-1)	全氮 /(g·kg^-1)	速效氮 /(mg·kg^-1)	全磷 /(g·kg^-1)	速效磷 /（mg·kg^-1）	pH值	线虫密度 /(条·g^-1)
藻-地衣结皮	2—3.5	94.57	4.15	1.31	2.97	0.14	18.28	0.607	18.74	8.05	2.44
藓类结皮	8—20	92.57	5.40	2.07	3.15	0.17	21.00	0.66	21.83	8.05	10.40

类型	变异来源	平方和	自由度	均方差	F值
脲酶	接种密度	1.24	6	0.21^***	73.96
	结皮类型	1.00	1	1.00^***	358.23
	培养时间	2.47	4	0.62^***	221.31
	结皮类型×接种密度	0.09	6	0.02^***	5.38
	培养时间×接种密度	1.31	24	0.06^***	19.63
	结皮类型×培养时间	0.10	4	0.02^***	8.63
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	0.13	24	0.01^**	1.99
蔗糖酶	接种密度	2 211.31	6	368.55^***	371.31
	结皮类型	773.17	1	773.17^***	778.95
	培养时间	7 244.37	4	1 811.09^***	1 830
	结皮类型×接种密度	66.05	6	11.01^***	11.09
	培养时间×接种密度	2 483.85	24	103.49^***	104.27
	结皮类型×培养时间	21.03	4	5.26^***	5.30
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	66.94	24	2.79^***	2.81
脱氢酶	接种密度	38.29	6	6.38^***	85.07
	结皮类型	0.98	1	0.98^***	0.63
	培养时间	66.87	4	16.72^***	95.33
	结皮类型×接种密度	0.16	6	0.03^ns	0.28
	结皮类型×培养时间	0.01	4	0.00^ns	0.05
	培养时间×接种密度	36.34	24	1.51^***	0.09
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	0.22	24	0.01^ns	0.24
碱性磷酸酶	接种密度	53 237.40	6	8 872.89^***	4.92
	结皮类型	78 775.35	1	78 775.35^***	43.72
	培养时间	654 173.48	4	163 543.37^***	90.76
	结皮类型×接种密度	326.05	6	54.34^ns	0.03
	结皮类型×培养时间	27 270.11	4	2 086.87^ns	1.16
	培养时间×接种密度	50 084.95	24	6 817.53^***	3.78
	结皮类型×接种密度×培养时间	6 960.54	24	290.02^ns	0.16

类型	变异来源	平方和	自由度	均方差	F值
脲酶	接种密度	1.24	6	0.21^***	73.96
	结皮类型	1.00	1	1.00^***	358.23
	培养时间	2.47	4	0.62^***	221.31
	结皮类型×接种密度	0.09	6	0.02^***	5.38
	培养时间×接种密度	1.31	24	0.06^***	19.63
	结皮类型×培养时间	0.10	4	0.02^***	8.63
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	0.13	24	0.01^**	1.99
蔗糖酶	接种密度	2 211.31	6	368.55^***	371.31
	结皮类型	773.17	1	773.17^***	778.95
	培养时间	7 244.37	4	1 811.09^***	1 830
	结皮类型×接种密度	66.05	6	11.01^***	11.09
	培养时间×接种密度	2 483.85	24	103.49^***	104.27
	结皮类型×培养时间	21.03	4	5.26^***	5.30
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	66.94	24	2.79^***	2.81
脱氢酶	接种密度	38.29	6	6.38^***	85.07
	结皮类型	0.98	1	0.98^***	0.63
	培养时间	66.87	4	16.72^***	95.33
	结皮类型×接种密度	0.16	6	0.03^ns	0.28
	结皮类型×培养时间	0.01	4	0.00^ns	0.05
	培养时间×接种密度	36.34	24	1.51^***	0.09
	结皮类型×培养时间×接种密度	0.22	24	0.01^ns	0.24
碱性磷酸酶	接种密度	53 237.40	6	8 872.89^***	4.92
	结皮类型	78 775.35	1	78 775.35^***	43.72
	培养时间	654 173.48	4	163 543.37^***	90.76
	结皮类型×接种密度	326.05	6	54.34^ns	0.03
	结皮类型×培养时间	27 270.11	4	2 086.87^ns	1.16
	培养时间×接种密度	50 084.95	24	6 817.53^***	3.78
	结皮类型×接种密度×培养时间	6 960.54	24	290.02^ns	0.16

[1]	Hangyu Yang, Yanmei Liu, Guangyuan Luo, Fenglian Liu. Effects of bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil microbial biomass under biocrusts in desert areas [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(6): 120-125.
[2]	Jin Fan, Shiyao Li, Hailong Yu, Juying Huang. Soil enzyme activity and carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics under different types of biocrusts and subsoil in Mu Us Sandland [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(4): 109-120.
[3]	Liu Yanmei, Yang Hangyu, Jia Rongliang, Li Yixuan. Effects of Human Trampling Biocrusts on Soil Enzyme Activities [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(4): 54-63.
[4]	Yang Hangyu, Liu Changzhong, Liu Yanmei, Yang Haotian. Effects of Trampling Biocrusts on Soil Microbial Biomass in Desert Areas [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(2): 35-44.
[5]	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.

Effects of soil bacterial-feeding nematodes on soil enzyme activity under biocrusts in desert areas

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 4

References 26

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments