Effects of silicon fertilizer and microbial inoculants on the growth and soil biochemical properties of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00059

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 157-165.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00059

Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of silicon fertilizer and microbial inoculants on the growth and soil biochemical properties of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily

Yanlin Yu¹(), Guiying Shi¹(), Lipeng Zhang¹, Guihong Shi¹, Mouqiang Li², Guoli Su¹, Xiaoxiao Li¹

^1.College of Horticulture，Gansu Agricultural University，Lanzhou 730070，China
^2.Agricultural Technology Extension Station of Longmen Town，Lintao 730500，Gansu，China

Received:2021-02-02 Revised:2021-04-27 Online:2021-09-20 Published:2021-09-23
Contact: Guiying Shi

Abstract

Abstract:

The continuous acting obstacle of Lilium davidli var. unicolor has become a constraint factor for its industrial development. In order to explore ways to alleviate the continuous acting obstacle. This study set four treatments： CK （control）， SF （silicon fertilizer）， MF （microbial agents）， SMF （silicon fertilizer + microbial agents）， through the determination of plant growth index， the number of soil culturable microorganisms and physical and chemical indicators， and using membership function and redundancy analysis （RDA） method， analyzed the effects of treatments on lily growth and soil biochemical properties.The results indicate that：（1） Compared with CK treatment， SF， MF and SMF treatment all improved the plant growth index and enhanced the root activity of Lanzhou Lily. （2） Compared with CK， the microbial community structure treated by SF， MF and SMF changed significantly， the number of bacteria increased significantly， the number of fungi decreased significantly， and the soil changed from fungal type to bacterial type. （3） Membership function analysis shows that SMF has the best effect， MF， SF has the second best effect and CK has the worst effect. （4） RDA analysis shows that soil urease， alkaline phosphatase and sucrase were positively correlated with organic matter， available silicon content and available potassium， but negatively correlated with pH. The soil nutrients treated by SMF were the best and the effect was the most significant. In conclusion，single and combined application of silicon fertilizer and microbial fertilizer could significantly promote the plant growth of lanzhou lily， improve the soil microbial community structure， increase the soil nutrient content， and thus alleviate the continuous cropping obstacles of Lanzhou lily， and the combination of silicon fertilizer and microbial fertilizer had the best effect.

Key words: Lanzhou lily, continuous cropping obstacles, silicon fertilizer, microbial inoculants, soil nutrient

CLC Number:

S144

Yanlin Yu, Guiying Shi, Lipeng Zhang, Guihong Shi, Mouqiang Li, Guoli Su, Xiaoxiao Li. Effects of silicon fertilizer and microbial inoculants on the growth and soil biochemical properties of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(5): 157-165.

Figures/Tables 7

References 36

1	Shi G，Sun H，Calderón-Urrea Alejandro，et al.Soil fungal diversity loss and appearance of specific fungal pathogenic communities associated with the consecutive replant problem （CRP） in Lily［J］.Frontiers in Microbiology，2020，11：1649.
2	孙鸿强.连作对兰州百合生理特性及土壤环境效应的影响［D］.兰州：甘肃农业大学，2017：12-14，43.
3	陈君良，孙鸿强，樊生丰，等.兰州百合根系分泌物对百合幼苗自毒作用的研究［J］.甘肃农业大学学报，2016，51（6）：64-69.
4	黄钰芳，张恩和，张新慧，等.兰州百合连作土壤水浸液自毒作用研究［J］.西北农林科技大学学报（自然科学版），2020，48（7）：84-93.
5	边小荣，师桂英，梁巧兰，等.兰州百合枯萎病病原菌的分离鉴定与致病性测定［J］.甘肃农业大学学报，2016，51（4）：58-64.
6	于会丽，徐国益，路绪强，等.微生物菌剂对连作西瓜土壤微环境及果实品质的影响［J］.果树学报，2020，37（7）：1025-1035.
7	李国，易强，许世武，等.微生物菌剂对新疆棉花连作障碍的消减研究［J］.中国土壤与肥料，2020（1）：202-207.
8	凌宁，王秋君，杨兴明，等.根际施用微生物有机肥防治连作西瓜枯萎病研究［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2009，15（5）：1136-1141.
9	贾喜霞，师桂英，黄炜，等.土壤消毒剂配施微生物有机肥及生防菌剂缓解设施茄子连作障碍的作用效应微生物菌剂［J］.分子植物育种，2020，18（13）：4492-4498.
10	张立彭，师桂英，史贵红，等.土壤熏蒸-微生物菌剂联用缓解兰州百合（Lilium davidii var.unicolor）连作障碍研究［J］.中国沙漠，2020，40（5）：170-180.
11	Epstein E.Silicon［J］.Anmal Review of Plant Physiologv and Plant Molecular Biology，1999，50（50）：641-664.
12	Ma J F，Yamaji N.Silicon uptake and accumulation in higher plants［J］.Trends in Plant Science，2006，11（8）：392-397.
13	贺月，彭福田，肖元松，等.不同施硅处理对桃幼树土壤肥力与生长的影响［J］.中国土壤与肥料，2019（6）：172-181.
14	高茜，徐洪雨，李振松，等.硅肥对紫花苜蓿越冬特性及冬灌对田间土壤温湿度、越冬率的影响［J］.草地学报，2020，28（1）：230-236.
15	刘佳炜，周航，魏宾纭，等.组配改良剂联合硅肥对Cd污染稻田的修复效果［J］.中国环境科学，2020，40（8）：3512-3519.
16	Sun G X，Zhang L，Chen P，et al.Silicon fertilizers mitigate rice cadmium and arsenic uptake in a 4-year field trial［J］.Journal of Soils and Sediments，2020（2）：1-9.
17	Li N，Feng A X，Liu N，et al.Silicon application improved the yield and nutritional quality while reduced cadmium concentration in rice，2020，27（3）：20370-20379.
18	符慧娟，李星月，李其勇，等.光合细菌与硅肥对油菜及土壤环境的影响［J］.西南农业学报，2020，33（6）：1209-1214.
19	Wang B H，Chu C B，Wei H W，et al.Ameliorative effects of silicon fertilizer on soil bacterial community and pakchoi （Brassica chinensis L.） grown on soil contaminated with multiple heavy metals［J］.Environmental Pollution，2020：267.
20	吕海龙.生物有机肥配施硅肥及芸薹素对白银区日光温室连作茄子生长及土壤环境的影响［D］.兰州：甘肃农业大学，2018.
21	耿士均.专用微生物肥克服土壤连作障碍及机理的研究［D］.江苏苏州：苏州大学，2012.
22	鲍士旦.土壤农化分析［M］.北京：中国农业出版社，2005.
23	关松荫.土壤酶及其研究方法［M］.北京：中国农业出版社，1986.
24	王志泰，马瑞，马彦军，等.利用隶属函数法分析胡枝子抗旱性［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2013，27（9）：119-123.
25	Chen W，Yao X，Cai K，et al.Silicon alleviates drought stress of rice plants by improving plantwater status，photosynthesis and mineral nutrient absorption［J］.Biological Trace Element Research，2011，142（1）：67-76.
26	马云华，魏珉，王秀峰.日光温室连作黄瓜根区微生物区系及酶活性的变化［J］.应用生态学报，2004（6）：1005-1008.
27	陈慧，郝慧荣，熊君，等.地黄连作对根际微生物区系及土壤酶活性的影响［J］.应用生态学报，2007（12）：2755-2759.
28	颜艳伟，张红，刘露，等.连作花生田根际土壤优势微生物的分离和鉴定［J］.微生物学报，2011，51（6）：835-842.
29	师桂英，孙鸿强，于彦琳，等.连作栽培对兰州百合（Lilium davidii var.unicolor）叶片PSⅡ光化学效率和抗氧化作用的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2020，40（2）：206-213.
30	方成，岳明灿，王东升，等.化肥减施配施微生物菌剂对鲜食玉米生长和土壤肥力的影响［J］.土壤，2020，52（4）：743-749.
31	吴荣，刘善江，孙昊，等.长期定位不同施肥方式对土壤肥力和微生物的影响［J］.中国土壤与肥料，2020（4）：12-18.
32	Mazzola M.Manipulation of rhizosphere bacterial communities to induce suppressive soils［J］.Journal of Nematology，2007，39（3）：213-220.
33	李双喜，沈其荣，郑宪清，等.施用微生物有机肥对连作条件下西瓜的生物效应及土壤生物性状的影响［J］.中国生态农业学报，2012，20（2）：169-174.
34	刘遵奇，兰宇，杨铁鑫，等.减肥条件下生物炭施用方式对土壤肥力及酶活性的影响［J］.农业资源与环境学报，2020，37（4）：544-551.
35	李瑶，冯昶瑞，周膂卓，等.阳泉矿区煤矸石山复垦地不同植被根际土壤酶活性季节变化［J］.应用与环境生物学报，2020，27（2）：416-423.
36	杨德廉，周昕，李更新，等.有机肥施用对烟田土壤酶活性的影响［J］.中国农学通报，2020，36（15）：60-67.

采样时间	处理	茎粗/株高	根冠比(鲜重）	根冠比(干重）	壮苗指数
2019年	对照CK	0.23±0.01^b	1.40±0.02^a	1.14±0.01^c	85.69±0.92^c
	硅肥SF	0.27±0.01^a	1.42±0.02^a	1.21±0.00^b	86.31±0.47^c
	菌剂MF	0.25±0.00^b	1.44±0.03^a	1.31±0.01^a	91.75±1.14^b
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.25±0.00^ab	1.46±0.00^a	1.34±0.02^a	103.24±2.43^a
2020年	对照CK	0.33±0.00^c	2.25±0.01^c	3.50±0.05^a	90.77±2.72^c
	硅肥SF	0.34±0.00^b	2.35±0.01^b	3.51±0.06^a	105.53±0.98^b
	菌剂MF	0.35±0.00^ab	2.38±0.00^b	3.55±0.05^a	110.03±1.65^ab
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.35±0.00^a	2.48±0.03^a	3.65±0.04^a	115.17±2.44^a

采样时间	处理	茎粗/株高	根冠比(鲜重）	根冠比(干重）	壮苗指数
2019年	对照CK	0.23±0.01^b	1.40±0.02^a	1.14±0.01^c	85.69±0.92^c
	硅肥SF	0.27±0.01^a	1.42±0.02^a	1.21±0.00^b	86.31±0.47^c
	菌剂MF	0.25±0.00^b	1.44±0.03^a	1.31±0.01^a	91.75±1.14^b
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.25±0.00^ab	1.46±0.00^a	1.34±0.02^a	103.24±2.43^a
2020年	对照CK	0.33±0.00^c	2.25±0.01^c	3.50±0.05^a	90.77±2.72^c
	硅肥SF	0.34±0.00^b	2.35±0.01^b	3.51±0.06^a	105.53±0.98^b
	菌剂MF	0.35±0.00^ab	2.38±0.00^b	3.55±0.05^a	110.03±1.65^ab
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.35±0.00^a	2.48±0.03^a	3.65±0.04^a	115.17±2.44^a

采样时间	处理	蔗糖酶/（mg.g^-1）	脲酶/（mg.g^-1）	碱性磷酸酶/（mg.g^-1）	过氧化氢酶/（mL.g^-1）
2019年	对照CK	0.99±0.02^b	2.28±0.01^c	1.33±0.01^c	1.13±0.02^c
	硅肥SF	0.97±0.00^b	2.65±0.03^a	1.66±0.03^b	1.19±0.03^bc
	菌剂MF	0.95±0.02^b	2.58±0.02^b	1.35±0.01^c	1.29±0.03^a
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	1.05±0.01^a	2.71±0.02^a	1.73±0.04^a	1.23±0.01^ab
2020年	对照CK	0.92±0.01^ab	1.80±0.05^c	1.53±0.01^b	1.53±0.03^a
	硅肥SF	0.90±0.01^bc	2.01±0.03^b	1.57±0.02^b	1.30±0.06^b
	菌剂MF	0.87±0.01^c	2.02±0.05^b	1.56±0.02^b	1.33±0.06^b
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.94±0.00^a	2.19±0.05^a	1.63±0.03^a	1.20±0.05^b

采样时间	处理	蔗糖酶/（mg.g^-1）	脲酶/（mg.g^-1）	碱性磷酸酶/（mg.g^-1）	过氧化氢酶/（mL.g^-1）
2019年	对照CK	0.99±0.02^b	2.28±0.01^c	1.33±0.01^c	1.13±0.02^c
	硅肥SF	0.97±0.00^b	2.65±0.03^a	1.66±0.03^b	1.19±0.03^bc
	菌剂MF	0.95±0.02^b	2.58±0.02^b	1.35±0.01^c	1.29±0.03^a
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	1.05±0.01^a	2.71±0.02^a	1.73±0.04^a	1.23±0.01^ab
2020年	对照CK	0.92±0.01^ab	1.80±0.05^c	1.53±0.01^b	1.53±0.03^a
	硅肥SF	0.90±0.01^bc	2.01±0.03^b	1.57±0.02^b	1.30±0.06^b
	菌剂MF	0.87±0.01^c	2.02±0.05^b	1.56±0.02^b	1.33±0.06^b
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	0.94±0.00^a	2.19±0.05^a	1.63±0.03^a	1.20±0.05^b

采样时间	处理	碱解氮 /(mg·kg^-1)	有机质 /(g.kg^-1)	速效磷 /(mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 /(mg·kg^-1)	pH	有效硅 /(mg·kg^-1)
2019年	对照CK	60.86±0.36^a	11.59±0.13^ab	54.81±1.08^a	199.49±2.26^c	8.13±0.02^b	90.51±0.72^c
	硅肥SF	48.31±0.62^c	11.27±0.10^b	46.27±0.50^c	191.88±4.22^c	8.24±0.02^a	96.23±0.83^ab
	菌剂MF	62.24±1.12^a	12.30±0.46^a	46.82±0.56^c	267.21±4.16^a	8.16±0.01^b	93.27±1.25^bc
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	51.60±1.42^b	10.24±0.21^c	52.41±0.68^b	224.79±3.41^b	8.27±0.02^a	98.53±1.19^a
2020年	对照CK	44.69±1.22^b	17.00±0.39^b	50.87±0.58^c	234.26±3.40^c	8.27±0.02^a	109.34±2.13^c
	硅肥SF	52.14±2.03^a	18.02±0.13^b	32.97±0.40^d	249.48±2.11^ab	8.25±0.01^a	121.31±1.02^b
	菌剂MF	51.28±3.00^a	20.07±0.29^a	53.00±0.28^b	246.44±1.09^b	8.23±0.01^a	118.99±0.79^b

Effects of silicon fertilizer and microbial inoculants on the growth and soil biochemical properties of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 36

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

采样时间	处理	蔗糖酶	脲酶	碱性磷酸酶	过氧化氢酶	碱解氮	有机质	速效磷	速效钾	pH	有效硅	平均值	排序
2019年	对照CK	0.377	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.901	0.655	1.000	0.101	0.000	0.000	0.303	4
	硅肥SF	0.194	0.856	0.816	0.333	0.000	0.501	0.000	0.000	0.819	0.713	0.423	3
	菌剂MF	0.000	0.701	0.063	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.064	1.000	0.250	0.343	0.542	2
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.633	0.237	0.000	0.719	0.437	1.000	1.000	0.703	1
2020年	对照CK	0.685	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.619	0.000	1.000	0.000	0.330	4
	硅肥SF	0.356	0.537	0.385	0.313	1.000	0.330	0.000	0.650	0.776	0.620	0.497	3
	菌剂MF	0.000	0.582	0.264	0.391	0.886	1.000	0.692	0.520	0.592	0.499	0.542	2
	硅肥+菌剂SMF	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	0.857	0.748	1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.760	1

[1]	Lin Shi, Yuxing Zhao, Eerdun Hasi, Ping Zhang, Yingjun Xu, Zhuoran Wang. Changes of vegetation and soil nutrient on windward slope of dune under sand barrier environment in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(5): 140-146.
[2]	Yahong Li, Chongfeng Bu, Qi Guo, Yingxin Wei. Ecological functions comparison of moss crust and algae crust in the Mu Us Sand Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(2): 138-144.
[3]	Lipeng Zhang, Guiying Shi, Guihong Shi, Yanlin Yu, Mouqiang Li, Guoli Su, Xixia Jia. Alleviating obstacles of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily by soil fumigation combined with microbial fertilizer [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(5): 169-179.
[4]	Zhang Weijun, Nie Qinghua, He Xingdong. Changes of soil nutrients with five years of the Ningxia Habahu National Nature Reserve [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 27-32.
[5]	Zhao Yajiao, Liu Xiaojing, Wu Yong, Tong Changchun. Rhizosphere soil nutrients, enzyme activities and microbial community characteristics in legume-cereal intercropping system in Northwest China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 219-228.
[6]	Wang Guohua, Ren Yijun, Gou Qianqian. The changes of soil physical and chemical property during the enclosure process in a typical desert oasis ecotone of the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 222-231.
[7]	Wang Yimin, Liu Kang, Qu Jianjun. Effects of Sand Barriers on Vegetation and Soil Nutrient in Sand Dunes [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(3): 56-65.
[8]	Zhou Lijing, Wang Yajun, Xie Zhongkui, Zhang Yubao, Guo Zhihong, Qiu Yang, Hua Cuiping, Zhao Chengzheng. Improvement Effect of Biochar on the Degraded Soil of Lanzhou Lily Field [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(2): 134-143.
[9]	Wang Xiaoguang, Wuyunna, Huo Guangwei, Song Yantao, Zhang Fengjie. Effects of Grazing on Biomass Allocations and Concentrations of Soil Nutrients in the Grassland of Inner Mongolia [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(6): 1230-1236.
[10]	Zhao Peng, Qu Jianjun, Han Qingjie, Xu Xianying, Jiang Shengxiu, Fu Guiquan. Mutual Feedback Relationship between Vegetation Communities and Soil Nutrient in the Edge of Dunhuang Oasis [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(4): 791-799.
[11]	Zhu Yangchun, Zhang Zhenhua, Zhao Xueyong, Lian Jie, Chen Min, Liu Liangxu. Correlation between Soil pH and Nutrients in Yongji Irrigation Sub-district of Hetao Irrigation District,Inner Mongolia [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2017, 37(4): 742-748.
[12]	Tao Ye, Wu Ganlin, Liu Yaobin, Zhang Yuanming. Soil Stoichiometry and Their Influencing Factors in Typical Shrub Communities in the Gurbantunggut Desert, China [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2017, 37(2): 305-314.
[13]	Yao Jiaozhuan, Liu Tingxi, Tong Xin, Wang Tianshuai, Wang Haiyan. Soil Particle Fractal Dimension in the Dune-meadow Ecotone of the Horqin Sandy Land [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2016, 36(2): 433-440.
[14]	Zhang Jing, Zhang Renzhi, Zuo Xiaoan. Effects of Conservative Tillage on Physical and Chemical Characteristics under a Pea-wheat rotation System in the Loess Plateau [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2016, 36(1): 137-143.
[15]	Li Mouqiang, Shi Guiying, Ye shuhui, Huang Yanwei, Bian Xiaorong. Methods of Establishing Lanzhou Lily Core Collection Based on ISSR DNA Markers [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2015, 35(6): 1573-1578.