Effects of vegetation restoration strategies on soil bacterial community structure and potential functions in sandy land

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

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 1-12.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2024.00172

Effects of vegetation restoration strategies on soil bacterial community structure and potential functions in sandy land

Shengnan Zhang^a^,^b(), Haiyan Gao^a^,^b, Deren Yan^a^,^b, Junwen Li^a^,^b, Zhiguo Yang^a, Haiguang Huang^a, Lei Zhang^a(), Hongbin Xu^a

^a.Inner Mongolia Duolun Hunshandake Sandland Ecosystem Observation and Research Station /, Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry，Hohhot 010010，China
^b.Key Laboratory of State Forestry and Grassland Administration on Sandy Land Biological Resources Conservation and Cultivation, Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry，Hohhot 010010，China

Received:2024-10-29 Revised:2024-12-04 Online:2025-09-20 Published:2025-09-27
Contact: Lei Zhang

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

S288

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.

Figures/Tables 8

References 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.

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

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

Effects of vegetation restoration strategies on soil bacterial community structure and potential functions in sandy land

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 43

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Yicong Nan, Jianqiang Huo, Gaoling Han, Yuanzhen Zhou, Ziqiang Zhao, Zhishan Zhang. Research progress on individual plant hydraulic conduction and its drought resistance in dryland [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(3): 113-120.
[2]	Qiang Zuo, Haotian Yang, Yiying Yang, Kai Lin, Yunfei Li, Yanli Wang. The construction mode of desert photovoltaic facilities influences the growth characteristics of sand-fixing herbaceous plants through soil moisture [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(3): 291-301.
[3]	Fangwei Hao, Zhaobin Song, Xiangyun Li, Ping Yue, Xiaoxue Zhang, Huaihai Wang, Xinghua Zhao, Xiaoan Zuo. Restoring characteristics of plant diversity and productivity in desert steppe after a 5-year precipitation reduction treatment [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(1): 112-120.
[4]	Kun Liu, Bo Wang, Faguo Zhang, Xiao Wu, Rui Wang, Feng Zhang, Rong Jia, Hongxing Zhang, Li Wei, Li Dong, Aike Bao. Ecological effects of photovoltaic power station construction： retrospect and prospect on photovoltaic desertification control [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(1): 277-291.
[5]	Danyi Liu, Wei Feng, Tao Wang, Wenbin Yang, Bin Zhu, Hui Zou, Mi Zhou. Characteristics of vegetation restoration based on the theory of low vegetation coverage for desertification control [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(1): 170-177.
[6]	Yongpeng Wang, Alimujiang, Long Zhou, Pengnian Yang, Siyang Feng, Yanwen Wang. Ecological water conveyance effect in the lower reaches of Tarim River [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2023, 43(4): 231-240.
[7]	Hairong Liang, Tao Wang, Yu Yang, Wei Feng, Honglin Lian, Xuefeng Liu, Jiatao Li, Jia Liu. Comparison of deep soil recharge characteristics between Mu Us Sandy Land and Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(2): 69-76.
[8]	Yani Wang, Yigang Hu, Zengru Wang, Changsheng Li. Impacts of reclamation on salinization desert soil microbial community： a case study of Alar oasis [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(6): 126-137.
[9]	Zhentao Lv, Shengyu Li, Jinglong Fan, Guojun Liu, Haifeng Wang, Xiaoyu Meng. Natural restoration potential of vegetation in Mongolia [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(5): 192-201.
[10]	Hong Zhou, Bo Wu, Ying Gao, Long Cheng, Xiaohong Jia, Yingjun Pang, Heju Zhao. Composition and influencing factors of the biological soil crust bacterial communities in the Sabina vulgaris community in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(5): 130-141.
[11]	Su Langga, Tian Guiquan, Hong Xia. Diversity of bryophyte in Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 51-59.
[12]	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.
[13]	Zhan Jin, Li Yulin, Han Dan, Yang Hongling. Effect of Grazing on Vegetation Community and Soil of Lowland in the Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(6): 184-191.
[14]	Ma Xiaojun, Li Yunfei. Soil Microbial Biomass and Enzyme Activities during Revegetation Process in the Southeastern Fringe of the Tengger Desert [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(6): 159-166.
[15]	Cao Rui, Liu Guohou, Lan Qing, Liu Guanzhi, Mu Zongjie, Gui Rong, Liu Lihong, Wang Jian. Change of Plant Community in Air-Seeding Area of the Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(3): 535-544.