Effect of cutting time during the growing season on the soil bacterial community under an artificial Caragana intermedia plantation

doi:10.11686/cyxb2021129

Abstract

Abstract:

Caragana intermedia is a shrub that plays an important role in ecological restoration in Northwest China， and cutting is an effective measure to promote its regeneration. In this study， we determined the effect of the cutting time of an artificial C. intermedia plantation on the desert steppe of Ningxia on the soil bacterial community. The artificial C. intermedia plantation was cut at seven different times： April （Y4）， May （Y5）， June （Y6）， July （Y7）， August （Y8）， September （Y9）， and October （Y10）. Soil samples were collected， and DNA extracted from the soil samples was sequenced using the Illumina Hiseq sequencing platform. The sequence data were analyzed to determine differences in soil bacterial community structure， species composition， and diversity characteristics among the treatments. The dominant phyla in soil samples were Proteobacteria， Actinobacteria， Acidobacteria， Chloroflexi. The abundance of Proteobacteria， Actinobacteria， Gemmatimonadetes， Rokubacteria， and Nitrospirae differed among the seven sampling times. The different cutting time were ranked， from highest abundance of the dominant bacterial phylum Proteobacteria to lowest， as follows： Y9>Y8>Y4>Y5>Y7>Y6>Y10. The proportion of Proteobacteria was highest in Y9 （29.74%）， and significantly higher than that in Y10 （P<0.05）， but not significantly different among the other treatments （P>0.05）. The highest relative abundance of Actinobacteria was in Y5， and was significantly higher than that in Y4， Y6， Y7， Y8， and Y9 （P<0.05）. The lowest abundance of Acidobacteria was in Y9. The treatments were ranked， from highest bacterial community abundance index to lowest， as follows： Y8>Y7>Y4>Y5>Y6>Y9>Y10. The diversity index of soil bacteria differed among treatments. Bacterial diversity was highest in Y4 and Y5， and was significantly lower in Y9 than in the other treatments （P<0.05）. Redundancy analyses showed that the main soil environmental factors affecting the distribution of the soil bacteria in different treatments were soil total phosphorus， available nitrogen， and soil organic matter. Presence of Actinobacteria and Acidimicrobiia was positively related to soil pH； presence of Alphaproteobacteria was positively related to soil organic matter； presence of Deltaproteobacteria was significantly positively correlated with soil water content and total potassium； and Gammaproteobacteria and Gemmatimonadetes were positively correlated with soil organic matter， available nitrogen， and total phosphorus. Thus， the cutting time significantly affected the soil bacterial community structure. The dominant bacterial community in the soil was richly distributed and the nutrient content in soils was higher when C. intermedia was cut in April-August， the vigorous growth period， than when it was cut in September-October. These results have practical significance for maintaining ecological benefits and developing Caragana forage.

Key words: artificial Caragana intermedia plantation, cutting time, soil bacteria, high-throughput sequencing, soil physical and chemical properties

Ying TIAN, Zhe XU, Li-zhen ZHU, Jun WANG, Xue-fei WEN. Effect of cutting time during the growing season on the soil bacterial community under an artificial Caragana intermedia plantation[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(5): 40-50.

Figures/Tables 8

References 44

1	Cui J， Chen Y M， Cao Y， et al. Soil carbon sequestration characteristics of Caragana microphylla forest and its influencing factors in loess hilly semiarid region. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture， 2012， 20（9）： 1197-1203.
	崔静，陈云明，曹扬，等. 黄土丘陵半干旱区人工柠条林土壤固碳特征及其影响因素. 中国生态农业学报， 2012， 20（9）： 1197-1203.
2	Yu R X， Wang L， Yang X G， et al. Soil moisture dynamics and physiological characteristics of moving of Caragana intermedia. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2019， 39（19）： 7249-7257.
	于瑞鑫，王磊，杨新国，等. 平茬柠条的土壤水分动态及生理特征. 生态学报， 2019， 39（19）： 7249-7257.
3	Ma C C， Gao Y B， Guo H Y， et al. Physiological adaptations of four dominant Caragana species in the desert region of the Inner Mongolia Plateau. Journal of Arid Environments， 2007， 72（3）： 247-254.
4	Yang Y S， Bu C F， Gao G X. Effect of pruning measure on physiology character and soil waters of Caragana korshinskii. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2012， 32（4）： 1327-1336.
	杨永胜，卜崇峰，高国雄. 平茬措施对柠条生理特征及土壤水分的影响. 生态学报， 2012， 32（4）： 1327-1336.
5	Zhang H N. Ecophysiology compensatory mechanisms of Caragana korshinskii after clipping. Lanzhou： Gansu Agricultural University， 2011.
	张海娜. 柠条锦鸡儿平茬后补偿生长的生理生态机制. 兰州：甘肃农业大学， 2011.
6	Zhou J J. Effects of different cropping patterns on feeding characteristics and habitat of artificial Caragena intermedia in desert steppe in Ningxia. Yinchuan： Ningxia University， 2017.
	周静静. 不同平茬方式对宁夏荒漠草原人工柠条饲用特性及生境的影响. 银川：宁夏大学， 2017.
7	Yu W T. Effect of pruning measure on physiology character and soil physicochemical properties Caragana korshinskii. Xianyang： Northwest A＆F Univertity， 2016.
	于文涛. 平茬措施对柠条生理特性及土壤理化性质的影响. 咸阳：西北农林科技大学， 2016.
8	Wen X F. Stumping of Caragana korshinskii Kom during growth period：Effects on the storage of nutrients in roots. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin， 2020， 36（5）： 53-59.
	温学飞. 柠条生长季平茬对根系贮藏营养物质的影响. 中国农学通报， 2020， 36（5）： 53-59.
9	Zhou B. Bacteria community composition and isolation and characterization in PGPR in rhizosphere of Caragana spp. Yinchuan： Ningxia University， 2017.
	周波. 柠条根际细菌群落组成及促生菌的分离筛选和特性研究. 银川：宁夏大学， 2017.
10	Niu S F. The characteristics of different soil type in rhizosphere microbial community structure and diversity of artificial Caragana korshinskii shrubland in desert steppe. Yinchuan： Ningxia University， 2018.
	牛宋芳. 荒漠草原不同土壤类型人工柠条林根际微生物群落结构及多样性特征研究. 银川：宁夏大学， 2018.
11	Shu W H， Jiang Q， Wang Z J， et al. Impact of different density of Caragana korshinskii shrubs on soil microbes in Ningxia Yanchi. Journal of Ningxia University （Natural Science Edition）， 2012， 33（2）： 205-209.
	舒维花，蒋齐，王占军，等. 宁夏盐池沙地不同密度人工柠条林对土壤微生物的影响. 宁夏大学学报（自然科学版）， 2012， 33（2）： 205-209.
12	Delmont T O， Prestat E， Keegan K P， et al. Structure， fluctuation and magnitude of a natural grassland soil metagenome. Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecology， 2012， 6（9）： 1677-1687.
13	Wei P， An S Z， Dong Y Q， et al. A high-throughput sequencing evaluation of bacterial diversity and community structure of the desert soil in the Junggar Basin. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2020， 29（5）： 182-190.
	魏鹏，安沙舟，董乙强，等. 基于高通量测序的准噶尔盆地荒漠土壤细菌多样性及群落结构特征. 草业学报， 2020， 29（5）： 182-190.
14	Leblanc N， Kinkel L L， Kistle H C. Soil fungal communities respond to grassland plant community richness and soil edaphics. Microbial Ecology， 2015， 70（1）： 188-195.
15	Adair K L， Wratten S， Lear G. Soil phosphorus depletion and shift in plant communities change bacterial community structure in a long-term grassland management trial. Environmental Microbiology Reports， 2013， 5（3）： 404-413.
16	Chen Y L， Hu H W， Han H Y， et al. Abundance and community structure of ammonia-oxidizing Archea and Bacteria in response to fertilization and mowing in a temperate steppe in Inner Mongolia. Tems Microbiol Ecology， 2014， 89（2）： 67-79.
17	Zheng J H， Zhang F， Yang Y， et al. Effects of stubble height on the structure and diversity of soil microbial community in Stipa grandis steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2021， 43（1）： 68-75.
	郑佳华，张峰，杨阳，等. 刈割留茬高度对大针茅草原土壤微生物群落结构及多样性的影响. 中国草地学报， 2021， 43（1）： 68-75.
18	Kateryna Z， Raquel D， Patricia D Q， et al. Soil pH determines microbial diversity and composition in the park grass experiment. Microbial Ecology， 2015， 69（2）： 395-406.
19	Lgar C K， Vallino J J. Predicting microbial nitrate eduction pathways in coastal sediments. Aquatic Mi-crobial Ecology， 2014， 71（3）： 223-238.
20	Bao S D. Soil agrochemical analysis （Third edition）. Beijing： China Agriculture Press， 2000.
	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析（第三版）. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000.
21	Lu R K. Soil agricultural chemical analysis method. Beijing： China Agriculture Press， 2000.
	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000.
22	Jia Z， Xiao X， Qian Z， et al. The placental microbiome varies in association with low birth weight in full-term neonates. Nutrients， 2015， 7（8）： 6924-6937.
23	Magoč T， Salzberg S L. Flash： Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics， 2011， 27（21）： 2957-2963.
24	Blaxter M， Mann J， Chapman T， et al. Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences， 2005， 360（1642）： 1935-1943.
25	Yang Y， Jia L X， Qiao J R， et al. Effects of heavy grazing on soil nutrients and microbial diversity in desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2019， 41（4）： 72-79.
	杨阳，贾丽欣，乔荠瑢，等. 重度放牧对荒漠草原土壤养分及微生物多样性的影响. 中国草地学报， 2019， 41（4）： 72-79.
26	He J Z， Li J， Zheng Y M. Thoughts on the microbial diversity-stability relationship in soil ecosystems. Biodiversity Science， 2013， 21（4）： 411-420.
	贺纪正，李晶，郑袁明. 土壤生态系统微生物多样性-稳定性关系的思考. 生物多样性， 2013， 21（4）： 411-420.
27	Sharma S K， Ramesh A， Sharma M P， et al. Microbial community structure and diversity as indicators for evaluating soil quality. Biodiversity， Biofuels， Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture. 2010， 5： 317-358.
28	Hao G， Wang X P， Ding X F. Effects of pruning on soil microbial community in the Caragana microphylla-encroached grassland. Chinese Journal of Ecology， 2019， 38（11）： 3291-3297.
	郝广，王小平，丁新峰. 平茬对小叶锦鸡儿灌丛化草原土壤微生物群落的影响. 生态学杂志， 2019， 38（11）： 3291-3297.
29	Zheng S G， Jia L M， Pang Q W， et al. Stumping effects on number and distribution of roots of Caragana microphylla Lam. plantations. Journal of Beijing Forestry University， 2010， 32（3）： 64-69.
	郑士光，贾黎明，庞琪伟，等. 平茬对柠条林地根系数量和分布的影响. 北京林业大学学报， 2010， 32（3）： 64-69.
30	Song P， Ren H， Jia Q， et al. Effects of historical logging on soil microbial communities in a subtropical forest in Southern China. Plant and Soil， 2015， 397（1）： 1-12.
31	Araújo A S F， Borges C D， Tsai S M， et al. Soil bacterial diversity in degraded and restored lands of Northeast Brazi. Antonie van Leeuwen-hoek， 2014， 106（5）： 891-899.
32	Aanderud Z， Shulaman M I， Drenovsky R E， et al. Shrubinterspace dynamics alter relationships between microbial community composition and belowground ecosystem characteristics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2008， 40（9）： 2206-2216.
33	Lange M， Habekost M， Eisenhauer N， et al. Biotic and abiotic properties mediating plant diversity effects on soil microbial communities in an experimental grassland. PLoS One， 2014， 9（5）： e96182.
34	Bian Y Y， Chen L， Wang J M， et al. Effect of prune measure on soil properties of artificial Caragana intermedia forest in desert steppe. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2018， 26（6）： 1347-1353.
	卞莹莹，陈林，王建明，等. 平茬对荒漠草原区人工柠条林地土壤理化性质的影响. 草地学报， 2018， 26（6）： 1347-1353.
35	Wang F， Zuo Z， Zhang H， et al. Study on Caragana microphylla feed process and its related problem. Pratacultural Science， 2005， 22（6）： 75-80.
	王峰，左忠，张浩，等. 柠条饲料加工相关问题的探讨. 草业科学， 2005， 22（6）： 75-80.
36	Spain A M， Krumhol L R， Elshahed M S. Abundance， composition， diversity and novelty of soil Proteobacteria. Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecology， 2009， 3（8）： 992-1000.
37	Sun H B. Soil bacterial communities diversity and distribution in Alidiqu of Tiaetan Plateau. Nanjing： Nanjing Agricultural University， 2013.
	孙怀博. 青藏高原阿里地区土壤细菌群落多样性及其分布的研究. 南京：南京农业大学， 2013.
38	Cruz-Martinez K， Rosling A， Zhang Y， et al. Effect of reinfall-induced soil geochenmistry dynamics on grassland soil microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology， 2012， 78（21）： 75-87.
39	Wang G H， Liu J J， Yu Z H， et al. Research progress of Acidobacteria ecology in soils. Biotechnology Bulletin， 2016， 32（2）： 14-20.
	王光华，刘俊杰，于镇华，等. 土壤酸杆菌门细菌生态学研究进展. 生物技术通报， 2016， 32（2）： 14-20.
40	Griffiths R I， Thomson B C， James P， et al. The bacterial biogeography of British soils. Environmental Microbiology， 2011， 13（6）： 1642-1654.
41	Ramirez K S， Craine J M， Fierer N. Consistent effects of nitrogen amedments on soil microbial communities and processes across biome. Global Change Biology， 2012， 18（6）： 1918-1927.
42	Yin N. Changes in structure and diversity of soil microbial communities across the main grasslands in Northern China. Changchun： Northeast Normal University， 2014.
	尹娜. 中国北方主要草地类型土壤细菌群落结构和多样性变化. 长春：东北师范大学， 2014.
43	Oliverio A M， Bradford M， Afierer N. Identifying the microbial taxa that consistently respond to soil warming across time and space. Global Change Biology， 2017， 23（8）： 2117-2129.
44	Luo D， Chen J X， Cheng L， et al. Analysis of bacteria diversity in the rhizosphere soil of three main plants and its correlation with the soil physical and chemical properties in the desertification area of Northern Shaanxi. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment， 2019， 33（3）： 151-157.
	罗旦，陈吉祥，程琳，等. 陕北沙化区3种主要植物根际土壤细菌多样性与土壤理化性质相关性分析. 干旱区资源与环境， 2019， 33（3）： 151-157.

土壤性质 Soil properties	处理Treatment
土壤性质 Soil properties	Y4	Y5	Y6	Y7	Y8	Y9	Y10
含水量 WC （%）	10.52±0.48ab	9.50±0.58b	10.55±0.96ab	10.42±0.80ab	10.90±0.57a	11.04±0.39a	10.45±0.71ab
pH	8.38±0.07c	8.53±0.02a	8.52±0.01a	8.46±0.03b	8.25±0.05d	8.37±0.01c	8.32±0.03c
有机质SOM （g·kg^-1）	0.31±0.02b	0.31±0.02b	0.24±0.04c	0.32±0.02ab	0.36±0.02a	0.34±0.03ab	0.34±0.01ab
全盐TS （g·kg^-1）	2.14±0.02d	1.82±0.04e	1.86±0.06e	2.20±0.03d	3.60±0.03a	2.40±0.12c	2.87±0.06b
全氮TN （g·kg^-1）	0.13±0.01c	0.14±0.01c	0.14±0.01c	0.18±0.01b	0.27±0.02a	0.18±0.01b	0.17±0.02b
全磷TP （g·kg^-1）	0.34±0.06bc	0.28±0.01c	0.33±0.03bc	0.34±0.02bc	0.45±0.06a	0.34±0.02bc	0.36±0.04b
全钾TK （g·kg^-1）	16.67±0.41ab	16.88±0.39ab	16.85±0.33ab	16.88±0.29ab	16.97±0.43a	16.28±0.16bc	16.03±0.17c
速效氮AN （mg·kg^-1）	6.78±0.40d	4.95±0.06e	4.88±0.20e	7.00±0.03d	12.90±0.21a	8.99±0.22b	7.94±0.06c
速效磷AP （mg·kg^-1）	1.74±0.07a	0.49±0.03d	1.15±0.05b	0.92±0.07c	0.89±0.04c	0.91±0.04c	1.10±0.06b
速效钾AK （mg·kg^-1）	121.49±0.94b	95.24±0.64e	83.60±0.83g	125.76±1.65a	107.10±0.64c	102.72±1.38d	87.25±1.07f

土壤性质 Soil properties	处理Treatment
土壤性质 Soil properties	Y4	Y5	Y6	Y7	Y8	Y9	Y10
含水量 WC （%）	10.52±0.48ab	9.50±0.58b	10.55±0.96ab	10.42±0.80ab	10.90±0.57a	11.04±0.39a	10.45±0.71ab
pH	8.38±0.07c	8.53±0.02a	8.52±0.01a	8.46±0.03b	8.25±0.05d	8.37±0.01c	8.32±0.03c
有机质SOM （g·kg^-1）	0.31±0.02b	0.31±0.02b	0.24±0.04c	0.32±0.02ab	0.36±0.02a	0.34±0.03ab	0.34±0.01ab
全盐TS （g·kg^-1）	2.14±0.02d	1.82±0.04e	1.86±0.06e	2.20±0.03d	3.60±0.03a	2.40±0.12c	2.87±0.06b
全氮TN （g·kg^-1）	0.13±0.01c	0.14±0.01c	0.14±0.01c	0.18±0.01b	0.27±0.02a	0.18±0.01b	0.17±0.02b
全磷TP （g·kg^-1）	0.34±0.06bc	0.28±0.01c	0.33±0.03bc	0.34±0.02bc	0.45±0.06a	0.34±0.02bc	0.36±0.04b
全钾TK （g·kg^-1）	16.67±0.41ab	16.88±0.39ab	16.85±0.33ab	16.88±0.29ab	16.97±0.43a	16.28±0.16bc	16.03±0.17c
速效氮AN （mg·kg^-1）	6.78±0.40d	4.95±0.06e	4.88±0.20e	7.00±0.03d	12.90±0.21a	8.99±0.22b	7.94±0.06c
速效磷AP （mg·kg^-1）	1.74±0.07a	0.49±0.03d	1.15±0.05b	0.92±0.07c	0.89±0.04c	0.91±0.04c	1.10±0.06b
速效钾AK （mg·kg^-1）	121.49±0.94b	95.24±0.64e	83.60±0.83g	125.76±1.65a	107.10±0.64c	102.72±1.38d	87.25±1.07f

处理 Treatment	分类操作单元 Operational taxonomic unit （OTU）	Ace指数 Ace index	Chao 1 指数 Chao1 index	香农指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	覆盖率 Coverage （%）
Y4	1838±4ab	1911±3a	1920±17a	6.62±0.01a	0.0027±0b	99.8
Y5	1793±43ab	1834±42a	1912±42a	6.46±0.02ab	0.0028±0b	99.8
Y6	1812±21abc	1812±15ab	1895±34ab	6.63±0.01a	0.0026±0b	99.7
Y7	1829±12ab	1939±23a	1933±31a	6.46±0.01ab	0.0028±0b	99.7
Y8	1869±11a	1946±4a	1958±5a	6.51±0.08a	0.0032±0b	99.7
Y9	1728±24c	1801±27b	1845±28b	6.32±0.04b	0.0041±0a	99.7
Y10	1757±44bc	1802±57b	1839±62b	6.61±0.02a	0.0027±0b	99.7

处理 Treatment	分类操作单元 Operational taxonomic unit （OTU）	Ace指数 Ace index	Chao 1 指数 Chao1 index	香农指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	覆盖率 Coverage （%）
Y4	1838±4ab	1911±3a	1920±17a	6.62±0.01a	0.0027±0b	99.8
Y5	1793±43ab	1834±42a	1912±42a	6.46±0.02ab	0.0028±0b	99.8
Y6	1812±21abc	1812±15ab	1895±34ab	6.63±0.01a	0.0026±0b	99.7
Y7	1829±12ab	1939±23a	1933±31a	6.46±0.01ab	0.0028±0b	99.7
Y8	1869±11a	1946±4a	1958±5a	6.51±0.08a	0.0032±0b	99.7
Y9	1728±24c	1801±27b	1845±28b	6.32±0.04b	0.0041±0a	99.7
Y10	1757±44bc	1802±57b	1839±62b	6.61±0.02a	0.0027±0b	99.7

项目 Item	含水量 WC	pH	有机质 SOM	全盐 TS	全氮 TN	全磷 TP	全钾 TK	速效氮 AN	速效磷 AP	速效钾 AK
分类操作单元Operational taxonomic unit （OTU）	-0.064	0.007	-0.086	-0.013	0.093	0.046	0.512*	0.010	0.084	0.326
Ace指数Ace index	-0.012	-0.005	-0.024	0.063	0.207	0.157	0.630**	0.123	0.011	0.364
Chao 1 指数Chao1 index	-0.029	-0.013	0.017	0.062	0.202	0.185	0.635**	0.137	0.041	0.406
辛普森指数Simpson index	-0.025	-0.198	0.301	0.176	0.259	0.181	-0.137	0.418	-0.204	0.042
香农指数Shannon index	0.019	0.168	-0.338	-0.195	-0.308	-0.206	0.103	-0.431	0.308	-0.040