Effects of green-waste mulching treatments on plant growth and the soil bacterial community

doi:10.11686/cyxb2022177

Abstract

Abstract:

In this study， we determined the effects of green-waste mulching treatments on plant growth and the soil bacterial community. The experiment consisted of five treatments ［single cover （T₁）， spraying with urea （T₂）， spraying with avermectin （T₃）， drying （T₄） and semi-composting （T₅）］ and a control （CK）， consisting of bare soil without mulch. It was found that compared with CK， the treatments resulted in increased plant height， stem diameter， biomass， and nitrogen content， and these increases were significant in the T₃ and T₄ treatments （P<0.05）. The highest contents of phosphorus and potassium in plants were in the T₁ treatment. Green waste mulches reduced the soil pH and increased the soil nutrient contents to varying degrees. The highest contents of soil organic matter and available phosphorus （AP） were in the T₁ treatment. The highest content of available nitrogen （AN） in soil was in the T₄ treatment， and was 1.02-2.49 times higher than that in other treatments. The highest content of available potassium in soil was in the T₃ treatment. The results of high-throughput sequencing analyses showed that the number of soil bacteria and Shannon’s index were highest in the T₁ treatment， and were 11.16% and 4.63% higher than their respective values in CK. The treatments and CK were ranked， from highest soil Chao1 index to lowest， as follows： T₄>T₁>CK>T₃>T₅>T₂. The dominant bacterial phyla in soil were Proteobacteria and Acidobacteria， and the dominant families wereKoribacteraceae and Sphingomonadaceae. The results of a redundancy analysis showed that AN and AP were the key factors affecting the soil bacterial community. In conclusion， green waste mulching treatments can effectively promote plant growth and regulate soil physical and chemical properties， and affect the soil bacterial community to some extent. The results of this study also confirmed that the application of avermectin， drying， and semi-composting can enhance the efficacy of mulching with green-waste to varying degrees.

Key words: green waste, mulch, plant growth, soil nutrient, soil bacterial community

Zheng-jun SHI, Song PAN, Shi-xiu FENG, Feng-jun YUAN. Effects of green-waste mulching treatments on plant growth and the soil bacterial community[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(4): 153-160.

Figures/Tables 7

References 22

1	Fang H L. Urban soil ecological function and organic waste recycling. Shanghai： Shanghai Science and Technology Press， 2014.
	方海兰. 城市土壤生态功能与有机废弃物循环利用. 上海：上海科学技术出版社， 2014.
2	Zheng S J， Zhang Q F， Wu H P， et al. Effects of greenbelt plant communities’ litterfalls in Shanghai outer ring on soil water physical properties. Chinese Journal of Ecology， 2008（7）： 1122-1126.
	郑思俊，张庆费，吴海萍，等. 上海外环线绿地群落凋落物对土壤水分物理性质的影响. 生态学杂志， 2008（7）： 1122-1126.
3	Gu B. Utlization of greenery waste on the soils of urban green-belts. Nanjing： Nanjing Agricultural University， 2009.
	顾兵. 绿色植物废弃物在城市绿地土壤上的应用. 南京：南京农业大学， 2009.
4	Kan L Y， Xi X S， He X Y， et al. Effect of organic mulch on soil nutrient status in urban landscape plants. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University （Agricultural Science）， 2014， 32（1）： 79-88.
	阚丽艳，奚霄松，何晓颖，等. 有机覆盖物对城市园林植物土壤养分状况的影响. 上海交通大学学报（农业科学版）， 2014， 32（1）： 79-88.
5	Xia N， Bai T， Jin M Q， et al. Study on the effect of “Muqi” on main physicochemistry properties of soil in urban green space. Journal of Henan Agricultural University， 2018， 52（2）： 280-286.
	夏妮，白天，金牧青，等. “木奇”覆盖对城市绿地土壤主要理化性状的影响. 河南农业大学学报， 2018， 52（2）： 280-286.
6	Du T T， Sun X Y， Li S Y， et al. Effects of landscaping waste mulching on soil fertility of urban green space. Journal of Beijing Forestry University， 2021， 43（10）： 110-117.
	杜田甜，孙向阳，李素艳，等. 园林绿化废弃物覆盖对城市绿地土壤肥力影响. 北京林业大学学报， 2021， 43（10）： 110-117.
7	Brandstätter C， Keiblinger K， Wanek W， et al. A closeup study of early beech litter decomposition： Potential drivers and microbial interactions on a changing substrate. Plant and Soil， 2013， 371（1/2）： 139-154.
8	Hou S， Xin M X， Wang L， et al. The effects of erosion on the microbial populations and enzyme activity in black soil of northeastern China. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2014， 34（6）： 295-301.
9	Bao S D. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis. Beijing： China Agriculturae Press， 2000.
	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000.
10	Lohri C R， Diener S， Zabaleta I， et al. Treatment technologies for urban solid biowaste to create value products： A review with focus on low- and middle-income settings. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio-Technology， 2017， 16（1）： 81-130.
11	Cheng F S， You L H， Yu J L， et al. Effects of cold-season green manure on soil biochemical properties and the microbial community in a Castanea henryi orchard，China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2021， 30（11）： 62-75.
	程分生，尤龙辉，余锦林，等. 冷季型绿肥对锥栗园土壤生化性质及微生物群落的影响. 草业学报， 2021， 30（11）： 62-75.
12	Li Y S， Sun B， Deng T Y， et al. Safety and efficiency of sewage sludge and garden waste compost as a soil amendment based on the field application in woodland. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety， 2021， 222： 112497.
13	Maxim A， Bain D J， Burgess J. Urban soils in a historically industrial city： Patterns of trace metals in Pittsburgh， Pennsylvania. Environmental Research Communications， 2022， 4（7）： 075004.
14	Gómez-Brandón M， Herbón C， Probst M， et al. Influence of land use on the microbiological properties of urban soils. Applied Soil Ecology， 2022， 175： 104452.
15	Masmoudi S， Magdich S， Rigane H， et al. Effects of compost and manure application rate on the soil physico-chemical layers properties and plant productivity. Waste and Biomass Valorization， 2020， 11（17/18）： 1883-1894.
16	Nobile C， Houben D， Michel E， et al. Phosphorus-acquisition strategies of canola， wheat and barley in soil amended with sewage sludges. Scientific Reports， 2019， 9（1）： 14878.
17	Zhao W， Yin Y L， Li S X， et al. The characteristics of bacterial communities in different vegetation types in the Qilian Mountains. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2021， 30（12）： 161-171.
	赵文，尹亚丽，李世雄，等. 祁连山不同类型草地土壤细菌群落特征研究. 草业学报， 2021， 30（12）： 161-171.
18	Zhao Q， Chu S， He D， et al. Sewage sludge application alters the composition and co-occurrence pattern of the soil bacterial community in southern China forestlands. Applied Soil Ecology， 2021， 157： 103744.
19	Zhang J， Xu M. Characteristic of soil community diversity among different vegetation types in the loess hilly region. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment， 2022， 38（2）： 225-235.
	张健，徐明. 黄土丘陵区不同植被类型土壤细菌群落多样性特征. 生态与农村环境学报， 2022， 38（2）： 225-235.
20	Liu K H， Xue Y Q， Zhu L P， et al. Effect of different land use types on the diversity of soil bacterial community in the coastal zone of Jialing River. Environmental Science， 2022， 43（3）： 1620-1629.
	刘坤和，薛玉琴，竹兰萍，等. 嘉陵江滨岸带不同土地利用类型对土壤细菌群落多样性的影响. 环境科学， 2022， 43（3）： 1620-1629.
21	Chen Z， Pan X， Chen H， et al. Biomineralization of Pb into Pb-hydroxyapatite induced by Bacillus cereus 12-2 isolated from lead-zinc mine tailings. Journal of Hazardous Materials， 2016， 301： 531-537.
22	Wan P， He R R. Soil microbial community characteristics under different vegetation types at the national nature reserve of Xiaolongshan Mountains， Northwest China. Ecological Informatics， 2020， 55： 101020.

处理 Treatment	株高 Plant height （cm）	茎粗 Stem diameter （mm）	生物量 Biomass （g·plant^-1）	N （%）	P （%）	K （%）
CK	33.9±3.9b	6.8±0.3b	66.3±9.8b	0.8±0.1b	1.2±0.0a	2.1±0.1a
T₁	61.9±7.3a	9.1±0.7ab	191.0±47.0ab	1.6±0.3ab	1.6±0.1a	2.1±0.1a
T₂	57.1±0.3ab	8.8±0.0ab	172.0±0.3ab	1.4±0.0ab	1.3±0.2a	1.5±0.1a
T₃	70.4±3.2a	9.5±0.3a	216.3±19.4a	1.7±0.1a	1.5±0.3a	1.7±0.1a
T₄	73.6±9.1a	10.2±0.8a	262.5±50.0a	1.9±0.3a	1.1±0.1a	1.8±0.3a
T₅	53.8±2.6ab	8.3±0.3ab	143.0±16.7ab	1.3±0.1ab	1.4±0.2a	1.9±0.0a

处理 Treatment	株高 Plant height （cm）	茎粗 Stem diameter （mm）	生物量 Biomass （g·plant^-1）	N （%）	P （%）	K （%）
CK	33.9±3.9b	6.8±0.3b	66.3±9.8b	0.8±0.1b	1.2±0.0a	2.1±0.1a
T₁	61.9±7.3a	9.1±0.7ab	191.0±47.0ab	1.6±0.3ab	1.6±0.1a	2.1±0.1a
T₂	57.1±0.3ab	8.8±0.0ab	172.0±0.3ab	1.4±0.0ab	1.3±0.2a	1.5±0.1a
T₃	70.4±3.2a	9.5±0.3a	216.3±19.4a	1.7±0.1a	1.5±0.3a	1.7±0.1a
T₄	73.6±9.1a	10.2±0.8a	262.5±50.0a	1.9±0.3a	1.1±0.1a	1.8±0.3a
T₅	53.8±2.6ab	8.3±0.3ab	143.0±16.7ab	1.3±0.1ab	1.4±0.2a	1.9±0.0a

处理 Treatment	pH	有机质 SOM （g·kg^-1）	全氮 TN （g·kg^-1）	碱解氮 AN （mg·kg^-1）	有效磷 AP （mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 AK （mg·kg^-1）
CK	6.1±0.0a	7.7±0.1c	0.4±0.0c	38.9±0.6a	1.0±0.2b	40.5±3.8b
T₁	5.0±0.2ab	18.7±1.6a	1.0±0.1a	94.8±12.9a	1.9±0.1a	109.2±13.9a
T₂	4.9±0.5ab	11.7±0.5b	0.7±0.0bc	56.0±3.9a	1.4±0.2ab	103.2±14.1a
T₃	4.5±0.1b	11.9±0.3b	0.6±0.1c	62.4±3.0a	1.3±0.1ab	118.0±14.0a
T₄	4.9±0.2ab	13.9±0.4b	1.0±0.1ab	97.0±28.7a	1.2±0.1ab	104.4±4.9a
T₅	4.7±0.1b	14.7±0.6b	1.1±0.1a	64.2±9.6a	1.2±0.1ab	84.5±5.3ab

处理 Treatment	pH	有机质 SOM （g·kg^-1）	全氮 TN （g·kg^-1）	碱解氮 AN （mg·kg^-1）	有效磷 AP （mg·kg^-1）	速效钾 AK （mg·kg^-1）
CK	6.1±0.0a	7.7±0.1c	0.4±0.0c	38.9±0.6a	1.0±0.2b	40.5±3.8b
T₁	5.0±0.2ab	18.7±1.6a	1.0±0.1a	94.8±12.9a	1.9±0.1a	109.2±13.9a
T₂	4.9±0.5ab	11.7±0.5b	0.7±0.0bc	56.0±3.9a	1.4±0.2ab	103.2±14.1a
T₃	4.5±0.1b	11.9±0.3b	0.6±0.1c	62.4±3.0a	1.3±0.1ab	118.0±14.0a
T₄	4.9±0.2ab	13.9±0.4b	1.0±0.1ab	97.0±28.7a	1.2±0.1ab	104.4±4.9a
T₅	4.7±0.1b	14.7±0.6b	1.1±0.1a	64.2±9.6a	1.2±0.1ab	84.5±5.3ab

处理 Treatment	OTUs	Chao1	Shannon
CK	7077±405a	20718.3±1402.1a	10.8±0.1a
T₁	7867±439a	21085.7±1105.8a	11.3±0.2a
T₂	6244±711a	16084.0±3251.3a	10.5±0.4a
T₃	6743±265a	19103.0±67.3a	10.7±0.1a
T₄	7734±398a	22836.3±1146.7a	11.1±0.2a
T₅	6844±269a	18654.5±440.2a	10.8±0.2a