紫色土线虫对长期不同施肥措施的响应

doi:10.17520/biods.2022189

生物多样性 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (12): 22189. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022189

所属专题：土壤生物与土壤健康

紫色土线虫对长期不同施肥措施的响应

胡惠玲¹, 姚致远², 高世斌¹^,^*(), 朱波²

1.四川农业大学玉米研究所, 成都 611130
2.中国科学院山地表生过程与生态调控重点实验室/中国科学院水利部成都山地灾害与环境研究所, 成都610041

收稿日期:2022-04-14 接受日期:2022-06-27 出版日期:2022-12-20 发布日期:2022-09-29
通讯作者: *E-mail: shibingao@163.com
基金资助:
中国科学院水利部成都山地灾害与环境研究所青年科学研究基金(SDS-QN-2101);国家自然科学基金(42007100);中国科学院特别研究助理资助和四川省博士后专项资金

Nematode response to long-term fertilization in purple soil

Huiling Hu¹, Zhiyuan Yao², Shibin Gao¹^,^*(), Bo Zhu²

1. Maize Research Institute of Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130
2. Key Laboratory of Mountain Surface Processes and Ecological Regulation, Chinese Academy of Sciences/Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041

Received:2022-04-14 Accepted:2022-06-27 Online:2022-12-20 Published:2022-09-29
Contact: *E-mail: shibingao@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

土壤线虫在农田生态系统中数量丰富且对土壤环境变化敏感, 可用于评估不同田间管理条件下的土壤健康。本文探究了紫色土区长期不同施肥措施及土壤团聚体粒径对线虫群落的分布及其生态功能多样性的影响。试验设置了5个施肥处理: 不施肥(对照, CK)、单施化肥(NPK)、生物炭 + 化肥(BCNPK)、商品猪粪 + 化肥(OMNPK)和秸秆 + 化肥(RSDNPK)。团聚体粒径分为: 原状土(BS)、大团聚体(> 2 mm; LA)和小团聚体(0.25-2 mm; SA)。结果表明, 与对照相比, 施肥可促进线虫数量增长, 其中单施化肥处理下增幅最小(66%); 有机物料与化肥配施对线虫数量的提升更为显著, 秸秆 + 化肥处理下增幅达206%。不同施肥处理间线虫类群相对丰度差异显著, 大小均表现为: 食细菌线虫(BA) > 杂食/捕食线虫(OP) > 植食线虫(PP) > 食真菌线虫(FU)。小团聚体较其他土壤团聚体的杂食/捕食线虫丰度更低, 食细菌线虫丰度较高。秸秆与化肥配施处理下线虫群落结构指数和富集指数显著增加, 且各施肥处理下线虫功能足迹呈现明显差异。有机肥与化肥配施(尤其是秸秆 + 化肥)可提高土壤养分供应且有利于形成稳定健康的土壤生态系统, 助推区域农业的可持续发展。

关键词: 土壤线虫, 优化施肥, 土壤团聚体, 多样性, 土壤食物网

Abstract

Aims: Soil nematodes are abundant in agroecosystems and are sensitive to edaphic environmental changes, they can be used to assess soil health under different field management conditions. This study aims to investigate the effects of long-term fertilization and soil aggregation patterns on nematode community distribution and functional diversity in purple soil.
Methods: Five fertilization treatments were established: no fertilizer (control, CK), chemical fertilizer alone (NPK), biochar + chemical fertilizer (BCNPK), commercial pig manure + chemical fertilizer (OMNPK) and straw + chemical fertilizer (RSDNPK). Soil particle sizes were categorized as: bulk soil, large macroaggregates (> 2 mm) and small macroaggregates (0.25-2 mm).
Results: Fertilization increased the number of soil nematodes compared to the CK with a minimum increase of 66% under the NPK treatment group. Soil treated with a combination of organic and chemical fertilizers exhibited an increase in nematode abundance of 206%. The relative abundance of nematode groups was consistent across treatments: bacterivores > omnivores/predators > plant parasites > fungivores. However, omnivores/predators and bacterivores populations in small macroaggregates were smaller and larger, respectively, than populations associated with other soil particle categories. Community structure and enrichment index values increased in the RSDNPK group, and the nematodes’ functional footprint varied across treatments.
Conclusions: The application of a combination of organic and chemical fertilizers (especially RSDNPK) can increase soil nutrient supply capacity and help establish stable and healthy soil ecosystems, supporting the development of sustainable local agriculture.

Key words: soil nematode, optimizing fertilization, soil aggregates, diversity, soil food web

胡惠玲, 姚致远, 高世斌, 朱波 (2022) 紫色土线虫对长期不同施肥措施的响应. 生物多样性, 30, 22189. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022189.

Huiling Hu, Zhiyuan Yao, Shibin Gao, Bo Zhu (2022) Nematode response to long-term fertilization in purple soil. Biodiversity Science, 30, 22189. DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022189.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/10.17520/biods.2022189

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/CN/Y2022/V30/I12/22189

图/表 10

表1 不同施肥处理下土壤线虫的相对丰度。CK: 不施肥对照; NPK: 单施化肥; BCNPK: 生物炭 + 化肥; OMNPK: 商品猪粪 + 化肥; RSDNPK: 秸秆 + 化肥。

Table 1 Relative abundance of soil nematodes under different fertilization treatments. CK, No fertilizer; NPK, Chemical fertilizer alone; BCNPK, Biochar + chemical fertilizer; OMNPK, Commercial pig manure + chemical fertilizer; RSDNPK, Straw + chemical fertilizer.

营养类群 Trophic group	线虫类群 Nematode group	CK (%)	NPK (%)	BCNPK (%)	OMNPK (%)	RSDNPK (%)	c-p值 c-p value
食细菌线虫 Bacterivores (BA)	丽突属 Acrobeles	0.1	0.9	0.7	1.1	0.3	2
	头叶科 Cephalobidae	0.0	0.4	0.1	0.4	0.5	2
	头叶属 Cephalobus	0.8	1.0	0.6	0.8	0.8	2
	板唇属 Chiloplacus	44.9	45.6	41.3	41.1	25.2	2
	真头叶属 Eucephalobus	0.1	0.2	0.6	0.2	0.1	2
	中杆属 Mesorhabditis	1.8	0.3	3.9	0.6	4.0	1
	Oscheius	1.8	7.2	1.7	11.5	10.5	1
	盆咽属 Panagrolaimus	0.5	0.2	0.8	2.3	6.0	1
食真菌线虫 Fungivores (FU)	滑刃属 Aphelenchoides	0.7	1.7	1.3	1.1	6.4	2
	茎属 Ditylenchus	1.0	3.8	5.8	0.7	0.5	2
	丝尾垫刃属 Filenchus	1.0	1.3	0.8	2.0	3.6	2
	拟滑刃属 Paraphelenchus	4.6	4.3	6.5	4.2	4.3	2
植食线虫 Plant parasites (PP)	矮化属 Tylenchorhynchus	2.0	6.3	4.9	5.9	4.7	3
	伊朗垫刃属 Irantylenchus	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.8	2
	新平滑垫刃属 Neopsilenchus	2.8	2.6	6.0	1.7	0.7	2
	短体属 Pratylenchus	0.4	1.8	6.6	2.3	1.0	3
	根结属 Meloidogyne	2.6	3.0	5.4	3.3	1.3	3
杂食/捕食线虫 Omnivores/predators (OP)	异色矛属 Achromadora	1.5	1.0	2.4	1.2	0.5	3
	大茅属 Enchodelus	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.9	0.2	4
	挫齿属 Mylonchulus	0.2	0.6	0.9	1.7	0.4	4
	丝尾属 Oxydirus	19.1	0.3	0.6	2.4	0.7	5
	Pristionchus	2.9	7.5	2.5	2.0	12.9	1
	小三孔属 Tripylina	10.5	9.5	5.1	11.0	14.2	3
	三裂体属 Trischistoma	0.5	0.5	1.2	0.9	0.4	3

图1 不同施肥处理下各团聚体内的土壤线虫多度(平均值 ± 标准误)。不同大写字母表示各施肥处理差异显著(P < 0.05)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 1 Abundance of soil nematodes within aggregates in different fertilization treatments (mean ± SE). Different capital letters represented significant differences in nematode abundance under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

图2 线虫群落结构的主坐标分析。椭圆为均值 ± 标准差的置信区间; Adonis R2为施肥处理对线虫群落结构差异的解释量。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 2 Principal coordinate analysis of nematode community structure. Eclipses indicate the confidence interval of mean ± standard deviation; Adonis R2 indicates the variance can be explained by fertilization regimes. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

图3 不同施肥处理下各团聚体内的土壤线虫营养类群相对丰度。不同大写字母表示各施肥处理下的线虫营养类群相对丰度差异显著(P < 0.05); 不同小写字母代表原状土与不同粒径团聚体下的线虫营养类群相对丰度差异显著(P < 0.05)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK、PP、OP、FU、BA见表1。

Fig. 3 Relative abundance of soil nematode trophic groups within aggregates in different fertilization treatments. Different capital letters represent significant differences in relative abundance of nematode trophic groups under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). Different lowercase letters represent significant differences in relative abundance of nematode trophic groups within aggregates under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK, PP, OP, FU, BA see Table 1.

图4 不同施肥处理下各团聚体内土壤线虫的Shannon- Wiener多样性指数(平均值 ± 标准误)。不同大写字母表示各施肥处理的线虫多样性指数差异显著(P < 0.05)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 4 Shannon-Wiener diversity index of soil nematode communities within aggregates in different fertilization treatments (mean ± SE). Different capital letters represent significant differences in Shannon-Wiener diversity index under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

表2 不同施肥处理下各团聚体内的土壤线虫群落多样性(平均值 ± 标准误)。不同大写字母表示各施肥处理的线虫群落多样性差异显著(P < 0.05), 不同小写字母表示各施肥处理间各团聚体的线虫群落多样性差异显著(P < 0.05)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Table 2 Diversity indices of soil nematode communities within aggregates in different fertilization treatments (mean ± SE). Different capital letters indicate that there are significant differences in nematode community diversity indices under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05), and different lowercase letters indicate that there are significant differences in nematode community diversity indices within aggregates under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

处理 Fertilization treatment	不同粒径团聚体 Aggregates class	丰富度指数 Margalef index (SR)	均匀度指数 Pielou index (J)	优势度指数 Simpson index (λ)	营养多样性 Trophic diversity (TD)
CK	BS	2.67 ± 0.29^Ca	0.48 ± 0.06^Ca	0.17 ± 0.04^Aa	2.30 ± 0.23^Aa
	LA	2.56 ± 0.18^Ca	0.48 ± 0.04^Ca	0.12 ± 0.03^Aa	2.44 ± 0.11^Aa
	SA	2.51 ± 0.19^Ca	0.46 ± 0.07^Ca	0.11 ± 0.02^Aa	2.29 ± 0.13^Ab
NPK	BS	3.14 ± 0.09^Aa	0.46 ± 0.06^Ca	0.18 ± 0.03^Aa	2.52 ± 0.12^Aa
	LA	3.22 ± 0.04^Aa	0.48 ± 0.03^Ca	0.09 ± 0.02^Aa	2.98 ± 0.18^Aa
	SA	3.30 ± 0.17^Aa	0.45 ± 0.02^Ca	0.24 ± 0.02^Aa	1.79 ± 0.07^Ab
BCNPK	BS	3.08 ± 0.21^Ba	0.51 ± 0.03^Ba	0.09 ± 0.02^Aa	3.04 ± 0.09^Aa
	LA	2.92 ± 0.10^Ba	0.54 ± 0.01^Ba	0.09 ± 0.01^Aa	3.09 ± 0.17^Aa
	SA	2.89 ± 0.03^Ba	0.49 ± 0.02^Ba	0.13 ± 0.03^Aa	2.45 ± 0.22^Ab
OMNPK	BS	3.02 ± 0.09^Aa	0.48 ± 0.02^Ca	0.11 ± 0.02^Aa	2.62 ± 0.01^Aa
	LA	3.20 ± 0.12^Aa	0.48 ± 0.03^Ca	0.09 ± 0.03^Aa	2.83 ± 0.27^Aa
	SA	3.06 ± 0.04^Aa	0.49 ± 0.05^Ca	0.18 ± 0.03^Aa	1.87 ± 0.25^Ab
RSDNPK	BS	2.96 ± 0.07^Aa	0.60 ± 0.01^Aa	0.10 ± 0.02^Aa	2.56 ± 0.29^Aa
	LA	3.07 ± 0.11^Aa	0.55 ± 0.03^Aa	0.12 ± 0.05^Aa	2.90 ± 0.28^Aa
	SA	3.02 ± 0.11^Aa	0.62 ± 0.01^Aa	0.10 ± 0.01^Aa	2.62 ± 0.08^Ab

处理 Fertilization treatment	不同粒径团聚体 Aggregates class	丰富度指数 Margalef index (SR)	均匀度指数 Pielou index (J)	优势度指数 Simpson index (λ)	营养多样性 Trophic diversity (TD)
CK	BS	2.67 ± 0.29^Ca	0.48 ± 0.06^Ca	0.17 ± 0.04^Aa	2.30 ± 0.23^Aa
	LA	2.56 ± 0.18^Ca	0.48 ± 0.04^Ca	0.12 ± 0.03^Aa	2.44 ± 0.11^Aa
	SA	2.51 ± 0.19^Ca	0.46 ± 0.07^Ca	0.11 ± 0.02^Aa	2.29 ± 0.13^Ab
NPK	BS	3.14 ± 0.09^Aa	0.46 ± 0.06^Ca	0.18 ± 0.03^Aa	2.52 ± 0.12^Aa
	LA	3.22 ± 0.04^Aa	0.48 ± 0.03^Ca	0.09 ± 0.02^Aa	2.98 ± 0.18^Aa
	SA	3.30 ± 0.17^Aa	0.45 ± 0.02^Ca	0.24 ± 0.02^Aa	1.79 ± 0.07^Ab
BCNPK	BS	3.08 ± 0.21^Ba	0.51 ± 0.03^Ba	0.09 ± 0.02^Aa	3.04 ± 0.09^Aa
	LA	2.92 ± 0.10^Ba	0.54 ± 0.01^Ba	0.09 ± 0.01^Aa	3.09 ± 0.17^Aa
	SA	2.89 ± 0.03^Ba	0.49 ± 0.02^Ba	0.13 ± 0.03^Aa	2.45 ± 0.22^Ab
OMNPK	BS	3.02 ± 0.09^Aa	0.48 ± 0.02^Ca	0.11 ± 0.02^Aa	2.62 ± 0.01^Aa
	LA	3.20 ± 0.12^Aa	0.48 ± 0.03^Ca	0.09 ± 0.03^Aa	2.83 ± 0.27^Aa
	SA	3.06 ± 0.04^Aa	0.49 ± 0.05^Ca	0.18 ± 0.03^Aa	1.87 ± 0.25^Ab
RSDNPK	BS	2.96 ± 0.07^Aa	0.60 ± 0.01^Aa	0.10 ± 0.02^Aa	2.56 ± 0.29^Aa
	LA	3.07 ± 0.11^Aa	0.55 ± 0.03^Aa	0.12 ± 0.05^Aa	2.90 ± 0.28^Aa
	SA	3.02 ± 0.11^Aa	0.62 ± 0.01^Aa	0.10 ± 0.01^Aa	2.62 ± 0.08^Ab

图5 不同施肥处理各团聚体内土壤线虫区系分析(平均值 ± 标准误)。不同大写字母代表各施肥处理间线虫功能团指数差异显著(P < 0.05)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 5 Nematode faunal analysis of within aggregates in different fertilization treatments (mean ± SE). Different capital letters indicate that there are significant differences in nematode functional guild indices under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

图6 不同施肥处理各团聚体内土壤线虫复合足迹(平均值 ± 标准误)。在各施肥处理间及各团聚体中的线虫复合足迹均没有显著差异。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 6 Total soil nematode metabolic footprint within aggregates in different fertilization treatments. There are no significant differences in total nematode metabolic footprint between fertilization treatments and within aggregates. BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

图7 不同施肥处理下各团聚体内土壤线虫的区系分析(基于线虫代谢足迹)。BS: 原状土; LA: 大团聚体; SA: 小团聚体。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。图中实线表示均值, 虚线表示标准差。A: A象限; B: B象限; C: C象限; D: D象限。

Fig. 7 The faunal analysis of soil nematodes within aggregates in different fertilization treatments (Based on nematode metabolic footprint). BS, Bulk soil; LA, Large aggregate; SA, Small aggregate. CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1. The solid line represents the mean and the dotted line represents the standard deviation. A, Quadrant A; B, Quadrant B; C, Quadrant C; D, Quadrant D.

图8 不同施肥处理下小麦产量(平均值 ± 标准误)。不同小写字母代表各施肥处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。CK、NPK、BCNPK、OMNPK、RSDNPK见表1。

Fig. 8 Wheat yield in different fertilization treatments (mean ± SE). Different lowercase letters represent significant difference under different fertilization treatments (P < 0.05). CK, NPK, BCNPK, OMNPK, RSDNPK see Table 1.

参考文献 38

[1]	Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP (2016) DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature Methods, 13, 581-583. DOI PMID
[2]	Chen YF, Han XM, Li YF, Hu C (2014) Approach of nematode fauna analysis indicate the structure and function of soil food web. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34, 1072-1084. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 陈云峰, 韩雪梅, 李钰飞, 胡诚 (2014) 线虫区系分析指示土壤食物网结构和功能研究进展. 生态学报, 34, 1072-1084.]
[3]	Ferris H (2010) Form and function: Metabolic footprints of nematodes in the soil food web. European Journal of Soil Biology, 46, 97-104. DOI URL
[4]	Ferris H, Bongers T, de Goede RGM(2001) A framework for soil food web diagnostics: Extension of the nematode faunal analysis concept. Applied Soil Ecology, 18, 13-29. DOI URL
[5]	Ferris H, Sánchez-Moreno S, Brennan EB (2012) Structure, functions and interguild relationships of the soil nematode assemblage in organic vegetable production. Applied Soil Ecology, 61, 16-25.
[6]	Forge TA, Bittman S, Kowalenko CG (2005) Responses of grassland soil nematodes and protozoa to multi-year and single-year applications of dairy manure slurry and fertilizer. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 37, 1751-1762. DOI URL
[7]	Gagic V, Kleijn D, Báldi A, Boros G, Jørgensen HB, Elek Z, Garratt MPD, de Groot GA, Hedlund K, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Marini L, Martin E, Pevere I, Potts SG, Redlich S, Senapathi D, Steffan-Dewenter I, Świtek S, Smith HG, Takács V, Tryjanowski P, van der Putten WH, van Gils S, Bommarco R (2017) Combined effects of agrochemicals and ecosystem services on crop yield across Europe. Ecology Letters, 20, 1427-1436. DOI PMID
[8]	Garcı́a-Álvarez A, Arias M, Dı́ez-Rojo MA, Bello A (2004) Effect of agricultural management on soil nematode trophic structure in a Mediterranean cereal system. Applied Soil Ecology, 27, 197-210. DOI URL
[9]	Gryndler M, Larsen J, Hršelová H, Řezáčová V, Gryndlerová H, Kubát J (2006) Organic and mineral fertilization, respectively, increase and decrease the development of external mycelium of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a long-term field experiment. Mycorrhiza, 16, 159-166. DOI PMID
[10]	Herrera CM (1976) A trophic diversity index for presence-absence food data. Oecologia, 25, 187-191. DOI PMID
[11]	Jiang YJ, Zhou H, Chen LJ, Yuan Y, Fang H, Luan L, Chen Y, Wang XY, Liu MQ, Li HX, Peng XH, Sun B (2018) Nematodes and microorganisms interactively stimulate soil organic carbon turnover in the macroaggregates. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, 2803. DOI PMID
[12]	Li Q, Jiang Y, Liang WJ, Lou YL, Zhang EP, Liang CH (2010) Long-term effect of fertility management on the soil nematode community in vegetable production under greenhouse conditions. Applied Soil Ecology, 46, 111-118.
[13]	Li Q, Liang WJ, Jiang Y (2007) Present situation and prospect of soil nematode diversity in farmland ecosystems, Biodiversity Science, 15, 134-141. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[ 李琪, 梁文举, 姜勇 (2007) 农田土壤线虫多样性研究现状及展望. 生物多样性, 15, 134-141.] DOI
[14]	Li JM, Wang DC, Fan W, He RC, Yao YY, Sun L, Zhao XY, Wu JG (2018) Comparative effects of different organic materials on nematode community in continuous soybean monoculture soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 125, 12-17. DOI URL
[15]	Liang SW, Kou XC, Li YB, Lü XT, Wang JK, Li Q (2020) Soil nematode community composition and stability under different nitrogen additions in a semiarid grassland. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00965..
[16]	Liang WJ, Lou YL, Li Q, Zhong S, Zhang XK, Wang JK (2009) Nematode faunal response to long-term application of nitrogen fertilizer and organic manure in Northeast China. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 41, 883-890. DOI URL
[17]	Liu T, Chen XY, Hu F, Ran W, Shen QR, Li HX, Whalen JK (2016) Carbon-rich organic fertilizers to increase soil biodiversity: Evidence from a meta-analysis of nematode communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 232, 199-207. DOI URL
[18]	Liu T, Hu F, Li HX (2019) Spatial ecology of soil nematodes: Perspectives from global to micro scales. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 137, 107565. DOI URL
[19]	Luan L, Jiang YJ, Cheng MH, Dini-Andreote F, Sui YY, Xu QS, Geisen S, Sun B (2020) Organism body size structures the soil microbial and nematode community assembly at a continental and global scale. Nature Communications, 11, 6406. DOI PMID
[20]	Nahar MS, Grewal PS, Miller SA, Stinner D, Stinner BR, Kleinhenz MD, Wszelaki A, Doohan D (2006) Differential effects of raw and composted manure on nematode community, and its indicative value for soil microbial, physical and chemical properties. Applied Soil Ecology, 34, 140-151. DOI URL
[21]	Oksanen Jari, Guillaume BF, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, DanMcGlinn, Minchin RB, O’Hara, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2020) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R version 2.5-7.
[22]	Pan F, McLaughlin NB, Yu Q, Xue AG, Xu Y, Han X, Li C, Zhao D (2010) Responses of soil nematode community structure to different long-term fertilizer strategies in the soybean phase of a soybean-wheat-corn rotation. European Journal of Soil Biology, 46, 105-111. DOI URL
[23]	Porazinska DL, Giblin-Davis RM, Faller L, Farmerie W, Thomas WK (2009) Evaluating high-throughput sequencing as a method for metagenomic analysis of nematode diversity. Molecular Ecology Resources, 9, 1439-1450. DOI PMID
[24]	R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
[25]	Sieriebriennikov B, Ferris H,de Goede RGM (2014) NINJA: An automated calculation system for nematode-based biological monitoring. European Journal of Soil Biology, 61, 90-93. DOI URL
[26]	Six J, Conant RT, Paul EA, Paustian K (2002) Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and Soil, 241, 155-176. DOI URL
[27]	Sánchez-Moreno S (2018) Biodiversity and soil health: The role of the soil food web in soil fertility and suppressiveness to soil-borne diseases. Acta Horticulturae, 1196, 95-104.
[28]	Sun CX, Chen X, Cao MM, Li MQ, Zhang YL (2017) Growth and metabolic responses of maize roots to straw biochar application at different rates. Plant and Soil, 416, 487-502. DOI URL
[29]	Viglierchio DR, Schmitt RV (1983) On the methodology of nematode extraction from field samples: Density flotation techniques. Journal of Nematology, 15, 438-444. PMID
[30]	Wang XL, Ma K, Fu YZ, Wang ZQ, An YY (2020) Effects of no-tillage, mulching, and organic fertilization on soil fungal community composition and diversity. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 890-898. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 王小玲, 马琨, 伏云珍, 汪志琴, 安嫄嫄 (2020) 免耕覆盖及有机肥施用对土壤真菌群落组成及多样性的影响. 应用生态学报, 31, 890-898.] DOI
[31]	Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen T, Miller E, Bache S, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel D, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1686. DOI URL
[32]	Wu JH, Song CY, Chen JK (2007) Effect of microbivorous nematodes on plant growth and soil nutrient cycling: A review. Biodiversity Science, 15, 124-133. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[ 吴纪华, 宋慈玉, 陈家宽 (2007) 食微线虫对植物生长及土壤养分循环的影响. 生物多样性, 15, 124-133.] DOI
[33]	Zhang SX, Li Q, Lü Y, Zhang XP, Liang WJ (2013) Contributions of soil biota to C sequestration varied with aggregate fractions under different tillage systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 62, 147-156. DOI URL
[34]	Zhang XK, Ferris H, Mitchell J, Liang WJ (2017) Ecosystem services of the soil food web after long-term application of agricultural management practices. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 111, 36-43. DOI URL
[35]	Zhang XK, Liang WJ, Li Q (2018) Recent progress and future directions of soil nematode ecology in China. Biodiversity Science, 26, 1060-1073. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI
	[ 张晓珂, 梁文举, 李琪 (2018) 我国土壤线虫生态学研究进展和展望. 生物多样性, 26, 1060-1073.] DOI
[36]	Zhang ZY, Zhang XK, Mahamood M, Zhang SQ, Huang SM, Liang WJ (2016a) Effect of long-term combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil nematode communities within aggregates. Scientific Reports, 6, 31118. DOI URL
[37]	Zhang ZY, Zhang XK, Xu MG, Zhang SQ, Huang SM, Liang WJ (2016b) Responses of soil micro-food web to long-term fertilization in a wheat-maize rotation system. Applied Soil Ecology, 98, 56-64. DOI URL
[38]	Zhu B, Chen S, You X, Peng K, Zhang XW (2002) Soil fertility restoration on degraded upland of purple soil. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 39, 743-749. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 朱波, 陈实, 游祥, 彭奎, 张先婉 (2002) 紫色土退化旱地的肥力恢复与重建. 土壤学报, 39, 743-749.]

紫色土线虫对长期不同施肥措施的响应

Nematode response to long-term fertilization in purple soil

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	何智荣, 吴思雨, 时莹莹, 王雨婷, 江艺欣, 张春娜, 赵娜, 王苏盆. 壶菌及其感染对两栖动物种群影响的研究现状与挑战[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23274-.
[2]	彭昀月, 靳彤, 张小全. 生物多样性信用的概念、原则、交易和挑战[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23300-.
[3]	吴相獐, 雷富民, 单壹壹, 于晶. 上海城市公园苔藓植物多样性分布格局及其环境影响因子[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(2): 23364-0.
[4]	张飞飞, 杨天凤, 陈莉荣, 刘冬梅, 杨柳园, 杨杜宇, 鞠鹏, 陆露. 被子植物花粉颜色多样性及应用研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23346-.
[5]	刘昱齐, 刘晶岚, 樊晓丽, 胡宜深, 郭鸿筱, 薛凡. 鸟鸣多样性感知与声景感知恢复性: 鸟鸣音频和科普的干预[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23230-.
[6]	刘彩莲, 张雄, 樊恩源, 王松林, 姜艳, 林柏岸, 房璐, 李玉强, 刘乐彬, 刘敏. 中国海域海马的物种多样性、生态特征及保护建议[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23282-.
[7]	杨舒涵, 伍一宁, 王贺, 陈磊, 廖蓥飞, 严光, 邹红菲. 松嫩平原异质生境对土壤线虫群落特征的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23295-.
[8]	韩丽霞, 王永健, 刘宣. 外来物种入侵与本土物种分布区扩张的异同[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(1): 23396-.
[9]	程卓, 林晨, 龙春林. 独龙族传统生计及其生物多样性管理[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23019-.
[10]	李庆多, 栗冬梅. 全球蝙蝠巴尔通体流行状况分析[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23166-.
[11]	李勇, 李三青, 王欢. 天津野生维管植物编目及分布数据集[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23128-.
[12]	段晓敏, 李佳佳, 李靖宇, 李艳楠, 袁存霞, 王英娜, 刘建利. 腾格里沙漠东南缘藓结皮植物-土壤连续体不同粒径土壤微生物群落多样性[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23131-.
[13]	陈进. 《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》与国家植物园体系建设[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23257-.
[14]	冯晨, 张洁, 黄宏文. 统筹植物就地保护与迁地保护的解决方案: 植物并地保护(parallel situ conservation)[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23184-.
[15]	陈慧妹, 李文军, 邱娟, 马占仓, 李波, 杨宗宗, 闻志彬, 孟岩, 曹秋梅, 邱东, 刘丹辉, 金光照. 新疆野生维管植物名录[J]. 生物多样性, 2023, 31(9): 23124-.