贝莱斯芽孢杆菌和利迪链霉菌对桃土壤微生物及理化特性的影响

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20195768

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为评估微生物菌剂对土壤微生物数量和理化性质的影响,以北京市平谷区田间桃和盆栽桃为研究材料,探讨了微生物菌剂贝莱斯芽孢杆菌BPC6(B)、利迪链霉菌(S)及其复配菌剂(BS)对土壤微生物和理化特性的影响。研究结果表明,施用菌剂B、BS和S均能显著影响田间土壤的微生物数量,有效提升细菌、真菌和放线菌丰度。此外,添加微生物菌剂还能提高田间土壤养分的利用效率,提高土壤有机质、总碳、总氮、碱解氮、硝态氮、铵态氮、速效钾、总磷和有效磷的含量,而对总钾含量未产生显著影响。其中,施用菌剂B、BS和S后对桃收获期土壤营养指标的影响为:较对照组,土壤碱解氮含量分别显著提高11.89%,15.19%和35.27%,速效钾含量分别显著提高35.58%,22.92%和41.75%,有效磷含量分别显著提升37.97%,3.65%和62.60%。相关性分析结果表明,土壤微生物数量受多种环境因子调控,其与速效钾含量呈显著正相关关系,表明速效钾可能是驱动土壤微生物数量变化的关键因子之一。田间试验结果表明,微生物菌剂S提高土壤肥力效果最显著,复配菌剂BS次之,而菌剂B效果相对较弱。盆栽试验进一步表明,微生物菌剂在提高土壤碱解氮水平方面有重要作用。较对照组,菌剂B、BS和S使盆栽桃中蟠100号土壤碱解氮含量分别显著提高15.65%,16.67%和13.45%;菌剂BS和S引起中桃14号土壤有效氮含量分别显著提升13.65%和18.13%。综合分析表明,微生物菌剂能够增加土壤微生物数量、提升土壤肥力,为桃绿色生产提供科学支持和实践参考。

关键词: 桃, 微生物菌剂, 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌, 利迪链霉菌, 土壤理化特性, 土壤微生物数量

Abstract:

To evaluate the effects of microbial inoculants on soil microbial population and physicochemical properties,this study investigated the effects of the microbial inoculants,including Bacillus velezensis BPC6(B), Streptomyces lydicus (S), and their combined inoculants(BS) on the soil microbial abundance and physicochemical properties of field-grown and potted peach trees in Pinggu District,Beijing.The results showed that applying microbial inoculants(B,BS,and S) significantly increased the abundance of bacteria,fungi,and actinomycetes in field soils.Additionally,the microbial inoculants enhanced soil nutrient utilization efficiency by increasing the contents of soil organic matter,total carbon,total nitrogen,available nitrogen(alkaline-hydrolysis nitrogen),nitrate nitrogen,ammonium nitrogen,available potassium,total phosphorus,and available phosphorus,while no significant effect was observed on total potassium.Among them,during the peach harvest period,application of microbial inoculants B,BS,and S significantly increased soil available nitrogen by 11.89%,15.19%,and 35.27%,respectively,compared to the control.Available potassium increased significantly by 35.58%,22.92%,and 41.75%,respectively,while available phosphorus rose significantly by 37.97%,3.65%,and 62.60%,respectively.Correlation analysis further revealed that soil microbial abundance was significantly influenced by multiple soil environmental factors,particularly showing a strong positive correlation with available potassium content.The effect of improving soil fertility with different microbial inoculants(B,BS,and S) was as follows:microbial inoculant S was the most effective,and the combination application of B and S was better than that of individual application of inoculant B.The pot experiment further confirmed the important role of microbial inoculants in increasing soil available nitrogen levels.Compared to the control,application of microbial agents B,BS,and S significantly increased soil available nitrogen in potted peach Zhongpan 100 by 15.65%,16.67% and 13.45%,respectively;while microbial agents BS and S significantly increased available nitrogen in Zhongtao 14 by 13.65% and 18.13%,respectively.Overall,microbial inoculants effectively improved soil microbial abundance and fertility,providing scientific support and practical references for sustainable peach production.

Key words: Peach, Microbial inoculants, Bacillus velezensis, Streptomyces lydicus, Soil physicochemical properties, Soil microbial abundance

中图分类号:

胡娜娜, 左强, 董丹, 于洋, 田宇, 荆彦付, 吴慧玲, 谢华. 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌和利迪链霉菌对桃土壤微生物及理化特性的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2026, 41(1): 163-176. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20195768.

HU Nana, ZUO Qiang, DONG Dan, YU Yang, TIAN Yu, JING Yanfu, WU Huiling, XIE Hua. Effects of Bacillus velezensis and Streptomyces lydicus on Soil Microbes and Physicochemical Properties in Peach Orchards[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2026, 41(1): 163-176. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20195768.

http://www.hbnxb.net/CN/Y2026/V41/I1/163

图/表 10

参考文献 63

[26]	Bao S D. Agrochemical analysis of soil[M]. 3rd edition. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[27]	胡建明. 营山县土壤养分现状与施肥对策[J]. 农业与技术, 2018, 38(8):28,36.doi: 10.11974/nyyjs.20180432015.
	Hu J M. Soil nutrient status and fertilization strategies in Yingshan county[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2018, 38(8):28,36.
[28]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	Huang C Y. Soil science[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[29]	白红, 石佩, 郭东花, 乔恒波, 范崇辉, 刘航空, 赵彩平, 李高潮. 注射施肥对桃园土壤环境和果实产量品质的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(3):541-551.doi:10.7606/j.issn.1000-4025.2017.03.0541.
	Bai H, Shi P, Guo D H, Qiao H B, Fan C H, Liu H K, Zhao C P, Li G C. Effects of injection fertilizing on soil environment,fruit yield and fruit quality of peach orchard[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2017, 37(3):541-551.
[30]	贾宇平, 马义娟. 黄土高原小流域土壤总碳分布与储量研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2005, 25(5):17-19,23.doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2005.05.004.
	Jia Y P, Ma Y J. Spatial distribution and reserve of soil total carbon in small watershed in loess plateau[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005, 25(5):17-19,23.
[31]	李菊梅, 王朝辉, 李生秀. 有机质、全氮和可矿化氮在反映土壤供氮能力方面的意义[J]. 土壤学报, 2003, 40(2):232-238.doi:10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2003.02.011.
[1]	刘晓. 微生物菌肥在农业生产中的应用研究[J]. 河南农业, 2021(17):14-15.doi:10.15904/j.cnki.hnny.2021.17.007.
	Liu X. Research on application of microbial fertilizer in agricultural production[J]. Agriculture of Henan, 2021(17):14-15.
[2]	郑茗月, 李海梅, 赵金山, 刘华伟, 谢宝琦. 微生物肥料的研究现状及发展趋势[J]. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(11):52-56.doi:10.19386/j.cnki.jxnyxb.2018.11.12.
	Zheng M Y, Li H M, Zhao J S, Liu H W, Xie B Q. Current situation and developmental trend of microbial fertilizer researches[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2018, 30(11):52-56.
[3]	Zhao J, Wang Y G, Liang H, Huang J, Chen Z, Nie Y J. The rhizosphere microbial community response to a bio-organic fertilizer:finding the mechanisms behind the suppression of watermelon Fusarium wilt disease[J]. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 2017,40:17-20.doi: 10.1007/s11738-017-2581-8.
[4]	Akbari A, Gharanjik S, Koobaz P, Sadeghi A. Plant growth promoting Streptomyces strains are selectively interacting with the wheat cultivars especially in saline conditions[J]. Heliyon, 2020, 6(2):e03445.doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03445. URL
[5]	Hu D, Li S H, Li Y, Peng J L, Wei X Y, Ma J, Zhang C M, Jia N, Wang E T, Wang Z W. Streptomyces sp.strain TOR3209:a rhizosphere bacterium promoting growth of tomato by affecting the rhizosphere microbial community[J]. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10(1):20132.doi:10.1038/s41598-020-76887-5
[6]	Suárez-Moreno Z R, Vinchira-Villarraga D M, Vergara-Morales D I, Castellanos L, Ramos F A, Guarnaccia C, Degrassi G, Venturi V, Moreno-Sarmiento N. Plant-growth promotion and biocontrol properties of three Streptomyces spp.isolates to control bacterial rice pathogens[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019, 10:290.doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.00290. pmid: 30858835
[31]	Li J M, Wang Z H, Li S X. Significance of soil organic matter,total N and minerali-zable nitrogen in reflecting soil N supplying capacity[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2003, 40(2):232-238.
[32]	王艳庆. 盐渍化旱地专用肥配方初探[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2012.doi:10.7666/d.Y2238400.
	Wang Y Q. Probe into formulation of special fertilizer for salinity-alkalinity upland[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2012.
[33]	郑重禄. 桃树氮素营养研究进展(1) —桃树对氮素的吸收、运转与利用[J]. 浙江柑橘, 2016, 33(3):9-14.doi:10.13906/j.cnki.zjgj.1009-0584.2016.03.339.
	Zheng C L. Research progress of nitrogen nutrition in peach trees(1)—Nitrogen uptake,transfer and utilization in peach trees[J]. Zhejiang Citrus, 2016, 33(3):9-14.
[34]	白红. 钾肥和注射施肥对桃园土壤环境及果实产量品质的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2016.
	Bai H. Effects of potassium and injection fertilizing on soil environment,and fruit yield and quality of peach orchard[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2016.
[35]	徐晓燕, 马毅杰, 张瑞平. 土壤中钾的转化及其与外源钾的相互关系的研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2003, 34(5):489-492.doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2003.05.025.
	Xu X Y, Ma Y J, Zhang R P. Research progress in transformation of soil potassium in relation to potash application[J]. Journal of Soil Science, 2003, 34(5):489-492.
[36]	刘建玲, 张福锁. 小麦—玉米轮作长期肥料定位试验中土壤磷库的变化Ⅰ.磷肥产量效应及土壤总磷库、无机磷库的变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(3):360-364.doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.2000.0091. pmid: 11767632
	Liu J L, Zhang F S. Dynamics of soil P pool in a long-term fertilizing experiment of wheat-maize rotation Ⅰ.Crop yield effect of fertilizer P and dynamics of soil total P and inorganic P[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2000, 11(3):360-364. pmid: 11767632
[37]	贾兴永, 李菊梅. 土壤磷有效性及其与土壤性质关系的研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2011(6):76-82.doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20110615.
[7]	Mengistie G Y, Awlachew Z T. Evaluation of the plant growth promotion effect of Bacillus species on different varieties of tomato(Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedlings[J]. Advances in Agriculture, 2022, 2022:1771147.doi:10.1155/2022/1771147.
[8]	Xiao X, Zhu Y, Gao C X, Zhang Y M, Gao Y X, Zhao Y. Microbial inoculations improved rice yields by altering the presence of soil rare bacteria[J]. Microbiological Research, 2022, 254:126910.doi:10.1016/j.micres.2021.126910. URL
[9]	Chen Y H, Li S S, Liu N, He H, Cao X Y, Lyu C, Zhang K, Dai J L. Effects of different types of microbial inoculants on available nitrogen and phosphorus,soil microbial community,and wheat growth in high-P soil[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2021, 28(18):23036-23047.doi:10.1007/s11356-020-12203-y.
[10]	Zhao Y S, Sun C Y, Wang S Z, Zhang M L, Li Y L, Xue Q H, Guo Q, Lai H X. Widely targeted metabolomic,transcriptomic,and metagenomic profiling reveal microbe plant metabolic reprogramming patterns mediated by Streptomyces pactum Act12 enhance the fruit quality of Capsicum annuum L.[J]. Food Research International, 2023, 166:112587.doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112587. URL
[11]	李福芝. 平谷大桃[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2017.
	Li F Z, Pinggu peach[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2017.
[12]	孙玉刚, 高文胜, 李芳东, 秦志华, 魏国芹. 山东省桃产业现状、存在问题及发展建议[J]. 山东农业科学, 2010, 42(3):119-123.doi:10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2010.03.033.
	Sun Y G, Gao W S, Li F D, Qin Z H, Wei G Q. Status, problems and proposals of peach industry in Shandong province[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 42(3):119-123.
[37]	Jia X Y, Li J M. Study on soil phosphorus availability and its relationship with soil properties[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2011(6):76-82.
[38]	Zhou Y L, Wang Y, Li J V, Xue Y I. Dynamic study of microbial population and enzyme activity in rhizosphere soil of Allium sativum L.[J]. Agricultural Science & Technology, 2010, 11(9-10):140-143.doi:10.16175/j.cnki.1009-4229.2010.z1.040.
[39]	孟庆英, 于忠和, 贾会彬, 张春峰, 朱宝国, 王囡囡, 高雪冬. 控释肥对大豆根际土壤微生物数目、肥力及大豆农艺性状的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2011, 30(5):827-829.doi:10.11861/j.issn.1000-9841.2011.05.0827.
	Meng Q Y, Yu Z H, Jia H B, Zhang C F, Zhu B G, Wang N N, Gao X D. Effects of controlled-release fertilizer on rhizosphere soil microoganisms,soil fertility and agronomic characters of soybean[J]. Soybean Science, 2011, 30(5):827-829.
[40]	Kieser T, Bibb M J, Butner M J, Chater K F, Hopwood D A, Charter K, Bib M J, Bipp M, Keiser T, Butner M. Practical Streptomyces genetics[M]. United Kingdom: Norwich,The John Innes Foundation, 2000.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01876.x.
[41]	Faoro H, Alves A C, Souza E M, Rigo L U, Cruz L M, Al-Janabi S M, Monteiro R A, Baura V A, Pedrosa F O. Influence of soil characteristics on the diversity of bacteria in the Southern Brazilian Atlantic forest[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010, 76(14):4744-4749.doi:10.1128/aem.03025-09. pmid: 20495051
[42]	Bastida F, Hernández T, Albaladejo J, Garcia C. Phylogenetic and functional changes in the microbial community of long-term restored soils under semiarid climate[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2013, 65:12-21.doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.04.022. URL
[43]	胡琼. 木霉对植物促生作用的研究进展[J]. 北方园艺, 2010(7):197-200.doi:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2010.10.040.
	Hu Q. Research progress of Trichoderma on plant growth promotion[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2010(7):197-200.
[44]	吕丽霞, 张立新, 高梅, 李云飞, 廖超英, 王维, 王锴, 赵永桂, 张林森, 李丙智, 韩明玉. 根际注射施肥对渭北苹果园土壤理化特性、土壤酶、果实产量及品质的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2012, 29(5):782-788.doi:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.2012.05.012.
	Lyu L X, Zhang L X, Gao M, Li Y F, Liao C Y, Wang W, Wang K, Zhao Y G, Zhang L S, Li B Z, Han M Y. Effect of fertilization with injection to the rhizosphere on soil physical and chemical properties,soil enzyme activities and yield and quality of apple in Weibei highland[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2012, 29(5):782-788.
[45]	Pu R F, Wang P P, Guo L P, Li M H, Cui X M, Wang C X, Liu Y, Yang Y. The remediation effects of microbial organic fertilizer on soil microorganisms after chloropicrin fumigation[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2022, 231:113188.doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113188. URL
[46]	宋以玲, 于建, 陈士更, 肖承泽, 李玉环, 苏秀荣, 丁方军. 复合微生物菌剂对棉花生理特性及根际土壤微生物和化学性质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2019, 51(3):477-487.doi:10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2019.03.009.
[13]	Meng Q X, Jiang H, Hao J J. Effects of Bacillus velezensis strain BAC03 in promoting plant growth[J]. Biological Control, 2016, 98:18-26.doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.03.010. URL
[14]	江明明. 几株优良内生菌的分离及鉴定[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2016.
	Jiang M M. Isolation and identification about several strains of endophytic bacteria[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Forestry University, 2016.
[15]	Wang M X, Xue J, Ma J J, Feng X H, Ying H J, Xu H. Streptomyces lydicus M01 regulates soil microbial community and alleviates foliar disease caused by Alternaria alternata on cucumbers[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11:942.doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.00942. URL
[16]	魏奇. 几株优良内生细菌在上海生态林上的应用研究[D]. 南京: 南京林业大学, 2017.
	Wei Q. Application and research of several excellent endophytic bacteria in Shanghai ecological forest[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Forestry University, 2017.
[17]	褚睿, 李昭轩, 张学青, 杨东亚, 曹行行, 张雪艳. 黄瓜枯萎病拮抗芽孢杆菌的筛选、鉴定及其生防潜力[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023, 39(8):262-271.doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2022-1574.
	Chu R, Li Z X, Zhang X Q, Yang D Y, Cao H H, Zhang X Y. Screening and identification of antagonistic Bacillus spp.against cucumber Fusarium wilt and its biocontrol effect[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2023, 39(8):262-271.
[18]	Chen X, Pizzatti C, Bonaldi M, Saracchi M, Erlacher A, Kunova A, Berg G, Cortesi P. Biological control of lettuce drop and host plant colonization by rhizospheric and endophytic Streptomycetes[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016, 7:714.doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00714.
[46]	Song Y L, Yu J, Chen S G, Xiao C Z, Li Y H, Su X R, Ding F J. Effects of complex microbial agent on cotton physiological characteristics and physico chemical properties in rhizosphere soil[J]. Soils, 2019, 51(3):477-487.
[47]	Zhou Z, Li Y L, Duan L L, Zhou R, Wu F F, Xiong M Q, Zhang B Y, Geng S B, Qiao L, Zhang F M, Wang L J. Effect of Streptomyces costaricanus strain A-m1 as a bioinoculant on tea garden soil and tea quality[J]. Agronomy, 2024, 14(9):1901.doi:10.3390/agronomy14091901. URL
[48]	麦远愉. 羊粪生物有机肥研制及其对辣椒生长的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2020.doi:10.27244/d.cnki.gnjnu.2020.001660.
	Mai Y Y. Development of organic manure from sheep manure and its influence on the growth of pepper[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2020.
[49]	周文杰, 吕德国, 秦嗣军. 植物与根际微生物相互作用关系研究进展[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2016, 38(3):253-260.doi:10.13327/j.jjlau.2016.3073.
	Zhou W J, Lyu D G, Qin S J. Research progress in interaction between plant and rhizosphere microorganism[J]. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 2016, 38(3):253-260.
[50]	Bach E M, Baer S G, Meyer C K, Six J. Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2010, 42(12):2182-2191.doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.014. URL
[51]	Chouyia F E, Ventorino V, Pepe O. Diversity,mechanisms and beneficial features of phosphate-solubilizing Streptomyces in sustainable agriculture:a review[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022, 13:1035358.doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.1035358. URL
[19]	Husna, Kim B E, Won M H, Jeong M I, Oh K K, Park D S. Characterization and genomic insight of surfactin-producing Bacillus velezensis and its biocontrol potential against pathogenic contamination in lettuce hydroponics[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30(58):121487-121500.doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30871-4.
[20]	Wu Q, Ni M, Liu W C, Ren J H, Rao Y H, Chen J, Lu C G. Omics for understanding the mechanisms of Streptomyces lydicus A01 promoting the growth of tomato seedlings[J]. Plant and Soil, 2018, 431(1):129-141.doi:10.1007/s11104-018-3750-2.
[21]	Yan Y C, Xu W H, Hu Y L, Tian R M, Wang Z G. Bacillus velezensis YYC promotes tomato growth and induces resistance against bacterial wilt[J]. Biological Control, 2022, 172:104977.doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2022.104977. URL
[22]	花玉鹏, 文才艺, 刘伟成, 杨剑芳, 卢彩鸽. 响应曲面法优化利迪链霉菌A02发酵培养基[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2011, 27(4):520-527.doi:10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2011.04.001.
	Hua Y P, Wen C Y, Liu W C, Yang J F, Lu C G. Optimization of medium components of Streptomyces lydicus A02 with response surface methodology[J]. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 2011, 27(4):520-527.
[23]	石慧敏, 叶建仁, 王焱, 陆蓝翔, 史纪武. 响应面优化贝莱斯芽孢杆菌(Bacillus velezensis) 菌株YH-18产芽孢培养基和培养条件[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 47(1):209-218.doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202111017.
	Shi H M, Ye J R, Wang Y, Lu L X, Shi J W. Optimizing spore-producing medium and culture conditions of Bacillus velezensis strain YH-18 by response surface methodology[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2023, 47(1):209-218.
[52]	Shi H M, Lu L X, Ye J R, Shi L N. Effects of two Bacillus velezensis microbial inoculants on the growth and rhizosphere soil environment of Prunus davidiana[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022, 23(21):13639.doi:10.3390/ijms232113639. URL
[53]	张杰, 马亚君, 贺志斌, 高芳芳, 张少骅, 王超然, 赵丹晨. 微生物肥料替代化肥在苹果种植中的应用效果研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2019, 21(7):128-135.doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0483.
	Zhang J, Ma Y J, He Z B, Gao F F, Zhang S H, Wang C R, Zhao D C. Application of microbial fertilizer instead of fertilizer in apple planting[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, 21(7):128-135. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0483
[54]	Siebielec S, Siebielec G, Marzec-Grzᶏdziel A, Pecio M, Stuczyński T. Testing combined effect of amendments and inoculation with bacteria for improving phytostabilisation of smelter waste extremely contaminated with trace elements[J]. Agronomy, 2021, 11(10):2064.doi:10.3390/agronomy11102064. URL
[55]	Xue L X, Sun B, Yang Y H, Jin B, Zhuang G Q, Bai Z H, Zhuang X L. Efficiency and mechanism of reducing ammonia volatilization in alkaline farmland soil using Bacillus amyloliquefaciens biofertilizer[J]. Environmental Research, 2021, 202:111672.doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111672. URL
[56]	Devi R, Kaur T, Kour D, Yadav A, Yadav A N, Suman A, Ahluwalia A S, Saxena A K. Minerals solubilizing and mobilizing microbiomes:a sustainable approach for managing minerals' deficiency in agricultural soil[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2022, 133(3):1245-1272.doi:10.1111/jam.15627. URL
[57]	Lugtenberg B, Kamilova F. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria[J]. Annual Review of Microbiology, 2009, 63:541-556.doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.162918. pmid: 19575558
[58]	Song X C, Liu M Q, Wu D, Griffiths B S, Jiao J G, Li H X, Hu F. Interaction matters:synergy between vermicompost and PGPR agents improves soil quality,crop quality and crop yield in the field[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2015, 89:25-34.doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.01.005. URL
[59]	Kabiraj A, Majhi K, Halder U, Let M, Bandopadhyay R. Role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria(PGPR) for crop stress management[M]// In Sustainable Agriculture in the Era of Climate Change. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG, 2020:367-389.doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45669-6_17.
[60]	黄丽华, 孔涛, 张开, 狄军贞, 王翼翔, 张加良. 菌剂混施对紫花苜蓿生长和土壤性质的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(8):1580-1587.doi:10.13292/j.1000-4890.202208.023.
	Huang L H, Kong T, Zhang K, Di J Z, Wang Y X, Zhang J L. Effects of mixed microbial agents on alfalfa growth and soil properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2022, 41(8):1580-1587. doi: DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202208.023
[61]	Li T, Shi X T, Wang J G, Zhou Y H, Wang T K, Xu Y, Xu Z H, Raza W, Liu D Y, Shen Q R. Turning antagonists into allies:bacterial-fungal interactions enhance the efficacy of controlling Fusarium wilt disease[J]. Science Advances, 2025, 11(7):eads5089.doi:10.1126/sciadv.ads5089.
[62]	王鑫, 彭仕乐, 张旭屹, 张宏森, 毛国涛, 谢慧, 宋安东. 秸秆堆肥功能微生物与高效降解菌剂的研究进展[J]. 中国酿造, 2024, 43(4):22-28.doi:10.11882/j.issn.0254-5071.2024.04.004.
[24]	栾丽英, 房玉林, 宋士任, 张振文, 韦青侠, 程宝森, 屈雁鹏, 周洋. 不同树龄酿酒葡萄不同土壤深度根际和根区微生物数量的研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2009, 24(2):37-41.
	Luan L Y, Fang Y L, Song S R, Zhang Z W, Wei Q X, Cheng B S, Qu Y P, Zhou Y. Soil microbe in vineyards with different tree ages and different soil depths[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2009, 24(2):37-41.
[25]	司美茹, 薛泉宏, 来航线. 放线菌分离培养基筛选及杂菌抑制方法研究[J]. 微生物学通报, 2004, 31(2):61-65.doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-2654.2004.02.014.
	Si M R, Xue Q H, Lai H X. Studies on selection of the isolation medium for actinomycetes and inhibition methods to miscellaneous microorganism[J]. Microbiology China, 2004, 31(2):61-65.
[26]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[62]	Wang X, Peng S L, Zhang X Y, Zhang H S, Mao G T, Xie H, Song A D. Research progress of functional microorganisms and efficient biodegradable agents in straw composting[J]. China Brewing, 2024, 43(4):22-28. doi: 10.11882/j.issn.0254-5071.2024.04.004
[63]	Zang Z Y, Zhang C Q, Park K J, Schwartz D A, Podicheti R, Lennon J T, Gerdt J P. Streptomyces secretes a siderophore that sensitizes competitor bacteria to phage infection[J]. Nature Microbiology, 2025, 10(2):362-373.doi:10.1038/s41564-024-01910-8.

环境因子 Environmental factors	S1期 S1 stage	S3期 S3 stage	S4期 S4 stage
总碳 Total carbon	0.400 9^*	0.070 5	0.389 2^**
有机质 Organic matter	0.504 9^**	0.136 4	0.189 6
总氮 Total nitrogen	0.207 8	-0.050 5	0.256 5
铵态氮 Ammonium nitrogen	0.511 1^**	-0.005 9	-0.004 0
硝态氮 Nitrate nitrogen	0.590 5^**	-0.017 2	-0.101 2
碱解氮 Alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen	0.078 2	0.450 2^**	0.377 0^**
总钾 Total potassium	-0.146 2	-0.041 2	0.299 0^*
速效钾 Available potassium	0.445 3^*	0.463 3^**	0.780 0^**
总磷 Total phosphorus	0.073 8	0.068 9	0.415 8^**
有效磷 Available phosphorus	-0.249 4	0.190 9	0.160 6

环境因子 Environmental factors	S1期 S1 stage	S3期 S3 stage	S4期 S4 stage
总碳 Total carbon	0.400 9^*	0.070 5	0.389 2^**
有机质 Organic matter	0.504 9^**	0.136 4	0.189 6
总氮 Total nitrogen	0.207 8	-0.050 5	0.256 5
铵态氮 Ammonium nitrogen	0.511 1^**	-0.005 9	-0.004 0
硝态氮 Nitrate nitrogen	0.590 5^**	-0.017 2	-0.101 2
碱解氮 Alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen	0.078 2	0.450 2^**	0.377 0^**
总钾 Total potassium	-0.146 2	-0.041 2	0.299 0^*
速效钾 Available potassium	0.445 3^*	0.463 3^**	0.780 0^**
总磷 Total phosphorus	0.073 8	0.068 9	0.415 8^**
有效磷 Available phosphorus	-0.249 4	0.190 9	0.160 6

源 Source	因变量 Dependent variable	Ⅲ类平方和 Type Ⅲ sum of squares	自由度 Degree of freedom	均方 Mean square	F检验 F tests	显著性 Significance
修正模型	总碳	0.773a	11	0.070	79.787	0.000
Corrected model	有机质	353.529b	11	32.139	80.941	0.000
	总氮	0.007c	11	0.001	23.018	0.000
	铵态氮	5.862d	11	0.533	26.774	0.000
	硝态氮	376.136e	11	34.194	462.553	0.000
	碱解氮	2 480.990f	11	225.545	111.603	0.000
	总钾	0.122g	11	0.011	20.847	0.000
	速效钾	27 785.134h	11	2 525.921	163.010	0.000
	总磷	0.276i	11	0.025	184.495	0.000
	有效磷	13 901.219j	11	1 263.747	213.644	0.000
截距	总碳	32.967	1	32.967	37 438.565	0.000
Intercept	有机质	10 658.153	1	10 658.153	26 842.227	0.000
	总氮	0.593	1	0.593	21 344.400	0.000
	铵态氮	38.958	1	38.958	1 957.435	0.000
	硝态氮	4 333.150	1	4 333.150	58 615.489	0.000
	碱解氮	213 590.325	1	213 590.325	105 687.499	0.000
	总钾	158.256	1	158.256	298 284.314	0.000
	速效钾	2 273 521.150	1	2 273 521.150	146 721.328	0.000
	总磷	24.784	1	24.784	182 085.082	0.000
	有效磷	623 626.090	1	623 626.090	105 427.677	0.000
菌剂种类	总碳	0.407	3	0.136	154.081	0.000
Types of microbial	有机质	181.234	3	60.411	152.144	0.000
inoculants	总氮	0.004	3	0.001	48.667	0.000
	铵态氮	2.420	3	0.807	40.525	0.000
	硝态氮	68.964	3	22.988	310.965	0.000
	碱解氮	1 085.941	3	361.980	179.113	0.000
	总钾	0.002	3	0.001	1.159	0.346
	速效钾	7 801.240	3	2 600.413	167.817	0.000
	总磷	0.032	3	0.011	78.061	0.000
	有效磷	1 191.323	3	397.108	67.133	0.000
时期 Stages	总碳	0.193	2	0.096	109.461	0.000
	有机质	78.742	2	39.371	99.155	0.000
	总氮	0.001	2	0.001	24.300	0.000
	铵态氮	2.382	2	1.191	59.850	0.000
	硝态氮	239.521	2	119.760	1 620.024	0.000
	碱解氮	1 015.825	2	507.913	251.322	0.000
	总钾	0.112	2	0.056	105.188	0.000
	速效钾	98.727	2	49.363	3.186	0.059
	总磷	0.112	2	0.056	412.184	0.000
	有效磷	5 481.617	2	2 740.808	463.350	0.000
菌剂种类×时期	总碳	0.173	6	0.029	32.750	0.000
Types of microbial	有机质	93.553	6	15.592	39.268	0.000
inoculants×stages	总氮	0.002	6	0.000	9.767	0.000
	铵态氮	1.060	6	0.177	8.873	0.000
	硝态氮	67.651	6	11.275	152.522	0.000
	碱解氮	379.224	6	63.204	31.274	0.000
	总钾	0.008	6	0.001	2.578	0.045
	速效钾	19 885.168	6	3 314.195	213.881	0.000
	总磷	0.132	6	0.022	161.816	0.000
	有效磷	7 228.279	6	1 204.713	203.664	0.000
误差 Error	总碳	0.021	24	0.001
	有机质	9.530	24	0.397
	总氮	0.001	24	2.78E-05
	铵态氮	0.478	24	0.020
	硝态氮	1.774	24	0.074
	碱解氮	48.503	24	2.021
	总钾	0.013	24	0.001
	速效钾	371.892	24	15.496
	总磷	0.003	24	0.000
	有效磷	141.965	24	5.915
总计	总碳	33.761	36
Total	有机质	11 021.212	36
	总氮	0.601	36
	铵态氮	45.298	36
	硝态氮	4 711.060	36
	碱解氮	216 119.818	36
	总钾	158.391	36
	速效钾	2 301 678.180	36
	总磷	25.063	36
	有效磷	637 669.274	36
修正后总计	总碳	0.794	35
Corrected total	有机质	363.058	35
	总氮	0.008	35
	铵态氮	6.339	35
	硝态氮	377.910	35
	碱解氮	2 529.493	35
	总钾	0.134	35
	速效钾	28 157.027	35
	总磷	0.279	35
	有效磷	14 043.184	35

源 Source	因变量 Dependent variable	Ⅲ类平方和 Type Ⅲ sum of squares	自由度 Degree of freedom	均方 Mean square	F检验 F tests	显著性 Significance
修正模型	总碳	0.773a	11	0.070	79.787	0.000
Corrected model	有机质	353.529b	11	32.139	80.941	0.000
	总氮	0.007c	11	0.001	23.018	0.000
	铵态氮	5.862d	11	0.533	26.774	0.000
	硝态氮	376.136e	11	34.194	462.553	0.000
	碱解氮	2 480.990f	11	225.545	111.603	0.000
	总钾	0.122g	11	0.011	20.847	0.000
	速效钾	27 785.134h	11	2 525.921	163.010	0.000
	总磷	0.276i	11	0.025	184.495	0.000
	有效磷	13 901.219j	11	1 263.747	213.644	0.000
截距	总碳	32.967	1	32.967	37 438.565	0.000
Intercept	有机质	10 658.153	1	10 658.153	26 842.227	0.000
	总氮	0.593	1	0.593	21 344.400	0.000
	铵态氮	38.958	1	38.958	1 957.435	0.000
	硝态氮	4 333.150	1	4 333.150	58 615.489	0.000
	碱解氮	213 590.325	1	213 590.325	105 687.499	0.000
	总钾	158.256	1	158.256	298 284.314	0.000
	速效钾	2 273 521.150	1	2 273 521.150	146 721.328	0.000
	总磷	24.784	1	24.784	182 085.082	0.000
	有效磷	623 626.090	1	623 626.090	105 427.677	0.000
菌剂种类	总碳	0.407	3	0.136	154.081	0.000
Types of microbial	有机质	181.234	3	60.411	152.144	0.000
inoculants	总氮	0.004	3	0.001	48.667	0.000
	铵态氮	2.420	3	0.807	40.525	0.000
	硝态氮	68.964	3	22.988	310.965	0.000
	碱解氮	1 085.941	3	361.980	179.113	0.000
	总钾	0.002	3	0.001	1.159	0.346
	速效钾	7 801.240	3	2 600.413	167.817	0.000
	总磷	0.032	3	0.011	78.061	0.000
	有效磷	1 191.323	3	397.108	67.133	0.000
时期 Stages	总碳	0.193	2	0.096	109.461	0.000
	有机质	78.742	2	39.371	99.155	0.000
	总氮	0.001	2	0.001	24.300	0.000
	铵态氮	2.382	2	1.191	59.850	0.000
	硝态氮	239.521	2	119.760	1 620.024	0.000
	碱解氮	1 015.825	2	507.913	251.322	0.000
	总钾	0.112	2	0.056	105.188	0.000
	速效钾	98.727	2	49.363	3.186	0.059
	总磷	0.112	2	0.056	412.184	0.000
	有效磷	5 481.617	2	2 740.808	463.350	0.000
菌剂种类×时期	总碳	0.173	6	0.029	32.750	0.000
Types of microbial	有机质	93.553	6	15.592	39.268	0.000
inoculants×stages	总氮	0.002	6	0.000	9.767	0.000
	铵态氮	1.060	6	0.177	8.873	0.000
	硝态氮	67.651	6	11.275	152.522	0.000
	碱解氮	379.224	6	63.204	31.274	0.000
	总钾	0.008	6	0.001	2.578	0.045
	速效钾	19 885.168	6	3 314.195	213.881	0.000
	总磷	0.132	6	0.022	161.816	0.000
	有效磷	7 228.279	6	1 204.713	203.664	0.000
误差 Error	总碳	0.021	24	0.001
	有机质	9.530	24	0.397
	总氮	0.001	24	2.78E-05
	铵态氮	0.478	24	0.020
	硝态氮	1.774	24	0.074
	碱解氮	48.503	24	2.021
	总钾	0.013	24	0.001
	速效钾	371.892	24	15.496
	总磷	0.003	24	0.000
	有效磷	141.965	24	5.915
总计	总碳	33.761	36
Total	有机质	11 021.212	36
	总氮	0.601	36
	铵态氮	45.298	36
	硝态氮	4 711.060	36
	碱解氮	216 119.818	36
	总钾	158.391	36
	速效钾	2 301 678.180	36
	总磷	25.063	36
	有效磷	637 669.274	36
修正后总计	总碳	0.794	35
Corrected total	有机质	363.058	35
	总氮	0.008	35
	铵态氮	6.339	35
	硝态氮	377.910	35
	碱解氮	2 529.493	35
	总钾	0.134	35
	速效钾	28 157.027	35
	总磷	0.279	35
	有效磷	14 043.184	35

理化特性 Physicochemical properties	微生物菌剂 Microbial inoculant (I)	微生物菌剂 Microbial inoculant (J)		平均值差值 Mean difference (I-J)		标准差 Standard error		显著性 Significance		95% 置信区间 95% Confidence interval
理化特性 Physicochemical properties	微生物菌剂 Microbial inoculant (I)	微生物菌剂 Microbial inoculant (J)		平均值差值 Mean difference (I-J)		标准差 Standard error		显著性 Significance		下限 Lower bound		上限 Upper bound
总碳	CK		B		-0.07^*		0.014		0.000 0		-0.11		-0.03
Total carbon			BS		-0.18^*		0.014		0.000 0		-0.22		-0.14
			S		-0.28^*		0.014		0.000 0		-0.32		-0.24
	S		BS		0.21^*		0.014		0.000 0		0.17		0.25
			B		0.10^*		0.014		0.000 0		0.07		0.14
	BS		B		0.10^*		0.014		0.000 0		0.07		0.14
有机质	CK		B		-0.98^*		0.297		0.015 0		-1.80		-0.16
Organic matter			BS		-3.60^*		0.297		0.000 0		-4.42		-2.78
			S		-5.72^*		0.297		0.000 0		-6.54		-4.90
	S		BS		4.74^*		0.297		0.000 0		3.92		5.56
			B		2.12^*		0.297		0.000 0		1.30		2.94
	BS		B		2.62^*		0.297		0.000 0		1.80		3.44
总氮	CK		B		0.00		0.002		0.970 0		-0.01		0.01
Total nitrogen			BS		-0.02^*		0.002		0.000 0		-0.02		-0.01
			S		-0.03^*		0.002		0.000 0		-0.03		-0.02
	S		BS		0.02^*		0.002		0.000 0		0.02		0.03
			B		0.01^*		0.002		0.003 0		0.00		0.02
	BS		B		0.01^*		0.002		0.000 0		0.01		0.02
铵态氮	CK		B		0.18		0.067		0.058 0		0.00		0.36
Ammonium nitrogen			BS		-0.26^*		0.067		0.003 0		-0.45		-0.08
			S		-0.50^*		0.067		0.000 0		-0.69		-0.32
	S		BS		0.68^*		0.067		0.000 0		0.50		0.87
			B		0.24^*		0.067		0.007 0		0.06		0.43
	BS		B		0.44^*		0.067		0.000 0		0.26		0.62
硝态氮	CK		B		2.18^*		0.128		0.000 0		1.83		2.53
Nitrate nitrogen			BS		-0.90^*		0.128		0.000 0		-1.25		-0.54
			S		-1.46^*		0.128		0.000 0		-1.81		-1.10
	S		BS		3.63^*		0.128		0.000 0		3.28		3.99
			B		0.56^*		0.128		0.001 0		0.21		0.91
	BS		B		3.08^*		0.128		0.000 0		2.72		3.43
碱解氮	CK		B		-5.69^*		0.670		0.000 0		-7.53		-3.84
Alkaline-hydrolyzable			BS		-8.22^*		0.670		0.000 0		-10.07		-6.37
nitrogen			S		-15.29^*		0.670		0.000 0		-17.14		-13.45
	S		BS		9.61^*		0.670		0.000 0		7.76		11.46
			B		7.07^*		0.670		0.000 0		5.22		8.92
	BS		B		2.54^*		0.670		0.005 0		0.69		4.39
总钾	CK		B		-0.01		0.011		0.845 0		-0.04		0.02
Total potassium			BS		-0.01		0.011		0.956 0		-0.04		0.02
			S		0.01		0.011		0.794 0		-0.02		0.04
	S		BS		-0.02		0.011		0.492 0		-0.05		0.01
			B		-0.02		0.011		0.326 0		-0.05		0.01
	BS		B		0.00		0.011		0.990 0		-0.03		0.03
速效钾	CK		B		-21.61^*		1.856		0.000 0		-26.73		-16.49
Available potassium			BS		-30.51^*		1.856		0.000 0		-35.63		-25.39
			S		-39.72^*		1.856		0.000 0		-44.84		-34.60
	S		BS		18.11^*		1.856		0.000 0		12.99		23.22
			B		9.21^*		1.856		0.000 0		4.09		14.33
	BS		B		8.89^*		1.856		0.000 0		3.78		14.01
总磷	CK		B		-0.06^*		0.005		0.000 0		-0.07		-0.04
Total phosphorus			BS		-0.03^*		0.005		0.000 0		-0.05		-0.02
			S		-0.08^*		0.005		0.000 0		-0.10		-0.06
	S		BS		0.02^*		0.005		0.002 0		0.01		0.04
			B		0.05^*		0.005		0.000 0		0.03		0.06
	BS		B		-0.03^*		0.005		0.001 0		-0.04		-0.01
有效磷	CK		B		-3.16^*		1.147		0.050 0		-6.33		0.00
Available			BS		-3.16		1.147		0.051 0		-6.32		0.01
phosphorus			S		-15.05^*		1.147		0.000 0		-18.22		-11.89
	S		BS		11.89^*		1.147		0.000 0		8.73		15.05
			B		11.90^*		1.147		0.000 0		8.73		15.06
	BS		B		-0.01		1.147		1.000 0		-3.17		3.16

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容