Effects of Different Rotation Patterns on Tomato Quality and Yield and Soil Fungi Diversity in Dryland

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20192759

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to select rotation crops suitable for tomato in southeastern of Shanxi Province,we planted six cropsrotation patterns,namely maize(LVZm),zucchini(LVCp),peanut(LVAh),green onion(LVAf),okra(LVAe),and cucumber(LVCs),taking treatment with continuous tomato cultivation(LLLe,CK)as control. The changes in the microbial community structure and diversity in the ITS1 region of soil fungi were analyzed by Illumina Miseq high-throughput sequencing technology. At the same time,the quality indicators(soluble total sugar,organic acid content,sugar-acid ratio,Vc content,soluble protein,soluble solids,lycopene content,nitrate)and yield indicators(single fruit weight,yield)of the following tomatoes were measured. The results showed that Ascomycote was the dominant phyla in the 7 treatments,and the species and abundance were quite different,LVCs,LVZm,LVAh and LVAe increased the diversity index of fungal,while LVCp decreased the index. LVZm had better taste;LVAe and LLLe had the highest Vc content;no significant difference in soluble protein content;the content of soluble solids were the highest in LLLe and LVCp;the content of lycopene was highest in LVCp;LVAe had the highest nitrate content. The yields significantly increased in LVAe and LVCp patterns,and the quality of single fruit significantly increased in LVCp rotation. Principal component analysis(PCA)showed that the scores of quality and yield among different patterns from high to low were LVCp>LVAe>LLLe> LVAh>LVAf> LVZm>LVCs. In summary,crop rotation changes the soil fungal community structure,affects the index of the fungal,the quality and yield of tomatoes in subsequent crops. Based on various factors,zucchini and okra are the dominant rotation crops suitable for the growth of local tomatoes.

Key words: Tomato in dryland, Rotation, Diversity of fungal community, Quality, Yield

LI Wanxing, LI Dan, LI Xiaoxia, CAO Jinjun, JIN Kunpeng, HAN Wenqing, SU Xiumin, WANG Jiao, HUANG Xuefang, LIU Yongzhong. Effects of Different Rotation Patterns on Tomato Quality and Yield and Soil Fungi Diversity in Dryland[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37(4): 82-89. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20192759.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/10.7668/hbnxb.20192759

http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/Y2022/V37/I4/82

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

[1]	牛灵芝. 旱地西红柿种植要点及发展策略分析[J]. 中国果菜, 2017, 37(3):60-62. doi: 10.19590/j.cnki.1008-1038.2017.03.016. doi: 10.19590/j.cnki.1008-1038.2017.03.016
	Niu L Z. Analysis on cultivation technology points and development strategy of dryland tomato[J]. China Fruit Vegetable, 2017, 37(3):60-62.
[2]	李小霞, 靳鲲鹏, 李万星, 李丹, 韩文清, 苏秀敏, 王佼, 王秋兰, 曹晋军. 旱地番茄连作障碍机理研究进展[J]. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48(1):35-40. doi: 10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2020.01.07. doi: 10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2020.01.07
	Li X X, Jin K P, Li W X, Li D, Han W Q, Su X M, Wang J, Wang Q L, Cao J J. Research progress of mechanism of continuous cropping obstacles of tomatoe in dryland[J]. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2020, 48(1):35-40.
[3]	吴凤芝, 赵凤艳, 刘元英. 设施蔬菜连作障碍原因综合分析与防治措施[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2000, 31(3):241-247. doi: 10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2000.03.007. doi: 10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2000.03.007
	Wu F Z, Zhao F Y, Liu Y Y. On the reasons of continuous cropping obstacles in vegetable facility gardening[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2000, 31(3):241-247.
[4]	高志远, 胡亚亚, 刘兰服, 王亚楠, 焦伟静, 马志民, 木泰华. 甘薯连作对根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(6):1248-1255. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.06.1248. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2019.06.1248
	Gao Z Y, Hu Y Y, Liu L F, Wang Y N, Jiao W J, Ma Z M, Mu T H. The effects of continuous cropping on the microbial community structure of rhizosphere soil of sweetpotato[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(6):1248-1255.
[5]	李威, 程智慧, 孟焕文, 周静, 梁静, 刘雪娇. 轮作不同蔬菜对大棚番茄连作基质中微生物与酶及后茬番茄的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2012, 39(1):73-80. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2012.01.021. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2012.01.021
	Li W, Cheng Z H, Meng H W, Zhou J, Liang J, Liu X J. Effect of rotating different vegetables on micro-biomass and enzyme in tomato continuous cropped substrate and afterculture tomato under plastic tunnel cultivation[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2012, 39(1):73-80.
[6]	Kurle J E, Grau C R, Oplinger E S, Mengistu A. Tillage,crop sequence,and cultivar effects on sclerotinia stem rot incidence and yield in soybean[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(5):973-982. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.935973x. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.935973x URL
[7]	秦舒浩, 曹莉, 张俊莲, 师尚礼, 王蒂. 轮作豆科植物对马铃薯连作田土壤速效养分及理化性质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(8):1452-1458. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01452. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01452
	Qin S H, Cao L, Zhang J L, Shi S L, Wang D. Effect of rotation of leguminous plants on soil available nutrients and physical and chemical properties in continuous cropping potato field[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(8):1452-1458. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01452 URL
[8]	金莉. 不同蔬菜轮作对温室番茄连作基质微生物多样性及番茄生长的影响[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2020.
	Jin L. Effects of different vegetable rotation on microbial diversity of tomato continuous cropping substrate and tomato growth in greenhouse[D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2020.
[9]	邓玉清. 轮作对番茄连作土壤微生物群落结构、酶活性及养分的影响[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2018.
	Deng Y Q. Effects of rotation on microbial community structure,enzyme activities and nutrients in soil of continuous cropping tomato[D]. Haikou: Hainan University, 2018.
[10]	吴宏亮, 康建宏, 陈阜, 许强, 张海林, 赵亚慧. 不同轮作模式对砂田土壤微生物区系及理化性状的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(6):674-680. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00674. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00674
	Wu H L, Kang J H, Chen F, Xu Q, Zhang H L, Zhao Y H. Effect of different rotation patterns on soil microbial population and physiochemical properties under gravel-sand mulched field conditions[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2013, 21(6):674-680. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2013.00674 URL
[11]	高群, 孟宪志, 于洪飞. 连作障碍原因分析及防治途径研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2006, 38(3):60-63. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4942.2006.03.023. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4942.2006.03.023
	Gao Q, Meng X Z, Yu H F. Reason analysis and control methods of succession cropping obstacle[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 38(3):60-63.
[12]	陈丹梅, 陈晓明, 梁永江, 霍新建, 张长华, 段玉琪, 杨宇虹, 袁玲. 轮作对土壤养分、微生物活性及细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(12):56-65. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2015002. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2015002
	Chen D M, Chen X M, Liang Y J, Huo X J, Zhang C H, Duan Y Q, Yang Y H, Yuan L. Influence of crop rotation on soil nutrients,microbial activities and bacterial community structures[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(12):56-65.
[13]	刘学才, 陈玲, 李胜奇, 史庆华, 王晓云. 施蚯蚓粪对日光温室土壤及番茄产量与品质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(2):549-556. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202102.022. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202102.022
	Liu X C, Chen L, Li S Q, Shi Q H, Wang X Y. Effects of vermicompost fertilization on soil,tomato yield and quality in greenhouse[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 32(2):549-556.
[14]	苏秀敏, 韩文清, 王佼, 李鹏, 王秋兰, 李万星, 曹晋军, 靳鲲鹏, 李丹, 李小霞, 刘永忠. 基于层次分析法的旱地不同番茄品种产量和品质比较[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2020, 51(9):34-42. doi: 10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2020.09.005. doi: 10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2020.09.005
	Su X M, Han W Q, Wang J, Li P, Wang Q L, Li W X, Cao J J, Jin K P, Li D, Li X X, Liu Y Z. Comparison of yields and qualities of different tomato varieties in dryland based on analytic hierarchy process[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2020, 51(9):34-42.
[15]	张宪政, 陈凤玉, 王荣富. 植物生理学实验技术[M]. 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 1994:132-150.
	Zhang X Z, Chen F Y, Wang R F. Plant physiology experiment technology[M]. Shenyang: Liaoning Science and Technology Press, 1994:132-150.
[16]	姜莉莉, 王开运, 武玉国, 王开元, 王红艳. 施用生物有机肥对番茄果实品质及土壤生物学特性的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(6):141-147. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191308. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191308
	Jiang L L, Wang K Y, Wu Y G, Wang K Y, Wang H Y. Effect of application of bioorganic fertilizer on tomatoes fruit quality and soil biological characteristics[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2020, 35(6):141-147.
[17]	杨阳, 宋炳彦, 刘云, 梁玉芹. 氮磷钾配比对日光温室番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(S1):191-194. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.S1.031. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.S1.031
	Yang Y, Song B Y, Liu Y, Liang Y Q. Effect of N, P and K ratio on yield and quality of tomato in solar greenhouse[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2018, 33(S1):191-194.
[18]	尹艳莉, 杨彦, 赵兴杰, 韩旭平. 干旱条件下不同氮素形态配比对番茄产量和品质的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2017, 45(11):1791-1793. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2017.11.15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2017.11.15
	Yin Y L, Yang Y, Zhao X J, Han X P. Effects of different nitrogen morphological ratios on yield and quality of tomato in drought conditions[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(11):1791-1793.
[19]	刘会芳, 韩宏伟, 王强, 庄红梅, 王浩. 不同蔬菜与番茄轮作对设施土壤微生物多样性、酶活性及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 微生物学报, 2021, 61(1):167-182. doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20200139. doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20200139
	Liu H F, Han H W, Wang Q, Zhuang H M, Wang H. Effect of vegetables-tomato rotation on soil microbial diversity,enzyme activity and physicochemical properties of vegetables in greenhouse[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2021, 61(1):167-182.
[20]	晋齐鸣, 宋淑云, 李红, 苏前富, 张伟, 王立新, 隋晶. 不同耕作方式玉米田土壤病原菌数量分布与病害相关性研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2007, 15(6):93-96. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2007.06.022. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2007.06.022
	Jin Q M, Song S Y, Li H, Su Q F, Zhang W, Wang L X, Sui J. Investigations on soil pathogens quantitative distribution and diseases access from different cultivated types in the maize fields[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2007, 15(6):93-96.
[21]	刘建辉, 张春莲, 肖永贤, 何玲, 许智英, 唐爱均. 番茄不同品种的品质分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 33(4):43-46. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2005.04.010. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2005.04.010
	Liu J H, Zhang C L, Xiao Y X, He L, Xu Z Y, Tang A J. Quality analysis of different tomato cultivars[J]. Journal of Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005, 33(4):43-46.
[22]	霍建勇, 刘静, 冯辉, 王玉刚. 番茄果实风味品质研究进展[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2005(2):34-36. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6346.2005.02.016. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6346.2005.02.016
	Huo J Y, Liu J, Feng H, Wang Y G. Reviews on flavor quality of tomato[J]. China Vegetables, 2005(2):34-36.
[23]	McGuire K L, Treseder K K. Microbial communities and their relevance for ecosystem models: Decomposition as a case study[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2010, 42(4):529-535. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.016. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.016 URL
[24]	王宁, 于建光, 常志州, 黄红英, 顾克军, 张振华. 稻田土壤真菌群落多样性和组成对麦秸还田的响应[J]. 土壤, 2017, 49(6):1115-1120. doi: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2017.06.007. doi: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2017.06.007
	Wang N, Yu J G, Chang Z Z, Huang H Y, Gu K J, Zhang Z H. Responses of fungal community diversity and composition in paddy soils to straw return[J]. Soils, 2017, 49(6):1115-1120.
[25]	Li X G, Ding C F, Hua K, Zhang T L, Zhang Y N, Zhao L, Yang Y R, Liu J G, Wang X X. Soil sickness of peanuts is attributable to modifications in soil microbes induced by peanut root exudates rather than to direct allelopathy[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2014, 78:149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.019. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.019 URL
[26]	Song X H, Pan Y, Li L Y, Wu X L, Wang Y. Composition and diversity of rhizosphere fungal community in Coptis chinensis Franch. continuous cropping fields[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(3):e0193811. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193811. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193811 URL
[27]	李锐, 刘瑜, 褚贵新, 高慧. 棉花连作对北疆土壤酶活性、致病菌及拮抗菌多样性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2015, 23(4):432-440. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.141113. doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.141113
	Li R, Liu Y, Chu G X, Gao H. Response of soil enzyme activity and microbial community structure,diversity to continuous cotton cropping in northern Xinjiang[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2015, 23(4):432-440.
[28]	杨丽娟, 杨启迪, 周崇峻, 常青. 施用蚓粪堆肥对温室番茄产量和品质及土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2013, 44(6):1455-1459. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2013.06.031. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2013.06.031
	Yang L J, Yang Q D, Zhou C J, Chang Q. Effect of vermicompost on tomato yield and quality and soil microorganisms population in greenhouse[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2013, 44(6):1455-1459.
[29]	郝海婷, 王若愚, 赵霞, 王筠, 郭志鸿, 张玉宝, 谢忠奎. 基于高通量测序技术的堆肥对兰州百合根际微生物多样性的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2017, 26(3):437-447. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2017.03.016. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2017.03.016
	Hao H T, Wang R Y, Zhao X, Wang Y, Guo Z H, Zhang Y B, Xie Z K. Effect of compost on rhizosphere microbial community of Lanzhou-lily based on high throughput sequencing[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2017, 26(3):437-447.
[30]	武俊男, 刘昱辛, 周雪, 王天野, 高强, 高云航, 刘淑霞. 基于Illumina MiSeq测序平台分析长期不同施肥处理对黑土真菌群落的影响[J]. 微生物学报, 2018, 58(9):1658-1671. doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20170615. doi: 10.13343/j.cnki.wsxb.20170615
	Wu J N, Liu Y X, Zhou X, Wang T Y, Gao Q, Gao Y H, Liu S X. Effects of long-term different fertilization on soil fungal communities in black soil based on the Illumina MiSeq platform[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2018, 58(9):1658-1671.

处理 Treatment	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	香浓指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	覆盖度/% Coverage
LVZm	317.50	4.726 2	0.863 487	99.98
LLLe(CK)	287.41	4.486 8	0.836 162	99.99
LVCp	233.20	4.139 8	0.826 100	99.99
LVAh	313.00	5.143 6	0.925 048	99.98
LVAf	274.09	4.735 0	0.896 959	99.99
LVAe	298.66	4.944 4	0.890 984	99.98
LVCs	328.75	4.923 6	0.883 552	99.98

处理 Treatment	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	香浓指数 Shannon index	辛普森指数 Simpson index	覆盖度/% Coverage
LVZm	317.50	4.726 2	0.863 487	99.98
LLLe(CK)	287.41	4.486 8	0.836 162	99.99
LVCp	233.20	4.139 8	0.826 100	99.99
LVAh	313.00	5.143 6	0.925 048	99.98
LVAf	274.09	4.735 0	0.896 959	99.99
LVAe	298.66	4.944 4	0.890 984	99.98
LVCs	328.75	4.923 6	0.883 552	99.98

处理 Treatment
LVZm	1.48±0.01b	0.23±0.01c	6.5±0.0a	0.18±0.02a	0.41±0.01a	5.00±0.13c	6.29±0.98c	26.89±0.53c
LLLe(CK)	1.41±0.01c	0.27±0.01bc	5.3±0.0a	0.21±0.01a	0.40±0.01a	6.50±0.12a	6.28±0.79c	23.53±0.01d
LVCp	1.40±0.01c	0.23±0.01c	6.2±0.0a	0.20±0.01a	0.39±0.01a	6.50±0.09a	27.92±1.63a	32.26±0.40a
LVAh	1.39±0.01c	0.27±0.01bc	5.2±0.0a	0.13±0.01b	0.40±0.01a	5.55±0.17b	12.87±0.06bc	29.43±0.27b
LVAf	1.38±0.03c	0.61±0.01a	2.2±0.0a	0.18±0.00a	0.40±0.01a	5.00±0.07c	20.72±3.95ab	25.91±0.19c
LVAe	1.50±0.02b	0.29±0.01b	5.1±0.0a	0.21±0.02a	0.41±0.01a	5.00±0.09c	12.33±2.33bc	33.71±0.42a
LVCs	1.62±0.01a	0.31±0.01b	5.3±0.0a	0.13±0.01b	0.41±0.00a	5.90±0.13b	10.74±4.03bc	32.94±0.12a

处理 Treatment
LVZm	1.48±0.01b	0.23±0.01c	6.5±0.0a	0.18±0.02a	0.41±0.01a	5.00±0.13c	6.29±0.98c	26.89±0.53c
LLLe(CK)	1.41±0.01c	0.27±0.01bc	5.3±0.0a	0.21±0.01a	0.40±0.01a	6.50±0.12a	6.28±0.79c	23.53±0.01d
LVCp	1.40±0.01c	0.23±0.01c	6.2±0.0a	0.20±0.01a	0.39±0.01a	6.50±0.09a	27.92±1.63a	32.26±0.40a
LVAh	1.39±0.01c	0.27±0.01bc	5.2±0.0a	0.13±0.01b	0.40±0.01a	5.55±0.17b	12.87±0.06bc	29.43±0.27b
LVAf	1.38±0.03c	0.61±0.01a	2.2±0.0a	0.18±0.00a	0.40±0.01a	5.00±0.07c	20.72±3.95ab	25.91±0.19c
LVAe	1.50±0.02b	0.29±0.01b	5.1±0.0a	0.21±0.02a	0.41±0.01a	5.00±0.09c	12.33±2.33bc	33.71±0.42a
LVCs	1.62±0.01a	0.31±0.01b	5.3±0.0a	0.13±0.01b	0.41±0.00a	5.90±0.13b	10.74±4.03bc	32.94±0.12a

指标 Index	可溶性糖 Soluble total sugar	有机酸 Organic acid	糖酸比 Sugar-acid ratio	Vc	可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein	可溶性固形物 Soluble solid matter	番茄红素 Lycopene	硝酸盐 Nitrate	产量 Yield	单果质量 Single fruit weight
可溶性糖Soluble total sugar	1.000	-0.262	0.315	-0.330	0.826^*	-0.073	-0.412	0.526	-0.614	-0.768^*
有机酸Organic acid	-0.262	1.000	-0.974^**	-0.025	-0.084	-0.421	0.304	-0.288	-0.043	-0.108
糖酸比Sugar-acid ratio	0.315	-0.974^**	0.035	0.035	0.125	0.371	-0.262	0.284	-0.027	0.035
Vc	-0.330	-0.025		1.000	-0.312	0.105	0.120	-0.226	0.637	0.247
可溶性蛋白Soluble protein	0.826^*	-0.084	0.125	-0.312	1.000	-0.546	-0.676	0.262	-0.562	-0.973^**
可溶性固形物Soluble solid matter	-0.073	-0.421	0.371	0.105	-0.546	1.000	0.196	-0.038	-0.021	0.639
番茄红素Lycopene	-0.412	0.304	-0.262	0.120	-0.676	0.196	1.000	0.335	0.512	0.586
硝酸盐Nitrate	0.526	-0.288	0.284	-0.226	0.262	-0.038	0.335	1.000	0.165	-0.186
产量Yield	-0.614	-0.043	-0.027	0.637	-0.562	-0.021	0.512	0.165	1.000	0.557
单果质量Single fruit weight	-0.768^*	-0.108	0.035	0.247	-0.973^**	0.639	0.586	-0.186	0.557	1.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export