Effects of controlled-release fertilizer residual coat accumulation on soil microbial communities
-
摘要: 为探究控释肥残膜累积对土壤微生物群落的影响, 采用Illumina MiSeq高通量测序技术, 分析了不同控释肥残膜(聚氨酯)累积量下土壤细菌和真菌群落结构及多样性的差异。试验设不加聚氨酯残膜膜壳(CK)、添加聚氨酯残膜140 kg·hm−2 (CR1)、280 kg·hm−2 (CR2)、560 kg·hm−2 (CR3)和1400 kg·hm−2 (CR4) 5个处理。结果表明: 与CK相比, 聚氨酯残膜施入土壤120 d后, CR4处理下土壤可溶性有机碳(DOC)、土壤含水量(SM)和玉米地下生物量(BGB)及CR3处理土壤NO3−-N含量显著增加(P<0.05), 而土壤pH、速效钾(AK)、总氮(TN)、速效磷(AP)、NH4+-N含量无显著差异。聚氨酯残膜处理提高了细菌和真菌OTU (operational taxonomic unit)数量、细菌群落多样性(Shannon)和丰富度(Ace、Chao)指数, CR4处理与CK间差异显著(P<0.05), 不同聚氨酯残膜处理下的土壤真菌群落多样性和丰富度无显著差异, 但改变了基于门、属水平上的群落组成。随土壤聚氨酯残膜添加量的增加, 变形菌门(Proteobacteria)、拟杆菌门(Bacteroidetes)和伯克氏菌属(Burkholderia)相对丰度增加, 而酸杆菌门(Acidobacteria)和鞘氨醇单胞菌属(Sphingomonas)相对丰度减少, CR4处理与CK相比差异显著(P<0.05)。与CK相比, 聚氨酯残膜处理提高了子囊菌门(Ascomycota)相对丰度, CR3处理其相对丰度显著增加(P<0.05); 聚氨酯残膜处理分别降低了球囊菌门(Glomeromycota), 增加了被孢霉属(Mortierella)相对丰度, CR4处理与CK相比差异达显著水平(P<0.05)。Mantel检验结果显示, DOC 对细菌群落结构的影响最大(P=0.003), AP、SM 和 BGB 对细菌群落结构也具有显著影响(P<0.05)。真菌群落结构与土壤 DOC、TN 和 SM 呈现显著相 关(P<0.05), 其中 DOC 影响最大。由此, 短期内聚氨酯残膜添加通过改变土壤可溶性有机碳、含水量、玉米根生物量等因子提高了细菌群落多样性, 影响土壤细菌和真菌群落组成。Abstract: To explore the effect of controlled-release fertilizer residual coat accumulation on soil microbial communities, pot experiments were conducted with five treatments of 3.60–4.00 mm polyurethane addition (residues of controlled-release fertilizer coat), namely no residual coat (CK), 140 kg∙hm−2 polyurethane addition (CR1), 280 kg∙hm−2 polyurethane addition (CR2), 560 kg∙hm−2 polyurethane addition (CR3), and 1400 kg∙hm−2 polyurethane addition (CR4). Illumina MiSeq high-throughput sequencing technology was used to analyze the differences in soil bacterial and fungal community composition and diversity under different treatments. The results revealed that the contents of soil dissolved organic carbon (DOC), soil moisture (SM), and belowground biomass of maize (BGB) in CR4 treatment and NO3−-N in CR3 treatment were significantly increased compared with those in CK; however, the soil pH and contents of available potassium, total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), and NH4+-N did not significantly change in all treatments. The operational taxonomic units of bacteria and fungi, the diversity index (Shannon), and the richness indexes (Ace and Chao) of the soil bacterial community increased as the polyurethane addition rate increased, and the difference between CR4 and CK was significant; however, the diversity and richness indexes of the soil fungal community did not significantly change under different treatments. The relative abundance of the soil bacterial and fungal communities at the phylum and genus levels changed as the polyurethane residual coat increased. The relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Burkholderia increased with the accumulation of the residual coat; however, the relative abundance of Acidobacteria and Sphingomonas showed the opposite pattern, and the difference was significant between treatments CR4 and CK. Compared with CK, treatment CR3 improved the relative abundance of Ascomycota significantly, treatment CR4 increased the relative abundances of Glomeromycota and Mortierella significantly. The Mantel test showed that soil DOC, AP, SM, and maize BGB were the key factors affecting the bacterial community structure, whereas soil DOC, TN, and SM were the key factors affecting the fungal community structure. Therefore, polyurethane residual coat addition can directly or indirectly improve the diversity of bacterial communities and affect the composition of bacterial and fungal communities in the short term by changing the soil DOC, SM and maize BGB, and other factors.
-
图 1 不同添加量下土壤中聚氨酯残膜累积降解速率(A)和平均累积降解率(B) (n=12)
CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、 0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively.
Figure 1. Cumulative degradation rates under different addition rates (A) and their average (B) of polyurethane residual film in soil (n=12)
图 2 不同处理土壤细菌(A)和真菌(B)群落门水平组成变化
CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。
Figure 2. Characteristics of bacterial (A) and fungal (B) community structures at phylum level under different treatments
0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively.
图 3 不同处理土壤细菌(A)和真菌(B)群落属水平组成变化
CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。
Figure 3. Characteristics of bacterial (A) and fungal (B) community structure at genus level under different treatments
0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively.
图 4 不同处理土壤细菌(A)和真菌(B)群落分析(PCA)
CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。
Figure 4. Principal coordinate analysis (PCA) analysis of soil bacteria (A) and fungal (B) communities under different treatments
0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively.
表 1 不同处理下土壤理化性质与玉米生物量变化
Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties and maize biomass under different treatments
指标 Factor CK CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 pH 7.83±0.04a 7.86±0.05a 7.87±0.02a 7.92±0.03a 7.85±0.04a 含水量 Soil moisture (%) 14.98±0.62b 15.47±1.21ab 16.56±1.33ab 16.74±1.20ab 18.24±0.88a 可溶性有机碳 Soluble organic carbon (mg∙kg−1) 23.72±1.80b 25.84±3.58ab 28.04±3.46ab 29.34±1.22a 33.17±1.21a 速效钾 Available potassium (mg∙kg−1) 129.76±10.46a 132.21±11.42a 143.42±18.31a 157.83±12.27a 150.76±8.67a 速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg∙kg−1) 10.45±2.32a 10.93±2.34a 11.98±2.57a 12.79±1.38a 12.86±2.29a 硝态氮 NO3−-N (mg∙kg−1) 27.12±2.17b 32.37±1.56ab 29.91±3.93ab 35.43±1.53a 34.83±2.09ab 铵态氮 NH4+-N (mg∙kg−1) 2.35±0.15a 2.49±0.22a 2.64±0.18a 2.86±0.24a 2.79±0.19a 全氮 Total nitrogen (g∙kg−1) 1.43±0.16a 1.49±0.17a 1.54±0.11a 1.52±0.13a 1.49±0.12a 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass (g∙plot−1) 167.45±11.81a 178.80±11.52a 200.44±17.28a 201.75±15.84a 209.78±16.42a 地下生物量 Belowground biomass (g∙plot−1) 20.20±1.47b 23.25±1.77ab 22.29±1.26ab 24.84±1.48ab 25.41±1.81a CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at P<0.05 level. 表 2 不同处理下土壤细菌和真菌的序列数统计
Table 2. Statistics of sample sequence of soil bacteria and funge under different treatments
处理
Treatment细菌 Bacterial 真菌 Fungal 序列(条) Sequences OTUs 序列(条) Sequences OTUs CK 32 520±2651b 2449±43b 16 225±1610b 221.25±8.73b CR1 36 931±953ab 2621±47ab 19 880±989ab 245.75±7.65ab CR2 38 635±1653a 2684±32a 18 961±2364ab 234.25±31.76ab CR3 38 797±1277a 2686±62a 20 886±2609a 249.00±23.37ab CR4 41 839±1845a 2795±76a 21 372±1666a 274.50±9.46a 总计 Total 943 610 66 175 486 620 6120 CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at P<0.05 level. 表 3 不同处理土壤细菌和真菌OTU及多样性指数
Table 3. Soil microbial diversity indexes of soil bacteria and funge under different treatments
微生物 Microbial 指标 Factor CK CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 细菌 Bacterial Ace 3401.27±67.39b 3684.05±57.86ab 3704.38±35.86ab 3778.81±78.07ab 3811.84±49.02a Chao 3486.19±56.70b 3602.71±35.05ab 3610.38±45.99ab 3695.04±41.39ab 3729.14±57.25a Shannon 6.59±0.03b 6.70±0.04ab 6.70±0.06ab 6.72±0.04a 6.78±0.03a Coverage 0.967±0.001a 0.964±0.001a 0.964±0.001a 0.963±0.002a 0.966±0.001a 真菌 Fungal Ace 250.80±30.23a 258.95±33.22a 256.50±6.58a 265.54 ±20.93a 268.27±6.26a Chao 251.03±29.62a 257.77±33.62a 259.54 ±5.95a 272.20±7.92a 274.67±17.14a Shannon 2.96±0.18a 3.24 ±0.21a 3.18±0.39a 3.62±0.23a 3.36±0.20a Coverage 0.999±0.001a 0.999±0.001a 0.999 ±0.001a 0.999±0.001a 0.999±0.001a CK、CR1、CR2、CR3和CR4的聚氨酯残膜累积添加量分别为0 g∙kg−1、0.062 g∙kg−1、0.124 g∙kg−1、0.620 g∙kg−1和1.240 g∙kg−1。不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。0, CR1, CR2, CR3, and CR4 are treatments of addition of 0, 0.062, 0.124, 0.620, and 1.240 g∙kg−1 polyurethane residual film, respectively. Differtent lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at P<0.05 level. 表 4 Mantel 检验微生物群落结构与植物、土壤环境因子的相关性
Table 4. Mantel test showing the correlation among soil microbial community structure similarity and plant, soil environment factors
因子
Factor细菌群落结构 Bacterial community structure 真菌群落结构 Fungal community structure r P r P 地上生物量 Aboveground biomass (AGB) 0.154 0.421 0.125 0.531 地下生物量 Belowground biomass (BGB) 0.446 0.049 0.298 0.159 pH 0.133 0.477 0.095 0.623 含水量 Soil moisture (SM) 0.452 0.045 0.387 0.048 速效钾 Available potassium (AK) 0.248 0.216 0.152 0.469 可溶性有机碳 Soluble organic carbon 0.622 0.003 0.432 0.008 全氮 Total nitrogen (TN) 0.315 0.177 0.401 0.020 速效磷 Available phosphorus (AP) 0.517 0.012 0.287 0.149 硝态氮 NO3−-N 0.234 0.321 0.115 0.531 铵态氮 NH4+-N 0.117 0.559 0.274 0.165 计算Pearson系数, 并基于999 permutations进行了显著性检验。The Pearson’s coefficients were calculated and their significances were tested based on 999 permutations. 表 5 优势细菌门、真菌门与土壤因子的相关分析
Table 5. Redundancy analysis of dominant bacterial phylum, dominant fungal phylum and environmental factors
门 Phylum SM DOC AGB NO3−-N BGB AK TN NH4−-N AP pH 变形菌门 Proteobacteria 0.423* 0.763** −0.047 0.146 0.468* −0.248 −0.169 −0.093 0.135 0.089 硝化螺旋菌门 Nitrospirae 0.751** 0.445* −0.038 0.769** 0.836*** −0.149 0.124 0.070 −0.178 0.245 拟杆菌门 Bacteroidetes 0.105 0.520* 0.183 −0.122 0.478* −0.057 −0.222 −0.139 0.432* −0.213 放线菌门 Actinobacteria 0.116 0.738** 0.205 0.108 0.024 −0.112 −0.398* 0.013 0.465* −0.229 浮霉菌门 Planctomycetes −0.127 −0.182 0.067 −0.142 −0.117 0.422* 0.124 0.027 −0.057 −0.174 棒状杆菌门 Rokubacteria −0.238 −0.757** −0.258 −0.016 −0.173 0.083 0.142 −0.162 0.009 −0.105 芽单胞菌门 Gemmatimonadetes 0.678** 0.048 0.257 0.306 −0.029 0.199 −0.427* −0.158 −0.062 −0.186 酸杆菌门 Acidobacteria −0.414* −0.442* −0.477* −0.304 −0.120 −0.125 0.249 −0.137 −0.312 −0.204 异常球菌-栖热菌门 Deinococcus-Thermus −0.033 −0.037 −0.172 −0.247 0.087 0.082 0.445* 0.104 −0.083 −0.148 丝足虫门 Cercozoa 0.452* 0.367 0.161 0.107 0.231 0.098 0.435* 0.006 0.232 −0.312 担子菌门 Basidiomycota 0.426* 0.746** 0.212 0.296 0.242 −0.076 0.467* 0.435* 0.131 −0.143 子囊菌门 Ascomycota 0.438* 0.472* −0.177 0.008 −0.213 0.162 −0.214 −0.007 −0.254 0.201 球囊菌门 Glomeromycota −0.761** −0.126 −0.424* −0.158 −0.428* 0.314 0.096 −0.235 −0.008 −0.157 各土壤因子的缩写含义见表4。*、**和***分别表示P<0.05、P<0.01和P<0.001。The abbreviation of each environmental factor is shown in the table 4. *, **, and *** represent P<0.05, P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively. -
[1] KYRIKOU I, BRIASSOULIS D, HISKAKIS M, et al. Analysis of photo-chemical degradation behaviour of polyethylene mulching film with pro-oxidants[J]. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 2011, 96(12): 2237−225 doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.09.001 [2] GUO C, REN T, LI P F, et al. Producing more grain yield of rice with less ammonia volatilization and greenhouse gases emission using slow/controlled-release urea[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(3): 2569−2579 doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-3792-2 [3] FU J J, WANG C Y, CHEN X X, et al. Classification research and types of slow controlled release fertilizers (SRFs) used — a review[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2018, 49(17): 2219−2230 doi: 10.1080/00103624.2018.1499757 [4] AZEEM B, KUSHAARI K, MAN Z B, et al. Review on materials & methods to produce controlled release coated urea fertilizer[J]. Journal of Controlled Release, 2014, 181: 11−21 doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.02.020 [5] 包丽华. 控释肥高分子残膜的降解动态及对土壤生物学效应的影响研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2010: 5–6BAO L H. Degradation of polymer coating residual of controlled release fertilizer and its effects on soil biological properties[D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2010: 5–6 [6] 李丽霞, 曹兵, 李鸿雁, 等. 纳米TiO2-LDPE复合材料包膜控释肥残膜的降解特性[J]. 复合材料学报, 2014, 31(6): 1422−1427LI L X, CAO B, LI H Y, et al. Degradation behavior of residual films of controlled release fertilizers with nano-TiO2-LDPE composites[J]. Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica, 2014, 31(6): 1422−1427 [7] 李亚星, 徐秋明, 杨宜斌, 等. 树脂包衣肥料残膜对土壤植物的影响及光降解膜肥料的研制[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(7): 1691−1695LI Y X, XU Q M, YANG Y B, et al. Effect of RCF residual coating on soil and plant and development of photodegradable coating of RCF[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2010, 19(7): 1691−1695 [8] BRIASSOULIS D, BABOU E, HISKAKIS M, et al. Analysis of long-term degradation behaviour of polyethylene mulching films with pro-oxidants under real cultivation and soil burial conditions[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2015, 22(4): 2584−2598 doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3464-9 [9] KATSUMI N, KUSUBE T, NAGAO S, et al. The role of coated fertilizer used in paddy fields as a source of microplastics in the marine environment[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2020, 161: 111727 doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111727 [10] KATSUMI N, KUSUBE T, NAGAO S, et al. Accumulation of microcapsules derived from coated fertilizer in paddy fields[J]. Chemosphere, 2021, 267: 129185 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129185 [11] 鄂玉联, 谭兰兰, 安梦洁, 等. 高分子化合物对盐渍化棉田土壤团聚体组成及棉花产量的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2017, 48(11): 1989−1993E Y L, TAN L L, AN M J, et al. Effects of polymer compounds on soil aggregate composition and cotton yield in salted cotton field[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2017, 48(11): 1989−1993 [12] ABOBATTA W. Impact of hydrogel polymer in agricultural sector[J]. Advances in Agriculture and Environmental Science: Open Access: AAEOA, 2018, 1(2): 59−64 [13] IFTIME M M, AILIESEI G L, UNGUREANU E, et al. Designing chitosan based eco-friendly multifunctional soil conditioner systems with urea controlled release and water retention[J]. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2019, 223: 115040 doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115040 [14] HUANG L B, BAI J H, WEN X J, et al. Microbial resistance and resilience in response to environmental changes under the higher intensity of human activities than global average level[J]. Global Change Biology, 2020, 26(4): 2377−2389 doi: 10.1111/gcb.14995 [15] FIERER N, JACKSON R B. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities[J]. PNAS, 2006, 103(3): 626−631 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507535103 [16] PAN P, JIANG H M, ZHANG J F, et al. Shifts in soil bacterial communities induced by the controlled-release fertilizer coatings[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2016, 15(12): 2855−2864 doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61309-0 [17] LIANG D, DU C W, MA F, et al. Interaction between polyacrylate coatings used in controlled-release fertilizers and soils in wheat-rice rotation fields[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2019, 286: 106650 [18] HUANG D F, XU Y B, LEI F D, et al. Degradation of polyethylene plastic in soil and effects on microbial community composition[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021, 416: 126173 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126173 [19] MURUGAN P, ONG S Y, HASHIM R, et al. Development and evaluation of controlled release fertilizer using P(3HB-co-3HHx) on oil palm plants (nursery stage) and soil microbes[J]. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 2020, 28: 101710 doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101710 [20] FACCIA P A, PARDINI F M, AGNELLO A C, et al. Degradability of poly (ether-urethanes) and poly (ether-urethane) / acrylic hybrids by bacterial consortia of soil[J]. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2021, 160: 105205 [21] BARRATT S R, ENNOS A R, GREENHALGH M, et al. Fungi are the predominant micro-organisms responsible for degradation of soil-buried polyester polyurethane over a range of soil water holding capacities[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2003, 95(1): 78−85 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01961.x [22] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 25−114BAO S D. Soil Agrochemical Analysis[M]. 3rd Edition. Beijing: Chinese Agricultural Press, 2000: 25−114 [23] DE SOUZA MACHADO A, LAU C W, KLOAS W, et al. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53(10): 6044−6052 [24] SUI X. Diversity of soil acidobacterial community of different land use types in the Sanjiang Plain, northeast of China[J]. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 2017, 19(5): 1279−1285 doi: 10.17957/IJAB/15.0452 [25] GRAVUER K, ESKELINEN A, WINBOURNE J B, et al. Vulnerability and resistance in the spatial heterogeneity of soil microbial communities under resource additions[J]. PNAS, 2020, 117(13): 7263−7270 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908117117 [26] DRENOVSKY R E, VO D, GRAHAM K J, et al. Soil water content and organic carbon availability are major determinants of soil microbial community composition[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2004, 48(3): 424−430 doi: 10.1007/s00248-003-1063-2 [27] DAS S, PANDEY P, MOHANTY S, et al. Evaluation of biodegradability of green polyurethane/nanosilica composite synthesized from transesterified castor oil and palm oil based isocyanate[J]. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2017, 117: 278−288 [28] BLAGODATSKY S, BLAGODATSKAYA E, YUYUKINA T, et al. Model of apparent and real priming effects: Linking microbial activity with soil organic matter decomposition[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2010, 42(8): 1275−1283 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.04.005 [29] YU C, LI Y, MO R L, et al. Effects of long-term straw retention on soil microorganisms under a rice-wheat cropping system[J]. Archives of Microbiology, 2020, 202(7): 1915−1927 doi: 10.1007/s00203-020-01899-8 [30] BLAGODATSKAYA Е, KUZYAKOV Y. Mechanisms of real and apparent priming effects and their dependence on soil microbial biomass and community structure: critical review[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2008, 45(2): 115−131 doi: 10.1007/s00374-008-0334-y [31] JIAO P P, LI Z W, YANG L, et al. Bacteria are more sensitive than fungi to moisture in eroded soil by natural grass vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 756: 143899 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143899 [32] ZHOU W P, SHEN W J, LI Y E, et al. Interactive effects of temperature and moisture on composition of the soil microbial community[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2017, 68(6): 909−918 doi: 10.1111/ejss.12488 [33] CHARLOTTE V, LAURE V G, POUTEAU V, et al. Spatial and temporal evolution of detritusphere hotspots at different soil moistures[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2020, 150: 107975 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107975 [34] WANG X K, WANG G, GUO T, et al. Effects of plastic mulch and nitrogen fertilizer on the soil microbial community, enzymatic activity and yield performance in a dryland maize cropping system[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2021, 72(1): 400−412 doi: 10.1111/ejss.12954 [35] WANG H, WANG S L, WANG R, et al. Conservation tillage increased soil bacterial diversity and improved soil nutrient status on the Loess Plateau in China[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2020, 66(11): 1509−1519 doi: 10.1080/03650340.2019.1677892 [36] YAN Y Y, CHEN Z H, ZHU F X, et al. Effect of polyvinyl chloride microplastics on bacterial community and nutrient status in two agricultural soils[J]. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2020, DOI: 10.1007/s00128-020-02900-2 [37] SUN L, XUN W B, HUANG T, et al. Alteration of the soil bacterial community during parent material maturation driven by different fertilization treatments[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2016, 96: 207−215 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.02.011 [38] MANZONI S, SCHIMEL J P, PORPORATO A. Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: results from a meta-analysis[J]. Ecology, 2012, 93(4): 930−938 doi: 10.1890/11-0026.1 [39] PASCAULT N, RANJARD L, KAISERMANN A, et al. Stimulation of different functional groups of bacteria by various plant residues as a driver of soil priming effect[J]. Ecosystems, 2013, 16(5): 810−822 doi: 10.1007/s10021-013-9650-7 [40] ARSHAD A, DALCIN MARTINS P, FRANK J, et al. Mimicking microbial interactions under nitrate-reducing conditions in an anoxic bioreactor: enrichment of novel Nitrospirae bacteria distantly related to Thermodesulfovibrio[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2017, 19(12): 4965−4977 doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13977 [41] DEBRUYN J M, NIXON L T, FAWAZ M N, et al. Global biogeography and quantitative seasonal dynamics of gemmatimonadetes in soil[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2011, 77(17): 6295−6300 doi: 10.1128/AEM.05005-11 [42] ACOSTA-MARTÍNEZ V, DOWD S, SUN Y, et al. Tag-encoded pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in a single soil type as affected by management and land use[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008, 40(11): 2762−2770 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.022 [43] FEI Y F, HUANG S Y, ZHANG H B, et al. Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 707: 135634 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135634 [44] HE T X, LI Z L, XIE D T, et al. Simultaneous nitrification and denitrification with different mixed nitrogen loads by a hypothermia aerobic bacterium[J]. Biodegradation, 2018, 29(2): 159−170 doi: 10.1007/s10532-018-9820-6 [45] BLÖCKER L, WATSON C, WICHERN F. Living in the plastic age — Different short-term microbial response to microplastics addition to arable soils with contrasting soil organic matter content and farm management legacy[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2020, 267: 115468 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115468 [46] GAO B, YAO H Y, LI Y Y, et al. Microplastic addition alters the microbial community structure and stimulates soil carbon dioxide emissions in vegetable-growing soil[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2021, 40(2): 352−365 doi: 10.1002/etc.4916 [47] BAHRAM M, HILDEBRAND F, FORSLUND S K, et al. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome[J]. Nature, 2018, 560(7717): 233−237 doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0386-6 [48] REN C J, ZHANG W, ZHONG Z K, et al. Differential responses of soil microbial biomass, diversity, and compositions to altitudinal gradients depend on plant and soil characteristics[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 610/611: 750−758 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.110 [49] RIEKE E L, SOUPIR M L, MOORMAN T B, et al. Temporal dynamics of bacterial communities in soil and leachate water after swine manure application[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018, 9: 3197 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03197