有機(jī)垃圾熱解炭對(duì)紫色土細(xì)菌群落結(jié)構(gòu)的影響

張尚毅,劉國(guó)濤,謝夢(mèng)佩

(重慶大學(xué),三峽庫(kù)區(qū)生態(tài)環(huán)境教育部重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室,重慶 400045)

有機(jī)垃圾熱解炭對(duì)紫色土細(xì)菌群落結(jié)構(gòu)的影響

張尚毅,劉國(guó)濤*,謝夢(mèng)佩

(重慶大學(xué),三峽庫(kù)區(qū)生態(tài)環(huán)境教育部重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室,重慶 400045)

以700℃熱解制得城市有機(jī)垃圾(OFMSW)生物炭,為研究該生物炭對(duì)氮素缺乏的紫色土有機(jī)質(zhì)、氮營(yíng)養(yǎng)元素以及微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu)的影響,設(shè)計(jì)了為期12個(gè)月的土壤盆栽培養(yǎng)試驗(yàn).試驗(yàn)共設(shè)置生物炭添加量分別為0%、1%、3%和5%(w/w)的4個(gè)處理.采用高通量測(cè)序技術(shù)分析土壤的微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu).試驗(yàn)表明:3%和5%的生物炭添加量顯著提高了土壤有機(jī)質(zhì)和全氮含量,同時(shí)顯著降低了紫色土中細(xì)菌的α-多樣性;主成分分析顯示,0%與1%添加量處理的細(xì)菌群落組成相似,3%與5%添加量處理的細(xì)菌群落組成相似. Illumina測(cè)序從24個(gè)土樣中鑒定出了42門細(xì)菌,其中主要的6個(gè)菌門為變形菌門、酸桿菌門、擬桿菌門、放線菌門、綠彎菌門和芽單胞菌門,它們序列數(shù)占序列總數(shù)的83.7%～94.3%.各菌門對(duì)不同的生物炭添加量響應(yīng)不同.從24個(gè)土壤樣本中鑒定出642個(gè)菌屬,相對(duì)豐度大于1%的有105個(gè).部分主要菌屬對(duì)3%和5%的生物炭添加量的響應(yīng)與0%和1%的不同.

城市有機(jī)垃圾(OFMSW)；生物炭；紫色土；細(xì)菌群落結(jié)構(gòu)

紫色土是我國(guó)特有的土壤資源,分布面積有2000多萬(wàn)hm2[1].由于成土快、發(fā)育淺、透氣性好、礦物營(yíng)養(yǎng)豐富、酸堿適中,紫色土中的好養(yǎng)微生物十分活躍,造成土壤有機(jī)質(zhì)(SOM)的礦化勢(shì)和礦化率均較高,加之墾植率高,腐蝕嚴(yán)重,導(dǎo)致SOM和土壤全氮(TN)含量均較低[1].與此同時(shí)生物炭作為一種有潛力的土壤改良劑被越來(lái)越多的運(yùn)用到農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)中.研究表明,生物炭能提高SOM和土壤TN含量,有助于提升土壤的肥力和促進(jìn)農(nóng)業(yè)增產(chǎn)[2-5].生物炭對(duì)土壤微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu)和酶活性的影響是引起SOM和土壤TN含量增加的一個(gè)重要原因[6-7].生物炭引起土壤中微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu)和相對(duì)豐度的變化已有眾多報(bào)道.Xu等[8]通過(guò)高通量測(cè)序技術(shù)發(fā)現(xiàn)水稻秸稈生物炭增加了酸性土壤的菌群多樣性. Anderson等[9]通過(guò)TRFLP和454測(cè)序發(fā)現(xiàn)450℃熱解得到的輻射松生物炭能使50%的微生物相對(duì)豐度得以增加,包括關(guān)鍵的NO—2氧化菌和NO—3還原菌.

目前,關(guān)于生物炭對(duì)于土壤微生物群落的研究較多[8-11],但所用的生物炭原料主要為農(nóng)林廢物,而關(guān)于城市有機(jī)垃圾(OFMSW)熱解生物炭的研究較少[12].本研究采用OFMSW生物炭改良重慶地區(qū)的紫色土,通過(guò)1a的培養(yǎng)試驗(yàn),考察生物炭對(duì)紫色土中微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu)的影響,為OFMSW生物炭改良紫色土提供微生態(tài)的研究基礎(chǔ).

1 材料與方法

1.1 試驗(yàn)材料

試驗(yàn)土壤為重慶市沙坪壩區(qū)虎溪鎮(zhèn)(29.53N, 106.45E)的農(nóng)田紫色土,采集表層0～15cm的土壤.將采集的新鮮紫色土置于室內(nèi)通風(fēng)處風(fēng)干,去除較大的石礫、樹葉、草根及其他侵入體,碾碎,過(guò)8目篩后保存?zhèn)溆?

表1 生物炭及供試土壤的基本性質(zhì)Table 1 Characteristics of biochar and base soil

生物炭原料及制備方法見文獻(xiàn)[13].每次稱取(1000±1)g的原料于坩堝中,設(shè)定熱解終溫為700°C,制得的生物炭研磨后過(guò)0.25mm篩,裝入密封袋備用.供試土壤和生物炭的基本性質(zhì)見表1.

1.2 試驗(yàn)方法

試驗(yàn)裝置采用塑料培養(yǎng)盆,口徑160mm,底徑110mm,高140mm.試驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)4個(gè)處理:對(duì)照組,添加1%、3%和5%(w/w)的生物炭處理組,分別表達(dá)為0%BC、1%BC、3%BC和5%BC.每個(gè)處理設(shè)置3個(gè)重復(fù),考慮取樣需要(每盆1次,需6次),共設(shè)置72個(gè)培養(yǎng)盆.試驗(yàn)前將生物炭按各處理的設(shè)計(jì)添加量與土壤均勻混合.各取1000g試樣加入到培養(yǎng)盆中,并播撒1g黑麥草種子,在自然溫度下培養(yǎng).培養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)于2014年12月10日啟動(dòng),為期12個(gè)月.培養(yǎng)期間保持土壤含水量為田間持水量的60%.

各處理組每2個(gè)月選擇3盆(共計(jì)12盆)土壤進(jìn)行破壞性取樣,每盆取100g土樣于室內(nèi)通風(fēng)處風(fēng)干后裝袋,以備SOM和TN含量的測(cè)試.同時(shí)每盆取0.5g新鮮土壤于15mL無(wú)菌離心管中混合均勻后-80°C保存,以備DNA提取.

1.3 分析方法

1.3.1 土壤有機(jī)質(zhì)和TN含量 SOM含量采用重鉻酸鉀容量法進(jìn)行測(cè)定,土壤TN含量采用半微量開氏法進(jìn)行測(cè)定.

1.3.2 pH值和陽(yáng)離子交換量 土壤pH值采用《NY/T1377-2007》[14]方法測(cè)定,生物炭pH值采用《GB-T12496.7-1999》[15]方法測(cè)定, CEC采用《NY/T1121.5-2006》[16]方法測(cè)定.

1.3.3 孔隙結(jié)構(gòu) 生物炭的比表面積和微孔體積采用ASAP2020M型比表面和微孔分析儀測(cè)定,樣品在100℃下真空干燥12h,測(cè)定77K氮?dú)馕降葴鼐€,利用BET方程計(jì)算比表面積, 根據(jù)相對(duì)壓力P/P0=0.99時(shí)吸附的氮?dú)饬坑?jì)算微孔體積.

1.3.4 元素分析 原料和熱解炭的C、H、O、N、S采用vario ELLⅢ-CHNS-O型元素分析儀測(cè)定, Cl采用《GB/T3558-1996》[17]中的艾士卡混合劑熔樣-硫氰酸鉀滴定法測(cè)定.

1.3.5 土壤DNA提取及PCR擴(kuò)增 每份土樣取0.25g,使用試劑盒PowerLyzer PowerSoil DNAIsolation kit (MO Bio Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA)進(jìn)行DNA提取,測(cè)定DNA含量以及A260/A280和A260/A230的比值.

PCR擴(kuò)增由美吉生物醫(yī)藥科技有限公司(中國(guó)上海)完成.所用引物對(duì)為帶有條形碼的特異引物338F(5’-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCA-3’)和806R(5’-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3’),反應(yīng)條件為:95℃預(yù)變性2min;94℃變性30s(25個(gè)循環(huán)),55℃退火30s,72℃延伸1min(35個(gè)循環(huán));最后72℃延長(zhǎng)10min.將同一處理的3個(gè)PCR產(chǎn)物混合后用2%的瓊脂凝膠電泳檢測(cè),使用AxyPrepDNA凝膠回收試劑盒切膠回收, Tris-H Cl洗脫,用QuantiFluorTM-SM定量(Promega公式)系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行定量檢測(cè).檢測(cè)后的PCR產(chǎn)物與“Y”接頭相連,利用PCR擴(kuò)增進(jìn)行文庫(kù)模板的富集,構(gòu)建測(cè)序文庫(kù).然后在Illumina Miseq PE300平臺(tái)上進(jìn)行測(cè)序.

1.3.6 MiSeq測(cè)序數(shù)據(jù)處理 對(duì)原始數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果進(jìn)行質(zhì)控過(guò)濾處理,得到優(yōu)化序列.優(yōu)化序列在97%相似度水平進(jìn)行OTU(Operational Taxonomic Units)分布統(tǒng)計(jì),選出與OTU代表序列相似性在97%以上的序列,生成OTU表格.用Mothur進(jìn)行α-多樣性(Shannon指數(shù)及Simpson指數(shù))分析.使用Qiime和RDP,對(duì)97%相似水平的OTU代表序列進(jìn)行分類學(xué)分析,并在各個(gè)水平(界、門、綱、目、科、屬、種)統(tǒng)計(jì)每個(gè)樣品的群落組成.測(cè)序數(shù)據(jù)已提交至NCBI SRA基因數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)(SRP075841).

2 結(jié)果與討論

2.1 土壤有機(jī)質(zhì)與TN含量的變化

如圖1所示,供試紫色土初始SOM含量為14.03g/kg.培養(yǎng)期間,3%BC和5%BC的SOM含量顯著比0%BC的高,分別提高了1.72～4.32, 3.21～7.58g/kg.與對(duì)照組相比,1%BC的SOM含量無(wú)顯著提升.各處理的SOM含量由低到高的順序?yàn)?%BC≈1%BC＜3%BC＜5%BC.3%BC和5%BC的SOM含量能夠長(zhǎng)期高于對(duì)照組的原因,首先可能是由于生物炭攜帶的難以被微生物所降解的有機(jī)質(zhì)進(jìn)入土壤從而直接提高了SOM水平.試驗(yàn)生物炭在700℃終溫?zé)峤庵频?H/C非常低,芳香性強(qiáng),檢測(cè)到的生物炭表面的官能團(tuán)以芳環(huán)＝C－H、芳香族/脂肪族甲基和亞甲基官能團(tuán)為主[18],難以被化學(xué)和生物作用所分解.其次可能是因?yàn)樯锾刻岣吡薙OM的形成速率,同時(shí)降低了有機(jī)質(zhì)礦化為CO2的速率(負(fù)激發(fā)效應(yīng)).高雪[5]發(fā)現(xiàn)700℃的OFMSW熱解生物炭在施入土壤的第10周后開始降低土壤CO2排放通量;陸海楠等[19]也發(fā)現(xiàn)水洗后的玉米秸稈生物炭能增加SOM含量但不會(huì)增加CO2的釋放量;相關(guān)的同位素研究直接證明了當(dāng)生物炭添加到土壤6個(gè)月以后,它開始替代部分土壤原有有機(jī)質(zhì)作為微生物的碳源,從而抑制土壤原有有機(jī)質(zhì)的礦化[20];生物炭對(duì)土壤本身有機(jī)質(zhì)礦化的抑制作用在其他多個(gè)研究中也被報(bào)道[21-23].

圖1 試驗(yàn)期間紫色土中SOM和TN含量變化Fig.1 Changes of SOMand TN concentration相同小寫字母表示處理在P＜0.05水平上無(wú)顯著性差異

圖1顯示,供試紫色土的初始TN含量為430mg/kg.在試驗(yàn)期間,3%BC和5%BC的TN含量較0%BC的提高了184～367,250～580mg/kg; 1%BC只在第2和4月與對(duì)照組存在顯著差異, TN含量分別提升了70,130mg/kg. 3%BC和5%BC的土壤TN含量長(zhǎng)期高于對(duì)照組的原因可能有以下幾方面:第一,生物炭自身含有的氮素提高了土壤TN含量.研究供試生物炭含有大量芳香性氮[14],這種形式的氮難以被微生物利用,可以長(zhǎng)期存在于土壤中,提高土壤TN含量.第二,生物炭提高了土壤有機(jī)氮的形成速率,降低了有機(jī)氮的水解、氨化和礦化速率,從而提高了土壤TN含量.生物炭促進(jìn)土壤有機(jī)氮的積累在之前的研究中也有報(bào)道[24].第三,生物炭降低了NOx的形成與損失,特別是N2O的排放.研究表明,OFMSW熱解生物炭能夠有效的降低土壤N2O排放量[5],其他多個(gè)研究也有相似的報(bào)道[25-27].

2.2 生物炭對(duì)土壤總細(xì)菌群落多樣性的影響

從表2可見,試驗(yàn)期間,3%BC和5%BC的Shannon指數(shù)都顯著比對(duì)照組的低,且5%BC低于3%BC;1%BC的Shannon指數(shù)只在第2月比對(duì)照組低.試驗(yàn)期間,3%BC和5%BC的Simpson指數(shù)(表征物種均勻度)比對(duì)照組高,且5%BC高于3%BC;1%BC的Simpson指數(shù)并未比對(duì)照組高.

表2 細(xì)菌的α-多樣性指數(shù)Table 2 A lpha diversity indices of bacterial communities

圖2 土壤細(xì)菌Simpson指數(shù)與土壤C:N的回歸分析Fig.2 Regression relationship between Simpson index of bacterial communities and C:N ratios in soil samples

表2顯示,無(wú)論是用Shannon指數(shù)還是Simpson指數(shù)對(duì)土壤細(xì)菌α-多樣性進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià), 3%BC和5%BC的都比0%BC的低,同時(shí)5%BC的又低于3%BC的,而1%BC的卻幾乎沒有降低土壤細(xì)菌的α-多樣性.這表明添加生物炭會(huì)降低紫色土細(xì)菌的α-多樣性,且降低量隨著添加量的上升而增加.陳俊輝[11]則報(bào)道秸稈生物炭增加了水稻田中細(xì)菌的多樣性.本研究生物炭改良土壤細(xì)菌α-多樣性降低的原因可能是生物炭的添加改變了細(xì)菌在土壤中的生長(zhǎng)情況.回歸分析(圖2)表明土壤C/N與供試土壤細(xì)菌Simpson多樣性指數(shù)符合指數(shù)函數(shù)分布(R2= 0.615, P＜0.01),細(xì)菌的物種均勻度隨C/N比的下降而上升.養(yǎng)分組成是影響土壤微生物群落結(jié)構(gòu)的主要因素,低C/N的土壤中可供微生物生長(zhǎng)的營(yíng)養(yǎng)較為豐富,有利于細(xì)菌的生長(zhǎng)[28],各細(xì)菌種群之間競(jìng)爭(zhēng)減弱,生長(zhǎng)比較平均進(jìn)而提升了物種的均勻度.生物炭的添加降低了土壤C/N比從而提升了細(xì)菌的均勻度.

2.3 細(xì)菌群落結(jié)構(gòu)的差異分析

通過(guò)對(duì)各樣品的菌屬組成進(jìn)行主成分分析(PCA),可以反映樣品間的差異和距離,樣品組成越相似,在PCA圖中的距離越近.PCA結(jié)果(圖3)顯示,24個(gè)土壤樣本中,0%BC與1%BC的細(xì)菌群落組成相似,3%BC與5%BC的細(xì)菌群落組成相似.同時(shí)試驗(yàn)前半年土樣中的細(xì)菌群落組成與后半年的分布不同.

圖3 生物炭對(duì)紫色土細(xì)菌群落結(jié)構(gòu)影響的主成分分析Fig.3 Principal component analysis of the influence of biochar on bacterial communities of purple soils

2.4 細(xì)菌相對(duì)豐度在門水平上的變化

24個(gè)土壤樣本共鑒定出42門細(xì)菌,其中6個(gè)主要門為:變形菌門(Proteobacteria)、酸桿菌門(Acidobacteria)、擬桿菌門(Bacteroidetes)、放線菌門(Actinobacteria)、綠彎菌門(Chloroflexi)和芽單胞菌門(Gemmatimonadetes),它們總的相對(duì)豐度占所有序列的83.7%～94.3%,各菌門的相對(duì)豐度見圖4.變形菌門是最主要的菌門,其相對(duì)豐度在大部分土樣中(除6-0%、8-1%和12-0%的分別為29.9%、29.5%和26.6%外)高于30.0%,最高為42.6%(6-1%).在第2、4、6和12月,3個(gè)試驗(yàn)組的變形菌門相對(duì)豐度均比對(duì)照組的高,最多的增加了12.7%.總體來(lái)說(shuō),3%BC和5%BC的放線菌門相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的高,分別提高了0.8%～ 11.6%和1.4%～7.9%;與對(duì)照組相比,1%BC的放線菌門相對(duì)豐度僅在第2和6月提高了11.6%和5.2%,其他月降低了0.22%～7.3%. Khodadad等[29]也發(fā)現(xiàn)在含有豐富火成炭的土壤中的放線菌門更為豐富,與本研究的結(jié)果一致.變形菌門對(duì)反硝化過(guò)程有一定影響.其中的δ-變形菌綱能攜帶膜質(zhì)硝酸鹽還原酶(Nar),另外,厚壁菌門和放線菌門也會(huì)攜帶Nar;變形菌門也是唯一攜帶周質(zhì)硝酸還原酶(Nap)的菌門[30],Nar和Nap在大部分土壤中起相似或互補(bǔ)作用[31].這些菌門在生物炭改良土壤中相對(duì)豐度的增加可能增加著土壤中narG和napA相對(duì)豐度.但是,Bai等[32]研究發(fā)現(xiàn)木質(zhì)生物炭降低了酸性土壤中narG的豐度.這可能是由于本研究供試土壤和生物炭與Bai等的不同.

在整個(gè)培養(yǎng)期間, 3%BC和5%BC的酸桿菌門相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的分別降低了3.7%～22.0%和2.9%～25.9%;除第8和10月外,1%BC的酸桿菌門相對(duì)豐度也比對(duì)照組的低.一般來(lái)說(shuō)酸桿菌門是貧營(yíng)養(yǎng)細(xì)菌[33],根據(jù)Lopes-Lozano等[34]的報(bào)道,酸桿菌門在營(yíng)養(yǎng)豐富的農(nóng)業(yè)土壤中豐度更低.在本研究中,生物炭明顯提高了SOM含量,其他研究也表明生物炭能提高土壤肥力[35-36],這可能導(dǎo)致了酸桿菌門相對(duì)豐度的降低.大部分1%BC和3%BC的擬桿菌門相對(duì)豐度都比對(duì)照組的低,分別降低了0.7%～2.8%和0.1%～4.3%; 5%BC的擬桿菌門相對(duì)豐度在第2、10和12月比對(duì)照組的降低了1.0%～3.0%,而在第4、6和8月卻升高了3.7%～8.3%.

在培養(yǎng)前8個(gè)月,5%BC的芽單胞菌門相對(duì)豐度比0%BC和1%BC的低.芽單胞菌門更適宜在干燥土壤中生長(zhǎng)[37].試驗(yàn)期間發(fā)現(xiàn)每次需往0%BC和1%BC中加入更多蒸餾水以恢復(fù)土壤含水量,說(shuō)明這2個(gè)處理的土壤水分更易散失而變得干燥,這可能是導(dǎo)致其中的芽單胞菌門相對(duì)豐度高于5%BC的原因.5%BC的綠彎菌門相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的低,而1%BC和3%BC的影響則不統(tǒng)一.在0%BC、1%BC及部分3%BC土壤樣本中鑒定出了硝化螺旋菌門(Nitrospirae),相對(duì)豐度多位于1.0%～2.5%,最高達(dá)到2.7%(編號(hào)10.0%中);而5%BC中則未發(fā)現(xiàn)硝化螺旋菌門.

圖4 土壤細(xì)菌群落在門水平上的分布Fig.4 Taxonomic compositions of bacterial communities at a phyla level

圖5 土壤細(xì)菌群落在屬水平上的分布Fig.5 Taxonomic compositions of bacterial communities at a genera level

2.5 細(xì)菌相對(duì)豐度在屬水平上的變化

24個(gè)土壤樣本中共鑒定出642個(gè)菌屬,其中相對(duì)豐度大于1%的菌屬105個(gè).如圖5所示,對(duì)照組的Subgroup_6_norank菌屬的相對(duì)豐度明顯比試驗(yàn)組的高,比5%BC的高約10%(除第10月外);同時(shí)3%BC和5%BC的也明顯比1%BC的低.同屬該綱的Blastocatella的相對(duì)豐度在試驗(yàn)組中也出現(xiàn)了降低,且該菌屬只在試驗(yàn)的前半年出現(xiàn).全噬菌綱的Subgroup_7_ orank菌屬只出現(xiàn)在0%BC和1%BC中,相對(duì)豐度為1.0%～1.5%.

放線菌綱大理石雕菌屬(Marmoricola)基本不出現(xiàn)在0%BC中,卻以1%～2.5%的相對(duì)豐度出現(xiàn)在3%BC和5%BC中.β-變形菌綱的亞硝化單胞菌科Nitrosomonadaceae_uncultured菌屬的相對(duì)豐度在不同處理之間變化較大,在1.33%～7.04%之間波動(dòng),且3%BC和5%BC的相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的低.而γ-變形菌綱的溶桿菌屬(Lysobacter)的情況則相反,其在3%BC和5%BC中的相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的高,且該菌屬在試驗(yàn)的后半年中幾乎沒有出現(xiàn).

前4個(gè)月,厭氧繩菌綱Anaerolineaceae_ uncultured菌屬在3%BC和5%BC中的相對(duì)豐度比對(duì)照組的低,之后這種趨勢(shì)消失了,這可能與培養(yǎng)前期生物炭改良土壤的透氣性好,不利于厭氧細(xì)菌的生長(zhǎng)有關(guān);有研究顯示,加入生物炭后的前90d,土壤容重顯著降低[38],有利于土壤中空氣的流通.綠彎菌綱的玫瑰彎菌屬(Roseiflexus)未在5%BC中檢測(cè)到,而在其他處理中均有出現(xiàn).芽單胞菌綱Gemmatimonadaceae_uncultured菌屬在5%BC中的相對(duì)豐度一直比其他3個(gè)處理中的低.

3 結(jié)論

3.1 3%和5%的生物炭添加量顯著提高了紫色土的SOM和TN含量.1%的生物炭添加量對(duì)紫色土SOM和TN含量無(wú)顯著提升.

3.2 3%和5%的生物炭添加量顯著降低了紫色土中細(xì)菌的α-多樣性;0%BC與1%BC的細(xì)菌群落組成相似,3%BC與5%BC的細(xì)菌群落組成相似.

3.3 試驗(yàn)土壤主要的6個(gè)菌門為變形菌門、酸桿菌門、擬桿菌門、放線菌門、綠彎菌門和芽單胞菌門,它們總的相對(duì)豐度占所有序列的83.7%～94.3%.生物炭添加量對(duì)這些菌門相對(duì)豐度產(chǎn)生了影響.

3.4 大多數(shù)菌屬對(duì)3%和5%的生物炭添加量的響應(yīng)與0%和1%的不同.

[1] 艾應(yīng)偉.土壤生態(tài)系統(tǒng)氮素循環(huán) [M]. 北京:化學(xué)工業(yè)出版社, 2008:27-44.

[2] Woolf D, Lehmann J. Modelling the long-termresponse to positive and negative priming of soil organic carbon by black carbon [J]. Biogeochemistry, 2012,111(1-3):83-95.

[3] Flessa H, Amelung W, Helfrich M, et al. Storage and stability of organic matter and fossil carbon in a Luvisol and Phaeozemwith continuous maize cropping: a synthesis [J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2008,171(1):36-51.

[4] Bruun S, El-Zehery T. Biochar effect on the mineralization of soil organic matter [J]. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 2012, 47(5):665-671.

[5] 高 雪.城鎮(zhèn)有機(jī)垃圾熱解生物炭改良土壤與減排溫室氣體研究 [D]. 重慶:重慶大學(xué), 2014.

[6] Jin H Y. Characterization of microbial life colonizing biochar and biochar amended soils [D]. Ithaca: Cornell University, 2010.

[7] Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, et al. Biochar effects on soil biota-a review[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2011,43(9):1812-1836.

[8] Xu H, Wang X, Li H, et al. Biochar impacts soil microbial community composition and nitrogen cycling in an acidic soil planted with rape [J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014,48(16):9391-9399.

[9] Anderson C R, Condron L M, Clough T J, et al. Biochar induced soil microbial community change: implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus [J]. Pedobiologia, 2011,54(5/6):309-320.

[10] Li M, Liu M, Li Z, et al. Soil N transformation and microbial community structure as affected by adding biochar to a paddy soil of subtropical China [J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2016,15(1):209-219.

[11] 陳俊輝.田間試驗(yàn)下秸稈生物質(zhì)炭對(duì)農(nóng)田土壤微生物群落多樣性的影響 [D]. 南京:南京農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué), 2013.

[12] Bian R, Joseph S, Cui L, et al. A three-year experiment confirms continuous immobilization of cadmiumand lead in contaminated paddy field with biochar amendment [J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2014,272:121-128.

[13] 張尚毅,劉國(guó)濤,唐利蘭,等.溫度對(duì)城市有機(jī)垃圾熱解焦油成分的影響 [J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2016,36(3):827-832.

[14] NY/T1377-2007 土壤pH的測(cè)定 [S].

[15] GB-T12496.7-1999 木質(zhì)活性炭試驗(yàn)方法: pH值的測(cè)定 [S].

[16] NY/T1121.5-2006 土壤檢測(cè):石灰性土壤陽(yáng)離子交換量的測(cè)定 [S].

[17] GB/T3558-1996 煤中氯的測(cè)定方法 [S].

[18] 唐利蘭.城市生活垃圾熱解產(chǎn)物性質(zhì)及元素分布規(guī)律研究 [D].重慶:重慶大學(xué), 2015.

[19] 陸海楠,胡學(xué)玉,陳 威.生物炭添加對(duì)土壤CO2排放的影響 [A].第五屆全國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)環(huán)境科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì) [C]. 天津:農(nóng)業(yè)部環(huán)境保護(hù)科研監(jiān)測(cè)所、中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)生態(tài)環(huán)境保護(hù)協(xié)會(huì), 2013:629-633.

[20] Stewart C E, Zheng J Y, Botte J, et al. Co-generated fast pyrolysis biochar mitigates green-house gas emissions and increases carbon sequestration in temperate soils [J]. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2013,5(2):153-164.

[21] Zimmerman A R. Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar) [J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010,44(4):1295-1301.

[22] Zimmerman A R, Gao B, Ahn M. Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar- amended soils [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2011,43(6):1169-1179.

[23] Keith A, Singh B, Singh B P. Interactive priming of biochar and labile organic matter mineralization in a smectite-rich soil [J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011,45(22):9611-9618.

[24] Prommer J, W anek W, Hofhansl F, et al. Biochar decelerates soil organic nitrogen cycling but stimulates soil nitrification in a temperate arable field trial [J]. Plos One, 2013,9(1):812-813.

[25] Kammann C, Ratering S, Eckhard C, et al. Biochar and hydrochar effects on greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) fluxes fromsoils [J]. Journal of Environment Quality, 2012,41(4):1052.

[26] Zhang A, Cui L, Pan G, et al. Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions froma rice paddy fromTai Lake plain, China [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2010,139(4):469-475.

[27] Case S D C, Mcnamara N P, Reay D S, et al. The effect of biochar addition on N2O and CO2emissions froma sandy loamsoil-the role of soil aeration [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2012,51:125-134.

[28] Swift MJ, Heal O W, Anderson J M. Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems [J]. Applied Physics Letters, 1979,83(14):2772-2774.

[29] Khodadad C L M, Zimmerman A R, Green S J, et al. Taxa-specific changes in soil microbial community composition induced by pyrogenic carbon amendments [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2011,43(2):385-392.

[30] Richardson D J, Berks B C, Russell D A, et al. Functional, biochemical and genetic diversity of prokaryotic nitrate reductases [J]. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2001,58(2):165-178.

[31] Bru D, Sarr A, Philippot L. Relative abundances of proteobacterial membrane-bound and periplasmic nitrate reductases in selected environments [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2007,73(18):5971-5974.

[32] Bai S H, Reverchon F, Xu C, et al. W ood biochar increases nitrogen retention in field settings mainly through abiotic processes [J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2015,90:232-240.

[33] Zhang Y, Cong J, Lu H, et al. Community structure and elevational diversity patterns of soil A cidobacteria [J]. Journal of Environmental Sciences-China, 2014,26(8):1717-1724.

[34] Lopez-Lozano N E, Heidelberg K B, Nelson W C, et al. Microbial secondary succession in soil microcosms of a desert oasis in the Cuatro Cienegas Basin, Mexico [J]. Peerj, 2013,1(1):e47.

[35] Galvez A, Sinicco T, Cayuela ML, et al. Short termeffects of bioenergy by-products on soil C and N dynamics, nutrient availability and biochemical properties [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2012,160:3-14.

[36] Ghosh S, Yeo D, W ilson B, et al. Application of char products improves urban soil quality [J]. Soil Use and Management, 2012, 28(3):329-336.

[37] Debruyn J M, Nixon L T, Fawaz MN, et al. Global biogeography and quantitative seasonal dynamics of Gemmatimonadetes in soil [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2011,77(17):6295-6300.

[38] Felber R, Leifeld J, Horak J, et al. Nitrous oxide emissionreductionwith greenwaste biochar: comparisonof laboratory and field experiments [J]. EuropeanJournal of Soil Science, 2014,65(1):128-138.

Influence of organic fraction of municipal solid waste-based biochar on microbial community structure in a purplesoil.

ZHANG Shang-yi, LIU Guo-tao*, XIE Meng-pei
(Key Laboratory of Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environment, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China). China Environmental Science, 2017,37(2)：669～676

Organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) was pyrolyzed at 700℃ to produce biochar, which was used to amend an organic and nitrogen deficient purple soil in Chongqing. Twelve month pot incubation experiments were conducted to investigate effects of the OFMSW-based biochar on the content of organic matter (OM) and total nitrogen (TN) as well as microbial community structure of the purple soil. The experiments were performed with four treatments of 0%, 1%, 3% and 5% (w/w) of biochar addition, and the microbial communities of the amended soils were analyzed by high throughput sequencing technology. The results showed that the addition of 3% and 5% of biochar significantly increased the content of OMand TN and reduced the alpha diversity of bacteria in purp le soils. The principal component analysis showed that the bacterial communities in the 0% and 1% treatments were similar, and the bacterial communities in the 3% and 5% treatments were similar. The Illumina sequencing from24soil samples identified 42bacteria phyla, 6of which were the main bacterial phyla Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi and Gemmatimonadetes, accounting for 83.7%～94.3% of the total number of sequencing. The bacteria phyla varied in their response to the addition levels of biochar. In 24soil samples, 642genera were identified, among which 105genera had a relative abundance greater than 1%. The responses of some major bacterial genera to 3% and 5% addition of biochar were different fromtheir responses to 0% and 1% biochar addition.

organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)；biochar；purple soil；microbial community structure

X705

A

1000-6923(2017)02-0669-08

張尚毅(1965-),男,重慶人,教授,博士,主要從事固體廢物處理與資源化研究.發(fā)表論文20余篇.

2016-06-16

重慶市自然科學(xué)基金重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目(2011BA7020)

* 責(zé)任作者, 副教授, liu-guotao@163.com