短期培养下抑制剂烯丙基硫脲对土壤硝化作用及微生物的影响

硝化抑制剂烯丙基硫脲（ATU）对土壤硝化作用及温室效应的影响及机理尚不清楚。本研究采集典型旱地土壤,进行21天室内微宇宙培养,探究了氮肥与不同剂量ATU（分别为氮素用量的1%, 5%, 10%, 15%和20%）配施对土壤硝化作用及N2O和CO2排放通量的影响,并通过实时荧光定量PCR和高通量测序16S rRNA基因技术监测硝化微生物群落变化,同时与传统硝化抑制剂双氰胺（DCD）进行了保氮减排效果的对比。结果表明,与未施加氮肥的对照相比（CK）,单施氮肥（N）显著提高了土壤硝化强度并促进了N2O排放。DCD能显著抑制硝态氮和N2O的积累,抑制效率分别为68.6%和93.3%。而低浓度ATU对土壤硝化作用无影响,仅在高浓度具有抑制效应,且抑制效率最高仅为14.7%。所有ATU处理N2O排放量均显著降低,降幅为60.3～68.2%,仍远高于DCD处理。处理间N2O和CO2的综合温室效应强弱顺序为N>ATU+N>DCD+N≈CK,且不同ATU施用量处理之间差异不显著。相关分析发现氨氧化细菌（AOB）,而不是氨氧化古菌（AOA）和全程氨氧化细菌（Comammox）,与土壤硝态氮积累和N2O排放显著正相关,与土壤pH显著负相关。高通量测序结果表明Nitrosovibrio tenuis类型AOB对氮肥诱导的硝化过程起主导作用。除此之外,ATU和DCD还能显著提高Cupriavidus,并降低Patulibacter、Aeromicrobium、Actinomycetospora、Defluviicoccus和Acidipila等微生物属在群落中的相对丰度。该研究为深化土壤碳氮循环理论,合理使用硝化抑制剂以及减缓温室气体排放提供科学依据。     

硝化抑制剂与尿素配施对旱地土壤温室气体排放及硝化微生物的影响

为明确施肥措施对旱地土壤温室气体排放的综合效应及微生物机理,采集典型麦田土壤进行室内微宇宙培养,研究了双氰胺(DCD)和烯丙基硫脲(ATU)分别与尿素配施对旱地土壤氮素转化及N₂O、CO₂和CH₄排放的影响,同时监测了不同类型微生物群落的动态变化。结果表明氨氧化细菌(AOB)主导了施氮麦田土壤硝化过程及N₂O排放。单施尿素促进AOB迅速繁殖,使N₂O排放总量提高235%,同时促进了细菌生长,CO₂排放量增加18.5%。DCD与尿素配施极大程度抑制了AOB的生长,显著降低了N₂O排放(59.4%),但促进了细菌的生长并提高了CO₂的排放总量(50.6%)。而ATU与尿素配施同时抑制了真菌、细菌和AOB的生长,对反硝化细菌的影响则相反,使CO₂和N2O排放分别下降28.4%和35.2%。与不施肥相比,氮肥及与两种硝化抑制剂配施均显著降低了CH4的排放量。3种温室气体的综合温室效应在处理间差异显著...     

Potential importance of bacteria and fungi in nitrate assimilation in soil

Soil microorganisms can use a wide range of N compounds but are thought to prefer NH₄⁺. Nevertheless, ¹⁵N isotope dilution studies have shown that microbial immobilization of NO₃⁻ can be an important process in many soils, particularly relatively undisturbed soils. Our objective was to develop a method for measuring NO₃⁻ immobilization potential so that the relative contributions of bacteria and fungi could be determined. We modified and optimized a soil slurry method that included amendments of KNO₃, glucose, and methionine sulfoximine (an inhibitor of N assimilation) in the presence of two protein synthesis inhibitors: chloramphenicol, which inhibits bacteria, or cycloheximide, which inhibits fungi. By adding ¹⁵N-labeled KNO₃, we were able to measure gross rates of NO₃⁻ production (i.e., gross nitrification) and consumption (i.e., gross NO₃⁻ immobilization). We found that bacteria, not fungi, had the greatest potential for assimilating, or immobilizing, NO₃⁻ in these soils. This is consistent with their growth habit and distribution in the heterogeneous soil matrix.