Spatial regulation of soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities by Morchella sextelata mycelium activity in an under-forest semi-natural cultivation system

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2026.02.007

Abstract

Abstract:

To elucidate the spatial effects of Morchella sextelats mycelium activity on soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities,under-forest semi-natural cultivation of Morchella sextelata under a Pinus densata forest was investigated,with uncultivated soil serving as the control (CK).Soil samples were collected at distances of 0,20,and 40 cm from the fruiting bodies (R,R₂₀,and R₄₀,respectively).Changes in soil organic carbon fractions [readily oxidizable organic carbon (ROC),particulate organic carbon (POC),mineral-bound organic carbon (MOC),and total organic carbon (SOC)]and enzyme activities [catalase (CAT),urease (URE),β-1,4-glucosidase (BG),and cellobiohydrolase (CBH)]were analyzed to clarify the spatial regulatory mechanisms affecting the soil carbon pool and enzyme activities.The results showed that:1)Compared with CK,cultivation of Morchella sexta.decreased soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC),with the lowest values occurring at R and R20,respectively.Total phosphorus (TP)tended to decrease,whereas total nitrogen (TN) tended to increase and reached its highest value at R₂₀;however,neither change was significant.2)Compared with CK,SOC and MOC contents at R area were significantly lower,whereas SOC and its fractions (POC,MOC,and ROC)at R₂₀ area increased.3)Compared with CK,CAT and URE activities at R a,BG,andCBH activities of R₂₀ were significantly lower.However,BG and CBH activities at R and CAT and URE activities at R₄₀ showed increasing trends.4)Mantel test and redundancy analysis (RDA)showed that pH and EC were the core regulatory factors,exerting direct positive effects on soil enzyme activities,SOC,and MOC,whereas TP negatively regulated the transformation of soil organic carbon fractions.In summary,Morchella sextelata mycelium activity significantly regulated the spatial variation in soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activity,with pH and EC serving as the key drivers this process.

Key words: under-forest semi-natural cultivation, Morchella, hyphosphere distance, soil organic carbon fractions, enzyme activity

CLC Number:

S714.3

PENG Bin, WEI Haixia, LI Xun, ZHANG Yan, MA Hongliang, ZHANG Danju. Spatial regulation of soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities by Morchella sextelata mycelium activity in an under-forest semi-natural cultivation system[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2026, (2): 70-79.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

References 45

[1]	周丽倩, 黄瑶, 鲁艳, 等. 四川小金县野生羊肚菌多糖的结构解析及体外抗肿瘤活性初探[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2022, 34(12):2077-2088.
[2]	王艳. 六妹羊肚菌子实体多酚的制备及其抗结肠癌效应的研究[D]. 晋中: 太原师范学院, 2024.
[3]	王浩东, 赵锐, 吴亮亮, 等. 羊肚菌生物学特性及栽培技术研究进展[J]. 中国野生植物资源, 2024, 43(2):91-95.
[4]	Du Xihui, Wu Dongmei, He Guoqiang, et al. Six new species and two new records of Morchella in China using phylogenetic and morphological analyses[J]. Mycologia, 2019, 111(5):857-870. doi: 10.1080/00275514.2019.1640012 pmid: 31414967
[5]	罗夫来, 刘威, 张博华, 等. 菌株、菌材、播种量与种植层数对云贵高原仿野生栽培天麻产量影响的研究[J]. 中药材, 2021, 44(5):1052-1057.
[6]	崔荟萃, 刘洋, 左鑫, 等. 不同生境羊肚菌菌塘理化性质及微生物群落分析[J]. 微生物学通报, 2025, 52(4):1655-1672.
[7]	金鑫, 李小林, 黄文丽, 等. 野生翘鳞肉齿菌菌塘土壤理化性质研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2015, 28(5):2176-2180.
[8]	Wang Yawen, Zhang Xiao, Li Yanshuang, et al. Distribution of mycelia of Morchella esculenta in wild field[J]. Current Microbiology, 2019, 76(2):168. doi: 10.1007/s00284-018-1603-0 pmid: 30488165
[9]	李青, 原佳敏, 李云霞, 等. 人造林场羊肚菌自然发生处不同土层土壤情况分析[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(4):594-597.
[10]	Tan Hao, Annegret K, Renyun M, et al. Multiomic analyses of exogenous nutrient bag decomposition by the black morel Morchella importuna reveal sustained carbon acquisition and transferring[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2019, 21(10):3909-3926. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14741 pmid: 31314937
[11]	李旭梅, 杨钧, 李小伟, 等. 宁夏天然草地土壤有机碳分布格局及驱动因素[J]. 草原与草坪, 2024, 44(4):1-8.
[12]	张旭博, 李雄, 徐梦, 等. 不同土地利用方式下我国北方土壤有机、无机碳库的变化趋势及原因分析[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(8):1440-1450.
[13]	付粱晨, 丁宗巨, 唐茂, 等. 北京东灵山两种温带森林根际和非根际土壤酶活性、温度敏感性及矢量特征的季节动态[J]. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 58(3):503-516.
[14]	顾晓娟, 吴妙兰, 张振源, 等. 季节变化对尾叶桉土壤有机碳组分和酶活性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2025, 45(1):140-151.
[15]	石丽红, 李超, 唐海明, 等. 长期不同施肥措施对双季稻田土壤活性有机碳组分和水解酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(3):921-930. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202103.023
[16]	宋奋奋, 段艳雪, 桑愉, 等. 患病和健康羊肚菌菌丝际土壤微生物群落特征[J]. 生物技术通报, 2025, 41(4):323-334. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2024-0819
[17]	Zhang Yan, Xu Yingfei, Peng Bin, et al. Spatial differentiation and community structure characteristics of soil microorganisms at variable hyphosphere distances in forest cultivation systems of Morchella[J]. Microorganisms, 2026, 14:1003. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms14051003
[18]	张津京, 高子琼, 杜军华, 等. 栽培梯棱羊肚菌对上海设施蔬菜大棚土壤理化性质和酶活力的影响[J]. 食用菌学报, 2020, 27(4).
[19]	Fu Yiwen, Fan Muxin, Qin Haiyan, et al. Interactions between morel cultivation,soil microbes,and mineral nutrients:impacts and mechanisms[J]. Journal of Fungi, 2025, 11(6):405. doi: 10.3390/jof11060405
[20]	孟庆国, 侯俊, 高霞. 食用菌规模化栽培技术图解[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2021.
[21]	高飞. 烘干法制备土壤样品测定pH和EC值的探讨[J]. 中国检验检测, 2022, 30(3):17-19.
[22]	许文艳, 于安芬, 陶海霞, 等. 固体氢氧化钠熔融法同时测定土壤全磷和全钾方法研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2024(24):114-116.
[23]	果禹鑫. 桃木屑短时堆肥处理对栽培平菇过程中微生物动态、木质纤维素降解及营养品质的影响[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2022.
[24]	崔雪梅, 米俊珍, 刘景辉, 等. 膨润土与秸秆配施对燕麦根区土壤有机碳组分和丛植菌根真菌多样性的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2024, 44(9):1215-1224.
[25]	陈雅轩, 张彧璠, 王佳乐, 等. 不同林龄华北落叶松土壤酶活性和碳氮磷化学计量变化[J]. 生态学报, 2025, 45(1):25-41.
[26]	Xu Shiyi, Wei Jinkang, Xue Feiyan, et al. Microbial inoculation influences microbial communities and physicochemical properties during lettuce seedling using composted spent mushroom substrate[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2022, 174:104418. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104418
[27]	熊川, 李小林, 李强, 等. 羊肚菌菌塘土壤细菌群落的结构及多样性[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 41(4):428-434.
[28]	毋校辉. 四川羊肚菌栽培土壤理化特性及微生物群落研究[D]. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2019.
[29]	赵自超, 赵时锋, 张宏启, 等. 菌渣还田对设施瓜菜产量、品质和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(19):112-118. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0571
[30]	黎智文, 代俊杰, 李寿建, 等. 变红羊肚菌栽培过程中矿物质元素变化分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2018, 16(24):8214-8218.
[31]	鲁铭颖, 马宏, 姚澜, 等. 栽培羊肚菌对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 蔬菜, 2024(5):51-57.
[32]	Yang Yang, Gunina A, Cheng Huan, et al. Unlocking mechanisms for soil organic matter accumulation:carbon use efficiency and microbial necromass as the keys[J]. Global Change Biology, 2025, 31(1):e70033. doi: 10.1111/gcb.v31.1
[33]	秦泽峰, 谢沐希, 张运龙, 等. 丛枝菌根真菌介导的土壤有机碳稳定机制研究进展[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(4):756-766.
[34]	Liu Mohan, Wei Yuqi, Lian Lu, et al. Macrofungi promote SOC decomposition and weaken sequestration by modulating soil microbial function in temperate steppe[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 899:165556. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165556
[35]	王泽西. 川西亚高山森林土壤呼吸和土壤微生物生物量碳氮对施氮的响应[D]. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2019.
[36]	王邵军, 左倩倩, 曹乾斌, 等. 云南寻甸石漠化土壤易氧化碳对丛枝菌根真菌共生的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 46(1):7-14. doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202006021
[37]	梁子琪, 王克勤, 宋娅丽, 等. 施氮对滇中高山栎林土壤酶活性和微生物生物量碳氮的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2025, 43(4):893-905.
[38]	Li Zhe, Duan Xun, Guo Xiaobin, et al. Microbial metabolic capacity regulates the accrual of mineral-associated organic carbon in subtropical paddy soils[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2024, 195:109457. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109457
[39]	张盈盈, 胡丹丹, 马春晖, 等. 菌磷耦合对紫花苜蓿土壤酶活性、磷含量及干物质产量的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(9):54-64.
[40]	刘新梅, 樊文华, 张昊, 等. 改良剂对复垦土壤水稳性团聚体及POC和MOC的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2):225-234.
[41]	赖永明, 俞缙, 刘士雨, 等. 低pH值下微生物诱导碳酸盐沉淀加固尾矿砂试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(6):1583-1596.
[42]	Wang Chaoqun, Kuzyakov Y. Soil organic matter priming:the pH effects[J]. Global Change Biology, 2024, 30(6):e17349. doi: 10.1111/gcb.v30.6
[43]	孙昆, 夏俊勇, 叶旭英, 等. 药/食真菌连作障碍研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2025, 38(3):49-57.
[44]	尹琪. 化感及自毒物质影响羊肚菌生长发育的机制初探[D]. 郑州: 郑州轻工业大学, 2025.
[45]	Sirbu T. The searching of active catalase producers among the microscopic fungi[J]. Analele Universitatii Din Oradea Fascicula Biologie, 2011, 2:164-167.

区域	pH	EC/(μS/cm)	TP/(mg/g)	TN/(mg/g)
R	7.226±0.020d	178.000±2.309ab	1.853±0.072a	4.389±0.171a
R₂₀	7.312±0.010c	164.667±5.696c	1.723±0.052a	4.417±0.208a
R₄₀	7.371±0.023b	173.333±1.764bc	1.817±0.052a	4.236±0.141a
CK	7.544±0.014a	188.000±2.309a	1.917±0.048a	4.031±0.048a

影响因子	解释率/%	贡献率/%	F值	P值
pH	23.0	36.7	3.4	0.048
EC	21.2	33.7	4.3	0.014
TP	16.6	26.4	2.0	0.154
TN	2.2	3.5	0.4	0.740