Effects of Microbial Agents on Facility Soil Properties and Celery Growth

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0194

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigated the effects of applying different doses of microbial agents on improving the facility soil, regulating microbial community structure, promoting celery growth, and enhancing quality and economic benefits, to provide theoretical basis and technical support for the green production of celery in facilities. Under sunlight greenhouse conditions in Gaoling District, Xi’an City, celery was used as the test crop, and six treatments with different application rates of microbial agents (0, 600, 900, 1200, 1500 and 1800 kg/hm²) were set up. Using a completely randomized block design, soil agricultural chemical properties, microbial populations, celery growth, quality indicators, and yield were measured, and their economic benefits were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) compared with the control (CK), microbial agent treatments significantly reduced soil electrical conductivity (by 14.08%-38.45%) and nitrate content, but had no significant effect on soil pH or organic matter content. (2) The application of microbial agents significantly increased the total soil microbial population (by up to 103.42%) and optimized the community structure, reinforcing the absolute dominance of bacteria while reducing the relative proportion of fungi. (3) Microbial agent treatments significantly increased celery stem diameter (by 2.41%-8.11%) and vitamin C content (up to 63.80%), while reducing nitrate accumulation in the plants. However, no significant effects were observed on plant height or soluble solids content. (4) Celery yield increased with higher application rates of microbial agents, but the 1500 kg/hm² treatment achieved the highest net income increase, reaching 11804 yuan/hm², indicating the best economic benefit. Applying microbial inoculants can effectively improve the microecological environment of greenhouse soil, alleviate secondary salinization, optimize microbial community structure, and improve quality by promoting celery stem growth, increasing vitamin C content, and reducing nitrate content. Overall, the 1500 kg/hm²treatment was the optimal application rate for achieving both celery yield increase and economic benefit improvement under the experimental conditions.

Key words: microbial agents, facility soil, celery, nitrate, electrical conductivity, quality, yield

GUO Pengfei, WANG Xiaorong, SUN Xijun, WANG Wan, GAO Ying, ZHANG Bo, HUANG Tao, WANG Xin, WANG Haiyin, ZHAO Yaping, WANG Yan. Effects of Microbial Agents on Facility Soil Properties and Celery Growth[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2026, 16(4): 25-29.

Figures/Tables 5

References 25

[1]	宋秀道, 马锦. 芹菜素防治2型糖尿病的研究进展[J]. 食品工业科技, 2017, 38(9):386-390,395.
[2]	于金慧, 尤升波, 高建伟, 等. 芹菜功能性成分及生物活性研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(7):5-10.
[3]	江靖雯, 闫佩瑶, 匡佳妮, 等. 芹菜素抗肿瘤药理作用机制的研究进展[J]. 中国药学杂志, 2023, 58(6):469-474. doi: 10.11669/cpj.2023.06.001
[4]	西安市统计局. 西安统计年鉴2024[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2025:356-357.
[5]	高莹, 孙喜军, 吕爽, 等. 西安市设施菜地土壤养分状况分析[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2021, 67(6):50-56.
[6]	仝倩倩, 祝英, 崔得领, 等. 我国微生物肥料发展现状及在蔬菜生产中的应用[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022,(4):259-266.
[7]	杨肖芳, 郭瑞, 姚燕来, 等. 微生物菌剂对连作地块草莓生长、土壤养分及微生物群落的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2023, 37(6):1253-1262. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1000-8551.2023.06.1253
[8]	刘志良, 刘玉兵, 刘新华, 等. 微生物菌剂对连作地块辣椒生长和微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2025, 38(8):154-160.
[9]	皇晓刚, 陈敏洁, 郑春丽, 等. 微生物菌剂对沙化土壤保水及促生长效应的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2025, 45(4):153-160.
[10]	贾喜霞, 师桂英, 黄炜, 等. 土壤消毒剂配施微生物有机肥及生防菌剂缓解设施茄子连作障碍的作用效应微生物菌剂[J]. 分子植物育种, 2020, 18(13):4492-4498.
[11]	陈云霞, 赵复泉. 微生物菌剂对西芹的增产效果研究[J]. 农业技术与装备, 2021,(4):57-58.
[12]	冯海萍, 陈卓, 杨虎. 生物菌剂对连作芹菜生理及根际土壤生物化学特性的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2025, 60(3):118-125,134.
[13]	马慧媛, 黄媛媛, 刘胜尧, 等. 微生物菌剂施用对设施茄子根际土壤养分和细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(1):140-150.
[14]	姜永雷, 肖雨, 邓小鹏, 等. 微生物菌剂对烟草连作土壤理化性质及土壤胞外酶酶活性的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2022, 28(4):59-66.
[15]	于会丽, 徐国益, 路绪强, 等. 微生物菌剂对连作西瓜土壤微环境及果实品质的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2020, 37(7):1025-1035.
[16]	冯海萍, 陈卓, 杨虎. 微生物菌剂对连作芹菜根际土壤真菌群落多样性与结构的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2024, 42(2):53-61,70.
[17]	赵贞, 杨延杰, 林多, 等. 微生物菌肥对日光温室黄瓜生长发育及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2012,(18):149-153.
[18]	李建欣, 葛桂民, 申爱民. 菌渣有机肥对设施土壤微生物、酶活性及黄瓜品质和产量的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2022, 35(8):57-61.
[19]	侯赛赛, 刘一凡, 王鑫鑫, 等. 有机物料和微生物菌剂对连作土壤性质和黄芩生长的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2025, 56(2):530-540.
[20]	AQEL H, FARAH H, AL-HUNAITI A. Ecological versatility and biotechnological promise: Comprehensive characterization of the isolated thermophilic Bacillus strains[J]. PLoS One, 2024, 19(4):17.
[21]	邓杰文, 石杨, 李斌, 等. 微生物在沙化土壤修复中的应用研究进展[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2022, 28(5):1367-1374.
[22]	沙月霞, 黄泽阳, 李云翔, 等. 生物菌剂对土壤微生物群落结构和功能的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2022, 41(12):2752-2762.
[23]	李玉奇, 辛世杰, 奥岩松. 微生物菌肥对温室黄瓜生长、产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(1):259-263.
[24]	曾庆宾, 李涛, 王昌全, 等. 微生物菌剂对烤烟根际土壤脲酶和过氧化氢酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(22):46-50. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16010019
[25]	库永丽, 徐国益, 赵骅, 等. 腐植酸复合微生物肥料对高龄猕猴桃果园土壤改良及果实品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(3):167-175. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.03.025

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	硝酸盐/(mg/kg)	电导率/(μS/cm)
CK	8.81±0.07a	23.02±1.45a	121.15±5.12a	632±23.24a
T₁	8.58±0.16a	23.61±1.33a	94.34±2.08b	543±37.32b
T₂	8.44±0.04a	23.35±0.98a	88.25±3.04c	498±15.48b
T₃	8.73±0.12a	23.87±1.89a	85.86±1.11d	406±12.34c
T₄	8.64±0.13a	23.46±0.32a	80.03±1.87e	401±19.87c
T₅	8.61±0.21a	23.97±1.63a	76.22±2.06f	389±16.77c

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	硝酸盐/(mg/kg)	电导率/(μS/cm)
CK	8.81±0.07a	23.02±1.45a	121.15±5.12a	632±23.24a
T₁	8.58±0.16a	23.61±1.33a	94.34±2.08b	543±37.32b
T₂	8.44±0.04a	23.35±0.98a	88.25±3.04c	498±15.48b
T₃	8.73±0.12a	23.87±1.89a	85.86±1.11d	406±12.34c
T₄	8.64±0.13a	23.46±0.32a	80.03±1.87e	401±19.87c
T₅	8.61±0.21a	23.97±1.63a	76.22±2.06f	389±16.77c

处理	细菌				真菌				放线菌				微生物总数/(×10⁵ cfu/g)
处理	数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		微生物总数/(×10⁵ cfu/g)
CK		284.36f		95.72		10.42f		3.51		2.28f		0.77		297.06
T₁		357.12e		96.10		11.51e		3.10		2.98e		0.80		371.61
T₂		401.89d		96.20		12.42d		2.97		3.44d		0.82		417.75
T₃		508.34c		96.75		12.58c		2.39		4.49c		0.85		525.41
T₄		539.75b		96.72		13.27b		2.38		5.01b		0.90		558.03
T₅		584.46a		96.72		14.19a		2.35		5.62a		0.93		604.27

处理	细菌				真菌				放线菌				微生物总数/(×10⁵ cfu/g)
处理	数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		数量/(×10⁵ cfu/g)		比例/%		微生物总数/(×10⁵ cfu/g)
CK		284.36f		95.72		10.42f		3.51		2.28f		0.77		297.06
T₁		357.12e		96.10		11.51e		3.10		2.98e		0.80		371.61
T₂		401.89d		96.20		12.42d		2.97		3.44d		0.82		417.75
T₃		508.34c		96.75		12.58c		2.39		4.49c		0.85		525.41
T₄		539.75b		96.72		13.27b		2.38		5.01b		0.90		558.03
T₅		584.46a		96.72		14.19a		2.35		5.62a		0.93		604.27

处理	株高/cm	茎粗/mm
CK	65.45±2.87a	35.75±1.18b
T₁	64.43±3.60a	36.61±1.35a
T₂	64.89±2.52a	38.28±1.25a
T₃	63.87±3.19a	37.89±1.03a
T₄	64.12±2.28a	38.54±2.02a
T₅	63.91±3.33a	38.65±1.34a