Table 2 Effect of amendments on rhizosphere soil properties of Caoyou1 (A) and Baiyan2 (B) oat cultivars.

From: Bio-fertilizer and rotten straw amendments alter the rhizosphere bacterial community and increase oat productivity in a saline–alkaline environment

Treatments

SW (%)

pH

Salt (%)

AK (mg kg−1)

AP (mg kg−1)

AN (mg kg−1)

Catalase (mL of 0.1 mol L−1 KMnO4 g−1 soil 30 min−1)

Alkaline phosphate (mg phenol g−1 soil 24 h−1)

Urease (mg NH4-N g−1 soil 24 h−1)

Sucrase (mg glucose g−1 soil 24 h−1)

Cultivar (C)

Caoyou1(A)

5.95 ± 0.17b

8.02 ± 0.02

0.56 ± 0.02

135.17 ± 13.75

38.23 ± 4.7b

27.64 ± 2.83

8.74 ± 0.54

25.33 ± 1.27a

1.18 ± 0.05

50.45 ± 2.14b

Baiyan2(B)

7.69 ± 0.93a

8.02 ± 0.03

0.59 ± 0.04

142.50 ± 22.40

47.32 ± 4.44a

26.00 ± 3.11

8.97 ± 0.56

22.49 ± 0.83b

1.18 ± 0.05

65.26 ± 4.78a

Amendment (M)

CK

5.68 ± 0.10b

8.11 ± 0.01a

0.47 ± 0c

71.67 ± 10.06b

27.39 ± 01c

17.02 ± 1.59c

7.08 ± 0.48b

21.69 ± 1.13b

1.26 ± 0.05a

49.38 ± 3.68b

F

5.60 ± 0.29b

7.96 ± 0.04b

0.53 ± 0.01bc

92.00 ± 4.47b

29.32 ± 04c

21.93 ± 2.53bc

9.21 ± 0.44a

25.49 ± 2.94a

1.23 ± 0.07a

53.25 ± 3.54b

R

6.73 ± 0.55b

8.06 ± 0.02a

0.56 ± 0.01b

192.50 ± 10.39a

52.95 ± 02b

27.55 ± 1.35b

10.4 ± 0.17a

24.42 ± 0.26a

1.22 ± 0.06a

72.26 ± 8.19a

RF

9.26 ± 1.55a

7.94 ± 0.01b

0.75 ± 0.04a

199.17 ± 13.38a

61.44 ± 01a

40.78 ± 2.15a

8.76 ± 1.05a

24.03 ± 0.37a

1.01 ± 0.04b

56.51 ± 3.32b

C*M

A1

5.71 ± 0.19bc

8.08 ± 0.01bc

0.48 ± 0de

90 ± 12.58c

23.14 ± 0.61d

15.45 ± 2.75

7.73 ± 0.27c

22.24 ± 1.72 cd

1.21 ± 0.09

41.92 ± 0.10

A2

6.01 ± 0.02bc

8.05 ± 0c

0.55 ± 0 cd

95.67 ± 0.67c

24.98 ± 1.67d

24.75 ± 2.51

10.19 ± 0.06a

31.77 ± 1.94a

1.17 ± 0.14

52.11 ± 3.94

A3

6.05 ± 0.74bc

8.01 ± 0d

0.53 ± 0cde

183.33 ± 18.33b

43.44 ± 0.78b

30.15 ± 1.30

10.04 ± 0.09ab

23.95 ± 0.35bc

1.29 ± 0.10

56.84 ± 1.84

A4

6.03 ± 0.01bc

7.93 ± 0.03e

0.69 ± 0b

171.67 ± 6.01b

61.35 ± 0.42a

40.20 ± 0.75

7.01 ± 1.57c

23.34 ± 0.19bc

1.03 ± 0.05

50.91 ± 4.86

B1

5.65 ± 0.12bc

8.14 ± 0a

0.46 ± 0e

53.33 ± 3.33d

31.64 ± 0.26c

18.60 ± 1.62

6.42 ± 0.81c

21.14 ± 1.78 cd

1.31 ± 0.02

56.84 ± 3.48

B2

5.19 ± 0.51c

7.88 ± 0.01f.

0.51 ± 0de

88.33 ± 9.28c

33.66 ± 0.91c

19.10 ± 4.21

8.22 ± 0.07bc

19.22 ± 0.10d

1.28 ± 0.06

54.39 ± 6.76

B3

7.42 ± 0.71b

8.12 ± 0ab

0.59 ± 0c

201.67 ± 10.93ab

62.45 ± 0.21a

24.95 ± 0.78

10.76 ± 0.12a

24.89 ± 0.06b

1.16 ± 0.05

87.69 ± 9.71

B4

12.50 ± 1.21a

7.95 ± 0e

0.81 ± 0.07a

226.67 ± 10.14a

61.53 ± 0.32a

41.35 ± 4.71

10.5 ± 0.12a

24.72 ± 0.41b

0.98 ± 0.08

62.10 ± 0.28

ANOVA table (LSD protected, P ≤ 0.05)

Cultivar

< 0.0001

0.607

0.129

0.361

< 0.0001

0.433

0.626

0.001

0.923

0.001

Amendment

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

0.002

0.014

0.033

0.002

C*M

< 0.0001

< 0.0001

0.025

0.006

< 0.0001

0.344

0.004

< 0.0001

0.426

0.067

  1. CK (A1 and B1) was negative control; F (A2 and B2) was bio-fertilizer treatment; R (A3 and B3) was rotten straw treatment; RF (A4 and B4) was bio-fertilizer + rotten straw treatment. Values were represented as means ± SEs, and the different small letters within each column of cultivar (C), amendment (M) and C*M means significantly differences at 0.05 level based on ANOVA test.
Back to article page