枯草芽孢杆菌和哈茨木霉菌对水稻稻米品质的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.02.025

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

生物菌剂是一种新型肥料，能够促进植物根系的生长发育，对改善作物养分吸收和产量形成有重要影响，然而其对水稻稻米品质的影响仍不清楚。本研究以常规粳稻品种南粳9108和淮稻5号为试验材料，在大田栽培条件下研究施用枯草芽孢杆菌（Bacillus subtilis，BS）和哈茨木霉菌（Trichoderma harzianum，TH）2种生物菌剂处理对水稻稻米品质的影响。结果表明，与不施用生物菌剂处理（CK）相比，施用2种菌剂对稻米的加工品质影响不显著，但BS处理使南粳9108和淮稻5号的垩白粒率分别降低了5.5%~5.7%和6.3%~7.2%，垩白度略有降低，而TH处理则使垩白粒率分别显著降低了7.7%~12.0%和9.3%~11.1%，垩白度分别显著降低了10.3%~ 10.6%和12.4%~12.5%。在2年试验中，BS处理不同程度降低了2个水稻品种的食味值，TH处理不同程度增加了稻米食味值，其中在2022年达到显著水平。此外，施用菌剂后，2个品种稻米直链淀粉含量降低，胶稠度和蛋白质含量增加，米粉的峰值黏度和崩解值提高，消解值下降。综上，施用枯草芽孢杆菌和哈茨木霉菌菌剂有助于改善稻米的外观品质和营养品质，同时哈茨木霉菌还有助于改善稻米的食味值。

关键词: 水稻, 生物菌剂, 稻米品质, RVA谱, 蛋白质含量

Abstract:

Microbial agents are a novel type of fertilizer that can promote the growth and development of plant roots, and they have an important impact on improving nutrient absorption and yield formation in crops. However, their effects on rice grain quality remain unclear. This study used two conventional japonica rice varieties, Nanjing 9108 and Huaidao 5, as experimental materials to investigate the effects of two microbial agents of Bacillus subtilis (BS) and Trichoderma harzianum (TH) on rice grain quality under field cultivation conditions. The results showed that compared with the treatment without microbial agent (CK), the application of the BS and TH had no significant effect on the processing quality of rice. However, the BS treatment reduced the chalkiness rate by 5.5%-5.7% in Nanjing 9108 and 6.3%-7.2% in Huaidao 5, with a slightly decrease in chalkiness degree. The TH treatment significantly reduced the chalkiness rate by 7.7%-12.0% in Nanjing 9108 and 9.3%-11.1% in Huaidao 5, while the chalkiness degree decreased significantly by 10.3%-10.6% and 12.4%-12.5%, respectively. In a two-year experiment, the BS treatment decreased the taste value of two varieties to varying degrees, while the TH treatment increased it, reaching a significant level in 2022. Additionally, after microbial agent application, the amylose content of the rice decreased, while gel consistency and protein content increased. The peak viscosity and breakdown value of rice flour increased, whereas the setback value decreased. In conclusion, the application of B. subtilis and T. harzianum microbial agents contributed to improving the appearance and nutritional quality of rice. Furthermore, T. harzianum also enhanced the taste value of rice.

Key words: Rice, Microbial agents, Rice grain quality, RVA profile, Protein content

王金玲, 潘越, 李思宇, 沈炘垭, 刘立军. 枯草芽孢杆菌和哈茨木霉菌对水稻稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026 (2): 202–208

Wang Jinling, Pan Yue, Li Siyu, Shen Xinya, Liu Lijun. The Effects of Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum on Rice Grain Quality[J]. Crops, 2026(2): 202–208

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

表2

图3

表3

参考文献 41

[1]	Alam M, Lou G, Abbas W, et al. Improving rice grain quality through ecotype breeding for enhancing food and nutritional security in Asia-Pacific region. Rice, 2024, 17(1):1-21. doi: 10.1186/s12284-023-00678-5
[2]	Wu J J, Jin L, Wang N, et al. Effects of combined application of chemical fertilizer and biochar on soil physio-biochemical properties and maize yield. Agriculture, 2023, 13:1200. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13061200
[3]	张洪程, 胡雅杰, 杨建昌, 等. 中国特色水稻栽培学发展与展望. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 54(7):1301-1321.
[4]	朱利群, 王珏, 王春杰, 等. 有机肥和化肥配施技术农户采纳意愿影响因素分析——基于苏、浙、皖三省农户调查. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018, 27(3):671-679.
[5]	Ju X T, Xing G X, Chen X P, et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, 106(9):3041-3046.
[6]	张卫信, 申智锋, 邵元虎, 等. 土壤生物与可持续农业研究进展. 生态学报, 2020, 40(10):3183-3206.
[7]	Deng Z H, Wang J W, Yan Y R, et al. Biochar-based Bacillus subtilis inoculants promote plant growth: Regulating microbial community to improve soil properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 2025, 373(7):1235-1241.
[8]	Wen Y F, Ma Y M, Wu Z N, et al. Enhancing rice ecological production: synergistic effects of wheat-straw decomposition and microbial agents on soil health and yield. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2024, 15(21):812-820.
[9]	宋琪, 周杨, 朱红惠, 等. 微生物肥料研究领域发展现状与趋势. 应用与环境生物学报, 2023, 29(3):783-792.
[10]	Wu A L, Jiao X Y, Fan F F, et al. Effect of continuous sorghum cropping on the rhizosphere microbial community and the role of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in altering the microbial composition. Plant Growth Regulation, 2019, 89(3):299-308. doi: 10.1007/s10725-019-00533-y
[11]	胡淑娟. 微生物肥料的研究现状与发展趋势分析. 中国标准化, 2018(22):234-235.
[12]	Mahapatra S, Yadav R, Ramakrishna W. Bacillus subtilis impact on plant growth, soil health and environment: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2022, 132(5):3543-3562.
[13]	张娜, 朱艳, 肖娴, 等. 沼泽红假单胞菌与枯草芽孢杆菌混施对水稻根域细菌多样性与功能的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2022, 28(1):58-71.
[14]	徐洪宇, 孙兴权, 张强, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌有机肥对土壤条件及烤烟产质量的影响. 湖南农业科学, 2017(7):55-58,64.
[15]	Vanama S, Pesari M, Rajendran G, et al. Correlation of the effect of native bioagents on soil properties and their influence on stem rot disease of rice. Sustainability, 2023, 15:11768. doi: 10.3390/su151511768
[16]	Zhang Y, Yang J S, Luo L J, et al. Low-cost cellulase- hemicellulase mixture secreted by Trichoderma harzianum EM0925 with complete saccharification efficacy of lignocellulose. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2020, 21(2):371. doi: 10.3390/ijms21020371
[17]	Li C M, Tan Y, Liu C Y, et al. A study on the changes in rice composition under reduced fertilization conditions using Raman spectroscopy technology. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14(1):27030. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-77492-6
[18]	Thanwisai L, Siripornadulsil W, Siripornadulsil S. Kosakonia oryziphila NP19 bacterium acts as a plant growth promoter and biopesticide to suppress blast disease in KDML105 rice. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14(1):17944. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68097-0 pmid: 39095388
[19]	张靖洁. 微藻生物肥改善土壤肥力及根际菌群和提高小油菜产量品质效应的研究. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2020.
[20]	Yang L Y, Zhou S Y D, Lin C S, et al. Effects of biofertilizer on soil microbial diversity and antibiotic resistance genes. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 820:153170. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153170
[21]	屈成, 刘芬, 傅爱斌, 等. 生物菌肥与化肥配施对水稻生长特性及产量的影响. 杂交水稻, 2023, 38(4):134-139.
[22]	全国粮油标准化技术委员会. 优质稻谷:GB/T17891-2017. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017.
[23]	全国粮油标准化技术委员会. 粮油检验大米胶稠度的测定:GB/T22294-2008. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
[24]	周婵婵, 陈海强, 王术, 等. 氮肥运筹和移栽密度对水稻产量和品质形成的影响. 中国稻米, 2019, 25(5):42-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2019.05.009
[25]	Chen Y, Guo W, Ngo H H, et al. Ways to mitigate greenhouse gas production from rice cultivation. Journal of Environmental Management, 2024, 368:1752-1761.
[26]	田慧敏, 郭成, 袁树先, 等. 微生物菌剂在番茄上的应用效果比较研究. 赤峰学院学报(自然科学版), 2021, 37(1):25-28.
[27]	汪坤, 魏跃伟, 姬小明, 等. 生物炭基肥与哈茨木霉菌剂配施对烤烟和植烟土壤质量的影响. 作物杂志, 2021(3):106-113.
[28]	赵璐, 刘胜, 胡同乐, 等. 复合微生物菌剂对苹果再植病害的生防效果测定及拮抗菌株鉴定. 植物保护学报, 2019, 46(1):8.
[29]	Xiong W, Guo S, Jousset A, et al. Bio-fertilizer application induces soil suppressiveness against Fusarium wilt disease by reshaping the soil microbiome. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 114:238-247. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.07.016
[30]	杨再强, 李伶俐, 殷剑敏, 等. 灌浆初期不同时长高温胁迫对早稻叶片光合和荧光参数的影响. 中国农业气象, 2014, 35(1):80-84.
[31]	高捷. 有机肥、生物菌剂与化学氮肥配施对水稻产量和品质的影响及其机理. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2023.
[32]	Chen Z J, Zhang P, Wang B, et al. Harnessing the role of rhizo-bacteria to mitigate salinity stress in rice (Orzya sativa); Focus on antioxidant defense system, photosynthesis response, and rhizosphere microbial diversity. Rhizosphere, 2025, 101043:2452-2198.
[33]	韦还和, 张翔, 朱旺, 等. 盐胁迫对水稻籽粒灌浆特性及产量形成的影响. 作物学报, 2024, 50(3):734-746. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2024.32021
[34]	程新杰, 施伟, 张梦龙, 等. 水稻垩白形成机制的研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(2):1-7. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0104
[35]	杨建昌, 王国忠, 王志琴, 等. 旱种水稻灌浆特性与灌浆期籽粒中激素含量的变化. 作物学报, 2002, 28(5):615-621.
[36]	鲁杰, 刘宝忠, 周传远, 等. 生物有机菌肥对水稻产量及稻米品质的影响. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(6):146-150.
[37]	陈梦云, 李晓峰, 程金秋, 等. 秸秆全量还田与氮肥运筹对机插优质食味水稻产量及品质的影响. 作物学报, 2017, 43(12):1802-1816. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.01802
[38]	黄涛, 吴良欢, 贾惠娟, 等. 应用酵素菌肥的有机和传统栽培稻米品质比较研究. 中国稻米, 2009(5):19-21.
[39]	王鹏, 吴云艳. 生物菌肥对丹东地区水稻产量性状和品质的影响. 中国稻米, 2019, 25(2):86-88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2019.02.021
[40]	尹丹, 朱忆雯, 胡敏, 等. 水稻根际微生物及其驱动的土壤碳氮磷循环. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2024, 30(11):2207-2220.
[41]	周舟, 沈炘垭, 王俊, 等. 控释肥与普通尿素组合对水稻产量、氮肥利用率和米质的影响. 作物杂志, 2024(4):180-187.

相关文章 15

[1]	陆楚盛, 赖嘉俊, 唐偲, 梁开明, 覃元钰, 钟旭华, 潘俊峰, 刘彦卓, 胡香玉, 胡锐, 李妹娟, 王昕钰, 尹媛红, 叶群欢, 沈宏, 傅友强. 铵、硝营养条件下不同酸碱度对水稻苗期生长和养分吸收的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 90–97
[2]	孙茹梦, 张男, 殷佳, 汝艳, 景文疆, 张耗. 水稻根系分泌物对干旱胁迫的响应研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (1): 1–8
[3]	刘晴, 孙露宏, 高世伟, 刘宇强, 常汇琳, 马成, 王婧泽, 王翠玲, 聂守军. 水稻叶片的生理性状和形态特征受铬胁迫的影响研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (1): 143–151
[4]	闸雯俊, 李行润, 周发松, 冯芳, 吴边, 陈俊孝, 石少阶, 周雷, 王静, 游艾青. 水稻光温敏不育系19XS的选育及其特性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (1): 9–14
[5]	陈雷, 唐茂艳, 张战营, 钟晓媛, 高国庆, 张晓丽, 梁天锋, 潘英华. 花期高温胁迫下水稻种质资源的外观品质分析与评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (6): 132–139
[6]	孙强, 阮辛森, 周志豪, 孙会娟, 徐冉, 凌冬, 赵翠荣. 不同类型水稻品种表型性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (6): 28–36
[7]	滕文, 叶凡, 周舟, 王屿乐, 刘立军. 小麦和油菜秸秆还田处理对盐胁迫下水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (5): 11–18
[8]	植藓闳, 纪子贤, 许镇旺, 谭恩, 梁日深, 马帅鹏, 唐辉武. 水稻CYP450家族基因Os78A5的表达分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (5): 135–141
[9]	彭彬峰, 陆楚盛, 尹媛红, 朱菲菲, 叶群欢, 潘俊峰, 刘彦卓, 胡香玉, 胡锐, 李妹娟, 王昕钰, 梁开明, 傅友强. 高温胁迫下铵硝混配营养促进水稻生长的生理机制[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (5): 165–170
[10]	都晗萌, 陈雨琼, 刘若彤, 陈英龙, 戴其根, 张洪程, 廖萍. 盐胁迫下喷施矮壮素和施用石膏对水稻产量及倒伏特性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (5): 29–34
[11]	杨林生, 习敏, 涂德宝, 李忠, 周永进, 许有尊, 孙雪原, 吴文革. 长江三角洲地区主要类型水稻生产资源投入及碳、氮足迹评估[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 150–156
[12]	邓洲, 龚晨旭, 何宇轩, 曾勇军, 黄山. 石灰与猪粪配施对双季优质稻稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 181–187
[13]	陶祖豪, 王慰亲, 郑华斌, 向军, 唐启源. 水肥及化控对晚稻有序机抛秧秧苗素质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 224–230
[14]	赫兵, 王晓航, 李超, 罗立强, 张强, 韩康顺, 陈殿元, 严光彬, 刘振蛟. 1987-2022年吉林省水稻审定品种数据分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 16–22
[15]	曹正男, 赵振东, 胡博, 于涵, 宁晓海, 赵泽强, 曹立勇. 氮肥与促腐菌肥配施对寒地水稻秸秆还田腐解效果及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 172–177

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

年份 Year	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	糙米率 Brown rice rate	精米率 Milled rice rate	整精米率 Head milled rice rate	垩白粒率 Chalkiness rate	垩白度 Chalkiness degree
2022	南粳9108	CK	84.0±1.1a	73.4±1.2a	69.6±0.6a	9.0±0.1a	7.2±0.2a
		BS	83.8±0.1a	74.3±0.7a	69.8±1.9a	8.9±0.0b	7.0±0.1a
		TH	84.3±1.2a	75.1±0.6a	71.4±0.5a	8.3±0.1c	6.4±0.2b
	淮稻5号	CK	83.7±0.7a	73.1±0.7a	69.9±0.4a	9.0±0.1a	7.1±0.1a
		BS	84.4±0.7a	72.8±0.8a	69.1±1.3a	8.3±0.0b	6.9±0.3a
		TH	83.9±0.3a	73.4±0.2a	70.1±0.8a	8.2±0.2b	6.0±0.2b
2023	南粳9108	CK	83.5±1.3a	74.3±0.4b	69.6±0.8b	9.2±0.1a	7.1±0.0a
		BS	84.8±0.5a	75.1±0.5a	70.0±0.8ab	8.7±0.1b	6.5±0.3b
		TH	84.9±0.7a	75.9±0.3a	71.0±0.4a	8.5±0.1c	6.3±0.1b
	淮稻5号	CK	84.4±0.9a	73.9±0.4a	70.2±0.3a	8.6±0.1a	6.7±0.3a
		BS	83.8±0.3a	72.5±1.2a	69.3±1.2a	8.0±0.0b	6.1±0.3b
		TH	85.0±1.1a	73.3±0.3a	69.9±0.1a	7.6±0.1c	5.9±0.2b

年份 Year	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	外观 Appearance	硬度 Hardness	黏度 Viscosity	平衡值 Balance degree	食味值 Taste value
2022	南粳9108	CK	6.02±0.03c	6.95±0.24a	6.10±0.10c	6.09±0.18b	67.20±1.05b
		BS	6.76±0.13a	6.54±0.07b	6.59±0.04b	6.21±0.12b	63.00±2.33c
		TH	6.43±0.08b	6.66±0.09ab	7.46±0.13a	6.64±0.07a	70.70±1.87a
	淮稻5号	CK	5.25±0.10c	7.63±0.11a	5.17±0.09a	5.18±0.04b	60.90±1.24b
		BS	5.88±0.05a	7.37±0.02b	5.28±0.07a	5.47±0.08a	54.90±3.36c
		TH	5.62±0.17b	7.53±0.08a	5.31±0.10a	5.29±0.12b	64.30±1.88a
2023	南粳9108	CK	5.71±0.04b	7.13±0.07a	4.67±0.24b	4.97±0.17c	62.10±3.21ab
		BS	6.29±0.21a	6.94±0.11b	5.38±0.06a	5.26±0.05b	61.10±0.38b
		TH	6.49±0.09a	6.62±0.18c	5.63±0.24a	5.60±0.17a	63.10±1.03a
	淮稻5号	CK	4.47±0.19b	7.60±0.13a	4.66±0.13b	4.41±0.18c	59.10±1.29ab
		BS	5.63±0.05a	7.36±0.13a	5.33±0.04a	5.04±0.09b	58.30±0.71b
		TH	5.77±0.02a	7.12±0.06b	5.43±0.06a	5.41±0.07a	60.90±1.73a

年份 Year	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	峰值黏度 Peak viscosity (cP)	热浆黏度 Hot viscosity (cP)	崩解值 Breakdown value (cP)	最终黏度 Final viscosity (cP)	消解值 Setback value (cP)	峰值时间 Peak time (min)	糊化温度 Pasting temperature (℃)
2022	南粳9108	CK	2166.0±32.2b	1655.0±20.1c	510.0±11.1c	2099.0±73.0b	-62.0±11.0a	6.5±0.2ab	74.9±0.3a
		BS	2433.0±34.0a	1760.0±25.7a	724.0±17.6a	2268.0±22.3a	-134.0±12.0c	6.4±0.1b	74.2±0.3a
		TH	2397.0±27.1a	1708.0±15.3b	690.0±10.5b	2290.0±31.7a	-110.0±9.0b	6.6±0.2a	74.4±0.6a
	淮稻5号	CK	2209.0±53.0c	1979.0±57.1c	234.0±10.5b	2715.0±52.7c	588.0±30.5a	6.9±0.1a	74.6±0.6a
		BS	2299.0±23.5b	2048.0±12.5b	256.0±10.0a	2829.0±14.1b	529.0±20.0b	6.8±0.1a	73.6±0.6a
		TH	2376.0±25.7a	2118.0±52.3a	261.0±11.0a	2876.0±27.0a	497.0±7.5c	6.9±0.1a	74.5±0.4a
2023	南粳9108	CK	2185.0±80.8b	1531.0±33.7c	651.0±32.5b	2110.0±76.9b	-73.0±10.5a	6.6±0.0a	75.5±0.6a
		BS	2460.0±27.9a	1649.0±22.2b	810.0±8.5a	2236.0±40.6a	-216.0±34.6b	6.3±0.1b	75.3±0.1a
		TH	2486.0±71.6a	1698.0±18.8a	829.0±22.0a	2258.0±64.6a	-222.0±19.0b	6.6±0.1a	75.6±1.3a
	淮稻5号	CK	2308.0±54.2b	1859.0±18.0c	444.0±12.6b	2620.0±80.5a	312.0±29.5a	6.8±0.1b	73.8±0.3b
		BS	2372.0±58.5ab	1899.0±12.6b	469.0±11.9ab	2629.0±106.0a	260.0±10.5b	7.0±0.2ab	75.4±1.2a
		TH	2419.0±27.6a	1951.0±22.5a	473.0±5.8a	2662.0±35.7a	241.0±6.0c	7.0±0.1a	74.7±0.4ab