| Literature DB >> 26217330 |
Maaike van Agtmaal1, Gera J van Os2, W H Gera Hol3, Maria P J Hundscheid1, Willemien T Runia4, Cornelis A Hordijk1, Wietse de Boer5.
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that microbial volatiles (VOCs) play an important role in natural suppression of soil-borne diseases, but little is known on the factors that influence production of suppressing VOCs. In the current study we examined whether a stress-induced change in soil microbial community composition would affect the production by soils of VOCs suppressing the plant-pathogenic oomycete Pythium. Using pyrosequencing of 16S ribosomal gene fragments we compared the composition of bacterial communities in sandy soils that had been exposed to anaerobic disinfestation (AD), a treatment used to kill harmful soil organisms, with the composition in untreated soils. Three months after the AD treatment had been finished, there was still a clear legacy effect of the former anaerobic stress on bacterial community composition with a strong increase in relative abundance of the phylum Bacteroidetes and a significant decrease of the phyla Acidobacteria, Planctomycetes, Nitrospirae, Chloroflexi, and Chlorobi. This change in bacterial community composition coincided with loss of production of Pythium suppressing soil volatiles (VOCs) and of suppression of Pythium impacts on Hyacinth root development. One year later, the composition of the bacterial community in the AD soils was reflecting that of the untreated soils. In addition, both production of Pythium-suppressing VOCs and suppression of Pythium in Hyacinth bioassays had returned to the levels of the untreated soil. GC/MS analysis identified several VOCs, among which compounds known to be antifungal, that were produced in the untreated soils but not in the AD soils. These compounds were again produced 15 months after the AD treatment. Our data indicate that soils exposed to a drastic stress can temporarily lose pathogen suppressive characteristics and that both loss and return of these suppressive characteristics coincides with shifts in the soil bacterial community composition. Our data are supporting the suggested importance of microbial VOCs in the natural buffer of soils against diseases caused by soil-borne pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: Fungistasis; General disease suppression; Oomycetes; Pythium intermedium; Soil-borne plant pathogens; volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Year: 2015 PMID: 26217330 PMCID: PMC4498103 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Overview of soil treatments, soil properties, application-, and sampling dates.
| U | Untreated | 1.2% pH 7.0 | – | 4 | Nov. 2011, 2012 |
| P | Peat | 3.0% pH 7.1 | May 2010 | 4 | Nov. 2011, 2012 |
| AD | Disinfested | 1.2% pH 6.9 | Aug. 2011 | 4 | Nov. 2011, 2012 |
| ADP | Disinfested + Peat | 3.0% pH 7.0 | Aug. 2011, May 2010 | 4 | Nov. 2011, 2012 |
Figure 1Root biomass of Hyacinth bulbs in soils with and without addition of . (A,B) Average weight of roots extending from Hyacinth bulbs grown in differently managed soils (U, untreated; P, peat addition; AD, anaerobic disinfestation) with and without Pythium addition. (C,D) Average hyphal weight of P. intermedium hyphae that had been exposed to volatiles produced by differently managed soils. Pythium biomass is presented as percentage of the empty plate control. (E,F), control experiments: (E), Bulb root weight in pasteurized soils with and without addition of P. intermedium; (F), Average hyphal weight of empty plates, gamma irradiated soil and the untreated soil in 2012. Significant results of main treatment effects and interactions are presented in Table 2, marked in bold. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Figure 2Differences in Pythium hyphal density upon volatile exposure sterilized soil (control) and untreated and disinfested soil in 2011. (B) Detailed pictures taken from agar plates after volatile exposure. (C) Results of Hyacinth bioassays in soil from differently managed fields without (−) and with (+) Pythium intermedium addition. U, untreated; P, peat addition; AD, anaerobic disinfestation.
Analysis of variance for root biomass and disease indexes of hyacinth bulbs in the soil bioassays and hyphal biomass in the volatile exposure assays.
| Anaerobic soil disinfestation | 1 | 26.24 | 1 | 22.77 | ||
| Peat addition | 1 | 8.23 | 1 | 57.63 | ||
| 1 | 21.64 | 1 | 107.4 | |||
| Disinfestation: peat amendment | 1 | 0.18 | 0.68 | 1 | 3.92 | 0.06 |
| Disinfestation: | 1 | 5.19 | 1 | 1.60 | 0.22 | |
| Peat amendment: | 1 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1 | 0.18 | 0.68 |
| Disinfestation: peat: | 1 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 1 | 2.42 | 0.13 |
| Anaerobic soil disinfestation | 1 | 85 | 1 | 0.58 | 0.45 | |
| Peat addition | 1 | 4 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.43 | 0.52 |
| Disinfestation: peat amendment | 1 | 3 | 0.11 | 1 | 1.17 | 0.29 |
| Anaerobic soil disinfestation | 1 | 54.62 | 1 | 2.74 | 0.11 | |
| Peat addition | 1 | 4.52 | 1 | 17.38 | ||
| 1 | 5.81 | 1 | 125.09 | |||
| Disinfestation: peat amendment | 1 | 5.07 | 1 | 1.27 | 0.27 | |
| Disinfestation: | 1 | 5.51 | 1 | 1.93 | 0.18 | |
| Peat amendment: | 1 | 0.20 | 0.66 | 1 | 6.00 | |
| Disinfestation: peat: | 1 | 0.91 | 0.35 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.65 |
Bold numbers indicate significant main effects and significant interactions. Df, degrees of freedom; F, F-value; p, p-value. This table supplies the results of statistical analysis of the data shown in .
Volatile organic compounds of which the production appeared to be negatively affected by the anaerobic disinfestation treatment in 2011.
| 2-hexanone | − | + | − | − | + | − | + | + |
| 2-tetradecanone | + | − | − | − | − | + | − | + |
| 2,5-hexanedione | − | + | − | − | + | − | + | − |
| 1-octen-3-one | + | + | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| 1-butoxy-2-propanol | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| 2-butoxyethanol | − | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| hexadecane | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| 1-nonanol | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | − |
| nonylcyclohexane | − | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| heptanoic acid | − | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| unknown 1692a | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| unknown 1743a | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + |
Bold compounds have been previously identified as potential fungus suppressing compounds. Chemical names are according IUPAC.
Unknown 1692a Lri: 1692; EI: 88 (100), 121 (75), 174 (10).
Unknown 1743a Lri: 1743; EI: 104(100), 78(11), 208(3).
Zou et al. (.
Chen et al. (.
Weisskopf (.
Fernando et al. (.
Figure 3OTU richness and average relative abundance of selected bacterial phyla. (A) average number of OTUs in differently managed soil (n = 3, error bars represent stdev, U, untreated; P, peat addition; AD, disinfestation), (B) relative abundance (C–H), average relative abundance of phyla that differ significantly between the disinfested soils in 2011 (AD and ADP) and all other treatments in 2011 and 2012.