| Literature DB >> 27899917 |
Linkun Wu1, Jun Chen1, Hongmiao Wu1, Xianjin Qin2, Juanying Wang1, Yanhong Wu1, Muhammad U Khan1, Sheng Lin1, Zhigang Xiao1, Xiaomian Luo3, Zhongyi Zhang3, Wenxiong Lin4.
Abstract
The bi<span class="Chemical">omass and quality of Pseudostellariae <span class="Species">heterophylla suffers a significant decline under monoculture. Since rhizosphere <span class="Chemical">miobiome plays crucial roles in soil health, deep pyrosequencing combined with qPCR was applied to characterize the composition and structure of soil bacterial community under monoculture and different amendments. The results showed compared with the 1st-year planted (FP), 2nd-year monoculture of P. heterophylla (SP) led to a significant decline in yield and resulted in a significant increase in Fusarium oxysporum but a decline in Burkholderia spp. Bio-organic fertilizer (MT) formulated by combining antagonistic bacteria with organic matter could significantly promote the yield by regulating rhizosphere bacterial community. However, organic fertilizer (MO) without antagonistic bacteria could not suppress Fusarium wilt. Multivariate statistics analysis showed a distinct separation between the healthy samples (FP and MT) and the unhealthy samples (SP and MO), suggesting a strong relationship between soil microbial community and plant performance. Furthermore, we found the application of bio-organic fertilizer MT could significantly increase the bacterial community diversity and restructure microbial community with relatively fewer pathogenic F. oxysporum and more beneficial Burkholderia spp. In conclusion, the application of novel bio-organic fertilizer could effectively suppress Fusarium wilt by enriching the antagonistic bacteria and enhancing the bacterial diversity.Entities:
Keywords: Pseudostellaria heterophylla; bio-organic fertilizer; deep pyrosequencing; microbial community; replant disease
Year: 2016 PMID: 27899917 PMCID: PMC5110535 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Content of soil nutrients under five different treatments.
| Treatments | TN (g/kg) | AN (mg /kg) | TP (g/kg) | AP (mg/kg) | TK (g/kg) | AK (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 1.74a | 188.02cd | 0.14d | 26.10d | 5.42b | 99.81c |
| FP | 1.65b | 209.95b | 0.19c | 65.48c | 5.79a | 160.89b |
| SP | 1.50d | 260.74a | 0.22b | 73.02b | 5.45b | 272.43a |
| MO | 1.77a | 192.18c | 0.28a | 88.70a | 5.25b | 180.18b |
| MT | 1.59c | 183.67d | 0.20c | 65.61c | 5.44b | 181.26b |
Calculations of observed species, richness, and diversity in different soil samples.
| Treatments | Observed species | Chao1 | ACE | Shannon | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 3076.33a | 3426.07a | 3456.95a | 9.65a | 0.995a |
| FP | 2258.33b | 2547.92a | 2627.19b | 8.59b | 0.989ab |
| SP | 1974.67cd | 2267.99a | 2309.74b | 7.78c | 0.977b |
| NMF | 3106.33a | 3445.59a | 3493.11a | 9.66a | 0.994a |
| AMO | 1815.33d | 2076.57a | 2134.51b | 7.79c | 0.984ab |
| AMT | 2024.00bcd | 3151.08a | 2745.65b | 7.79c | 0.985ab |
| MO | 1847.00cd | 2133.17a | 2206.23b | 7.07d | 0.951c |
| MT | 2078.00bc | 2381.82a | 2421.88b | 8.37b | 0.989ab |
Top shared genera with 60% cumulative contribution to the dissimilarity between MO and MT, and between FP and SP.
| Genus | Family | Phylum | Contribution (%) | Relative abundance (%)§ | Spearman ρ# | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MO and MT | FP and SP | FP | SP | MO | MT | ||||
| β- | 8.64 | 4.69 | 0.00c | 0.69b | 1.61a | 0.07c | -0.600 | ||
| 4.70 | 2.98 | 1.50a | 0.79bc | 0.37c | 1.22ab | 0.600 | |||
| γ- | 3.12 | 4.22 | 0.18c | 0.88a | 0.37b | 0.89a | 0.200 | ||
| γ- | 3.04 | 3.40 | 0.75a | 0.20c | 0.18c | 0.61b | 0.600 | ||
| α- | 2.57 | 2.85 | 1.79a | 1.03b | 1.03b | 1.64a | 0.600 | ||
| β- | 2.29 | 1.44 | 0.31b | 0.12c | 0.30b | 0.64a | 1.000∗∗ | ||
| α- | 1.82 | 4.83 | 2.51a | 1.05b | 2.19a | 2.73a | 1.000∗∗ | ||
| 1.44 | 1.56 | 0.29b | 0.08c | 0.21b | 0.39a | 1.000∗∗ | |||