| Literature DB >> 28198425 |
Márcio F A Leite1,2, Yao Pan1, Jaap Bloem3, Hein Ten Berge4, Eiko E Kuramae1.
Abstract
Use of organic amendments is a valuable strategy for crop production. However, it remains unclear how organic amendments shape both soil microbial community structure and activity, and how these changes impact nutrient mineralization rates. We evaluated the effect of various organic amendments, which range in Carbon/Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28198425 PMCID: PMC5309777 DOI: 10.1038/srep42634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal communities (Hellinger-transformed data) together with the microbial biomass and microbial activity, according to the (a) organic amendment (Control, Manure, Lucerne, Corn and Straw) and (b) time (32, 69 and 132 days) with (c) Hierarchy of Multiple Factor Analysis considering the clusters (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6) of corresponding variables and the amount of inertia gained in the clustering cut-off.
Figure 2Percentage of inertia for each of the first 10 dimensions from the Multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal communities (Hellinger-transformed data) together with microbial biomass and activity, according to the group of variables (a) (T: treatments – N source x Time; B: bacterial community; F: classified fungal community; unF: unclassified fungal community; Ac: variables of microbial biomass and active community) and (b) the percentage of total inertia related to each dimension.
Figure 3Multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal community (Hellinger-transformed data) together with the microbial biomass and activity and C and N mineralization rate, according to the (a) organic amendment (Control, Manure, Lucerne, Corn and Straw) and (b) time (Nov and Jan) and (c) Hierarchy Clustering from the Multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal community Hellinger-transformed data sets together with the microbial biomass and activity and C and N mineralization rate and the amount of inertia gained in the clustering cut-off. C1: cluster 1, C2: cluster 2, C3: cluster 3.
Figure 4Percentage of inertia for each of the first 10 dimensions from the Multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal community (Hellinger-transformed data) together with the microbial biomass and activity and C and N mineralization rate, according to the group of variables (a) (T: treatments – N source x Time; B: bacteria community; F: classified fungal community; unF: unclassified fungi community; Ac: variables of active community and microbial biomass; Min: carbon and nitrogen mineralization rate) and (b) the percentage of total inertia related to each dimension.
Variables relevant to the hierarchical clustering from the multiple factor analysis of the bacterial and fungal community Hellinger-transformed data sets together with the microbial biomass and activity and C and N mineralization rates.
| Variables | V test value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 (Straw) | Cluster 2 (Manure and Control) | Cluster 3 (Lucerne and Maize) | |
| Fungal biomass (μg C/g dry soil) | 4.75 | −2.9 | |
| Potential C mineralization (mg C/kg.week) | 4.57 | −3.57 | |
| Potential C mineralization based on O2 consumption (mg C/kg.wk) | 4.56 | −3.70 | |
| Fungi biomass/Leucine incorporation | 4.48 | ||
| Fungi/Bacteria (C/C) | 4.17 | ||
| Unclassified (Hypocreomycetidea) | 3.48 | ||
| Bacteroidetes | 2.98 | −2.90 | |
| 2.87 | |||
| Leucine incorporation (pmol/g.h) | 2.78 | −3.53 | |
| Actinobacteria | 2.44 | −3.76 | |
| 2.44 | |||
| Acidobacteria Gp4 | −2.44 | 3.52 | |
| Acidobacteria Gp1 | −2.53 | 4.56 | −2.49 |
| Nitrospira | −2.76 | ||
| Acidobacteria Gp2 | −2.77 | 3.00 | |
| N mineralization/mineralizable N | −3.35 | ||
| Betaproteobacteria | −3.61 | ||
| Potential N mineralization (mg N/kg.wk) | −3.90 | 2.83 | |
| Unclassified (Pezizomycotina) | −2.88 | 3.47 | |
| Deltaproteobacteria | −3.13 | 2.68 | |
| Verrucomicrobiae | −2.06 | 2.59 | |
| Unclassified (Sordariomycetes) | −2.57 | ||
| Spartobacteria | 3.61 | ||
| Acidobacteria Gp7 | 3.45 | ||
| Bacilli | −2.77 | ||
| Unclassified (Hypocreales) | −2.86 | ||
| Gammaproteobacteria | −2.97 | ||
Sources of N applied in the study.
| Treatment | Fertiliser N (g N /pot) | Organic product | C/N ratio | Organic product (g/pot) | N in organic product (g N/pot) | Total N input (g N/pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DControl | 0.98 | none | — | 0 | — | 0.98 |
| Control | 1.96 | none | — | 0 | — | 1.96 |
| Manure | 0.98 | Cattle manure | 19.1 | 193 | 0.98 | 1.96 |
| Straw | 0.98 | Wheat straw | 133.4 | 278 | 0.98 | 1.96 |
| Lucerne | 0.98 | Alfalfa silage | 11.8 | 113 | 0.98 | 1.96 |
| Maize | 0.98 | Maize silage | 42.9 | 216 | 0.98 | 1.96 |