| Literature DB >> 28232824 |
Fang Li1, Lin Chen2, Jiabao Zhang1, Jun Yin3, Shaomin Huang4.
Abstract
Fertilization has a large impact on the soil microbial communities, which play pivotal roles in soil biogeochemical cycling and ecological processes. While the effects of changes in nutrient availability due to fertilization on the soil microbial communities have received considerable attention, specific microbial taxa strongly influenced by long-Entities:
Keywords: co-occurrence; long-term fertilization; nutrient transformations; soil bacteria; specific taxa
Year: 2017 PMID: 28232824 PMCID: PMC5298992 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Soil biochemical properties among different fertilization regimes.
| CK | 8.11 ± 0.08a | 6.16 ± 0.45b | 0.55 ± 0.05c | 8.27 ± 0.58a | 96.70 ± 16.56bc | 1.76 ± 0.28b | 16.97 ± 3.05b | 0.90 ± 0.31b |
| NK | 8.27 ± 0.04a | 5.99 ± 0.67b | 0.61 ± 0.05bc | 18.61 ± 19.33a | 135.66 ± 7.24abc | 2.02 ± 0.21b | 20.03 ± 2.06ab | 2.22 ± 1.18b |
| NP | 8.12 ± 0.01a | 7.59 ± 0.85ab | 0.72 ± 0.03abc | 11.54 ± 2.80a | 92.83 ± 12.41c | 1.43 ± 0.41b | 20.25 ± 3.11ab | 1.75 ± 0.90b |
| LNPK | 8.18 ± 0.08a | 7.88 ± 0.46ab | 0.57 ± 0.04c | 11.33 ± 2.57a | 144.77 ± 21.95ab | 1.68 ± 1.05b | 17.01 ± 2.15b | 2.26 ± 0.88b |
| HNPK | 7.82 ± 0.34a | 8.10 ± 0.77 | 0.64 ± 0.05abc | 10.55 ± 5.38a | 114.63 ± 2.70abc | 2.02 ± 0.21b | 22.08 ± 1.31ab | 2.67 ± 0.58ab |
| MNPK | 8.08 ± 0.00a | 9.38 ± 1.03 | 0.75 ± 0.05ab | 12.29 ± 2.24 | 123.42 ± 31.26 | 3.39 ± 0.99ab | 23.94 ± 1.84a | 2.53 ± 0.86b |
| SNPK | 7.95 ± 0.27a | 9.06 ± 1.69 | 0.82 ± 0.14a | 8.44 ± 0.82a | 151.46 ± 14.17a | 4.10 ± 1.20a | 22.82 ± 0.40ab | 4.81 ± 0.25a |
Means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Significant differences between means at α = 0.05 level detected by Tukey's HSD test are labeled with different letters. SOC, soil organic C; TN, total N; AP, available P; AK, available K; PTA, phosphatase activity; UEA, urease activity; ITA, invertase activity. CK, unfertilized control; LNPK, low N and regular PK fertilizers; HNPK, high N and regular PK fertilizers; MNPK, organic manure plus NPK fertilizers; SNPK, maize straw plus NPK fertilizers.
Figure 1Stacked and unstacked histograms showing the relative abundance of (A) major bacterial phyla and dominant classes of Proteobacteria and (B) 15 most abundant bacterial families, respectively, in treatments CK (unfertilized control), NK, NP, LNPK (low rate of N, regular PK), HNPK (high rate of N, regular PK), MNPK (manure plus NPK) and SNPK (straw plus NPK). Each stripe represents the mean of three replicates. * and # mark significant differences at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Figure 2Bacterial community variation between all samples from treatments CK (unfertilized control), NK, NP, LNPK (low rate of N, regular PK), HNPK (high rate of N, regular PK), MNPK (manure plus NPK) and SNPK (straw plus NPK). (A,B) Principal coordinate analysis plots of OTU-based weighted (A) and unweighted (B) UniFrac distances between samples; (C,D) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) of weighted (C) and unweighted (D) UniFrac distances quantifying the impacts of edaphic factors on bacterial community structure. CAP was constrained to the factors pH, SOC, TN, AP, and AK while conditioning on all other factors.
Differential abundance analysis exhibiting OTUs strongly influenced by MNPK (manure plus NPK), SNPK (straw plus NPK), and HNPK (high rate of N, regular PK) treatments, respectively.
| MNPK vs. CK | Unclassified | 46 | 2.433 | <0.001 | Unclassified | 91 | −1.763 | <0.001 | ||
| 28 | 2.928 | <0.001 | 34 | −2.070 | 0.004 | |||||
| 22 | 2.755 | <0.001 | 21 | −3.079 | 0.002 | |||||
| 18 | 2.971 | <0.001 | 16 | −5.417 | <0.001 | |||||
| 18 | 5.020 | <0.001 | 16 | Unclassified | −4.012 | 0.007 | ||||
| 11 | 1.829 | <0.001 | 12 | Unclassified | −3.976 | <0.001 | ||||
| 6 | Unclassified | 4.051 | <0.001 | 10 | Unclassified | −1.573 | 0.011 | |||
| 4 | Unclassified | 2.714 | <0.001 | 10 | Unclassified | −2.411 | <0.001 | |||
| Others | 10 | Unclassified | 2.545 | <0.001 | Others | 38 | Unclassified | −2.647 | <0.001 | |
| Total | 163 | Unclassified | 5.114 | <0.001 | Total | 248 | Unclassified | −2.355 | 0.002 | |
| SNPK vs. CK | Unclassified | 42 | 2.352 | <0.001 | Unclassified | 46 | −1.754 | 0.009 | ||
| 20 | 2.720 | 0.001 | 19 | −3.369 | <0.001 | |||||
| 12 | 3.427 | <0.001 | 14 | −2.797 | <0.001 | |||||
| 10 | 3.111 | 0.004 | 9 | −4.468 | <0.001 | |||||
| 9 | 3.011 | <0.001 | 8 | −1.886 | 0.032 | |||||
| 6 | 2.447 | 0.030 | 5 | Unclassified | −6.649 | 0.002 | ||||
| 5 | 4.348 | 0.006 | 5 | Unclassified | −2.024 | 0.027 | ||||
| 2 | Unclassified | 3.691 | 0.022 | 4 | Unclassified | −2.410 | 0.002 | |||
| Others | 2 | Unclassified | 2.170 | 0.022 | Others | 16 | Unclassified | −2.588 | 0.002 | |
| Total | 108 | Unclassified | 5.266 | <0.001 | Total | 126 | Unclassified | −3.082 | 0.047 | |
| HNPK vs. CK | Unclassified | 17 | 2.200 | 0.001 | Unclassified | 55 | −1.833 | 0.001 | ||
| 14 | 2.618 | 0.001 | 11 | −1.628 | 0.002 | |||||
| 10 | 2.059 | <0.001 | 10 | −2.154 | 0.007 | |||||
| 9 | 2.590 | 0.009 | 9 | −1.782 | 0.012 | |||||
| 4 | 1.842 | 0.014 | 6 | −6.931 | <0.001 | |||||
| 4 | 1.389 | <0.001 | 5 | Unclassified | −5.330 | <0.001 | ||||
| 3 | Unclassified | 2.327 | <0.001 | 4 | Unclassified | −1.624 | 0.007 | |||
| 3 | Unclassified | 1.969 | 0.012 | 4 | Unclassified | −4.833 | 0.028 | |||
| Others | 5 | Unclassified | 2.953 | 0.006 | Others | 19 | Unclassified | −4.743 | 0.036 | |
| Total | 69 | Unclassified | 5.321 | <0.001 | Total | 123 | Unclassified | −1.489 | 0.029 | |
Figure 3Volcano plots illustrating OTUs significantly enriched (red) and depleted (blue) by long-term fertilization compared with unfertilized control as determined by differential abundance analysis. Each point represents an individual OTU, and the Y axis indicates the abundance fold change vs. unfertilized control. (A) MNPK (manure plus NPK) vs. control; (B) SNPK (straw plus NPK) vs. control; (C) HNPK (high rate of N, regular PK) vs. control; (D) LNPK (low rate of N, regular PK) vs. control;(E) NP vs. control; (F) NK vs. control.
Figure 4Network analysis revealing the associations among bacterial OTUs and soil properties. Gray solid line, blue solid line and red dash line represent strong positive linear (r > 0.8), strong negative linear (r < −0.8) and strong nonlinear (MIC-ρ2 > 0.8) relationships, respectively. Colored nodes signify corresponding OTUs assigned to major phyla and classes. Soil properties are indicated with round rectangle, and treatment with triangle. SOC, soil organic C; TN, total N; ITA, invertase activity. (A) Network co-occurrences of OTUs substantially enriched by long-term fertilization; (B,C), Subnetworks for the associations of SOC (B) and TN (C).