| Literature DB >> 29734390 |
Bryony E A Dignam1,2, Maureen O'Callaghan1,2, Leo M Condron1, George A Kowalchuk3, Joy D Van Nostrand4, Jizhong Zhou4,5,6, Steven A Wakelin1,2,7.
Abstract
Cropping soils vary in extent of natural suppression of soil-borne plant diseases. However, it is unknown whether similar variation occurs across pastoral agricultural systems. We examined soil microbial community properties known to be associated with disease suppression across 50 pastoral fields varying in management intensity. The composition and abundance of the disease-suppressive community were assessed from both taxonomic and functional perspectives. Pseudomonas bacteria were selected as a general taxonomic indicator of disease suppressive potential, while genes associated with the biosynthesis of a suite of secondary metabolites provided functional markers (GeoChip 5.0 microarray analysis). The composition of both the Pseudomonas communities and disease suppressive functional genes were responsive to land use. Underlying soil properties explained 37% of the variation in Pseudomonas community structure and up to 61% of the variation in the abundance of disease suppressive functional genes. Notably, measures of soil organic matter quality, C:P ratio, and aromaticity of the dissolved organic matter content (carbon recalcitrance), influenced both the taxonomic and functional disease suppressive potential of the pasture soils. Our results suggest that key components of the soil microbial community may be managed on-farm to enhance disease suppression and plant productivity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29734390 PMCID: PMC5937765 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Influence of soil type and land use on microbial community structure: metric MDS ordination plots of mean total bacterial (A and B) and The structures of the total bacterial and Pseudomonas communities were assessed based on the relative abundance of terminal restriction fragments (TRFs) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) banding patterns, respectively. Mean communities (individual points) for each land use and soil type were derived from 150 bootstrap averages. For land uses and soil types with sufficient replication, 95% region estimates for the mean communities (clouds) represent the spread of the bootstrap averages. Points and/or 95% region estimates in closer proximity represent groups that share increasing similarity in microbial community structure. Observations are statistically supported by PERMANOVA testing of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity data (S4 Table). Underlying OTU data for T-RFLP and DGGE analysis is available in S5 and S6 Tables, respectively.
Fig 2Influence of land use and soil type on (A) the abundance of the total bacterial community and (B) the relative abundance of the The size of the total bacterial and Pseudomonas communities were determined by quantitative PCR. The effects of land use and soil type were formally tested by REML analysis (Genstat). Samples were characterized by land use as either high intensity ‘dairy’ systems or ‘other’, relatively lower intensity pasture systems, e.g. sheep and beef grazing systems.
Fig 3Network plots of disease suppressive functional gene abundance in (A) dairy (high intensity) and (B) other (low intensity) pasture soil. Nodes represent each individual gene, rather than gene categories, with a putative role in disease suppression. Edges (blue lines) correspond to associations between genes; bold lines reflect Pearson correlations ≥ 0.9, and fine lines correlations between 0.8 and 0.9. Sid_fun, Sid_arc and Sid_bac represent fungal, archaeal and bacterial siderophore production genes, respectively. (C) Measures of average connectivity and density were higher for other (low intensity) systems than for dairy (high intensity) systems.
Edaphic and environmental properties influencing microbial community structure.
| BIOENV Analysis | Bacteria | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman rank correlation (ρ | 26% | 37.1% | ||
| P | 0.542 | 0.059 | ||
| Sodium | 22% | 0.03 | ||
| C:P Ratio | 15% | 0.028 | ||
| pH | 10% | 0.083 | ||
| Rainfall | 9% | 0.122 | ||
aBIOENV analysis was used to find the highest rank correlation between the bacteria (TRFLP) or Pseudomonas (DGGE) community assemblage data and the associated soil and environmental variables. Spearman rank correlations (ρ) indicate percentage variation accounted for by the selected variables. ρa was optimized for four edaphic and environmental variables.
bP values were derived from permutation testing (× 999).
cFor Pseudomonas the correlation was significant and these variables are listed in order of decreasing individual correlations (ρb; RELATE-test).
Edaphic and environmental properties influencing microbial community abundance.
| Bacteria abundance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance of regression (P) | <0.001 | 0.007 | ||||
| R2 | 51.8% | 30.3% | ||||
| Regression model terms | P | Slope | P | Slope | ||
| Soil temperature | <0.001 | 0.085 | DOC Aromatic Content | 0.003 | 0.082 | |
| Sodium | 0.002 | -0.142 | Volume weight | 0.129 | 0.199 | |
| Potassium | <0.001 | 0.064 | Potassium | 0.119 | 0.136 | |
| Iron | 0.045 | 0.061 | Rainfall | 0.16 | 0.132 | |
| Sulphate sulphur | 0.067 | 0.050 | Total Calcium | 0.155 | 0.100 | |
aStep-wise regression analysis selected the five variables that collectively explained the most variation in the community abundance (qPCR). Terms of the regression model are listed in the order they were added to the model.
bP values were derived from accumulated analysis of variance.
cSlopes of individual regressions describe the relationship between abundance and variables in the regression model.
Volume weight is an indicator of soil bulk density.
Influence of soil type, land use and abiotic properties on the composition of disease suppressive genes.
| All Genes | Carbon Degradation | Nutrient Competition | Secondary Metabolism | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil Type | 1.56 | 0.315 | 1.78 | 0.274 | 0.29 | 0.43 | 0.78 | 0.395 |
| Land Use | 4.25 | 4.48 | 3.57 | 3.52 | ||||
| Soil Type x Land Use | 3.56 | 3.75 | 0.113 | 3.59 | 2.67 | 0.137 | ||
| Residual | 7.91 | 8.23 | 7.51 | 6.7 | ||||
| Spearman Rank Correlation (ρ) | 0.202 | 0.203 | 0.206 | 0.194 | ||||
| P | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.83 | ||||
aPERMANOVA tested for effects of soil type and land use (‘dairy’ or ‘other’) on functional gene composition.
bBIOENV analysis was used to identify soil and environmental variables accounting for the variation (ρ) in functional gene composition.
c√CV is the square-root of the component of variation (Anderson et al. 2008),[43], which provides a measure of the size of effect for each component in the analysis.
dP values for both analyses were derived from permutation testing (x999; PERMANOVA and BIOENV, PRIMER).
The variation in disease suppressive gene abundance accounted for by a reduced linear model.
| Disease suppressive genes | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD | NC | ||||||||||||
| Total bacteria | 0.030 | 0.014 | 0.017 | 0.042 | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.032 | 0.050 | 0.042 | 0.068 | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Total carbon | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.010 | 0.005 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Extractable aluminium | -0.013 | -0.003 | -0.005 | -0.018 | -0.008 | -0.011 | -0.007 | -0.013 | -0.021 | -0.016 | -0.023 | -0.011 | -0.015 |
| DOC aromatic content | -0.012 | -0.007 | -0.006 | -0.011 | -0.008 | -0.008 | -0.004 | -0.012 | -0.017 | -0.014 | -0.025 | -0.015 | -0.014 |
| Soil moisture | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.011 | 0.021 | 0.013 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
aThe reduced linear model was derived from the five biotic and abiotic variables that most commonly occurred in step-wise regression models generated for the abundance of 13 individual genes or gene categories. The reduced model was fitted by generalized linear model regression analysis. Numbers associated with each variable and functional gene/gene category are the slopes of individual regressions and describe the relationship between a particular variable and the abundance of that gene.
bCarbon degradation (CD).
cNutrient competition (NC).
dTotal carbon is representative of total carbon, organic matter content, total nitrogen and total sulphur (see materials and methods)