| Literature DB >> 30666243 |
Fengge Zhang1, Xixi Xu1, Yunqian Huo1, Yan Xiao1.
Abstract
Trichoderma spp. are proposed as major plant growth-promoting fungi (PGPF) to increase plants growth and productivity. Mowing can stimulate aboveground regrowth to improve plant biomass and nutritional quality. However, the synergistic effects of Trichoderma and mowing on plants growth, particularly the underlying microbial mechanisms mediated by rhizosphere soil chemical compounds, have rarely been reported. In the present study, we employed Trichoderma harzianum T-63 and conducted a pot experiment to investigate the synergistic effect of Trichoderma-inoculation and mowing on alfalfa growth, and the potential soil microbial ecological mechanisms were also explored. Alfalfa treated with Trichoderma-inoculation and/or mowing (T, M, and TM) had significant (P < 0.05) increases in plant shoot and root dry weights and soil available nutrients (N, P, and K), compared with those of the control (CK). Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) demonstrated that the rhizosphere chemical compounds and soil bacterial and fungal communities were, respectively, separated according to different treatments. There was a clear significant (P < 0.05) positive correlation between alfalfa biomass and the relative abundance of Trichoderma (R2 = 0.3451, P = 0.045). However, Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Agrobacterium, and Actinoplanes were not significantly correlated with alfalfa biomass. According to structure equation modeling (SEM), Trichoderma abundance and available P served as primary contributors to alfalfa growth promotion. Additionally, Trichoderma-inoculation and mowing altered rhizosphere soil chemical compounds to drive the soil microbial community, indirectly influencing alfalfa growth. Our research provides a basis for promoting alfalfa growth from a soil microbial ecology perspective and may provide a scientific foundation for guiding the farming of alfalfa.Entities:
Keywords: Pearson’s correlation; high-throughput sequencing; rhizosphere soil chemical compounds; soil microbial community; structure equation modeling
Year: 2019 PMID: 30666243 PMCID: PMC6330351 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Alfalfa biomass in different treatments. CK: no Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; T: Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; M: mowed and no Trichoderma-inoculation; TM: mowed and Trichoderma-inoculated. Bars above the histogram represent standard deviations and different letters indicate significant differences according to ANOVA test.
Soil pH and chemical properties in different treatments.
| Soil properties | Treatments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | T | M | TM | |
| pH | 8.0 ± 0.20a | 8.0 ± 0.17a | 8.1 ± 0.21a | 8.0 ± 0.06a |
| Organic matter (g/kg) | 22.3 ± 0.50a | 23.1 ± 0.72a | 23.3 ± 0.35a | 22.7 ± 1.00a |
| Total N (g/kg) | 1.6 ± 0.00a | 1.6 ± 0.06a | 1.6 ± 0.06a | 1.6 ± 0.09a |
| Total P (g/kg) | 0.7 ± 0.06a | 0.8 ± 0.06a | 0.7 ± 0.00a | 0.8 ± 0.06a |
| Total K (g/kg) | 17.4 ± 0.76a | 18.1 ± 0.44a | 17.4 ± 0.21a | 18.1 ± 0.55a |
| Available N (mg/kg) | 90.4 ± 6.13c | 118.8 ± 3.80b | 110.8 ± 6.31b | 176.9 ± 12.15a |
| Available P (mg/kg) | 14.5 ± 0.53c | 17.7 ± 0.90b | 18.8 ± 0.36b | 20.4 ± 0.90a |
| Available K (mg/kg) | 97.3 ± 5.03b | 103.1 ± 4.08ab | 97.9 ± 5.63b | 111.5 ± 10.12a |
Retention time and peak areas (%) of identified soil chemical compounds, indicating relative abundances across treatments.
| Category | ID | Retention time | Kovats index | Name | Peak areas (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | T | M | TM | |||||
| GC4 | 12.069 | 1140.74 | Hexadecane | 0.159a | 0.110ab | 0.005b | 0.196a | |
| GC8 | 12.872 | 1167.82 | Undecane, 2,6-dimethyl | 0.577ab | 0.499ab | 0.337b | 0.687a | |
| GC9 | 13.343 | 1183.71 | 9-Methyl heptadecane | 0.711a | 0.659a | 0.110b | 0.588ab | |
| GC11 | 14.593 | 1226.59 | 2,6,10-Trimethyl decane | 1.021a | 0.422b | 0.143b | 1.116a | |
| GC13 | 14.997 | 1240.59 | N-Hentriacontane | 0.040b | 0.235ab | 0.370a | 0.000b | |
| GC17 | 15.88 | 1271.20 | 9-Methyl heptadecane | 0.773ab | 0.628ab | 0.362b | 0.834a | |
| GC26 | 17.941 | 1346.17 | N-Hentriacontane | 0.395ab | 0.107b | 0.488a | 0.566a | |
| GC29 | 18.449 | 1365.24 | 9-Methyl heptadecane | 0.537a | 0.115ab | 0.000b | 0.382ab | |
| GC36 | 19.725 | 1414.38 | Heptadecane | 1.155a | 0.350ab | 0.245b | 0.998ab | |
| GC45 | 21.22 | 1470.74 | Heptadecane,2,6,10,14-tetramethyl | 0.402b | 0.665ab | 0.961a | 0.696ab | |
| GC47 | 21.473 | 1480.44 | Tetradecane, 3-methyl | 0.520ab | 0.245b | 0.607a | 0.288ab | |
| GC52 | 23.034 | 1544.93 | Tetratetracontane | 0.000b | 0.087ab | 0.183a | 0.077b | |
| GC57 | 23.895 | 1581.74 | Pentadecane, 3-methyl | 0.042ab | 0.035ab | 0.112a | 0.000b | |
| GC61 | 26.934 | 1716.38 | Hexadecane,2,6,10,14-tetramethyl- | 0.000b | 0.027a | 0.000b | 0.000b | |
| GC64 | 27.785 | 1754.78 | N-Hentriacontane | 0.062a | 0.008b | 0.000b | 0.000b | |
| GC96 | 46.06 | 2715.65 | 1-Hexacosene | 0.000b | 0.073b | 0.039b | 0.252a | |
| GC99 | 47.375 | – | (E,E,E,E)-Squalene | 0.000b | 0.199a | 0.039ab | 0.067ab | |
| GC25 | 17.703 | 1311.97 | Naphthalene,1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1,8-dimethyl | 0.000b | 0.173a | 0.000b | 0.000b | |
| GC72 | 34.62 | 2100.11 | 1-Heptadecanol | 0.221b | 0.000b | 0.000b | 0.695a | |
| GC78 | 36.816 | 2227.94 | 1-Nonadecanol,1-acetate | 1.407a | 0.415b | 1.584a | 1.450a | |
| GC97 | 46.489 | 2753.58 | Beta-Sitosterol | 0.179b | 0.867a | 0.834a | 0.781a | |
| GC42 | 20.921 | 1459.28 | Isobutyl tetradecyl carbonate | 0.424b | 0.634ab | 0.920a | 0.774ab | |
| GC67 | 32.044 | 1964.22 | Dibutyl phthalate | 0.000b | 0.267a | 0.263a | 0.154ab | |
| GC71 | 34.615 | 2099.84 | 13-Tetradecen-1-ol-acetate | 0.185b | 0.906a | 0.686ab | 0.335ab | |
| GC87 | 40.272 | 2421.00 | 2,2′-Methylenebis | 0.000b | 3.966a | 5.507a | 4.740a | |
| GC94 | 42.962 | 2539.88 | Dioctyl phthalate | 0.576ab | 0.577ab | 0.093b | 1.132a | |
| GC76 | 36.074 | 2180.31 | Stearic acid | 0.329b | 0.000b | 1.499a | 0.000b | |
| GC85 | 39.331 | 2375.05 | Oleamide | 0.000b | 1.051a | 0.000b | 0.408ab | |
| GC92 | 41.56 | 2483.20 | 2,4-bis(1-phenylethyl)phenol | 0.000c | 0.670a | 0.485ab | 0.294bc | |
FIGURE 2First two non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) axes of the community structure of (A) soil chemical compounds, (B) bacteria, and (C) fungi. Red = CK: no Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; Green = T: Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; Blue = M: mowed and no Trichoderma-inoculation; Purple = TM: mowed, and Trichoderma-inoculated.
FIGURE 3The relative abundance of bacterial phyla (A) and fungal phyla (B) in different treatments. “Others” indicates phyla with extremely low abundance. CK: no Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; T: Trichoderma-inoculation and not mowed; M: mowed and no Trichoderma-inoculation; TM: mowed and Trichoderma-inoculated.
The relative abundance of selected bacterial and fungal genera of different treatments.
| Genera | Treatments | Correlation coefficient | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | T | M | TM | |||
| 2.17 ± 0.48b | 4.06 ± 0.97a | 0.75 ± 0.09c | 2.11 ± 0.23b | 0.33 | 0.918 | |
| 0.50 ± 0.02b | 0.73 ± 0.03a | 0.13 ± 0.01c | 0.42 ± 0.13b | –0.094 | 0.771 | |
| 0.26 ± 0.13b | 0.82 ± 0.49a | 0.19 ± 0.06b | 0.48 ± 0.09ab | 0.301 | 0.342 | |
| 0.15 ± 0.02a | 0.12 ± 0.03ab | 0.10 ± 0.01b | 0.12 ± 0.02ab | –0.402 | 0.195 | |
| 0.01 ± 0.00b | 0.10 ± 0.01ab | 0.02 ± 0.01b | 0.28 ± 0.26a | 0.587∗ | 0.045 | |
FIGURE 4(A) Standard curves of Trichoderma by real-time PCR; (B) correlations between the number of Trichoderma and alfalfa biomass.
FIGURE 5Structural equation modeling (SEM) for alfalfa biomass. A path coefficient is analogous to a partial correlation coefficient and describes the strength and sign of the relationship between two variables. Negative pathways are shown as blue lines, positive pathways are shown as red lines, and line thickness represents the intensity of influence. Non-significant pathways are shown in gray. The models provided a good fit to our data. The model fits are given in Supplementary Table S3, and significance levels are provided in Supplementary Table S4.