| Literature DB >> 31771526 |
Meijia Li1, Qiuxia Wang1, Zhengbo Liu1, Xiaoxi Pan1, Yayu Zhang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the effect of silicon (Si) application on the occurrence of ginseng black spot caused by Alternaria panax. We explored the differences in soil physical and chemical factors and microbial community structure following Si application as well as the key factors that affected the occurrence of ginseng black spot in soil. Potted Panax ginseng plants were used to assess the effect of Si treatment on ginseng black spot. Soil physical and chemical properties were comprehensively analyzed. Bacterial communities were analyzed using Illumina HiSeq sequencing targeting the 16S rRNA gene.Entities:
Keywords: Alternaria panax; Ginseng black spot; Illumina HiSeq sequencing; Panax ginseng; Silicon; Soil bacterial community
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31771526 PMCID: PMC6880445 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1627-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1The effect in different treatments of soil. Abbreviations: CK, ginseng control plants; A, plants only inoculated with A. panax; AS, plants inoculated with A. panax + Si; S, plants only inoculated with Si
Effect of silicon application on the disease incidence and disease index of ginseng black spot
| Treatment | Disease incidence (%) | Disease index |
|---|---|---|
| A | 83.5 ± 6.5a | 77.8 ± 7.5a |
| AS | 52.6 ± 9.7b | 46 ± 5.6b |
Abbreviations: A, A.panax inoculated ginseng; AS, Silicon inoculated in soil with A. panax infection
The fresh weight and dry weight of the ginseng after different treatments
| Treatment | fresh weight | dry weitht |
|---|---|---|
| CK | 5.53 ± 1.25a | 1.12 ± 0.81a |
| A | 4.329 ± 1.35b | 0.56 ± 0.12b |
| AS | 5.12 ± 1.36a | 0.97 ± 0.24b |
| S | 5.67 ± 1.28a | 1.23 ± 0.59a |
The fresh weight and dry weight of ginseng shoots and ginseng roots after different treatments
| ginseng shoots | ginseng roots | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | fresh weight | dry weitht | fresh weight | root dry weight |
| CK | 2.51 ± 0.21a | 0.38 ± 0.11a | 3.02 ± 1.21b | 0.75 ± 0.12b |
| A | 1.56 ± 0.12d | 0.20 ± 0.02d | 2.57 ± 0.89d | 0.52 ± 0.11c |
| AS | 2.23 ± 0.25c | 0.26 ± 0.13c | 2.89 ± 0.98c | 0.61 ± 0.12b |
| S | 2.39 ± 0.31b | 0.35 ± 0.13b | 3.28 ± 1.02a | 0.79 ± 0.19a |
Different letters within a column indicates significant difference among treatments p < 0.05
Characteristics of soils after different treatments
| Indexes | CK | A | AS | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 7.39 ± 0.12ab | 7.05 ± 0.24c | 7.39 ± 0.26a | 7.38 ± 0.36b |
| Available phosphorus AP (mg/kg) | 13.15 ± 2.61ab | 14.95 ± 3.25a | 12.25 ± 2.68b | 12.73 ± 2.62b |
| Available potassium AK (mg/kg) | 194.48 ± 3.26b | 217.15 ± 2.35a | 187.64 ± 3.69b | 199.06 ± 2.65b |
| Ammonium nitrogen NH4(g/kg) | 16.42 ± 2.35a | 4.58 ± 1.02c | 9.38 ± 2.36b | 14.38 ± 1.25a |
| Nitrate nitrogen NO3(g/kg) | 1.31 ± 0.25 | 1.15 ± 0.36 | 1.89 ± 0.28 | 1.97 ± 0.69 |
| Available silicon ASi (mg/kg) | 457.99 ± 20.35b | 451.78 ± 25.69b | 457.02 ± 19.89b | 492.06 ± 26.98a |
Different letters within a column indicates significant difference among treatments p < 0.05
The bacterial diversity indices of ginseng rhizosphere soil samples with different treatment
| Sequence number | OTU | Coverage | Shannon | Simpson | ACE | Chao1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 207,437 | 7381 | 98.6 | 11.2 ± 0.2 | 0.9989 ± 0.01 | 5250.6 ± 23.6a | 5149.3 ± 123.3a |
| A | 209,093 | 7210 | 98.6 | 11.1 ± 0.3 | 0.9989 ± 0.02 | 5048.9 ± 69.7b | 5007.6 ± 369.9b |
| AS | 206,227 | 6974 | 98.5 | 11.1 ± 0.2 | 0.9988 ± 0.01 | 5138.2 ± 102.3a | 5063.6 ± 325.3b |
| S | 192,852 | 7063 | 98.5 | 11.1 ± 0.1 | 0.9988 ± 0.02 | 5141.5 ± 69.8a | 5163.2 ± 345.6a |
Different letters within a column indicates significant difference among treatments p < 0.05
Fig. 2Overall analysis of bacterial communities in different treatments of soil. a The bacterial composition of in different treatments of soil at the phylum taxonomic level. b The Venn map of bacterial communities in different treatments of soil. c The bacterial composition of in different treatments of soil at the phylum taxonomic level. d The Venn map of bacterial communities in different treatments of soil
Fig. 3NMDS analysis of bacterial community diversity in different samples (a) Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots of operational taxonomic unit tables from all substrates based on abundances of bacterial community similarities using unweighted unifrac-distance of matrix (b) Unweighted weighted unifrac-distance box-line graph. c NMDS plots of operational taxonomic unit tables from all substrates based on abundances of bacterial community similarities using weighted unifrac-distance of matrix (d) Weighted unifrac-distance box-line graph
Fig. 4PLS-DA analysis of different soil samples
Fig. 5Heat map comparison of the dominant bacterial with average relative abundance from blue to red means relative abundance from low to high
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between various physicochemical variables and the relative abundances of main genera (> 1%) across all samples
| pH | AP | AK | NH4+-N | NO3−-N | ASi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arenimonas | 0.21 | −0.33 | − 0.21 | − 0.03 | 0.57 | 0.50 |
| Gemmatimonas | − 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.41 | 0.05 | ||
| H16 (Proteobacteria) | 0.3 | 0.01 | −0.19 | 0.50 | −0.38 | −0.23 |
| Haliangium | −0.21 | 0.50 | −0.45 | − 0.27 | ||
| Lactobacillus | 0.13 | −0.37 | −0.01 | 0.09 | ||
| Mesorhizobium | −0.01 | −0.36 | 0.01 | 0.05 | ||
| Nitrospira | 0.48 | −0.02 | 0.51 | 0.26 | ||
| Phenylobacterium | 0.42 | −0.07 | 0.04 | 0.03 | ||
| RB41 (Acidobacteria) | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.06 | NO3−-N | −0.29 |
Values in bold indicate significant correlations at **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05