| Literature DB >> 33060673 |
Shin Ae Lee1, Jeong Myeong Kim2, Yiseul Kim1, Jae-Ho Joa3, Seong-Soo Kang4, Jae-Hyung Ahn1, Mincheol Kim5, Jaekyeong Song1, Hang-Yeon Weon6.
Abstract
Biogeographic patterns in soil bacterial communities and their responses to environmental variables are well established, yet little is known about how different types of agricultural land use affect bacterial communities at large spatial scales. We report the variation in bacterial community structures in greenhouse, orchard, paddy, and upland soils collected from 853 sites across the Republic of Korea using 16S rRclass="Chemical">NA geclass="Chemical">ne pyrosequeclass="Chemical">nciclass="Chemical">ng aclass="Chemical">nalysis. Bacterial diversities aclass="Chemical">nd commuclass="Chemical">nity structures were sigclass="Chemical">nificaclass="Chemical">ntly differeclass="Chemical">ntiated by agricultural laclass="Chemical">nd-use types. Paddy soils, which are iclass="Chemical">nteclass="Chemical">ntioclass="Chemical">nally flooded for several moclass="Chemical">nths duriclass="Chemical">ngEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33060673 PMCID: PMC7562711 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74193-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Beta-diversity of soil bacterial communities in the four types of agricultural land use. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination of soil bacterial communities (A). Box plot illustrating the beta-dispersion of bacterial communities (B). Significant differences between land-use types were tested by Tukey’s HSD and are indicated by different letters (P < 0.05). Boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers indicate the furthest point within 1.5 × IQR above or below the IQR. Values beyond this range are plotted as individual points. The central line indicates the median.
Alpha-diversity for soil bacterial communities in the four different types of land use.
| Land-use type | No. of OTUs | Coverage | Richness estimator | Diversity index | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chao-1 | ACE | Shannon | Inverse-Simpson | |||
| Greenhouse (n = 211) | 564 ± 80 | 0.60 ± 0.07 | 1529 ± 353b | 2566 ± 692b | 5.9 ± 0.3c | 340 ± 183c |
| Orchard (n = 224) | 581 ± 85 | 0.59 ± 0.08 | 1506 ± 366b | 2374 ± 713c | 6.0 ± 0.3b | 403 ± 200b |
| Paddy (n = 209) | 623 ± 49 | 0.54 ± 0.05 | 1778 ± 319a | 3107 ± 855a | 6.1 ± 0.2a | 447 ± 157a |
| Upland (n = 209) | 514 ± 80 | 0.66 ± 0.07 | 1172 ± 300c | 1764 ± 585d | 5.8 ± 0.3d | 290 ± 147d |
The original dataset was sub-sampled to 1,002 reads.
a–cThe letters in each column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).
OTUs operational taxonomic units.
Figure 2Soil chemical properties associated with the types of agricultural land use. Principal component analysis (PCA) of soil chemical properties using z-transformed soil variables (A). The association of bacterial richness (Chao-1) and diversity (Shannon index) with soil pH in different types of agricultural soils (B). Quadratic regression was used to determine the adjusted R2 values and statistical significances (***P < 0.001). Redundancy analysis (RDA) of bacterial communities constrained by soil chemical properties (C). The joint biplot indicates the correlation between the chemical factors and ordination scores of RDA axes. EC electrical conductivity, OM organic matter. Venn diagram representing variation partitioning of bacterial communities explained by land-use types, edaphic and spatial variables (D).
Description of soil chemical properties in the four different types of land use.
| Land-use type | Statistics | pH (1:5) | EC (dS m−1) | OM (g kg−1) | Av. P2O5 (mg kg−1) | Ex. cation (cmolc kg-1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K+ | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | Na+ | ||||||
| Greenhouse (n = 211) | Mean ± S.D | 6.5 ± 0.8a | 3.9 ± 3.9a | 41.0 ± 22.6a | 1,023 ± 576a | 1.7 ± 1.3a | 11.4 ± 4.7a | 3.7 ± 1.9a | 0.9 ± 2.1a |
| Range | 4.3–7.8 | 0–21.0 | 8.1–184.8 | 57–3,018 | 0.1–8.5 | 0.9–28.7 | 0.4–10.0 | 0.1–29.1 | |
| Orchard (n = 224) | Mean ± S.D | 6.2 ± 0.9a | 0.7 ± 0.8b | 38.6 ± 29.1a | 670 ± 391b | 0.9 ± 0.7b | 7.5 ± 3.7b | 2.0 ± 1.1b | 0.2 ± 0.2b |
| Range | 4.2–7.9 | 0.1–7.4 | 2.7–178.9 | 24–1,911 | 0.1–5.1 | 0.5–19.4 | 0.2–6.2 | 0.0–0.7 | |
| Paddy (n = 209) | Mean ± S.D | 5.8 ± 0.6b | 0.5 ± 0.4b | 30.1 ± 25.5b | 139 ± 156c | 0.3 ± 0.2c | 5.7 ± 2.7c | 1.3 ± 0.9c | 0.3 ± 0.3b |
| Range | 4.6–7.5 | 0.1–2.5 | 6.0–165.0 | 6.3–1,098 | 0.1–1.0 | 0.8–20.1 | 0.2–4.5 | 0–2.0 | |
| Upland (n = 209) | Mean ± S.D | 6.1 ± 0.9a | 0.6 ± 0.6b | 25.5 ± 23.5b | 589 ± 428b | 0.8 ± 0.6b | 6.1 ± 3.7c | 1.7 ± 0.9b | 0.2 ± 0.2b |
| Range | 4.1–8.4 | 0.1–4.1 | 4.2–236.0 | 21–1,789 | 0.1–3.4 | 0.3–29.8 | 0.1–5.6 | 0.0–0.8 | |
a–cThe letters in each column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD).
EC electrical conductivity, OM organic matter, CV coefficient of variation.
Figure 3Taxonomic distribution of the bacterial communities in the four types of agricultural land use. The phyla with an abundance of < 1% are indicated as “others”. For Proteobacteria, the classes are indicated. The stacked column bar graph was generated using Microsoft Excel software.
Figure 4Bipartite network showing the associations between the four types of land use and 391 significantly associated OTUs (P < 0.01). Edges (node connection) show the association of individual OTUs with each type of agricultural land use. OTUs are colored by phylum or class. The network analysis was visualized using Gephi 0.9.1.
Figure 5Co-occurrence networks of each type of agricultural land use. Circles and triangles indicate OTUs associated in the network. In particular, triangles represent indicator OTUs analyzed in Fig. 4. The size of circles and triangles is proportional to the number of degrees. OTUs are colored by phylum. The network analysis was visualized using Gephi 0.9.1.