| Literature DB >> 33124497 |
Jingxia Gao1, Hongxia Pei1, Hua Xie1.
Abstract
Because of the large population, large demand, limited arable land and many environmental factors, continuous cropping have become a very common phenomenon in China. However, long-term continuous cropping has caused a series of serious soil-borne diseases, and the yield and quality of crops to drop, which seriously restricted the sustainable development of agricultural industry. Therefore, in order to improve the yield of pepper and reduce the occurrence of soil-borne diseases, it is essential to understand the effect of continuous cropping of pepper on soil microbial community composition and abundance. In this study, high throughput sequencing was used to study the effects of seven treatments of organic fertilizers and corn straw on soil microbial community and function of pepper continuous cropping. The results showed that the yield of all treatments was significantly higher than that of the control. The soil microbial diversity and community composition showed that Proteobacteria and Ascomycota were the most abundant phylum in all treatments. In conclusion, there were significant differences among the seven treatments and the treatment of fowl dung with corn straw was the best fertilizer combination to improve the yield and output value of pepper. Besides, the addition of fowl dung and corn straw not only can improve the community and functions of microorganisms, but also enhance the ability of disease resistance, and ultimately decrease the soil-borne diseases. The results will help to provide scientific basis for rational application of organic fertilizer and corn straw, and overcoming continuous cropping obstacles.Entities:
Keywords: Pepper; continuous cropping; corn straw; microbial community; organic fertilizer
Year: 2020 PMID: 33124497 PMCID: PMC8291890 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2020.1840753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Experimental treatment details. Cd+ Cs: cow dung 5000 kg·667 m−2 and corn straw 2000 kg·667 m−2, Fd+Cs: fowl dung 1500 kg·667 m−2 and corn straw 2000 kg·667 m−2, Sd+Cs: sheep dung 4000 kg·667 m−2 and corn straw 2000 kg·667 m−2, Fd: fowl dung 1500 kg·667 m−2, Cd: cow dung 5000 kg·667 m−2, Sd: sheep dung 4000 kg·667 m−2, CK: no organic fertilizer
| Treatments | Fertilizer dosage (kg/m2) | Fertilizer category |
|---|---|---|
| Cd+ Cs | 5000/667 | Cow dung |
| 2000/667 | Corn straw | |
| Fd+Cs | 1500/667 | Fowl dung |
| 2000/667 | Corn straw | |
| Sd+Cs | 4000/667 | Sheep dung |
| 2000/667 | Corn straw | |
| Cd | 5000/667 | Cow dung |
| / | / | |
| Fd | 1500/667 | Fowl dung |
| / | / | |
| Sd | 4000/667 | Sheep dung |
| / | / | |
| CK | / | / |
| / | / |
The yield of pepper analysis under each treatment in three years
| Treatments | Total yield of small area (Kg/23.4 m2) | Yield (kg/667 m2) | Output value (CNY) | Comparative control ± (kg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saliency analysis | ||||||||
| I | II | III | Average | 5%, 1% | ||||
| Sd | 219.6 | 226.5 | 228.7 | 224.9 | 6410.6 | 7051.7 | 1071.7 | cC |
| Cd | 200.4 | 203.0 | 195.2 | 199.5 | 5686.6 | 6474.7 | 547.2 | dC |
| Fd | 232.1 | 229.5 | 235.7 | 232.4 | 6624.4 | 7286.8 | 1285.5 | ab AB |
| Sd+Cs | 228.0 | 230.5 | 224.0 | 227.5 | 6484.7 | 7133.2 | 1145.8 | bc B |
| Cd+Cs | 200.2 | 204.9 | 198.0 | 201.0 | 5729.4 | 6553.1 | 618.5 | dC |
| Fd+Cs | 240.5 | 234.8 | 237.0 | 237.4 | 6766.9 | 7443.6 | 1428.0 | aA |
| CK | 184.4 | 187.6 | 190.0 | 187.3 | 5338.9 | 5872.8 | e D | |
† Significant under 5% and 1% level labeled a, b, c, d and A, B, C, D, respectively.
Alpha diversity of the 16S rRNA gene seven treatments
| Treatment | OTUs | Chao1 | ACE | Shannon | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sd | 97,655 ± 6876.898b | 6560.579 ± 192.0780b | 6567.663 ± 375.558b | 10.279 ± 0.076a | 0.997 ± 0.00039a |
| Cd | 94,550 ± 16,252.092b | 6514.343 ± 25.127b | 6414.842 ± 72.141b | 10.461 ± 0.090b | 0.998 ± 0.00032b |
| Fd | 99,329 ± 3818.049b | 7310.679 ± 88.269b | 7324.22 ± 207.751b | 10.663 ± 0.089b | 0.998 ± 0.00035b |
| Sd+Cs | 92,330 ± 4050.551b | 7030.774 ± 41.844b | 7053.968 ± 60.868b | 10.36 ± 0.121b | 0.998 ± 0.00033a |
| Cd+Cs | 87,677 ± 9267.735b | 6837.624 ± 115.852b | 6812.933 ± 171.164b | 10.47 ± 0.102b | 0.998 ± 0.00018a |
| Fd+Cs | 82,214 ± 14,919.157b | 6789.442 ± 236.232b | 6762.135 ± 232.413b | 10.244 ± 0.054a | 0.997 ± 0.00009a |
| Ck | 55,336 ± 22,734.977a | 5856.616 ± 410.120a | 5903.657 ± 369.507a | 10.189 ± 0.103a | 0.997 ± 0.00025a |
† Different letters in the same column represent significant differences (P< 0.05) Values are means±standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 1.The relative abundance of soil bacterial in each samples at phylum level
Alpha diversity of fungi in seven treatments
| Treatment | Chao1 | Ace | Shannon | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sd | 88,613.667 ± 581.085 | 224.101 ± 10.213ab | 4.623 ± 0.828b | 0.902 ± 0.088b |
| Cd | 98,553 ± 8469.918 | 222.443 ± 10.250ab | 4.936 ± 0.145b | 0.945 ± 0.010b |
| Fd | 102,510 ± 12,155.308 | 216.658 ± 4.691b | 4.290 ± 0.775ab | 0.848 ± 0.120ab |
| Sd+Cs | 90,915.667 ± 11,748.480 | 221.020 ± 23.829ab | 3.919 ± 1.515ab | 0.782 ± 0.209ab |
| Cd+Cs | 87,728.333 ± 12,840.783 | 225.567 ± 24.265ab | 4.260 ± 0.868ab | 0.860 ± 0.109ab |
| Fd+Cs | 105,448.667 ± 11,472.812 | 248.631 ± 21.884a | 3.034 ± 1.099a | 0.644 ± 0.199a |
| Ck | 104,939.667 ± 8456.383 | 229.647 ± 8.543ab | 4.523 ± 0.350ab | 0.911 ± 0.024b |
† Different letters in the same column represent significant differences (P < 0.05). Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 2.The relative abundance of soil fungus in each samples at phylum level
Figure 3.The function predictive analysis of fungi
Figure 4.RDA analysis between bacterial and fungal community structure, and the total yield of pepper. (a) the correlations between bacterial communities and the total yield of pepper and (b) the correlations between fungal communities and the total yield of pepper. I, II and III labeled for the total yield of pepper three years. The direction of an arrow indicates the steepest increase in the variable and the length indicates the strength relative to the other variables