| Literature DB >> 33127926 |
Liina Soonvald1, Kaire Loit2,3, Eve Runno-Paurson4, Alar Astover3, Leho Tedersoo5.
Abstract
Information about the root mycobiome may improve the overall quality of the plants and contribute to a valuable strategy to enhance sustainable agriculture. Therefore, we assessed differences in fungal community diversity and composition in the roots of potato, wheat and barley grown under mineral nitrogen fertilisation at five rates, with and without farmyard manure amendment. The same factorial combination of treatments has been used since 1989. Species richness and diversity, as well as community composition, of different fungal guilds were characterised using Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the ITS2 region. Crop species was the main factor determining overall fungal richness and diversity, with wheat showing the highest, and potato the lowest, richness and diversity. Pathogen diversity indices were highest in wheat plots amended with farmyard manure, whereas the lowest values were observed for potato roots. Fertilisation treatments and the interaction between crop species and fertilisation had the strongest impact on arbuscular mycorrhiza and saprotroph diversity. Crop species also determined the composition of the overall fungal community and that of fungal guilds, whereas fertilisation treatment had only a minor effect. This study highlights crop species as the main driver in shaping root fungal diversity and composition under the same environmental conditions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33127926 PMCID: PMC7603395 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74952-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic representation of one replicate block. Each block is divided into three plots planted with barley, potato and wheat, respectively. Each plot comprised two main plots treated with either mineral nitrogen fertilisation (WOM) or mineral nitrogen fertilisation combined with farmyard manure 40 t h−1 (FYM). The mineral nitrogen fertilisation was applied in five different application rates (N). The numbers refer to the application rate according to total N (0, 40, 80, 120, 160 kg ha−1).
Linear-mixed effects model examining the effect of fertilisation treatment (WOM, FYM) and fertiliser application rate (N) on soil chemical properties.
| WOM | FYM | Pr(> Chisq)† | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N0 | N40 | N80 | N120 | N160 | N0 | N40 | N80 | N120 | N160 | ||
| pH | 6.12a (± 0.06) | 6.02ab (± 0.06) | 5.96abc (± 0.07) | 5.76bc (± 0.09) | 5.68c (± 0.08) | 6.24 (± 0.06) | 6.23 (± 0.10) | 6.19 (± 0.99) | 6.10 (± 0.10) | 6.03 (± 0.11) | < 0.001*** |
| Corg | 0.98 (± 0.03) | 0.98 (± 0.43) | 1.01 (± 0.02) | 1.00 (± 0.01) | 0.98 (± 0.02) | 1.23 (± 0.03) | 1.26 (± 0.04) | 1.28 (± 0.03) | 1.30 (± 0.03) | 1.31 (± 0.02) | < 0.001*** |
| Ntot | 0.06 (± 0.03) | 0.07 (± 0.04) | 0.07 (± 0.02) | 0.07 (± 0.01) | 0.07 (± 0.02) | 0.09 (± 0.01) | 0.09 (± 0.01) | 0.11 (± 0.01) | 0.09 (± 0.01) | 0.10 (± 0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| 56.33a (± 3.14) | 47.11ab (± 2.34) | 44.89b (± 2.29) | 44.00b (± 3.01) | 45.89b (± 2.27) | 100.00a (± 6.11) | 93.38ab (± 6.95) | 85.89b (± 4.53) | 84.22b (± 3.38) | 87.00b (± 3.44) | < 0.001*** | |
| K | 92.22a (± 5.18) | 76.78b (± 3.80) | 77.44b (± 2.96) | 75.33b (± 2.37) | 80.22ab (± 2.63) | 178.56 (± 9.89) | 168.25 (± 11.03) | 164.78 (± 7.12) | 157.22 (± 7.00) | 167.44 (± 10.66) | < 0.001*** |
WOM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation; FYM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation combined with farmyard manure amendment; N, fertiliser application rate. The number refers to the application rate according to total N (40, 80, 120, 160 kg ha−1).
Values are listed as mean ± standard error. Letters indicate statistical differences between soil chemical properties within the fertilisation treatment using Tukey post hoc test following linear-mixed effects models at P < 0.05.
†Pr(> Chisq) indicates the statistical difference between fertilisation treatments.
***P < 0.001 of significance.
Figure 2Venn diagram showing the amount of shared and unique OTUs between the roots of three crop species (A) and two fertilisation treatments (B). Taxonomic composition of root fungal communities in different crop species (C) and fertilisation treatments (D). Unidentified fungi are represented by sequences that were assigned only at kingdom level, whereas unidentified sequences represent sequences with no match. WOM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation; FYM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation combined with farmyard manure 40 t h−1.
Relative abundance of 10 most abundant OTUs in the roots of potato, wheat and barley.
| Potato | Wheat | Barley | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTU | Taxonomy | Fungal guild | % | OTU | Taxonomy | Fungal guild | % | OTU | Taxonomy | Fungal guild | % | |
| 1 | Otu0536 | Unidentified | Unassigned | 26.8 | Otu2329 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 7.1 | Otu1303 | Pathogen | 21.9 | ||
| 2 | Otu0930 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 21.4 | Otu1760 | Saprotroph | 5.7 | Otu0164 | Unidentified | Unassigned | 12.9 | ||
| 3 | Otu3047 | Pathogen | 6.2 | Otu2602 | Pathogen | 5.4 | Otu2467 | Pathogen | 9.6 | |||
| 4 | Otu0364 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 4.7 | Otu3413 | Pathogen | 5.1 | Otu2602 | Pathogen | 5.2 | |||
| 5 | Otu2704 | Fungi | Unassigned | 4.4 | Otu3648 | Unassigned | 4.6 | Otu3648 | Unassigned | 4.5 | ||
| 6 | Otu0714 | Unidentified | Unassigned | 3.1 | Otu0522 | Fungi | Unassigned | 3.4 | Otu2329 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 3.7 | |
| 7 | Otu2329 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 2.6 | Otu1363 | Saprotroph | 2.4 | Otu0522 | Fungi | Unassigned | 3.2 | ||
| 8 | Otu2581 | Pathogen | 2.3 | Otu1954 | Fungi | Unassigned | 2.2 | Otu2664 | Pathogen | 2.5 | ||
| 9 | Otu1943 | Fungi | Unassigned | 1.9 | Otu1525 | Saprotroph | 2.0 | Otu3413 | Pathogen | 2.4 | ||
| 10 | Otu0920 | Unassigned | 1.7 | Otu3288 | Pathogen/Saprotroph | 1.6 | Otu1525 | Saprotroph | 1.5 | |||
Results of linear mixed effect models estimating the effect of crop species, fertilisation treatment, fertiliser application rate and their interaction on species richness for all root fungi, pathogens, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and saprotrophs.
| Overall | Pathogens | AMF | Saprotrophs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq)a | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | ||
| Crop | 2 | 313.393 | < 0.001*** | 209.578 | < 0.001*** | 3.577 | 0.167 | 528.726 | < 0.001*** |
| Treatment | 1 | 2.082 | 0.149 | 4.577 | 0.032* | 19.374 | < 0.001*** | 8.894 | 0.003** |
| Nb | 4 | 5.783 | 0.216 | 3.026 | 0.553 | 3.812 | 0.432 | 14.469 | 0.006** |
| Crop × TREATMENT | 2 | 4.409 | 0.110 | 3.053 | 0.217 | 8.894 | 0.012* | 8.931 | 0.011* |
| Crop × N | 8 | 9.202 | 0.326 | 19.928 | 0.010* | 9.723 | 0.285 | 6.086 | 0.638 |
| Treatment × N | 4 | 9.108 | 0.058 | 6.087 | 0.192 | 5.641 | 0.228 | 10.049 | 0.040* |
| Crop × treatment × N | 8 | 13.324 | 0.101 | 7.432 | 0.491 | 11.090 | 0.197 | 14.430 | 0.071 |
AMF arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, df degrees of freedom.
***P < 0.001 of significance; **P < 0.01 level of significance; *P < 0.05 level of significance.
aPr(> Chisq) associated probability value corresponding to the test that all of the predictors are simultaneously equal to zero.
bN fertiliser application rate.
Results of linear mixed effect models estimating the effect of crop species, fertilisation treatment, fertiliser application rate and their interaction on inverse Simpson diversity index for all root fungi, pathogens, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and saprotrophs.
| All fungi | Pathogens | AMF | Saprotrophs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq)a | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | Chi-Square value | Pr(> Chisq) | ||
| Crop | 2 | 289.651 | < 0.001*** | 148.581 | < 0.001*** | 9.331 | 0.009** | 253.923 | < 0.001*** |
| Treatment | 1 | 0.220 | 0.639 | 1.182 | 0.277 | 8.194 | 0.004** | 0.520 | 0.471 |
| Nb | 4 | 1.872 | 0.759 | 2.946 | 0.567 | 3.802 | 0.433 | 3.099 | 0.541 |
| Crop × Treatment | 2 | 5.891 | 0.053 | 13.691 | 0.001** | 14.951 | < 0.001*** | 11.483 | 0.003** |
| Crop × N | 8 | 9.858 | 0.275 | 11.419 | 0.179 | 14.988 | 0.059 | 2.745 | 0.949 |
| Treatment × N | 4 | 3.798 | 0.434 | 5.420 | 0.247 | 4.111 | 0.391 | 10.051 | 0.040* |
| Crop × Treatment × N | 8 | 4.109 | 0.847 | 4.564 | 0.803 | 10.033 | 0.263 | 7.016 | 0.535 |
AMF arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, df degrees of freedom.
***P < 0.001 of significance; **P < 0.01 level of significance.
aPr(> Chisq) associated probability value corresponding to the test that all of the predictors are simultaneously equal to zero.
bN fertiliser application rate.
Figure 3Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) based on Bray–Curtis similarity matrix (all fungi, pathogens, saprotrophs) and on modified Gower log10 matrix (arbuscular mycorrhiza) to model the effect of crop and treatment for overall fungal (A), pathogen (B), arbuscular mycorrhizal (C) and saprotroph (D) community composition. WOM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation; FYM, mineral nitrogen fertilisation combined with farmyard manure 40 t h−1.
Results of the distance-based linear model (DistLM) analysis estimating the effect of soil chemical properties for overall, pathogen, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal and saprotroph community composition.
| Marginal tests | Overall | Pathogens | AMF | Saprotrophs | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudo-Fa | Propc | Pseudo-F | Prop | Pseudo-F | Prop | Pseudo-F | Prop | |||||
| pH | 6.278 | < 0.001*** | 0.067 | 7.183 | < 0.001*** | 0.076 | 2.487 | 0.002** | 0.028 | 4.007 | < 0.001*** | 0.044 |
| Corganic | 3.454 | 0.002** | 0.038 | 2.006 | 0.051 | 0.023 | 2.408 | 0.002** | 0.0267 | 2.371 | 0.016* | 0.027 |
| Ntotal | 3.738 | 0.001** | 0.041 | 3.044 | 0.009** | 0.034 | 1.321 | 0.112 | 0.015 | 2.965 | 0.006** | 0.033 |
| Pavailable | 3.340 | 0.003** | 0.037 | 1.928 | 0.063 | 0.022 | 3.347 | < 0.001*** | 0.037 | 2.154 | 0.029* | 0.024 |
AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
aPseudo-F statistic for testing the general null hypothesis of no relation.
bP P value.
cProp Proportion of explained variation for each variable.
dAICc Akaike corrected value.
eR2 Proportion of explained variation for the model.
***P < 0.001 of significance; **P < 0.01 level of significance; *P < 0.05 level of significance.