| Literature DB >> 33193137 |
Fuchun Xie1, Gaoyun Zhang1, Qianjiao Zheng1, Kemeng Liu1,2, Xiujie Yin3, Xiaoyang Sun1, Shah Saud1, Zhenjie Shi1, Runli Yuan1, Wenjing Deng1, Lu Zhang1, Guowen Cui3, Yajun Chen1.
Abstract
Continuous monoculture of cool-season turfgrass causes soil degradation, and visual turf quality decline is a major concern in black soil regions of Northeast China. Turf mixtures can enhance turfgrass resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses and increase soil microbial diversity. Understanding mechanism by plant-soil interactions and changes of black soil microbial communities in turf mixture is beneficial to restoring the degradation of urbanized black soils and maintaining sustainable development of urban landscape ecology. In this study, based on the previous research of different sowing models, two schemes of turf monoculture and mixture were conducted in field plots during 2016-2018 in a black soil of Heilongjiang province of Northeast China. The mixture turf was established by mixing 50% Kentucky bluegrass "Midnight" (Poa pratensis L.) with 50% Red fescue "Frigg" (Festuca rubra L.); and the monoculture turf was established by sowing with pure Kentucky bluegrass. Turf performance, soil physiochemical properties, and microbial composition from rhizosphere were investigated. Soil microbial communities and abundance were analyzed by Illumina MiSeq sequencing and quantitative PCR methods. Results showed that turfgrass quality, turfgrass biomass, soil organic matter (SOM), urease, alkaline phosphatase, invertase, and catalase activities increased in PF mixture, but disease percentage and soil pH decreased. The microbial diversity was also significantly enhanced under turf mixture model. The microbial community compositions were significantly different between the two schemes. Turf mixtures obviously increased the abundances of Beauveria, Lysobacter, Chryseolinea, and Gemmatimonas spp., while remarkably reduced the abundances of Myrothecium and Epicoccum spp. Redundancy analysis showed that the compositions of bacteria and fungi were related to edaphic parameters, such as SOM, pH, and enzyme activities. Since the increasing of turf quality, biomass, and disease resistance were highly correlated with the changes of soil physiochemical parameters and microbial communities in turf mixture, which suggested that turf mixture with two species (i.e., Kentucky blue grass and Red fescue) changed soil microbial communities and enhanced visual turfgrass qualities through positive plant-soil interactions by soil biota.Entities:
Keywords: Poa pratensis L.; black soil; plant-soil interaction; rhizosphere microbial communities; turf mixture; turfgrass quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 33193137 PMCID: PMC7656059 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.556118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Effects on visual turfgrass quality (A), disease percentage (B), root biomass (C), and tiller density (D) in PF mixture and PP monoculture. * and **represent significant difference between PF mixture and PP monoculture (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA, n = 4).
Effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on soil physicochemical properties.
| pH | SOM (g kg−1) | Moisture (%) | NH4 +-N (mg kg−1) | AP (mg kg−1) | AK (mg kg−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PF | 7.0 ± 0.09 | 3.2 ± 0.20 | 16.5 ± 0.10 | 9.6 ± 0.07 | 83.4 ± 0.53 | 79.9 ± 1.91 |
| PP | 7.5 ± 0.06 | 3.0 ± 0.21 | 16.3 ± 0.17 | 9.8 ± 0.21 | 82.9 ± 0.16 | 79.1 ± 0.72 |
| ANOVA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values are means ± SE, PP, and PF (n = 4).
Effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on soil enzyme activities.
| Urease (mg g−1 24 h−1) | Catalase(ml g−1 20 min−1) | Alkaline phosphatase(mg g−1 24 h−1) | Invertase(mg g−1 24 h−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PF | 24.93 ± 0.46 | 23.20 ± 0.47 | 52.25 ± 0.65 | 11.75 ± 0.31 |
| PP | 21.73 ± 0.66 | 22.03 ± 0.73 | 49.88 ± 0.85 | 10.28 ± 0.53 |
| ANOVA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values are means ± SE, PP, and PF (n = 4).
Figure 2Total abundance of fungil and bacteria in PF mixture and PP monoculture soils.
Figure 3The effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on relative abundances of fungal and bacterial phyla in rhizosphere soil. * and **represent significant difference between PF mixture and PP monoculture (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, Welch’s t-test, n = 4).
Figure 4The effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on relative abundances of main fungal and bacterial classes in rhizosphere soil. Fungal and bacterial classes with relative abundances > 1% are shown in at least one treatment. * and **represent significant difference between PF mixture and PP monoculture (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, Welch’s t-test, n = 4).
Figure 5The effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on relative abundances of mian fungal and bacterial genera in rhizosphere soil. Fungal genera (relative abundances > 0.5%) and bacterial genera (relative abundances > 1%) are shown in at least one treatment. * and **represent significant difference between PF mixture and PP monoculture (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, Welch’s t-test, n = 4).
Figure 6The effects of PF mixture and PP monoculture on diversity and richness indices of soil fungal (A) and bacterial (B) communities in rhizosphere soil. p < 0.05 (Welch’s t-test, n = 4) represents significance between PF mixture and PP monoculture soils.
Figure 7Change of fungal and bacterial community structures in PF mixture and PP monoculture soils from principal coordinate analysis.
Figure 8Relationship between community structures of soil fungi (A) and bacteria (B) and environmental factors from the redundancy analysis.