| Literature DB >> 33329461 |
Julian Yu1,2, Michael J Pavia1,2,3, Lauren M Deem4, Susan E Crow4, Jonathan L Deenik5, Christopher Ryan Penton2,6.
Abstract
The functions and interactions of individual microbial populations and their genes in agricultural soils amended with biochar remain elusive but are crucial for a deeper understanding of nutrient cycling and carbon (C) sequestration. In this study, we coupled DNA stable isotope probing (SIP) with shotgun metagenomics in order to target the active community in microcosms which contained soil collected from biochar-amended and control plots under napiergrass cultivation. Our analyses revealed that the active community was composed of high-abundant and low-abundant populations, including Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, and Acidobacteria. Although biochar did not significantly shift the active taxonomic and functional communities, we found that the narG (nitrate reductase) gene was significantly more abundant in the control metagenomes. Interestingly, putative denitrifier genomes generally encoded one gene or a partial denitrification pathway, suggesting denitrification is typically carried out by an assembly of different populations within this Oxisol soil. Altogether, these findings indicate that the impact of biochar on the active soil microbial community are transient in nature. As such, the addition of biochar to soils appears to be a promising strategy for the long-term C sequestration in agricultural soils, does not impart lasting effects on the microbial functional community, and thus mitigates un-intended microbial community shifts that may lead to fertilizer loss through increased N cycling.Entities:
Keywords: Nextseq sequencing; active bacterial populations; biochar amendment; carbon sequestration; denitrification; isopycnic centrifugation; metagenomic assembled genomes
Year: 2020 PMID: 33329461 PMCID: PMC7717982 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.587972
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Isopycnic separation of DNA from density-gradient fractionation. Normalized DNA concentration in each fraction recovered after isopycnic separation of DNA from the 13C-incubated microcosms and 12C-controls for control soil microcosms (A) and biochar-amended (B). DNA was measured with Qubit for each density gradient fraction, and divided by the maximum fraction value. Each point represents an average of four replicates. Gradient fractions from 13C-incubated microcosms were subsequently pooled for metagenomic sequencing. Total copies of 16S rRNA genes measured by qPCR for each density-gradient fraction recovered from isopycnic separation of DNA from 13C-incubated microcosms and 12C-controls for control soil microcosms (C) and biochar-amended microcosms (D). Density gradient fractions > 1.70 g/ml pooled for subsequent metagenomic sequencing. Each point represents an average of four biological replicates.
Metagenomic sequence and assembly summary.
| Nonpareil | SPADES Assembly | |||||||
| Samples | Treatment | No. Reads | Trimmed Reads | Coverage (%) | Diversity | No. Contigs | N50 | Longest Contig |
| Plot 1 | Biochar-amended | 48,939,158 | 43,886,293 | 62.02 | 21.59 | 1,685,259 | 731 | 214,999 |
| Plot 3 | Biochar-amended | 53,550,803 | 49,275,476 | 70.64 | 20.78 | 2,573,173 | 604 | 116,946 |
| Plot 4 | Biochar-amended | 45,680,993 | 41,882,029 | 63.85 | 21.15 | 2,601,521 | 505 | 127,320 |
| Plot 8 | Biochar-amended | 49,575,137 | 45,710,094 | 64.48 | 21.40 | 2,841,923 | 480 | 290,581 |
| Plot 2 | Control | 49,463,602 | 45,320,132 | 70.67 | 20.88 | 2,302,470 | 503 | 651,253 |
| Plot 5 | Control | 48,647,720 | 44,555,996 | 69.83 | 20.64 | 2,381,807 | 491 | 137,757 |
| Plot 6 | Control | 24,655,227 | 22,260,113 | 9.22 | 21.20 | 1,528,627 | 453 | 179,238 |
| Plot 7 | Control | 41,014,445 | 37,866,468 | 65.91 | 21.44 | 1,002,610 | 922 | 102,465 |
FIGURE 2Taxonomic affiliation of recovered 16S rRNA gene fragments. Mean relative abundance of bacterial phyla for each plot for biochar-amended and control treatments. Underlying data is based on average coverage depth of 16S rRNA gene-encoding fragments recovered from metagenomic datasets.
FIGURE 3Taxonomic and functional shifts as an effect of biochar amendment. (A) PCoA plot of taxonomic community composition. (B) Principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) Plot of KO term annotations. Underlying data are based on Bray–Curtis distance matrix derived from a KO term count matrix. Underlying data are a Bray–Curtis distance matrix of 16S rRNA gene-encoding fragments recovered with Barrnap and processed in the RDP classifier.
Taxonomic classification and characteristics of genome bins that were at least 80% completeness calculated from CheckM.
| Genome Bin I.D. | Average Bin | Taxonomy | Completeness (%) | Contamination (%) | GC (%) | Size (Mbp) | Coding Density |
| Bin.1_22 | 16.18 | Dermatophilaceae | 89.8 | 3.88 | 71.8 | 3.68 | 91.72 |
| Bin.1_3 | 8.40 | 20CM-4-69-9 | 84.2 | 3.74 | 70.1 | 3.79 | 93.92 |
| Bin.1_36 | 26.46 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 90.7 | 2.75 | 69.9 | 3.77 | 92.86 |
| Bin.3_15 | 8.74 | Burkholderiaceae | 80.0 | 2.52 | 68.0 | 4.66 | 88.90 |
| Bin.3_19 | 29.67 | Streptomycetaceae | 88.7 | 6.45 | 71.0 | 10.9 | 89.54 |
| Bin.3_21 | 9.38 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 83.2 | 3.85 | 70.2 | 3.68 | 91.43 |
| Bin.3_29 | 18.84 | Micromonosporaceae | 80.0 | 4.30 | 70.1 | 7.30 | 91.71 |
| Bin.3_38 | 23.85 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 89.8 | 2.75 | 69.9 | 3.73 | 92.75 |
| Bin.3_9 | 14.00 | Rhizobiaceae | 91.1 | 3.42 | 63.1 | 5.06 | 88.75 |
| Bin.4_17_1 | 41.92 | Micromonosporaceae | 82.5 | 6.25 | 70.2 | 6.73 | 92.29 |
| Bin.4_3 | 12.46 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 85.7 | 4.4 | 69.6 | 4.27 | 91.77 |
| Bin.4_31 | 11.82 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 88.1 | 7.74 | 70.3 | 3.54 | 91.90 |
| Bin.4_30_1_1 | 12.04 | Rhodanobacteraceae | 92.1 | 0.94 | 69.2 | 3.14 | 90.43 |
| Bin.8_14 | 20.20 | Haliangiaceae | 90.5 | 3.39 | 68.3 | 9.81 | 93.72 |
| Bin.8_16 | 17.27 | Polyangiaceae | 94.9 | 5.18 | 66.2 | 11.9 | 91.83 |
| Bin.8_36 | 34.44 | Micromonosporaceae | 86.2 | 3.28 | 70.3 | 7.13 | 92.28 |
| Bin.8_40 | 15.16 | Dermatophilaceae | 87.1 | 3.80 | 71.7 | 3.54 | 91.67 |
| Bin.8_42 | 11.74 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 89.9 | 2.75 | 70.2 | 4.10 | 91.37 |
| Bin.8_6 | 31.06 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 90.5 | 2.2 | 69.9 | 3.75 | 92.85 |
| Bin.2_24 | 26.22 | Micromonosporaceae | 96.5 | 1.93 | 69.1 | 7.45 | 91.71 |
| Bin.2_3 | 11.48 | QHCE01 | 95.3 | 1.26 | 58.5 | 3.05 | 90.84 |
| Bin.2_7 | 13.36 | Sphingomonadaceae | 89.0 | 8.83 | 64.4 | 2.29 | 93.71 |
| Bin.5_1 | 12.81 | Nocardioidaceae | 90.8 | 5.04 | 72.5 | 4.71 | 92.4 |
| Bin.5_19 | 15.38 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 92.0 | 2.75 | 70.2 | 4.04 | 91.54 |
| Bin.5_27 | 12.34 | Micromonosporaceae | 83.7 | 6.06 | 71.3 | 4.26 | 91.08 |
| Bin.5_5 | 28.65 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 90.7 | 2.75 | 69.9 | 3.77 | 91.91 |
| Bin.6_1_1 | 21.92 | Streptomycetaceae | 85.8 | 9.65 | 70.0 | 11.0 | 87.19 |
| Bin.6_18 | 7.72 | Sphingomonadaceae | 90.5 | 4.27 | 64.9 | 2.34 | 93.07 |
| Bin.6_3 | 8.27 | Acidobacteriaceae | 90.3 | 1.94 | 58.3 | 5.17 | 89.72 |
| Bin.6_6 | 12.51 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 85.9 | 4.72 | 69.6 | 3.81 | 92.05 |
| Bin.6_9 | 75.61 | Catenulisporaceae | 88.5 | 3.86 | 70.9 | 9.53 | 90.18 |
| Bin.7_12 | 30.29 | Streptosporangiaceae | 81.5 | 7.75 | 71.3 | 9.15 | 92.13 |
| Bin.7_13 | 29.74 | Gemmatimonadaceae | 88.7 | 2.20 | 69.9 | 3.71 | 92.85 |
| Bin.7_20 | 23.97 | Dermatophilaceae | 89.8 | 5.89 | 71.7 | 3.72 | 91.77 |
| Bin.7_21 | 12.05 | Burkholderiaceae | 87.5 | 0.31 | 68.0 | 4.83 | 88.69 |
FIGURE 4Proportion of abundance of recovered populations from metagenomes. (A) Proportion of MAG abundance from biochar-amended and control metagenomes. (B) Proportion of MAG coverage from each plot. Abundance was calculated as bin coverage normalized by contig lengths. Taxonomic classification is based on GTDB-Tk database.
FIGURE 5Metabolic features of medium- and high-quality MAGs recovered from biochar-amended and control metagenomes. (A) Presence/absence of gene in MAGs recovered from biochar-amended metagenomes and completeness of biochar MAGs and taxonomic classification at phylum-level. (B) Presence/absence of gene in MAGs recovered from control metagenomes and completeness of control MAGs and taxonomic classification at phylum-level.