| Literature DB >> 34121905 |
Kexin Ma1,2, Jinming Kou1,2, Muhammad Khashi U Rahman1,2, Wenting Du1,2, Xingyu Liang1,2, Fengzhi Wu1,2, Wenhui Li1,2, Kai Pan1,2.
Abstract
Palmitic acid (PA) in root exudates or decaying residues can reduce the incidence of soil-borne diseases and promote the growth of some crop plants. However, the effects of PA on soil-borne pathogens and microbial communities are poorly understood. Here, we investigate the effects of PA on overall watermelon microbial communities and the populations of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. niveum (Fon). The effects of PA on the mycelial growth and spore production of Fon were tested in vitro, while its effects on Fon, total bacteria and total fungi populations, and microbial communities were evaluated in a pot experiment. The results revealed that all test concentrations of PA inhibited Fon mycelia growth and spore production. The pot experiment showed that 0.5 mM and 1 mM PA reduced Fon but increased total bacteria populations, and 0.5 mM and 1 mM PA 0.5 mM and 1 mM PA promoted the change to a soil type of bacteria soil. Meanwhile, 0.5 mM PA and 1 mM PA altered the community composition of the rhizosphere microorganisms and reduced the relative abundance of two bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and the two fungal OTUs that were significantly (p < 0.01) related with disease severity and increased that of four bacterial OTUs and the two fungal that were highly significantly (p < 0.01) negatively correlated with the disease severity. These results suggest that application of PA decreased the populations of Fon, changed the rhizosphere microbial composition, reduced the disease severity of Fusarium wilt, and promoted the growth of watermelon.Entities:
Keywords: Antifungal effects; Fon; Microbial abundance; PA; Rhizosphere; Watermelon
Year: 2021 PMID: 34121905 PMCID: PMC8176049 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.03.040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Effects of PA on Fon mycelium growth after incubating for 5 days.
| Treatment | Mycelial growth inhibition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colony diameter/mm | Toxicity regression equation | R2 | EC50/mM L−1 | |
| 0 mM PA(Control) | 74.9 ± 1.27a | y = 1.31x-0.68 | 0.968 | 3.357 |
| 0.25 mM PA | 69.6 ± 0.55b | |||
| 0.5 mM PA | 64.7 ± 1.30c | |||
| 1 mM PA | 54.7 ± 2.21d | |||
| 2 mM PA | 47.0 ± 2.10e | |||
Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same column (P < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Effects of PA on Fon Spore production.
| Treatment | Spore production inhibition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of spore (106 cfu·ml−1) | Toxicity regression equation | R2 | EC50/mM L−1 | |
| 0 mM PA (Control) | 1.84 ± 0.15a | Y = 0.64x-0.34 | 0.864 | 0.296 |
| 0.25 mM PA | 0.92 ± 0.08b | |||
| 0.5 mM PA | 0.85 ± 0.04b | |||
| 1 mM PA | 0.71 ± 0.04c | |||
| 2 mM PA | 0.52 ± 0.06d | |||
Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same column (P < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Effects of PA on plant weight and yield of watermelon.
| Treatment | Whole plant fresh weight/g | Whole plant dry weight/g | Fruit yield/g plant−1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 mM PA(Control) | 116.54 ± 7.53c | 15.78 ± 2.19b | 406.4 ± 22.2cd |
| 0.25 mM PA | 135.66 ± 11.86b | 16.78 ± 1.46b | 437.3 ± 18.2bc |
| 0.5 mM PA | 142.76 ± 11.11b | 18.22 ± 1.22b | 454.6 ± 30.5bc |
| 1 mM PA | 167.57 ± 11.70a | 21.46 ± 0.98a | 488.3 ± 26.1a |
| 2 mM PA | 140.95 ± 7.59b | 16.96 ± 1.54b | 411.2 ± 16.4d |
| 4 mM PA | 104.16 ± 6.22c | 10.85 ± 1.22c | 364.2 ± 34.8e |
Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same column (P < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test.
Fig. 1Effects of PA on the disease severity in watermelon. Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same group (P < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Fig. 2Effects of PA on soil bacteria (a), fungi (b), Fon (c) populations and the bacteria to fungi ratio (d) in watermelon, and these results were detected using quantitative PCR. Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same group (P < 0.05, Duncan's multiple range test).
Fig. 3Comparison of relative abundance of most influential bacteria and fungi. The bacteria in (a) showed significant positive or negative correlation with the disease severity, the fungi in (b) showed significant positive or negative correlation with the disease severity (P < 0.01). Letters indicate values (means ± SE, n = 3) with significant differences within the same OTU (P < 0.05, Duncan's multiple range test).