| Literature DB >> 34207399 |
Thijs Van Gerrewey1,2, Christophe El-Nakhel1,3, Stefania De Pascale3, Jolien De Paepe2, Peter Clauwaert2, Frederiek-Maarten Kerckhof2, Nico Boon2, Danny Geelen1.
Abstract
Recovery of nutrients from source-separatEntities:
Keywords: PGPR; microbial community; nutrient cycling; organic fertilizer; plant holobiont; rhizosphere; soilless culture; source-separated urine; urine-derived fertilizer; waste streams
Year: 2021 PMID: 34207399 PMCID: PMC8233860 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9061326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Schematic view of the experiment. Source-separated urine was converted into three urine-derived fertilizers: electrodialysis concentrate, K-struvite, and hydrolyzed urine. These urine-derived fertilizers were applied in a soilless culture of Lactuca sativa L. The plant phenotypes, physiological states, and root-associated bacterial communities were evaluated and compared to commercial mineral fertilizer.
Figure 2Bray-Curtis dissimilarity Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) of the lettuce root-associated bacterial community samples. Colors indicate the urine-derived fertilizer treatment (ED: electrodialysis concentrate, Hyd Urine: hydrolyzed urine), and symbols indicate the root zone of the samples (4 replicates). Ellipses are drawn using a multivariate t-distribution.
Figure 3Boxplots of the richness, Shannon’s diversity, and Simpson’s alpha diversity indices of the lettuce root-associated bacterial communities grouped per urine-derived fertilizer treatment (ED: electrodialysis concentrate, Hyd Urine: hydrolyzed urine) (a–c) or root zone (d–f). The alpha diversity indices were estimated by taking unknown taxa into account. Shannon’s diversity and Simpson’s diversity indices were determined at the genus level. Statistical comparison of the alpha diversity indices between urine-derived fertilizer treatments or root zones using the estimates’ variance in a mixed model approach. When fitting the model with urine-derived fertilizer treatment as a fixed effect, the root zone was added as a random effect and vice versa. Only significant pairwise comparisons are shown. Asterisks indicate level of significance: p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***). N per urine-derived fertilizer treatment = 12 and n per root zone = 16.
Figure 4Lettuce root-associated bacterial community networks grouped per urine-derived fertilizer treatment: (a) NPK control network with 141 nodes, 149 edges (102 positives and 47 negatives), and 15 clusters with a 0.82 modularity (i.e., a measure for how good the division in clusters is); (b) Electrodialysis (ED) concentrate network with 311 nodes, 964 edges (539 positives and 425 negatives), and 9 clusters (modularity = 0.45); (c) Hydrolyzed urine network with 222 nodes, 413 edges (228 positives and 185 negatives), and 11 clusters (modularity = 0.60); (d) K-struvite network with 120 nodes, 130 edges (92 positives and 38 negatives), and 15 clusters (modularity = 0.79). Nodes are colored by cluster (clusters were determined using the fast greedy modularity optimization algorithm). The top 5 hub nodes are indicated by the colored borders (hubs were determined using Kleinberg’s hub centrality scores). The green and red edges indicate a positive or negative correlation between the network nodes, respectively.