| Literature DB >> 34220731 |
Luigi Orrù1, Loredana Canfora2, Alessandra Trinchera2, Melania Migliore2, Bruno Pennelli2, Andrea Marcucci2, Roberta Farina2, Flavia Pinzari3.
Abstract
Massive sequenEntities:
Keywords: FUNGuild database; agriculture; indicator value; mycorrhizae; rotation; soil; soil yeasts
Year: 2021 PMID: 34220731 PMCID: PMC8247931 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.634325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Effect of tillage (T/NT), crop rotation (NR/R) and factors’ interaction on main soil chemical-physical parameters.
| Bulk density | Sand | Silt | Clay | pH | TOC | Ntot | Pav | |
| g cm–3 | % | % | % | g kg–1 | g kg–1 | mg kg–1 | ||
| T-NR | 0.93 b | 29.5 b | 50.7 | 19.7 | 7.85 ab | 15.9 | 1.01 b | 171.8 b |
| T-R | 0.91 b | 28.6 b | 51.7 | 19.6 | 7.86 a | 16.4 | 1.10 b | 192.7 b |
| NT-NR | 1.13 a | 31.4 a | 51.6 | 17.0 | 7.79 b | 16.6 | 1.31 ab | 240.7 ab |
| NT-R | 1.22 a | 31.8 a | 52.1 | 15.9 | 7.79 b | 16.6 | 1.28 a | 311.2 a |
| Tillage (T) effect (Sig.) | *** | * | n.s. | n.s. | ** | n.s. | * | *** |
| Rotation (R) effect (Sig.) | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | * |
| T × R (Sig.) | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | * | n.s. | * | ** |
| mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | mg kg–1 | |
| T-NR | 1559.7 | 42.8 b | 4.3 b | 8.6 b | 18.1 a | 0.92 b | 0.29 a | 0.55 ab |
| T-R | 1512.5 | 65.1 b | 5.2 b | 6.5 b | 12.4 ab | 1.29 b | 0.23 ab | 0.50 b |
| NT-NR | 1974.0 | 69.0 ab | 5.4 ab | 15.6 ab | 7.3 b | 1.61 b | 0.19 b | 0.55 ab |
| NT-R | 1724.8 | 118.8 a | 9.3 a | 29.1 a | 9.5 ab | 3.92 a | 0.21 ab | 0.63 a |
| Tillage (T) effect (Sig.) | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | * | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
| Rotation (R) effect (Sig.) | n.s. | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | n.s. | n.s. |
| T × R (Sig.) | * | * | n.s. | * | * | n.s. | * | * |
FIGURE 1Barplot showing the fungal diversity at the phylum level.
FIGURE 2Boxplot showing (A) the fungal Shannon diversity index and (B) Simpson diversity index, measured in the four analyzed conditions: Conventional Tilling (T) and No tilling (NT) under continuous cropping (NR) system and Rotation (R).
Summary of sequence data generated in this study and diversity estimate for each sample.
| Sample | Condition | Raw | Trimmed | Observed | Shannon | Simpson |
| reads | reads | OTUs | ||||
| LT2S.01 | NT-R | 354420 | 181261 | 593 | 4.16 | 0.88 |
| LT2S.02 | NT-R | 262839 | 101736 | 713 | 4.81 | 0.90 |
| LT2S.03 | NT-R | 207575 | 69024 | 631 | 4.95 | 0.90 |
| LT2S.04 | NT-R | 489502 | 196390 | 417 | 1.93 | 0.57 |
| LT2S.05 | NT-R | 341450 | 140384 | 511 | 4.16 | 0.87 |
| LT2S.06 | NT-NR | 324655 | 175309 | 483 | 3.25 | 0.79 |
| LT2S.07 | NT-NR | 353544 | 153390 | 576 | 3.50 | 0.81 |
| LT2S.09 | NT-NR | 273369 | 110364 | 489 | 4.65 | 0.90 |
| LT2S.10 | NT-NR | 267027 | 122597 | 596 | 3.42 | 0.78 |
| LT2S.11 | T-NR | 257584 | 123462 | 586 | 3.62 | 0.70 |
| LT2S.13 | T-NR | 250683 | 133027 | 491 | 3.29 | 0.73 |
| LT2S.14 | T-NR | 322537 | 154775 | 563 | 3.91 | 0.78 |
| LT2S.15 | T-NR | 278500 | 138195 | 509 | 3.05 | 0.69 |
| LT2S.16 | T-R | 270039 | 138453 | 506 | 3.09 | 0.72 |
| LT2S.17 | T-R | 315728 | 160514 | 520 | 3.45 | 0.73 |
| LT2S.18 | T-R | 285386 | 140707 | 528 | 3.39 | 0.66 |
| LT2S.19 | T-R | 368268 | 186022 | 498 | 3.15 | 0.68 |
Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing the phylum abundance in Conventional tillage and no-tillage management systems.
| Phylum | FDR |
| Ascomycota | |
| Basidiomycota | 0.37 |
| Chytridiomycota | 0.23 |
| Entomophthoromycota | 0.15 |
| Glomeromycota | 0.74 |
| Mortierellomycota | |
| Mucoromycota | |
| Olpidiomycota | |
| Rozellomycota | 0.06 |
| unidentified |
FIGURE 3Non-metric multidimensional scaling based on Bray Curtis dissimilarities showing (A) the effect of tilling and (B) the effect of rotation on the fungal community composition.
Envfit function output showing the variables significantly correlated with the NMDS ordination.
| Variables | R2 | ||
| Bulk_Density | 0.848 | 0.001 | *** |
| Sand | 0.374 | 0.044 | * |
| pH | 0.388 | 0.037 | * |
| TOC | 0.298 | 0.879 | n.s. |
| N_tot | 0.913 | 0.442 | n.s. |
| Pav | 0.693 | 0.002 | ** |
| Cuav | 0.570 | 0.005 | ** |
| Znav | 0.724 | 0.002 | ** |
| Cdav | 0.444 | 0.012 | * |
| Pbav | 0.556 | 0.006 | ** |
| Niav | 0.602 | 0.002 | ** |
| Feav | 0.553 | 0.006 | ** |
FIGURE 4The NMDS plot overlaid with the bulk density and the phosphorus variables represented as isolines and showing the distribution of this variable over the samples.
FIGURE 5FUNGuild was applied to characterize the OTUs traits and analyze if the different soil management systems impact the main fungal functional groups such as mycorrhizal, saprotrophic and endophytic fungi. The barplot shows the relative abundance of the endophytic, mycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi in the different samples.
FIGURE 6The boxplot shows the Shannon diversity index calculated on the OTUs classified as saprophytic fungi according to FUNGuild analysis.
Pearson correlation between the Shannon Index values of the ectomycorrhiza, the saprotrophic fungi and soil chemico-physical parameters.
| Total saprotroph | Bulk_Density | Sand | pH | Pav | Cuav | |||||||
| R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | |
| Ectomycorrhizas | –0.8636 | 7.9E-06 | –0.7539 | 0.0005 | –0.6603 | 0.0039 | 0.6826 | 0.0025 | –0.7892 | 0.0002 | –0.7590 | 0.0004 |
| Total saprotrophs | – | – | 0.8229 | 0.0000 | 0.6380 | 0.0059 | –0.7432 | 0.0006 | 0.6792 | 0.0027 | 0.6100 | 0.0093 |
| Ectomycorrhizas | –0.7421 | 0.0006 | –0.6700 | 0.0033 | –0.7647 | 0.0003 | –0.8044 | 0.0001 | –0.7667 | 0.0003 | ||
| Total saprotrophs | 0.5979 | 0.0112 | 0.5015 | 0.0403 | 0.6132 | 0.0089 | 0.6810 | 0.0026 | 0.6210 | 0.0078 | ||
Pearson correlation between the abundance of the fungal guilds measured as reads number and the soil chemico-physical parameters.
| Bulk_Density | Sand | pH | TOC | Ntot | Pav | |||||||
| R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | |
| Litter Saprotrophs | –0.7383 | 0.0007 | –0.4216 | n.s. | 0.5148 | 0.0345 | –0.5174 | 0.0334 | –0.3674 | n.s. | –0.8331 | 0.0000 |
| Soil Saprotrophs | –0.6496 | 0.0048 | –0.6809 | 0.0026 | 0.7724 | 0.0003 | –0.3084 | n.s. | –0.5103 | 0.0363 | –0.7358 | 0.0008 |
| Fungal Parasites | 0.4497 | 0.0701 | 0.0130 | n.s. | –0.1402 | n.s. | 0.3999 | n.s. | 0.1730 | n.s. | 0.6325 | 0.0064 |
| Total Saprotrophs | –0.6991 | 0.0018 | –0.2987 | n.s. | 0.3301 | n.s. | –0.5308 | 0.0284 | –0.1567 | n.s. | –0.8073 | 0.0001 |
| Total Mycorrhizas | 0.5278 | 0.0294 | 0.6173 | 0.0083 | –0.3946 | n.s. | 0.2594 | n.s. | 0.0880 | n.s. | 0.2844 | n.s. |
| Litter Saprotrophs | –0.7359 | 0.0008 | –0.8850 | 2.3 e−06 | –0.6873 | 0.0023 | –0.7210 | 0.0011 | –0.7232 | 0.0010 | –0.6812 | 0.0026 |
| Soil Saprotrophs | –0.6389 | 0.0058 | –0.6161 | 0.0085 | –0.5852 | 0.0136 | –0.6198 | 0.0080 | –0.6444 | 0.0052 | –0.6732 | 0.0031 |
| Fungal Parasites | 0.5222 | 0.0315 | 0.7395 | 0.0007 | 0.5240 | 0.0309 | 0.5025 | 0.0398 | 0.4657 | n.s. | 0.4576 | n.s. |
| Total Saprotrophs | –0.7542 | 0.0005 | –0.8881 | 1.9 e−06 | –0.7290 | 0.0009 | –0.7410 | 0.0007 | –0.7228 | 0.0010 | –0.6796 | 0.0027 |
| Total Mycorrhizas | 0.3884 | n.s. | 0.2946 | n.s. | 0.3476 | n.s. | 0.4092 | n.s. | 0.4353 | n.s. | 0.3471 | n.s. |
FIGURE 7Scatterplot showing the Pearson’s correlation between biodiversity values (Shannon index) measured for ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi.
FIGURE 8Differentially enriched operational taxonomic units assigned at the species level, assessed by EdgeR in the comparison between Conventional Tilling (T) and No Tilling (NT) under (A) continuous cropping system (NR) and (B) Rotation (R). Differentially enriched operational taxonomic units (OTUs) assigned at the genus, or higher taxonomic level are also reported in Supplementary Table 5.
FIGURE 9The indicator species analysis (see also Supplementary Table 6) assigned a significative indicator value (IndVal) to several unidentified OTUs. Among the identified OTUs the top indicator species of the site-group combination NR (T vs. NT) are shown in the plot (A), while the top indicator species of the site-group combination R (T vs. NT) are shown in the plot (B).