| Literature DB >> 34886231 |
Li Li1,2, Tingliang Li1,2, Huisheng Meng1,2, Yinghe Xie1,2, Jie Zhang1,2, Jianping Hong1,2.
Abstract
The restoration of soil fertility and microbial communities is the key to the soil reclamation and ecological reconstruction in coal mine subsidence areas. However, the response of soil bacterial communities to reclamation is still not well understood. Here, we studied the bacterial communities in fertilizer-reclaimed soil (CK, without fertilizer; CF, chemical fertilizer; M, manure) in the Lu'an reclamation mining region and compared them with those in adjacent subsidence soil (SU) and farmland soil (FA). We found that the compositions of dominant phyla in the reclaimed soil differed greatly from those in the subsidence soil and farmland soil (p < 0.05). The related sequences of Acidobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Nitrospirae were mainly from the subsided soil, whereas those of Alphaproteobacteria, Planctomycetes, and Deltaproteobacteria were mainly derived from the farmland soil. Fertilization affected the bacterial community composition in the reclaimed soil, and bacteria richness and diversity increased significantly with the accumulation of soil nutrients after 7 years of reclamation (p < 0.05). Moreover, soil properties, especially SOM and pH, were found to play a key role in the restoration of the bacterial community in the reclaimed soil. The results are helpful to the study of soil fertility improvement and ecological restoration in mining areas.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial community; bacterial diversity; coal mining; high-throughput sequencing; soil reclamation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886231 PMCID: PMC8656652 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Soil chemical characteristics in different treatments.
| Treatments | pH | SOM (g∙kg−1) | AN (mg∙kg−1) | AP (mg∙kg−1) | AK (mg∙kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU | 8.06 ± 0.06 a | 9.74 ± 0.28 e | 16.51 ± 0.58 e | 3.18 ± 0.12 c | 123.30 ± 4.61 b |
| CK | 7.91 ± 0.03 b | 11.37 ± 0.59 d | 24.68 ± 1.01 d | 4.65 ± 0.31 c | 135.30 ± 2.31 b |
| CF | 7.84 ± 0.02 bc | 14.06 ± 0.46 c | 27.13 ± 1.46 c | 17.75 ± 1.54 b | 233.57 ± 15.32 a |
| M | 7.76 ± 0.02 c | 18.15 ± 0.51 b | 35.60 ± 0.68 b | 19.46 ± 1.47 b | 236.36 ± 19.58 a |
| FA | 7.85 ± 0.03 bc | 26.64 ± 0.40 a | 48.59 ± 2.33 a | 35.60 ± 0.68 a | 201.7 ± 15.78 a |
Values followed by different lowercase letters (a–e) are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test; SOM: organic matter; AN: alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen; AP: available phosphorus; AK: available potassium; CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland.
Estimated number of observed Sobs, coverage, richness, and diversity in different treatments.
| Treatments | Sobs | Coverage | Richness and Diversity Indices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chao1 | ACE | Shannon | |||
| SU | 3672 ± 195 b | 0.97 ± 0.01 a | 4455 ± 323 c | 4358 ± 319 c | 10.02 ± 0.24 d |
| CK | 10803 ± 106 a | 0.96 ± 0.02 a | 13864 ± 174 b | 14078 ± 242 b | 11.37 ± 0.05 c |
| CF | 11021 ± 731 a | 0.94 ± 0.01 ab | 15190 ± 463 a | 15621 ± 413 a | 11.60 ± 0.05 b |
| M | 11030 ± 337 a | 0.95 ± 0.00 a | 15330 ± 216 a | 15845 ± 170 a | 11.39 ± 0.12 c |
| FA | 9772 ± 288 a | 0.91 ± 0.02 b | 14430 ± 313 a | 14988 ± 302 a | 11.77 ± 0.04 a |
Values followed by different lowercase letters (a–d) are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple comparison test; Sobs: the species of OTU that can be detected; Coverage: Good’s nonparametric coverage estimator; ACE: abundance-based coverage estimator; Shannon: nonparametric Shannon diversity index. CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland.
Figure 1OTU Venn analysis of different treatments. OTU: Operational Taxonomic Units; CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland.
Figure 2(a) Relative abundance of the dominant bacteria phyla (top 10) in all different treatments; (b) relative abundance of the dominant bacteria genera (top 10) in all different treatments. Relative abundances (>1%) are based on the proportional frequencies of those DNA sequences that could be classified at the phylum (proteobacterial class) level. Sequences not classified to any known phylum and phylogenetic groups accounting for ≤1% of all classified sequences are summarized in the artificial group “others and unclassified”. CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland. TM7: the phylum candidatus Saccharibacteria.
Figure 3(a) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on unweighted UniFrac distances of soil bacterial communities sampled from different treatments; (b) similarity trees based on Bray–Curtis distance indices were calculated by OTUs at a distance of 3% using the hierarchical clustering analysis of bacterial communities for soil samples. CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between soil physicochemical characteristics and Sobs, and diversity indices.
| Pearson | Sobs | Chao1 | ACE | Shannon |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | −0.768 ** | −0.826 ** | −0.824 ** | −0.745 ** |
| SOM | 0.399 | 0.545 * | 0.564 * | 0.616 * |
| AN | 0.463 | 0.572 * | 0.647 ** | 0.559 * |
| AP | 0.377 | 0.606 * | 0.659 ** | 0. 623 * |
| AK | 0.508 | 0.644 ** | 0.656 ** | 0.409 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. pH: potential of hydrogen; SOM: organic matter; AN: alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen; AP: available phosphorus; AK: available potassium.
Figure 4Redundancy analysis (RDA) of abundant phyla (proteobacterial classes) and selected soil edaphic properties such as pH, SOM, AN, AP, and AK for individual samples from three sites. SOM: organic matter; AN: alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen; AP: available phosphorus; AK: available potassium; CK: reclaimed soil sampled in no-fertilizer treatment; CF: reclaimed soil sampled in chemical fertilizer treatment; M: reclaimed soil sampled in manure treatment. SU: subsided soil sampled in an adjacent site; FA: soil sampled in another adjacent farmland. TM7: the phylum candidatus Saccharibacteria. The red arrow: soil property factors; The blue arrow: the main group of bacteria phyla.