| Literature DB >> 34993020 |
Xuejiang Zhang1,2,3, Heyun Wang4, Yawei Que1,2,3, Dazhao Yu1,2,3, Hua Wang1,2,3.
Abstract
Wheat root rot disease due to soil-borne fungal pathogens leads to tremendous yield losses worth billions of dollars worldwide every year. It is very important to study the relationship between rhizosphere soil fungal diversity and wheat roots to understand the occurrence and development of wheat root rot disease. A significant difference in fungal diversity was observed in the rhizosphere soil of healthy and diseased wheat roots in the heading stage, but the trend was the opposite in the filling stage. The abundance of most genera with high richness decreased significantly from the heading to the filling stage in the diseased groups; the richness of approximately one-third of all genera remained unchanged, and only a few low-richness genera, such as Fusarium and Ceratobasidium, had a very significant increase from the heading to the filling stage. In the healthy groups, the abundance of most genera increased significantly from the heading to filling stage; the abundance of some genera did not change markedly, or the abundance of very few genera increased significantly. Physical and chemical soil indicators showed that low soil pH and density, increases in ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen contributed to the occurrence of wheat root rot disease. Our results revealed that in the early stages of disease, highly diverse rhizosphere soil fungi and a complex community structure can easily cause wheat root rot disease. The existence of pathogenic fungi is a necessary condition for wheat root rot disease, but the richness of pathogenic fungi is not necessarily important. The increases in ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen contributed to the occurrence of wheat root rot disease. Low soil pH and soil density are beneficial to the occurrence of wheat root rot disease.Entities:
Keywords: Community structure; Fungal diversity; Rhizosphere soil; Wheat root rot disease
Year: 2021 PMID: 34993020 PMCID: PMC8675258 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Sampling plots of wheat root.
This picture mainly shows the readers the serious situation of the root rot disease in the wheat field of Xiangyang Original Farm. After the occurrence of wheat root rot disease, the ears of wheat is becoming abnormal white, and even false ripening in advance. Judging by this phenotype, when the roots of wheat plants were dug out, it was observed that the diseased roots were unusually brown, dark brown, and even black compared to the healthy roots. These diseased roots can lead to plant death at a later stage, leading to crop failure. (A) The occurrence of wheat root rot in this wheat field in 2015 and 2016. This land has a total of three acres, and 17 plots have been set up to test the efficacy of wheat root rot. The disease index of the wheat root rot reached 43%. (B) The soil sample collection of wheat root in this wheat field in 2017. Areas with diseased wheat and healthy wheat were marked by inserting white cards at fixed points. The samples, in April and May, were collected from the areas labeled in April.
The analysis of alpha diversity index in healthy and diseased groups.
| Sample/Estimators | Sobs | Ace | Chao | Shannon | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H4 | 129.40 | 142.21 | 142.14 | 3.03 | 0.9994 |
| D4 | 135.60 | 154.71 | 149.52 | 3.37 | 0.9995 |
| H5 | 163.40 | 178.98 | 180.19 | 3.41 | 0.9993 |
| D5 | 155.80 | 160.04 | 161.46 | 3.32 | 0.9997 |
Figure 2Comparative analysis of OTUs and genus levels in each community.
(A) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) at the OTU level in healthy and diseased groups at the heading stage and filling stage. Distance algorithm is based on bray_curtis. (B) Sample hierarchical clustering analysis based on OTU level. (C) Typing analysis of fungi at the genus level.
All fungi with a richness greater than one percent in each group.
There are 30 genera in the four groups, which mainly belong to Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Chytridiomycota.
| Phylum | Genus | H4 | D4 | H5 | D5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0184 | 0.0760 | 0.0455 | 0.0454 | ||
| 0.0010 | 0.0662 | 0.0035 | 0.0314 | ||
| 0.1291 | 0.0460 | 0.0609 | 0.0136 | ||
| 0.0005 | 0.0309 | 0.0027 | 0.0168 | ||
| 0.0028 | 0.0295 | 0.0029 | 0.0132 | ||
| 0.1489 | 0.0284 | 0.1160 | 0.0288 | ||
| 0.0119 | 0.0274 | 0.0021 | 0.0035 | ||
| 0.0012 | 0.0271 | 0.0044 | 0.0045 | ||
| 0.0010 | 0.0236 | 0.0015 | 0.0164 | ||
| 0.0103 | 0.0213 | 0.0165 | 0.0081 | ||
| 0.0442 | 0.0160 | 0.0201 | 0.0057 | ||
| 0.0005 | 0.0134 | 0.0009 | 0.0001 | ||
| 0.0008 | 0.0108 | 0.0001 | 0.0003 | ||
| 0.0193 | 0.0055 | 0.0127 | 0.0042 | ||
| 0.0021 | 0.0050 | 0.0197 | 0.0100 | ||
| 0.0122 | 0.0036 | 0.0083 | 0.0038 | ||
| 0.0135 | 0.0027 | 0.0103 | 0.0013 | ||
| 0.0106 | 0.0025 | 0.0195 | 0.0008 | ||
| 0.0114 | 0.0003 | 0.0259 | 0.0015 | ||
| 0.0025 | 0.0001 | 0.0210 | 0.0005 | ||
| 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0118 | 0.0000 | ||
| 0.0000 | 0.0255 | 0 | 0.0006 | ||
| 0.0726 | 0.0102 | 0 | 0.0161 | ||
| 0.0009 | 0.0022 | 0 | 0.0109 | ||
| 0.0049 | 0.0013 | 0 | 0.0214 | ||
| 0.0156 | 0.0011 | 0 | 0.0001 | ||
| 0.0319 | 0.0009 | 0 | 0.0003 | ||
| 0.0113 | 0.0006 | 0 | 0.0001 | ||
| 0.0432 | 0.0529 | 0 | 0.0128 | ||
| 0.0315 | 0.0244 | 0 | 0.0737 |
Figure 3Species composition analysis.
(A) Percent community abundance at the phylum level in each groups. (B) Species abundance clustering at genus level in each sample. (C) Circos representation showing distribution of genus with significant difference in abundance in different groups. (D) Analysis of common and endemic genera in the different populations by Venn diagram.
The physical and chemical properties of the rhizosphere.
| Sample ID | TP | NH4 | NO3 | TN | pH | SD | TC | DHR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H4 | 4.16 ± 0.13 | 16.02 ± 3.27 | 26.38 ± 6.03 | 204.1 ± 30.94 | 7.18 ± 0.06 | 2.68 ± 0.06 | 9.82 ± 1.37 | 86.26 ± 1.32 |
| D4 | 4.13 ± 0.21 | 14.04 ± 2.62 | 30.97 ± 5.95 | 251.48 ± 21.09 | 6.95 ± 0.08 | 2.42 ± 0.05 | 10.56 ± 2.25 | 85.15 ± 0.84 |
| H5 | 3.82 ± 0.18 | 17.45 ± 4.20 | 23.48 ± 2.23 | 217.65 ± 49.43 | 7.15 ± 0.07 | 2.5 ± 0.03 | 7.93 ± 0.71 | 89.77 ± 0.32 |
| D5 | 3.84 ± 0.16 | 18.71 ± 2.41 | 29.38 ± 3.82 | 237.39 ± 52.74 | 6.76 ± 0.15 | 2.48 ± 0.03 | 8.54 ± 0.43 | 88.77 ± 0.21 |
Note:
TP, total phosphorus; NH4, ammonium nitrogen; NO3, nitrate nitrogen; TN, total nitrogen; SD, soil density; TC, total carbon; DHR, soil dry-humidity ratio.
Figure 4Hierarchical clustering analysis at the OTU level between physical and chemical soil properties and the 30 most abundant genera.
*, ** and *** represent significant difference P < 0.05, P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively.