| Literature DB >> 35224203 |
Yuan Liu1, Tianpeng Gao2,3, Xueying Wang4, Jingwen Fu5, Mingbo Zuo5, Yingli Yang5, Zhuoxin Yin3, Zhenzhou Wang3, Xisheng Tai3, Guohua Chang3.
Abstract
Heavy metal (HM) pollution is a severe and common environmental problem in mining area soil. It is imperative to understand the micro ecological characteristics of mining area soil for HM contaminated soil remediation. This study described the effects of HM pollution level and soil physical and chemical parameters on microbial diversity. In this study, high-throughput sequencing technology was used to study the effects of HM pollution on the diversity and composition of the soil microbial community. The soil groups were barren, exhibiting alkaline pH, low total nitrogen (TN), and total potassium (TK) according to soil fertility standard. Compared with the control group, there was severe multiple HM pollution in the other five groups, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu). The dominant phyla accounting for more than 1% of the overall community in all soil groups were Proteobacteria (34.432 ± 7.478%), Actinobacteria (22.947 ± 4.297%), Acidobacteria (10.47 ± 2.439%), Chloroflexi (7.89 ± 2.980%), Planctomycetota (5.993 ± 1.558%), Bacteroidota (4.275 ± 1.980%), Cyanobacteria (3.478 ± 2.196%), Myxococcus (2.888 ± 0.822%), Gemmatimonadota (2.448 ± 0.447%), Firmicutes (1.193 ± 0.634%), Patescibacteria (0.435 ± 0.813%), and Nitrospirota (0.612 ± 0.468%). Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria were predominant at the phylum level, which showed a certain tolerance to HMs. In addition, redundancy analysis (RDA) results showed that Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cd were strongly correlated with each other (P < 0.01). Other nutrient elements (except for TK) were significantly positively correlated with each other. Cu and nutrient element TK had an important impact on bacterial community structure. Therefore, bacteria with the function of HM tolerance and bioremediation in extreme environments should be researched, which provides a foundation for future ecological remediation of contaminated soil by using microbial remediation technology.Entities:
Keywords: bacteria; diversity; environmental factors; mining soil; northwest China
Year: 2022 PMID: 35224203 PMCID: PMC8822311 DOI: 10.1515/biol-2022-0008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Life Sci ISSN: 2391-5412 Impact factor: 0.938
Figure 1Distribution of sample area and sampling points.
Sampling point information
| Groups | Number | Average elevation/m | Longitude (E) | Latitude (N) | Oxygen content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ore discharge port | SO | 1230.99 | 105°44′0″ | 33°50′37″ | 18.96 |
| Rhizosphere soil No.1 | S1_SR | 1186.98 | 105°44′3″ | 33°50′37″ | 18.99 |
| Non-rhizosphere soil No.1 | S1_SW | ||||
| Rhizosphere soil No.2 | S2_SR | 1074.84 | 105°41′29″ | 33°55′28″ | 19.21 |
| Non-rhizosphere soil No.2 | S2_SW | ||||
| Control soil | SF | 992.08 | 105°43′49″ | 33°47′46″ | 19.44 |
Background value of soil in Gansu Province
| Heavy metal elements | Cu | Zn | Cd | Pb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil content (mg/kg) | 24.1 | 68.5 | 0.116 | 18.8 |
Concentration and pollution index of heavy metals in soil
| Groups | Number | pH | Cu | Zn | Cd | Pb | PLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ore discharge port | SO | 8.40 ± 0.04a | 61.8 ± 7.104a | 748.66 ± 14.85d | 2.49 ± 0.04d | 453.03 ± 4.565cd | 10.897 |
| Rhizosphere soil No.1 | S1_SR | 8.96 ± 0.63a | 42.9 ± 7.398c | 2726.2 ± 163.6b | 9.15 ± 0.242b | 1199.593 ± 33.50b | 8.314 |
| Non-rhizosphere soil No.1 | S1_SW | 8.97 ± 0.36a | 58.4 ± 3.653b | 5045.0 ± 353a | 16.64 ± 0.83a | 1912.7 ± 114.5a | 41.290 |
| Rhizosphere soil No.2 | S2_SR | 8.85 ± 0.44a | 19.5 ± 3.201f | 257.7 ± 4.3b | 0.97 ± 0.05e | 89.7 ± 1.5d | 4.488 |
| Non-rhizosphere soil No.2 | S2_SW | 8.95 ± 0.45a | 30.5 ± 7.398d | 1814.67 ± 791c | 5.59 ± 2.848c | 609.5 ± 7.8c | 15.915 |
| Control soil | SF | 8.443 ± 0.065a | 23.7 ± 3.421e | 19.2 ± 12.9d | 0.653 ± 0.241e | 67.9 ± 1.3e | 1.53 |
Note: Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd (mg/kg). Different lower case letters in the same column indicated significant differences among soil samples from different sampling points (P < 0.05) followed by Duncan multiple comparison test.
Figure 2(a) Rarefaction curves and (b) Shannon–Wiener curve.
Figure 3Rank abundance curves.
Diversity indices of soil bacterial community in the six soil samples
| Index | SO | S1_SR | S1_SW | S2_SR | S2_SW | SF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chao | 2670.473c | 3104.609b | 2372.538c | 3685.296a | 3145.042b | 3584.321a |
| Ace | 2588.136c | 3098.390b | 2165.975d | 3726.683a | 3168.627b | 3540.378ab |
| Shannon | 5.099b | 6.285a | 5.052b | 6.551a | 6.174a | 6.355a |
| Simpson | 0.038a | 0.005b | 0.027a | 0.004b | 0.011b | 0.006b |
Note: Different lower case letters in the same line indicated significant differences among soil samples from different sampling points (P < 0.05) followed by Duncan multiple comparison test.
Figure 4(a) OTU Wayne diagram of six soil samples and (b) Venn diagram of species in six soil samples.
Figure 5(a) PCA of the bacterial communities in sample and (b) NMDS of the bacterial communities in sample. Note: PCA of sampling points are based on Bray–Curtis microbial community distance. The horizontal and vertical axes represent two eigenvalues, which can best reflect the variance. Each point represents a sample, and the same color is the same sample point.
Figure 6Relative abundance of soil bacterial community in six sampling sites (relative abundance > 0.1%) (Phylum level).
Figure 7Analysis chart of significance test of difference between groups.
Figure 8Heatmap of the relative abundance of bacteria community at phylum level in soil samples.
Figure 9(a) RDA results of the soil physicochemical characteristics and the relative abundance of bacterial phyla and (b) RDA results of the soil HM factors and the relative abundance of bacterial phyla.
Figure 10UPGMA clusters of different bacterial communities.
Figure 11Heatmap analysis of the relationships between the fungal community composition at the phylum level and soil chemical properties. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
Physical and chemical properties of soil in the mining area
| Index | SO | S1_SR | S1_SW | S2_SR | S2_SW | SF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COM | 7.80 ± 0.34c | 28.18 ± 0.31a | 8.30 ± 0.42c | 8.42 ± 0.59c | 12.0 ± 0.72b | 8.44 ± 0.68c |
| TN | 0.343 ± 0.014e | 1.772 ± 0.021a | 0.446 ± 0.031d | 0.859 ± 0.06f | 0.696 ± 0.049b | 0.731 ± 0.522c |
| TP | 0.281 ± 0.008e | 0.697 ± 0.002a | 0.426 ± 0.025d | 0.511 ± 0.041c | 0.462 ± 0.018b | 0.491 ± 0.132d |
| TK | 1.140 ± 0.02cd | 1.274 ± 0.016cd | 1.468 ± 0.059bc | 0.954 ± 0.067e | 1.844 ± 0.341ab | 1.397 ± 0.344a |
| NH4 +_N | 10.74 ± 0.06c | 21.3 ± 0.8a | 8.57 ± 0.425d | 13.46 ± 0.4d | 9.06 ± 0.77b | 11.93 ± 4.68d |
| NO3 −_N | 5.84 ± 0.182c | 13.99 ± 0.24a | 5.54 ± 0.22c | 4.25 ± 0.3 d | 9.23 ± 0.65b | 5.47 ± 0.44c |
| CEC | 2.95 ± 0.11b | 9.92 ± 0.18a | 2.69 ± 0.26bc | 0.8 ± 0.056 d | 2.52 ± 0.13c | 2.77 ± 0.167c |
Note: TN: total N (g/kg). COM: soil organic carbon (g/kg). TP: total P (g/kg). TK: total K (%). (NO3 −_N): nitrate N (mg/kg). (NH4 +_N): ammonium N (mg/kg). CEC: cation exchange capacity ( ). Different lower case letters in the same line indicated significant differences among soil samples from different sampling points (P < 0.05) followed by Duncan multiple comparison test.