| Literature DB >> 35736123 |
Xiaoping Zhang1,2,3, Qiaoling Li1,2, Zheke Zhong1,2, Zhiyuan Huang1,2, Fangyuan Bian1,2, Chuanbao Yang1,2, Xing Wen1,2.
Abstract
Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) has an extremely fast growth rate and major carbon sequestration potential. However, little information is available on the dynamics of soil C accumulation and fungi communities related to different management practices. Here, we investigated changes in the soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions and fungal communities of a Moso bamboo plantation under three different management practices (M0: undisturbed; M1: extensively managed; and M2: intensively managed). Compared with M0, SOC levels were reduced by 41.2% and 71.5% in M1 and M2, respectively; furthermore, four SOC fractions (C1: very labile; C2: labile; C3: less labile; and C4: nonlabile) and the carbon management index (CMI) were also significantly reduced by plantation management. These practices further altered fungal communities, for example, by increasing Basidiomycota and Mortierellomycota, and by decreasing Ascomycota and Rozellomycota. Pyrenochaeta, Mortierella, Saitozyma, and Cladophialophora were identified as keystone taxa. Soil fungal communities were significantly related to the pH, NH4-N, AP, C3, and the C4 fractions of SOC. Random forest modeling identified soil C3 and Mortierella as the most important predictors of the CMI. Our results suggest that reducing human interference would be beneficial for fungal community improvement and C sequestration in Moso bamboo plantations.Entities:
Keywords: bamboo; carbon management index; carbon sequestration; ecosystem stability; fungi
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736123 PMCID: PMC9225535 DOI: 10.3390/jof8060640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Soil properties in bamboo soils from undisturbed (M0), extensively managed (M1), and intensively managed (M2) stands.
| M0 | M1 | M2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.93 ± 0.04 b | 5.23 ± 0.06 a | 4.69 ± 0.02 c |
|
| 80.34 ± 1.63 a | 47.18 ± 1.59 b | 22.91 ± 0.59 c |
|
| 37.63 ± 1.77 a | 31.12 ± 1.76 b | 22.44 ± 2.93 c |
|
| 29.87 ± 4.12 a | 12.28 ± 1.99 b | 13.50 ± 1.54 b |
|
| 35.49 ± 2.99 b | 34.33 ± 1.14 b | 71.88 ± 3.12 a |
|
| 19.59 ± 1.75 b | 14.16 ± 0.53 c | 30.11 ± 1.02 a |
SOC—soil organic carbon; AP—available P; AK—available K. Different lowercase letters within rows indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 according to one-way ANOVA (LSD, n = 6).
Soil oxidizable OC fractions and soil carbon management index in the treatments.
| M0 | M1 | M2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1(mg/kg) | 10.03 ± 0.65 a | 6.53 ± 0.28 b | 2.39 ± 0.17 c |
| C2 (mg/kg) | 12.58 ± 0.77 a | 7.43 ± 0.49 b | 2.75 ± 0.18 c |
| C3 (mg/kg) | 16.08 ± 0.77 a | 10.11 ± 0.66 b | 4.28 ± 0.20 c |
| C4 (mg/kg) | 64.26 ± 1.73 a | 37.07 ± 2.15 b | 18.63 ± 0.54 c |
| CPI | 1.00 ± 0.02 a | 0.59 ± 0.02 b | 0.29 ± 0.01 c |
| L | 0.60 ± 0.03 a | 0.65 ± 0.07 a | 0.51 ± 0.02 b |
| LI | 1.00 ± 0.06 a | 1.08 ± 0.11 a | 0.84 ± 0.04 b |
| CMI | 100.00 ± 6.07 a | 63.46 ± 4.91 b | 23.93 ± 1.12 c |
C1—very labile fraction of oxidizable carbon; C2—labile fraction of oxidizable carbon; C3—less labile fraction of oxidizable carbon; C4—nonlabile fraction of oxidizable carbon; CPI—Carbon Preference Index; L—Lability; LI—Lability Index; CMI—carbon management index. Different lowercase letters within rows indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 according to one-way ANOVA (LSD, n = 6).
Figure 1Characterization of the soil fungal community in soil samples from the three different management practices. (a) Venn diagrams of soil fungal OTUs; Fungal phyla with average relative abundance < 1% were merged and indicated as ‘Others’. (b) Comparative analysis for the composition of dominant fungal phyla. Different letters indicate significant variation among the treatments according to one-way ANOVA (LSD, p ≤ 0.05, n = 6).
Figure 2(a) Alpha-diversity indices of soil fungal community among three different management practices. Different letters indicate significant variation among the treatments according to one-way ANOVA (least significant difference [LSD], p ≤ 0.05, n = 6). (b) Hierarchical cluster diagram of soil fungal community. Blue, green, red numbers denotes the soil samples from undisturbed (M0), extensively managed (M1), and intensively managed (M2) bamboo plantations, respectively. Each group has six replicates.
Figure 3Redundancy analysis of fungal community structure and soil properties (a). AP—available P; C3—less labile fraction of oxidizable carbon; C4—nonlabile fraction of oxidizable carbon. Spearman’s correlation analysis and Mantel tests for fungal communities (b). Red crosses indicate p > 0.05. Edge width corresponds to the Mantel’s R value and the edge color denotes the statistical significance.
Figure 4Co-occurrence networks of fungi in the bamboo soils from three management practices, based on Spearman’s correlation analysis between OTUs. Red (+) and blue (−) lines denote significant (ρ > |0.6|, p < 0.05) positive and negative correlations, respectively. The size of each node represents the connection number (degree). Nodes are colored by phylum.
Fungal network properties at different plantation management practices.
| M0 | M1 | M2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Node | 69 | 84 | 85 |
| Edge | 155 | 241 | 615 |
| Average degree | 4.49 | 5.74 | 14.47 |
| Average path length | 4.05 | 3.73 | 3.19 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.95 |
Figure 5Random forest analysis showing the relative contribution of (a) Soil properties and (b) fungal community in determining the CMI. The fungal community data represent alpha indices (Shannon and Chao1) and relative abundance of keystone taxa (for each OTU in Table S2). ** p ≤ 0.01; * p ≤ 0.05; ns p > 0.05. IncMSE—the increase in mean square error.