| Literature DB >> 36046026 |
Naling Bai1, Hanlin Zhang1, Yu He1, Juanqin Zhang1,2, Xianqing Zheng1,2, Haiyun Zhang1,3, Yue Zhang1,3, Weiguang Lv1,2,3,4, Shuangxi Li1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Chemical fertilizer reduction combined with novel and green agricultural inputs has become an important practice to improve microecological health in agricultural production. Given the close linkages between rhizosphere processes and plant nutrition and productivity, understanding how fertilization impacts this critical zone is highly important for optimizing plant-soil interactions and crop fitness for agricultural sustainability. Here, by using a pot experimental system, we demonstrated that nitrogen fertilizer reduction and microbial agent application promoted plant fitness and altered the microbial community structure in the rhizosphere soil with the following treatments: no fertilization, CK; conventional chemical fertilizer, CF; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer, N; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with pure γ-PGA, PGA; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with Bacillus subtilis A-5, A5; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with γ-PGA fermentation broth, FJY. The PGA, A5, and FJY treatments all significantly promoted crop growth, and the FJY treatment showed the strongest positive effect on Chinese cabbage yield (26,385.09 kg/hm2) (P < 0.05). Microbial agents affected the α diversity of the rhizosphere bacterial community; the addition of B. subtilis A-5 (A5 and FJY treatments) significantly affected rhizospheric bacterial community structure. Urease activity and soil pH were the key factors affecting bacterial community structure and composition. The FJY treatment seemed to influence the relative abundances of important bacterial taxa related to metabolite degradation, predation, and nitrogen cycling. This discovery provides insight into the mechanism underlying the effects of microbial agent inputs on rhizosphere microbial community assembly and highlights a promising direction for the manipulation of the rhizosphere microbiome to yield beneficial outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus subtilis; bacterial community; high-throughput sequencing; rhizosphere; γ-polyglutamic acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046026 PMCID: PMC9421268 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.954489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Effects of different treatments on the yield and quality of Chinese cabbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 16106.73 ± 330.83d | 40.87 ± 1.62e | 50.11 ± 11.08d | 342.53 ± 36.53a |
| CF | 22923.10 ± 503.00b | 53.30 ± 1.94d | 439.03 ± 20.74a | 329.61 ± 29.93a |
| N | 19171.35 ± 1278.49c | 52.40 ± 2.30d | 69.59 ± 14.92d | 367.83 ± 27.23a |
| PGA | 23042.98 ± 1498.00b | 64.45 ± 2.85c | 131.67 ± 5.62bc | 356.68 ± 28.70a |
| A5 | 24009.36 ± 1182.21b | 105.17 ± 2.87a | 144.80 ± 8.75b | 372.17 ± 22.33a |
| FJY | 26385.09 ± 920.21a | 94.22 ± 2.90b | 95.65 ± 13.35cd | 377.14 ± 21.54a |
No fertilization, CK; conventional chemical fertilizer, CF; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer, N; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with pure γ-PGA, PGA; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with Bacillus subtilis A-5, A5; 30% reduced nitrogen fertilizer with γ-PGA fermentation broth, FJY. The data are the mean ± SD; lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among treatments at the 0.05 level.
Effects of different treatments on rhizosphere soil physicochemical properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 8.28 ± 0.01c | 5.33 ± 0.31b | 0.84 ± 0.04c | 2.61 ± 0.05c | 36.45 ± 3.47c | 33.85 ± 4.52c |
| CF | 8.37 ± 0.03ab | 5.97 ± 0.21a | 1.03 ± 0.11ab | 2.82 ± 0.06ab | 45.60 ± 7.35ab | 46.22 ± 15.76c |
| N | 8.35 ± 0.02b | 5.37 ± 0.15b | 1.01 ± 0.07ab | 2.79 ± 0.02ab | 50.81 ± 5.96a | 67.72 ± 6.64b |
| PGA | 8.40 ± 0.04a | 5.60 ± 0.35ab | 1.05 ± 0.04a | 2.86 ± 0.06a | 53.02 ± 3.68a | 101.60 ± 10.84a |
| A5 | 8.27 ± 0.01c | 5.63 ± 0.25ab | 0.94 ± 0.06bc | 2.66 ± 0.06bc | 47.20 ± 1.77ab | 80.05 ± 4.22b |
| FJY | 8.30 ± 0.01c | 5.70 ± 0.20ab | 0.87 ± 0.02c | 2.72 ± 0.08b | 40.21 ± 1.72bc | 95.76 ± 1.24a |
SOM, TN, TP, AN, and AP refer to soil organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available nitrogen, and available phosphorus, respectively. The data are the mean ± SD; lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among treatments at the 0.05 level.
Figure 1Effects of different treatments on urease activity (A) and sucrase (B) in the rhizosphere soil.
Figure 2Comparison of bacterial community ? diversity Chao1 index (A), Shannon index (B), Simpson index (C), and Simpsoneven index (D), in Chinese cabbage rhizosphere soil.
Figure 3PCoA of bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere soil based on the Bray–Curtis matrix.
Figure 4The average relative abundances of bacteria at the phylum (A) and genus (B) levels for rhizosphere soil samples under different treatments. “Others” includes phyla/genera with a relative abundance below 1%.
Figure 5RDA of rhizosphere soil elements and bacterial community under different fertilization treatments (A); Pearson correlation analysis between vegetable yield and quality and bacterial community α diversity in the rhizosphere soil (B). “*” and “**” indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) and extremely significant differences (P < 0.01), respectively.
Figure 6Functional heatmap of the rhizosphere soil predicted by the FAPROTAX database under different treatments.