| Literature DB >> 36212829 |
Qiang Sun1,2,3,4, Xu Yang1,2,3,4, Zhengrong Bao2,3,4, Jian Gao2,3,4, Jun Meng2,3,4, Xiaori Han1,2,3, Yu Lan2,3,4, Zunqi Liu2,3,4, Wenfu Chen2,3,4.
Abstract
Soil microbial organisms are conducive to SOC sequestration. However, little attention has been given to the contributions of living MBC and microbial necromass carbon to the SOC pool under biochar and straw amendments. The aims of the study were to explore (1) the effects of maize straw and biochar on MBC, POC, MAOC, DOC and microbial necromass carbon; (2) the contribution of MBC and microbial necromass carbon to the SOC pool; and (3) the relationships among the soil microbial community structure, microbial necromass carbon and other SOC fractions under maize straw and biochar application for nine consecutive years. Three treatments were studied: CK (applied chemical fertilizer only), BC (biochar applied annually at a rate of 2.625 t ha-1 combined with chemical fertilizer), and SR (straw applied annually at a rate of 7.5 t ha-1). Both biochar and straw increased the SOC contents after nine successive maize plant seasons; the DOC and MAOC contents were also increased by biochar and straw amendments. Biochar had advantages in increasing POC contents compared to straw. Biochar and straw increased MBC contents by 48.54% and 60.83% compared to CK, respectively. Straw significantly increased the Galn, GluN, MurA, ManN and total amino contents (P < 0.05); however, biochar significantly increased the Galn and GluN contents (P < 0.05) but had no impact on the MurA contents and decreased the ManN contents. Biochar mainly increased the fungal-derived necromass carbon contents but had no effect on the bacterial-derived necromass carbon, and straw increased both the bacterial- and fungal-derived necromass carbon contents. Straw had no influence on the ratios of microbial necromass carbon accounting for SOC and MAOC, but biochar decreased the ratios in the current study. Similarly, biochar mainly increased the fungal PLFA and total PLFA contents compared to CK, but straw increased bacterial PLFAs, fungal PLFAs and Actinomycetes PLFAs. Maize yield were increased by 7.44 and 9.16% by biochar and straw application, respectively. These results indicate that biochar stimulates fungal activities and turnover to contribute to the stable soil carbon pool and that biochar also improves POC contents to improve the soil organic carbon sink.Entities:
Keywords: biochar; carbon sequestration; microbial necromass carbon; phospholipid fatty acids; straw
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212829 PMCID: PMC9539751 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.967746
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Dynamics of SOC contents during straw and biochar application for 9 consecutive years. The data of the first 3 years was cited from Yang et al. (2017a). Bars represent standard deviations (n = 3).
Effect of straw and straw biochar on SOC fractions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 34.16 ± 2.99b | 114.86 ± 14.71b | 2.65 ± 0.01c | 6.55 ± 0.16c |
| BC | 73.99 ± 14.09a | 170.62 ± 9.89a | 5.36 ± 0.10a | 8.42 ± 0.19b |
| SR | 89.74 ± 4.96a | 184.73 ± 13.39a | 4.57 ± 0.10b | 9.22 ± 0.10a |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. SOC, soil organic carbon; MBC, microbial biomass carbon; POC, particulate organic carbon; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; MAOC, mineral-associated organic carbon.
The proportions of different SOC fractions accounting for SOC contents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| CK | 0.36 ± 0.03b | 1.23 ± 0.14a | 28.36 ± 0.51c | 70.01 ± 0.51a |
| BC | 0.53 ± 0.10a | 1.22 ± 0.07a | 38.40 ± 0.93a | 60.28 ± 0.99b |
| SR | 0.64 ± 0.03a | 1.32 ± 0.10a | 32.51 ± 0.20b | 62.61 ± 0.29b |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3.
Effect of straw and straw biochar on soil amino sugars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 400.43 ± 0.51c | 123.02 ± 0.50b | 432.23 ± 0.12c | 27.67 ± 0.50b | 983.36 ± 1.04c |
| BC | 481.68 ± 0.69b | 114.88 ± 0.18c | 538.31 ± 0.92b | 27.24 ± 0.48b | 1,162.11 ± 1.83b |
| SR | 567.12 ± 0.31a | 134.36 ± 0.70a | 669.56 ± 0.33a | 32.31 ± 1.20a | 1,403.35 ± 0.71a |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. Galn, galactosamin; GluN, glucosamine; MurA, muramic acid; ManN, manosamine.
Effect of straw and straw biochar on soil microbial necromass carbon contents.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 1.24 ± 0.10b | 3.53 ± 0.02c | 4.78 ± 0.15c |
| BC | 1.23 ± 0.10b | 4.50 ± 0.03b | 5.72 ± 0.20b |
| SR | 1.45 ± 0.01a | 5.61 ± 0.10a | 7.07 ± 0.12a |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments.
The ratio of microbial necromass carbon accounting for SOC and MAOC.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| CK | 51.08 ± 0.92a | 72.98 ± 1.84a |
| BC | 40.96 ± 0.25b | 67.97 ± 1.51b |
| SR | 50.28 ± 0.38a | 76.64 ± 0.89a |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments.
Figure 2Effect of maize straw and straw-derived biochar on soil aggregate distribution in Year 2021. The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments.
Effect of maize straw and straw-derived biochar on soil aggregate stability in 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 1.57 ± 0.10a | 0.50 ± 0.05b | 64.42 ± 3.04b |
| BC | 1.67 ± 0.11a | 0.71 ± 0.07a | 72.89 ± 1.78a |
| SR | 1.72 ± 0.03a | 0.74 ± 0.06a | 73.60 ± 2.79a |
The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments. MWD, mean weight diameter; GMD, geometric mean diameter.
Figure 3Effect of maize straw and straw-derived biochar on gram-positive and gram-negative microbial PLFAs. The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments.
The ratios of total amino sugars to total phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) for different treatments.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| CK | 0.22 ± 0.01b | 25.49 ± 2.80a |
| BC | 0.26 ± 0.01a | 24.99 ± 2.66a |
| SR | 0.27 ± 0.00a | 27.82 ± 1.33a |
The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments.
Figure 4Effect of maize straw and straw-derived biochar on maize yield. The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments.
Figure 5Relationships among different variables. *indicate significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 6Redundancy analysis (RDA) showing the effect of different environmental variables on the microbial community.
The fitting equations in different treatments.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| CK | y = 11.0+0.1188x-0.0404x2 | 0.98 |
| BC | y = 11.0+1.4036x-0.1229x2 | 0.96 |
| SR | y = 11.0+1.2557x-0.1080x2 | 0.98 |
Figure 7Effect of maize straw and straw-derived biochar on soil PLFA. The error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments. PLFA, phospholipid fatty acid.