| Literature DB >> 36225353 |
Xingjia Xiang1,2, Jinyi Zhang1,2, Guilong Li3,4, Ke Leng1,2, Luyuan Sun3,4, Wenjing Qin3,4, Chunrui Peng3,4, Changxu Xu3,4, Jia Liu3,4, Yuji Jiang5.
Abstract
Multiple agricultural practices are being applied to increase crop yield in order to overcome the food shortage. Green manure has emerged as an appropriate practice to improve soil fertility and crop yield. However, the potential functions of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in the below-ground ecosystems following the application of green manure in Ultisols remain largely unexplored. In this study, qPCR and high-throughput sequencing were used to investigate the response of AMF abundance and communities in different treatment groups, i.e., control (without fertilization), mineral fertilization (NPK), mineral fertilization with returning peanut straw (NPKS), and with green manure (hairy vetch; NPKG). The NPKG treatment significantly increased soil fertility compared to other treatment groups. Compared with control, the NPK, NPKS, and NPKG treatments increased peanut yield by 12.3, 13.1, and 25.4%, respectively. NPKS and NPKG treatments significantly altered the AMF community composition decreased the AMF diversity and increased AMF abundance compared to the control. The AMF network of the NPKG treatment group showed the highest complexity and stability compared to other treatment groups. The structural equation modeling revealed that the application of hairy vetch improved soil nutrients and peanut yield by increasing the soil AMF abundance and network stability. Overall, the results suggested that the application of hairy vetch might trigger positive feedback between the peanut and AMF community, contributing to fertility and yield improvement in the dryland of Ultisol.Entities:
Keywords: AMF community; hairy vetch; peanut yield; sequencing; soil fertility
Year: 2022 PMID: 36225353 PMCID: PMC9549289 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1002459
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
The summary of the main soil properties and peanut yield.
| Variables | Control | NPK | NPKS | NPKG |
| Soil pH | 5.21 ± 0.10a | 5.29 ± 0.17a | 4.97 ± 0.14b | 4.71 ± 0.20c |
| Soil organic carbon (g kg–1) | 7.82 ± 0.30b | 7.64 ± 0.37b | 8.00 ± 0.47b | 10.6 ± 0.37a |
| Total nitrogen (g kg–1) | 0.99 ± 0.04b | 0.95 ± 0.05b | 0.96 ± 0.05b | 1.20 ± 0.05a |
| Total phosphorus (g kg–1) | 0.67 ± 0.02b | 0.74 ± 0.06ab | 0.67 ± 0.10b | 0.75 ± 0.03a |
| Alkaline nitrogen (mg kg–1) | 86.4 ± 4.50b | 90.0 ± 2.01b | 91.3 ± 2.77b | 128 ± 16.8a |
| Available phosphorus (mg kg–1) | 13.1 ± 1.68bc | 16.0 ± 3.06b | 11.9 ± 2.69c | 23.4 ± 2.18a |
| Peanut yield (kg ha–1) | 2864 ± 192.9c | 3217 ± 174.3b | 3240 ± 224.7b | 3591 ± 278.3a |
The values in brackets represent the standard deviation of the mean. Letters following numbers represent significant differences from one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s HSD comparisons (P < 0.05).
FIGURE 1The variation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) abundance (A) and ASV richness (B) in the soil among different treatments. The bottom and top of the box denote the first and third quartiles; the band inside the box denotes the median. Letters represent significant differences from the one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD comparisons (P < 0.05).
FIGURE 2Redundancy analysis (RDA) plot showing AMF community composition across different treatments. Differences in the soil AMF community composition among different treatments were determined using Analyses of Similarities (ANOSIM). The explanation rate for each factor is placed in the upper left corner. SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; AN, alkaline nitrogen; AP, available phosphorus; and TP, total phosphorus. **P < 0.01.
FIGURE 3Co-occurrence AMF network for each treatment. Each node in the figure represents an amplicon sequence variant (ASV), and the size of the point represents the degree of the node.
FIGURE 4The structural equation model shows the relationships among AMF index, soil nutrient, and crop yield. The solid line represents a significant relationship, and the dotted line represents an insignificant relationship. *, **, and *** in the figure represents significance at the probability of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level, respectively. All variances attributable to the constrained factor and the significance of the factor are portrayed at the bottom of the plot.