Effects of Paclobutrazol on Soil Bacterial Diversity in Mango Orchard and PICRUSt-based Predicted Metagenomic Analysis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.04.027

Abstract

Abstract:

The Illumina Miseq 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing technology was used to study the bacterial community structure and diversity of two group soil samples with and without paclobutrazol treatment, respectively, from a mango orchard in Ledong, Hainan. A total of 3586 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in two groups were obtained, which were classified as 38 phylums, 89 classes, 195 orders, 378 families, 673 genera and 1353 species. The results of the analysis of Alpha diversity showed that soil bacterial richness index was significantly higher in the paclobutrazo-treated soils, however compared with the soils without paclobutrazol treatment, the bacterial diversity was significantly decreased. The principal component analysis indicated that the community structure of soil bacteria was affected by paclobutrazol. The quantities of Proteobacteria and Planctomycetes were significantly increased in the paclobutrazol-treated soils, however, those of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes were significantly decreased. The PICRUSt analysis showed that the functional gene families were mainly related to 43 sub-functions including the cell growth and death, carbohydrate metabolism, biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, amino acid metabolism, and so on. The total metabolic capacity of soil bacteria could be reduced after treated with paclobutrazol. Therefore, the application of paclobutrazol can reduce the diversity of soil bacteria, and it also has some impacts on the relative abundance and functions of soil bacteria.

Key words: paclobutrazol, mango orchard, soil, bacterial diversity, PICRUSt analysis

JIN Xiaotuo,ZHOU Yanyu,XIA Yangrongchang,CHEN Lijun,LI Tao,ZHAO Hongwei. Effects of Paclobutrazol on Soil Bacterial Diversity in Mango Orchard and PICRUSt-based Predicted Metagenomic Analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(4): 807-814.

Figures/Tables 7

Tab. 1 Basic properties of the tested soils

处理 Treatment	pH	通气孔隙度 Soil aeration porosity/%	有机质 Organic matters /(g?kg^-1)	碱解氮 Available N /(mg?kg^-1)	有效磷 Available P /(mg?kg^-1)	速效钾 Available K /(mg?kg^-1)
C	5.63±0.02^a	48.2±0.6^a	12.396±0.322^a	152.916±3.268^a	54.116±2.003^a	158.497±8.360^a
T	5.62±0.14^a	47.9±0.5^a	12.908±0.814^a	148.659±5.844^a	52.962±1.900^a	156.086±4.873^a

Fig. 1 OTUs rarefaction curve C0 and C30 represent the two periods of the control group before and after test. T0 and T30 represent the two periods before and after treatment.

Fig. 2 Venn diagram analysis in different samples C0 and C30 represent the two periods of the control group before and after experiment. T0 and T30 represent the two periods before and after treatment.

Tab. 2 Bacterial abundance index and diversity index in soils

	Sobs	Ace	Chao	Shannon	Simpson
C₀	1961.67±14.79^b	2216.81±13.31^c	2067.10±79.14^b	5.98±0.22^a	0.01±0.01^a
T₀	1893.67±25.55^b	2137.07±21.18^c	1959.42±12.56^b	5.94±0.04^a	0.01±0.00^a
C₃₀	2592.67±28.99^a	2823.89±25.95^b	3056.10±45.8^a	6.16±0.02^a	0.01±0.00^a
T₃₀	2536.33±76.51^a	3351.23±22.82^a	3113.32±85.68^a	5.80±0.25^b	0.00±0.00^b

Fig. 3 The differences of relative abundance of bacteria at the phylum level * represents P<0.05, ** represents P<0.01, *** represents P<0.001. C0 and C30 represent the two periods of the control group before and after test. T0 and T30 represent the two periods before and after treatment.

Fig. 4 Analysis of bacterial principal components in different soil samples C0 and C30 represent the two periods of the control group before and after test. T0 and T30 represent the two periods before and after treatment.

Fig. 5 The variation of predicted functional profiles in different samples (hierarchy level 2) The figure numbers represent the first-level functional layer distribution: 1 cellular processes; 2 environmental information processing; 3 genetic information processing; 4 human diseases; 5 metabolism; 6 organismal systems. C0 and C30 represent the two periods of the control group before and after experiment. T0 and T30 represent the two periods before and after treatment.

References 40

[1]	南楠, 傅再军, 徐靖丞 . 我国芒果产业发展问题探析[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2017,11(3):80-84.
[2]	Vaz F L, Netto A M, Antonino A C D , et al. Modeling of the kinetics biodegradation of paclobutrazol in two soils of the semiarid northeast brazil[J]. Quimica Nova, 2012,35(1):77-81. DOI URL
[3]	孙定波 . 反季节芒果控梢催花技术[J]. 中国热带农业, 2008(5):53-53.
[4]	Kishore K, Singh H S, Kurian R M . Paclobutrazol use in perennial fruit crops and its residual effects: A review[J]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2015,85(7):863-872.
[5]	Singh V K, Garg N, Bhirigwanshi S R . Effect of paclobutrazol doses on nutritional and microbiological properties of mango (Mangifera indica) orchard soils[J]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2005,75:738-739.
[6]	Fierer N . Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2017,15(10):579-590. DOI URL
[7]	Doran J W, Fraser D G, Culik M N , et al. Influence of alternative and conventional agricultural management on soil microbial processes and nitrogen availability[J]. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 1987,2(3):99-106. DOI URL
[8]	李旭东, 徐莉娜, 薛林贵 . 土壤微生物多样性研究的新进展[J]. 广州化工, 2014(20):6-10.
[9]	杨成德, 龙瑞军, 陈秀蓉 , 等. 土壤微生物功能群及其研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2008,39(2):421-425.
[10]	许光辉, 郑洪元 . 土壤微生物分析方法手册[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986: 102-110.
[11]	赵秀芬, 房增国, 高祖明 . 多效唑对土壤微生物数量及部分酶活性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2005,36(3):234-235.
[12]	袁志华, 程波, 常玉海 , 等. 15%多效唑可湿性粉剂对土壤微生物多样性的影响研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2008(5):1848-1852.
[13]	Gonçalves I C R, Araújo A S F, Carvalho E M S , et al. Effect of paclobutrazol on microbial biomass, respiration and cellulose decomposition in soil[J]. European Journal of Soil Biology, 2009,45(3):235-238. DOI URL
[14]	Silva M S, Célia Maria, Vieira F , et al. Paclobutrazol effects on soil microorganisms[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2003,22(1):79-86. DOI URL
[15]	方治国, 郝翠梅, 姚文冲 , 等. 空气微生物群落解析方法:从培养到非培养[J]. 生态学报, 2016,36(14):4244-4253. DOI
[16]	王岩, 沈锡权, 吴祖芳 , 等. PCR-SSCP技术在微生物群落多态性分析中的应用进展[J]. 生物技术, 2009,19(3):84-87.
[17]	林生, 庄家强, 陈婷 , 等. 不同年限茶树根际土壤微生物群落PLFA生物标记多样性分析[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013,32(1):64-71.
[18]	夏围围, 贾仲君 . 高通量测序和DGGE分析土壤微生物群落的技术评价[J]. 微生物学报, 2014,54(12):1489-1499.
[19]	张丁予, 章婷曦, 王国祥 . 第二代测序技术的发展及应用[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2016(9):96-102.
[20]	Wu Y, Ke X, Hernández M , et al. Autotrophic growth of bacterial and archaeal ammonia oxidizers in freshwater sediment microcosms incubated at different temperatures[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2013,79(9):3076-3084. DOI URL
[21]	Justyna P, Rebecchi A, Pisacane V , et al. Bacterial diversity in typical Italian salami at different ripening stages as revealed by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons[J]. Food Microbiology, 2015,46:342-356. DOI URL
[22]	Langille M G I, Zaneveld J, Caporaso J G , et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 2013,31(9):814-821. DOI
[23]	Polónia A R M, Richard C D F, Coelho F J R d C , et al. Compositional analysis of archaeal communities in high and low microbial abundance sponges in the Misool coral reef system, Indonesia[J]. Marine Biology Research, 2018: 1-14.
[24]	董志颖, 洪慢, 胡晗静 , 等. 过量氮输入对寡营养海水细菌群落代谢潜力的影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018,38(2):457-466.
[25]	张菲, 田伟, 孙峰 , 等. 丹江口库区表层浮游细菌群落组成与PICRUSt功能预测分析[J]. 环境科学, 2019(3):1-14.
[26]	厉桂香, 马克明 . 北京东灵山树线处土壤细菌的PICRUSt基因预测分析[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(6):2180-2186.
[27]	孙峰, 田伟, 张菲 , 等. 丹江口库区库滨带植被土壤细菌群落多样性及PICRUSt功能预测分析[J]. 环境科学, 2019(1):1-13.
[28]	程扬, 刘子丹, 沈启斌 , 等. 秸秆生物炭施用对玉米根际和非根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2018,27(10):1870-1877.
[29]	鲍士旦 . 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[30]	Caporaso J G, Lauber C L, Walters W A , et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011,108(Supplement 1):4516-4522. DOI URL
[31]	Waingwright M, 吴文礼 . 农药对土壤微生物活性的影响[J]. 土壤学进展, 1980(4):31-35.
[32]	张娜娜, 姜博, 邢奕 , 等. 有机磷农药污染土壤的微生物降解研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2018,50(4):645-655.
[33]	华健, 陈曼佳, 李芳柏 , 等. 水稻土中五氯酚的降解转化动态及其对微生物群落的影[J]. 地球与环境, 2018,46(3):225-230.
[34]	刘倩倩 . 三种常用杀菌剂在麦田土壤中的消解动态及对土壤微生物的毒性评价[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2016.
[35]	伍云丽 . 腈菌唑在茶园土壤中的消解动力学及其对土壤微生物活性影响的研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014.
[36]	Kuo J, Wang Y W, Chen M, et al. The effect of paclobutrazol on soil bacterial composition across three consecutive flowering stages of mung bean[J]. Folia Microbiologica, 2019,64(2):197-205. DOI
[37]	Hua F, Tang F, Wei Z , et al. Persistence of repeated triadimefon application and its impact on soil microbial functional diversity[J]. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B, 2012,47(2):104-110. DOI URL
[38]	Jeffries T C, Rayu S, Nielsen U N , et al. Metagenomic functional potential predicts degradation rates of a model organophosphorus xenobiotic in pesticide contaminated soils[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018,9:147. DOI URL
[39]	Zafra G, Taylor T D Absalón, , et al. Comparative metagenomic analysis of PAH degradation in soil by a mixed microbial consortium[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2016,318:702-710. DOI URL
[40]	徐帅, 林奕岑, 周梦佳 , 等. 基于高通量测定肉鸡回肠微生物多样性及PICRUSt基因预测分析[J]. 动物营养学报, 2016,28(8):2581-2588.