Variation Characteristics of Drought and Rehydration on the Growth of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn. and Soil Microbial Diversity in Rhizosphere

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.02.027

Abstract

Abstract:

A pot experiment using a cultivar ‘Purple Peony’ as the experimental material was conducted under drought and rehydration condition. The effects of drought at seedling stage and rehydration on the physiological characteristics of roots and the soil microbial diversity in the rhizoshere were studied. The total root length, root surface area and root tip numbers were significantly decreased in the drought and rehydration treatment (T2), compared to the normal condition (CK), but they were significantly increased compared with the drought stress without rehydration (T1). Under drought stress (T1), Algiphilus, Aureispira, Chloronema, Acrospermum were the special bacteria. Anaerolineaceae, Acidobacteria, Acidimicrobiales, Sphaerobacter and Streptomyces were the dominant bacteria in the rhizoshpres of all drought and normal treatments. Sordariale, Eurotiales, Pseudallescheria, Pleosporales and Cladosporium were the dominant fungi. Goniomonas, Lamprospora and Sorodiplophrys were the special fungi in drought stress (T1) and rehydration after drought stress (T2). Bacteria such as Acidimicrobium, Anaerolineaceae, Algiphilus, Pseudallescheria, Cladosporium, having certain biocontrol effects, could be reasonably used in agricultural production, which could contribute to the resistance of plants to drought stress and the improvement of water use of Hibiscus under drought stress.

Key words: drought stress, high-throughput sequencing, Hibiscus, root system, microorganisms diversity

CLC Number:

S154.3

HUANG Xuguang,QIN Ling,HUANG Lidan,LU Yansong,LUO Enbo,HUANG Lingpu,LIU Yuefei. Variation Characteristics of Drought and Rehydration on the Growth of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn. and Soil Microbial Diversity in Rhizosphere[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(2): 401-408.

Figures/Tables 6

References 32

[1]	Schutter M E, Sandeno J M, Dick R P . Seasonal, soil type, alternative management influences on microbial communities of vegetable cropping systems[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2001,34:397-410.
[2]	陈甲林, 史佑海, 梁伟红 . 海南扶桑品种资源调查及其园林应用研究[J]. 热带农业科学, 2009,29(3):24-28.
[3]	嵇含 . 南方草木状[M]. 广州: 广东科技出版社, 2009.
[4]	王光华, 金剑, 徐美娜 , 等. 植物、土壤及土壤管理对土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2006,25(5):550-556.
[5]	刘玮琦, 茆振川, 杨宇红 , 等. 应用16S rRNA基因文库技术分析土壤细菌群落的多样性[J]. 微生物学报, 2008,48(10):1344-1350.
[6]	Elsas J D V, Garbeva P, Salles J . Effects of agronomical measures on the microbial diversity of soils as related to the suppression of soil of soil borne plant pathogens[J]. Biodegradation, 2002,13(1):29-40.
[7]	Blum A . Effective use of water (UEW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress[J]. Field Crops Research, 2009,112(2):119-123.
[8]	Shane M W, McCully M E, Canny M J , et a1. Seasonal water relations of Lyginia barbata (Southern rush) in relation to root xylem development and summer dormancy of root apices[J]. New Phytologist, 2010,185(4):1025-1037.
[9]	Kato Y, Okami M . Root growth dynamics and stomatal behaviour of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown under aerobic and flooded conditions[J]. Field Crops Research, 2010,117(1):9-17.
[10]	Hsiao T C . Plant responses to water stress[J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1973,24:519-570.
[11]	黎裕 . 作物抗旱鉴定方法与指标[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 1993(1):91-99
[12]	Riley D, Barber S A . Salt accumulation at the soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) root-soil interface[J]. Proceedings Soil Science Society of America, 1970,34(1):154-155.
[13]	张志良, 瞿伟菁 . 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003.
[14]	戴雅婷, 闫志坚, 解继红 , 等. 基于高通量测序的两种植被恢复类型根际土壤细菌多样性研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2017,54(3):735-748.
[15]	Lee D W, Lee A H, Lee H , et a1. Nocardioides litoris sp. nov. isolated from the Taean seashore[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2017,67(7):2332-2336.
[16]	Wassmann R, Jagadish S V K, Heuer S , et a1. Chapter 2 Climate change affecting rice production: The physiological and agronomic basis for possible adaptation strategies[J]. Advances in Agronomy, 2009,101:59-122.
[17]	赵丽英, 邓西平, 山仑 . 水分亏缺下作物补偿效应类型及机制研究概述[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004(3):523-526.
[18]	Lotter J de V Beukes D L, Weber H W . Growth and quality of apples as affected by different irrigation treatments[J]. Journal of Horticultural Science, 1985,60(2):181-192.
[19]	李绍华 . 果树生长发育、产量和果实品质对水分胁迫反应的敏感期及节水灌溉[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1993,29(1):10-16.
[20]	Liang B, Wang L Y, Mbadinga S M , et a1. Anaerolineaceae and Methanosaeta turned to be the dominant microorganisms in alkanes-dependent methanogenic culture after long-term of incubation[J]. AMB Express, 2015,5(1):37.
[21]	张娇, 夏占峰, 贺江舟 , 等. DNA提取方法对盐环境放线菌多样性分析的影响[J]. 微生物学报, 2013,53(7):746-757.
[22]	Hugenholtz P, Stackebrandt E . Reclassification of Sphaerobacter thermophilus from the subclass Sphaerobacteridae in the phylum Actinobacteria to the class Thermomicrobia (emended description) in the phylum Chloroflexi (emended description)[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2004,54(6):2049-2051.
[23]	王昌家, 宋超英, 张新德 , 等. 淡紫拟青霉菌料防治大豆胞囊线虫的后效研究[J]. 中国生物防治, 1997 ( 1):27-29.
[24]	安红梅 . 三峡库区耐淹植物内生真菌重金属抗性研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2015.
[25]	Gutierrez T, Green D H, Whitman W B , et a1. Algiphilus aromaticivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., an aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading bacterium isolated from a culture of the marine dinoflagellate Lingulodinium polyedrum, and proposal of Algiphilaceae fam. nov[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2012,62(11):2743-2749.
[26]	Grover M, Ali S Z, Sandhya V , et a1. Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stresses[J]. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2011,27(5):1231-1240.
[27]	Blanco, Bernard T . Osmoadaptation in rhizobia: ectoine- induced salt tolerance[J]. Journal of Bacteriology, 1994,176(17):5210-5217.
[28]	McLellan C A, Turbyville T J, Wijeratne E M , et a1. A rhizosphere fungus enhances Arabidopsis thermotolerance through production of an HSP₉₀ inhibitor[J]. Plant Physiol, 2007,145(1):174-182.
[29]	Neto D, Carvalho LM, Cruz C , et a1. How do mycorrhizas affect C and N relationships in flooded Aster trifolium plants ?[J]. Plant and Soil, 2006,279:51-63.
[30]	Porras-Alfaro A, Herrera J, Sinsabaugh R L , et a1. Novel root fungal consortium associated with a dominant desert grass[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2008,74(9):2805-2813.
[31]	Redman R S, Sheehan K B, Stout R G , et a1. Thermo- tolarance generated by plant/fungal symbiosis[J]. Science, 2002,298(5598):1581.
[32]	Chang W S, van de Mortel M, Nielsen L , et a1. Alginate production by Pseudomonas putida creates a hydrated microenvironment and contributes to biofilm architecture and stress tolerance under water-limiting conditions[J]. Journal of Bacteriology, 2007,189(22):8290-8299.

处理 Treatment	总根长 Total root length/m	总根表面积 Total root surface area/m²	根均直径 Average root diametre/mm	总根体积 Root volume/m³	根尖数 Tip/10³
CK	16.70±0.16^a	81.20±4.21^a	0.16±0.017^a	0.32±0.02^a	64.94±8.31^a
T1	10.20±2.83^b	42.59±11.31^c	0.15±0.004^a	0.14±0.04^b	39.29±1.96^c
T2	13.20±3.11^ab	63.46±15.07^b	0.13±0.015^a	0.24±0.07^a	52.27±11.09^b

处理 Treatment	总根长 Total root length/m	总根表面积 Total root surface area/m²	根均直径 Average root diametre/mm	总根体积 Root volume/m³	根尖数 Tip/10³
CK	16.70±0.16^a	81.20±4.21^a	0.16±0.017^a	0.32±0.02^a	64.94±8.31^a
T1	10.20±2.83^b	42.59±11.31^c	0.15±0.004^a	0.14±0.04^b	39.29±1.96^c
T2	13.20±3.11^ab	63.46±15.07^b	0.13±0.015^a	0.24±0.07^a	52.27±11.09^b

处理 Treatment	株高(增量) Plant height/cm	地径(增量) Ground diameter/mm	鲜重Fresh weight/g		根冠比 Root-shoot ratio
处理 Treatment	株高(增量) Plant height/cm	地径(增量) Ground diameter/mm	地上部Shoot	根系Root	根冠比 Root-shoot ratio
CK	8.30±2.07^a	1.95±1.81^a	24.65±5.67^a	16.91±6.16^a	0.75±0.44^a
T1	2.22±1.53^b	0.91±0.87^a	11.09±1.93^b	6.15±0.51^b	0.56±0.07^a
T2	6.08±0.94^a	1.13±1.20^a	15.49±2.75^ab	9.77±3.72^ab	0.62±0.15^a

处理 Treatment	株高(增量) Plant height/cm	地径(增量) Ground diameter/mm	鲜重Fresh weight/g		根冠比 Root-shoot ratio
处理 Treatment	株高(增量) Plant height/cm	地径(增量) Ground diameter/mm	地上部Shoot	根系Root	根冠比 Root-shoot ratio
CK	8.30±2.07^a	1.95±1.81^a	24.65±5.67^a	16.91±6.16^a	0.75±0.44^a
T1	2.22±1.53^b	0.91±0.87^a	11.09±1.93^b	6.15±0.51^b	0.56±0.07^a
T2	6.08±0.94^a	1.13±1.20^a	15.49±2.75^ab	9.77±3.72^ab	0.62±0.15^a

微生物 Microbe	处理 Treatment	Chao1 指数 Chao1 index	Shannon 指数 Shannon index	ACE 指数 ACE index	覆盖度 Coverage/%
细菌Bacteria	CK	2732.60±59.56^a	6.41±0.07^a	2725.73±29.27^a	98.27±0.21^a
	T1	2991.95±40.30^a	6.43±0.06^a	3014.43±50.45^a	98.88±0.32^a
	T2	2811.91±235.37^a	6.49±0.12^a	2819.52±248.70^a	98.47±0.36^a
真菌Fungi	CK	167.87±14.92^a	2.80±0.07^a	167.17±16.72^a	99.95±0.01^a
	T1	162.83±17.69^a	2.62±0.25^a	166.48±20.44^a	99.95±0.01^a
	T2	161.83±27.61^a	2.61±0.19^a	161.41±32.07^a	99.94±0.02^a