Cassava Rhizosphere Soil Collected by “Root Bag” Method and Its Bacteria Diversity

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.09.029

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to collect cassava rhizosphere soil and study its bacteria community, and further deepen the knowledge of the micro-ecology of the rhizosphere soil, a field trial with the “root bag” method was carried out with two soil textures (clay and sandy roam) and a series of soil quantity from 100g to 500g in the root bag. Cassava plant height was significantly influenced by the soil quantity in the root bag, while cassava shoot weight was not. Soil available nutrients were strongly affected by roots when soil quantity in the root bag was only 100g, ammonium content (NH₄-N) and available potassium (AK) was enriched significantly compared to bulk soil. Results from high throughout sequencing by Illumina Hiseq showed that the dominant bacterial community was Proteobacteria (31.272%), Actinobacteria (25.753%), Acidobacteria (12.761%), Chloroflexi (8.799%) et al. Results from α diversity indexes showed that the diversity of bacteria was increased in the rhizospheric soil, and the species richness was also increased in the clay. Compared to bulk soil, the soil samples collected from the inside “root bag” was relatively rich in Sphingobacteriales, Rhizobiales, Xanthomonadales, Verrucomicrobia and related phylum, class, genus and species for the clay, and for the sandy roam, rich in Sphingobacteriales and genus and species in gemmatimonadaceae. Results from Redundancy analysis (RDA) triplots demonstrated that soil available phosphorus (AP) was positively correlated to Actinobacteria and Chloroflexi, and negatively correlated to Proteobacteria; Soil available nitrogen (AN), AK, NH₄-N, nitrates nitrogen (NO₃-N) were negatively correlated with Gemmatimonadetes, Acidobacteria, Parcubacteria, Elusimicrobia, Armatimonadetes, TM6_Dependentiae, Chlorobi et al., and positively correlated with Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, Fusobacteria, Bacteroidetes. In concusion, the 100g soil in the root bag could be seen as cassava rhizospheric soil according to soil nutrients and bacteria diversity. And NH₄-N and AK could be regarded as the indicators as cassava rhizospheric soil. Soil microbial diversity was improved in the rhizosphere, and Sphingobacteriales was the enriched bacteria in both soil textures. Soil nutrients were correlated with some classification of soil bacterial.

Key words: cassava rhizosphere, ammonium nitrogen, available phosphorus, microbial community, Sphingobacteriales

CLC Number:

WEI Yundong,LUO Yanchun,ZHENG Hua,LI Jun,PAN Huan,LEI Kaiwen,XU Chuan. Cassava Rhizosphere Soil Collected by “Root Bag” Method and Its Bacteria Diversity[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(9): 1928-1938.

Figures/Tables 8

References 46

[1]	Philippot L, Raaijmakers J M, Lemanceau P, et al. Going back to the roots: The microbial ecology of the rhizosphere[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2013,11(11):789-799. DOI URL
[2]	李侠, 张丽, 杜世杰, 等. 作物种类对根际土壤可培养微生物数量的影响[J]. 园艺与种苗, 2018,38(8):57-60.
[3]	Kowalchuk G A, Buma D S, de Boer W, et al. Effects of above-ground plant species composition and diversity on the diversity of soil-bornemicroorganisms[J]. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology, 2002,81(1-4):509-520. DOI URL
[4]	Garbeva P, Van Elsas J D, Van Veen J A, Rhizosphere microbial community and its response to plant species and soil history[J]. Plant and Soil, 2008,302(1-2):19-32. DOI URL
[5]	Berg G, Smalla K. Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere[J]. FEMS Microbiol Ecology, 2009,68(1):1-13. DOI URL
[6]	Garbeva P, Van Veen J A, Van Elsas J D. Microbial diversity in soil: Selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness[J]. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 2004,42:243-270. DOI URL PMID
[7]	Broeckling C D, Broz A K, Bergelson J, et al. Root exudates regulate soil fungal community composition and diversity[J]. Applied and Evironmental Microbiology, 2008,74(3):738-744.
[8]	周文杰, 吕德国, 秦嗣军. 植物与根际微生物相互作用关系研究进展[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2016,38(3):253-260.
[9]	王学翠, 童晓茹, 温学森, 等. 植物与根际微生物关系的研究进展[J]. 山东科学, 2007(6):40-44, 50.
[10]	赵柏霞, 潘凤荣, 韩晓日. 基于高通量测序技术的樱桃根际细菌群落研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2018,49(3):596-601.
[11]	颜朗, 张义正, 清源, 等. 马铃薯全生育期内根际微生物组变化规律[J]. 微生物学报, 2020,60(2):246-260.
[12]	Zhang F S, Shen J B, Li L, et al. An overview of rhizosphere processes related with plant nutrition in major cropping systems in China[J]. Plant Soil, 2004,260(1/2):89-99. DOI URL
[13]	牛倩云, 韩彦莎, 徐丽霞, 等. 作物轮作对谷田土壤理化性质及谷子根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2018,37(12):2802-2809.
[14]	聂园军, 李瑞珍, 赵佳, 等. 西瓜连作对根际微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2019,32(1):6-11, 3.
[15]	郭凤仙, 刘越, 唐丽, 等. 药用植物根际微生物研究现状与展望[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017,19(5):12-21.
[16]	蔡秋华, 赵正雄, 左进香, 等. 有机肥配施减量化肥对烤烟青枯病及其根际微生物的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2018,51(11):20-27.
[17]	艾超. 长期施肥下根际碳氮转化与微生物多样性研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2015.
[18]	Hartmann A, Schmid M, Wenzel W, et al. Rhizosphere 2004-Perspectives and Challenges-A Tribute to Lorenz Hiltner[M]. Munich, Germany: GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, 2005.
[19]	Johansson J F, Paul L R, Finlay R D. Microbial interactions in the mycorrhizosphere and their significance for sustainable agriculture[J]. FEMS Microbioloy & Ecology, 2004,48(1):1-13.
[20]	唐秀梅, 钟瑞春, 蒋菁, 等. 木薯/花生间作对根际土壤微生态的影响[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2015,34(1):117-124.
[21]	徐海强, 黄洁, 刘子凡, 等. 木薯/花生间作对其根际土壤微生物数量、群落结构及多样性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报. 2016,47(2):185-190.
[22]	Riley D, Barber S A. Bicarbonate accumulation and pH changes at the soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) root-soil interface[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1969,33(6):905-908. DOI URL
[23]	Riley D, Barber S A. Salt accumulation at the soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] root-soil interface[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1970,34(1):154-155. DOI URL
[24]	Steen E. Usefulness of the mesh bag method in quantitative root studies[M]//Atkinson D. Plant Root Growth in an Ecological Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991: 75-86.
[25]	蔡昆争, 骆世明, 段舜山. 水稻根系在根袋处理条件下对氮养分的反应[J]. 生态学报, 2003,23(6):1109-1116.
[26]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[27]	Li P F, Zhang X C, Hao M D, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil bacterial communities, enzyme activities, and nutrients of reconstructed soil in a mining area on the loess plateau, China[J]. Sustainability, 2019,11(8):1-16. DOI URL
[28]	Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation[J]. Genome Biology, 2011,12(6):R60. DOI URL PMID
[29]	曾曙才, 苏志尧, 陈北光, 等. 植物根际营养研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2003,27(6):79-83.
[30]	郭朝晖, 张杨珠, 黄子蔚. 根际微域营养研究进展(二)[J]. 土壤通报, 1999(2):38-41.
[31]	Shang S, Yi Y. A Greenhouse assay on the effect of applied urea amount on the rhizospheric soil bacterial communities[J]. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 2015,55(4):406-414. DOI URL PMID
[32]	张士亮, 李鹏. 施肥对土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国林副特产, 2011(1):95-98.
[33]	李从娟, 李彦, 马健, 等. 干旱区植物根际土壤养分状况的对比研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2011,34(2):222-228.
[34]	弋良朋, 马健, 李彦. 荒漠盐生植物根际土壤酶活性的变化[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2009,17(3):500-505.
[35]	张学利, 杨树军, 张百习, 等. 不同林龄樟子松根际与非根际土壤的对比[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2005,25(1):80-84.
[36]	李贵宝, 李晓林, 曹一平, 等. 玉米田间根际微区钾养分状况的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 1999,30(2):3-5.
[37]	许曼丽, 刘芷宇. 土壤-根系微区养分状况的研究Ⅱ. 钾离子的富集与亏缺[J]. 土壤学报, 1983,20(3):295-302.
[38]	曹一平, 徐永泰, 李晓林. 小麦根际微区钾养分状况的研究[J]. 北京农业大学学报, 1991(2):69-74.
[39]	刘珊珊, 韦鑫, 盛福瑞, 等. 棉花不同发育时期根际微生物的动态变化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019,31(8):1361-1371.
[40]	Ying Y X, Ding W L, Li Y. Characterization of soil bacterial communities in rhizospheric and nonrhizospheric soil of Panax ginseng[J]. Biochemical Genetics, 2012,50(11-12):848-859. DOI URL
[41]	叶文雨, 廖海萍, 许钰滢, 等. 基于高通量测序技术分析2种菌草根际土壤细菌群落多样性[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(9):1783-1788.
[42]	蔡训辉, 王如意, 胡胜男, 等. 鞘氨醇杆菌的研究进展[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2020,39(5):2096-2102.
[43]	高雪峰. 短花针茅荒漠草原优势植物根系分泌物及其主要组分对土壤微生物的影响[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2017.
[44]	李明, 胡云, 黄修梅, 等. 生物炭对设施黄瓜根际土壤养分和菌群的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2016,47(11):172-178.
[45]	刘金泉, 李明, 胡云, 等. 高粱绿肥种植密度对设施黄瓜根系生长相关因子的影响[J]. 农业机械学报, 2018,49(5):323-329.
[46]	于涵. 硅藻页岩对水稻根际土壤及微生物群落的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨师范大学, 2019.

编号 No.	小袋装土量 Soil quantity in root bag/g	施肥量N∶P₂O₅∶K₂O Rate of fertilizer application N∶P₂O₅∶K₂O/(mg·kg^-1)	土壤质地 Soil texture	根袋内土样简称 Abbr. of the soil samples in root bag	根袋外土样简称 Abbr. of the bulk soil
1	100	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay100	claysoil
2	200	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay200	claysoil
3	300	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay300	claysoil
4	400	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay400	claysoil
5	500	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay500	claysoil
6	100	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand100	sandsoil
7	200	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand200	sandsoil
8	300	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand300	sandsoil
9	400	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand400	sandsoil
10	500	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand500	sandsoil

编号 No.	小袋装土量 Soil quantity in root bag/g	施肥量N∶P₂O₅∶K₂O Rate of fertilizer application N∶P₂O₅∶K₂O/(mg·kg^-1)	土壤质地 Soil texture	根袋内土样简称 Abbr. of the soil samples in root bag	根袋外土样简称 Abbr. of the bulk soil
1	100	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay100	claysoil
2	200	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay200	claysoil
3	300	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay300	claysoil
4	400	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay400	claysoil
5	500	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	粘土	clay500	claysoil
6	100	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand100	sandsoil
7	200	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand200	sandsoil
8	300	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand300	sandsoil
9	400	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand400	sandsoil
10	500	76.9∶76.9∶76.9	砂质壤土	sand500	sandsoil

处理Treatment	Shannon	Simpson	ACE	Chao1
claysoil	3.93±0.17^e	0.0403±0.0069^a	246.8±48.0^c	249.8±47.5^c
clay100	4.47±0.11^a	0.0197±0.0025^e	318.5±29.0^a	319.3±27.5^a
clay300	4.22±0.16^bc	0.0292±0.0056^bc	297.4±37.6^ab	298.4±41.6^abc
clay500	4.20±0.07^bc	0.0265±0.0031^bcd	301.5±26.6^ab	312.0±33.1^ab
sandsoil	4.00±0.18^de	0.0333±0.0103^ab	257.6±23.5^bc	263.0±20.1^bc
sand100	4.31±0.05^ab	0.0243±0.0023^de	287.0±12.0^abc	295.9±14.1^abc
sand200	4.06±0.05^cde	0.0334±0.0038^ab	265.3±14.4^bc	270.6±15.3^abc
sand400	4.14±0.06^bcd	0.0290±0.0045^bc	280.6±21.6^abc	288.9±32.1^abc

处理Treatment	Shannon	Simpson	ACE	Chao1
claysoil	3.93±0.17^e	0.0403±0.0069^a	246.8±48.0^c	249.8±47.5^c
clay100	4.47±0.11^a	0.0197±0.0025^e	318.5±29.0^a	319.3±27.5^a
clay300	4.22±0.16^bc	0.0292±0.0056^bc	297.4±37.6^ab	298.4±41.6^abc
clay500	4.20±0.07^bc	0.0265±0.0031^bcd	301.5±26.6^ab	312.0±33.1^ab
sandsoil	4.00±0.18^de	0.0333±0.0103^ab	257.6±23.5^bc	263.0±20.1^bc
sand100	4.31±0.05^ab	0.0243±0.0023^de	287.0±12.0^abc	295.9±14.1^abc
sand200	4.06±0.05^cde	0.0334±0.0038^ab	265.3±14.4^bc	270.6±15.3^abc
sand400	4.14±0.06^bcd	0.0290±0.0045^bc	280.6±21.6^abc	288.9±32.1^abc