Microbial Fertilization Improves Soil Health When Compared to Chemical Fumigation in Sweet Lily
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design and Soil Sample Collection
2.2. Determination of Plant Growth and Yield
2.3. High-Throughput Sequencing by Illumina NovaSeq
2.3.1. DNA Extractions
2.3.2. PCR Amplification, ITS Sequencing and 16S rDNA Sequencing
2.3.3. Data Analysis
2.3.4. Accession Numbers
3. Results
3.1. The Plant Growth and the Lily Yield Analysis under Different Treatments
3.2. Quantity of the Microorganism Diversity in Rhizosphere Soil
3.3. Overall Structural Changes of Microorganism Communities in Rhizosphere Soil
3.4. Taxonomic Distributions of Microorganism Enriched in the Replant Soil
3.5. Special Microorganism Community Structure Dynamics under Different Treatments
3.6. RDA Analysis of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Microorganism under Different Treatments
4. Discussion
4.1. Microorganism Diversity in Different Soil Treatments
4.2. The Possible Fungal Groups Related to the Alleviation of Lily CRPs and Soil Health
4.3. The Possible Bacterial Groups Related to the Alleviation of Lily CRPs and Soil Health
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pankaj, T.; Manuel, D.; Ian, A.; Brajesh, S.; Brajesh, S. Response of soil properties and microbial communities to agriculture: Implications for primary productivity and soil health indicators. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, A.W.; Richard, D.B.; John, N.K.; Heikki, S.; Wim, H.V.D.P.; Diana, H.W. Ecological Linkages Between Aboveground and Belowground Biota. Science 2004, 304, 1629–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuel, D.; Fernando, T.M.; Peter, B.R.; Thomas, C.J.; Juan, J.G.; Daniel, E.; Miguel, B.; Colin, D.C.; Brajesh, K.S. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabriele, B.; Kornelia, S. Plant Species and Soil Type Cooperatively Shape the Structure and Function of Microbial Communities in the Rhizosphere; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, C.; Hulbert, S.H.; Schroeder, K.L.; Mavrodi, O.; Mavrodi, D.; Dhingra, A.; Schillinger, W.F.; Paulitz, T.C. Role of bacterial communities in the natural suppression of Rhizoctonia solani bare patch disease of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Appl. Environ. Microb. 2013, 79, 7428–7438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jian, S.; Qiang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Qinping, W. Illumina Amplicon Sequencing of 16S rRNA Tag Reveals Bacterial Community Development in the Rhizosphere of Apple Nurseries at a Replant Disease Site and a New Planting Site. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingrid, H.F.; Luisa, M.M.; Heribert, I.; Blaz, S. Rhizosphere bacteria and fungi associated with plant growth in soils of three replanted apple orchards. Plant Soil 2015, 395, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- She, S.; Niu, J.; Zhang, C.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, W.; Dai, L.; Liu, X.; Yin, H. Significant relationship between soil bacterial community structure and incidence of bacterial wilt disease under continuous cropping system. Arch. Microbiol. 2017, 199, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yim, B.; Nitt, H.; Wrede, A.; Jacquiod, S.; Sorensen, S.J.; Winkelmann, T.; Smalla, K. Effects of Soil Pre-Treatment with Basamid (R) Granules, Brassica juncea, Raphanus sativus, and Tagetes patula on Bacterial and Fungal Communities at Two Apple Replant Disease Sites. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mazzola, M. Elucidation of the microbial complex having a causal role in the development of apple replant disease in washington. Phytopathology 1998, 88, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manici1, L.M.; Ciavatta, C.; Kelderer, M.; Erschbaumer, G. Replant problems in South Tyrol: Role of fungal pathogens and microbial population in conventional and organic apple orchards. Plant Soil 2003, 256, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luisa, M.M.; Francesco, C. Soil fungal communities as indicators for replanting new peach orchards in intensively cultivated areas. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, K.; Luisa, M.M.; Francesco, C.; Martin, T. Planting in the ‘inter-row’ to overcome replant disease in apple orchards: A study on the effectiveness of the practice based on microbial indicators. Plant Soil 2012, 357, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, G.Y.; Sun, H.Q.; Calderónurrea, A.; Li, M.Q.; Yang, H.Y.; Wang, W.Z.; Su, G.L. Bacterial communities as indicators of soil health under a continuous cropping system. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 2393–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, G.Y.; Sun, H.Q.; Calderon-Urrea, A.; Jia, X.X.; Yang, H.Y.; Su, G.L. Soil Fungal Diversity Loss and Appearance of Specific Fungal Pathogenic Communities Associated With the Consecutive Replant Problem (CRP) in Lily. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerstl, Z.; Mingelgrin, U.; Yaron, B. Behavior of Vapam and Methylisothiocyanate in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1977, 41, 545–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritsch, H.J.; Huber, R. Basamid granular—A halogen-free soil disinfestant. Acta Hortic 1995, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.P.; Shi, G.Y.; Shi, G.H.; Yu, Y.L.; Li, M.Q.; Su, G.L.; Jia, X.X. Alleviating obstacles of continuous cropping in Lanzhou lily by soil fumigation combined with microbial fertilizer. J. Desert Res. 2020, 40, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellano-Hinojosa, A.; Boyd Nathan, S.; Strauss Sarah, L. Impact of fumigants on non-target soil microorganisms: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 427, 128149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Ren, Z.; Huang, B.; Cao, A.; Wang, Q.; Yan, D.; Ouyang, C.; Wu, J.; Li, Y. Effects of fumigation with allyl isothiocyanate on soil microbial diversity and community structure of tomato. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1226–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meng, T.; Ren, G.; Wang, G.; Ma, Y. Impacts on soil microbial characteristics and their restorability with different soil disinfestation approaches in intensively cropped greenhouse soils. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 6369–6383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shi, G.Y.; Sun, H.Q.; Yu, Y.L.; Zhang, L.N.; Jia, X.X.; Zhang, L.P.; Li, M.Q. Effects of continuous cropping on PSII; photochemical efficiency and antioxidant activity of Lilium davidii var. unicolor leaves in Lanzhou. China Desert 2020, 40, 206–213. [Google Scholar]
- Ida, K.; Hanna, F.; Christian, S.; Paula, P. Fungicide effects on fungal community composition in the wheat phyllosphere. PLoS ONE 2017, 9, e111786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logue, J.B.; Stedmon, C.A.; Kellerman, A.M.; Nielsen, N.J.; Andersson, A.F.; Laudon, H.; Lindström, E.S.; Kritzberg, E.S. Experimental insights into the importance of aquatic bacterial community composition to the degradation of dissolved organic matter. ISME J. 2016, 10, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schloss, P.D.; Gevers, D.; Westcott, S.L. Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studies. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schloss, P.D.; Westcott, S.L.; Ryabin, T.; Hall, J.R.; Hartmann, M.; Hollister, E.B.; Lesniewski, R.A.; Oakley, B.B.; Parks, D.H.; Robinson, C.J.; et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7537–7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kõljalg, U.; Nilsson, R.H.; Abarenkov, K.; Tedersoo, L.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Bahram, M.; Bates, S.T.; Bruns, T.D.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Callaghan, T.M.; et al. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22, 5271–5277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, J.R.; Wang, Q.; Cardenas, E.; Fish, J.; Chai, B.; Farris, R.J.; Kulam-Syed-Mohideen, A.S.; McGarrell, D.M.; Marsh, T.; Garrity, G.M.; et al. The Ribosomal Database Project: Improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, D141–D145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altschul, S.F.; Madden, T.L.; Schäffer, A.A.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Miller, W.; Lipman, D.J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: A new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 3389–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Sheng, H.-F.; He, Y.; Wu, J.-Y.; Jiang, Y.-X.; Tam, N.F.-Y.; Zhou, H.-W. Comparison of the levels of bacterial diversity in freshwater, intertidal wetland, and marine sediments by using millions of illumina tags. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 8264–8271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, H.W.; Wall, D.H. Modelling the effects of loss of soil biodiversity on ecosystem function. Global Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagg, C.; Bender, S.F.; Widmer, F.; van der Heijden, M.G.A. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 5266–5270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sederholm, M.R.; Schmitz, B.W.; Barber’an, A.; Pepper, I.L. Effects of metam sodium fumigation on the abundance, activity, and diversity of soil bacterial communities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 124, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Huang, B.; Wang, Q.; Li, Y.; Fang, W.; Han, D.; Yan, D.; Guo, M.; Cao, A. Effects of fumigation with metam-sodium on soil microbial biomass, respiration, nitrogen transformation, bacterial community diversity and genes encoding key enzymes involved in nitrogen cycling. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 15, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Del Mar Montiel-Rozas, M.; Hurtado-Navarro, M.; Díez-Rojo, M.A.; Pascual, J.A.; Ros, M. Sustainable alternatives to 1,3-dichloropropene for controlling root-knot nematodes and fungal pathogens in melon crops in Mediterranean soils: Efficacy and effects on soil quality. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 247, 1046–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Preece, C.; Penuelas, J. Rhizodeposition under drought and consequences for soil communities and ecosystem resilience. Plant Soil 2020, 409, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerawatanakorn, M.; Wu, J.C.; Pan, M.H.; Ho, C.T. Reactivity and stability of selected flavor compounds. J. Food Drug Anal. 2015, 23, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, X.R.; Shi, G.Y.; Liang, Q.L.; Sun, H.Q.; Fan, S.F.; Chen, J.L.; University, G.A. Isolation and identification of wilt disease pathogen from Lanzhou lily and its pathogenicity. J. Gansu Agric. Univ. 2016, 51, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metson, S.; Evans, D.; Foulkes, S.; Kuznetsov, V.; Melo, A. NoSQL databases in CMS Data and Workflow Management. Proc. Sci. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang Xiu-Mei, W.J.W.L. Identification and ITS Sequence Analysis of Pathogen of Lily Wilt. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 23, 1914–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzola, M. Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilborne diseases. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 81, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gottel, N.R.; Castro, H.F.; Kerley, M.; Yang, Z.; Pelletier, D.A.; Podar, M.; Karpinets, T.; Uberbacher, E.; Tuskan, G.A.; Vilgalys, R.; et al. Distinct microbial communities within the endosphere and rhizosphere of Populus deltoides roots across contrasting soil types. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2011, 77, 5934–5944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Innerebner, G.; Knief, C.; Vorholt, J.A. Protection of Arabidopsis thaliana against leaf-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae by Sphingomonas strains in a controlled model system. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2011, 77, 3202–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Treatments | Seedling Index | Mother Bulb Weight (g) | Bulb Yield (kg/h m2) |
---|---|---|---|
CK | 16.75 ± 0.98 b | 29.95 ± 1.04 ab | 19,550.83 ab |
SFM | 18.88 ± 2.19 b | 24.34 ± 0.72 c | 17141.47 c |
MF | 27.28 ± 0.62 a | 33.91 ± 1.46 a | 22,103.00 a |
MMF | 16.15 ± 1.24 b | 27.76 ± 0.48 b | 18,099.97 b |
Treatments | CK | SFM | MF | MMF |
---|---|---|---|---|
(a) enriched phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
p__Basidiomycota | 1.21% b | 2.64% b | 15.25% a | 15.55% a |
g__Mortierella | 0.03% c | 0.04% c | 4.92% a | 3.04% b |
g__Funneliformis | 0.00% c | 0.02% c | 0.42% b | 2.38% a |
g__Spizellomyces | 0.03% c | 0.02% c | 0.11% b | 2.48% a |
g__Cryptococcus | 0.05% c | 0.03% c | 0.59% b | 1.78% a |
g__Rhizophydium | 0.00% b | 0.00% b | 0.01% b | 1.09% a |
g__Ceratobasidium | 0.01% c | 0.00% c | 0.27% b | 0.47% a |
s__Mortierella_alpina | 0.02% c | 0.03% c | 1.69% a | 1.14% b |
s__Cryptococcus_aerius | 0.03% c | 0.02% c | 0.40% b | 0.94% a |
s__Spizellomyces_acuminatus | 0.00% b | 0.00% b | 0.03% b | 1.16% a |
s__Mortierella_elongata | 0.00% c | 0.00% c | 0.58% a | 0.42% ab |
s__Cryptococcus_magnus | 0.00% c | 0.00% c | 0.05% b | 0.74% a |
s__Ceratobasidium_sp_AG_I | 0.00% b | 0.00% b | 0.01% b | 0.34% a |
(b) depleted phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
p__Ascomycota | 98.35% a | 96.95% a | 70.11% b | 69.64% b |
g__Isaria | 1.25% a | 0.08% b | 0.00% c | 0.00% c |
s__Isaria_cicadae | 1.25% a | 0.08% b | 0.00% c | 0.00% c |
(c) enriched or depleted phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
g__Kotlabaea | 9.01% b | 0.65% c | 12.84% a | 0.82% c |
g__Ochroconis | 1.08% a | 0.13% b | 1.28% a | 0.09% b |
g__Bradymyces | 0.62% a | 0.01% c | 0.26% b | 0.06% c |
g__Phialophora | 0.77% a | 0.00% b | 0.01% b | 0.00% b |
g__Pochonia | 0.00% c | 0.05% b | 0.04% b | 0.45% a |
g__Fusariella | 0.38% a | 0.02% c | 0.14% b | 0.00% c |
g__Conocybe | 0.01% c | 0.07% bc | 0.04% bc | 0.41% a |
g__Typhula | 0.32% a | 0.00% c | 0.18% b | 0.00% c |
s__Kotlabaea_unclassified | 9.01% b | 0.65% c | 12.84% a | 0.82% c |
s__Coprinellus_bisporus | 0.00% c | 1.24% b | 2.46% a | 0.00% c |
s__Cylindrocarpon_liriodendri | 0.03% c | 0.10% b | 0.05% bc | 2.98% a |
s__Ochroconis_humicola | 1.03% a | 0.11% b | 1.25% a | 0.07% c |
s__Phialophora_europaea | 0.77% a | 0.00% b | 0.01% b | 0.00% b |
s__Conocybe_rickenii | 0.01% c | 0.07% b | 0.04% bc | 0.41% a |
s__Typhula_maritima | 0.32% a | 0.00% c | 0.18% b | 0.00% c |
s__Fusarium_oxysporum_f_sp_psidii | 0.00% c | 0.24% a | 0.00% c | 0.08% b |
Treatments | CK | SFM | MF | MMF |
---|---|---|---|---|
(a) enriched phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
p__Proteobacteria | 20.71% b | 23.87% b | 30.69% a | 30.98% a |
g__Sphingomonas | 1.70% bc | 2.10% b | 4.36% a | 4.67% a |
g__Altererythrobacter | 0.48% b | 0.32% c | 0.36% bc | 0.69% a |
g__Ellin6055 | 0.16% b | 0.25% b | 0.57% a | 0.57% a |
g__Luteimonas | 0.14% c | 0.19% c | 0.80% a | 0.40% b |
g__Candidatus_Udaeobacter | 0.16% c | 0.10% c | 0.45% ab | 0.57% a |
g__Stenotrophobacter | 0.16% bc | 0.14% c | 0.19% b | 0.28% a |
g__Terrimonas | 0.04% b | 0.05% b | 0.13% a | 0.16% a |
g__Ellin6067 | 0.35% b | 0.49% b | 0.81% a | 0.87% a |
s__uncultured_Luteimonas_sp | 0.10% c | 0.03% c | 0.66% a | 0.29% b |
(b) depleted phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
p__Gemmatimonadetes | 9.63% a | 7.64% b | 6.09% bc | 6.05% bc |
p__Chloroflexi | 9.63% a | 7.64% b | 6.09% c | 6.05% c |
g__Gemmatimonas | 4.57% a | 4.51% a | 3.54% b | 3.70% b |
g__Gemmatirosa | 1.10% a | 0.98% ab | 0.78% b | 0.51% c |
g__OM27_clade | 0.27% a | 0.22% a | 0.09% c | 0.17% bc |
s__uncultured_Pseudonocardia_sp. | 0.24% ab | 0.31% a | 0.00% c | 0.11% b |
s__uncultured_Virgisporangium_sp. | 0.10% a | 0.09% a | 0.01% b | 0.04% b |
(c) enriched or depleted phyla and genera and species with microbial fertilizer supplement | ||||
g__Candidatus_Alysiosphaera | 0.22% a | 0.14% b | 0.12% c | 0.18% ab |
g__Hirschia | 0.09% c | 0.23% a | 0.16% b | 0.11% bc |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, H.; Yang, H.; Calderón-Urrea, A.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yu, Y.; Ma, J.; Shi, G. Microbial Fertilization Improves Soil Health When Compared to Chemical Fumigation in Sweet Lily. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 847. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8080847
Li H, Yang H, Calderón-Urrea A, Li Y, Zhang L, Yu Y, Ma J, Shi G. Microbial Fertilization Improves Soil Health When Compared to Chemical Fumigation in Sweet Lily. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(8):847. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8080847
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Hui, Hongyu Yang, Alejandro Calderón-Urrea, Yuanpeng Li, Lipeng Zhang, Yanlin Yu, Jiayi Ma, and Guiying Shi. 2022. "Microbial Fertilization Improves Soil Health When Compared to Chemical Fumigation in Sweet Lily" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 8: 847. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8080847