Bamboo charcoal affects soil properties and bacterial community in tea plantations

Si-Hai Zhang; Yue Wang; Jin-Jie Hu; Wei-Jia Chen; Jia-Le Wu; Rachel Wan Xin Seah; Yang-Chun Zhu; Zhi-Ping Guo; Jie Chen

doi:10.1515/biol-2022-0681

Artikel Open Access

Bamboo charcoal affects soil properties and bacterial community in tea plantations

Si-Hai Zhang , Yue Wang , Jin-Jie Hu , Wei-Jia Chen , Jia-Le Wu , Rachel Wan Xin Seah , Yang-Chun Zhu , Zhi-Ping Guo und Jie Chen

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 8. August 2023

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift Open Life Sciences Band 18 Heft 1

Abstract

Bamboo charcoal, a type of manufactured biochar, is produced by pyrolyzing bamboo residue under anoxic conditions. Its beneficial properties in absorption, catalyst support, and agricultural function have attracted significant attention; however, relatively few studies have examined its effects on the soil microbiota. In this study, we analyzed the effects of bamboo charcoal on soil physicochemical properties, enzymes, and microbial community structure in tea plantations and investigated the optimal amount of bamboo charcoal to be added to organic fertilizer. The results show that bamboo charcoal can further increase soil available nitrogen, total and available phosphorus and potassium, organic carbon content, pH, and urease activity. However, only the combined use of bamboo charcoal and organic fertilizer significantly increased total nitrogen, sucrase, and β-glucosidase activities in the soil. Bamboo charcoal also significantly increased the Chao1 and Shannon indices of microbiota diversity in a concentration-dependent manner. The structure of the bacterial community changed significantly after the bamboo charcoal addition, with Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes increasing and Acidobacteria decreasing. This study provides fundamental insights into the suitability of bamboo charcoal application for the ecological remediation of diseased soils.

Graphical abstract

Keywords: soil physicochemistry; soil enzyme; Illumina NovaSeq; soil microbiota

1 Introduction

Soil is essential for tea tree survival, and its growth, characteristics, and nutrient richness directly affect tea tree growth and leaf quality [1]. Tea trees thrive in acidic soils; however, only a suitable soil pH supports their root system survival [2]. In studies on continuous crop barriers in tea trees, it was found that soil nutrient imbalance, soil acidification, self-toxic effects, microbial community structure imbalance, and inter-root microecology pose continuous difficulties in tea plant cropping [3,4,5], which can be attributed to the economic interests of tea farmers and result in massive chemical fertilizer application [3,4].

Biochar, a class of insoluble organic matter with highly aromatized structures, is produced by high-temperature pyrolysis of plant or animal biomass materials under oxygen-limited conditions [6]. Biochar has a high carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, rich pore structure, large specific surface area, stable physicochemical properties, high soil cation exchange capacity, weak alkalinity, and low density [7]. It can be employed to improve soil pH and organic carbon content, increase soil fertility and water retention, and as a soil conditioner to promote crop growth and development [8,9,10]. Application of biochar to Karst lime soil increased soil pH, moisture, and porosity, and the soil’s phosphatase activity was enhanced due to the size of the biochar particles [11]. A study on the effect of biochar in combination with organic-inorganic fertilizer in pomelo orchards found that after 3 years, this combination had improved soil nutrients (pH, alkali hydrolysable nitrogen, and available phosphorus (AP), potassium, and magnesium), enzymatic activities (urease, dehydrogenase, invertase, and nitrate reductase activities), and bacterial abundance [12]. In addition, biochar can improve the soil microhabitat, which benefits the soil microbial habitat and activity and protects beneficial soil microorganisms [13,14].

Bamboo charcoal, a type of manufactured biochar, is produced by pyrolyzing bamboo residue under anoxic conditions. It has attracted significant attention owing to its beneficial properties in absorption, catalyst support, and agricultural function [15,16,17,18]. Furthermore, bamboo charcoal has an excellent absorption ability for most pollutants [19]. For example, it can reduce soil fluoride availability and subsequent fluoride uptake by tea plants [20]. In addition, it promotes tea tree growth, as one study found a 20–40% growth increase over the control group [21]. This could be attributed to its manifold benefits such as adjusting soil pH, improving the soil structure, facilitating root growth of plants, enhancing nutrient absorption, and reduces the rate of nutrient loss in the soil [22].

Over an extended period of continuous crop use, the structure of the soil microbial community between the roots of tea trees changes dramatically. This includes a decrease in the number of soil microorganisms, a decrease in community diversity, an increase in microbiota with low metabolic capacity or better suitability to poor conditions, and an overall decrease in the quality of the soil environment between the roots [23,24]. The imbalance in soil microbial community structure is therefore one of the most important causes of crop barriers in tea plants. Bamboo charcoal is increasingly being used to address this problem because of its multiple excellent properties [13,25]. However, there are currently limited studies on the effects of bamboo charcoal on the microbial community structure of tea trees. In this study, the effects of bamboo charcoal on the soil microbial community were analyzed by 16S rDNA sequencing. The study will help to elucidate the potential mechanisms by which bamboo charcoal affects the structure of soil microbial communities.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Soil

The soil used was sourced from a farm in Suichang County, Zhejiang Province, China, located at 28°13′N–28°49′N, 118°41′E–119°30′E. The farm serves as a tea plantation, and the area has a subtropical monsoon climate with an annual average temperature of 16.8℃ with extreme maximum and minimum temperatures of 40.1 and −9.9℃, respectively, and annual average sunshine of 1346.5–1847.8 h. Given that tea trees are perennial plants, soil acidification becomes serious after 10 years of continuous planting and tea quality declines, posing significant continuous cropping obstacles. The soil characteristics were as follows: organic carbon, 20.92 g/kg; available nitrogen (AN), 1357.65 mg/kg; AP, 65.60 mg/kg; available potassium, 119.84 mg/kg; and pH, 4.52.

2.2 Plot selection and soil collection

Fifteen plots of land of 8 m × 8 m were set up on the farm. The five treatments include CK1, control treatment without fertilizer; CK2, control treatment with organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm². Three replicates of each treatment were used in a randomized block treatment design. The bamboo charcoal used was bamboo straw charred at 800℃ and sieved using 80 mesh, and the organic fertilizer was a common market organic fertilizer. Treatment was applied on November 9, 2017; November, 2018; and November, 2019, using open furrows for even application followed by mulching. Soil samples covering a depth of 0–20 cm were obtained from each plot using an S-shape on June 10, 2020.

2.3 Soil chemical analysis

Soil pH was determined via soil liquid extraction (water/soil = 2.5/1, v/w) using a pH meter [26]. Soil total nitrogen (TN) was determined using the Kjeldahl distillation method [27]. Soil total potassium (TK) was determined with a flame photometer (FP6410, China) [26]. Soil total phosphorus (TP) was determined by NaOH fusion, Mo–Sb colorimetry, and ultraviolet spectrophotometry (UV2600, Shimadzu, Japan) [28]. AN was measured by alkaline hydrolysis diffusion [29], and AP was analyzed by sodium bicarbonate extraction molybdenum antimony resistance colorimetry [29]. Available potassium (AK) was measured by NH₄CH₃CO₂ extraction and atomic absorption spectrometry [26]. The content of soil organic matter (SOM) was determined by the hydrothermal potassium dichromate oxidation colorimetric method [29].

2.4 Soil enzyme activity analysis

The soil urease activity was determined by the sodium phenol-sodium hypochlorite colorimetric method using an MD SpectraMax 190 Fluorescence Microplate Reader at 578 nm [30]. Soil acid phosphatase activity was determined by the colorimetric method using sodium benzene phosphate at 570 nm [31]. Peroxidase activity was determined by the potassium permanganate titration method [32]. Sucrase was determined by a colorimetric method using 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid at 508 nm [33,34]. β-Glucosidase activity was determined by colorimetric method using p-nitrophenol at 400 nm [35].

2.5 DNA extraction

Three fresh soil samples from each of the five treatments (CK1, CK2, T1, T2, and T3) were collected for genomic DNA (gDNA) extraction. Total gDNA was extracted using the OMEGA Soil DNA Kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA). A NanoDrop NC2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used and agarose gel electrophoresis was performed to ensure the quantity and quality of the gDNA.

2.6 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing

16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed as in a previous study [36]. PCR amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA gene V3-V4 was performed using forward primer 338F (5′-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCA-3′) and reverse primer 806R (5′-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′). For multiplex sequencing, unique barcodes around 7 base pairs in length were incorporated into the primers. The PCR components contained 5 μL of buffer (5×), 0.25 μL of Fast pfu DNA Polymerase (5 U/μL), 2 μL (2.5 mM) of deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs), 1 μL (10 μM) of each forward and reverse primer, 1 μL of DNA template, and 14.75 μL of ddH₂O. Thermal cycling included initial denaturation at 98°C for 5 min, followed by 25 cycles of denaturation at 98°C for 30 s, annealing at 53°C for 30 s, and extension at 72°C for 45 s, with a final extension of 5 min at 72°C. The amplicons were purified using Vazyme VAHTSTM DNA Clean Beads (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) and quantified using the Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The amplicons were pooled and then sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq platform with NovaSeq 6000 SP Reagent Kit (500 cycles) at Shanghai Personal Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China).

2.7 Sequence analysis

Microbiome bioinformatics was performed using QIIME2 2019.4, with slight modifications. Demux, cutadapt, and DADA2 were used for quality control and preparation for further analysis. A phylogenetic tree was constructed using fasttree2 by aligning non-singleton amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) with MAFFT. Alpha-diversity metrics and beta-diversity metrics were calculated with diversity. ASVs were assigned taxonomy using the classify-sklearn naïve Bayes taxonomy classifier in the feature-classifier plugin against the SILVA Release 132 Database.

2.8 Statistical analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in SPSS version 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Results were considered to be statistically significant at P < 0.05.

3 Results

3.1 Effect of bamboo charcoal on soil physicochemical properties

Soil TN, AN, TP, AP, TK, AK, and organic carbon differed significantly from that of the control groups CK1 and CK2 with increased bamboo charcoal (Figure 1). TN and TK increased with elevated bamboo charcoal concentration, whereas AN, TP, and organic carbon decreased. AP and AK increased and then decreased with elevated bamboo charcoal concentration. For pH, only the T1 treatment was significantly different from CK1 and CK2, whereas the T2 and T3 treatments were only significantly different from CK1.

Figure 1

Effect of bamboo charcoal on soil physicochemical properties. (a) total nitrogen; (b) available nitrogen; (c) total phosphorus; (d) available phosphorus; (e) total potassium; (f) available potassium; (g) pH; (h) organic carbon; CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm². Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM of the results from three samples. The values calculated using ANOVA were denoted by * and #, and are significantly different from CK1 and CK2, respectively (P < 0.05).

3.2 Effect of bamboo charcoal on soil enzyme activity

With increased bamboo charcoal concentration, the urease activity gradually increased; however, only the T3 treatment was significantly different from CK1 and CK2, and T1 and T2 were only significantly different from CK1. Sucrase enzyme activity increased and then decreased, and only the T2 treatment was significantly different from CK1. Catalase enzyme activity gradually increased, but not significantly, with CK1 and CK2. Acid phosphatase enzyme activity increased and then decreased but was only significantly different in CK1. β-Glucosidase enzyme activity increased significantly, with an initial increase followed by a decrease (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Effect of bamboo charcoal on soil enzyme activity. (a) urease; (b) sucrase; (c) catalase; (d) acid phosphatase; (e) β-glucosidase; CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm². The three samples are represented as the mean ± SEM of the results. The values denoted by * and # are significantly different from CK1 and CK2, respectively, when compared using one-way ANOVA (P < 0.05).

3.3 Sequencing results

The data obtained from 16 S rRNA sequencing were uploaded to the NCBI SRA database, and the acceptance number PRJNA970211 was obtained. The total number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) detected from samples in this study was 45,306, the total number of OUTs common to all samples was 1,623, and the total number of OUTs specific to each treatment was 6,486 (CK1), 5,610 (CK2), 8,307 (T1), 7,958 (T2) and 8,830 (T3), respectively. Overall, the application of organic fertilizer reduced the total number of soil OTUs, while the addition of bamboo charcoal increased it (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The number of OTUs in the bacterial community of each treatment. CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm².

3.4 Soil bacterial community: α diversity

With increased bamboo charcoal concentration, the Chao1 and observed species index of T1, T2, and T3 significantly increased compared to the control groups CK1 and CK2, indicating an increase in soil microbiota richness. The Shannon index increased, especially T3, which was significantly higher than CK2, indicating an increase in soil microbiota diversity and uniformity. However, Simpson and Good’s coverage index did not change significantly (Table 1).

Table 1

Effect of bamboo charcoal on the α diversity of soil bacterial communities

Treatment	Chao1	Observed species	Shannon	Simpson	Good’s coverage
CK1	6,530 ± 172^b	6,231 ± 223^b	11.12 ± 0.06^ab	1.00 ± 0.00^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a
CK2	6,368 ± 235^b	5,997 ± 231^b	11.07 ± 0.13^b	1.00 ± 0.00^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a
T1	7,391 ± 315^a	7,083 ± 321^a	11.44 ± 0.15^ab	1.00 ± 0.00^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a
T2	7,397 ± 433^a	7,074 ± 359^a	11.45 ± 0.07^ab	1.00 ± 0.00^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a
T3	7,761 ± 392^a	7,442 ± 421^a	11.52 ± 0.21^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a	1.00 ± 0.00^a

CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm². Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. Values denoted by different letters are significantly different between groups when compared using one-way ANOVA (P < 0.05).

3.5 Soil bacterial community: β diversity

The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) revealed that the control groups CK1 and CK2 were similar regarding bacterial community structure, whereas they differed from that of the bamboo charcoal treatment groups (T1, T2, and T3 [Figure 4a]). The nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis results corroborated those of the PCoA (Figure 4b).

Figure 4

The effect of bamboo charcoal on the β diversity of soil bacterial communities. The control and bamboo charcoal-treated samples were visualized by PCoA (a) and NMDS (b) analysis. CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm².

3.6 Bacterial identification and species distribution

The phyla Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Firmicutes dominated the soil microbiota in the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups, but community composition differed between control and treatment groups (Figure 5a). AD3, Subgroup_2, Candidatus_Solbacter, Bryobacter, Bacillus, and Burkholderia–Caballeronia–Paraburkholderia dominated the soil microbiota in the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups at the genus level, but community composition differed significantly between control and treatment groups (Figure 5b).

Figure 5

Bacterial composition of the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups at the phylum and genus levels. Only the top 15 most abundant bacterial phylum (a)/genera (b) (based on relative abundance) are listed. CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm².

3.7 Identification of potential soil microbial biomarker

Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) was used to characterize the microbial communities. There was a significant difference in abundance between the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups. The relative abundance of Burkholderia–Caballeronia–Paraburkholderia, Arthrobacter, Roseiarcus, and Kitasatospora were significantly higher in the CK1 group, whereas that of Nitrospira, Alkanindiges, Candidatus_Nitrotoga, and Candidatus_Endomicrobium were significantly higher in the CK2 group. However, the biomarker bacteria changed slightly between the treatment groups as bamboo charcoal concentration increased. Saccharimonadales, Cupriavidus, Sphingomonas, and Phenylobacterium dominated the T1 treatment group; Geobacter, Pseudogulbenkiania, and Rhizobacter dominated the T2 treatment group; and Nocardioides, Paenarthrobacter, and Actinomadura dominated the T3 treatment group (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Visualization of the differential abundance of soil bacterial taxa between the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups using LEfSe analysis. The bacterial phylum is represented by center dots while the outer circle of dots represents the OTUs at the species level. The color and labels are linked to the respective of the listed abundant bacterial taxa. CK1, without fertilizer; CK2, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm²; T1 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 1,125 kg/hm²; T2 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 2,250 kg/hm²; T3 treatment, organic fertilizer 7,500 kg/hm² + bamboo charcoal 3,375 kg/hm².

4 Discussion

Bamboo charcoal has attracted significant attention owing to its beneficial properties in absorption, catalyst support, and agricultural function [15,16,17,18]. However, relatively few studies have examined its effects on soil bacterial community structure. In this study, bamboo charcoal significantly increased the soil pH, which can be attributed to its alkalinity and ability to increase the pH of acidic and neutral soils [37]. Furthermore, the study suggests that bamboo charcoal increased the organic carbon content of the soil. The potential carbon sequestration ability of biochar was investigated by Hua et al. [38], who showed that biochar can effectively reduce CO₂ emissions and increase organic matter content. In soil with lower organic content, increasing biochar enhances soil efficacy level at a much higher rate than soil with higher organic content [38]. Biochar also increases nitrogen retention in soil by reducing gaseous loss to the environment and maintains phosphorous availability for plant growth by decreasing the rate of leaching. However, for K and other nutrients, there appears to be an inconsistency in the effects of biochar on the soil with a mixed array of positive and negative effects [39]. In the present study, bamboo charcoal significantly increased the total amount and effectiveness of soil N, P, and K.

Bamboo charcoal treatment significantly increased urease, sucrase, acid phosphatase, and β-glucosidase activities. β-Glucosidase plays a key role in cellulose degradation, and its degradation products are the main energy sources for soil microorganisms [40]. In the present study, β-glucosidase activity was higher in the bamboo charcoal treatment group, which might be attributed to the ability of the bamboo charcoal to improve plant growth microenvironment, inducing better plant growth and increased belowground root biomass, aboveground apoplankton, and SOM accumulation, consequently providing more available substrates to increase β-glucosidase activity. It is known that acid phosphatase activity directly affects the catabolic transformation and bioefficacy of organic P in soil [41]. In this study, acid phosphatase activity was higher in the bamboo charcoal treatment, which might be attributed to the better growth and higher biomass of the bamboo charcoal-treated plants, which could have stimulated the microorganisms to secrete more acidic P. In contrast, urease activity depends on organic matter and is deeply involved in the conversion and decomposition of organic matter [42]. As the study revealed that bamboo charcoal increased the organic matter content, and the urease activity of bamboo charcoal treatment groups was consequently higher, as there was more substrate available for urease to work on. The presence of sucrase in soil aids in carbohydrate conversion, and it is one of a key indicator in soil fertility [43]. In this study, soil sucrase activity was enhanced with increased bamboo charcoal application, consistent with previous studies [44].

The results indicate that soil microbiota diversity and richness significantly increased with elevated bamboo charcoal concentration. Zhang et al. [45] observed the effects of biochar addition in citrus production on microbial communities, and the experimental results showed that biochar significantly affected soil microbiota richness, evenness, and diversity in citrus orchards. The results are also consistent with a previous study in which soil microbiota was largely governed by organic matter utilization [46]. The most dominant soil microbiota phyla in the present study were similar to those in previous studies of bacterial communities in different types of soils [47,48]. However, differences were observed in the composition of soil bacterial communities in this study. Changes in the relative bacterial abundance mainly occurred in the Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Firmicutes phyla. Bamboo charcoal addition increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes, whereas that of Acidobacteria decreased. Studies have reported that Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes were found to easily dominate an environment rich in active organic carbon [49,50]. Since bamboo charcoal application increased soil active organic carbon availability, this resulted in an increase in the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes. As Acidobacteria proliferate in anaerobic conditions, the presence of bamboo charcoal can increase soil permeability to air, and potentially cause a reduction in Acidobacteria levels [51]. These changes could account for the differences in the soil microbiota structure between the control and bamboo charcoal treatment groups, which were also reflected in the different microbial biomarkers of each treatment group. Li et al. [23,24] found that the richness, evenness, and diversity indices of soil microbiota in the inter-rhizosphere of Camellia sinensis decreased significantly with increasing planting years, and that some genera of bacteria beneficial to plant growth (e.g., Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, and Rhizobium) decreased sharply, while the number of certain pathogenic fungi (e.g., Streptomyces) increased. However, research on the inter-root microorganisms of tea plants is currently still limited to phenomenological descriptions. The key specific microorganisms that play an important role in the formation of tea crop barriers have not yet been elucidated. Further studies using different analysis methods should be carried out to extend the findings of the 16 S rDNA sequencing study.

5 Practical implications of this study

Since this study used 16S rRNA sequencing rather than metagenomics sequencing to study the effects of bamboo charcoal on soil microbiota, it can only address the domains of soil microbiota composition and diversity, but not those of microbiota genes and functions. Future studies will employ metagenomics sequencing to clarify the effects of bamboo charcoal on soil community genes and functions, and further elucidate the deeper mechanisms of the effects recorded in the present study. This will also facilitate the application of bamboo charcoal in solving crop barriers in tea plants.

6 Conclusions

This study has shown that bamboo charcoal can further increase soil physicochemical properties and enzyme activities in tea plantations in the presence of organic fertilizer application and also clarified the effect of bamboo charcoal on soil microbiota composition and abundance. The results provide fundamental insights into the suitability of bamboo charcoal application for the ecological remediation of diseased soils in tea plantations.

Funding information: This research was funded by the Public Welfare Technology Application Research Project of Lishui City (2021GYX11; 2022SJZC006; 2022ZDYF02), Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education Domestic Visiting Scholar “Teacher Professional Development Project” (FX2021081), Zhejiang Provincial Finance Department Special Project (20180021), and Key Research and Development Project of Zhejiang Province (2018C02031).
Author contributions: Zhi-Ping Guo and Jie Chen conceived this study. Si-Hai Zhang and Jin-Jie Hu conducted the experiment. Si-Hai Zhang and Yue Wang wrote the main manuscript. Yue Wang, Wei-Jia Chen, Jia-Le Wu, Rachel Wan Xin Seah, and Yang-Chun Zhu edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Yuan L, Wang S, Wang Z, Huang J. Tea-grown soils and tea quality in Sichuan and Chongqing, China. Pedosphere. 2000;10:45–52.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Wang N, Li JY, Xu RK. Use of agricultural by‐products to study the pH effects in an acid tea garden soil. Soil Use Manag. 2009;25:128–32.10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00203.xSuche in Google Scholar

[3] Yan P, Wu L, Wang D, Fu J, Shen C, Li X, et al. Soil acidification in Chinese tea plantations. Sci Total Environ. 2020;715:136963.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136963Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Gunathilaka R, Smart JC, Fleming CM. Adaptation to climate change in perennial cropping systems: Options, barriers and policy implications. Environ Sci Policy. 2018;82:108–6.10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.011Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Li YC, Chen ZP, Lin WW, Li ZW, Lin WX. Research advances in mechanisms and preventions of continuous cropping obstacles of tea plants. Ecol Sci. 2019;38:225–32.Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Wang J, Wang S. Preparation, modification and environmental application of biochar: A review. J Clean Prod. 2019;227:1002–22.10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.282Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Weber K, Quicker P. Properties of biochar. Fuel. 2018;217:240–61.10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.054Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Qian K, Kumar A, Zhang H, Bellmer D, Huhnke R. Recent advances in utilization of biochar. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:1055–64.10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.074Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Verheijen F, Jeffery S, Bastos A, Van der Velde M, Diafas I. Biochar application to soils, A critical scientific review of effects on soil properties, processes, and functions. EUR. 2010;24099:162.Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. Adv Agron. 2010;105:47–82.10.1016/S0065-2113(10)05002-9Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Mao Q, Hu B, Agathokleous E, Wang L, Koike T, Ma M, et al. Biochar application improves karstic lime soil physicochemical properties and enzymes activity and enhances sweet tea seedlings physiological performance. Sci Total Environ. 2022;830:154815.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154815Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Song Y, Zhao Q, Guo X, Ali I, Li F, Lin S, et al. Effects of biochar and organic-inorganic fertilizer on pomelo orchard soil properties, enzymes activities, and microbial community structure. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:980241.10.3389/fmicb.2022.980241Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Schnee LS, Knauth S, Hapca S, Otten W, Eickhorst T. Analysis of physical pore space characteristics of two pyrolytic biochars and potential as microhabitat. Plant Soil. 2016;408:357–68.10.1007/s11104-016-2935-9Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Pietikäinen J, Kiikkilä O, Fritze H. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos. 2000;89:231–42.10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890203.xSuche in Google Scholar

[15] Tian C, Wang MD, Si YB. Influences of charcoal amendment on adsorption-desorption of isoproturon in soils. Agr Sci China. 2010;9:257–65.10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60091-2Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Liao P, Yuan S, Xie W, Zhang W, Tong M, Wang K. Adsorption of nitrogen-heterocyclic compounds on bamboo charcoal: Kinetics, thermodynamics, and microwave regeneration. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2013;390:189–95.10.1016/j.jcis.2012.09.037Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Hua L, Chen Y, Wu W. Impacts upon soil quality and plant growth of bamboo charcoal addition to composted sludge. Environ Technol. 2012;33:61–8.10.1080/09593330.2010.549845Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Chuang CS, Wang MK, Ko CH, Ou CC, Wu CH. Removal of benzene and toluene by carbonized bamboo materials modified with TiO2. Bioresour Technol. 2008;99:954–8.10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.003Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Lou CW, Lin CW, Lei CH, Su KH, Hsu CH, Liu ZH, et al. PET/PP blend with bamboo charcoal to produce functional composites. J Mater Process Tech. 2007;192:428–33.10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.04.018Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Gao H, Zhang Z, Wan X. Influences of charcoal and bamboo charcoal amendment on soil-fluoride fractions and bioaccumulation of fluoride in tea plants. Environ Geochem Health. 2012;34:551–62.10.1007/s10653-012-9459-xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Hoshi T. Growth promotion of tea trees by putting bamboo charcoal in soil. Proceedings of 2001 International Conference on O-cha (Tea) Culture and Science; 2001. p. 147–50.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] Khan MA, Kim KW, Mingzhi W, Lim BK, Lee WH, Lee JY. Nutrient-impregnated charcoal: An environmentally friendly slow-release fertilizer. Environmentalist. 2008;28:231–35.10.1007/s10669-007-9133-5Suche in Google Scholar

[23] Li YC, Li Z, Li ZW, Jiang YH, Weng BQ, Lin WX. Variations of rhizosphere bacterial communities in tea (Camellia sinensis L.) continuous cropping soil by high-throughput pyrosequencing approach. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;121(3):787–99.10.1111/jam.13225Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Li Y, Li Z, Arafat Y, Lin W, Jiang Y, Weng B, et al. Characterizing rhizosphere microbial communities in long-term monoculture tea orchards by fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization. Eur J Soil Biol. 2017;81:48–54.10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.06.008Suche in Google Scholar

[25] Xu N, Tan G, Wang H, Gai X. Effect of biochar additions to soil on nitrogen leaching, microbial biomass and bacterial community structure. Eur J Soil Biol. 2016;74:1–8.10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.02.004Suche in Google Scholar

[26] Bao SD. Soil agrochemical analysis. 3rd edn. Beijing: China Agriculture Press; 2000.Suche in Google Scholar

[27] Jones DL, Willett VB. Experimental evaluation of methods to quantify dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006;38(5):991–9.10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.012Suche in Google Scholar

[28] Miranda KM, Espey MG, Wink DA. A rapid, simple spectrophotometric method for simultaneous detection of nitrate and nitrite. Nitric Oxide. 2001;5(1):62–71.10.1006/niox.2000.0319Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Lu RK. Methods of soil agrochemical analysis. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press; 2000.Suche in Google Scholar

[30] Yi M, Zhou S, Zhang L, Ding S. The effects of three different microplastics on enzyme activities and microbial communities in soil. Water Environ Res. 2021;93(1):24–32.10.1002/wer.1327Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Dick WA, Cheng L, Wang P. Soil acid and alkaline phosphatase activity as pH adjustment indicators. Soil Biol Biochem. 2000;32(13):1915–9.10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00166-8Suche in Google Scholar

[32] Liu XY, Yi YL, Xia YL. Effect of magnetic field on enzyme activities in main soils of Northeast China. Pedosphere. 1996;6(4):341–8.Suche in Google Scholar

[33] Li ZG, Luo YM, Teng Y. Soil and environmental microbiology research method. Beijing: Science Press; 2008.Suche in Google Scholar

[34] Lin XG. Principles and methods of soil microbiology research. Beijing: Higher Education Press; 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

[35] Eivazi F, Tabatabai M. Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1988;20:601–6.10.1016/0038-0717(88)90141-1Suche in Google Scholar

[36] Matsushita Y, Egami K, Sawada A, Saito M, Yoshida S. Analyses of soil bacterial community diversity in naturally and conventionally farmed apple orchards using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Appl Soil Ecol. 2019;141:26–9.10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.04.010Suche in Google Scholar

[37] Buss W, Graham MC, Shepherd JG, Masek O. Suitability of marginal biomass-derived biochars for soil amendment. Sci Total Environ. 2016;547:314–22.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.148Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Hua L, Lu Z, Ma H, Jin S. Effect of biochar on carbon dioxide release, organic carbon accumulation, and aggregation of soil. Environ Prog Sustain. 2014;33(3):941–6.10.1002/ep.11867Suche in Google Scholar

[39] Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Ok YS, Palansooriya KN, et al. Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant. Biochar. 2020;2(4):379–420.10.1007/s42773-020-00065-zSuche in Google Scholar

[40] Das SK, Varma A. Role of enzymes in maintaining soil health. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.10.1007/978-3-642-14225-3_2Suche in Google Scholar

[41] Wang Z, Tan X, Lu G, Liu Y, Naidu R, He W. Soil properties influence kinetics of soil acid phosphatase in response to arsenic toxicity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2018;147:266–74.10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.08.050Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Adetunji AT, Lewu FB, Mulidzi RA, Ncube B. The biological activities of β-glucosidase, phosphatase and urease as soil quality indicators: A review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2017;17:794–807.10.4067/S0718-95162017000300018Suche in Google Scholar

[43] Pajares S, Gallardo JF, Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B, Etchevers JD. Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil quality changes in degraded cultivated Acrisols in the Mexican Trans-volcanic Belt. Land Degrad Dev. 2011;22(3):373–81.10.1002/ldr.992Suche in Google Scholar

[44] Jiang Y, Wang X, Zhao Y, Zhang C, Jin Z, Shan S, et al. Effects of biochar application on enzyme activities in tea garden soil. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:728530.10.3389/fbioe.2021.728530Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[45] Zhang MY, Zhang L, Riaz M, Xia H, Jiang CC. Biochar amendment improved fruit quality and soil properties and microbial communities at different depths in citrus production. J Clean Prod. 2021;292:126062.10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126062Suche in Google Scholar

[46] Schnecker J, Wild B, Hofhansl F, Eloy Alves RJ, Bárta J, Capek P, et al. Effects of soil organic matter properties and microbial community composition on enzyme activities in cryoturbated arctic soils. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94076.10.1371/journal.pone.0094076Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[47] Blanc C, Sy M, Djigal D, Brauman A, Normand P, Villenave C. Nutrition on bacteria by bacterial-feeding nematodes and consequences on the structure of soil bacterial community. Eur J Soil Biol. 2006;42(1):S70–8.10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.06.003Suche in Google Scholar

[48] Zhao C, Zhang Y, Liu X, Ma X, Meng Y, Li X, et al. Comparing the effects of biochar and straw amendment on soil carbon pools and bacterial community structure in degraded soil. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020;20:751–60.10.1007/s42729-019-00162-4Suche in Google Scholar

[49] Sun D, Meng J, Xu EG, Chen W. Microbial community structure and predicted bacterial metabolic functions in biochar pellets aged in soil after 34 months. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016;100:135–43.10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.12.012Suche in Google Scholar

[50] Lewin GR, Carlos C, Chevrette MG, Horn HA, Mcdonald BR, Stankey RJ, et al. Evolution and ecology of actinobacteria and their bioenergy applications. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016;70(1):235–54.10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095748Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[51] Yamada T, Sekiguchi Y. Cultivation of uncultured chloroflexi subphyla: significance and ecophysiology of formerly uncultured chloroflexi ‘subphylum i’ with natural and biotechnological relevance. Microbes Environ. 2008;24(3):205–16.10.1264/jsme2.ME09151SSuche in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-03-29

Revised: 2023-05-16

Accepted: 2023-07-18

Published Online: 2023-08-08

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2022-0681

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

soil physicochemistry; soil enzyme; Illumina NovaSeq; soil microbiota

Creative Commons

BY 4.0