Startseite Lebenswissenschaften Dynamic change of the rhizosphere microbial community in response to growth stages of consecutively monocultured Rehmanniae glutinosa
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Dynamic change of the rhizosphere microbial community in response to growth stages of consecutively monocultured Rehmanniae glutinosa

  • Qingxiang Yang EMAIL logo , Ruifei Wang , Yuanyuan Xu , Chunxiao Kang , Ying Miao und Mingjun Li
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 12. Januar 2017
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Biologia
Aus der Zeitschrift Biologia Band 71 Heft 12

Abstract

Rehmanniae glutinosa, an important medical plant in China, has distinct regional characteristics. It has long suffered from consecutive monoculture obstacles, resulting in severe reduction of quality and yield. The microbial community is believed to play an important role in the monoculture process. However, there are no reports on how microbial compositions change in response to growth of R. glutinosa. In this study, quantitative real-time PCR and metagenomic high throughput sequencing methods were applied for the first time to elucidate the rhizosphere microbial community variation during growth and consecutive monoculture of R. glutinosa. The results indicated that with the first- and second-year cultivated process, the bacterial and fungal populations varied dramatically in rhizosphere soil, and the microbial balance was severely altered. Some probiotic bacteria (e.g., Actinomycetes), obviously decreased in abundance with consecutive monoculture and the abundances of some pathogenic fungi (e.g., Alternaria) were obviously higher in the second-year cultivation than that in the first-year cultivation. In addition, we also found that microbial imbalance was tightly coupled with decreased soil pH and reductions in a series of soil enzyme activities. All these changes could be responsible for consecutive monoculture obstacles of R. glutinosa.


*Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article (DOI: biolog-2016-0161) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 21477035 and NSFC 21277041), Program for Innovative Research Team (in Science and Technology) in University of Henan Province (IRTSTHN, 13IRT-STHN009), The Outstanding Talented Persons Foundation of Henan Province (144200510007), the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (20134104110006). Educational Commission of Henan Province of China (15A180016) and Doctor Initiative Foundation of Henan Normal University (qd14166).

References

Bainard L.D., Koch A.M., Gordon A.M. & Klironomos J.N. 2013. Growth response of crops to soil microbial communities from conventional monocropping and tree-based intercropping systems. Plant Soil 363: 345–356.10.1007/s11104-012-1321-5Suche in Google Scholar

Burns R.G., DeForest J.L., Marxsen J., Sinsabaughd R.L., Strombergere M.E., Wallensteinf M.D., Weintraubg M.N. & Zoppinih A. 2013. Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 58: 216–234.10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.009Suche in Google Scholar

Chen Z.Z., Yin Q.Y., Wang X.M. & Zou Y.J. 1997. Primary study on dynamics of soil microorganisms under soybean continuous cropping. Agr. Sci. China 30: 96.Suche in Google Scholar

Du J.F., Yin W.J., Zhang Z.Y., Hou J., Huang J. & Li J. 2009. Autotoxicity and phenolic acids content in soils with different planting interval years of Rehmannia glutinosa. Chinese J. Ecol.48: 445–450. (In Chinese)Suche in Google Scholar

Ehrenfeld J.G., Ravit B. & Elgersma K. 2005. Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 30: 75–115.10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212Suche in Google Scholar

El-Refai H.A., AbdElRahman H.Y., Abdulla H., Hanna A.G., Hashem A.H., El-Refai A.H., & Ahmed E.M. 2011. Studies on the production of actinomycin by Nocardioides luteus, a novel source. Curr. Trends Biotech. Pharm. 5:1282–1297.Suche in Google Scholar

Feng Y.Z., Grogan P., Caporaso J.G., Zhang H.Y., Lin X.G., Knight R. & Chu H.Y. 2014. pH is a good predictor of the distribution of anoxygenic purple phototrophic bacteria in Arctic soils. Soil Biol. Biochem.74: 193–200.10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.014Suche in Google Scholar

Frankenberger W.T. & Johanson J.B. 1983. Method of measuring invertase activity in soils. Plant Soil 74: 301–311.10.1007/BF02181348Suche in Google Scholar

Goudjal Y., Zamoum M., Meklat A., Sabaou N., Mathieu F. & Zitouni A. 2016. Plant-growth-promoting potential of endosymbiotic actinobacteria isolated from sand truffles (Terfezia leonis Tul.) of the Algerian Sahara. Ann. Microbiol.66: 91–100.10.1007/s13213-015-1085-2Suche in Google Scholar

Griffiths R.I., Thomson B.C., James P., Bell T., Bailey M. & Whiteley A.S. 2011. The bacterial biogeography of British soils. Environ. Microbiol.13:1642–1654.10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02480.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

Guan S.M. 1986. Soil Enzyme and the Methods about the Study of Soil Enzyme. China Agriculture Press, Beijing.Suche in Google Scholar

Hao D.C., Song S.M., Mu J., Hu W.L. & Xiao P.G. 2016. Unearthing microbial diversity of Taxus rhizosphere via MiSeq highthroughput amplicon sequencing and isolate characterization. Sci. Rep. 6: 22006.10.1038/srep22006Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Huang L.F., Song L.X., Xia X.J., Mao W.H. Shi K., Zhou Y.H. & Yu J.Q. 2013. Plant-soil feedbacks and soil sickness: from mechanisms to application in agriculture. J. Chem. Ecol.39: 232–242.10.1007/s10886-013-0244-9Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Kaiser C., Koranda M., Kitzler B., Fuchsleuger L., Schnecker J., Steiger P., Rasche F., Zechtmeister-Boltenstern S., Sessitsch A. & Richter A. 2010. Belowground carbon allocation by trees drives seasonal patterns of extracellular enzyme activities by altering microbial community composition in a beech forest soil. New Phytol. 187: 843–858.10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03321.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Kulichevskaya I.S., Suzina N.E., Liesack W. & Dedysh S.N. 2010. Bryobacter aggregatus gen. nov., sp. nov., a peat-inhabiting, aerobic chemo-organotroph from subdivision 3 of the Acidobacteria. IJSEM 60: 301–306.Suche in Google Scholar

Lauber C.L., Strickland M.S., Bradford M.A. & Fierera N. 2008. The influence of soil properties on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities across land-use types. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 2407–2415.10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.05.021Suche in Google Scholar

Lauber C.L., Hamady M., Knight R. & Noan F. 2009. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Appl. Environ. Microb. 75: 5111–5120.10.1128/AEM.00335-09Suche in Google Scholar

Li P.D., Dai C.C., Wang X.X., Zhang T.T. & Chen Y. 2012. Variation of soil enzyme activities and microbial community structure in peanut monocropping system in subtropical China. Afr. J. Agrl. Res. 7: 1870–1879.10.5897/AJAR11.1713Suche in Google Scholar

Li Z.F., Yang Y.Q., Xie D.F., Zhu L.F., Zhang Z.G., & Lin W.X. 2012. Identification of autotoxic compounds in fibrous roots of Rehmanniae (Rehmanniae a Libosch.). PLoS One7: e28806.10.1371/journal.pone.0028806Suche in Google Scholar

Li X.Z., Rui J.P., Mao Y.J., Yannarel A. & Mackie R. 2014. Dynamics of the bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of a maize cultivar. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68: 392–401.10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.017Suche in Google Scholar

Lim D.J., Yun S.J., Chung I.M. & Chang Y.Y. 2005. Resveratrol synthase transgene expression and accumulation of resveratrol glycoside in Rehmanniae. Mol. Breeding 16: 219–233.10.1007/s11032-005-8301-xSuche in Google Scholar

Lu R.K. 2000. Analytical Methods on Agro-chemical Properties of Soil. China Agricultural Science & Technology Press, Beijing.Suche in Google Scholar

Meriles J.M., Gil S.V., Conforto C., Figoni G., Lovera E., March G.J. & Guzmán C.A. 2009. Soil microbial communities under different soybean cropping systems: Characterization of microbial population dynamics, soil microbial activity, microbial biomass, and fatty acid profiles. Soil Till. Res. 103: 271–281.10.1016/j.still.2008.10.008Suche in Google Scholar

Nannipieri P., Ceccanti B. & Cervelli P.S. 1974. Sequi Use of pyrophosphate to extract urease from a podzol. Soil Biol. Biochem. 6: 359–362.10.1016/0038-0717(74)90044-3Suche in Google Scholar

Nielsen U.N., Osler Graham H.R. & Campbell C.D. 2010. The influence of vegetation type, soil properties and precipitation on the composition of soil mite and microbial communities at the landscape scale. J. Biogeogr. 37: 1317–1328.10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02281.xSuche in Google Scholar

Qin G.Z. & Tian S.P. 2004. Biocontrol of postharvest diseases of Jujube Fruit by Cryptococcus laurentii combined with a low dosage of fungicides under different storage conditions. Plant Dis. 88: 497–501.10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.5.497Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Qu X.H. & Wang J.G. 2008. Effect of amendments with different phenolic acids on soil microbial biomass, activity, and community diversity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 39: 172–179.10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.12.007Suche in Google Scholar

Sláviková E., Vadkertiová R. & Vránová D. 2007. Yeasts colonizing the leaf surfaces. J. Basic Microb. 47: 344–350.10.1002/jobm.200710310Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Ter Braak C.J.F. 1986. Canonical Correspondence Analysis: A New Eigenvector Technique for Multivariate Direct Gradient Analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.10.2307/1938672Suche in Google Scholar

van Overbeek L. & van Elsas J.D. 2008. Effects of plant genotype and growth stage on the structure of bacterial communities associated with potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 64: 283–296.10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00469.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

Wu L.K., Wang H.B., Zhang Z.X. Lin R., Zhang Z.Y. & Lin W.X. 2011. Comparative metaproteomic analysis on consecutively Rehmanniaea-monocultured rhizosphere soil. PLoS One 6: e20611.10.1371/journal.pone.0020611Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Wu L., Li Z., Li J., Khan M.A., Huang W.M. Zhang Z.Y. & Lin W.X. 2013. Assessment of shifts in microbial community structure and catabolic diversity in response to Rehmannia glutinosa monoculture. Appl. Soil Ecol.67:1–9.10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.02.008Suche in Google Scholar

Xu Y.X., Wang G.H., Jin J., Liu J.J., Zhang Q.Y. & Liu X.B. 2009. Bacterial communities in soybean rhizosphere in response to soil type, soybean genotype, and their growth stage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41: 919–925.10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.027Suche in Google Scholar

Yang Q.X., Wang J., Wang H.T., Chen X.Y., Ren S.W., Li X.L., Xu Y., Zhang H. & Li X.M. 2012. Evolution of the microbial community in a full-scale printing and dyeing wastewater treatment system. Bioresource Technol.117:155–163.10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.059Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Yurkov A.M., Kemler M. & Begerow D. 2012. Assessment of yeast diversity in soils under different management regimes. Fungal Ecol. 5: 24–35.10.1016/j.funeco.2011.07.004Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang R.X., Li M.X. & Jia Z.P. 2008. Rehmanniaea: review of botany, chemistry and pharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 117: 199–214.10.1016/j.jep.2008.02.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2016-4-27
Accepted: 2016-9-30
Published Online: 2017-1-12
Published in Print: 2016-12-1

© 2016 Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences

Heruntergeladen am 7.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/biolog-2016-0161/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen