Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Biologia




More options …
Volume 71, Issue 12

Issues

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

Qingxiang Yang
  • Corresponding author
  • College of Life Sciences, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Key Laboratory for Microorganisms and Functional Molecules (Henan Normal University), University of Henan Province, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ruifei Wang
  • College of Life Sciences, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Key Laboratory for Microorganisms and Functional Molecules (Henan Normal University), University of Henan Province, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Yuanyuan Xu / Chunxiao Kang / Ying Miao / Mingjun Li
  • College of Life Sciences, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Engineering Laboratory of Biotechnologies for Green Medicinal Plants, Henan Province, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-01-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0161

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.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Key words: Rehmanniae glutinosa; consecutive monoculture obstacles; microbial community; high throughput sequencing; quantitative real-time PCR

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

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.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.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.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)Google Scholar

  • Ehrenfeld J.G., Ravit B. & Elgersma K. 2005. Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 30: 75–115.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Frankenberger W.T. & Johanson J.B. 1983. Method of measuring invertase activity in soils. Plant Soil 74: 301–311.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.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.Google Scholar

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Sláviková E., Vadkertiová R. & Vránová D. 2007. Yeasts colonizing the leaf surfaces. J. Basic Microb. 47: 344–350.Google Scholar

  • Ter Braak C.J.F. 1986. Canonical Correspondence Analysis: A New Eigenvector Technique for Multivariate Direct Gradient Analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Yurkov A.M., Kemler M. & Begerow D. 2012. Assessment of yeast diversity in soils under different management regimes. Fungal Ecol. 5: 24–35.Google Scholar

  • Zhang R.X., Li M.X. & Jia Z.P. 2008. Rehmanniaea: review of botany, chemistry and pharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 117: 199–214.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-04-27

Accepted: 2016-09-30

Published Online: 2017-01-12

Published in Print: 2016-12-01


Citation Information: Biologia, Volume 71, Issue 12, Pages 1320–1329, ISSN (Online) 1336-9563, ISSN (Print) 0006-3088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0161.

Export Citation

© 2016 Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Linkun Wu, Juanying Wang, Hongmiao Wu, Jun Chen, Zhigang Xiao, Xianjin Qin, Zhongyi Zhang, and Wenxiong Lin
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2018, Volume 19, Number 8, Page 2394
[2]
Linkun Wu, Jun Chen, Zhigang Xiao, Xiaocheng Zhu, Juanying Wang, Hongmiao Wu, Yanhong Wu, Zhongyi Zhang, and Wenxiong Lin
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2018, Volume 19, Number 3, Page 850

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in