Effects of Two Biocontrol Bacteria on Cutting Rooting and Diversity of Rhizosphere and Endophytic Microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0332

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to explore the regulation of Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum on cutting rooting, rhizosphere and endophytic microbes diversity and community structure of Chamelaucium ciliatum. Using the cuttings of the cultivar ‘Zhong Bai’ as materials, three treatments were set up: control (CK, sprayed with 75% chlorothalonil), Bacillus subtilis (BS), and Trichoderma (TH). A cutting experiment was conducted, combined with amplicon, metagenomic and metabolomic sequencing, to analyze the effects of different treatments on cutting rooting and the diversity of rhizosphere and endophytic microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum. The results showed that the rooting rate of the BS group was the highest (85.94%), which was 27.35% higher than that of the CK group (58.59%). The average root weight per plant of the TH group was the largest (112.34 mg), increased by 28.19% compared with the CK group (87.63 mg). Moreover, the root systems in the BS and TH groups were fresher and stronger, without yellow-brown roots or deformed roots. Microbial community analysis showed that the relative abundances of Proteobacteria (77.75%), Bacteroidetes (4.20%) and Firmicutes (1.98%) in root endophytic bacteria of the BS group were significantly higher than those in the CK group, and growth-promoting and stress-resistant functional bacteria such as Acidimicrobiales and Bradyrhizobium were enriched. The number of OTUs of rhizosphere microorganisms in the TH group reached 2821, with 559 unique groups, showing the highest diversity. Metabolomic analysis revealed that purine metabolism-related substances such as deoxyadenosine were significantly enriched in the BS group, while alanine-aspartate-glutamate metabolism-related substances such as L-glutamine were significantly enriched in the TH group. The proportions of polypeptide substances in the two groups (91.50% in BS and 95.47% in TH) were both higher than that in the CK group (91.15%). In conclusion, Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma can significantly improve the cutting rooting effect of Chamelaucium ciliatum by regulating the community structure of rhizosphere and endophytic microbes and optimizing root metabolic pathways. Among them, Bacillus subtilis has more prominent advantages in increasing the rooting rate, and has important application potential in the efficient cutting propagation of Chamelaucium ciliatum.

Key words: Chamelaucium ciliatum, cutting rooting, Bacillus subtilis, Trichoderma, rhizosphere microorganisms, metabolome

CLC Number:

S432植物病害及其防治

WANG Lihua, SUN Aiqing, QU Suping, YANG Wei, CHEN Min, YANG Xiumei. Effects of Two Biocontrol Bacteria on Cutting Rooting and Diversity of Rhizosphere and Endophytic Microbes of Chamelaucium ciliatum[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(16): 110-121.

Figures/Tables 11

References 52

[1]	LIM J H, KIM S D. Synergistic plant growth promotion by the indigenous auxins-producing PGPR Bacillus subtilis AH18 and Bacillus licheniforims K11[J]. Journal of the Korean society for applied biological chemistry, 2009, 52(5):531-538. doi: 10.3839/jksabc URL
[2]	KHALID A H, NAJEH H K, YASS Y. The role of bacteria Bacillus subtilis in improving rooting response of mung bean (Vigna ratiata) cuttings[J]. Journal of contemporary medical sciences, 2016, 2(7):88-92.
[3]	YASAR E, SEZAI E, AYHAN H, et al. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on rooting and root growth of kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) stem cuttings[J]. Biological research, 2010, 43(1):91-98. doi: /S0716-97602010000100011 pmid: 21157636
[4]	SAGAR A, YADAV S S, SAYYED R Z, et al. Bacillus subtilis: a multifarious plant growth promoter, biocontrol agent, and bioalleviator of abiotic stress[C].// ISLAM M T, RAHMAN M, PANDEY P. Bacilli in agrobiotechnology, Bacilli in climate resilient agriculture and bioprospecting. Springer, Cham: 2022:561-580.
[5]	刘鲁峰, 狄义宁, 何丽莲, 等. 内生枯草芽孢杆菌B9促生长效果及产吲哚乙酸(IAA)能力研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2020, 35(2):227-234.
[6]	张子颖, 许家来, 李现道, 等. 绿色木霉配施高碳基肥料对烤烟生长及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2016, 22(5):79-86.
[7]	丁玥琪. 烟田拮抗微生物的互作及其应用效果研究[D]. 洛阳: 河南科技大学, 2017.
[8]	张丽荣, 陈杭, 康萍芝, 等. 木霉制剂在西瓜土壤中定殖能力及其对根际土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(21):49-53.
[9]	周红姿, 祁凯, 赵晓燕, 等. 杏鲍菇菌糠木霉发酵物对大棚土壤的改良效果[J]. 福建农业学报, 2017, 32(12):1359-1364.
[10]	付兴飞, 胡发广, 程金焕, 等. 木霉菌防控农业害虫的研究综述[J]. 生物灾害科学, 2022, 45(3):266-274.
[11]	张凌萱, 孙影. 生防真菌之木霉菌的应用[J]. 广东蚕业, 2020, 54(6):113-114.
[12]	ZAHRAN Z, NOR N M, DIENG H, et al. Laboratory efficacy of mycoparasitic fungi (Aspergillus tubingensis and Trichoderma harzianum) against tropical bed bugs (Cimex hemipterus) (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)[J]. Asian pacific journal of tropical biomedicine, 2017, 7(4):288-293.
[13]	程洪斌, 刘晓桥, 陈红漫. 枯草芽孢杆菌防治植物真菌病害研究进展[J]. 上海农业学报, 2006, 22(1):109-112.
[14]	董慧, 徐兴. 枯草芽孢杆菌的生防作用机制[J]. 农家之友(理论版), 2008(4):29-31.
[15]	彭清忠, 张惟材, 朱厚础. 枯草杆菌表达系统的研究进展[J]. 生物技术通讯, 2001, 12(3):220-225.
[16]	杨宝敏, 姜家琳, 杨月华, 等. 哈茨木霉菌对砂糖橘苗木的促生作用及差异代谢物的分析[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2022, 18(2):103-112.
[17]	李艳娟, 刘博, 庄正, 等. 哈茨木霉与绿色木霉对杉木种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(9):2961-2966.
[18]	张风革. 哈茨木霉诱变菌株T-E5及其生物有机肥对黄瓜生长的影响及机理研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015.
[19]	刘明鑫. 木霉菌对黄瓜促生作用与立枯病防效的研究[D]. 大庆: 黑龙江八一农垦大学, 2018.
[20]	杨立宾, 宋瑞清, 邓勋, 等. 哈茨木霉T28发酵液提取物对致病疫霉的抑菌作用及有效成分[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(7):118-122.
[21]	甘金佳, 毛玲莉, 孙成荣, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌在番茄病害防治上的应用与研究进展[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2021(8):42-48.
[22]	周晓馥, 张欣玥, 蔡汶妤, 等. 哈茨木霉对黄瓜幼苗促生作用的影响[J]. 吉林师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 41(3):93-99.
[23]	扈进冬, 吴远征, 魏艳丽, 等. 木霉拌种剂对小麦根际土壤真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 山东科学, 2019, 32(1):46-51. doi: 10.3976/j.issn.1002-4026.2019.01.007
[24]	龙伟, 黄广远, 姚小华, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌和哈茨木霉菌对油茶容器苗生长的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2023, 43(3):1-11.
[25]	EDGAR R C, HAAS B J, CLEMENTE J C, et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection[J]. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011, 27(16):2194-200.
[26]	POLLOCK J, GLENDINNING L, WISEDCHANWET T, et al. The madness of microbiome:Attempting to find consensus “Best Practice” for 16S microbiome studies[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2018, 84(7):e02627-17.
[27]	KNIGHT R, VRBANAC A, TAYLOR B C, et al. Best practices for analysing microbiomes[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2018, 16(7):410-422. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0029-9 pmid: 29795328
[28]	WANT E J, WILSON I D, GIKA H, et al. Global metabolic profiling procedures for urine using UPLC-MS[J]. Nature protocols, 2010, 5(6):1005-1018. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2010.50 pmid: 20448546
[29]	DUNN W B, BROADHURST D, BEGLEY P, et al. Procedures for large-scale metabolic profiling of serum and plasma usinggas gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry[J]. Nature protocols, 2011, 6(7):1060-1083. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2011.335
[30]	DAI W D, XIE D C, LU M L, et al. Characterization of white tea metabolome: Comparison against green and black tea by a nontargeted metabolomics approach[J]. Food research international, 2017, 96:40-45. doi: S0963-9969(17)30102-3 pmid: 28528106
[31]	YANG C B, ZHANG X P, NI H J, et al. Soil carbon and associated bacterial community shifts driven by fine root traits along a chronosequence of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) plantations in subtropical China[J]. Science of the total environment, 2021, 752(1):142333. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142333 URL
[32]	YAN K R, ZHANG Y H, YANG C B, et al. First report of sweet potato feathery mottle virus infecting Chrysanthemum morifolium in China[J]. Plant disease, 2020, 104(8):1562. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-10-19-2178-PDN URL
[33]	YAN S, ZHAO J, REN T, et al. Correlation between soil microbial communities and tobacco aroma in the presence of different fertilizers[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2020, 151:112454. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112454 URL
[34]	孔兵兵, 王清, 蒋标, 等. 根际促生菌共发酵菌液育苗基质对辣椒育苗的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2026, 42(6):326-339. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1077
[35]	TRIPATHI S K, SINGH K P, SINGH P K. Temporal changes in spatial pattern of fine root mass and nutrient concentrations in Indian bamboo savanna[J]. Applied vegetation science, 1999, 2:229-238. doi: 10.2307/1478986 URL
[36]	BLAGODATSKAYA E, LITTSCHWAGER J, LAUERER M, et al. Plant traits regulating N capture define microbial competition in the rhizosphere[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2014, 61:41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.01.002 URL
[37]	王丽花, 杨秀梅, 张艺萍, 等. 木霉菌对切花月季根际、根内微生物多样性影响及霜霉病防效的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(10):69-78. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0250
[38]	CHENG W. Rhizosphere priming effect: Its functional relationships with microbial turnover, evapotranspiration, and C-N budgets[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2009, 41:1795-1801. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.04.018 URL
[39]	VERZEAUX J, ALAHMAD A, HABBIB H, et al. Cover crops prevent the deleterious effect of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial diversity by maintaining the carbon content of ploughed soil[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 281:49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.035 URL
[40]	AI C, LIANG G, SUN J, et al. Reduced dependence of rhizosphere microbiome on plant-derived carbon in 32-year long-term inorganic and organic fertilized soils[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2015, 80:70-78. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.028 URL
[41]	YANG J F, DUAN Y M, ZHANG R Q, et al. Connecting soil dissolved organic matter to soil bacterial community structure in a long-term grass-mulching apple orchard[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2020, 149:112344. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112344 URL
[42]	FLORINE D, NICOLAS T, GILLES C, et al. Temporal dynamics of soil microbial communities below the seedbed under two contrasting tillage regimes[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2017, 8:1127. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01127 pmid: 28674527
[43]	BEYTER D, TANG P Z, BECKER S, et al. Diversity productivity and stability of an industrial microbial ecosystem[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2016, 82:2494-2505. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03965-15 URL
[44]	LEMANCEAU P, MARON P A, MAZURIER S, et al. Understanding and managing soil biodiversity: A major challenge in agroecology[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2014, 35:67-81. doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0247-0 URL
[45]	DELGADO-BAQUERIZO M, MAESTRE F T, REICH P B, et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems[J]. Nature communications, 2016, 7:10541. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10541
[46]	MALLON C A, VAN E J D, SALLES J F. Microbial invasions: the process, patterns, and mechanisms[J]. Trends in microbiology, 2015, 23:719-729. doi: S0966-842X(15)00176-6 pmid: 26439296
[47]	RAZA W, WEI Z, LING N, et al. Effect of organic fertilizers prepared from organic waste materials on the production of antibacterial volatile organic compounds by two biocontrol Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains[J]. Biotechnology journal, 2016, 227:43-53.
[48]	CHEN L, BROOKES P C, XU J, et al. Structural and functional differentiation of the root-associated bacterial microbiomes of perennial ryegrass[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2016, 98:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.04.004 URL
[49]	SOUZA R C, CANTÃO M E, ATR V, et al. Soil metagenomics reveals differences under conventional and no-tillage with crop rotation or succession[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2013, 72:49-61. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.05.021 URL
[50]	MENDES L W, RAAIJMAKERS J M, HOLLANDER M D, et al. Influence of resistance breeding in common bean on rhizosphere microbiome composition and function[J]. The ISME journal, 2017, 12:212-224. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.158 URL
[51]	ROSSI M F, MELLO B, SCHRAGO C G. Performance of hidden markov models in recovering the standard classification of glycoside hydrolases[J]. Evolutionary bioinformatics, 2017, 13:117693431770340.
[52]	WEI Y, WU D, WEI D, et al. Improved lignocellulose-degrading performance during straw composting from diverse sources with actinomycetes inoculation by regulating the key enzyme activities[J]. Bioresource technology, 2019, 271:66-74. doi: S0960-8524(18)31334-8 pmid: 30265954

处理	生根成活种苗数/株	生根率/%	单株根重/mg
BS	110±7.9a	85.94±6.2a	101.64±2.2b
TH	91±4.6b	71.09±3.6b	112.34±3.2a
CK	75±5.3c	58.59±4.1c	87.63±2.4c

处理	生根成活种苗数/株	生根率/%	单株根重/mg
BS	110±7.9a	85.94±6.2a	101.64±2.2b
TH	91±4.6b	71.09±3.6b	112.34±3.2a
CK	75±5.3c	58.59±4.1c	87.63±2.4c

物种	CK1	CK2	CK3	平均	BS1	BS2	BS3	平均	TH1	TH2	TH3	平均
变形菌门	75.87	78.91	78.00	77.59	73.97	79.53	79.73	77.75	85.13	78.66	83.47	82.42
放线菌门	15.28	11.66	13.34	13.43	10.99	12.44	11.49	11.64	7.64	8.22	5.04	6.97
拟杆菌门	3.39	5.07	3.64	4.03	7.15	3.05	2.41	4.20	2.09	5.38	6.60	4.69
厚壁菌门	1.02	0.82	1.01	0.95	2.10	1.13	2.71	1.98	2.11	2.72	1.94	2.26
酸杆菌门	0.51	0.46	1.46	0.81	1.27	1.33	0.78	1.13	0.59	1.40	0.81	0.93
类衣原体	1.93	0.99	0.75	1.22	0.88	0.95	0.79	0.87	0.73	0.93	0.46	0.71
疣微菌门	0.48	0.32	0.31	0.37	1.44	0.23	0.47	0.71	0.61	1.27	0.40	0.76
螺旋体门	0.12	0.29	0.13	0.18	0.36	0.13	0.68	0.39	0.33	0.35	0.22	0.30
TM6	0.29	0.25	0.39	0.31	0.23	0.44	0.18	0.29	0.17	0.11	0.07	0.12
绿菌门	0.08	0.12	0.25	0.15	0.29	0.07	0.14	0.16	0.10	0.19	0.23	0.17
绿弯菌门	0.23	0.14	0.09	0.15	0.23	0.08	0.08	0.13	0.05	0.15	0.19	0.13
浮霉菌门	0.20	0.27	0.11	0.20	0.17	0.08	0.11	0.12	0.06	0.19	0.02	0.09
未分类细菌	0.17	0.12	0.06	0.12	0.24	0.16	0.12	0.17	0.14	0.09	0.11	0.12
TM7	0.23	0.07	0.21	0.17	0.13	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.03	0.05	0.07	0.05
装甲菌门	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.05	0.17	0.07	0.05	0.10	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.04
蓝细菌门	0.01	0.25	0.04	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.09	0.04	0.00	0.04
FBP	0.01	0.11	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.00	0.02
迷踪菌门	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.00	0.03
纤维杆菌门	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.03	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
软皮菌类门	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.08	0.04
其他	0.10	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.13	0.06	0.03	0.07	0.03	0.10	0.27	0.13

物种	CK1	CK2	CK3	平均	BS1	BS2	BS3	平均	TH1	TH2	TH3	平均
变形菌门	75.87	78.91	78.00	77.59	73.97	79.53	79.73	77.75	85.13	78.66	83.47	82.42
放线菌门	15.28	11.66	13.34	13.43	10.99	12.44	11.49	11.64	7.64	8.22	5.04	6.97
拟杆菌门	3.39	5.07	3.64	4.03	7.15	3.05	2.41	4.20	2.09	5.38	6.60	4.69
厚壁菌门	1.02	0.82	1.01	0.95	2.10	1.13	2.71	1.98	2.11	2.72	1.94	2.26
酸杆菌门	0.51	0.46	1.46	0.81	1.27	1.33	0.78	1.13	0.59	1.40	0.81	0.93
类衣原体	1.93	0.99	0.75	1.22	0.88	0.95	0.79	0.87	0.73	0.93	0.46	0.71
疣微菌门	0.48	0.32	0.31	0.37	1.44	0.23	0.47	0.71	0.61	1.27	0.40	0.76
螺旋体门	0.12	0.29	0.13	0.18	0.36	0.13	0.68	0.39	0.33	0.35	0.22	0.30
TM6	0.29	0.25	0.39	0.31	0.23	0.44	0.18	0.29	0.17	0.11	0.07	0.12
绿菌门	0.08	0.12	0.25	0.15	0.29	0.07	0.14	0.16	0.10	0.19	0.23	0.17
绿弯菌门	0.23	0.14	0.09	0.15	0.23	0.08	0.08	0.13	0.05	0.15	0.19	0.13
浮霉菌门	0.20	0.27	0.11	0.20	0.17	0.08	0.11	0.12	0.06	0.19	0.02	0.09
未分类细菌	0.17	0.12	0.06	0.12	0.24	0.16	0.12	0.17	0.14	0.09	0.11	0.12
TM7	0.23	0.07	0.21	0.17	0.13	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.03	0.05	0.07	0.05
装甲菌门	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.05	0.17	0.07	0.05	0.10	0.04	0.07	0.01	0.04
蓝细菌门	0.01	0.25	0.04	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.09	0.04	0.00	0.04
FBP	0.01	0.11	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.00	0.02
迷踪菌门	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.06	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.00	0.03
纤维杆菌门	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.03	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
软皮菌类门	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.08	0.04
其他	0.10	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.13	0.06	0.03	0.07	0.03	0.10	0.27	0.13

处理	Chao1	Faith's PD	Features	Shannon	Simpson
TH	730.51	61.65	730.33	7.02	0.97
BS	805.34	67.30	805.00	7.65	0.98
CK	990.12	77.08	989.00	7.80	0.98