Characteristics of Nutrients and Microbial Community Composition of Different Panax ginseng Cultivation Soil

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0564

Abstract

Abstract:

To alleviate the demand for ginseng soil and accelerate the development of cultivating ginseng in farmland, nutrients and microbial population in farmland soil, forest soil and 4-year ginseng-cultivated soil were investigated. The differences among the three kinds of soil were explored to provide a basis for improving farmland soil used for cultivating ginseng. High-throughput sequencing was used for investigating the microbial diversity and composition. The results of physical and chemical analysis show that the pH of 4-year ginseng soil is the lowest, but the contents of ammonium nitrogen, available phosphorus, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and organic matter are significantly higher than those of farmland and forest soil. The results of high-throughput sequencing show that the richness and diversity of bacterial and fungal communities in farmland soil are higher than those in 4-year ginseng-cultivated soil and lower than those in forest soil. The bacteria compositions in different soil are basically similar, mainly include Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi and so on. Mortierella is the dominant genus in forest soil. Fusarium is abundant in farmland soil, and the accumulation of pathogenic bacteria Sclerotinia is detected in 4-year ginseng-cultivated soil. The analysis of db-RDA reveals that the pH, and nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter contents could all affect the microbial community structure, and there is a stronger correlation between environmental factors and fungal community. Based on the above results, the effective improvement of farmland soil should focus on controlling fungal community.

Key words: soil, microbial community, high-throughput sequencing, environmental factors, farmland, ginseng

CLC Number:

S567

WANG Yan, WANG Liwei, ZHAO Hongyan, ZHAO Min, YANG Hongyan. Characteristics of Nutrients and Microbial Community Composition of Different Panax ginseng Cultivation Soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(5): 60-68.

Figures/Tables 7

References 41

[1]	FAN S S, ZHANG Z P, SU H, et al. Panax ginseng clinical trials: Current status and future perspectives[J]. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 2020, 132:1-8.
[2]	徐江, 沈亮, 陈士林, 等. 无公害人参农田栽培技术规范及标准[J]. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2018, 20(7):102-111.
[3]	金慧, 于树莲, 曹志强. 老参地、农田地改造,连续栽培人参、西洋参[J]. 世界科学技术:中医药现代化, 2006, 8(1):84-87.
[4]	赵洪颜, 傅民杰, 邹吉祥, 等. 老参地土壤改良的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(21):12-15.
[5]	胡秀艳. 改良措施对农田土壤微生态及人参存苗率的影响探讨[J]. 农业与技术, 2018, 38(12):32-32.
[6]	杨莉, 文子伟, 付婧, 等. 生物质炭对连作参地人参种苗与土壤质量的影响[J]. 中药材, 2020, 43(4):791-796.
[7]	CESARANO G, DE FILIPPIS F, LA STORIA A, et al. Organic amendment type and application frequency affect crop yields, soil fertility and microbiome composition[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2017, 120:254-264. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.08.017 URL
[8]	孙海, 张亚玉, 孙长伟, 等. 多功能微生物制剂对农田栽参土壤养分状况的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(18):116-120.
[9]	刘晨阳, 王二欢, 高成林, 等. 农田栽参土壤改良技术研究现状[J]. 人参研究, 2019, 31(2):37-40.
[10]	孙婉薷, 沈健林, 李勇, 等. 不同水肥处理对稻麦轮作农田土壤氮磷肥力特征的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(6):23-26,30.
[11]	王婷婷, 刘双, 赵洪颜, 等. 农田栽参和伐林栽参土壤养分及酶活性比较分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014(34):12075-12077.
[12]	XU Z W, ZHANG T Y, WANG S Z, et al. Soil ph and c/n ratio determines spatial variations in soil microbial communities and enzymatic activities of the agricultural ecosystems in northeast china: Jilin province case[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2020, 155:1-12.
[13]	KANG E, LI Y, ZHANG X, et al. Soil ph and nutrients shape the vertical distribution of microbial communities in an alpine wetland[J]. Science of the total environment, 2021, 774:1-12.
[14]	LIU N, SHAO C, SUN H, et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi biofertilizer improves american ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) growth under the continuous cropping regime[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 363:1-10.
[15]	王敏, 周犇, 曾吉兴, 等. 硝态氮抑制尖孢镰刀菌侵染促进黄瓜生长的内在生理机制[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(11):26-34.
[16]	SUN H, WANG Q X, ZHANG L L, et al. Distinct leaf litter drive the fungal communities in Panax ginseng-growing soil[J]. Ecological indicators, 2019, 104:184-194. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.083 URL
[17]	LI F, ZHANG S Q, WANG Y, et al. Rare fungus, Mortierella capitata, promotes crop growth by stimulating primary metabolisms related genes and reshaping rhizosphere bacterial community[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2020, 151:1-11.
[18]	DELGADO-BAQUERIZO M, REICH P B, TRIVEDI C, et al. Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes[J]. Nature ecology & evolution, 2020, 4(2):210-220.
[19]	XIA Q, RUFTY T, SHI W. Soil microbial diversity and composition: Links to soil texture and associated properties[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2020, 149:1-13.
[20]	HERNANDEZ D J, DAVID A S, MENGES E S, et al. Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks[J]. The Isme journal, 2021,doi: 10.1038/s41396-020-00882-x. doi: 10.1038/s41396-020-00882-x
[21]	EICHORST S A, KUSKE C R, SCHMIDT T M. Influence of plant polymers on the distribution and cultivation of bacteria in the Phylum Acidobacteria[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011, 77(2):586-596. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01080-10 URL
[22]	HONG S, JV H L, LU M, et al. Significant decline in banana Fusarium wilt disease is associated with soil microbiome reconstruction under chilli pepper-banana rotation[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2020, 97:1-10.
[23]	WU H M, QIN X J, WANG J Y, et al. Rhizosphere responses to environmental conditions in Radix pseudostellariae under continuous monoculture regimes[J]. Agriculture ecosystems and environment, 2019, 270:19-31.
[24]	XIAO C P, YANG L M, ZHANG L X, et al. Effects of cultivation ages and modes on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere soil of Panax ginseng[J]. Journal of ginseng research, 2016, 40(1):28-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jgr.2015.04.004 URL
[25]	DONG L L, XU J, ZHANG L J, et al. Rhizospheric microbial communities are driven by Panax ginseng at different growth stages and biocontrol bacteria alleviates replanting mortality[J]. Acta pharmaceutica sinica B, 2018, 8(2):272-282. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2017.12.011 URL
[26]	SUN Z, YANG L M, HAN M, et al. Biological control ginseng grey mold and plant colonization by antagonistic bacteria isolated from rhizospheric soil of Panax ginseng meyer[J]. Biological control, 2019, 138:1-7.
[27]	LIU L L, HUANG X Q, ZHANG J B, et al. Deciphering the relative importance of soil and plant traits on the development of rhizosphere microbial communities[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2020, 148:1-13.
[28]	EGIDI E, DELGADO-BAQUERIZO M, PLETT J M, et al. A few Ascomycota taxa dominate soil fungal communities worldwide[J]. Nature communications, 2019, 10(7717):6506-6511.
[29]	DE CORATO U, PATRUNO L, AVELLA N, et al. Soil management under tomato -wheat rotation increases the suppressive response against Fusarium wilt and tomato shoot growth by changing the microbial composition and chemical parameters[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2020, 154:1-18.
[30]	LI T, KIM J H, JUNG B, et al. Transcriptome analyses of the ginseng root rot pathogens Cylindrocarpon destructans and Fusarium solani to identify radicicol resistance mechanisms[J]. Journal of Ginseng Research, 2020, 44(1):161-167. doi: 10.1016/j.jgr.2018.11.005 URL
[31]	LIU X, ZHANG Y. Exploring the communities of bacteria, fungi and ammonia oxidizers in rhizosphere of Fusarium -diseased greenhouse cucumber[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2021, 161:1-12.
[32]	TIAN G L, BI Y M, CHENG J D, et al. High concentration of ferulic acid in rhizosphere soil accounts for the occurrence of Fusarium wilt during the seedling stages of strawberry plants[J]. Physiological and molecular plant pathology, 2019, 108:1-8.
[33]	BREUNIG M, CHILVERS M I. Baseline sensitivity of Fusarium graminearum from wheat, corn, dry bean and soybean to pydiflumetofen in michigan, USA[J]. Crop protection, 2021, 140:1-6.
[34]	王丹, 傅俊范, 尹海波, 等. 人参核盘菌菌核分泌液致病性及生物学特性研究[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2020(4):439-445.
[35]	WANG G S, YIN C M, PAN F B, et al. Analysis of the fungal community in apple replanted soil around bohai gulf[J]. Horticultural plant journal, 2018, 4(5):175-181. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2018.05.003 URL
[36]	NING Q, CHEN L, JIA Z J, et al. Multiple long-term observations reveal a strategy for soil ph-dependent fertilization and fungal communities in support of agricultural production[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2020, 293:1-10.
[37]	GUO N, LI L, CUI J, et al. Effects of Funneliformis mosseae on the fungal community in and soil properties of a continuously cropped soybean system[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2021, 164(1):1-11.
[38]	BADAWI N, RONHEDE S, OLSSON S, et al. Metabolites of the phenylurea herbicides chlorotoluron, diuron, isoproturon and linuron produced by the soil fungus Mortierella sp.[J] Environmental pollution, 2009, 157(10):2806-2812. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.04.019 URL
[39]	CUI Z J, ZHANG X, YANG H H, et al. Bioremediation of heavy metal pollution utilizing composite microbial agent of Mucor circinelloides, Actinomucor sp. and Mortierella sp.[J] Journal of environmental chemical engineering, 2017, 5(4):3616-3621. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2017.07.021 URL
[40]	KATAOKA R, TAKAGI K, SAKAKIBARA F. Biodegradation of endosulfan by Mortieralla sp strain W8 in soil: Influence of different substrates on biodegradation[J]. Chemosphere, 2011, 85(3):548-552. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.08.021 URL
[41]	DENG X, ZHANG N, SHEN Z, et al. Soil microbiome manipulation triggers direct and possible indirect suppression against Ralstonia solanacearum and Fusarium oxysporum[J]. NPJ biofilms microbiomes, 2021, 7(1):1-10. doi: 10.1038/s41522-020-00173-5 URL

样品名称	pH	NO₃^--N/ (mg/kg)	NH₄⁺-N/ (mg/kg)	AP/ (mg/kg)	TN/ (g/kg)	TP/ (g/kg)	TK/ (g/kg)	OM/ (g/kg)
林地土壤	6.12±0.08a	11.57±2.11b	9.12±1.05b	0.42±0.01c	3.89±0.17b	1.32±0.25b	5.80±0.53a	163.92±1.20b
农田土壤	5.54±0.09b	23.66±0.62a	1.47±1.44c	1.88±0.14b	2.81±0.16c	1.15±0.12b	4.93±0.41a	150.09±4.46c
4年参地土壤	4.93±0.03c	0.11±0.06c	93.88±1.26a	7.71±0.12a	5.44±0.06a	2.41±0.09a	5.64±0.85a	174.39±2.61a

样品名称	pH	NO₃^--N/ (mg/kg)	NH₄⁺-N/ (mg/kg)	AP/ (mg/kg)	TN/ (g/kg)	TP/ (g/kg)	TK/ (g/kg)	OM/ (g/kg)
林地土壤	6.12±0.08a	11.57±2.11b	9.12±1.05b	0.42±0.01c	3.89±0.17b	1.32±0.25b	5.80±0.53a	163.92±1.20b
农田土壤	5.54±0.09b	23.66±0.62a	1.47±1.44c	1.88±0.14b	2.81±0.16c	1.15±0.12b	4.93±0.41a	150.09±4.46c
4年参地土壤	4.93±0.03c	0.11±0.06c	93.88±1.26a	7.71±0.12a	5.44±0.06a	2.41±0.09a	5.64±0.85a	174.39±2.61a

微生物类型	样品名称	ACE	Chao 1	Simpson	Shannon	Coverage/%
细菌	林地土壤	2131±42.6a	2116±41.5a	0.0069±0.0010a	6.120±0.065a	98.02±0.05b
	农田土壤	2034±76.4b	2007±29.0b	0.0066±0.0004a	6.042±0.072ab	98.05±0.05b
	4年参地土壤	1909±62.8c	1895±70.9c	0.0085±0.0010a	5.981±0.068b	98.20±0.07a
真菌	林地土壤	1315±19.7A	1293±18.1A	0.0610±0.0046C	4.358±0.045A	99.47±0.03B
	农田土壤	781±30.2B	778±30.1B	0.1055±0.0079A	3.725±0.092B	99.79±0.03A
	4年参地土壤	546±31.8C	542±38.6C	0.0756±0.0065B	3.407±0.083C	99.79±0.04A

微生物类型	样品名称	ACE	Chao 1	Simpson	Shannon	Coverage/%
细菌	林地土壤	2131±42.6a	2116±41.5a	0.0069±0.0010a	6.120±0.065a	98.02±0.05b
	农田土壤	2034±76.4b	2007±29.0b	0.0066±0.0004a	6.042±0.072ab	98.05±0.05b
	4年参地土壤	1909±62.8c	1895±70.9c	0.0085±0.0010a	5.981±0.068b	98.20±0.07a
真菌	林地土壤	1315±19.7A	1293±18.1A	0.0610±0.0046C	4.358±0.045A	99.47±0.03B
	农田土壤	781±30.2B	778±30.1B	0.1055±0.0079A	3.725±0.092B	99.79±0.03A
	4年参地土壤	546±31.8C	542±38.6C	0.0756±0.0065B	3.407±0.083C	99.79±0.04A