Characteristics of Rhizosphere Microbial Community of Three Medicinal Plants in Eastern Inner Mongolia

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0868

Abstract

Abstract:

Through analyzing the community characteristics of rhizosphere microorganisms in three medicinal plants from the Eastern Inner Mongolia region, this study aims at investigating the interactive relationship among plant roots, rhizosphere soil, and microorganisms. Using Glycyrrhiza uralensis, Saposhnikovia divaricata, and Glehniae Radix with similar growth years and conditions as the materials, high-throughput sequencing technology was employed to analyze the differences and relationships between rhizosphere soil and non-rhizosphere soil among the plants. The study revealed that the main differences in physicochemical properties between rhizosphere soil and non-rhizosphere soil were observed in total phosphorus and catalase activity. In the Eastern Inner Mongolia region, the dominant bacterial phyla in the three medicinal plants were Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, with relative proportions ranging from 27.85% to 52.69% and 18.39% to 44.59%, respectively. The dominant fungal families in the three medicinal plants from the Eastern Inner Mongolia region were mainly Nectriaceae and Microascaceae, with relative proportions ranging from 3.70% to 14.94% and 4.66% to 30.32%, respectively. Significant differences in the microbial community structure were observed between Glycyrrhiza uralensis of the Leguminosae family and Glehniae Radix and Saposhnikovia divaricata of the Umbelliferae family. Differences in total nitrogen, total phosphorus, urease, and sucrase in the rhizosphere soil contributed to the variation in microbial community structure. The distinct characteristics of rhizosphere microbiota were observed in the three medicinal plants cultivated in the eastern region of Inner Mongolia. The main driving factors for bacterial community structure were the interaction between soil environmental factors and plants, while both environmental factors and plant types had driving effects on the fungal community.

Key words: rhizosphere microbial community, plant species, soil factors, medicinal plants

KOU Peiwen, LIU Changle, XU Yike, SONG Zhongxing, LI Bo, ZHANG Yongsheng, HUANG Wenjing, TANG Zhishu. Characteristics of Rhizosphere Microbial Community of Three Medicinal Plants in Eastern Inner Mongolia[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(33): 58-67.

Figures/Tables 7

References 38

[1]	熊蕊, 郭凤柳, 张全宝, 等. 基因芯片技术在中药材道地性鉴定中的应用及展望[J]. 中华中医药学刊, 2015, 33(9):2216-2219.
[2]	祝蕾, 严辉, 刘培, 等. 药用植物根际微生物对其品质形成的影响及其作用机制的研究进展[J]. 中草药, 2021, 52(13):4064-4073.
[3]	张秫华, 方千, 贾红梅, 等. 川芎非根际、根际及根茎内生真菌群落差异分析[J]. 生物技术通报, 2021, 37(4):56-69. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2020-0702
[4]	NEUMANN G, ROMHELD V. The release of root exudates as affected by the plant's physiological status[M]. The rhizosphere, 2000:57-110.
[5]	MAHOHI A, RAIESI F. Functionally dissimilar soil organisms improve growth and Pb/Zn uptake by Stachys inflata grown in a calcareous soil highly polluted with mining activities[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2019, 247:780-789. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.130 URL
[6]	OH Y M, KIM M, LEE-CRUZ L, et al. Distinctive bacterial communities in the rhizoplane of four tropical tree species[J]. Microbial ecology, 2012, 64(4):1018-1027. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0082-2 pmid: 22767122
[7]	BRIMECOMBE M, LELJ F D, LYNCH J. The effect of root exudates on rhizosphere microbial populations[J]. Rhizosphere, 2000:95-140.
[8]	NAREELUK N, SAISAMORN L, T S W, et al. Bioactivities and genome insights of a thermotolerant antibiotics-producing Streptomyces sp. TM32 reveal its potentials for novel drug discovery[J]. Microbiologyopen, 2019, 8(11):842.
[9]	KIM Y S, BALARAJU K, JEON Y H. Biological characteristics of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens AK-0 and suppression of ginseng root rot caused by Cylindrocarpon destructans[J]. Journal of applied microbiology, 2017, 122(1):166-179. doi: 10.1111/jam.2017.122.issue-1 URL
[10]	KATERYNA Z, B L K, ZHAO H, et al. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly[J]. Nature microbiology, 2018, 3(4):470-480. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0129-3 pmid: 29556109
[11]	MARSCHNER P, CROWLEY D, RENGEL Z. Rhizosphere interactions between microorganisms and plants govern iron and phosphorus acquisition along the root axis- model and research methods[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2011, 43(5):883-894. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.01.005 URL
[12]	SCHMIDT J E, KENT A D, BRISSON V L, et al. Agricultural management and plant selection interactively affect rhizosphere microbial community structure and nitrogen cycling[J]. Microbiome, 2019, 7(1):1-18. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0604-3
[13]	TURNER T R, RAMAKRISHNAN K, WALSHAW J, et al. Comparative metatranscriptomics reveals kingdom level changes in the rhizosphere microbiome of plants[J]. Multidisciplinary journal of microbial ecology, 2013, 7(12):2248-2258.
[14]	SCHLAEPPI K, DOMBROWSKI N, OTER R G, et al. Quantitative divergence of the bacterial root microbiota in Arabidopsis thaliana relatives[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2014, 111(2):585-592. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321597111 URL
[15]	LUNDBERG D S, LEBEIS S L, PAREDES S H, et al. Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome[J]. Nature, 2012, 488(7409):86-89. doi: 10.1038/nature11237
[16]	PHILIPPOT L, RAAIJMAKERS J M, LEMANCEAU P, et al. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2013, 11(11):789-799. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3109 pmid: 24056930
[17]	RIDDER-DUINE A S D, KOWALCHUK G A, GUNNEWIEK P J A K, et al. Rhizosphere bacterial community composition in natural stands of Carex arenaria (sand sedge) is determined by bulk soil community composition[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2005, 37(2):349-357. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.005 URL
[18]	SANTOS-GONZÁLEZ J C, NALLANCHAKRAVARTHULA S, ALSTRÖM S, et al. Soil, but not cultivar, shapes the structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal assemblages associated with strawberry[J]. Microbial ecology, 2011, 62:25-35. doi: 10.1007/s00248-011-9834-7 URL
[19]	李毳, 刘怡, 刘晋仙. 药用植物根际细菌群落多样性驱动因素分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(10):1988-1993. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.010.008
[20]	张明旭, 张茹, 席琳图雅, 等. 内蒙古地区中药资源大数据的应用与展望[J]. 农业大数据学报, 2021, 3(2):42-53.
[21]	康传志, 吕朝耕, 黄璐琦, 等. 基于区域分布的常见中药材生态种植模式[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2020, 45(9):1982-1989.
[22]	贾俊英, 曹瑞, 张小波, 等. 基于纹理和光谱信息的奈曼旗防风遥感解译[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2019, 44(19):4111-4115.
[23]	卫斯. 试论清代与民国时期我国对内蒙西部地区甘草资源的开发[J]. 中国农史, 1995(1):66-72,89.
[24]	项东宇. 市售北沙参商品药材质量评价的初步研究[D]. 济南: 山东中医药大学, 2013.
[25]	唐海滨, 廖超英, 刘莉丽, 等. 蔬菜大棚土壤脲酶、过氧化氢酶活性与土壤养分的关系[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 29(3):165-8,79.
[26]	陈一民, 焦晓光, 王贵强, 等. 空间移位下农田黑土过氧化氢酶与土壤养分的相关性研究[J]. 黑龙江大学工程学报, 2012, 3(4):46-50.
[27]	崔纪超, 武小霞, 林怡, 等. 甘薯根际土壤微生物群落结构及多样性分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(9):2086-2095.
[28]	刘璐, 蒋慧丹, 张鑫, 等. 野葛根际固氮微生物群落分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 微生物学报, 2022, 62(2):590-601.
[29]	CONN C, DIGHTON J. Litter quality influences on decomposition, ectomycorrhizal community structure and mycorrhizal root surface acid phosphatase activity[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2000, 32(4):489-496. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00178-9 URL
[30]	BAI L, ZHANG X, LI B, et al. Fungal communities are more sensitive to nitrogen fertilization than bacteria in different spatial structures of silage maize under short-term nitrogen fertilization[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2022, 170:104275. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104275 URL
[31]	SINGH M, SARKAR B, BOLAN N S, et al. Decomposition of soil organic matter as affected by clay types, pedogenic oxides and plant residue addition rates[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2019, 374:11-19. doi: S0304-3894(19)30417-0 pmid: 30974227
[32]	ZHANG T, WANG Z, LV X, et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals the diversity and community structure of rhizosphere fungi of Ferula sinkiangensis at different soil depths[J]. Scientific reports, 2019, 9(1):1-10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2
[33]	WAN G J, LIU L, GAO X, et al. Elucidating the effect of biofertilizers on bacterial diversity in maize rhizosphere soil[J]. The public library of science, 2021, 16(4):e0249834.
[34]	ZHANG Q, ZHU L, WANG J, et al. Effects of fomesafen on soil enzyme activity, microbial population, and bacterial community composition[J]. Environmental monitoring & assessment, 2014, 186(5):2801-2812.
[35]	ZHANG T, WAN S, KANG Y, et al. Urease activity and its relationships to soil physiochemical properties in a highly saline-sodic soil[J]. Journal of soil science & plant nutrition, 2014, 14(2):304-315.
[36]	李毳, 刘怡. 晋东南3种道地药材植物根际真菌群落特性[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(7):1388-1393. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.07.012
[37]	KLAMER M, ROBERTS M S, LEVINE L H, et al. Influence of elevated CO₂ on the fungal community in a coastal scrub oak forest soil investigated with terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2002, 68(9):4370-4376. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.9.4370-4376.2002 URL
[38]	GOMES N C M, FAGBOLA O, COSTA R, et al. Dynamics of fungal communities in bulk and maize rhizosphere soil in the tropics[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2003, 69(7):3758-3766. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.7.3758-3766.2003 pmid: 12839741

Class	Plant species	Shannon	Simpson	Chao1	ACE	Coverage	OUT
细菌	CK	10.6792±0.13a	0.0041±0.00a	433 7.73±65.22ab	4448.2166±64.95ab	0.9758	2875.3333
	FF	10.7714±0.13a	0.0034±0.00b	4548.6667±186.24a	4637.7134±189.63a	0.9757	3114.6667
	GC	10.4621±0.09b	0.0027±0.00c	3788.2699±207.27c	3869.4066±208.14c	0.9784	2372.0000
	SS	10.5932±0.03ab	0.0041±0.00a	4193.1032±111.82b	4270.7799±116.25b	0.9780	2760.0000
真菌	CK	5.5632±0.30b	0.0208±0.00a	408.9337±20.39b	422.6453±19.54b	0.9758	95.3333
	FF	6.1142±0.41ab	0.0121±0.01ab	440.9107±27.51ab	457.5977±29.87b	0.9757	102.0000
	GC	5.9217±0.79ab	0.0154±0.01ab	440.891±56.74ab	453.5787±57.08b	0.9784	110.3333
	SS	6.7115±0.16a	0.0039±0.00b	502.012±32.36a	548.7697±30.83a	0.9780	111.0000

Class	Plant species	Shannon	Simpson	Chao1	ACE	Coverage	OUT
细菌	CK	10.6792±0.13a	0.0041±0.00a	433 7.73±65.22ab	4448.2166±64.95ab	0.9758	2875.3333
	FF	10.7714±0.13a	0.0034±0.00b	4548.6667±186.24a	4637.7134±189.63a	0.9757	3114.6667
	GC	10.4621±0.09b	0.0027±0.00c	3788.2699±207.27c	3869.4066±208.14c	0.9784	2372.0000
	SS	10.5932±0.03ab	0.0041±0.00a	4193.1032±111.82b	4270.7799±116.25b	0.9780	2760.0000
真菌	CK	5.5632±0.30b	0.0208±0.00a	408.9337±20.39b	422.6453±19.54b	0.9758	95.3333
	FF	6.1142±0.41ab	0.0121±0.01ab	440.9107±27.51ab	457.5977±29.87b	0.9757	102.0000
	GC	5.9217±0.79ab	0.0154±0.01ab	440.891±56.74ab	453.5787±57.08b	0.9784	110.3333
	SS	6.7115±0.16a	0.0039±0.00b	502.012±32.36a	548.7697±30.83a	0.9780	111.0000

微生物	项目	多样性指数		丰富度
微生物	项目	Shannon指数	Simpson指数	ACE指数	Chao1指数
细菌	pH	0.502	0.336	0.463	0.526
	TN	-0.392	-0.696^*	-0.441	-0.413
	TP	0.295	0.557	0.426	0.327
	TK	0.399	0.130	0.483	0.371
	URE	-0.559	-0.673^*	-0.608^*	-0.545
	SUC	-0.524	-0.774^**	-0.559	-0.524
	CAT	-0.259	-0.266	-0.245	-0.189
	AP	-0.636^*	-0.574	-0.706^*	-0.671^*
真菌	pH	0.312	-0.273	0.319	0.312
	TN	0.000	-0.056	-0.060	0.004
	TP	-0.391	0.437	-0.487	-0.391
	TK	-0.692^**	0.712^**	-0.790^**	-0.692^*
	URE	0.140	-0.179	0.070	0.140
	SUC	0.084	-0.137	0.105	0.084
	CAT	0.692^*	-0.730^**	0.643^*	0.692^*
	AP	0.260	0.260	0.300	0.260

微生物	项目	多样性指数		丰富度
微生物	项目	Shannon指数	Simpson指数	ACE指数	Chao1指数
细菌	pH	0.502	0.336	0.463	0.526
	TN	-0.392	-0.696^*	-0.441	-0.413
	TP	0.295	0.557	0.426	0.327
	TK	0.399	0.130	0.483	0.371
	URE	-0.559	-0.673^*	-0.608^*	-0.545
	SUC	-0.524	-0.774^**	-0.559	-0.524
	CAT	-0.259	-0.266	-0.245	-0.189
	AP	-0.636^*	-0.574	-0.706^*	-0.671^*
真菌	pH	0.312	-0.273	0.319	0.312
	TN	0.000	-0.056	-0.060	0.004
	TP	-0.391	0.437	-0.487	-0.391
	TK	-0.692^**	0.712^**	-0.790^**	-0.692^*
	URE	0.140	-0.179	0.070	0.140
	SUC	0.084	-0.137	0.105	0.084
	CAT	0.692^*	-0.730^**	0.643^*	0.692^*
	AP	0.260	0.260	0.300	0.260