Rhizosphere Microecological Difference of Different Cassava Cultivars Based on Root Bag Method

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0733

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to investigate the dynamic changes of rhizosphere soil bacterial communities in different cassava cultivars, the contents of available N (AN), available P (AP), available K (AK) and microbial communities in rhizosphere soil of ‘SC205’, ‘GR10’ and ‘SC9’ were studied by root bag method at 39, 75 and 115 days after planting. The results showed that: (1) there were significant differences in the content of available nutrients among the three cultivars at different sampling times, with only AK content showing significant differences among cultivars at 39 days after planting. (2) There were significant differences in the richness and diversity of rhizosphere soil bacteria among different cultivars and sampling periods, and the richness and diversity of bacteria increased with the passage of sampling time. (3) The rhizosphere soil of ‘SC205’ was enriched in Proteobacteria-Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidota-Bacteroidia at 75 and 115 days after planting, the rhizosphere soil of ‘SC205’ was enriched in Gammaproteobacteria at 39 days after planting, and the rhizosphere soil of ‘GR10’ was enriched in Actinobacteriota at 75 and 115 days after planting. (4) The contents of AP and AN were positively correlated with the relative abundance of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidota, and negatively correlated with the relative abundance of Chloroflexi at 115 days after planting. AK content was positively correlated with the relative abundance of Actinobacteriota and Patescibacteria, and negatively correlated with the relative abundance of Acidobacteriota and WPS-2 at 115 days after planting. In summary, the microbial communities in the rhizosphere soil of ‘SC9’, ‘GR10’ and ‘SC205’ are mainly composed of eutrophic bacteria such as Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi and Bacteroidota. There are differences in the richness and diversity of rhizosphere bacteria among the three cultivars and seasonal variations.

Key words: cassava cultivars, rhizosphere microorganism, high-throughput sequencing, rhizosphere nutrient, root bag method

ZHAO Xinxin, WEI Yundong, ZHOU Shiyi, CHEN Ruirui, LI Jun, ZHENG Hua. Rhizosphere Microecological Difference of Different Cassava Cultivars Based on Root Bag Method[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(31): 60-71.

Figures/Tables 8

References 40

[1]	付海天, 郑华, 文峰, 等. 中国木薯研究及产业发展趋势[J]. 农业研究与应用, 2022, 35(4):9-22.
[2]	刘京伟, 李香真, 姚敏杰. 植物根际微生物群落构建的研究进展[J]. 微生物学报, 2021, 61(2):231-248.
[3]	RILEY D, BARBER S A. Bicarbonate accumulation and pH changes at the soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) root-soil interface[J]. Soil science society of America journal, 1969, 33(6):905-908. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300060031x URL
[4]	贾林巧, 陈水光, 张礼宏, 等. 罗浮栲和米槠细根形态功能性状对短期氮添加的可塑性响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(12):4003-4011.
[5]	韦云东, 罗燕春, 郑华, 等. 根袋法获取木薯根际土壤及其细菌群落特征研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2020, 41(9):1928-1938. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.09.029
[6]	王灿, 罗贞媛, 孟凡来, 等. 基于ITS rDNA分析辣椒幼苗根际真菌群落结构差异[J]. 湖南生态科学学报, 2021, 8(4):15-21.
[7]	颜朗, 张义正, 方志荣, 等. 不同马铃薯基因型对根际细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 四川大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 57(2):383-390.
[8]	WANG C, ZHANG Y H, WANG S X, et al. Differential effects of domesticated and wild Capsicum frutescens L. on microbial community assembly and metabolic functions in rhizosphere soil[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2024,151:383526.
[9]	BARDELLI T, FORNASIER F, NOVARINA E, et al. Changes in the rhizosphere biome depending on the variety of wheat, timing of its growing season, and agrochemical components in the soils of Italy[J]. Agronomy, 2024, 14(4):832-849. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14040832 URL
[10]	MORENO P A, GIOLAI B A, CHANDRA G, et al. The genotype of barley cultivars influences multiple aspects of their associated microbiota via differential root exudate secretion[J]. Plos biology, 2024, 22(4):e3002232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002232 URL
[11]	程齐, 宁鑫, 乔旻航, 等. 不同生长期核桃根际微生物群落特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(9):2061-2071.
[12]	魏宇飞, 覃仁柳, 丁点草, 等. 不同生育期番茄植株根际土壤微生物群落结构特征[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2024, 43(1):9-21.
[13]	吴微微, 韩雪, 王继朋, 等. 枳壳不同生育期根际土壤细菌群落变化研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(8):1694-1701.
[14]	黄艳英, 彭晓辉, 欧桂宁, 等. 连作木薯对根际与非根际土壤真菌群落结构演替的影响[J]. 广西植物, 2024, 44(10):1864-1877.
[15]	姜舒雅, 孙彬杰, 林萱, 等. 不同氮素形态对木薯生长及根际土壤养分与酶活性的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2024, 45(3):632-640. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2024.03.021
[16]	覃锋燕, 杨慰贤, 彭晓辉, 等. 粉垄耕作木薯根际与非根际土壤的细菌群落结构多样性差异[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(4):729-739.
[17]	LI L W, SHEN Z Y, QIN F Y, et al. Effects of tillage and N applications on the cassava rhizosphere fungal communities[J]. Agronomy, 2023, 13(1):237-237. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13010237 URL
[18]	TANG X M, ZHONG R C, JIANG J, et al. Cassava/peanut intercropping improves soil quality via rhizospheric microbes increased available nitrogen contents[J]. BMC biotechnology, 2020, 20(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12896-020-00606-1 pmid: 32111197
[19]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[20]	ZHAO Z B, HE J Z, GEISEN S, et al. Protist communities are more sensitive to nitrogen fertilization than other microorganisms in diverse agricultural soils[J]. Microbiome, 2019, 7(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0647-0
[21]	TEAM R D C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing[M]. Vienna: computing, 2010:12-21.
[22]	LAI J S, ZOU Y, ZHANG S, et al. Glmm. hp: An R package for computing individual effect of predictors in generalized linear mixed models[J]. Journal of plant ecology, 2022, 15(6):1302-1307. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtac096
[23]	罗路云, 王殿东, 赵志祥, 等. 辣椒根际土壤细菌群落与理化性质互作分析[J]. 南方农业学报, 2024, 55(4):964-972.
[24]	GUO Z B, WAN S X, HUA K K, et al. Fertilization regime has a greater effect on soil microbial community structure than crop rotation and growth stage in an agroecosystem[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2020,149:103510.
[25]	黄巧义, 唐拴虎, 陈建生, 等. 木薯物质累积特征及其施肥效应[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(1):126-132.
[26]	蔡杰, 张洁, 喻珊, 等. 施肥方式对木薯根际土壤细菌多样性与群落结构特征的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 51(1):15-20.
[27]	邱丽丽, 张佳宝, 赵炳梓. 两个品种玉米根际土壤微生物和酶活性对水分胁迫的响应[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(9):194-202.
[28]	EDWARDS J, JOHNSON C, SANTOS-MEDELLIN C, et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2015, 112(8):911-920. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423603112 URL
[29]	郑玉冲, 张琳琦, 刘彬彬. 不同小麦品种根区微生物特征及对土壤氮素水平的响应[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2023, 31(11):1708-1720.
[30]	XIE H T, CHEN Z M, FENG X X, et al. L-theanine exuded from Camellia sinensis roots regulates element cycling in soil by shaping the rhizosphere microbiome assembly[J]. Science of the total environment, 2022,837:155801.
[31]	毕江涛, 贺达汉. 植物对土壤微生物多样性的影响研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(9):244-250.
[32]	TIAN P, RAZAVI B S, ZHANG X C, et al. Microbial growth and enzyme kinetics in rhizosphere hotspots are modulated by soil organics and nutrient availability[J]. Pergamon, 2020,141:107662.
[33]	SANCHEZ-CANIZARES C, JORRIN B, POOLE P S, et al. Understanding the holobiont: The interdependence of plants and their microbiome[J]. Current opinion in microbiology, 2017,38:188-196.
[34]	王光华, 刘俊杰, 于镇华, 等. 土壤酸杆菌门细菌生态学研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2016, 32(2):14-20. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2016.02.002
[35]	朱媛, 王亚鑫, 覃方锉, 等. 不同林龄桉树根际及非根际土壤微生物群落结构及功能[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(18):8409-8422.
[36]	MENDES R, GARBEVA P, RAAIJMAKERS J M. The rhizosphere microbiome: Significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms[J]. FEMS microbiology reviews, 2013, 37(5):634-663. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12028 pmid: 23790204
[37]	KENNEDY A C, SMITH K L. Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricultural soils[J]. Plant and soil, 1995, 170(1):75-86. doi: 10.1007/BF02183056 URL
[38]	WANG W H, WANG N, DANG K K, et al. Long-term nitrogen application decreases the abundance and copy number of predatory myxobacteria and alters the myxobacterial community structure in the soil[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019,708:135114.
[39]	RIVAS R, VELÁZQUEZ E, WILLEMS A, et al. A new species of devosia that forms a unique nitrogen-fixing root-nodule symbiosis with the aquatic legume Neptunia natans (L.f.) Druce[J]. Applied and environmental microbiology, 2002, 68(11):5217-22. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.11.5217-5222.2002 URL
[40]	XU Y J, CHEN Z, LI X Y, et al. The mechanism of promoting rhizosphere nutrient turnover for arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi attribute to recruited functional bacterial assembly[J]. Molecular ecology, 2023, 32(9):2335-2350. doi: 10.1111/mec.v32.9 URL

自变量	因变量	III 型平方和	df	均方	F	Sig.
品种	AN	1666.001	3	555.334	2.494	0.076
	AP	44.611	3	14.870	0.115	0.951
	AK	75217.985	3	25072.662	6.903	0.001
	Sobs	217441.167	3	72480.389	34.148	0.000
	Shannon	0.610	3	0.203	21.391	0.000
	Simpson	0.000	3	0.000	5.615	0.003
	ACE	265783.482	3	88594.494	35.337	0.000
	Chao 1	247584.488	3	82528.163	29.115	0.000
采样时间	AN	3771.055	2	1885.527	8.467	0.001
	AP	3278.870	2	1639.435	12.641	0.000
	AK	25014.583	2	12507.292	3.443	0.043
	Sobs	57346.125	2	28673.063	13.509	0.000
	Shannon	0.391	2	0.195	20.551	0.000
	Simpson	0.000	2	0.000	10.541	0.000
	ACE	103025.097	2	51512.548	20.547	0.000
	Chao 1	107372.899	2	53686.449	18.940	0.000
品种×采样时间	AN	1129.775	6	188.296	0.846	0.543
	AP	724.932	6	120.822	0.932	0.484
	AK	69716.689	6	11619.448	3.199	0.013
	Sobs	41468.708	6	6911.451	3.256	0.012
	Shannon	0.245	6	0.041	4.293	0.002
	Simpson	0.000	6	0.000	4.968	0.001
	ACE	34891.284	6	5815.214	2.319	0.054
	Chao 1	37550.916	6	6258.486	2.208	0.065

自变量	因变量	III 型平方和	df	均方	F	Sig.
品种	AN	1666.001	3	555.334	2.494	0.076
	AP	44.611	3	14.870	0.115	0.951
	AK	75217.985	3	25072.662	6.903	0.001
	Sobs	217441.167	3	72480.389	34.148	0.000
	Shannon	0.610	3	0.203	21.391	0.000
	Simpson	0.000	3	0.000	5.615	0.003
	ACE	265783.482	3	88594.494	35.337	0.000
	Chao 1	247584.488	3	82528.163	29.115	0.000
采样时间	AN	3771.055	2	1885.527	8.467	0.001
	AP	3278.870	2	1639.435	12.641	0.000
	AK	25014.583	2	12507.292	3.443	0.043
	Sobs	57346.125	2	28673.063	13.509	0.000
	Shannon	0.391	2	0.195	20.551	0.000
	Simpson	0.000	2	0.000	10.541	0.000
	ACE	103025.097	2	51512.548	20.547	0.000
	Chao 1	107372.899	2	53686.449	18.940	0.000
品种×采样时间	AN	1129.775	6	188.296	0.846	0.543
	AP	724.932	6	120.822	0.932	0.484
	AK	69716.689	6	11619.448	3.199	0.013
	Sobs	41468.708	6	6911.451	3.256	0.012
	Shannon	0.245	6	0.041	4.293	0.002
	Simpson	0.000	6	0.000	4.968	0.001
	ACE	34891.284	6	5815.214	2.319	0.054
	Chao 1	37550.916	6	6258.486	2.208	0.065

处理	速效氮(AN)	速效磷(AP)	速效钾(AK)
CK_39 d	81.19±8.12bcd	28.90±10.30abc	147.44±18.46ef
SC205_39 d	106.91±21.61a	29.27±10.54abc	213.24±39.92bcd
GR10_39 d	96.68±24.22ab	26.61±8.86abc	256.96±139.31bcd
SC9_39 d	91.47±19.86abc	37.86±24.86a	133.64±75.00ef
CK_75 d	72.74±16.59cd	17.45±6.85bcd	171.07±62.02de
SC205_75 d	73.23±13.16cd	9.23±2.82d	222.63±78.83cd
GR10_75 d	81.20±11.72bcd	13.24±1.79cd	177.84±32.08de
SC9_75 d	81.35±5.90bcd	10.21±4.07d	198.12±19.58cd
CK_115 d	61.51±1.78d	30.55±16.60ab	115.23±12.87f
SC205_115 d	81.08±15.70bcd	34.95±10.76a	324.27±43.47a
GR10_115 d	70.51±7.51cd	29.49±10.48abc	230.65±25.25abc
SC9_115 d	82.22±15.21bcd	22.62±8.17abcd	283.37±49.53ab
39 d	94.06±19.87a	30.66±14.22a	187.82±89.77b
75 d	77.13±11.94b	12.53±5.09b	192.41±52.20ab
115 d	73.83±13.55b	29.40±11.59a	238.38±87.16a

处理	速效氮(AN)	速效磷(AP)	速效钾(AK)
CK_39 d	81.19±8.12bcd	28.90±10.30abc	147.44±18.46ef
SC205_39 d	106.91±21.61a	29.27±10.54abc	213.24±39.92bcd
GR10_39 d	96.68±24.22ab	26.61±8.86abc	256.96±139.31bcd
SC9_39 d	91.47±19.86abc	37.86±24.86a	133.64±75.00ef
CK_75 d	72.74±16.59cd	17.45±6.85bcd	171.07±62.02de
SC205_75 d	73.23±13.16cd	9.23±2.82d	222.63±78.83cd
GR10_75 d	81.20±11.72bcd	13.24±1.79cd	177.84±32.08de
SC9_75 d	81.35±5.90bcd	10.21±4.07d	198.12±19.58cd
CK_115 d	61.51±1.78d	30.55±16.60ab	115.23±12.87f
SC205_115 d	81.08±15.70bcd	34.95±10.76a	324.27±43.47a
GR10_115 d	70.51±7.51cd	29.49±10.48abc	230.65±25.25abc
SC9_115 d	82.22±15.21bcd	22.62±8.17abcd	283.37±49.53ab
39 d	94.06±19.87a	30.66±14.22a	187.82±89.77b
75 d	77.13±11.94b	12.53±5.09b	192.41±52.20ab
115 d	73.83±13.55b	29.40±11.59a	238.38±87.16a

处理	Sobs	Shannon	Simpson	ACE	Chao1
CK_39 d	970.0±35.1e	5.306±0.039fg	0.0110±0.0013ab	1096.5±58.9f	1111.3±70.8g
SC205_39 d	1107.8±45.7bc	5.495±0.142bcde	0.0093±0.0033cde	1264.1±41.7cd	1258.4±44.2d
GR10_39 d	1068.8±37.1cd	5.431±0.092def	0.0097±0.0011bcd	1218.8±45.0de	1242.3±48.2def
SC9_39 d	1005.8±52.2de	5.201±0.185g	0.0208±0.0093a	1166.2±60.3ef	1180.5±56.2efg
CK_75 d	1008.5±27.3de	5.376±0.036efg	0.0102±0.0012abc	1157.2±28.7ef	1163.9±33.4g
SC205_75 d	1160.8±39.9b	5.690±0.116a	0.0067±0.0012fg	1327.7±43.1bc	1348.9±45.5bc
GR10_75 d	1075.8±35.0c	5.486±0.063cde	0.0082±0.0006efg	1242.3±40.3d	1244.2±45.4de
SC9_75 d	1133.0±33.3bc	5.610±0.084abc	0.0074±0.0014efg	1283.8±57.7bcd	1286.6±58.3cd
CK_115 d	975.8±36.0e	5.324±0.051fg	0.0116±0.0014ab	1142.5±45.6f	1167.4±41.6fg
SC205_115 d	1254.5±33.4a	5.774±0.061a	0.0067±0.0007g	1426.9±24.4a	1436.0±44.0a
GR10_115 d	1108.8±90.9bc	5.528±0.117bcd	0.0086±0.0016cde	1278.7±73.3bcd	1286.5±79.5cd
SC9_115 d	1144.8±52.0b	5.607±0.062ab	0.0084±0.0006def	1349.2±59.4b	1365.5±54.1ab