不同树龄桑根际土壤原生生物群落组成多样性

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2021-1377

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

原生生物在土壤微生物组中起到枢纽作用,在时间、空间维度上对原生生物分布格局及其对根系微生态影响的研究具有重要意义。本研究按照空间换时间法,选择同一桑园不同树龄（10龄、80龄,200龄左右）桑（Morus alba L.）根际土壤作为样本,利用Illumina高通量测序技术测定土壤原生生物种类多样性、群落组成差异并分析了其驱动因素,为探讨桑根际原生生物的生态学稳定性机制奠定基础。结果表明,不同树龄桑树原生生物群落优势门基本一致,主要为金藻门Chrysophyta、Kinetoplastida、硅藻门Bacillariophyta、轮虫门Rotaliida、卵菌门Oomycetes和Petalomonadida,但相对丰度存在差异,在10a vs 80a、10a vs 200a和80a vs 200a中相对丰度差异显著的属分别为Paracercomonas、Petalomonas和变形虫Acanthamoeba、吻滴虫属Rhynchomonas,表明土壤原生生物群落在属水平上组成和相对丰度具有明显树龄变异。原生生物多样性受到土壤理化性质的影响,群落多样性、丰富度和均匀度与氯离子含量极显著负相关,Simpson指数与全盐量显著负相关,群落覆盖度与速效钾和碱解氮含量显著正相关。桑根际原生生物与真菌、细菌之间存在共同的环境偏好或潜在的生物相互作用。

关键词: 桑, 高通量测序, 根际原生生物, 多样性, 群落结构

Abstract:

Protists play a pivotal role in the soil microbiome,and it is important to study the distribution pattern of protists in the temporal and spatial dimensions and their effects on the microecology of the root system. In this study,we followed the trading space for time and selected soil around the rhizosphere of mulberry plants at different ages（10,80 and 200 years old）in the same mulberry（Morus alba L.）orchard as sample. Then we used Illumina high-throughput sequencing technology to determine the diversity of soil protists and differences in community composition and to analyze their drivers,which may provide a basis for exploring the ecological stability mechanisms of mulberry inter-rooted protists. The results showed that the dominant phylum species of mulberry native community were basically the same among different ages,mainly Chrysophyta,Kinetoplastida,Bacillariophyta,Rotaliida,Oomycetes and Petalomonadida,but the relative abundance varied among different ages in Paracercomonas,Petalomonas,Acanthamoeba,and Rhynchomonas were the genera with significant differences in relative abundance at 10a vs 80a,10a vs 200a,and 80a vs 200a years of age,respectively,indicating significant age variation in the composition and relative abundance of the soil native community at the genus level. Native community diversity,abundance and evenness were in very significantly negative correlation with chloride ion,Simpson index was significantly and negatively correlated with total salt and community cover was significantly and positively correlated with potassium ion and alkaline nitrogen content. In sum,there are common environmental preferences or potential biological interactions among the protists and fungi and bacteria in the rhizosphere of mulberry..

Key words: Morus alba L., high throughput sequencing, rhizosphere protist, diversity, community structure

王子夜, 王志刚, 阎爱华. 不同树龄桑根际土壤原生生物群落组成多样性[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(8): 206-215.

WANG Zi-ye, WANG Zhi-gang, YAN Ai-hua. Diversity of Soil Protist Community in the Rhizosphere of Morus alba L. at Different Tree Ages[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2022, 38(8): 206-215.

图/表 8

表1 土壤原生生物数据统计及alpha多样性

Table 1 Soil protist data statistics and alpha diversity

树龄 Tree age/a	有效序列数 Number of valid sequences	OTU数 Number of OTUs	Simpson指数Simpson index	Shannon指数Shannon index	Chao指数 Chao index	Pielou_e指数 Pielou_e index	覆盖度 Coverage%
10	315 901	2 135	0.966	6.620	560.453	509.420	99.428
80	288 092	1 578	0.966	6.346	416.783	395.180	99.692
200	355 357	284	0.933	5.334	303.817	285.500	99.740

图1 根际土壤原生生物主成分分析每个点代表一个样本,不同颜色的点代表不同的组

Fig. 1 Principal component analysis（PCA）of rhizosph-ere soil protist Each dot represents a sample,and dots of different colors indicate different groups

图2 门水平物种统计图外圈数字为物种丰富度,内圈数字为不同年龄组,下同

Fig. 2 Statistics at phylum level The numbers in the outer circle are species richness,the inner circle numbers are for different age groups,the same below

图3 属水平物种统计图

Fig. 3 Statistics at genus level

图4 独有和共有原生生物种类数

Fig. 4 Number of unique and common protist species

图5 土壤理化指标差异显著性分析平均值差值的显著性水平为0.05。AN为碱解氮（mg/kg）,AK为速效钾（mg/kg）,Cl氯离子（mg/kg）,AP速效磷（mg/kg）,SOM为有机质（mg/kg）,Na为钠离子（mg/kg）,TDS为全盐量（mg/kg）

Fig. 5 Significance analysis of differences in soil physical and chemical indicators The significance level of the mean difference is 0.05. AN is alkaline decomposition nitrogen（mg/kg）,AK is potassium ion（mg/kg）,Cl is chloride ion（mg/kg）,AP is availabfe phosphorus（mg/kg）,SOM is organic matter（mg/kg）,Na is sodium ion（mg/kg）,and TDS is total salt（mg/kg）

表2 土壤理化性状与土壤原生生物多样性指数的相关性分析

Table 2 Correlation analysis between soil physical and chemical properties and biodiversity indexes of soil protist

	Tree age	AK	AP	AN	SOM	TDS	Na	Cl	pH
Chao1	-0.737**	-0.374	0.092	-0.502	-0.077	-0.265	0.126	0.387	0.280
Simpson	-0.858**	0.115	0.238	-0.215	-0.091	-.538*	0.163	0.695**	-0.161
Shannon	-0.808**	-0.021	0.146	-0.311	-0.242	-0.469	0.218	0.643**	0.030
Pielou_e	-0.732**	0.262	0.193	-0.118	-0.270	-0.512	0.225	0.702**	-0.171
Goods_coverage	0.599*	0.556*	-0.035	0.572*	0.022	0.023	-0.179	-0.158	-0.416

图6 原生生物与真菌、细菌网络关联图节点间的联系（边缘）表示被连接的两个节点之间存在相关性,橙色线表示正相关,绿色线表示负相关

Fig. 6 Correlation diagram of protis,fungi and bacteria network The inter-node linkage（edge）indicates that there is a correlation between the two nodes being connected,with the orange line indicating a positive correlation and the green line indicating a negative correlation

参考文献 46

[1]	姜勇, 许恒龙, 朱明壮, 等. 胶州湾浮游原生生物时空分布特征——丰度周年变化及与环境因子间的关系[J]. 中国海洋大学学报:自然科学版, 2010, 40(3):17-23.
	Jiang Y, Xu HL, Zhu MZ, et al. Planktonic protists in Jiaozhou Bay, China:annual variation abundance and correlation with environmental conditions[J]. Period Ocean Univ China, 2010, 40(3):17-23.
[2]	Geisen S, Mitchell EAD, Adl S, et al. Soil protists:a fertile frontier in soil biology research[J]. FEMS Microbiol Rev, 2018, 42(3):293-323. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuy006 URL
[3]	Sun AQ, Jiao XY, Chen QL, et al. Fertilization alters protistan consumers and parasites in crop-associated microbiomes[J]. Environ Microbiol, 2021, 23(4):2169-2183. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15385 URL
[4]	Dassen S, Cortois R, Martens H, et al. Differential responses of soil bacteria, fungi, Archaea and protists to plant species richness and plant functional group identity[J]. Mol Ecol, 2017, 26(15):4085-4098. doi: 10.1111/mec.14175 URL
[5]	罗正明, 刘晋仙, 周妍英, 等. 亚高山草地土壤原生生物群落结构和多样性海拔分布格局[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(7):2783-2793.
	Luo ZM, Liu JX, Zhou YY, et al. Community structures and diversity patterns of the soil protist communities along an altitudinal gradient in a subalpine grassland[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2021, 41(7):2783-2793.
[6]	Simpson AGB, Melkonian M. A review series on the biology of selected protist groups[J]. Protist, 2021, 172(3):125818. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2021.125818 URL
[7]	Geisen S, Mitchell EAD, Adl S, et al. Soil protists:a fertile frontier in soil biology research[J]. FEMS Microbiol Rev, 2018, 42(3):293-323. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuy006 URL
[8]	卢明镇. 植物-微生物互惠共生:演化机制与生态功能[J]. 生物多样性, 2020, 28(11):1311-1323.
	Lu MZ. Plant-microbe mutualism:evolutionary mechanisms and ecological functions[J]. Biodivers Sci, 2020, 28(11):1311-1323. doi: 10.17520/biods.2020409 URL
[9]	Zhao PS, Guo MS, Gao GL, et al. Community structure and functional group of root-associated Fungi of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica across stand ages in the Mu Us Desert[J]. Ecol Evol, 2020, 10(6):3032-3042. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6119 URL
[10]	Lipson DA, Wilson RF, Oechel WC. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO₂ on soil microbial biomass, activity, and diversity in a chaparral ecosystem[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2005, 71(12):8573-8580. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8573-8580.2005 URL
[11]	马丽. 豫东不同树龄梨园土壤微生物生态特征[J]. 河南农业科学, 2018, 47(1):37-42.
	Ma L. Soil microbial ecological characteristics of pear orchard with different ages in eastern Henan Province[J]. J Henan Agric Sci, 2018, 47(1):37-42.
[12]	田稼, 孙超, 杨明琰, 等. 黄土高原不同树龄苹果园土壤微生物、养分及pH的相关性[J]. 西北农业学报, 2012, 21(7):138-141, 148.
	Tian J, Sun C, Yang MY, et al. The correlation of soil microbes, soil nutrient and soil pH of different apple tree-age orchards in loess plateau[J]. Acta Agric Boreali Occidentalis Sin, 2012, 21(7):138-141, 148.
[13]	顾美英, 古丽尼沙·沙依木, 张志东, 等. 黑果枸杞不同组织内生细菌群落多样性[J]. 微生物学报, 2021, 61(1):152-166.
	Gu MY, Gulinisha SYM, Zhang ZD, et al. Diversity and function analysis of endophytic bacterial community in different tissues of Lycium ruthenicum Murr[J]. Acta Microbiol Sin, 2021, 61(1):152-166.
[14]	苏宝玲, 韩士杰, 王建国. 根际微域研究中土样采集方法的研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(3):477-480. pmid: 11767659
	Su BL, Han SJ, Wang JG. Advance in soil sampling methods in rhizosphere microzone study[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2000, 11(3):477-480. pmid: 11767659
[15]	李虎, 贺婧, 刘冲, 等. 农田灰钙土中有机质和碳酸钙对Zn吸附-解吸行为的影响[J]. 中国环境科学, 2015, 35(6):1786-1793.
	Li H, He J, Liu C, et al. Effect of organic matter and calcium carbonate on behaviors of zinc adsorption-desorption on/from Ningxia farmland sierozem soils[J]. China Environ Sci, 2015, 35(6):1786-1793.
[16]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	Bao SD. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis[M]. Beijing: Chinese Agriculture Press, 2000.
[17]	张荟荟, 张学洲, 梁维维, 等. 粮草轮作对北疆平原荒漠灌区土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2021, 41(4):128-133.
	Zhang HH, Zhang XZ, Liang WW, et al. Effects of grain-alfalfa rotation on soil physical and chemical properties in desert irrigation area of northern Xinjiang plain[J]. Grassland Turf, 2021, 41(4):128-133.
[18]	Edwards J, Johnson C, Santos-Medellín C, et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2015, 112(8):E911-E920.
[19]	Amaral-Zettler LA, McCliment EA, Ducklow HW, et al. A method for studying protistan diversity using massively parallel sequencing of V9 hypervariable regions of small-subunit ribosomal RNA genes[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(7):e6372. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006372 URL
[20]	Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. Introducing mothur:open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2009, 75(23):7537-7541. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 URL
[21]	Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, et al. Cytoscape:a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks[J]. Genome Res, 2003, 13(11):2498-2504. doi: 10.1101/gr.1239303 pmid: 14597658
[22]	Asiloglu R, Shiroishi K, Suzuki K, et al. Soil properties have more significant effects on the community composition of protists than the rhizosphere effect of rice plants in alkaline paddy field soils[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2021, 161:108397. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108397 URL
[23]	Huang X, Wang JJ, Dumack K, et al. Protists modulate fungal community assembly in paddy soils across climatic zones at the continental scale[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2021, 160:108358. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108358 URL
[24]	Ceja-Navarro JA, Wang Y, Ning DL, et al. Protist diversity and community complexity in the rhizosphere of switchgrass are dynamic as plants develop[J]. Microbiome, 2021, 9(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01042-9 pmid: 33910643
[25]	Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Cajthaml T, et al. Tree diversity and species identity effects on soil fungi, protists and animals are context dependent[J]. ISME J, 2016, 10(2):346-362. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.116 pmid: 26172210
[26]	Oliverio AM, Geisen S, Delgado-Baquerizo M, et al. The global-scale distributions of soil protists and their contributions to belowground systems[J]. Sci Adv, 2020, 6(4):eaax8787. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8787 URL
[27]	Lukešová A, Hoffmann L. Soil algae from acid rain impacted forest areas of the Krušné hory Mts. 1. Algal communities[J]. Vegetatio, 1996, 125(2):123-136. doi: 10.1007/BF00044646 URL
[28]	Fránková M, Bojková J, Poulíčková A, et al. The structure and species richness of the diatom assemblages of the Western Carpathian spring fens along the gradient of mineral richness[J]. Fottea, 2009, 9(2):355-368. doi: 10.5507/fot.2009.035 URL
[29]	Antonelli M, Wetzel CE, Ector L, et al. On the potential for terrestrial diatom communities and diatom indices to identify anthropic disturbance in soils[J]. Ecol Indic, 2017, 75:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.003 URL
[30]	Zhao ZB, He JZ, Quan Z, et al. Fertilization changes soil microbiome functioning, especially phagotrophic protists[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2020, 148:107863. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107863 URL
[31]	王静, 李彤, 梁健. 不同树龄苹果树根际土壤的微生物生物量碳、酶和养分特征及其变化规律[J]. 陕西师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 49(1):96-104.
	Wang J, Li T, Liang J. Characteristics and changes of the microbial biomass carbon, enzyme activities and nutrients in rhizosphere soil of apple trees at different ages[J]. J Shaanxi Norm Univ Nat Sci Ed, 2021, 49(1):96-104.
[32]	黄晶淼, 刘国鑫, 刘佩杭, 等. 不同种植年限苹果园根际土壤养分、pH及微生物的相关性[J]. 山西农业科学, 2020, 48(8):1263-1266.
	Huang JM, Liu GX, Liu PH, et al. Correlation of nutrient, pH and microorganism in rhizosphere soil of apple orchard with different cultivation years[J]. J Shanxi Agric Sci, 2020, 48(8):1263-1266.
[33]	Guo S, Xiong W, Hang XN, et al. Protists as main indicators and determinants of plant performance[J]. Microbiome, 2021, 9(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01025-w URL
[34]	程明芳, 金继运, 李春花, 等. 氯离子对作物生长和土壤性质影响的研究进展[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2010, 51(1):12-14.
	Cheng MF, Jin JY, Li CH, et al. Progress of research on the effects of chloride ions on crop growth and soil properties[J]. J Zhejiang Agric Sci, 2010, 51(1):12-14.
[35]	Asiloglu R, Sevilir B, Samuel SO, et al. Effect of protists on rhizobacterial community composition and rice plant growth in a biochar amended soil[J]. Biol Fertil Soils, 2021, 57(2):293-304. doi: 10.1007/s00374-020-01525-1 URL
[36]	Asiloglu R, Kenya K, Samuel SO, et al. Top-down effects of protists are greater than bottom-up effects of fertilisers on the formation of bacterial communities in a paddy field soil[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2021, 156:108186. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108186 URL
[37]	Xiong W, Li R, Guo S, et al. Microbial amendments alter protist communities within the soil microbiome[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2019, 135:379-382. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.05.025 URL
[38]	Xiong W, Jousset A, Guo S, et al. Soil protist communities form a dynamic hub in the soil microbiome[J]. ISME J, 2018, 12(2):634-638. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.171 pmid: 29028001
[39]	Rosenberg K, Bertaux J, Krome K, et al. Soil amoebae rapidly change bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere of Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. ISME J, 2009, 3(6):675-684. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.11 pmid: 19242534
[40]	Henkes GJ, Kandeler E, Marhan S, et al. Interactions of mycorrhiza and protists in the rhizosphere systemically alter microbial community composition, plant shoot-to-root ratio and within-root system nitrogen allocation[J]. Front Environ Sci, 2018, 6:117. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00117 URL
[41]	张玉琴, 李文均, 郝涤非, 等. 异常球菌属的分类及应用研究进展[J]. 微生物学通报, 2006, 33(6):133-137.
	Zhang YQ, Li WJ, Hao DF, et al. Review of studies on the taxonomy and application of the genus Deinococcus[J]. Microbiology, 2006, 33(6):133-137.
[42]	Dahal RH, Kim J. Ferrovibrio soli sp. nov., a novel cellulolytic bacterium isolated from stream bank soil[J]. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, 2018, 68(1):427-431. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002527 URL
[43]	Kiss S, Paşca D, Drăgan-Bularda M. Studies of the soil enzymological effects of industrial emissions originating from a point source(an industrial plant)[M]// Enzymology of Disturbed Soils. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 1998:69-115.
[44]	Fuji M, Miura C, Yamamoto T, et al. Relative effectiveness of Tulasnella fungal strains in orchid mycorrhizal symbioses between germination and subsequent seedling growth[J]. Symbiosis, 2020, 81(1):53-63. doi: 10.1007/s13199-020-00681-0 URL
[45]	Lee SD. Angustibacter peucedani sp. nov., isolated from rhizosphere soil[J]. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, 2013, 63(Pt_2):744-750. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.042275-0 URL
[46]	Dahal RH, Chaudhary DK, Kim J. Acinetobacter halotolerans sp. nov., a novel halotolerant, alkalitolerant, and hydrocarbon degrading bacterium, isolated from soil[J]. Arch Microbiol, 2017, 199(5):701-710. doi: 10.1007/s00203-017-1349-2 pmid: 28220203