Analysis of Microbial Community Changes and Stress-resistant Enzyme Activities of Flue-cured Tobacco Three-stage Seedling Raising in Different Habitats

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-1071

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】It is to analyze the effects of three-stage seedling raising on rhizosphere microbial diversity and anti-stress enzyme activity of tobacco seedlings.【Method】Zhongyan 100 was chosen as the test variety, with conventional floating seedling raising as the control, and the three-stage seedling raising was set up. By monitoring the growth and development of tobacco seedlings in the quadruple sports seedling greenhouse, the effects of three-stage seedling raising method on seedling environment, microbial diversity, agronomic traits and anti-stress enzyme activities of tobacco seedlings were systematically analyzed. Concurrently, its effect on the microbial diversity of tobacco rhizosphere soil in the field was traced and analyzed.【Result】In the seedling stage, the three-stage seedling raising method improved the physical and chemical properties of the pool water and reduced the temperature difference and humidity level in the seedling greenhouse compared with the floating seedling raising control. The daily average temperature difference decreased from 19.23℃ to 17.95℃, and the daily average humidity decreased from 75.17%RH to 69.53%RH. At the seedling stage, the three-stage seedling raising increased the abundance of Brevundimonas and Lysinibacillus in the seedling pool water, which were 13.90 times and 4.66 times that of the floating seedling raising, respectively. The fresh weight, root length, number of lateral roots, CAT enzyme activity, SOD enzyme activity, POD enzyme activity, root activity and seedling rate of tobacco seedlings increased by 34.33%, 34.37%, 36.41%, 31.91%, 25.34%, 58.07%, 29.08% and 5.91%, respectively, compared with the floating seedling raising control, while the MDA content decreased by 22.31%. At the same time, MDA content decreased by 22.31%. In the field period, the abundance of Ascomycota and Penicillium in tobacco rhizosphere soil increased, and a more favorable environment for tobacco growth was created.【Conclusion】The three-stage seedling raising method increased the abundance of beneficial bacteria in the rhizosphere of tobacco seedlings by improving the seedling raising environment, and significantly improved the agronomic traits and anti-stress enzyme activity of tobacco seedlings at the seedling stage, thus improving the quality of tobacco seedlings.

Key words: tobacco, three-stage seedling raising, microorganisms around tobacco seedling rhizosphere, root vitality of tobacco seedlings

WANG Hao-jie, CHANG Dong, LI Jun-ying, MENG Hao-guang, JIANG Shi-jun, ZHOU Shuo-ye, CUI Jiang-kuan. Analysis of Microbial Community Changes and Stress-resistant Enzyme Activities of Flue-cured Tobacco Three-stage Seedling Raising in Different Habitats[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2024, 40(4): 242-254.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig. 1 Effects of different seedling raising methods on temperature and humidity A: Temperature; B: humidity. The data in the figure is shown as the average

Fig. 2 Effects of different seedling raising methods on water quality physicochemical properties A: pH; B: dissolved oxygen concentration; C: electric conductivity. The data are presented as mean ± standard error

Table 1 Effects of different seedling raising methods on the agronomic traits of tobacco seedlings

处理Treatment	株高 Plant height/cm	鲜重 Fresh weight/g	根长 Root length/cm	侧根数 Number of lateral roots	最大叶面积 Maximum leaf area/cm²	成苗率 Seedling rate/%
三段式育苗	8.22 ± 1.71 a	6.26 ± 1.21 a	10.40 ± 2.01 a	133.08 ± 26.15 a	50.27 ± 7.51 a	96.18 ± 2.02 a
漂浮育苗	8.08 ± 1.98 a	4.66 ± 0.97 b	7.74 ± 1.91 b	97.56 ± 16.87 b	40.53 ± 6.94 b	85.27 ± 4.18 b

Fig. 3 Effects of different seedling raising methods on the enzyme activities and root vitalities of tobacco seedlings A: CAT enzyme activity; B: POD enzyme activity; C: SOD enzyme activity; D: MDA content; E: root vitality. The data in the column chart is shown as mean ± standard error. * indicates a significant difference at the 0.05 level, and ** indicates a significant difference at the 0.01 level. The same below

Fig. 4 Analysis of alpha diversity in microbial communities A: Fungal ACE index; B: fungal Chao index; C: fungal Simpson index; D: fungal Shannon index; E: bacterial ACE index; F: bacterial Chao index; G: bacterial Simpson index; H: bacterial Shannon index

Fig. 5 PCA analysis of microbial communities A: Fungal PCA analysis; B: bacterial PCA analysis. a: Three-stage seedling raising pool water; b: floating seedling raising pool water; c: three-stage seedling raising tray matrix; d: floating seedling raising tray matrix; e: three-stage seedling raising tobacco seedling root; f: floating seedling raising tobacco seedling root

Fig. 6 Effects of seedling raising methods on the abundance of microbial community A: Fungal phylum level; B: bacterial phylum level; C: fungal genus level; D: bacterial genus level. a: Three-stage seedling raising pool water; b: floating seedling raising pool water; c: three-stage seedling raising tray matrix; d: floating seedling raising tray matrix; e: three-stage seedling raising tobacco seedling root; f: floating seedling raising tobacco seedling root

Fig. 7 Analysis of alpha diversity of soil microbial communities A: Fungal ACE index; B: fungal Chao index; C: fungal Simpson index; D: fungal Shannon index; E: bacterial ACE index; F: bacterial Chao index; G: bacterial Simpson index; H: bacterial Shannon index

Fig. 8 PCA analysis of soil microbial communities A: Fungal PCA analysis; B: bacterial PCA analysis. a: Tobacco root soil by three-stage seedling raising ; b: tobacco root soil by floating seedling raising

Fig. 9 Effects of different nursery methods on soil microbial community abundance A: Fungal phylum level; B: bacterial phylum level; C: fungal genus level; D: bacterial genus level. a: Tobacco root soil by three-stage seedling raising; B: tobacco root soil by floating seedling raising

References 35

[1]	崔江宽, 常栋, 万笑迎, 等. 烟草漂浮育苗有害藻类致病机制及其防治研究进展[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2021, 27(4): 106-113.
	Cui JK, Chang D, Wan XY, et al. Research progress on pathogenic mechanism and controlling of the algae in tobacco floating seedling[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sin, 2021, 27(4): 106-113.
[2]	万笑迎, 康晓博, 黄微微, 等. 烟草漂浮育苗小球藻和颤藻的防治药剂筛选[J]. 农药, 2021, 60(12): 913-916, 920.
	Wan XY, Kang XB, Huang WW, et al. Screening of algicides for controlling Chlorella and oscillatoriales of the algae in tobacco floating seedling in Henan Province[J]. Agrochemicals, 2021, 60(12): 913-916, 920.
[3]	常栋, 孟颢光, 周博, 等. 药剂灌根防治隐性感染烟苗根腐病田间效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2021, 41(7): 88-91.
	Chang D, Meng HG, Zhou B, et al. Field effect of chemical root irrigation on controlling root rot of recessive infected tobacco seedlings[J]. China Plant Prot, 2021, 41(7): 88-91.
[4]	王新月, 张阳, 蔡奇, 等. 育苗盘孔径、微生物菌剂和移栽叶龄对烤烟生长发育的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2023, 44(5): 18-26.
	Wang XY, Zhang Y, Cai Q, et al. Effects of float seedling tray size, microbial agents and transplanting leaf age on growth of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chin Tob Sci, 2023, 44(5): 18-26.
[5]	Jiang HL, Li NJ, Xu AD, et al. Development of closed-type transplant production system and discussion of its application mode for flue-cured tobacco[J]. Aust J Crop Sci, 2014, 8: 1566-1570.
[6]	王颢杰, 李俊营, 何晓冰, 等. 不同育苗方式和移栽方式对烤烟田间抗病抗逆性的影响[J/OL]. 河南农业大学学报, 2023, 57(6): 996-1007.
	Wang HJ, Li JY, He XB, et al. Effects of seedling raising and transplanting cultivation methods on tobacco field resistance to disease and stress[J/OL]. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 2023, 57(6): 996-1007.
[7]	许跃奇, 王颢杰, 常栋, 等. 烤烟不同育苗方式对烟草苗期抗病抗逆性的影响[J]. 植物医学, 2023, 2(4): 28-38.
	Xu YQ, Wang HJ, Chang D, et al. Effects of different seedling breeding methods on disease and stress resistance of flue-cured tobacco at seedling stage[J]. Plant Health Med, 2023, 2(4): 28-38.
[8]	张义志, 孔凡玉, 黄建, 等. 水旱两段式育苗技术对烤烟成苗素质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(1): 67-69.
	Zhang YZ, Kong FY, Huang J, et al. Effect of two-stage seedling raising technology of flood and drought on seedling quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Jiangsu Agric Sci, 2015, 43(1): 67-69.
[9]	陈千思, 方明, 李泽锋, 等. 烟草抗冷相关基因在两种不同育苗方式下的低温应答差异分析[J]. 烟草科技, 2022, 55(9): 19-28.
	Chen QS, Fang M, Li ZF, et al. Differential analysis of low temperature gene responses related to cold resistance in tobacco under two seedling cultivation methods[J]. Tob Sci Technol, 2022, 55(9): 19-28.
[10]	国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 烟草集约化育苗技术规程第1部分:漂浮育苗: GB/T 25241.1—2010[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
	General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. Rules for tobacco intensive seedling production-Part 1: Seedling with float system:GB/T 25241.1-2010[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2011.
[11]	国家烟草专卖局. 烟草农艺性状调查测量方法: YC/T 142—2010[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2010.
	State Tobacco Monopoly Bureau of the People's Republic of China. Investigating and measuring methods of agronomical character of tobacco: YC/T 142—2010[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2010.
[12]	Zhang JT, Mu CS. Effects of saline and alkaline stresses on the germination, growth, photosynthesis, ionic balance and anti-oxidant system in an alkali-tolerant leguminous forageLathyrus quinquenervius[J]. Soil Sci Plant Nutr, 2009, 55(5): 685-697. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00411.x URL
[13]	Chen Y, Wen Y, Cheng J, et al. Effects of dissolved oxygen on extracellular enzymes activities and transformation of carbon sources from plant biomass: implications for denitrification in constructed wetlands[J]. Bioresour Technol, 2011, 102(3): 2433-2440. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.122 URL
[14]	Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Fujita M. Plant response to salt stress and role of exogenous protectants to mitigate salt-induced damages[M]// Ecophysiology and Responses of Plants under Salt Stress. New York: Springer, 2013: 25-87.
[15]	Hossain ST, Sugimoto H, Yamashita J. Effect of topdressing on individual leaf photosynthesis at different position in direct-sown rice with non-woven fabric mulch system[J]. Photosynthetica, 2007, 45(4): 576-581. doi: 10.1007/s11099-007-0099-9 URL
[16]	Ma HZ, Liu C, Li ZX, et al. ZmbZIP4 contributes to stress resistance in maize by regulating ABA synthesis and root development[J]. Plant Physiol, 2018, 178(2): 753-770. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.00436 pmid: 30126870
[17]	Raza A, Charagh S, Zahid Z, et al. Jasmonic acid: a key frontier in conferring abiotic stress tolerance in plants[J]. Plant Cell Rep, 2021, 40(8): 1513-1541. doi: 10.1007/s00299-020-02614-z pmid: 33034676
[18]	Zhou R, Kong LP, Yu XQ, et al. Oxidative damage and antioxidant mechanism in tomatoes responding to drought and heat stress[J]. Acta Physiol Plant, 2019, 41(2): 20.
[19]	李琬婷, 宁朋, 王菲, 等. 外源脱落酸对干旱胁迫下滇润楠幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(5):1543-1550. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202005.009
	Li WT, Ning P, Wang F, et al. Effects of exogenous abscisic acid on growth and physiological characteristics of seedlings of Dian Runnan under drought stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(5): 1543-1550. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202005.009
[20]	束胜, 胡晓辉, 王玉. 蔬菜作物逆境生理与抗逆栽培研究进展[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2022, 45(6): 1087-1098.
	Shu S, Hu XH, Wang Y, et al. Research progress on stress physiology and stress tolerance cultivation of vegetable crops[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2022, 45(6): 1087-1098.
[21]	周闪闪, 黄远龙, 黄建忠, 等. 溶杆菌中活性天然产物的研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023, 39(10): 41-49. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-0655
	Zhou SS, Huang YL, Huang JZ, et al. Research progress in bioactive natural products from Lysobacter[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2023, 39(10): 41-49.
[22]	Kumar M, Giri VP, Pandey S, et al. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria emerging as an effective bioinoculant to improve the growth, production, and stress tolerance of vegetable crops[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2021, 22(22): 12245.
[23]	李俊领, 马晓寒, 张豫丹, 等. 土壤微生物与烟草青枯病发生关系的研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2020, 36(9): 88-99. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2019-1268
	Li JL, Ma XH, Zhang YD, et al. Research progress on the relationship between soil microorganism and tobacco bacterial wilt[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2020, 36(9): 88-99.
[24]	徐扬, 张冠初, 丁红, 等. 土壤类型对花生根际土壤细菌群落多样性和产量的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(6): 221-234. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2021-0912
	Xu Y, Zhang GC, Ding H, et al. Effects of soil types on bacterial community diversity on the rhizosphere soil of Arachis hypogaea and yield[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2022, 38(6): 221-234.
[25]	Goyal D, Prakash O, Pandey J. Rhizospheric microbial diversity: an important component for abiotic stress management in crop plants toward sustainable agriculture[M]// New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019: 115-134.
[26]	Liu WX, Zhang R, Shu R, et al. Study of the relationship between microbiome and colorectal cancer susceptibility using 16S rRNA sequencing[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2020: 7828392.
[27]	Okungbowa FI, Shittu HO. Fusarium wilts: An overview[J]. Environ Res J, 2012, 6(2): 83-102
[28]	Emenike CU, Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Blending Bacillus sp., Lysinibacillus sp. and Rhodococcus sp. for optimal reduction of heavy metals in leachate contaminated soil[J]. Environ Earth Sci, 2015, 75(1): 26.
[29]	Omer A. Biovalorization of olive mill wastewater using phenol degrading bacteria to produce biofertilizer[J]. Egypt J Chem, 2023.
[30]	Ravi S, Sevugapperumal N, Nallusamy S, et al. Differential bacterial endophytome in Foc-resistant banana cultivar displays enhanced antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense(Foc)[J]. Environ Microbiol, 2022, 24(6): 2701-2715. doi: 10.1111/emi.v24.6 URL
[31]	Andreolli M, Lampis S, Zapparoli G, et al. Diversity of bacterial endophytes in 3 and 15 year-old grapevines of Vitis vinifera cv. Corvina and their potential for plant growth promotion and phytopathogen control[J]. Microbiol Res, 2016, 183: 42-52. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.11.009 pmid: 26805617
[32]	Devi R, Kaur T, Kour D, et al. Beneficial fungal communities from different habitats and their roles in plant growth promotion and soil health[J]. Microb Biosyst, 2020, 5(1): 21-47. doi: 10.21608/mb.2020.32802.1016 URL
[33]	Altaf MM, Imran M, Abulreesh HH, et al. Diversity and applications of Penicillium spp. in plant-growth promotion[M]// New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2018: 261-276.
[34]	Moreira BC, Prates Júnior P, Dell B, et al. Roots and beneficial interactions with soil microbes[M]// Subsoil Constraints for Crop Production. Cham: Springer, 2022: 263-287.
[35]	Aqeel M, Ran JZ, Hu WG, et al. Plant-soil-microbe interactions in maintaining ecosystem stability and coordinated turnover under changing environmental conditions[J]. Chemosphere, 2023, 318: 137924. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137924 URL