Effects of Phenolic Acid-degrading Bacterium Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 on Microbial Diversity in Soil Infected with Tomato Fusarium Wilt

doi:10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2025-1115

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To clarify the regulatory effect of salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 with phenolic acid-degrading activity on the microbial diversity and community structure of diseased soil, verify its control efficacy against tomato fusarium wilt, and provide a theoretical basis for the biological control of tomato fusarium wilt in continuous cropping systems. Method In this study, continuous cropping soil frequently affected by tomato fusarium wilt was collected from the Honghe region, and four indoor pot experiment treatments were set up: blank control group (CK), benzoic acid addition group (CK1, simulating the phenolic acid accumulation stress environment in continuous cropping soil), benzoic acid + YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution addition group (T1), and YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution addition group (T2). By determining the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt and agronomic traits, analyzing soil physicochemical properties, the control mechanism of salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 on tomato fusarium wilt was clarified. Result Compared with CK, the YNK-FB0022 bacterial solution treatment significantly increased tomato plant height (15.92%), stem diameter (10.92%), and root length (11.45%) (P<0.05); the activities of sucrase, urease, and acid phosphatase—key enzymes involved in soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles— significantly increased by 33.25%, 72.06%, and 74.69% (P<0.05), respectively. Under T2 treatment, the Ace index of bacterial α-diversity significantly increased by 12.07% compared with CK, while the fungal Ace index and Chao1 index significantly decreased by 17.83% and 16.52% respectively. Beta diversity PCA analysis showed that the bacterial and fungal communities in T2 treatment were significantly separated from those in CK and CK1 treatments, while the communities in CK and CK1 treatments had high aggregation and no significant difference (P<0.05). The results of microbial community structure showed that the abundance of Actinobacteriota (a dominant bacterial phylum) and Glomeromycota (a dominant fungal phylum) significantly increased; the composition of bacterial community structure had a significant impact on the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt, and the strain treatment increased the complexity of the bacterial network structure. The results of SEM analysis indicated that YNK-FB0022 reduced the disease index of tomato fusarium wilt by improving soil physicochemical indicators, increasing soil enzyme activities, and enhancing the complexity of microbial network structure, thereby achieving disease control. Conclusion Salt-tolerant Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 demonstrates a promising control effect on tomato fusarium wilt by improving soil physicochemical properties, enhancing soil enzyme activities, effectively regulating the microbial diversity and community structure of diseased soil, and increasing the complexity of microbial network structure. It is a biocontrol strain with great potential.

Key words: Bacillus halotolerans, biological activity, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, microbial diversity

WANG Yu, LIAO Yong-qin, JIA Jian-peng, LIU Xin, SHI Zhu-li, SHI Zhu-feng, PU Te, HE Fei-fei, YANG Pei-wen. Effects of Phenolic Acid-degrading Bacterium Bacillus halotolerans YNK-FB0022 on Microbial Diversity in Soil Infected with Tomato Fusarium Wilt[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2026, 42(5): 101-112.

Figures/Tables 11

References 38

[1]	Panke-Buisse K, Poole AC, Goodrich JK, et al. Selection on soil microbiomes reveals reproducible impacts on plant function [J]. ISME J, 2015, 9(4): 980-989.
[2]	Wang X, Xiao C, Ji C, et al. Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria for controlling root rot disease of Chinese jujube [J]. J Appl Microbiol, 2021, 130(3): 926-936.
[3]	钟淑敏, 廖晓兰. 作物自毒作用研究进展 [J]. 作物研究, 2022, 36(3): 269-274, 286.
	Zhong SM, Liao XL. Review of research progress on crops autotoxicity [J]. Crop Res, 2022, 36(3): 269-274, 286.
[4]	Zhu W, Liu JW, Ye JL, et al. Effects of phytotoxic extracts from peach root bark and benzoic acid on peach seedlings growth, photosynthesis, antioxidance and ultrastructure properties [J]. Sci Hortic, 2017, 215: 49-58.
[5]	李勇, 王梓, 龙期良, 等. 人参幼根对苯甲酸胁迫的形态学响应及基因差异表达 [J]. 中国现代中药, 2017, 19(7): 995-1000.
	Li Y, Wang Z, Long QL, et al. Morphological response of ginseng root to benzoic acid and differential genes expression analysis [J]. Mod Chin Med, 2017, 19(7): 995-1000.
[6]	孙秀, 王秀峰, 魏珉, 等. 肉桂酸降解真菌的筛选及其降解液对黄瓜种子发芽的影响 [J]. 园艺学报, 2014, 41(4): 765-772.
	Sun X, Wang XF, Wei M, et al. Screening and identification of cinnamic acid-degrading fungis and the effect of degradation liquid on the cucumber germination [J]. Acta Hortic Sin, 2014, 41(4): 765-772.
[7]	王兴祥, 张桃林, 戴传超, 等. 连作花生土壤障碍原因及消除技术研究进展 [J]. 土壤, 2010, 42(4): 505-512.
	Wang XX, Zhang TL, Dai CC, et al. Advance in mechanism and countermeasures of peanut succession monocropping obstacles [J]. Soils, 2010, 42(4): 505-512.
[8]	Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D, et al. Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations [J]. Biol Rev, 2012, 87(1): 52-71.
[9]	王洁, 王蓓蓓, 尚方剑, 等. 香草兰酚酸类自毒物质降解菌的筛选和鉴定及其抑菌效果 [J]. 热带生物学报, 2022, 13(6): 595-604.
	Wang J, Wang BB, Shang FJ, et al. Screening, identification and antimicrobial activity of microbial strains degrading autotoxic phenolic acids in the rhizosphere of vanilla [J]. Journal of Tropical Biology, 2022, 13(6): 595-604.
[10]	王丹丹, 孙丽, 于宏, 等. 花生种子相关促生菌分离鉴定及功能评价 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2023, 50(11): 4852-4862.
	Wang DD, Sun L, Yu H, et al. Isolation, identification, and functional characterization of plant growth-promoting bacteria from peanut seeds [J]. Microbiol China, 2023, 50(11): 4852-4862.
[11]	李华玮, 赵绪永, 李鹏坤. 作物连做障碍中酚酸类物质的生物降解研究 [J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(18): 168-173.
	Li HW, Zhao XY, Li PK. Research on biodegradation effect to phenolic acid in even cook obstacles [J]. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2011, 27(18): 168-173.
[12]	Shen YX, Shi ZF, Zhao JY, et al. Whole genome sequencing provides evidence for Bacillus velezensis SH-1471 as a beneficial rhizosphere bacterium in plants [J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13: 20929.
[13]	Vurukonda SSKP, Vardharajula S, Shrivastava M, et al. Enhancement of drought stress tolerance in crops by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria [J]. Microbiol Res, 2016, 184: 13-24.
[14]	刘慧迪, 黄继宁, 成志军, 等. 作物镰刀菌枯萎病及其生物防治的研究进展 [J]. 植物医学, 2022, 1(5): 8-22.
	Liu HD, Huang JN, Cheng ZJ, et al. Research progress on crop Fusarium wilt disease and its biological control [J]. Plant Health Med, 2022, 1(5): 8-22.
[15]	廖永琴, 王楠, 申云鑫, 等. 三株酚酸降解菌的筛选与鉴定及其生物活性 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2024, 51(6): 2193-2214.
	Liao YQ, Wang N, Shen YX, et al. phenolic acid-degrading bacterial strains: screening, identification, and biological activities [J]. Microbiol China, 2024, 51(6): 2193-2214.
[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]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[17]	周旭东, 韩天华, 申云鑫, 等. 4种轮作模式下长期连作烟田土壤微生态的响应特征 [J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 174-187.
	Zhou XD, Han TH, Shen YX, et al. Response characteristics of soil microecology in long-term continuous cropping tobacco field under 4 rotation patterns [J]. J Agric Sci Technol, 2024, 26(3): 174-187.
[18]	中华人民共和国农业部. 土壤检测第13部分:土壤交换性钙和镁的测定: [S]. 北京:中国标准出版社,2006.
	Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. Soil Testing.Part 13: Method for determination of soil exchangeable calcium and magnesium: [S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006.
[19]	Li JY, Zhao QQ, Wuriyanghan H, et al. Biocontrol bacteria strains Y4 and Y8 alleviate tobacco bacterial wilt disease by altering their rhizosphere soil bacteria community [J]. Rhizosphere, 2021, 19: 100390.
[20]	李娜, 信会男, 赖宁, 等. 不同土地利用方式对农田土壤有机碳组分及土壤微生物量碳的影响 [J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(10): 1789-1796.
	Li N, Xin HN, Lai N, et al. Effects of different land-use methods on the organic carbon composition and soil microbial biomass carbon of farmland soil [J]. Arid Zone Res, 2024, 41(10): 1789-1796.
[21]	焦硕,戚杰军,刘纪爱,等.旱区土壤微生物组与土壤健康评价 [J]. 土壤学报, 2023, 60(5): 1350-1362.
	Jiao S, Qi JJ, Liu JA, et al. Soil microbiome and soil health assessment in arid regions [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2023, 60(5): 1350-1362.
[22]	杨颖,郭志英,潘恺,等.基于生态系统多功能性的农田土壤健康评价 [J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(2): 461-475.
	Yang Y, Guo ZY, Pan K, et al. Farmland soil health assessment based on ecosystem multi-functionality [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2022, 59(2): 461-475.
[23]	东秀珠, 蔡妙英. 常见细菌系统鉴定手册 [M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001.
	Dong XZ, Cai MY. Handbook of identification of common bacterial systems [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2001.
[24]	Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. Soil microbiomes and climate change [J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2020, 18(1): 35-46.
[25]	马慧媛, 黄媛媛, 刘胜尧, 等. 微生物菌剂施用对设施茄子根际土壤养分和细菌群落多样性的影响 [J]. 微生物学通报,2020, 47(1): 140-150.
	Ma HY, Huang YY, Liu SY, et al. Effects of microbial agents on nutrient and bacterial community diversity in rhizosphere soil of eggplant cultivated in facilities [J]. Microbiol China, 2020, 47(1): 140-150.
[26]	黄文茂, 韩丽珍, 王欢, 等. 两株芽胞杆菌对花生幼苗生长及其根际土壤微生物群落结构的影响 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(11): 3551-3563.
	Huang WM, Han LZ, Wang H, et al. Effects of two Bacillus spp. strains on the growth of peanut seedling and microbial community structure in rhizosphere soil [J]. Microbiol China, 2020, 47(11): 3551-3563.
[27]	Keshri J, Mody K, Jha B. Bacterial community structure in a semi-arid haloalkaline soil using culture independent method [J]. Geomicrobiol J, 2013, 30(6): 517-529.
[28]	张继东, 张亚雄, 程伟, 等. 生物质炭和有机肥配施对苹果重茬育苗地土壤理化性质和微生物群落特征的影响 [J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(8): 213-222.
	Zhang JD, Zhang YX, Cheng W, et al. Effects of combined application of biochar and organic fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties and microbial community characteristics in apple recropping field [J]. J Agric Sci Technol, 2024, 26(8): 213-222.
[29]	Hannula SE, Boschker HTS, de Boer W, et al. ¹³C pulse-labeling assessment of the community structure of active fungi in the rhizosphere of a genetically starch-modified potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivar and its parental isoline [J]. New Phytol, 2012, 194(3): 784-799.
[30]	Guseva K, Darcy S, Simon E, et al. From diversity to complexity: Microbial networks in soils [J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2022, 169: 108604.
[31]	Zhang JH. Soil microbial richness predicts ecosystem multifunctionality through co-occurrence network complexity in alpine meadow [J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2022, 42(7): stxb202108162255.
[32]	Liu HW, Zhang XK, Zhang GZ, et al. Partial organic substitution weakens the negative effect of chemical fertilizer on soil micro-food webs [J]. J Integr Agric, 2022, 21(10): 3037-3050.
[33]	雷进田, 刘俊杰, 刘株秀, 等. 保护性耕作增强了真菌群落生态网络稳定性 [J]. 微生物学报, 2023, 63(7): 2835-2847.
	Lei JT, Liu JJ, Liu ZX, et al. Conservation tillage enhanced the stability of fungal community network [J]. Acta Microbiol Sin, 2023, 63(7): 2835-2847.
[34]	Berry D, Widder S. Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks [J]. Front Microbiol, 2014, 5: 219.
[35]	孔丽丽, 尹彩侠, 侯云鹏, 等. 松嫩平原水稻高产高效氮肥运筹模式研究 [J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(8): 1435-1448.
	Kong LL, Yin CX, Hou YP, et al. Nitrogen fertilizer management for high yield and high efficiency of rice in the Songnen plain [J]. Plant Nutr Fert Sci, 2023, 29(8): 1435-1448.
[36]	Li XG, Chen DL, Carrión VJ, et al. Author Correction: Acidification suppresses the natural capacity of soil microbiome to fight pathogenic Fusarium infections. [J]. Nat Commun, 2023, 14: 6188.
[37]	Gao C, Xu L, Montoya L, et al. Co-occurrence networks reveal more complexity than community composition in resistance and resilience of microbial communities [J]. Nat Commun, 2022, 13: 3867.
[38]	刘继培, 汪洪, 李书因, 等. 草浆造纸木质素对土壤性质和小白菜生长的影响 [J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(10): 2018-2023.
	Liu JP, Wang H, Li ST, et al. Soil properties and cabbage growth as influenced by application of lignins derived from straw pulping [J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2011, 30(10): 2018-2023.

指标 Index	CK	CK1	T1	T2
pH	7.66±0.00a	7.40±0.10a	7.65±0.01a	7.65±0.01a
有机质 Organic matter （g/kg）	35.50±0.23b	34.92±0.14c	35.68±0.30b	36.63±0.20a
全氮 Total nitrogen （g/kg）	1.60±0.00b	1.62±0.00a	1.59±0.02b	1.55±0.00c
全磷 Total phosphorus （g/kg）	1.65±0.00b	1.67±0.00a	1.67±0.00a	1.62±0.00b
全钾 Total potassium （g/kg）	10.79±0.05a	10.75±0.05a	10.66±0.11ab	10.55±0.07b
水解性氮 Hydrolyzed nitrogen （mg/kg）	113.12±0.00a	107.83±0.57c	107.11±0.92c	107.16±0.00c
有效磷 Available phosphorus （mg/kg）	68.36±0.92a	66.47±0.87a	66.39±0.65a	63.07±0.39b
速效钾 Fast-acting potassium （mg/kg）	159.11±2.12b	146.19±3.80c	163.23±1.40b	179.30±1.20a
电导率 Electrical conductivity （μS/cm）	197.17±0.15a	175.40±0.53c	188.40±0.36b	172.00±0.20 d
交换性钙 Exchangeable calcium （mg/kg）	3 178.21±14.29b	3 234.98±2.60a	3 192.41±17.14ab	3 101.58±22.49c
交换性镁 Exchangeable magnesium （mg/kg）	445.73±3.80bc	461.26±9.93a	454.64±3.35ab	453.03±4.98ab
有效铜 Effective copper （mg/kg）	5.03±0.11a	4.89±0.15ab	4.57±0.14ab	4.73±0.35b
有效锌 Effective zinc （mg/kg）	3.91±0.08b	3.65±0.09c	3.82±0.05b	4.08±0.04a
有效铁 Effective iron （mg/kg）	27.55±1.54a	27.36±0.06b	27.51±0.49c	27.74±1.20b
有效锰 Available manganese （mg/kg）	23.85±0.45a	22.55±0.91a	22.53±0.39a	23.90±0.93a
有效硼 Available boron （mg/kg）	1.36±0.00c	1.52±0.00b	1.59±0.00a	1.35±0.01c
容重 Bulk density （g/cm³）	0.96±0.02ab	0.92±0.06bc	0.81±0.06 d	0.86±0.41cd
孔隙度 Porosity （%）	69.96±0.40a	65.05±0.15c	66.78±0.56b	63.86±0.34 d

指标 Index	CK	CK1	T1	T2
pH	7.66±0.00a	7.40±0.10a	7.65±0.01a	7.65±0.01a
有机质 Organic matter （g/kg）	35.50±0.23b	34.92±0.14c	35.68±0.30b	36.63±0.20a
全氮 Total nitrogen （g/kg）	1.60±0.00b	1.62±0.00a	1.59±0.02b	1.55±0.00c
全磷 Total phosphorus （g/kg）	1.65±0.00b	1.67±0.00a	1.67±0.00a	1.62±0.00b
全钾 Total potassium （g/kg）	10.79±0.05a	10.75±0.05a	10.66±0.11ab	10.55±0.07b
水解性氮 Hydrolyzed nitrogen （mg/kg）	113.12±0.00a	107.83±0.57c	107.11±0.92c	107.16±0.00c
有效磷 Available phosphorus （mg/kg）	68.36±0.92a	66.47±0.87a	66.39±0.65a	63.07±0.39b
速效钾 Fast-acting potassium （mg/kg）	159.11±2.12b	146.19±3.80c	163.23±1.40b	179.30±1.20a
电导率 Electrical conductivity （μS/cm）	197.17±0.15a	175.40±0.53c	188.40±0.36b	172.00±0.20 d
交换性钙 Exchangeable calcium （mg/kg）	3 178.21±14.29b	3 234.98±2.60a	3 192.41±17.14ab	3 101.58±22.49c
交换性镁 Exchangeable magnesium （mg/kg）	445.73±3.80bc	461.26±9.93a	454.64±3.35ab	453.03±4.98ab
有效铜 Effective copper （mg/kg）	5.03±0.11a	4.89±0.15ab	4.57±0.14ab	4.73±0.35b
有效锌 Effective zinc （mg/kg）	3.91±0.08b	3.65±0.09c	3.82±0.05b	4.08±0.04a
有效铁 Effective iron （mg/kg）	27.55±1.54a	27.36±0.06b	27.51±0.49c	27.74±1.20b
有效锰 Available manganese （mg/kg）	23.85±0.45a	22.55±0.91a	22.53±0.39a	23.90±0.93a
有效硼 Available boron （mg/kg）	1.36±0.00c	1.52±0.00b	1.59±0.00a	1.35±0.01c
容重 Bulk density （g/cm³）	0.96±0.02ab	0.92±0.06bc	0.81±0.06 d	0.86±0.41cd
孔隙度 Porosity （%）	69.96±0.40a	65.05±0.15c	66.78±0.56b	63.86±0.34 d

处理 Treatment	株高Plant height （cm）	茎粗Stem thick （mm）	根长Root length （cm）	根重Root weight （g）	病情指数Disease index	防效Control effect （%）
CK	26.20±3.30b	4.03±0.37b	7.86±0.09b	1.23±0.06a	47.50±0.24a	-
CK1	24.60±2.95b	3.97±0.40bc	5.56±0.64c	0.98±0.04c	31.62±0.19b	-
T1	26.13±3.38b	4.17±0.37b	7.92±0.31b	1.04±0.07bc	25.52±0.48c	46.27
T2	30.37±3.00a	4.47±0.44a	8.76±0.20a	1.26±0.09a	20.17±0.19 d	57.54

处理 Treatment	株高Plant height （cm）	茎粗Stem thick （mm）	根长Root length （cm）	根重Root weight （g）	病情指数Disease index	防效Control effect （%）
CK	26.20±3.30b	4.03±0.37b	7.86±0.09b	1.23±0.06a	47.50±0.24a	-
CK1	24.60±2.95b	3.97±0.40bc	5.56±0.64c	0.98±0.04c	31.62±0.19b	-
T1	26.13±3.38b	4.17±0.37b	7.92±0.31b	1.04±0.07bc	25.52±0.48c	46.27
T2	30.37±3.00a	4.47±0.44a	8.76±0.20a	1.26±0.09a	20.17±0.19 d	57.54

处理 Treatment	细菌多样性 Bacterial diversity				真菌多样性 Fungal diversity
处理 Treatment	Ace	Chao 1	Shannon	Simpson 1-D	Ace	Chao 1	Shannon	Simpson 1-D
CK	3 371.60±79.05a	2 969.31±25.94a	6.28±0.36a	0.004 1±0.00a	450.75±21.33a	446.46±11.58a	3.21±0.14a	0.14±0.00a
CK1	3 319.25±86.47a	3 143.62±28.47a	6.36±0.23a	0.003 4±0.00a	421.21±18.96a	425.78±45.36a	3.58±0.27a	0.08±0.00a
T1	3 276.56±32.46a	3 223.40±32.68a	6.41±0.05a	0.004 9±0.00a	385.00±36.69b	385.82±24.56b	3.25±0.34a	0.07±0.00a
T2	3 778.66±26.97b	3 298.09±90.45a	6.60±0.10a	0.007 0±0.00a	370.37±14.89b	372.70±17.89b	3.01±0.11a	0.05±0.00a