Structure and diversity of microbial community in rhizosphere soil of tobacco root rot caused by Fusarium

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230902

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effects of root rot caused by Fusarium on the microbial community structure and diversity of tobacco rhizosphere soil, and to explore the relationship between root rot caused by Fusarium and the occurrence of tobacco diseases, so as to provide theoretical basis for the prevention and control of tobacco diseases, Illumina MiSeq high-throughput sequencing technology was used to compare the rhizosphere soil microbial community structure and diversity between healthy and diseased tobacco plants. The species richness and population diversity of rhizosphere soil fungi were changed by Fusarium root rot. Simpson, ACE and Chaol indexes of rhizosphere soil fungi of diseased tobacco plants were lower than those of healthy tobacco plants. There were significant differences in the dominant species of rhizosphere soil microbial populations between diseased and healthy plants. Compared with the healthy plants, at the phylum level, the relative abundance of Chloroflexi, Planctomycetota and Gemmatimonadota decreased, while the relative abundance of Proteobacteria increased.At the genus level, the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria Streptomyces, Solirubrobacter and Gaiella decreased. The change of fungal community structure and the decrease of species diversity in the rhizosphere soil of tobacco plants are important characteristics of root rot of tobacco caused by Fusarium, and provide a theoretical basis for the early prevention of the disease.

Key words: tobacco, root rot caused by Fusarium, rhizosphere microorganisms, high-throughput sequencing

CLC Number:

S572

HE Xiaobing, HUANG Kunpeng, LI Junying, BU Yating, ZHAO Lang, WANG Mingxin, ZHANG Fusheng, YIN Guangyu, YANG Nan, XU Yueqi. Structure and diversity of microbial community in rhizosphere soil of tobacco root rot caused by Fusarium[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(2): 411-420.

Figures/Tables 9

References 45

[1]	ANDERSON M G, FORTNUM B A, MARTIN S B. First report of Pythium myriotylum in a tobacco seedling float system in south Carolina[J]. Plant Disease, 1997, 81(2): 227.
[2]	苗圃. 河南省烟草真菌性根茎病害鉴定及黑胫病菌生理小种鉴定[D]. 洛阳: 河南科技大学, 2013.
[3]	邱睿, 李芳芳, 徐敏, 等. 烟草品种对镰刀菌根腐病的抗性鉴定[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(4): 59-63.
[4]	赵杰, 王静, 李乃会, 等. 烟草镰刀菌根腐病病菌致病粗毒素的研究[J]. 植物保护, 2013, 39(3): 61-66.
[5]	AVIS T J, GRAVEL V, ANTOUN H, et al. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008, 40(7): 1733-1740.
[6]	VAN VUURDE J W L, SCHIPPERS B. Effect of foliar application of urea on rhizosphere and rhizoplane microflora of Wheat1)[J]. EPPO Bulletin, 1975, 5(4): 395-405.
[7]	杨阳, 刘秉儒. 荒漠草原不同植物根际与非根际土壤养分及微生物量分布特征[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(22): 7562-7570.
[8]	陆松柳, 张辰, 徐俊伟. 植物根系分泌物分析及对湿地微生物群落的影响研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2011, 20(4): 676-680.
[9]	BÜRGMANN H, MEIER S, BUNGE M, et al. Effects of model root exudates on structure and activity of a soil diazotroph community[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2005, 7(11): 1711-1724.
[10]	刘纯, 黄红娟, 张朝贤, 等. 假高粱根系分泌物对土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2013, 22(7): 1124-1128.
[11]	吴俐莎, 唐杰, 罗强, 等. 若尔盖湿地土壤酶活性和理化性质与微生物关系的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2012, 43(1): 52-59.
[12]	蒋翔鹤, 丁文斌, 任孙燕, 等. 紫色丘陵区桑树林地土壤理化性质及其抗蚀性研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014, 42(15): 4636-4639.
[13]	吕德国, 于翠, 杜国栋, 等. 樱桃属(Cerasus)植物根围微生物多样性[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(8): 3882-3890.
[14]	贾洪柏. 石油污染土壤的微生物修复及对相关土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2013.
[15]	刘松涛, 田春丽, 曹雯梅, 等. 基于不同土壤质地棉花根际微生物和酶活性特征分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(2): 73-79.
[16]	李朋发, 杨龙, 李桂龙, 等. 基于FUNGuild的镰刀菌根腐病发病烟株根际真菌群落研究[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(2): 63-68.
[17]	郑元仙, 杨敏, 王继明, 等. 烤烟根腐病对烟株根际土壤真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2021, 42(2): 50-55.
[18]	EPELDE L, BECERRIL J M, HERNÁNDEZ-ALLICA J, et al. Functional diversity as indicator of the recovery of soil health derived from Thlaspi caerulescens growth and metal phytoextraction[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2008, 39(3): 299-310.
[19]	DELORME T A, GAGLIARDI J V, ANGLE J S, et al. Influence of the zinc hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens J. & C. Presl. and the nonmetal accumulator Trifolium pratense L. on soil microbial populations[J]. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2001, 47(8): 773-776.
[20]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[21]	TOMBESI F, CAPPI M, REEVES J, et al. Evidence for ultrafast outflows in radio-quiet AGNs—Ⅲ. Location and energetics[J]. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 2012, 422: 1.
[22]	MAGOČ T, SALZBERG S L. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies[J]. Bioinformatics, 2011, 27(21): 2957-2963.
[23]	EDGAR R C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads[J]. Nature Methods, 2013, 10(10): 996-998.
[24]	STACKEBRANDT E, GOEBEL B M. Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 1994, 44(4): 846-849.
[25]	WANG Q, GARRITY G M, TIEDJE J M, et al. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2007, 73(16): 5261-5267.
[26]	敖金成, 周桂夙, 李永梅. 连作烟田健株与根腐病感病烟株根际土壤微生物多样性研究[J]. 河南农业科学, 2022, 51(2): 86-96.
[27]	方宇, 蔡永占, 韩小女, 等. 黑胫病对不同品种烟草根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(3): 118-125.
[28]	KANOKRATANA P, UENGWETWANIT T, RATTANACHOMSRI U, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and metabolic potential of a primary tropical peat swamp forest microbial community by metagenomic analysis[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2011, 61(3): 518-528.
[29]	孙建平, 刘雅辉, 左永梅, 等. 盐地碱蓬根际土壤细菌群落结构及其功能[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(10): 1618-1629.
[30]	PANKRATOV T A, IVANOVA A O, DEDYSH S N, et al. Bacterial populations and environmental factors controlling cellulose degradation in an acidic Sphagnum peat[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2011, 13(7): 1800-1814.
[31]	黄昆鹏, 董昆乐, 李芳芳, 等. 烟草抗病嫁接对根际土壤微生物多样性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(20): 239-247.
[32]	WAGG C, DUDENHÖFFER J H, WIDMER F, et al. Linking diversity, synchrony and stability in soil microbial communities[J]. Functional Ecology, 2018, 32(5): 1280-1292.
[33]	安凤秋. 外源重金属铅和镉对土壤生物活性及微生物群落多样性的影响研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2018.
[34]	周宁宁, 张荣萍, 马鹏, 等. 水稻青立病对植株与土壤重金属含量及细菌多样性的影响[J]. 农技服务, 2023, 40(12): 45-49.
[35]	朱琳, 曾椿淋, 李雨青, 等. 基于高通量测序的大豆连作土壤细菌群落多样性分析[J]. 大豆科学, 2017, 36(3): 419-424.
[36]	KALAM S, BASU A, AHMAD I, et al. Recent understanding of soil acidobacteria and their ecological significance: a critical review[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11: 580024.
[37]	王兴松, 李恩星, 杨诗瀚, 等. 根结线虫病对烟草植株根际土壤微生物群落及其功能的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2024, 40(6): 993-1003.
[38]	王幼珊, 刘润进. 球囊菌门丛枝菌根真菌最新分类系统菌种名录[J]. 菌物学报, 2017, 36(7): 820-850.
[39]	SHU B, LI W C, LIU L Q, et al. Transcriptomes of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and litchi host interaction after tree girdling[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016, 7: 408.
[40]	宋瑞清, 邓勋, 宋小双. 菌根辅助细菌与外生菌根菌互作机制研究进展[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2016, 38(4): 379-384.
[41]	苏兰茜. 土壤熏蒸及施用生防菌对香蕉根结线虫及土壤线虫群落的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2017.
[42]	苏仪梅. 根系分泌物影响促生长细菌对甘蔗生长的效应[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2023.
[43]	于文清, 肖俊杰, 刘文志, 等. 类芽孢杆菌(Paenibacillus)对植物促生御病机理研究进展[J]. 微生物学杂志, 2020, 40(6): 102-112.
[44]	孙伟明, 时晨, 张梦涛, 等. 花生侵脉新赤壳菌果腐病生防芽孢杆菌的分离鉴定及防病效果[J]. 微生物学报, 2018, 58(9): 1573-1581.
[45]	陈梦, 刘秋梅, 李德军, 等. 辣椒连作障碍土壤中的真菌群落结构特征[J]. 辣椒杂志, 2024, 22(1): 9-15.

分类	处理	Shannon指数	辛普森指数	ACE指数	Chao1指数	覆盖度指数/%
细菌	T1	6.98 a	0.002 a	5 273.226 b	5 220.453 a	96.5
	CK1	6.96 a	0.002 a	5 143.444 b	5 089.587 b	96.6
	T2	7.02 a	0.002 a	5 367.988 b	5 304.734 a	96.5
	CK2	6.99 a	0.002 a	5 600.059 a	5 397.595 a	96.4
真菌	T1	4.74 a	0.021 b	891.321 b	898.463 b	99.6
	CK1	4.63 a	0.030 a	1 023.278 a	1 016.416 a	99.7
	T2	4.70 a	0.022 b	862.879 b	870.325 b	99.7
	CK2	4.60 a	0.026 a	892.855 b	888.187 b	99.5

分类	处理	Shannon指数	辛普森指数	ACE指数	Chao1指数	覆盖度指数/%
细菌	T1	6.98 a	0.002 a	5 273.226 b	5 220.453 a	96.5
	CK1	6.96 a	0.002 a	5 143.444 b	5 089.587 b	96.6
	T2	7.02 a	0.002 a	5 367.988 b	5 304.734 a	96.5
	CK2	6.99 a	0.002 a	5 600.059 a	5 397.595 a	96.4
真菌	T1	4.74 a	0.021 b	891.321 b	898.463 b	99.6
	CK1	4.63 a	0.030 a	1 023.278 a	1 016.416 a	99.7
	T2	4.70 a	0.022 b	862.879 b	870.325 b	99.7
	CK2	4.60 a	0.026 a	892.855 b	888.187 b	99.5

处理	pH值	有机质含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1)
T1	8.17±0.07 b	1.48±0.02 b	74.12±0.05 a	7.87±0.14 a	28.85±0.15 c
CK1	7.81±0.06 b	1.63±0.05 a	60.35±0.15 b	7.78±0.14 a	31.80±1.45 b
T2	8.49±0.07 a	1.28±0.02 b	67.13±5.27 a	6.63±0.07 b	35.11±1.40 a
CK2	8.09±0.08 b	1.08±0.01 c	59.59±0.15 b	4.66±0.15 c	30.93±0.15 b

处理	pH值	有机质含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	碱解氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1)
T1	8.17±0.07 b	1.48±0.02 b	74.12±0.05 a	7.87±0.14 a	28.85±0.15 c
CK1	7.81±0.06 b	1.63±0.05 a	60.35±0.15 b	7.78±0.14 a	31.80±1.45 b
T2	8.49±0.07 a	1.28±0.02 b	67.13±5.27 a	6.63±0.07 b	35.11±1.40 a
CK2	8.09±0.08 b	1.08±0.01 c	59.59±0.15 b	4.66±0.15 c	30.93±0.15 b