Beyond the snapshot: identification of the timeless, enduring indicator microbiome informing soil fertility and crop production in alkaline soils.
Archived soils
Fertilization
Soil fertility
Soil microorganisms
Sustainable agroecosystem
Journal
Environmental microbiome
ISSN: 2524-6372
Titre abrégé: Environ Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101768168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 May 2022
12 May 2022
Historique:
received:
05
01
2022
accepted:
30
04
2022
entrez:
13
5
2022
pubmed:
14
5
2022
medline:
14
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Microorganisms are known to be important drivers of biogeochemical cycling in soil and hence could act as a proxy informing on soil conditions in ecosystems. Identifying microbiomes indicative for soil fertility and crop production is important for the development of the next generation of sustainable agriculture. Earlier researches based on one-time sampling have revealed various indicator microbiomes for distinct agroecosystems and agricultural practices as well as their importance in supporting sustainable productivity. However, these microbiomes were based on a mere snapshot of a dynamic microbial community which is subject to significant changes over time. Currently true indicator microbiomes based on long-term, multi-annual monitoring are not available. Here, using samples from a continuous 20-year field study encompassing seven fertilization strategies, we identified the indicator microbiomes ecophysiologically informing on soil fertility and crop production in the main agricultural production base in China. Among a total of 29,184 phylotypes in 588 samples, we retrieved a streamlined consortium including 2% of phylotypes that were ubiquitously present in alkaline soils while contributing up to half of the whole community; many of them were associated with carbon and nutrient cycling. Furthermore, these phylotypes formed two opposite microbiomes. One indicator microbiome dominated by Bacillus asahii, characterized by specific functional traits related to organic matter decomposition, was mainly observed in organic farming and closely associated with higher soil fertility and crop production. The counter microbiome, characterized by known nitrifiers (e.g., Nitrosospira multiformis) as well as plant pathogens (e.g., Bacillus anthracis) was observed in nutrient-deficit chemical fertilizations. Both microbiomes are expected to be valuable indictors in informing crop yield and soil fertility, regulated by agricultural management. Our findings based on this more than 2-decade long field study demonstrate the exciting potential of employing microorganisms and maximizing their functions in future agroecosystems. Our results report a "most-wanted" or "most-unwanted" list of microbial phylotypes that are ready candidates to guide the development of sustainable agriculture in alkaline soils.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Microorganisms are known to be important drivers of biogeochemical cycling in soil and hence could act as a proxy informing on soil conditions in ecosystems. Identifying microbiomes indicative for soil fertility and crop production is important for the development of the next generation of sustainable agriculture. Earlier researches based on one-time sampling have revealed various indicator microbiomes for distinct agroecosystems and agricultural practices as well as their importance in supporting sustainable productivity. However, these microbiomes were based on a mere snapshot of a dynamic microbial community which is subject to significant changes over time. Currently true indicator microbiomes based on long-term, multi-annual monitoring are not available.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Here, using samples from a continuous 20-year field study encompassing seven fertilization strategies, we identified the indicator microbiomes ecophysiologically informing on soil fertility and crop production in the main agricultural production base in China. Among a total of 29,184 phylotypes in 588 samples, we retrieved a streamlined consortium including 2% of phylotypes that were ubiquitously present in alkaline soils while contributing up to half of the whole community; many of them were associated with carbon and nutrient cycling. Furthermore, these phylotypes formed two opposite microbiomes. One indicator microbiome dominated by Bacillus asahii, characterized by specific functional traits related to organic matter decomposition, was mainly observed in organic farming and closely associated with higher soil fertility and crop production. The counter microbiome, characterized by known nitrifiers (e.g., Nitrosospira multiformis) as well as plant pathogens (e.g., Bacillus anthracis) was observed in nutrient-deficit chemical fertilizations. Both microbiomes are expected to be valuable indictors in informing crop yield and soil fertility, regulated by agricultural management.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings based on this more than 2-decade long field study demonstrate the exciting potential of employing microorganisms and maximizing their functions in future agroecosystems. Our results report a "most-wanted" or "most-unwanted" list of microbial phylotypes that are ready candidates to guide the development of sustainable agriculture in alkaline soils.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35549771
doi: 10.1186/s40793-022-00420-6
pii: 10.1186/s40793-022-00420-6
pmc: PMC9101894
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
25Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 41771294
Organisme : national key research and development program
ID : 2019YFC1520700
Organisme : Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
ID : 2014271
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Res Microbiol. 2009 Mar;160(2):89-98
pubmed: 19111612
J Invertebr Pathol. 2012 Jan;109(1):1-10
pubmed: 22137877
Glob Chang Biol. 2018 Aug;24(8):3452-3461
pubmed: 29645398
Science. 2020 Feb 14;367(6479):787-790
pubmed: 32054762
mBio. 2015 May 12;6(3):e00326-15
pubmed: 25968645
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018 Aug;44:20-27
pubmed: 30007202
Nature. 2016 Dec 22;540(7634):567-569
pubmed: 27871089
Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Feb;4(2):210-220
pubmed: 32015427
Science. 2008 May 23;320(5879):1034-9
pubmed: 18497287
Nat Biotechnol. 2001 May;19(5):466-9
pubmed: 11329018
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020 Nov;18(11):601-602
pubmed: 33037425
ISME J. 2012 Feb;6(2):343-51
pubmed: 21900968
mSystems. 2019 Mar 26;4(2):
pubmed: 30944882
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Dec;64(12):4870-6
pubmed: 9835576
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 11;15(8):e0237368
pubmed: 32780777
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Jul 20;22(4):
pubmed: 33264391
ISME J. 2013 Aug;7(8):1641-50
pubmed: 23552625
Adv Appl Microbiol. 2010;73:1-25
pubmed: 20800757
Nat Plants. 2018 May;4(5):247-257
pubmed: 29725101
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Feb 04;12:573634
pubmed: 33613595
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 17;103(3):626-31
pubmed: 16407148
Microbiome. 2019 Oct 31;7(1):143
pubmed: 31672173
Microbiome. 2019 Nov 7;7(1):146
pubmed: 31699148
Microbiome. 2020 Jun 2;8(1):79
pubmed: 32487269
Nat Methods. 2013 Oct;10(10):996-8
pubmed: 23955772
ISME J. 2021 Feb;15(2):550-561
pubmed: 33028975
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014 Feb;64(Pt 2):346-351
pubmed: 24505072
Front Microbiol. 2017 Nov 15;8:2224
pubmed: 29187837
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(16):5261-7
pubmed: 17586664
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 2;111(35):12799-804
pubmed: 25136087
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Dec 13;108(50):20260-4
pubmed: 22106295
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 May 07;11(5):e1004226
pubmed: 25950956
Environ Microbiol. 2012 Jan;14(1):4-12
pubmed: 22004523
Nat Commun. 2019 May 30;10(1):2369
pubmed: 31147554
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jul 2;47(W1):W256-W259
pubmed: 30931475
Science. 2018 Jan 19;359(6373):320-325
pubmed: 29348236
Front Microbiol. 2020 May 15;11:873
pubmed: 32499764
ISME J. 2015 May;9(5):1177-94
pubmed: 25350160
ISME J. 2011 Mar;5(3):389-402
pubmed: 20882059
Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 28;7:10541
pubmed: 26817514
Science. 2021 Jan 15;371(6526):239-241
pubmed: 33446546
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:909016
pubmed: 25861650
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 10;115(28):7368-7373
pubmed: 29941552
Environ Microbiol. 2015 Aug;17(8):2677-89
pubmed: 25040229
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018 Sep;16(9):567-576
pubmed: 29789680