周年生长特性（大小年）下毛竹根际细菌和内生细菌群落结构及其多样性特征

袁宗胜; 刘芳; 章进峰; 陈洪华; 郭建芳; 曾志浩; 王思凡; 王英姿; 潘辉

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2023.02.012

周年生长特性（大小年）下毛竹根际细菌和内生细菌群落结构及其多样性特征

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2023.02.012

1.
闽江学院地理与海洋学院，福建　福州　350108
2.
福建农林大学生命科学学院，福建　福州　350002
3.
福建省永安国有林场，福建　三明　366099
4.
福建农林大学未来技术学院，福建　福州　350002
5.
福州市林业局自然保护地中心，福建　福州　350005

基金项目: 福建省林业科技项目（2021FKJ07）

详细信息

作者简介:
袁宗胜（1976−），男，博士，副教授，研究方向：森林资源培育、微生物等（E-mail：yuanzs369@163.com）

通讯作者:
潘辉（1968−），男，博士，教授，研究方向：环境资源管理、生态保育及生态旅游开发（E-mail：fjpanhui@126.com）

中图分类号: Q938
计量
- 文章访问数: 300
- HTML全文浏览量: 84
- PDF下载量: 18
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-10-09
- 修回日期: 2022-12-21
- 刊出日期: 2023-02-28

The Community Structure and Diversity Characteristics of Rhizosphere Bacteria and Endophytic Bacteria in Phyllostachys edulis under Annual Growth Characteristics (On and Off Years)

1.
College of Geography and Oceanography, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, Fujian　350108, China
2.
College of Life Sciences, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, Fujian　350002,China
3.
Yong'an State-owned Forest Farm, Sanming, Fujian　366099, China
4.
College of Future Technology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, Fujian　350002, China
5.
Nature Reserve Center of Fuzhou Forestry Bureau, Fuzhou, Fujian　350005, China

摘要

摘要: 目的研究大小年毛竹林毛竹根际细菌和内生细菌群落多样性及其结构差异。方法采集I度、II度和IV度的大年和小年毛竹林中毛竹的竹鞭、鞭根、根际土壤和林间土壤，提取样本基因组DNA，利用Illumina高通量测序技术分析毛竹根际细菌和内生细菌群落结构多样性。结果各组样本总共鉴定出31个门、49个纲、108个目、212个科、472个属细菌。从优势菌群及丰度来看，大年竹鞭和鞭根的优势菌纲为α-变形菌纲，优势菌目为根瘤菌目；小年竹鞭和鞭根的优势菌纲为γ-变形菌纲，优势菌目为芽孢杆菌目。在门水平上，大年竹鞭样本放线菌门的丰度高于小年竹鞭样本，大年毛竹鞭根酸杆菌门和变形菌门的丰度大于小年毛竹鞭根样本，厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门的丰富度小于小年毛竹鞭根样本。在纲和目水平上，大年竹鞭和鞭根样本与小年样本相比较，主要优势菌群为弗兰克氏菌目和α-变形菌纲下属的根瘤菌目。在科水平上，大年毛竹鞭根样本在黄杆菌科的丰度都大于小年样本。在属水平上，大年毛竹鞭根样本在慢生根瘤菌属的丰度大于小年毛竹鞭根样本，而大年毛竹竹鞭和鞭根样本细菌在伯克氏菌科的丰度都低于小年毛竹竹鞭和鞭根样本。从多样性来看，大小年毛竹根际土壤在各水平的细菌群落组成上差异不大，但根际细菌的多样性和丰度高于林间土壤。结论毛竹的竹龄及大小年更替对根际细菌群落多样性的影响不大，根际细菌群落具有更高的多样性。大小年毛竹竹鞭和鞭根内生细菌在主要类群上有明显的不同。
- 毛竹林 /
- 大小年 /
- 细菌群落结构 /
- 多样性
Abstract: Objective To study the diversity and structural differences of rhizosphere bacteria and endophytic bacterial communities in Phyllostachys edulis forests during on and off years. Methods Samples of rhizomes and rhizomes roots as well as rhizosphere soils of degree I, degree II and degree IV P. edulis and non-rhizosphere soils were collected in the on and off years. Genomic DNA was extracted from samples, and Illumina high-throughput sequencing technology was used to analyze the diversity of rhizosphere bacteria and endophytic bacterial communities in P. edulis. Results A total of 31 phyla, 49 classes, 108 orders, 212 families, and 472 genera were identified. The dominant phyla in the on-year P. edulis rhizomes and rhizomes roots were α-Amastigotes, and the dominant order Rhizobia. In the off-year specimens, the dominant phylum was γ-Amastigotes, and the dominant order Bacillariophyceae. At phylum level, the abundance of Actinobacteria was higher in the on-year than in off-year rhizomes; and those of Acidobacteria and Methylobacteria were greater in the on-year than in the off-year rhizomes roots; and those of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were less in the on-year than in the off-year rhizomes roots. At class and order levels, the dominants included Frankiaceae and Rhizobia of α-Amastigotes in the on-year rhizomes and rhizomes roots as compared with the off-year samples. At the family level, the abundance of Flavobacteriaceae in the rhizomes root of the on-year was greater than that in the off-year samples. At the genus level, the abundance of Bradyrhizobium in the rhizomes root of on-year was greater than that in off-year. However, the abundance of Burkholderiaceae was lower of on-year than off-year. The rhizosphere soil at the forest in either on or off years did not differ significantly on bacterial diversity, but it was higher on the diversity and richness than the non-rhizosphere soil. Conclusion The rhizosphere bacterial community at a P. edulis forest appeared to be more diverse than the non-rhizosphere, although the diversity was not significantly altered between the years of on and off on the P. edulis growth. The dominant bacteria in the rhizomes and rhizomes roots of the plants differed significantly during the on and off years.
- Phyllostachys edulis forest /
- on and off year /
- bacterial community /
- diversity

HTML全文

图 1 相似度为97%水平下的稀释曲线

Figure 1. Dilution curve at 97% similarity level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 各样本细菌OTU数量与分布

a：竹鞭样本；b：鞭根样本； c：土壤样本。

Figure 2. Number and distribution of bacteria OTUs of samples

a: Comparison on rhizomes; b: Comparison on rhizome roots; c: Comparison on soils.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 样本细菌群落在门水平的相对丰度

Figure 3. Relative abundance of bacterial communities at phylum level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 样本细菌群落在纲水平的相对丰度

Figure 4. Relative abundance of bacterial communities at class level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 样本细菌群落在目水平的相对丰度

Figure 5. Relative abundance of bacterial communities at order level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 样本细菌群落在科水平的相对丰度

Figure 6. Relative abundance of bacterial communities at family level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 样本细菌群落在属水平的相对丰度

Figure 7. Relative abundance of bacterial communities at genus level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 各组样本细菌NMDS分析

Figure 8. NMDS analysis on samples

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 基于Weighted Unifrac距离的样本聚类结果

Figure 9. Clustering tree result of samples based on weighted UniFrac distances

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 样本编码规则

Table 1. Sample codes

毛竹类型P. edulis type	样本编码 Sample encoding
毛竹类型P. edulis type	竹鞭Rhizome	鞭根Rhizome root	根际土壤Rhizosphere soil	林间土壤Forest soil
大年毛竹IOn-year P. edulis I	ON.1.A5	ON.1.B5	ON.1.C5	ON.CK.C5
大年毛竹IIOn-year P. edulis II	ON.2.A5	ON.2.B5	ON.2.C5
大年毛竹IVOn-year P. edulis IV	ON.4.A5	ON.4.B5	ON.4.C5
小年毛竹IOff-year P. edulis I	OF.1.A5	OF.1.B5	OF.1.C5	OF.CK.C5
小年毛竹IIOff-year P. edulis II	OF.2.A5	OF.2.B5	OF.2.C5
小年毛竹IVOff-year P. edulis IV	OF.4.A5	OF.4.B5	OF.4.C5

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 各组样本的Alpha 多样性指数

Table 2. Alpha diversity index of samples

样本Sample	观测物种数/个Observed Species/piece	丰度指数ACE	香农指数Shannon	谱系多样性指数PD whole Tree	文库覆盖率Coverage/ %
ON.1.A5	364	487.039	5.814	72.574	99.8
OF.1.A5	1078	1121.452	7.854	395.731	99.8
ON.2.A5	1095	1222.288	7.202	176.932	99.6
OF.2.A5	381	533.381	5.436	76.422	99.7
ON.4.A5	707	792.52	7.308	112.857	99.8
OF.4.A5	507	606.924	6.04	66.159	99.8
ON.1.B5	1243	1312.372	7.763	99.038	99.7
OF.1.B5	327	443.358	5.564	38.95	99.8
ON.2.B5	1300	1399.941	7.863	113.514	99.7
OF.2.B5	1462	1635.752	7.565	145.073	99.5
ON.4.B5	1790	2110.068	7.489	158.795	99.1
OF.4.B5	1447	1561.34	7.769	334.921	99.6
ON.1.C5	1113	1277.2	5.884	94.135	99.5
OF.1.C5	1397	1626.968	5.974	155.08	99.3
ON.2.C5	1253	1460.243	5.924	194.704	99.4
OF.2.C5	1011	1129.53	5.889	115.281	99.6
ON.4.C5	1045	1227.566	5.473	95.286	99.5
OF.4.C5	1229	1409.537	5.54	109.603	99.5
ON.CK.C5	756	756	5.776	95.302	100
OF.CK.C5	769	877.076	5.082	67.327	99.7

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(31)

[1]	PENG Z H, LU Y, LI L B, et al. The draft genome of the fast-growing non-timber forest species moso bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla) [J]. Nature Genetics, 2013, 45(4): 456−461. doi: 10.1038/ng.2569
[2]	LONGWEI, LI N, LU D S, et al. Mapping Moso bamboo forest and its on-year and off-year distribution in a subtropical region using time-series Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 data [J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 231: 111265. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111265
[3]	ZHOU Y F, ZHOU G M, DU H Q, et al. Biotic and abiotic influences on monthly variation in carbon fluxes in on-year and off-year Moso bamboo forest [J]. Trees, 2019, 33(1): 153−169. doi: 10.1007/s00468-018-1765-1
[4]	SHELAKE R M, PRAMANIK D, KIM J Y. Exploration of plant-microbe interactions for sustainable agriculture in CRISPR era [J]. Microorganisms, 2019, 7(8): 269. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7080269
[5]	MÜLLER D B, VOGEL C, BAI Y, et al. The plant microbiota: Systems-level insights and perspectives [J]. Annual Review of Genetics, 2016, 50: 211−234. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-034952
[6]	MA B, WANG H Z, DSOUZA M, et al. Geographic patterns of co-occurrence network topological features for soil microbiota at continental scale in Eastern China [J]. The ISME Journal, 2016, 10(8): 1891−1901. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.261
[7]	KLOEPPER J W, LEONG J, TEINTZE M, et al . Enhanced plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth -promothing rhizobacteria [J]. Nature, 1980, 286 (5776): 885−886 . doi: 10.1038/286885a0
[8]	BULGARELLI D, SCHLAEPPI K, SPAEPEN S, et al . Sturcture and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plant [J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2013, 64 : 807−838. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106
[9]	吴良如,萧江华. 大小年毛竹林中内源激素节律变化特征的研究 [J]. 竹子研究汇刊,1998, 1998, 17(1):24−30. LIANGU W, JIANGHUA XIAO. Study on Dynamic Characteristics of Eudogenous Phytohormone in On-and-Off Year Bamboo (Phyllost achys Heterocycles Var. Pubescens) Grove [J]. Journal of Bamboo Research, 1998, 17(1): 24−30.(in Chinese)
[10]	EDGAR R C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads [J]. Nature Methods, 2013, 10(10): 996−998. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604
[11]	LIN X C, CHOW T Y, CHEN H H, et al. Understanding bamboo flowering based on large-scale analysis of expressed sequence tags [J]. Genetics and Molecular Research:GMR, 2010, 9(2): 1085−1093. doi: 10.4238/vol9-2gmr804
[12]	SCHLOSS P D, WESTCOTT S L, RYABIN T, et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities [J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009, 75(23): 7537−7541. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09
[13]	ISAGI Y, SHIMADA K, KUSHIMA H, et al. Clonal structure and flowering traits of a bamboo[Phyllostachys pubescens (Mazel) Ohwi]stand grown from a simultaneous flowering as revealed by AFLP analysis [J]. Molecular Ecology, 2004, 13(7): 2017−2021. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02197.x
[14]	BAIS H P, WEIR T L, PERRY L G, et al. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms [J]. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2006, 57: 233−266. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105159
[15]	REINHOLD-HUREK B, BÜNGER W, BURBANO C S, et al. Roots shaping their microbiome: Global hotspots for microbial activity [J]. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 2015, 53: 403−424. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102342
[16]	COLEMAN-DERR D, DESGARENNES D, FONSECA-GARCIA C, et al. Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species [J]. The New Phytologist, 2016, 209(2): 798−811. doi: 10.1111/nph.13697
[17]	XUAN D T, GUONG V T, ROSLING A, et al. Different crop rotation systems as drivers of change in soil bacterial community structure and yield of rice, Oryza sativa [J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2012, 48(2): 217−225. doi: 10.1007/s00374-011-0618-5
[18]	XIANGZHEN, LI,. Dynamics of the bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of a maize cultivar [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2014, 68: 392−401. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.017
[19]	SHI Y H, PAN Y S, XIANG L, et al. Assembly of rhizosphere microbial communities in Artemisia annua: Recruitment of plant growth-promoting microorganisms and inter-Kingdom interactions between bacteria and fungi [J]. Plant and Soil, 2022, 470(1): 127−139.
[20]	BERENDSEN R L, PIETERSE C M J, BAKKER P A H M. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health [J]. Trends in Plant Science, 2012, 17(8): 478−486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001
[21]	HENNING S M, YANG J P, SHAO P, et al. Health benefit of vegetable/fruit juice-based diet: Role of microbiome [J]. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 2167. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02200-6
[22]	PENG G X, ZHANG W, LUO H F, et al. Enterobacter oryzae sp. nov. , a nitrogen-fixing bacterium isolated from the wild rice species Oryza latifolia[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2009, 59(Pt 7): 1650-1655.
[23]	BOTHE H. Biology of the Nitrogen Cycle[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2007: 147-163.
[24]	OROZCO-MOSQUEDA M D C, ROCHA-GRANADOS M D C, GLICK B R, et al. Microbiome engineering to improve biocontrol and plant growth-promoting mechanisms [J]. Microbiological Research, 2018, 208: 25−31. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2018.01.005
[25]	STÉPHANE, COMPANT C, SESSITSCH A. Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: Their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2010, 42(5): 669−678. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.024
[26]	张爱梅, 殷一然, 孙坤. 沙棘属植物弗兰克氏菌研究进展 [J]. 微生物学通报, 2020, 47(11):3933−3944. doi: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.200427 ZHANG A M, YIN Y R, SUN K. Research progress in Frankia spp. associated with Hippophae L [J]. Microbiology China, 2020, 47(11): 3933−3944.(in Chinese) doi: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.200427
[27]	DIAGNE N, ARUMUGAM K, NGOM M, et al. Use of Frankia and actinorhizal plants for degraded lands reclamation [J]. BioMed Research International, 2013, 2013: 948258.
[28]	黄瑞林, 张娜, 孙波, 等. 典型农田根际土壤伯克霍尔德氏菌群落结构及其多样性 [J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(4):975−985. doi: 10.11766/trxb201901040008 HUANG R L, ZHANG N, SUN B, et al. Community structure of burkholderiales and its diversity in typical maize rhizosphere soil [J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2020, 57(4): 975−985.(in Chinese) doi: 10.11766/trxb201901040008
[29]	SIJAM K, DIKIN A. Biochemical and physiological characterization of Burkholderia cepacia as biological control agent [J]. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 2005, 7(3): 385−388.
[30]	HARDOIM P R, VAN OVERBEEK L S, ELSAS J D. Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth [J]. Trends in Microbiology, 2008, 16(10): 463−471. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2008.07.008
[31]	LEBEIS S L. The potential for give and take in plant-microbiome relationships [J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2014, 5: 287.