CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Response of soil microbial community to application of biochar in cotton soils with different continuous cropping years

Open access
Han, Guangming, Lan, Jiayang, Chen, Quanqiu, Yu, Cui, Bie, Shu·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-10427-6PMC PMC5578980
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The bacterial community in soils of cotton that have continuously been cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1) was investigated using next-generation sequencing. Of the 45 bacterial genera (relative abundance ratio of genera greater than 0.3%), 21 genera were affected (p < 0.05) by the biochar treatment, whereas 20 genera were affected by the continuous cropping. Between the soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years and 14 years, 12 different genera were significantly observed (p < 0.05), and 6 genera belonged to the phylum Acidobacteria. The relative abundance of Sphingomonas and Pseudomonas in the biochar-treated soils was significantly higher than that in the soil without biochar treatment (p < 0.05), and the relative abundance of Sphingomonas and Pseudomonas in soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years and 6 years was significantly higher than that in the soils continuously cropped for 11 years and 14 years (p < 0.05). The results suggest that the biochar application has a significant impact on the soil bacterial community, which may improve the microbial diversity of continuous cropping systems in cotton soils.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-10427-6

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The Chao1 index in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).
Figure 1 The Chao1 index in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The abundance of Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Nitrospira, Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes and Firmicutes in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).
Figure 2 The abundance of Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Nitrospira, Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes and Firmicutes in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The abundance of Sphingomonas, Pseudomonas and Nitrospira in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1). Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). Different letters above the bars denote statistical significance at p < 0.05, according to the LSD test.
Figure 3 The abundance of Sphingomonas, Pseudomonas and Nitrospira in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1). Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). Different letters above the bars denote statistical significance at p < 0.05, according to the LSD test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 PCoA of Bray-Curtis distances for the bacteria in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).
Figure 4 PCoA of Bray-Curtis distances for the bacteria in cotton soils that have been continuously cropped for 2 years, 6 years, 11 years and 14 years and treated with biochar (B0, 0 t·ha−1; B1, 12.5 t·ha−1; and B2, 20 t·ha−1).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Location of sampling sites at the cotton research station in Qianjiang City (drawn by AutoCAD2004 software, the version number is 16.0).
Figure 5 Location of sampling sites at the cotton research station in Qianjiang City (drawn by AutoCAD2004 software, the version number is 16.0).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. & Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems – a review. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11, 403–427 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ogawa, M., Okimori, Y. & Takahashi, F. Carbon sequestration by carbonisation of biomass and forestation: three case studies. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11, 429–444 (2006). · DOI
  3. Lehmann, J. Bioenergy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5, 381–387 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Zhou, Z. J. et al. Biodegradation of a biochar-modified waterborne polyacrylate membrane coating for controlled-release fertilizer and its effects on soil bacterial community profiles. Environ Sci Pollut R 22, 8672–8682 (2015). · DOI
  5. Graber, E. R. et al. Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil 337, 481–496 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Zackrisson, O., Nilsson, M. C. & Wardle, D. A. Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. Oikos 77, 10–19 (1996). · DOI
  7. Pietikäinen, J., Kiikkilä, O. & Fritze, H. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos 89, 231–242 (2000). · DOI
  8. Steinbeiss, S., Gleixner, G. & Antonietti, M. Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 41, 1301–1310 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Deenik, J. L., McClellan, T., Uehara, G., Antal, M. J. & Campbell, S. Charcoal volatile matter content influence plant growth and soil nitrogen transformations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74, 1259–1270 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dempster, D. N., Gleeson, D. B., Solaiman, Z. M., Jones, D. L. & Murphy, D. V. Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen mineralisation with Eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil. Plant Soil. doi:10.1007/s11104-011-1067-5 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Spokas, K. A., Baker, J. M. & Reicosky, D. C. Ethylene: potential key for biochar amendment impacts. Plant Soil 333, 443–452 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ussiri, D. A. N. & Lal, R. Carbon sequestration in reclaimed minesoils. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24, 151–165 (2005). · DOI
  13. Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010). · DOI
  14. Khodadad, C. L. M., Zimmerman, A. R., Green, S. J., Uthandi, S. & Foster, J. S. Taxa-specific changes in soil microbial community composition induced by pyrogenic carbon amendments. Soil Biol Biochem 43, 385–392 (2011). · DOI
  15. Su, P. et al. Taxon-specific responses of soil microbial communities to different soil priming effects induced by addition of plant residues and their biochars. J Soil Sediment 1–11, doi:10.1007/s11368-015-1238-8 (2015). · DOI
  16. Carson, J. K., Campbell, L., Rooney, D., Clipson, N. & Gleeson, D. B. Minerals in soil select distinct bacterial communities in their microhabitats. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 67, 381–388 (2009). · DOI
  17. Griffiths, R. I. et al. The bacterial biogeography of British soils. Environ Microbiol 13, 1642–1654 (2011). · DOI
  18. Shen, C. C. et al. Soil pH drives the spatial distribution of bacterial communities along elevation on Changbai Mountain. Soil Biol Biochem 57, 204–211 (2013). · DOI
  19. Chu, H. Y. et al. Soil bacterial diversity in the Arctic is not fundamentally different from that found in other biomes. Environ Microbiol 12, 2998–3006 (2010). · DOI
  20. Männistö, M. K., Tiirola, M. & Häggblom, M. M. Bacterial communities in Arctic fields of Finnish Lapland are stable but highly pH dependent. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 59, 452–465 (2007). · DOI
  21. Sun, D. Q. et al. Effect of volatile organic compounds absorbed to fresh biochar on survival of Bacillus mucilaginosus and structure of soil microbial communities. J Soil Sediment 15, 271–281 (2015). · DOI
  22. Gopalakrishnan, S., Srinivas, V., Prakash, B., Sathya, A. & Vijayabharathi, R. Plant growth-promoting traits of Pseudomonas geniculata isolated from chickpea nodules. Biotech 5, 653–661 (2015).
  23. Liu, H. et al. Characterization of a phenazine producing strain Pseudomonas chlororaphis GP72 with broad spectrum antifungal activity from green pepper rhizosphere. Curr Microbiol 54, 302–306 (2007). · DOI
  24. Yu, F. B., Shan, S. D., Luo, L. P., Guan, L. B. & Qin, H. Isolation and characterization of a Sphingomonas sp. strain F-7 degrading fenvalerate and its use in bioremediation of contaminated soil. J Environ Sci Health B 48, 198–207 (2013). · DOI
  25. Steiner, C., Das, K. C., Garcia, M., Forster, B. & Zech, W. Charcoal and smoke extract stimulate the soil microbial community in a highly weathered xanthic Ferralsol. Pedobiologia 51, 359–366 (2008). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Han, G., Lan, J., Chen, Q., Yu, C., & Bie, S.
Affiliations
Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Han, Guangming
  • Lan, Jiayang
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-08-31
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
10184-10184
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-10427-6
PMC
PMC5578980
OpenAlex
W2747464706
Cited by
80
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Keywords
biochar, soil microbial communities, cotton soils, continuous cropping, soil bacterial diversity, Acidobacteria, Sphingomonas, Pseudomonas, microbial succession
MeSH terms
Crop Production, Bacteria, Charcoal, Gossypium, DNA, Bacterial, DNA, Ribosomal, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Soil Microbiology, Sequence Analysis, DNA, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Microbiota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review