CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologySoil Management and Crop Yield

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tillage practices and straw-returning methods affect topsoil bacterial community and organic C under a rice-wheat cropping system in central China

Open access
Guo, Lijin, Zheng, Shixue, Cao, Cougui, Li, Chengfang·2016·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep33155PMC PMC5017303
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate how the relationships between bacterial communities and organic C (SOC) in topsoil (0–5 cm) are affected by tillage practices [conventional intensive tillage (CT) or no-tillage (NT)] and straw-returning methods [crop straw returning (S) or removal (NS)] under a rice-wheat rotation in central China. Soil bacterial communities were determined by high-throughput sequencing technology. After two cycles of annual rice-wheat rotation, compared with CT treatments, NT treatments generally had significantly more bacterial genera and monounsaturated fatty acids/saturated fatty acids (MUFA/STFA), but a decreased gram-positive bacteria/gram-negative bacteria ratio (G + /G − ). S treatments had significantly more bacterial genera and MUFA/STFA, but had decreased G + /G − compared with NS treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed that Gemmatimonas , Rudaea , Spingomonas , Pseudomonas , Dyella , Burkholderia , Clostridium , Pseudolabrys , Arcicella and Bacillus were correlated with SOC, and cellulolytic bacteria ( Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, Rudaea and Bacillus ) and Gemmationas explained 55.3% and 12.4% of the variance in SOC, respectively. Structural equation modeling further indicated that tillage and residue managements affected SOC directly and indirectly through these cellulolytic bacteria and Gemmationas . Our results suggest that Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, Rudaea , Bacillus and Gemmationas help to regulate SOC sequestration in topsoil under tillage and residue systems.

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/srep33155

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Redundancy analysis of soil microbial communities and SOC fractions under different treatments. SOC, soil organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; DOC, dissolved organic C; MUFA/STFA, monounsaturated fatty acids/saturated fatty acids; CTNS (▵), conventional intensive tillage with straw removal, CTS (▴), conventional intensive tillage with straw returning; NTNS (□), no-tillage with straw removal; NTS (■), no-tillage with straw returning.
Figure 1 Redundancy analysis of soil microbial communities and SOC fractions under different treatments. SOC, soil organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; DOC, dissolved organic C; MUFA/STFA, monounsaturated fatty acids/saturated fatty acids; CTNS (▵), conventional intensive tillage with straw removal, CTS (▴), conventional intensive tillage with straw returning; NTNS (□), no-tillage with straw removal; NTS (■), no-tillage with straw returning.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Relative abundance (n = 3) of top 23 OTUs of bacteria genera under different treatments revealed by pyrosequencing. CTNS, conventional intensive tillage with straw removal; CTS, conventional intensive tillage with straw returning; NTNS, no-tillage with straw removal; tillage; NTS, no-tillage with straw returning.
Figure 2 Relative abundance (n = 3) of top 23 OTUs of bacteria genera under different treatments revealed by pyrosequencing. CTNS, conventional intensive tillage with straw removal; CTS, conventional intensive tillage with straw returning; NTNS, no-tillage with straw removal; tillage; NTS, no-tillage with straw returning.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Redundancy analysis of soil bacterial communities and SOC fractions under different treatments. CTNS (▵), conventional intensive tillage with straw removal; CTS (▴), conventional intensive tillage with straw return; NTNS (◽), no-tillage with straw removal; NTS (◾), no-tillage with straw returning; SOC, soil organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; DOC, dissolved organic C.
Figure 3 Redundancy analysis of soil bacterial communities and SOC fractions under different treatments. CTNS (▵), conventional intensive tillage with straw removal; CTS (▴), conventional intensive tillage with straw return; NTNS (◽), no-tillage with straw removal; NTS (◾), no-tillage with straw returning; SOC, soil organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; DOC, dissolved organic C.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Relative importance analysis of the soil bacterial genera to SOC by R (relative importance package) based on the results of stepwise regression analysis.
Figure 4 Relative importance analysis of the soil bacterial genera to SOC by R (relative importance package) based on the results of stepwise regression analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Structural equation model relating tillage systems, straw systems and bacteria communities to SOC (a1, χ2 = 124.867, df = 51, p = 0.525, CFI = 0.952, GFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.010; a2, χ2 = 114.847, df = 51, p = 0.565, CFI = 0.962, GFI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.001). Rectangles represent observed variables. Arrow thickness represents the magnitude of the path coefficient. Values associated with solid arrows represent the path coefficients. Solid and dashed arrows indicate significance (P < 0.05) and non-significance (P > 0.05), respectively. Straw, straw systems; DOC, dissolved organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; SOC, soil organic C.
Figure 5 Structural equation model relating tillage systems, straw systems and bacteria communities to SOC (a1, χ2 = 124.867, df = 51, p = 0.525, CFI = 0.952, GFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.010; a2, χ2 = 114.847, df = 51, p = 0.565, CFI = 0.962, GFI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.001). Rectangles represent observed variables. Arrow thickness represents the magnitude of the path coefficient. Values associated with solid arrows represent the path coefficients. Solid and dashed arrows indicate significance (P < 0.05) and non-significance (P > 0.05), respectively. Straw, straw systems; DOC, dissolved organic C; MBC, microbial biomass C; SOC, soil organic C.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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Mathew, R. P., Feng, Y., Githinji, L., Ankumah, R. & Balkcom, K. S. Impact of No-tillage and conventional tillage on soil microbial communities. Appl. Environ Soil Sci. 10.1155/2012/548620 (2012). · DOI
  2. Guo, L. J., Lin, S., Liu, T. Q., Cao, C. G. & Li, C. F. Effects of conservation tillage on topsoil microbial metabolic characteristics and organic carbon within aggregates under a rice (Oryza sativa L.) –wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system in central China. Plos One 11, e0146145 (2016). · DOI
  3. Varvel, G. E. & Wilhelm, W. W. Long-term soil organic carbon as affected by tillage and cropping systems. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 915–921 (2010). · DOI
  4. Larkin, R. P. Soil health paradigms and implications for disease management. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 53, 199–221 (2015). · DOI
  5. Sun, R., Zhang, X. X., Guo, X., Wang, D. & Chu, H. Bacterial diversity in soils subjected to long-term chemical fertilization can be more stably maintained with the addition of livestock manure than wheat straw. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 88, 9–18 (2015). · DOI
  6. Zhang, S., Li, Q., Lü, Y., Zhang, X. & Liang, W. Contributions of soil biota to C sequestration varied with aggregate fractions under different tillage systems. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 62, 147–156 (2013). · DOI
  7. Guo, L. J., Zhang, Z. S., Wang, D. D., Li, C. F. & Cao, C. G. Effects of short-term conservation management practices on soil organic carbon fractions and microbial community composition under a rice-wheat rotation system. Biol. Fert. Soils 51, 65–75 (2015). · DOI
  8. Murugan, R., Koch, H. J. & Joergensen, R. G. Long-term influence of different tillage intensities on soil microbial biomass, residues and community structure at different depths. Biol. Fert. Soils 50, 487–498 (2014). · DOI
  9. Wuest, S. B., Caesar-TonThat, T., Wright, S. F. & Williams, J. D. Organic matter addition, N, and residue burning effects on infiltration, biological, and physical properties of an intensively tilled silt-loam soil. Soil. Till. Res. 84, 154–167 (2005). · DOI
  10. Goyal, S. & Sindhu, S. S. Composting of rice straw using different inocula and analysis of compost quality. Microbiol. J. 1, 126–138 (2011). · DOI
  11. Mau, R. L. et al. Linking soil bacterial biodiverstity and soil carbon stability. ISME J. 9, 1477–1480 (2015). · DOI
  12. Yue, H. W. et al. The microbe-mediated mechanisms affecting topsoil carbon stock in Tibetan grasslands. Int. Soc. Microb. Ecol. 9, 2012–2020 (2015).
  13. Acosta-Martínez, V. et al. Microbial community composition as affected by dryland cropping systems and tillage in a Semiarid Sandy soil. Diversity 2, 910–931 (2010). · DOI
  14. Figuerola, E. L. et al. Bacterial indicator of agricultural management for soil under no-till crop production. Plos One 7, e51075 (2012). · DOI
  15. Neumann, D., Heuer, A., Hemkemeyer, M., Martens, R. & Tebbe, C. C. Importance of soil organic matter for the diversity of microorganisms involved in the degradation of organic pollutants. ISME J. 8, 1289–1300 (2014). · DOI
  16. Zhao, J., Wang, B. Z. & Jia, Z. J. U. Phylogenetically distinct phylotypes modulate nitrification in a paddy soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 3218–3227 (2015). · DOI
  17. Ekblad, A. et al. The production and turnover of extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizal fungi in forest soils: role in carbon cycling. Plant Soil 366, 1–27 (2013). · DOI
  18. Clemmensen, K. E. et al. Roots and associated fungi drive long-term carbon sequestration in boreal forest. Science 339, 1615–8 (2013). · DOI
  19. Witt. C. et al. Crop rotation and residue management effects on carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling and productivity of irrigated rice systems. Plant Soil. 225, 263–278 (2012). · DOI
  20. Govaerts, B. et al. Infiltration, soil moisture, root rot and nematode populations after 12 years of different tillage, residue and crop rotation managements. Soil. Till. Res. 94, 209–219 (2007). · DOI
  21. Grosbellet, C., Vidal-Beaudet, L., Caubel, V. & Chapentier, S. Improvement of soil structure formation by degradation of coarse organic matter. Geoderma 162, 27–38 (2011). · DOI
  22. Zhang, B., Li, Y., Ren, T. & Tian, C. J. Short-term effect of tillage and crop rotation on microbial community structure and enzyme activities of a clay loam soil. Biol. Fert. Soils 50, 1077–1085 (2014). · DOI
  23. Zhu, L., Hu, N., Yang, M. F., Zhan, X. & Zhang, Z. Effects of different tillage and straw return on soil organic carbon in a rice-wheat rotation system. Plos One 9, e88900 (2014). · DOI
  24. Kumari, M. et al. Soil aggregation and associated organic carbon fractions as affected by tillage in a rice-wheat rotation in North India. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 560–567 (2011). · DOI
  25. Guo, J. H. et al. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science 327, 1008–1010 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ding, L. L., Cheng, H., Liu, Z. F. & Ren, W. W. Experimental warming on the rice-wheat rotation agro-ecosystem. Plant. Sci. J. 31, 49–56 (2013). · DOI
  27. Editorial Board of China Agriculture Yearbook China. Agriculture Yearbook 2009, Electronic Edition. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, China (2012).
  28. Wolfarth, F., Schrader, S., Oldenburg, E. & Weinet, J. Nematode-collembolan-interaction promotes the degradation of Fusarium biomass and deoxynivalenol according to soil texture. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 57, 903–910 (2013). · DOI
  29. Swedrzyńska, D., Małecka, I., Blecharczyk, A., Swedrzyński, A. & Starzyk, J. Effects of various long-term tillage systems on some chemical and biological properties of soil. Pol. J. Environ. Studies 22, 1835–1844 (2013).
  30. Wang, Y. et al. Long-term impact of farming practices on soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools and microbial biomass and activity. Soil. Till. Res. 117, 8–16 (2011). · DOI
  31. Hammesfahr, U., Heuer, H., Manzke, B., Smalla, K. & Thiele-Bruhn, S. Impact of the antibiotic sulfadiazine and pig manure on the microbial community structure in agricultural soils. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 40, 1583–1591 (2008). · DOI
  32. Bossio, D. A. & Scow, K. M. Impacts of carbon and flooding on soil microbial communities: phospholipid fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns. Microb. Ecol. 35, 265–278 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Wang, J. J. et al. Effects of tillage and residue management on soil microbial communities in north china. Plant. Soil. Environ. 58, 28–33 (2012). · DOI
  34. Eynard, A., Schumacher, M. J., Lindstrom, M. J., Malo, D. D. & Kohl, R. A. Effects of aggregate structure and organic C on wettability of Ustolls. Soil. Till. Res. 88, 205–216 (2006). · DOI
  35. Zeytin, S. & Baran, A. Influences of composted hazelnut husk on some physical properties of soils. Bioresource Technol. 88, 241–244 (2003). · DOI
  36. Koeck, D. E., Pechtl, A., Zverlov, V. V. & Schwarz, W. H. Genomics of cellulolytic bacteria. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 29, 171–183 (2014). · DOI
  37. Monserrate, E., Leschine, S. B. & Canale-Parola, E. Clostridium hungatei sp. nov., a mesophilic, N2-fixing cellulolytic bacterium isolated from soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51, 123–132 (2001). · DOI
  38. Suresh, K., Prakash, D., Rastogi, N. & Jain, R. K. Clostridium nitrophenolicum sp. Nov., a novel anaerobic p-nitrophenol-degrading bacterium, isolated from a subsurface soil sample. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 1886–1890 (2007). · DOI
  39. Desvaux, M., Guedon, E. & Petitdemange, H. Cellulose catabolism by Clostridium cellulolyticum growing in batch culture on defined medium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 2461–2470 (2000). · DOI
  40. Koukiekolo, R. et al. Degradation of corn fiber by Clostridium cellulovorans cellulases and hemicellulases and contribution of scaffolding protein CbpA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 3504–3511 (2005). · DOI
  41. Takaichi, S., Maoka, M., Takasaki, K. & Hanada, S. Carotenoids of Gemmatimonas aurantiaca (Gemmatimonadetes): identification of a novel carotenoid, deoxyoscillol 2-rhamnoside, and proposed biosynthetic pathway of oscillol 2, 29-dirhamnoside. Microbiology 156, 757–763 (2010). · DOI
  42. Glissmann, K. & Conrad, R. Fermentation pattern of methanogenic degradation of rice straw in anoxic paddy soil. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 31, 117–126 (2000). · DOI
  43. Glissmann, K. & Conrad, R. Saccharolytic activity and its role as a limiting step in methane formation during the anaerobic degradation of rice straw in rice paddy soil. Biol. Fert. Soils 35, 62–67 (2002). · DOI
  44. Glissmann, K., Weber, S. & Conrad, R. Localization of processes involved in methanogenic in degradation of rice straw in anoxic paddy soil. Environ. Microbiol. 3, 502–511 (2001). · DOI
  45. Yamada, T. et al. Bellilinea caldifistulae gen. nov., sp. nov. and Longilinea arvoryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., strictly anaerobic, filamentous bacteria of the phylum Chloroflexi isolated from methanogenic propionate-degrading consortia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 2299–2306 (2007). · DOI
  46. Takeuchi, M., Hamana, K. & Hiraishi, A. Proposal of the genus Sphingomonas sensu stricto and three new genera, Sphingobium, Novosphingobium and Sphingopyxis, on the basis of phylogenetic and chemotaxonomic analyses. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51, 1405–1417 (2001). · DOI
  47. Peng, J., Lü, Z., Rui, J. & Lu, Y. Dynamics of the methanogenic archaeal community during plant residue decomposition in an anoxic rice field soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 2894–2901 (2008). · DOI
  48. Ayres, E., Steltzer, H., Berg, S. & Wall, D. H. Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. J. Ecol. 97, 901–912 (2009). · DOI
  49. Yin, C., Jones, K. L., Peterson, D. E., Garrett, K. A. & Hulbert, S. H. Members of soil bacterial communities sensitive to tillage and crop rotation. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 42, 2111–2118 (2010). · DOI
  50. Blair, G. J., Lefory, R. D. B. & Lise, L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural system. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 46, 1459–1466 (1995). · DOI
  51. Peiffer, J. A. et al. Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. PNAS 110, 6548–6553 (2013). · DOI
  52. Zhao, J. C. et al. Impact of enhanced staphylococcus DNA extraction on microbial community measures in cystic fibrosis sputum. Plos One 7, e33127 (2012). · DOI
  53. Fierer, N., Hamady, M., Lauber, C. L. & Jackson, R. B. The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. PNAS 105, 17994–17999 (2008). · DOI
  54. Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows integration and analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. Uchime improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  56. Grace, J. B., Anderson, T. M., Smith, M. D., Seabloom, E. & Andelman, S. J. Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Ecol. Letters 10, 680–689 (2007). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guo, L., Zheng, S., Cao, C., & Li, C.
Affiliations
  • Huazhong Agricultural University (CN)
  • Yangtze University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Chengfang
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-09-09
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
33155-33155
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/srep33155
PMC
PMC5017303
OpenAlex
W2515269027
Cited by
139
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4
FWCI
11.32
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 (2011BAD16B02, 31471454)
  • Huazhong Agricultural University
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 › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
tillage systems, straw incorporation, soil organic carbon, rice-wheat cropping system, no-tillage, crop residue management, cellulolytic bacteria, Gemmatimonas, Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, fatty acid composition, carbon sequestration
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Bacteria, Carbon, China, Oryza, Soil, Soil Microbiology, Crops, Agricultural, Molecular Typing, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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