Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 403–413 | Cite as

A decade of land use contributes to changes in the chemistry, biochemistry and bacterial community structures of soils in the Cerrado

  • R. S. PeixotoEmail author
  • G. M. Chaer
  • N. Franco
  • F. B. Reis Junior
  • I. C. Mendes
  • A. S. Rosado
Original Paper


The bacterial community structures (BCSs) of Cerrado soils cultivated under conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT) and under native Cerrado (NC) vegetation were evaluated using PCR/DGGE of bacterial 16S rRNA (rrs) and rpoB genes and of Pseudomonas group genes. Soil chemical analysis, microbial biomass and the enzyme activities were also evaluated and correlated with the BCS measurements. The multivariate ordinations of DGGE profiles showed differences between the BCS of the NC area and those from cultivated areas. The BCSs of the CT and NT areas also differed in all DGGE fingerprints, including changes in the profile of Pseudomonas populations, indicating that agricultural systems can also be responsible for changes within specific microbial niches, although the clearest differences were found in the rpoB profiles. The MRPP analysis demonstrated significant differences between the BCSs from different soil layers of NT areas based on all gene fingerprints and those of NC areas based on bacterial 16S rRNA and rpoB genes fingerprints. No differences were observed in the microbial fingerprints of CT samples from different depths, indicating that ploughing affected the original BCS stratification. The BCS from NC areas, based on all gene fingerprints, could be related to higher levels of soil acidity and higher amounts of MBC and of phosphatase activity. In contrast, the BCSs from cultivated areas were related to higher levels of Ca + Mg, P and K, likely as a result of a history of chemical fertilisation in these areas. The relationships between rpoB and Pseudomonas BCSs and all chemical and biochemical properties of soils were significant, according to a Mantel test (P < 0.05), indicating that the different changes in soil properties induced by soil use or management may drive the formation of the soil BCS.


Cerrado No-tillage Conventional tillage Bacterial community structure 



This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), and Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAP-DF).


  1. Adámoli J, Macêdo J, Azevedo LG, Madeira Netto JM (1987) Caracterização da região dos Cerrados. In: Goedert WJ (ed) Solos dos Cerrados—tecnologias e estratégias de manejo. Nobel e Embrapa CPAC, São Paulo e Brasília, pp 33–74Google Scholar
  2. Allison SD, Martiny JBH (2008) Resistance, resilience and redundancy in microbial communities. PNAS 105:11512–11519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandick AK, Dick RP (1999) Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1471–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardas GA, Lagopodi AL, Kadoglidou K, Tzavella-Klonari K (2009) Biological control of three Colletotrichum lindemuthianum races using Pseudomonas chlororaphis PCL1391 and Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS365. Biol Control 49:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biondini ME, Bonham CD, Redente EF (1985) Secondary successional patterns in a sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) community as they relate to soil disturbance and soil biological activity. Vegetatio 60:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities in southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monit 27:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castro AP, Quirino BF, Pappas GJ, Kurokawa AS, Neto EL, Krüger RH (2008) Diversity of soil fungal communities of Cerrado and its closely surrounding agriculture fields. Arch Microbiol 190(2):129–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaer G, Fernandes M, Myrold D, Bottomley P (2009) Comparative resistance and resilience of soil microbial communities and enzyme activities in adjacent native forest and agricultural soils. Microb Ecol 8(2):414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conte E, Anghinoni E, Rheinheimer DS (2002) Frações de fósforo acumuladas em Latossolo argiloso pela aplicação de fosfato no sistema plantio direto. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 26:925–930Google Scholar
  10. Cook RJ (2006) Toward cropping systems that enhance productivity and sustainability. PNAS 103(49):18389–18394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa R, Götz M, Mrotzek N, Berg G, Lottmann J, Smalla K (2006) Effects of site and plant species on rhizosphere community structure as revealed by molecular analysis of different microbial guilds. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 56:236–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas ME, Endler JA (1982) Quantitative matrix comparisons in ecological and evolutionary investigations. J Theor Biol 99:777–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekenler M, Tabatabai MA (2003) Effects of liming and tillage systems on microbial biomass and glycosidases in soils. Biol Fertil Soils 39:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária—Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos (1997) Manual de métodos de análises de solo, 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro, 212 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (2009)
  16. Evans FF, Seldin L, Sebastian GV, Kjelleberg S, Holmström C, Rosado AS (2004) Influence of petroleum contamination and biostimulation treatment on the diversity of Pseudomonas spp. in soil microcosms as evaluated by 16S rRNA based-PCR and DGGE. Lett Appl Microbiol 38:93–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fierer N, Strickland MS, Liptzin D, Bradford MA, Cleveland CC (2009) Global patterns in belowground communities. Ecol Lett 12:1238–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Garbeva P, van Venn JA, van Elsas JD (2004) Microbial diversity in soil: selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. Annu Rev Phytopatol 42:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heuer H, Smalla K (1997) Application of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis for studying soil microbial communities. In: van Elsas JD, Trevors J, Wellington EMH (eds) Modern soil microbiology. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp 353–373Google Scholar
  20. Jenkinson DS, Powlson DS (1976) The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil—V: a method for measuring soil biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 8:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruskal JB (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar S, Pandey P, Maheshwari DK (2009) Reduction in dose of chemical fertilizers and growth enhancement of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) with application of rhizospheric competent Pseudomonas aeruginosa LES4. Eur J Soil Biol 45:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Machado PLOA, Silva CA (2001) Soil management under no-tillage systems in the tropics with special reference to Brazil. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 61:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marris E (2005) The forgotten ecosystem. Nature 437:944–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mather PM (1976) Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical geography. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsuoka M, Mendes IC, Loureiro MF (2003) Biomassa Microbiana e Atividade Enzimática em Solos sob Vegetação Nativa e Sistemas Agrícolas Anuais e Perenes na Região de Primavera do Leste (Mt). Rev Bras Cienc Solo 27:425–433Google Scholar
  27. Mendes IC, Reis Junior FB (2004) Uso de parâmetros microbiológicos como indicadores para avaliar a qualidade do solo e a sustentabilidade dos agroecossistemas. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, DF, 34 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendes IC, Souza LV, Resck DVS, Gomes AC (2003) Propriedades biológicas em agregados de um LE sob plantio convencional e direto no Cerrado. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 27:435–443Google Scholar
  29. Moore ERB, Mau M, Arnscheidt A, Böttger EC, Hutson RA, Collins MD, van de Peer Y, de Wachter R, Timmis KN (1996) The determination and comparison of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of the genus Pesudomonas (sensu stricto) and estimation of the natural intrageneric relationships. Syst Appl Microbiol 19:478–492Google Scholar
  30. Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C, da Fonseca G, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ndaw SM, Gama-Rodrigues AC, Gama-Rodrigues EF, Sales KR, Rosado AS (2009) Relationships between bacterial diversity, microbial biomass, and litter quality in soils under different plant covers in northern Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Can J Microbiol 55(9):1089–1095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliveira JRA, Mendes IC, Vivaldi L (2001) Biomassa microbiana de carbono em solos de cerrado sob vegetação nativa e sob cultivo: avaliação dos métodos fumigação-incubação e fumigação-extração. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 25:863–871Google Scholar
  33. Paul EA, Clark FE (1996) Soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic Press, San Diego, 340 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Paustian K, Collins HP, Paul EA (1997) Management controls on soil carbon. In: Paul GEA, Paustian K, Elliott ET, Vole CV (eds) Organic matter in temperate agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 15–49Google Scholar
  35. Peixoto RS, da Costa Coutinho HL, Rumjanek NG, Macrae A, Rosado AS (2002) Use of rpoB and 16S rRNA genes to analyse bacterial diversity of a tropical soil using PCR and DGGE. Lett Appl Microbiol 35(4):316–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Peixoto RS, Coutinho HLC, Madari B, Machado PLOA, Rumjanek NG, van Elsas JDL, Seldin L, Rosado AS (2005) Soil aggregation and bacterial community structure as affected by tillage and cover cropping in the Brazilian Cerrados. Soil Tillage Res 90:16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ratter JA, Ribeiro JF, Bridgewater S (1997) The Brazilian Cerrado vegetation and threats to its biodiversity. Ann Bot 80:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Recep K, Fikrettin S, Erkol D, Cafer E (2009) Biological control of the potato dry rot caused by Fusarium species using PGPR strains. Biol Control 50:194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosas SB, Avanzini G, Carlier E, Pasluosta C, Pastor N, Rovera M (2009) Root colonization and growth promotion of wheat and maize by Pseudomonas aurantiaca SR1. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1802–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sá JCM, Cerri CC, Dick WA, Lal R, Venzke Filho SP, Piccolo MC, Feigl BE (2001) Organic matter dynamic and carbon sequestration rates for a tillage chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1486–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Dlinois Press, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharma S, Rangger A, Insam H (1998) Effects of decomposing maize litter on community level physiological profiles of soil bacteria. Microb Ecol 35:301–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Agriculture Handbook, 436, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Sousa DMG, Lobato E (2004) Adubação com nitrogênio. In: Sousa DMG, Lobato E (eds) Cerrado: correção do solo e adubação, 2nd edn. Planaltina, Embrapa Cerrados, pp 129–144Google Scholar
  45. Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Weaver RW, Angle JS, Bottomley PS, Bezdicek D, Smith S, Tabatabai A, Wollum A (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2: microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 778–833Google Scholar
  46. Timms-Wilson TM, Kilshaw K, Bailey MJ (2004) Risk assessment for engineered bacteria used in biocontrol of fungal disease in agricultural crops. Plant Soil 266:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valpassos MAR, Cavalcante EGS, Cassiolato AMR, Alves MC (2001) Effects of soil management systems on soil microbial activity, bulk density and chemical properties. Pesq Agropec Bras 36:1539–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Widmer F, Sedler RJ, Gillevet PM, Watrud LS, Di Giovanni GD (1998) A high selective PCR protocol for detecting 16S rRNA genes of the genus Pseudomonas (sensu stricto) in environment samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2545–2553PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Peixoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. M. Chaer
    • 2
  • N. Franco
    • 1
  • F. B. Reis Junior
    • 3
  • I. C. Mendes
    • 3
  • A. S. Rosado
    • 1
  1. 1.LEMM—Laboratório de Ecologia Microbiana Molecular, Instituto de Microbiologia Professor Paulo de GóesUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Embrapa AgrobiologiaSeropédicaBrazil
  3. 3.Embrapa CerradosPlanaltinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations