Molecular characterization of soil bacterial communities in contrasting zero tillage systems
- 408 Downloads
It is well known that agricultural practices change the physical and chemical characteristics of soil. As a result, microbial populations can also be affected. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect on soil bacterial communities of zero tillage (ZT) under maize monoculture (MM) with crop residue removal (-R) (MM/-R treatment), compared to a ZT system under wheat monoculture (WW) with crop retention (+R) (WW/+R treatment). Phylogenetic analysis was used to characterize soil bacterial communities. Phylogenetic groups found exclusively in MM/-R were Caldilineales, Chromatiales, Oscillatoriales, Legionellales, Nitrosomonadales and unclassified ∂-Proteobacteria, while Bacillales, Burkholderiales, Pseudomonadales and Rubrobacteriales were found only in WW/+R. Sequences of bacteria related to fluorescent Pseudomonas sp. were detected only in WW/+R. Acidobacteria, a largely unknown group of bacteria, were the dominant group in both treatments with a relative proportion of 0.703 and 0.517 for MM/+R and WW/-R respectively. It was found that zero tillage with removal of crop residue in soil cultivated with a monoculture of maize strongly reduced microbial diversity (H = 3.30; D = 0.9040) compared to soil where crop residue was retained in a wheat zero tillage situation (H = 4.15; D = 0.9848).
KeywordsZero tillage Residues management 16S rDNA Phylogenetic analysis
We thank the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT, Int.) for soil samples. The research was funded by the Department of Biotechnology and Bioengineering (Cinvestav, México). J. C.-N. received grant-aided support from ‘Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología’ (CONACyT, Mexico) scholarship No. 172766.
- FAO (1978) Report on the agro-ecological zones project (Vol. 1, Methodology and results for Africa). FAO World Resource Report 48. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 158Google Scholar
- IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base For Soil Resources (2006) FAO. Rome, Italy, pp 128Google Scholar
- Patiño-Zúñiga L, Ceja-Navarro JA, Govaerts B, Luna-Guido M, Sayre KD, Dendooven L (2009) The effect of different tillage and residue management practices on soil characteristics, inorganic N dynamics and emissions of N2O, CO2 and CH4 in the central highlands of Mexico: a laboratory study. Plant Soil 314:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1998) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA, pp 328Google Scholar
- Swofford DL (1998) PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, ver. 4.0b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Tsai YL, Olson BH (1991) Rapid method for extraction of DNA from soil and sediments. Appl Environ Microb 57:1070–1074Google Scholar
- Zhou J, Brunis MA, Tiedje JM (1995) DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:316–322Google Scholar