Plant and Soil

, Volume 330, Issue 1–2, pp 423–433 | Cite as

Effect of monoculture soybean on soil microbial community in the Northeast China

  • Chunge Li
  • Xiaoming Li
  • Weidong Kong
  • Ying Wu
  • Jingguo Wang
Regular Article

Abstract

Monoculture (MC) soybean, a common practice in the Northeast China, causes significant declines in soybean yield and quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the responses of the soil microbial community and soybean yield to different soybean cropping systems. Three cropping systems were compared, (1) corn-soybean rotation (corn-corn-soybean, CS), (2) MC soybean for 3 years (S3), (3) MC soybean for 9 years (S9). Both bulk and rhizosphere soil samples were collected at three growth stages: two trifoliate (V2), full bloom (R2), and full seed (R6), respectively. Soil microbial DNA was analyzed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)—denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) to assess changes in composition of bacterial and fungal communities. Prominent DGGE bands were excised and sequenced to gain insight into the identities of the predominant microbial populations. Some prominent differences were observed in bacterial DGGE patterns of amplified 16S rDNA (V3 region) among rhizosphere soils. These major differences included one DGGE band (showing 100% similarity to Arthrobacter sp.) that was enriched at R2 stages in CS and S9, and another band with 97% sequence similarity to an uncultured actinobacterium was detected at R6 stage in CS, and at R2 and R6 stages in S9. The bacterial community from bulk soil showed no significant band change in DGGE patterns among different cropping systems. In fungal DGGE patterns of the amplified 18S rDNA partial fragment, one specific band (showing 98% similarity to Trichoderma viride) occurred in rhizosphere soil of treatment CS at V2 and R6 stages and treatment S9 at R6 stage. None of the above bands were detected in treatment S3. The soybean yields and plant heights from CS and S9 were greater than those from S3. Moreover, catalase activities from CS and S9 at V2 and R2 stages were higher than those tested from S3 at the corresponding times in rhizosphere soil. The present results showed that DGGE patterns were not able to detect significant differences in diversity or evenness among microbial communities, but significant differences were found in the composition of bacterial and fungal community structures. Some distinguished bands from bacterial and fungal DGGE patterns were only enriched in CS and S9 soil, which could potentially play an important role in soybean growth development.

Keywords

Monoculture soybean Microbial community DGGE Cloning Yield 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under grant numbers 30270768 and 30821003, and by a special fund for agricultural profession (No. 200803030). We warmly thank Mrs. Yufeng Wang, Mr. Bin Sun, and Mr. Lei Sun for field work. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Andreas Westphal and Miss Jenna M Dolhi for valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Alvey S, Yang CH, Buerkert A, Crowley DE (2003) Cereal/legume rotation effects on rhizosphere bacterial community structure in West African soils. Biol Fertil Soils 37:73–82. doi:10.1007/s00374-002-0573-2 Google Scholar
  2. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 59:143–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson IC, Campbell CD, Prosser JI (2003) Potential bias of fungal 18S rDNA and internal transcribed spacer polymerase chain reaction primers for estimating fungal biodiversity in soil. Environ Microbiol 5:36–47. doi:10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00383.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen ZZ, Yin QY, Wang XM, Zou YJ (1997) Primary study on dynamics of soil microorganisms under soybean continuous cropping. Agric Sci China 30:96Google Scholar
  5. Dubey SC, Suresh M, Singh B (2007) Evaluation of Trichoderma species against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris for integrated management of chickpea wilt. Biol Control 40:118–127. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2006.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fehr WR, Caviness CE, Burmood DT, Pennington JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci 11:929–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fu HL, Yang ZM, Zou YJ, Wang SQ, Han LM (1996) Influence of successive cropping of soybean on soil enzyme activity. Plant Nutr Fertil Sci 2:374–377Google Scholar
  8. Ge Y, Zhang JB, Zhang LM, Yang M, He JZ (2008) Long-term fertilization regimes affect bacterial community structure and diversity of an agricultural soil in Northern China. J Soils Sediments 8:43–50. doi:10.1065/jss2008.01.270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gherbawy YAMH, Yaser M (2003) Fungicides and some biological controller agents effects on the growth of fusarium oxysporum causing paprika wilt. Arch phytopath Plant Prot 36:235–245. doi:10.1080/03235400310001604080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon TR, Martyn RD (1997) The evolutionary biology of Fusarium oxysporum. Annu Rev Phytopathol 35:111–128. doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.35.1.111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Han LM, Shen QR, Ju HY, Yan S, Yan F (2002) Allelopathy of the aqueous extracts of above ground parts of soybean and the identification of the allelochemicals. Acta Ecol Sinica 22:1425–1432Google Scholar
  12. Han LM, Ju HY, Yang ZM (2004) Allelopathy of root exudates from two genotypes soybeans on root rot pathogenic fungi. Chin J Appl Ecol 16:137–141Google Scholar
  13. Harman GE, Howell CR, Viterbo A, Chet I, Lorito M (2004) Trichoderma species—opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:43–56. doi:10.1038/nrmicro797 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. He ZH, Liu ZT, Xu YL, Han XZ (2003a) Study on the reason reducing production of soybeans planted continuously and the way to get more output-the reason to reduce yield. Heilongjiang Agric Sci 2:1–4Google Scholar
  15. He ZH, Liu ZT, Xu YL, Han XZ, Xu YH (2003b) Study on the reason reducing production of soybeans planted continuously and the way to get more output-yield and quality. Heilongjiang Agric Sci 3:1–4Google Scholar
  16. He JZ, Xu ZH, Hughes J (2005) Analyses of soil fungal communities in adjacent natural forest and hoop pine plantation ecosystems of subtropical Australia using molecular approaches based on 18S rRNA genes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 247:91–100. doi:10.1016/j.femsle.2005.04.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu JC, Xue DL, Wang SJ (1998) Obstacles of soybean continuous cropping II: Mechanism of soybean yield decline and control strategies for toxin of Penicillium purouregenum in soils. Chin J Appl Ecol 9:429–434Google Scholar
  18. Hugenholtz P, Pace NR (1996) Identifying microbial diversity in the natural environment: a molecular phylogenetic approach. Trends Biotechnol 14:190–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hugenholtz P, Goebel BM, Pace NR (1998) Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. J Bacteriol 180:4765–4774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ji MS, Li BQ, Chen J, Gu ZM, Wang ZY (2005) Antifungal mechanisms of Trichoderma viride Strain TR-8 against Fusarium oxysporum. Chin J Biol Control 21:104–108Google Scholar
  21. Kelley KW, Long JH, Todd TC (2003) Long-term crop rotations affect soybean yield, seed weight, and soil chemical properties. Field Crops Res 83:41–50. doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00055-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koths JS, Gunner HR (1967) Establishment of a rhizosphere microflora on carnation as a means of plant protection in steamed greenhouse soils. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 91:617–626Google Scholar
  23. Larkin RP (2003) Characterization of soil microbial communities under different potato cropping systems by microbial population dynamics, substrate utilization, and fatty acid profiles. Soil Biol Biochem 35:1451–1466. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00240-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu XB, Herbert SJ (2002) Fifteen years of research examining cultivation of continuous soybean in northeast China: a review. Field Crops Res 79:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu XB, Yu GW, Xu YL (1990) System analysis on the responses of continuous soybean. Syst Sci Compr Stud Agric 3:40–44Google Scholar
  26. Liu AQ, Xu YL, Han XZ (2001) Investigation and control of Soybean Monoculture in Heilongjiang Province. Liaoning Agric Sci 3:51–52Google Scholar
  27. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. May LA, Smiley B, Schimidt MG (2001) Comparative denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of fungal communities associated with whole plant corn silage. Can J Microbiol 47:829–841. doi:10.1139/cjm-47-9-829 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Miletto M, Bodelier PLE, Laanbroek HJ (2007) Improved PCR-DGGE for high resolution diversity screening of complex sulfate-reducing prokaryotic communities in soils and sediments. J Microbiol Methods 70:103–111. doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2007. 03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller AK, Westergaard K, Christensen S, Sørensen SJ (2002) The diversity and function of soil microbial communities exposed to different disturbances. Microb Ecol 44:49–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Muyzer G (1999) DGGE/TGGE a method for identifying genes from natural ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 2:317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:695–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nour SM, Lawrence JR, Zhu H, Swerhone GDW, Welsh M, Welacky TW, Topp E (2003) Bacteria associated with cysts of the Soybean Cyst Nematode (Heterodera glycines). Appl Environ Microbiol 69:607–615. doi:10.1128/AEM.69.1.607-615.2003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Qu XH, Wang JG (2008) Effect of amendments with different phenolic acids on soil microbial biomass, activity, and community diversity. Appl Soil Ecol 39:172–179. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruan WB, Wang JG, Zhang FS, Shen JB (1999) The application of rhizosphere micro-ecosystem theory to continuous cropping problem. Rev China Agr Sci Tech 1:53–58Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute (1985) SAS user’s guide: Statistics version 5. SAS, CaryGoogle Scholar
  37. Smit E, Leeflang P, van Elsas GB, JD WK (1999) Analysis of fungal diversity in the wheat rhizosphere by sequencing of cloned PCR-amplified genes encoding 18S rRNA and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2614–2621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sneh B (1981) Use of rhizosphere chitinolytic bacteria for biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. dianthi in carnation. J Phytopathol 100:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torsvik V, Goksoyr J, Daae FL (1990) High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:782–787PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Vainio EJ, Hantula J (2000) Direct analysis of wood-inhabiting fungi using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycol Res 104:927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S et al (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) PCR protocols: A guide to methods and applications. Academic, New York, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  42. Xu YL, Wang GH, Han XZ (1995) Soil microbial ecology and rhizosphere pathogens of continuous cropping soybean. Syst Sci Compr Stud Agric 11:311–314Google Scholar
  43. Xu YL, Chen YL, Si ZS, Li ZL, Li CJ, Wen GY (2004) The effects of the root diffusate of different crops from different rotation systems on the egg hatch of soybean cyst nematode Heterodera glycines. Acta Phytopathol Sinica 34:481–486Google Scholar
  44. Yu GR, Liu JX, Su GY (1988) Number of fungi and bacteria in top soils of continuous soybean and sunflower system. Chin J Appl Ecol 7:1–8Google Scholar
  45. Zhou LK (1987) The science of soil enzymes. The Science, Beijing, pp 267–270Google Scholar
  46. Zou L, Yuan XY, Li L, Wang XY (2005) Effects of continuous cropping on soil microbes on soybean root. J Microbiol 25:27–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunge Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaoming Li
    • 3
  • Weidong Kong
    • 4
  • Ying Wu
    • 3
  • Jingguo Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.MOE laboratory of Plant-Soil Interaction and College of Resources and Environmental SciencesChina agricultural UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Botany and Plant PathologyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Soil and Fertilizer Research InstituteHeilongjiang Academy of Agricultural SciencesHarbinChina
  4. 4.Department of AgronomyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations