Advertisement

Intercropping with sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. rugosa Bonaf.) expands P acquisition channels of chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) via arbuscular mycorrhizal hyphal networks

  • Junli Hu
  • Minghui Li
  • Homgmin Liu
  • Qi Zhao
  • Xiangui Lin
Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Intercropping of chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with corn (Zea mays L.) is one of the main valuable intercropping patterns. However, the potential contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal hyphal networks is still poorly understood. The purpose of this work was to resolve the changes of AM fungal propagation and colonization in the pepper/corn intercropping systems due to the constitution of hyphal networks and the networks’ effects on plant nutrient uptake and interspecific competitive relations.

Materials and methods

An 18-week pot experiment on an unsterilized soil was carried out to test mycorrhizal performance and P acquisition of chili pepper and sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. rugosa Bonaf.) in two compartments, which were absolutely separated (Sep) by polyvinyl chloride (PVC) layer or semi-separated (Semi-Sep) by nylon mesh (30 μm) screen that only allows the passage of AM fungal hyphae but not plant roots. Root mycorrhizal colonization rates and the biomasses and P concentrations of shoots, roots, and fruits of pepper and corn were all measured. The total P acquisition of each crop per pot and the acquisition ratio of one to two crops were assessed. Soil pH, organic C, total P, available P, AM fungal abundance, and acid phosphatase activity were also tested.

Results and discussion

In the Sep system, root mycorrhizal colonization, P acquisition amount, shoot biomass, and rhizosphere AM fungal abundance of corn were all higher (P < 0.05) than those of pepper, but soil available P concentration was lower (P < 0.05) in corn compartment than in pepper one. Compared with Sep, Semi-Sep had higher (P < 0.05) mycorrhizal colonization rates with both intercrops and higher (P < 0.05) soil acid phosphatase activity and AM fungal abundance in corn and pepper compartments, respectively. Semi-Sep decreased (P < 0.05) soil available P concentrations with both compartments, but did not narrow the difference of soil available P concentration between compartments, suggesting there was no gradient diffusion of soil available P between compartments. Semi-Sep increased (P < 0.05) the P acquisition ratio and fruit yield of pepper, but not corn.

Conclusions

Constitution of hyphal networks increased mycorrhizal colonization with both intercrops, and corn supplied part of photosynthetic C for increasing AM fungal propagules in pepper compartment by gradient expansion since AM fungi formed better symbioses with corn. Hyphal networks increased pepper fruit yield via improving P distribution to pepper, but acquired relatively higher P from corn compartment via elevating the soil acid phosphatase activity, suggesting enhanced P competitive ability of pepper against corn upon hyphal networks.

Keywords

AM fungal abundance P competitive ability Semi-separation Soil acid phosphatase activity Soil available P 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ms. Yu Zhang for her assistance in pot experiment and to two anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions on manuscript revision.

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (No.41671265) and the National Key R & D Program (2016YFD0200306) of China, and the Strategic Priority Research Program (XDB15030202) and Knowledge Innovation Program (ISSASIP1634) of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Junli Hu is supported by the fellowship of the Youth Innovation Promotion Association (No. 2016285), CAS.

References

  1. Alkan N, Gadkar V, Coburn J, Yarden O, Kapulnik Y (2004) Quantification of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices in host tissue using real-time polymerase chain reaction. New Phytol 161:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen SE (1974) Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker RW, Bennett AE, Cong WF, Daniell TJ, George TS, Hallett PD, Hawes C, Iannetta PP, Jones HG, Karley AJ, Li L, Mckenzie BM, Pakeman RJ, Paterson E, Schöb C, Shen JB, Squire G, Watson CA, Zhang CC, Zhang FS, Zhang JL, White PJ (2015) Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol 206:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai J, Hu J, Lin X, Yang A, Wang R, Zhang J, Wong MH (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity, external mycelium length, and glomalin-related soil protein content in response to long-term fertilizer management. J Soils Sediments 13:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis KF, Gephart JA, Emery KA, Leach AM, Galloway JN, D’Odorico P (2016) Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Glob Environ Chang 39:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deslippe JR, Simard SW (2011) Below-ground carbon transfer among Betula nana may increase with warming in Arctic tundra. New Phytol 192:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein E (1972) Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Giovannetti M, Mosse B (1980) An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol 84:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giovannetti M, Sbrana C, Avio L, Strani P (2004) Patterns of below-ground plant interconnections established by means of arbuscular mycorrhizal networks. New Phytol 164:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorzelak MA, Asay AK, Pickles BJ, Simard SW (2015) Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates complex adaptive behaviour in plant communities. AoB Plants 7:plv050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gou F, van Ittersum MK, Simon E, Leffelaar PA, van der Putten PEL, Zhang L, van der Werf W (2017) Intercropping wheat and maize increases total radiation interception and wheat RUE but lowers maize RUE. Eur J Agron 84:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gou F, van Ittersum MK, Couëdel A, Zhang Y, Wang Y, van der Putten PEL, Zhang L, van der Werf W (2018) Intercropping with wheat lowers nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation of maize, but increases photosynthetic rate of the ear leaf. AoB Plants 10:ply010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson WC (1950) The photometric determination of phosphorus in fertilisers using the phosphovanado– molybdate complex. J Sci Food Agric 1:172–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart MM, Reader RJ, Klironomos JN (2003) Plant coexistence mediated by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Trends Ecol Evol 18:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu J, Lin X, Wang J, Cui X, Dai J, Chu H, Zhang J (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus enhances P-acquisition of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a sandy loam soil with long-term inorganic fertilization regime. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 88:781–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakobsen I, Hammer EC (2015) Nutrient dynamics in arbuscular mycorrhizal networks. In: Horton TR (ed) Mycorrhizal networks. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis), vol 224. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–132Google Scholar
  18. Jansa J, Finlay R, Wallander H, Smith FA, Smith SE (2011) Role of mycorrhizal symbioses in phosphorus cycling. In: Bünemann E, Oberson A, Frossard E (eds) Phosphorus in action. Soil biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 137–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang S, Shi G, Mao L, Pan J, An L, Liu Y, Feng H (2015) Comparison of different PCR primers on detecting arbuscular mycorrhizal communities inside plant roots. Acta Microbiol Sin 55:916–925Google Scholar
  20. Johnson NC, Graham JH, Smith FA (1997) Functioning of mycorrhiza associations along the mutualism- parasitism continuum. New Phytol 135:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiers ET, Duhamel M, Beesetty Y, Mensah JA, Franken O, Verbruggen E, Fellbaum CR, Kowalchuk GA, Hart MM, Bago A, Palmer TM, West SA, Vandenkoornhuyse P, Jansa J, Bücking H (2011) Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Science 333:880–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu Y, He J, Shi G, An L, Öpik M, Feng H (2011) Diverse communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inhabit sites with very high altitude in Tibet Plateau. FEMS Microbial Ecol 78:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikkelsen BL, Rosendahl S, Jakobsen I (2008) Underground resource allocation between individual networks of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 180:890–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montesinos-Navarro A, Segarra-Moragues JG, Valiente-Banuet A, Verdú M (2012) Plant facilitation occurs between species differing in their associated arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 196:835–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nannipieri P, Giagnoni L, Landi L, Renella G (2011) Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. In: Bünemann E, Oberson A, Frossard E (eds) Phosphorus in action. Soil biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ouma G, Jeruto P (2010) Sustainable horticultural crop production through intercropping: the case of fruits and vegetable crops: a review. Agric Biol J N Am 1:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ouyang C, Wu K, An T, He J, Zi S, Yang Y, Wu B (2017) Productivity, economic, and environmental benefits in intercropping of maize with chili and grass. Agron J 109:2407–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips JM, Hayman DS (1970) Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans Br Mycol Soc 55:158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qiao X, Bei S, Li C, Dong Y, Li H, Christie P, Zhang F, Zhang J (2015) Enhancement of faba bean competitive ability by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is highly correlated with dynamic nutrient acquisition by competing wheat. Sci Rep 5:8122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qiao X, Bei S, Li H, Christie P, Zhang F, Zhang J (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi contribute to overyielding by enhancing crop biomass while suppressing weed biomass in intercropping systems. Plant Soil 406:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ren L, Lou Y, Zhang N, Zhu X, Hao W, Sun S, Shen Q, Xu G (2013) Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal network in carbon and phosphorus transfer between plants. Biol Fertil Soils 49:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheublin TR, Van Logtestijn RSP, van der Heijden MGA (2007) Presence and identity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence competitive interactions between plant species. J Ecol 95:631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Soltangheisi A, Rodrigues M, Coelho MJA, Gasperini AM, Sartor LR, Pavinato PS (2018) Changes in soil phosphorus lability promoted by phosphate sources and cover crops. Soil Tillage Res 179:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabatabai MA (1982) Soil enzymes. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analyses, part 2, chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 903–947Google Scholar
  36. Teste FP, Simard SW, Durall DM, Guy RD, Berch SM (2010) Net carbon transfer between Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca seedlings in the field is influenced by soil disturbance. J Ecol 98:429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walder F, Niemann H, Natarajan M, Lehmann MF, Boller T, Wiemken A (2012) Mycorrhizal networks: common goods of plants shared under unequal terms of trade. Plant Physiol 159:789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang FY, Lin XG, Yin R, Wu LH (2006) Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation on the growth of Elsholtzia splendens and Zea mays and the activities of phosphatase and urease in a multi-metal- contaminated soil under unsterilized conditions. Appl Soil Ecol 31:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang GZ, Li HG, Christie P, Zhang FS, Zhang JL, Bever JD (2017) Plant-soil feedback contributes to intercropping overyielding by reducing the negative effect of take-all on wheat and compensating the growth of faba bean. Plant Soil 415:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weisany W, Raei Y, Salmasi SZ, Sohrabi Y, Ghassemi-Golezani K (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi induced changes in rhizosphere, essential oil and mineral nutrients uptake in dill/common bean intercropping system. Ann Appl Biol 169:384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weremijewicz J, Sternberg LSLO, Janos DP (2016) Common mycorrhizal networks amplify competition by preferential mineral nutrient allocation to large host plants. New Phytol 212:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang M, Zhang Y, Qi L, Mei X, Liao J, Ding X, Deng W, Fan L, He X, Vivanco JM, Li C, Zhu Y, Zhu S (2014) Plant-plant-microbe mechanisms involved in soil-borne disease suppression on a maize and pepper intercropping system. PLoS One 9:e115052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang F, Li L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 248:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junli Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Minghui Li
    • 1
  • Homgmin Liu
    • 1
  • Qi Zhao
    • 1
  • Xiangui Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations