Differences in enzyme activity and bacterial community structure in rhizosphere soil of four grass species

doi:10.11686/cyxb2024358

Abstract

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different grasses on the soil micro-ecological environment. In a pot experiment， four grass species： Paspalum notatum， Lolium perenne， Festuca arundinacea and Sorghum sudanense， were selected to study the variation in rhizosphere soil enzyme activity and bacterial community composition and diversity. The experiment included unplanted （CK） pots， and soil chemical analysis and high-throughput sequencing technologies were employed， and the correlation between these data and soil physical and chemical properties was explored. It was found that， compared with CK treatment， the activities of β-1，4-glucosidase （βG）， cellobiohydrolase （CBH）， β-1，4-xylosidase （βX）， β-1，4-N-acetylglucosaminidase （NAG） and alkaline phosphatase （ALP） in rhizosphere soil were increased by all four grass species. Furthermore， the contents of soil dissolved organic carbon （DOC）， ammonium nitrogen （NH₄⁺-N）， nitrate nitrogen （NO₃^--N）， and available phosphorus （AP） differed significantly between the rhizosphere soils of the four grasses. The activities of βG， CBH， βX and NAG were highest in S. sudanense. ALP activity was highest in F. arundinacea. Pearson correlation analysis showed that βG and NAG activities in rhizosphere soil were significantly positively correlated with soil organic carbon （SOC） and significantly negatively correlated with NO₃^--N. ALP activity was significantly positively correlated with SOC and DOC （P<0.05）. The Chao1 index of L. perenne rhizosphere soil was the highest， and the Shannon index was significantly higher than other treatments （P<0.05）. Proteobacteria， Acidobacteriota and Actinobacteriota were the dominant bacterial phyla in the rhizosphere soil of the four grass species. The results of redundancy analysis showed that soil available phosphorus was the dominant factor associated with change of bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere soil. In conclusion， grass can significantly improve the enzyme activity and nutrient content， and optimize the bacterial community structure of rhizosphere soil， so as to improve the soil micro-ecological environment. This provides a scientific basis for soil improvement. Among the tested grasses， L. perenne more strongly promoted the circulation and effective utilization of soil nutrients， and increased the diversity of bacterial communities. Thus L. perenne was the most efficacious in improving the soil rhizosphere environment and can be recommended based on these results.

Key words: grass, rhizosphere soil, soil enzyme activity, bacteria community diversity

Shan-shan TANG, Min HU. Differences in enzyme activity and bacterial community structure in rhizosphere soil of four grass species[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(8): 99-108.

Figures/Tables 8

References 55

1	Aqeel M， Ran J Z， Hu W G， et al. Plant-soil-microbe interactions in maintaining ecosystem stability and coordinated turnover under changing environmental conditions. Chemosphere， 2023， 318： 137924.
2	Mueller C W， Baumert V， Carminati A， et al. From rhizosphere to detritusphere-Soil structure formation driven by plant roots and the interactions with soil biota. Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2024， 193： 109396.
3	Borowik A， Wyszkowska J， Kucharski J. Impact of various grass species on soil bacteriobiome. Diversity， 2020， 12（6）： 212.
4	Stefanowicz A M， Kapusta P， Stanek M， et al. Herbaceous plant species and their combinations positively affect soil microorganisms and processes and modify soil physicochemical properties in a mesocosm experiment. Forest Ecology and Management， 2023， 532： 120826.
5	Xiao L， Ma Y Y， Yuwen P Y， et al. Mixed grass species differ in rhizosphere microbial community structure and function response to drought compared to monocultures. Rhizosphere， 2022， 24： 100615.
6	Berendsen R L， Pieterse C M J， Bakker P A H M. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends in Plant Science， 2012， 17（8）： 478-486.
7	Zhou J， Liu C Y， Shi L L， et al. Rhizosphere influence on microbial functions： consequence for temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition at early stage of plant growth. Plant and Soil， 2024， 494（1）： 95-109.
8	Mencel J， Mocek-Płóciniak A， Kryszak A. Soil microbial community and enzymatic activity of grasslands under different use practices： A review. Agronomy， 2022， 12（5）： 1136.
9	Bardgett R D， Bullock J M， Lavorel S， et al. Combatting global grassland degradation. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment， 2021， 2（10）： 720-735.
10	Chang J F， Ciais P， Gasser T， et al. Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands. Nature Communications， 2021， 12（1）： 118.
11	Bardgett R D. Linking aboveground-belowground ecology： a short historical perspective. Aboveground-Belowground Community Ecology， 2018， 234： 1-17.
12	Ma Y， Zhang D G. Regulation mechanisms of rhizosphere nutrient cycling processes in grassland： A review. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2020， 29（11）： 172-182.
	马源，张德罡. 草地根际过程对养分循环调控机制研究进展. 草业学报， 2020， 29（11）： 172-182.
13	Wang Z， Jin K， Ding Y， et al. The mechanism of plants-soil microbial feedback in grassland succession. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2022， 44（1）： 95-103.
	王珍，金轲，丁勇，等. 植物-土壤微生物反馈在草地演替过程中的作用机制. 中国草地学报， 2022， 44（1）： 95-103.
14	Rumpel C， Crème A， Ngo P T， et al. The impact of grassland management on biogeochemical cycles involving carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition， 2015， 15（2）： 353-371.
15	Gong X W， Feng Y， Dang K， et al. Linkages of microbial community structure and root exudates： Evidence from microbial nitrogen limitation in soils of crop families. Science of the Total Environment， 2023， 881： 163536.
16	Qi J J， Fu D Q， Wang X Z， et al. The effect of alfalfa cultivation on improving physicochemical properties soil microorganisms community structure of grey desert soil. Scientific Reports， 2023， 13（1）： 13747.
17	Haney R L， Kiniry J R， Johnson M V V. Soil microbial activity under different grass species： Underground impacts of biofuel cropping. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment， 2010， 139（4）： 754-758.
18	Jian T K， Xia Y， He R P， et al. The influence of planting Carex praeclara and Leymus secalinus on soil properties and microbial community in a Zoige desertified alpine grassland. Global Ecology and Conservation， 2022， 34： e02002.
19	Tomazelli D， Peron R A D， Mendes S D C， et al. Plant diversity and root traits shape rhizosphere microbial communities in natural grasslands and cultivated pastures. Rhizosphere， 2024， 29： 100864.
20	Tomaskin J， Tomaskinova J. Evaluation of assortment of ornamental grasses and their environmental importance in the urban landscape. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology， 2020， 21（5）： 1673-1682.
21	Sun D Y， Li J Z， Gong Y B. Effects of planting density of Poaceae species on slope community characteristics and artificial soil nutrients in high-altitude areas. Sustainability， 2023， 15（10）： 8321.
22	Zhao Y F， Mao W， Pang L X， et al. Influence of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica on rhizosphere soil enzyme activity and bacterial community structure in a surface flow constructed wetland treating secondary domestic effluent in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research， 2020， 27（21）： 26141-26152.
23	Wang P， Wang Y， Wu Q S. Effects of soil tillage and planting grass on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal propagules and soil properties in citrus orchards in southeast China. Soil & Tillage Research， 2016， 155： 54-61.
24	Bao S D. Soil agrochemical analysis （the third edition）. Beijing： China Agriculture Press， 2000.
	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析（第三版）. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000.
25	Saiya-Cork K R， Sinsabaugh R L， Zak D R. The effects of long term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2002， 34（9）： 1309-1315.
26	Magoč T， Salzberg S L. FLASH： fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics， 2011， 27（21）： 2957-2963.
27	Chen S， Zhou Y， Chen Y， et al. Fastp： an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics， 2018， 34（17）： i884-i890.
28	Edgar R C. UPARSE： highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods， 2013， 10（10）： 996-998.
29	Lan Y M， Wang Q， Cole J R， et al. Using the RDP classifier to predict taxonomic novelty and reduce the search space for finding novel organisms. PLoS One， 2012， 7（3）： e32491.
30	Quast C， Pruesse E， Yilmaz P， et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project： improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research， 2012， 41（D1）： D590-D596.
31	Song Q， Song X S， Deng X， et al. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria microbial inoculants on the growth， rhizosphere soil properties， and bacterial community of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica annual seedlings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research， 2020， 36（4）： 249-262.
32	Caporaso J G， Kuczynski J， Stombaugh J， et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods， 2010， 7（5）： 335-336.
33	Smith D J， Duston S， Barney J N， et al. Dissolved organic carbon characteristics are associated with changes in soil microbiome under different plant species. Applied Soil Ecology， 2024， 196： 105313.
34	Khalid M， Soleman N， Jones D L. Grassland plants affect dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2007， 39（1）： 378-381.
35	Chen X L， Chen H Y H， Chang S X. Meta-analysis shows that plant mixtures increase soil phosphorus availability and plant productivity in diverse ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution， 2022， 6（8）： 1112-1121.
36	Luo L， Meng H， Gu J D. Microbial extracellular enzymes in biogeochemical cycling of ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Management， 2017， 197： 539-549.
37	Delgado-Baquerizo M， Maestre F T， Reich P B， et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nature Communications， 2016， 7（1）： 10541.
38	Daunoras J， Kačergius A， Gudiukaitė R. Role of soil microbiota enzymes in soil health and activity changes depending on climate change and the type of soil ecosystem. Biology， 2024， 13（2）： 85.
39	Sinsabaugh R L， Lauber C L， Weintraub M N， et al. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecology Letters， 2008， 11（11）： 1252-1264.
40	Yang F， Tian J， Fang H J， et al. Spatial heterogeneity of microbial community and enzyme activities in a broad-leaved Korean pine mixed forest. European Journal of Soil Biology， 2018， 88： 65-72.
41	Zheng Z M. Changes in soil physicochemical and biological properties of grassland in different years of enclosure on the Loess Plateau. Yangling： Northwest A & F University， 2019.
	郑周敏. 黄土高原不同封育年限草地土壤理化和生物学性质变化. 杨凌：西北农林科技大学， 2019.
42	Zhang C， Liu G B， Xue S， et al. Changes in rhizospheric microbial community structure and function during the natural recovery of abandoned cropland on the Loess Plateau， China. Ecological Engineering， 2015， 75： 161-171.
43	Ladygina N， Hedlund K. Plant species influence microbial diversity and carbon allocation in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry， 2010， 42（2）： 162-168.
44	Saleh D， Jarry J， Rani M， et al. Diversity， distribution and multi-functional attributes of bacterial communities associated with the rhizosphere and endosphere of timothy （Phleum pratense L.）. Journal of Applied Microbiology， 2019， 127（3）： 794-811.
45	Zhang H R， Fu G. Responses of plant， soil bacterial and fungal communities to grazing vary with pasture seasons and grassland types， northern Tibet. Land Degradation & Development， 2021， 32（4）： 1821-1832.
46	Li Q M， Li S J， Wang X L， et al. Influences of changing carbon inputs on soil microbial carbon metabolism in natural secondary forest in Yimeng mountainous area. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2021， 41（10）： 4110-4119.
	李秋梅，黎胜杰，王欣丽，等. 改变碳输入对沂蒙山区典型次生林土壤微生物碳源代谢功能的影响. 生态学报， 2021， 41（10）： 4110-4119.
47	Das R， Bharadwaj P， Thakur D. Insights into the functional role of Actinomycetia in promoting plant growth and biocontrol in tea （Camellia sinensis） plants. Archives of Microbiology， 2024， 206（2）： 65.
48	Chen H S， Liu S P， Liang G Q， et al. Effects of three cropping patterns on bacterial community structure and diversity in rhizosphere of broccoli. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences， 2021， 35（6）： 1457-1465.
	陈海生，刘守平，梁国钱，等. 3种西兰花种植方式对根际土壤细菌群落结构和多样性的影响研究. 核农学报， 2021， 35（6）： 1457-1465.
49	Li M， Zhang K R， Yan Z Q， et al. Soil water content shapes microbial community along gradients of wetland degradation on the Tibetan Plateau. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2022， 13： 824267.
50	Ma X W， Ren B H， Yu J X， et al. Changes in grassland soil types lead to different characteristics of bacterial and fungal communities in Northwest Liaoning， China. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2023， 14： 1205574.
51	Shu X Y， Hu Y F， Liu W J， et al. Linking between soil properties， bacterial communities， enzyme activities， and soil organic carbon mineralization under ecological restoration in an alpine degraded grassland. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2023， 14： 1131836.
52	Philippot L， Chenu C， Kappler A， et al. The interplay between microbial communities and soil properties. Nature Reviews Microbiology， 2024， 22（4）： 226-239.
53	Wang L X， Pang X Y， Li N， et al. Effects of vegetation type， fine and coarse roots on soil microbial communities and enzyme activities in eastern Tibetan Plateau. Catena， 2020， 194： 104694.
54	Gong B， He Y， Luo Z B， et al. Response of rhizosphere soil physicochemical properties and microbial community structure to continuous cultivation of tobacco. Annals of Microbiology， 2024， 74（1）： 4.
55	Li L S， Wang Z Y， Bai H H， et al. Structure and diversity of bacterial communities in rhizosphere soil of four plant species in Mu Us Sandy Land. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment， 2024， 38（2）： 142-149.
	李林山，王梓瑜，白慧慧，等. 毛乌素沙地4种不同植物根际土壤细菌群落结构和多样性特征. 干旱区资源与环境， 2024， 38（2）： 142-149.

处理Treatment	pH	SOC （g·kg^-1）	DOC （mg·kg^-1）	NO₃^--N （mg·kg^-1）	NH₄⁺-N （mg·kg^-1）	AP （mg·kg^-1）
CK	7.94±0.03a	5.99±0.03a	153.04±2.91c	4.56±0.38a	3.85±0.07b	15.87±0.20b
百喜草P. notatum	7.97±0.05a	6.07±0.08a	166.32±5.22b	1.65±0.19c	4.16±0.23a	15.29±0.34c
黑麦草L. perenne	7.91±0.06a	6.00±0.21a	179.53±11.21a	3.62±0.95b	4.00±0.09ab	16.46±0.15a
高羊茅F. arundinacea	7.89±0.14a	6.13±0.14a	187.97±7.02a	2.38±0.18c	4.13±0.02a	16.49±0.46a
苏丹草S. sudanense	7.94±0.07a	6.19±0.05a	166.25±5.04b	1.76±0.19c	3.86±0.06b	15.25±0.34c

处理Treatment	pH	SOC （g·kg^-1）	DOC （mg·kg^-1）	NO₃^--N （mg·kg^-1）	NH₄⁺-N （mg·kg^-1）	AP （mg·kg^-1）
CK	7.94±0.03a	5.99±0.03a	153.04±2.91c	4.56±0.38a	3.85±0.07b	15.87±0.20b
百喜草P. notatum	7.97±0.05a	6.07±0.08a	166.32±5.22b	1.65±0.19c	4.16±0.23a	15.29±0.34c
黑麦草L. perenne	7.91±0.06a	6.00±0.21a	179.53±11.21a	3.62±0.95b	4.00±0.09ab	16.46±0.15a
高羊茅F. arundinacea	7.89±0.14a	6.13±0.14a	187.97±7.02a	2.38±0.18c	4.13±0.02a	16.49±0.46a
苏丹草S. sudanense	7.94±0.07a	6.19±0.05a	166.25±5.04b	1.76±0.19c	3.86±0.06b	15.25±0.34c

处理Treatment	βG	CBH	βX	NAG	ALP
CK	32.41±3.14c	5.00±0.86c	6.19±0.47b	4.53±0.52c	20.95±0.53c
百喜草P. notatum	40.29±5.87bc	5.53±0.32c	6.38±1.29b	6.35±0.65b	24.16±1.70bc
黑麦草L. perenne	48.42±7.17ab	5.55±1.80c	7.23±1.59b	4.74±0.37c	26.26±0.66b
高羊茅F. arundinacea	49.44±6.92ab	8.88±1.72b	10.48±1.58a	6.36±0.84b	33.21±3.56a
苏丹草S. sudanense	57.97±5.12a	13.00±1.82a	11.58±0.93a	11.68±1.13a	31.90±1.68a

处理Treatment	βG	CBH	βX	NAG	ALP
CK	32.41±3.14c	5.00±0.86c	6.19±0.47b	4.53±0.52c	20.95±0.53c
百喜草P. notatum	40.29±5.87bc	5.53±0.32c	6.38±1.29b	6.35±0.65b	24.16±1.70bc
黑麦草L. perenne	48.42±7.17ab	5.55±1.80c	7.23±1.59b	4.74±0.37c	26.26±0.66b
高羊茅F. arundinacea	49.44±6.92ab	8.88±1.72b	10.48±1.58a	6.36±0.84b	33.21±3.56a
苏丹草S. sudanense	57.97±5.12a	13.00±1.82a	11.58±0.93a	11.68±1.13a	31.90±1.68a

项目Item	pH	SOC	DOC	NO₃^--N	NH₄⁺-N	AP
βG	-0.451	0.529*	0.445	-0.536*	-0.048	0.038
CBH	0.001	0.320	0.256	-0.470	-0.208	-0.199
βX	0.116	0.314	0.417	-0.385	-0.058	0.024
NAG	0.021	0.546*	0.001	-0.634*	-0.153	-0.512
ALP	0.014	0.519*	0.594*	-0.511	0.123	0.091