4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Combining N fertilization with biochar affects root-shoot growth, rhizosphere soil properties and bacterial communities under sugarcane monocropping

      , , , , ,
      Industrial Crops and Products
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of biochar additions to soil on nitrogen leaching, microbial biomass and bacterial community structure

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Nitrification in acid soils: micro-organisms and mechanisms

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Protist communities are more sensitive to nitrogen fertilization than other microorganisms in diverse agricultural soils

              Background Agricultural food production is at the base of food and fodder, with fertilization having fundamentally and continuously increased crop yield over the last decades. The performance of crops is intimately tied to their microbiome as they together form holobionts. The importance of the microbiome for plant performance is, however, notoriously ignored in agricultural systems as fertilization disconnects the dependency of plants for often plant-beneficial microbial processes. Moreover, we lack a holistic understanding of how fertilization regimes affect the soil microbiome. Here, we examined the effect of a 2-year fertilization regime (no nitrogen fertilization control, nitrogen fertilization, and nitrogen fertilization plus straw amendment) on entire soil microbiomes (bacteria, fungi, and protist) in three common agricultural soil types cropped with maize in two seasons. Results We found that the application of nitrogen fertilizers more strongly affected protist than bacterial and fungal communities. Nitrogen fertilization indirectly reduced protist diversity through changing abiotic properties and bacterial and fungal communities which differed between soil types and sampling seasons. Nitrogen fertilizer plus straw amendment had greater effects on soil physicochemical properties and microbiome diversity than nitrogen addition alone. Moreover, nitrogen fertilization, even more together with straw, increased soil microbiome network complexity, suggesting that the application of nitrogen fertilizers tightened soil microbiomes interactions. Conclusions Together, our results suggest that protists are the most susceptible microbiome component to the application of nitrogen fertilizers. As protist communities also exhibit the strongest seasonal dynamics, they serve as the most sensitive bioindicators of soil changes. Changes in protist communities might have long-term effects if some of the key protist hubs that govern microbiome complexities as top microbiome predators are altered. This study serves as the stepping stone to promote protists as promising agents in targeted microbiome engineering to help in reducing the dependency on exogenous unsustainably high fertilization and pesticide applications. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40168-019-0647-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Industrial Crops and Products
                Industrial Crops and Products
                Elsevier BV
                09266690
                August 2022
                August 2022
                : 182
                : 114899
                Article
                10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114899
                9d3ccac4-1bfd-4046-a0c5-13229006e875
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article