Abstract
Abstract
Background
Despite the knowledge that the soil–plant–microbiome nexus is shaped by interactions amongst its members, very little is known about how individual symbioses regulate this shaping. Even less is known about how the agriculturally important symbiosis of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia with legumes is impacted according to soil type, yet this knowledge is crucial if we are to harness or improve it. We asked how the plant, soil and microbiome are modulated by symbiosis between the model legume Medicago truncatula and different strains of Sinorhizobium meliloti or Sinorhizobium medicae whose nitrogen-fixing efficiency varies, in three distinct soil types that differ in nutrient fertility, to examine the role of the soil environment upon the plant–microbe interaction during nodulation.
Results
The outcome of symbiosis results in installment of a potentially beneficial microbiome that leads to increased nutrient uptake that is not simply proportional to soil nutrient abundance. A number of soil edaphic factors including Zn and Mo, and not just the classical N/P/K nutrients, group with microbial community changes, and alterations in the microbiome can be seen across different soil fertility types. Root endosphere emerged as the plant microhabitat more affected by this rhizobial efficiency-driven community reshaping, manifested by the accumulation of members of the phylum Actinobacteria. The plant in turn plays an active role in regulating its root community, including sanctioning low nitrogen efficiency rhizobial strains, leading to nodule senescence in particular plant–soil–rhizobia strain combinations.
Conclusions
The microbiome–soil–rhizobial dynamic strongly influences plant nutrient uptake and growth, with the endosphere and rhizosphere shaped differentially according to plant–rhizobial interactions with strains that vary in nitrogen-fixing efficiency levels. These results open up the possibility to select inoculation partners best suited for plant, soil type and microbial community.
Funder
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Natural Environment Research Council
Commonwealth Scholarship Commission
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Microbiology (medical),Microbiology
Reference86 articles.
1. Pimentel D. Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards. Sci Total Environ. 1996;188(Suppl 1):S86-98.
2. Pingali PL. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(31):12302–8.
3. Jhu MY, Oldroyd GED. Dancing to a different tune, can we switch from chemical to biological nitrogen fixation for sustainable food security? PLoS Biol. 2023;21(3):e3001982.
4. Tanentzap AJ, Lamb A, Walker S, Farmer A. Resolving conflicts between agriculture and the natural environment. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(9):e1002242.
5. Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW, Schlesinger WH, Tilman DG. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl. 1997;7:737–50.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献