iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35369467/
Intercropping Walnut and Tea: Effects on Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activity, and Microbial Communities - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 18:13:852342.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.852342. eCollection 2022.

Intercropping Walnut and Tea: Effects on Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activity, and Microbial Communities

Yong-Chao Bai  1 , Bao-Xin Li  1 , Chun-Yong Xu  2 , Mubashar Raza  3 , Qi Wang  1 , Qi-Zhu Wang  4 , Ya-Nan Fu  4 , Jian-Yang Hu  5 , Abdessamad Imoulan  6 , Muzammil Hussain  3 , Yong-Jie Xu  2
Affiliations

Intercropping Walnut and Tea: Effects on Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activity, and Microbial Communities

Yong-Chao Bai et al. Front Microbiol. .

Abstract

The practice of intercropping, which involves growing more than one crop simultaneously during the same growing season, is becoming more important for increasing soil quality, land-use efficiency, and subsequently crop productivity. The present study examined changes in soil physicochemical properties, enzymatic activity, and microbial community composition when walnut (Juglans spp.) was intercropped with tea (Camellia sinensis L.) plants in a forest and compared with a walnut and tea monocropping system. The results showed that walnut-tea intercropping improved the soil nutrient profile and enzymatic activity. The soil available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), organic matter (OM) content, and sucrase activity were significantly boosted in intercropped walnut and tea than in monocropping forests. The interaction between crops further increased bacterial and fungal diversity when compared to monoculture tea forests. Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Chlamydiae, Rozellomycota, and Zoopagomycota were found in greater abundance in an intercropping pattern than in monoculture walnut and tea forest plantations. The walnut-tea intercropping system also markedly impacted the abundance of several bacterial and fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs), which were previously shown to support nutrient cycling, prevent diseases, and ameliorate abiotic stress. The results of this study suggest that intercropping walnut with tea increased host fitness and growth by positively influencing soil microbial populations.

Keywords: bacterial community; beneficial microbiota; fungal community; intercropping; microbial diversity; soil nutrients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

J-YH is employed by Shenyang Sinochem Agrochemicals R&D Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
A map of sampling locations in the experimental areas of the Daba Mountains. A diagram showing the collection of soil samples from monoculture tea (T) and walnut (W) forests and intercropping forests (W&T) in Dianya town. Green triangles, red squares, and blue stars represent monoculture tea forests (T), monoculture walnut forests (W), and intercropping forests (W&T) in study sites, respectively.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Chemical properties (A) and enzyme activities (B) of the pure forest and intercropping forest. A different lowercase letter on each bar indicates a least significant difference (LSD; p < 0.05) between monoculture tea forest (T), monoculture walnut forest (W), and walnut–tea intercropping forest (W&T). AN, available nitrogen; AP, available phosphorus; AK, available potassium; OM, organic matter.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Bacterial community α-diversity and β-diversity. (A) Shannon’s diversity for bacterial communities in monoculture tea forest (T), monoculture walnut forest (W), and walnut–tea intercropping forest (W&T). A box indicates the interquartile range; a black line indicates the median value. A lowercase letter on each box represents a least significant difference (LSD; p < 0.05) between the T, W, and T&W. Asterisks indicates significant differences (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). (B) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plots based on the Bray–Curtis distance demonstrating the separation between soil bacterial communities of three forest types. (C) The Venn diagram shows the numbers of bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that are shared or unshared by T, W, and W&T.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Average relative abundance (RA) of the most dominant bacterial phyla and families in the monoculture tea forest (T), monoculture walnut forest (W), and walnut–tea intercropping forest (W&T). (A) RA of bacterial communities at the phylum level. (B) RA of bacterial communities at the family level. Only operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with RA > 1% in at least one sample were included in the analysis. Different lowercase letters on each bar indicate the least significant differences (LSDs; p < 0.05) among T, W, and W&T treatments.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Fungal community α-diversity and β-diversity. (A) Shannon’s diversity for fungal communities in monoculture tea forest (T), monoculture walnut forest (W), and intercropping forest (W&T). A box indicates the interquartile range; a black line indicates the median value. A lowercase letter on each box represents a least significant difference (LSD, p < 0.05) between the T, W, and W&T. Asterisks indicates significant differences (*p < 0.05). (B) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plots based on the Bray–Curtis distance demonstrating the separation between soil fungal communities of three forest types. (C) The Venn diagram shows the numbers of fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that are shared or unshared by T, W, and W&T.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Average relative abundance (RA) of the most dominant fungal phyla and families in the monoculture tea forest (T), monoculture walnut forest (W), and walnut–tea intercropping forest (W&T). (A) RA of fungal communities at the phylum level. (B) RA of fungal communities at the family level. Only operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with RA > 1% in at least one sample were included in the analysis. Different lowercase letters on each bar indicate the least significant differences (LSDs; p < 0.05) among T, W, and W&T treatments.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Ternary plot showing bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) (A) and fungal OTUs (B) significantly enriched in monoculture tea forest (T, brown circles), monoculture walnut forest (W, green circles), and walnut–tea intercropping forest (W&T, blue circles). Each circle represents one OTU. The size of each circle represents its RA. The position of each circle is determined by the contribution of the indicated group to total RA. Only taxa with RA > 1‰ in at least one sample were included in the analysis.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Two-way co-occurring network analysis of soil characteristics, enzyme activity, and bacterial (A) and fungal (B) community within three forest types. The size of each node is proportional to the relative abundance. The colors of the lines indicate positive (red) and negative (green) correlations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Abbasi S. A., Nazari M., Fallah S., Iranipour R., Mousavi A. (2020). The competitive effect of almond trees on light and nutrients absorption, crop growth rate, and the yield in almond–cereal agroforestry systems in semi-arid regions. Agroforest. Syst. 94 1111–1122. 10.1007/s10457-019-00469-2 - DOI
    1. Abdul R. N., Abdul H. N., Nadarajah K. (2021). Effects of abiotic stress on soil microbiome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22 9036. 10.3390/ijms22169036 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmed A., Aftab S., Hussain S., Nazir Cheema H., Liu W. G., Yang F., et al. (2020). Nutrient accumulation and distribution assessment in response to potassium application under maize–soybean intercropping system. Agronomy 10:725. 10.3390/agronomy10050725 - DOI
    1. Arenas-Corraliza M. G., López-Díaz M. L., Moreno G. (2018). Winter cereal production in a Mediterranean silvoarable walnut system in the face of climate change. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 264 111–118. 10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.024 - DOI
    1. Bach C. E., Warnock D. D., Van Horn D. J., Weintraub M. N., Sinsabaugh R. L., Allison S. D., et al. (2013). Measuring phenol oxidase and peroxidase activities with pyrogallol, l-DOPA, and ABTS: effect of assay conditions and soil type. Soil Biol. Biochem. 67 183–191. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.022 - DOI