Paper · 2022 · Frontiers in Environmental Science

Response of Soil Microbial Community Structure to Phosphate Fertilizer Reduction and Combinations of Microbial Fertilizer

Hang Liu; Songsong Li; Ruowen Qiang; et al.

7
claims
17
verbatim quotes
54
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The excessive application of phosphorus (P) fertilizer is becoming a major agricultural problem, which reduces the utilization rate of the P fertilizer and degrades soil quality. The following five P fertilizer treatments were investigated to know how they affect soil properties, enzyme activity, bacterial and fungal community structure. 1) no P fertilizer (P0); 2) farmers’ traditional P fertilization scheme (FP); 3) 30% reduction in P fertilizer application (P1, microbial blended fertilizer as base fertilizer); 4) 30% reduction in P fertilizer application (P2, diammonium phosphate as starting fertilizer); 5) 30% reduction in P fertilizer application (P3, microbial inoculum seed dressing). The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP), however, soil urease activity was significantly reduced. Moreover, the P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased the relative abundance of a potential beneficial genus (i.e., Bacillus , Pseudomonas , Penicillium , and Acremonium ) and potentially pathogenic genus (i.e., Fusarium , Gibberella , and Drechslera ). The structural equation model (SEM) revealed that different P fertilizer reduction systems had significant indirect effects on bacterial and fungal community structures. The results suggested that the P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer systems regulated the pathogenic and beneficial genus which created a microbial community that is favorable for maize growth. Moreover, the findings highlighted the importance of soil properties in determining the soil bacterial and fungal community structure.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer increased soil organic matter, total phosphorus and available phosphorus.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizere0
Outcome
soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP)e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–931 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer increased available potassium and acid phosphatase activity.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizere0
Outcome
available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–931 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer reduced soil urease activity.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizere0
Outcome
soil urease activitye1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–931 · show in text ↑
e1

“however, soil urease activity was significantly reduced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–988 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer increased the relative abundance of the potentially beneficial genus Bacillus.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizere0
Interactor
Bacilluse2symbiont
Outcome
relative abundancee2
Direction
increasede2
Qualifier
Pseudomonas , Penicillium , and Acremoniume2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–931 · show in text ↑
e2

“significantly increased the relative abundance of a potential beneficial genus (i.e., Bacillus , Pseudomonas , Penicillium , and Acremonium ) and potentially pathogenic genus (i.e., Fusarium , Gibberella , and Drechslera )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1284 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer increased the relative abundance of the potentially pathogenic genus Fusarium.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizere0
Interactor
FusariumFusariume2pathogen
Outcome
relative abundancee2
Direction
increasede2
Qualifier
Gibberella , and Drechslerae2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The P fertilizer reduction combined with microbial fertilizer significantly increased soil organic matter (SOM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP) available potassium (AK) contents, and acid phosphatase activity (ACP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–931 · show in text ↑
e2

“significantly increased the relative abundance of a potential beneficial genus (i.e., Bacillus , Pseudomonas , Penicillium , and Acremonium ) and potentially pathogenic genus (i.e., Fusarium , Gibberella , and Drechslera )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1284 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)simulated

Claim · model-written summary

Different P fertilizer reduction systems had significant indirect effects on bacterial and fungal community structures.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Treatment
different P fertilizer reduction systemse3
Outcome
bacterial and fungal community structurese3

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“different P fertilizer reduction systems had significant indirect effects on bacterial and fungal community structures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1454 · show in text ↑
e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Soil properties were important in determining the soil bacterial and fungal community structure.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse4
Outcome
soil bacterial and fungal community structuree5
Qualifier
importance of soil propertiese5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“favorable for maize growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1669 · show in text ↑
e5

“the findings highlighted the importance of soil properties in determining the soil bacterial and fungal community structure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1681–1804 · show in text ↑

fertilization · Fusarium · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

fertilization · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

64 papers: 42 positive, 22 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.