4.7 Article

Chloropicrin fumigation alters the soil phosphorus and the composition of the encoding alkaline phosphatase PhoD gene microbial community

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 711, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135080

关键词

Chloropicrin; Phosphorus fractionation; phoD-harboring microbes; Alkaline phosphatase; Leached phosphorus

资金

  1. Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0201600]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture of China [2110402]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201704280020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transformation of phosphorus (P) compounds in soil depends largely on soil microbial communities and is sensitive to agricultural practices. However, the effects of soil fumigation on soil P, and microbes involved in P transformation, are unknown. Our results showed that chloropicrin (CP) fumigation significantly increased the available-P, Leached-P and active-P fractionation (inorganic P extracted from H2O, NaHCO3 and NaOH) in Shangdong and Miyun soils in the early stages of culture, while soil alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and phoD gene abundance decreased significantly. Leached-P in fumigated soil was positively correlated with increased active-P fractionation, indicating that it was an important source of soil Leached-P after fumigation. The changes in P-fractionation, Leached-P and ALP after fumigation were also significantly correlated with the composition of the microbial communities. CP fumigation briefly stimulated an increase in the abundance and diversity of phoD-harboring microbial communities and promoted the mineralization process of soil P. PICRUSt metagenomic analysis showed an increase in the relative abundance of microorganisms with involved in carbohydrate/lipid transport and metabolism functions after fumigation. These results suggest CP fumigation altered soil P transformation and phoD-harboring microbes that might lead to an increased risk of P enrichment in waterways. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据