4.1 Article

Identifying microbial drivers promoting plant growth on soil amended with composted aquatic plant: insight into nutrient transfer from aquatic to terrestrial systems

期刊

LIMNOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 443-452

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10201-020-00613-3

关键词

Bacteria; Fungi; Lake Biwa; Metabarcoding; Japanese mustard spinach; Structural equation models

资金

  1. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) [D06-14200119]
  2. Ohmi Environment Conservation Foundation
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT) [17K15199, 18K05731]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18K05731, 17K15199] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of applying composted aquatic plants on soil chemistry, soil microbes (fungi and bacteria), and the growth of cultivated plant were demonstrated. To identify drivers promoting cultivated plant growth on soil amended with composted aquatic plant, empirical data of pot experiments were incorporated into structural equation models by hypothesizing causal relationships between the application of composted aquatic plants, soil chemistry, soil microbes, and cultivated plant growth. Cultivated plant growth, total carbon content, and bacterial and fungal richness in soil increased on soil applied with composted aquatic plants, and the composition of bacterial and fungal assemblages in soil were significantly different among the application treatments. Structural equation models explicitly demonstrated the relative importance of bacterial assemblages compared to soil chemistry as a promoter of cultivated plant growth in response to the application of composted aquatic plants. The present study is the first to demonstrate that the positive effects of composted aquatic plants on terrestrial plant growth are mediated by soil microbial processes. Our results could provide basic insights into the transfer and cycling of nutrients from aquatic to terrestrial systems through human activities.

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

4.1
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