Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) productivity influenced by microbial inocula under nitrogen 您所在的位置:网站首页 limited conditions Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) productivity influenced by microbial inocula under nitrogen

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) productivity influenced by microbial inocula under nitrogen

2024-03-24 17:46| 来源: 网络整理| 查看: 265

Abstract

The demand for food will outpace productivity of conventional agriculture due to projected growth of the human population, concomitant with shrinkage of arable land, increasing scarcity of freshwater, and a rapidly changing climate. While aquaponics has potential to sustainably supplement food production with minimal environmental impact, there is a need to better characterize the complex interplay between the various components (fish, plant, microbiome) of these systems to optimize scale up and productivity. Here, we investigated how the commonly-implemented practice of continued microbial community transfer from pre-existing systems might promote or impede productivity of aquaponics. Specifically, we monitored plant growth phenotypes, water chemistry, and microbiome composition of rhizospheres, biofilters, and fish feces over 61-days of lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. crispa) growth in nitrogen-limited aquaponic systems inoculated with bacteria that were either commercially sourced or originating from a pre-existing aquaponic system. Lettuce above- and below-ground growth were significantly reduced across replicates treated with a pre-existing aquaponic system inoculum when compared to replicates treated with a commercial inoculum. Reduced productivity was associated with enrichment in specific bacterial genera in plant roots, including Pseudomonas, following inoculum transfer from pre-existing systems. Increased productivity was associated with enrichment of nitrogen-fixing Rahnella in roots of plants treated with the commercial inoculum. Thus, we show that inoculation from a pre-existing system, rather than from a commercial inoculum, is associated with lower yields. Further work will be necessary to test the putative mechanisms involved.

Citation: Day JA, Diener C, Otwell AE, Tams KE, Bebout B, Detweiler AM, et al. (2021) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) productivity influenced by microbial inocula under nitrogen-limited conditions in aquaponics. PLoS ONE 16(2): e0247534. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534

Editor: Zhili He, Sun Yat-Sen University, CHINA

Received: September 15, 2020; Accepted: February 8, 2021; Published: February 23, 2021

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: R notebooks and scripts to reproduce the analysis starting from the raw FASTQ files are provided at https://github.com/gibbons-lab/aquaponics. The analysis of the validation samples can be found in the same repository. More complex algorithms such as the Expectation-Maximization algorithm are available in a dedicated R package along with documentation at https://github.com/gibbons-lab/mbtools. Raw sequencing data (study and validation data) has been deposited in NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the project ID PRJNA641448.

Funding: This research was possible due to the support and resources provided by Ray Williams and the Black Farmers Collective, Jeff King and the Microsoft Giving Campaign, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Youth Employment Program, CrowdRise donors, the National Science Foundation (NSF MSB-1237267, MCB-1616955, MCB-1518261, DB-1262637, DB-1565166, MCB-1330912), a Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award (supporting CD and SMG), and a Scientific Innovation Fund grant from the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist to Brad M. Bebout. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Sustainable food production has been on the rise in recent decades as traditional agricultural practices, which contribute to large-scale environmental degradation and enormous resource consumption, fall short of fulfilling the demands of our growing human population [1]. Aquaponics offers a sustainable alternative to traditional food production methods by combining hydroponic plant cultivation with aquaculture in a semi closed-loop system [2] that minimizes water and fertilizer use, increases agricultural efficiency [3], and does not require arable land. Central to the health of fish and plants in these systems are microorganisms, which drive many critical functions such as nitrogen cycling, plant growth promotion, disease resistance, and nutrient uptake; however, a deeper understanding of microbial community composition and function in aquatic agricultural systems is central to engineering and scaling-up efficient, sustainable food systems with low natural resource dependence [4]. While some work has been conducted on microbial communities in hydroponics [5] and aquaponics [4, 6], our knowledge of the microbial ecology of aquaponics is mainly grounded in soil-based agricultural research [7–9].

Interest among researchers and growers in aquaponic microbes has been focused on initiating nitrogen cycling and promoting plant growth via inoculation with plant growth promoting microbes (PGPMs). For this reason, one of two inoculation strategies are traditionally used to initiate cycling: 1) addition of commercially-derived nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter, and Nitrospira) or 2) transfer of established bacteria from existing, healthy aquaponic systems. Despite the inclusion of PGPMs, a 2018 international survey found that 84.4% of aquaponic growers observed disease in their systems, of which 78.1% could not identify the causal agent [10]. Therefore, understanding the effect that microbial transfer has on production in aquaponics is crucial not only to establish best practices and increase commercial profitability by way of improving efficiency, but also to decrease loss due to disease. Of the growers who observed disease, a mere 6.2% used pesticides or biopesticides against plant pathogens and relied, instead, on non-curative actions, likely due to a lack of knowledge among aquaponic growers regarding disease control measures [10]. Knowledge of key associations between microbial genera and productivity throughout early stages of system establishment could enable the development of diagnostic tools for monitoring microbiome composition, potentially aiding in early detection and prevention of system collapse.

Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) established Project Feed 1010 (PF1010) to promote education and research around sustainable food systems, such as aquaponics, to help combat global food insecurity. Through ISB high school internships supported by the Seattle Youth Employment Program, small-scale aquaponic experiments were designed and carried out in collaboration with researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center to test how two inoculation strategies impacted productivity. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol limited the number of fish per system to prioritize animal welfare, which meant that our aquaponic systems were nitrogen-limited compared to commercial systems. We examined how microbiome transfer from either pre-existing systems or commercial inoculum promoted or impeded plant productivity. We compared lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. crispa) production in these two distinct systems—those inoculated with the biofilter media from an established, fully cycled aquaponic system (“established inoculum treatment” or “EIT”) and those inoculated with a commercially-available microbial consortium (“commercial inoculum treatment” or “CIT”).

Results and discussion

An overview of the aquaponics systems and experimental design is shown in Fig 1A. Over the 61-day study period, lettuce growth (height, number of leaves, and root length) was significantly reduced in all EIT replicates compared to growth in CIT replicates (Fig 1B–1D). Physicochemical properties did not significantly differ across aquaponic systems over the study period (S1 Fig, all individual Welch t-test p>0.07), making it unlikely that the observed growth disparity can be explained by system-wide biogeochemical parameters. Therefore, we explored potential associations between microbial community composition and plant growth parameters.

Download: PPTPowerPoint slidePNGlarger imageTIFForiginal imageFig 1. Aquaponic system design and plant phenotypes.

(A) Aquaponics sampling timeline and system design. Left shows aquaponics system design and right sampling strategy. Gray circles on top denote experimental events and every black empty circle denotes a single sample. One fish feces sample could not be extracted at day 14 and was resampled at day 30. (B) Representative images of L. sativa plants and roots after a month of growth in systems with different inocula. (C) Plant growth over time. Each dot denotes the average plant height for a single aquaponic system taken at the indicated time point. Measures from the same tank are connected by lines. Gray line denotes growth in the prior aquaponics system that was used as the source for EIT. (D) Plant growth measures by inoculum. Each point denotes an average value measured in a single tank at a single time point (n = 104, 22, 105 for leaves, root length, and plant height, respectively). Stars denote significance under a Mann-Whitney U test (all p300 reads). Colors of cells denote the normalized abundance on a base 10 log-scale. Sample names are composed of sampling group ID (e.g. T1), compartment (B = biofilter, F = fish feces, R = root, Comm = commercial inoculum) and tank number (1–6). Orange arrows denote genera of interest. Black fill color denotes initial root sample from rock wool cubes (not part of inoculation strategy).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534.g002

In examining whether microbiome transfer affected establishment of microbial communities in new systems, we found alpha-diversity increased with time in all compartments and achieved similar values for CIT and EIT tanks in biofilters and roots at day 61 (Fig 3A). This temporal development of alpha-diversity was not an artefact of a bias due to sequencing depth (S4 Fig). Aquaponic compartments each had distinct microbial compositions (Fig 3B). A total of 44% of variation in beta-diversity was explained by a combination of compartment (25%), inoculum (11%), and an interaction term of the two (8%; all PERMANOVA p values < 0.02). Conversely, prior studies in nitrogen-replete systems found that the microbial composition of different compartments in established systems, with the exception of fish feces, were quite similar [6].

Download: PPTPowerPoint slidePNGlarger imageTIFForiginal imageFig 3. Amplicon sequencing of the full-length 16S rRNA gene across the aquaponic systems.

(A) Alpha-diversity (Shannon index) over time. Colors and shapes denote initial microbial sources and sampling compartments respectively. All samples were rarefied to 3,000 reads each. (B) (B) PCoA plot of individual samples from all time points. Colors and shapes are the same as in panel A. All samples were rarefied to 3,000 reads each. Ellipses denote 95% confidence interval from Student t-distribution separating compartments. (C) Significant associations (FDR adjusted p96% of those spurious mappings. (D) Abundances of nitrifying taxa in both sequencing protocols. Dots denote the sum in the two replicates. Abundances smaller than one denote taxa not detected in Illumina sequencing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534.s003

(PNG)

S4 Fig. Rarefaction curves for all samples.

Points denote alpha diversity estimate (Shannon index) after subsampling to the specified depth. Lines denote LOESS smoothing regression lines for each individual sample. Colors and panels denote sampling time point and aquaponics system compartment, respectively. Endpoint of each curve denotes the actual depth of each sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534.s004

(PNG)

S1 Table. Final wet mass and dry mass (biomass) of L. sativa leaves in all replicates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534.s005

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Amount of 9 key nutrients found in L. sativa leaves at the end of the 61-day study period.

*Low concentrations compared to L. sativa soil-grown sufficiency range. **High concentrations compared to L. sativa soil-grown sufficiency range.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247534.s006

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible due to strategic collaborations fostered by Claudia Ludwig.

References1. Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. World Resources Institute; 2018 Dec. 2. Sneed K, Allen K, Ellis JE. Fish farming and hydroponics. Aquaculture and the Fish Farmer. 1975;1: 11, 18–20. View Article Google Scholar 3. Blidariu F, Grozea A. Increasing the Economical Efficiency and Sustainability of Indoor Fish Farming by Means of Aquaponics. Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2011;44: 1–8. View Article Google Scholar 4. Bartelme RP, Oyserman BO, Blom JE, Sepulveda-Villet OJ, Newton RJ. Stripping Away the Soil: Plant Growth Promoting Microbiology Opportunities in Aquaponics. Front Microbiol. 2018;9: 8. pmid:29403461 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 5. Sheridan C, Depuydt P, De Ro M, Petit C, Van Gysegem E, Delaere P, et al. Microbial Community Dynamics and Response to Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms in the Rhizosphere of Four Common Food Crops Cultivated in Hydroponics. Microb Ecol. 2017;73: 378–393. pmid:27645138 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 6. Schmautz Z, Graber A, Jaenicke S, Goesmann A, Junge R, Smits THM. Microbial diversity in different compartments of an aquaponics system. Arch Microbiol. 2017;199: 613–620. pmid:28074233 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 7. Turner TR, James EK, Poole PS. The plant microbiome. Genome Biol. 2013;14: 209. pmid:23805896 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 8. Hirsch PR, Mauchline TH. Who’s who in the plant root microbiome? Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30: 961–962. pmid:23051815 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 9. Philippot L, Raaijmakers JM, Lemanceau P, van der Putten WH. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11: 789–799. pmid:24056930 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 10. Stouvenakers G, Dapprich P, Massart S, Jijakli MH. Plant Pathogens and Control Strategies in Aquaponics. In: Goddek S, Joyce A, Kotzen B, Burnell GM, editors. Aquaponics Food Production Systems: Combined Aquaculture and Hydroponic Production Technologies for the Future. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 353–378. 11. Wongkiew S, Park M-R, Chandran K, Khanal SK. Aquaponic Systems for Sustainable Resource Recovery: Linking Nitrogen Transformations to Microbial Communities. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52: 12728–12739. pmid:30264997 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 12. Kostka JE, Green SJ, Rishishwar L, Prakash O, Katz LS, Mariño-Ramírez L, et al. Genome sequences for six Rhodanobacter strains, isolated from soils and the terrestrial subsurface, with variable denitrification capabilities. J Bacteriol. 2012;194: 4461–4462. pmid:22843592 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 13. Azcon R, Gomez M, Tobar R. Effects of nitrogen source on growth, nutrition, photosynthetic rate and nitrogen metabolism of mycorrhizal and phosphorus-fertilized plants of Lactuca sativa L. New Phytologist. 1992. pp. 227–234. View Article Google Scholar 14. Bever JD. Feedback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. Ecology. 1994;75: 1965–1977. View Article Google Scholar 15. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR. Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett. 2008. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x pmid:18522641 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 16. McDonald BA, Stukenbrock EH. Rapid emergence of pathogens in agro-ecosystems: global threats to agricultural sustainability and food security. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371. pmid:28080995 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 17. Mariotte P, Mehrabi Z, Bezemer TM, De Deyn GB, Kulmatiski A, Drigo B, et al. Plant–Soil Feedback: Bridging Natural and Agricultural Sciences. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33: 129–142. pmid:29241940 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 18. Dias T, Dukes A, Antunes PM. Accounting for soil biotic effects on soil health and crop productivity in the design of crop rotations. J Sci Food Agric. 2015;95: 447–454. pmid:24408021 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 19. Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. 20. Höfte M, De Vos P. Plant pathogenic Pseudomonas species. Plant-Associated Bacteria. 2007. pp. 507–533. View Article Google Scholar 21. Bull CT, De Boer SH, Denny TP, Firrao G. Comprehensive list of names of plant pathogenic bacteria, 1980–2007. Journal of Plant. 2010. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41998846 View Article Google Scholar 22. Bull CT, De Boer SH, Denny TP, Firrao G, Fischer-Le Saux M, Saddler GS, et al. LIST OF NEW NAMES OF PLANT PATHOGENIC BACTERIA (2008–2010). J Plant Pathol. 2012;94: 21–27. View Article Google Scholar 23. Berge O, Heulin T, Achouak W, Richard C, Bally R, Balandreau J. Rahnella aquatilis, a nitrogen-fixing enteric bacterium associated with the rhizosphere of wheat and maize. Can J Microbiol. 1991;37: 195–203. View Article Google Scholar 24. Achouak W, Mot R, Heulin T. Purification and partial characterization of an outer membrane protein involved in the adhesion of Rahnella aquatilis to wheat roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1995;16: 19–24. View Article Google Scholar 25. Love DC, Fry JP, Li X, Hill ES, Genello L, Semmens K, et al. Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture. 2015;435: 67–74. View Article Google Scholar 26. Munguia-Fragozo P, Alatorre-Jacome O, Rico-Garcia E, Torres-Pacheco I, Cruz-Hernandez A, Ocampo-Velazquez RV, et al. Perspective for Aquaponic Systems: “Omic” Technologies for Microbial Community Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015: 480386. pmid:26509157 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 27. Liu Y, Rzeszutek E, van der Voort M, Wu C-H, Thoen E, Skaar I, et al. Diversity of Aquatic Pseudomonas Species and Their Activity against the Fish Pathogenic Oomycete Saprolegnia. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0136241. pmid:26317985 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 28. Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M. Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. John Wiley & Son Ltd; 1991. 29. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 581–583. pmid:27214047 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 30. Teng H, Cao MD, Hall MB, Duarte T, Wang S, Coin LJM. Chiron: translating nanopore raw signal directly into nucleotide sequence using deep learning. Gigascience. 2018;7. pmid:29648610 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 31. Marijon P, Chikhi R, Varré J-S. yacrd and fpa: upstream tools for long-read genome assembly. bioRxiv. 2019. p. 674036. View Article Google Scholar 32. Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34: 3094–3100. pmid:29750242 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 33. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012. pp. D590–D596. pmid:23193283 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 34. Teng H, Cao MD, Hall MB, Duarte T, Wang S, Coin LJM. Chiron: translating nanopore raw signal directly into nucleotide sequence using deep learning. Gigascience. 2018;7. pmid:29648610 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 35. Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18: 1403–1414. pmid:26271760 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 36. Bray NL, Pimentel H, Melsted P, Pachter L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34: 525–527. pmid:27043002 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 37. Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, et al. The SILVA and “All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Research. 2014. pp. D643–D648. pmid:24293649 View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 38. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995. pp. 289–300. View Article Google Scholar


【本文地址】

公司简介

联系我们

今日新闻

    推荐新闻

    专题文章
      CopyRight 2018-2019 实验室设备网 版权所有