Paper · 2015 · Environmental Microbiology

The core root microbiome of sugarcanes cultivated under varying nitrogen fertilizer application

Yun Kit Yeoh; Chanyarat Paungfoo‐Lonhienne; Paul G. Dennis; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
213
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Diazotrophic bacteria potentially supply substantial amounts of biologically fixed nitrogen to crops, but their occurrence may be suppressed by high nitrogen fertilizer application. Here, we explored the impact of high nitrogen fertilizer rates on the presence of diazotrophs in field-grown sugarcane with industry-standard or reduced nitrogen fertilizer application. Despite large differences in soil microbial communities between test sites, a core sugarcane root microbiome was identified. The sugarcane root-enriched core taxa overlap with those of Arabidopsis thaliana raising the possibility that certain bacterial families have had long association with plants. Reduced nitrogen fertilizer application had remarkably little effect on the core root microbiome and did not increase the relative abundance of root-associated diazotrophs or nif gene counts. Correspondingly, low nitrogen fertilizer crops had lower biomass and nitrogen content, reflecting a lack of major input of biologically fixed nitrogen, indicating that manipulating nitrogen fertilizer rates does not improve sugarcane yields by enriching diazotrophic populations under the test conditions. Standard nitrogen fertilizer crops had improved biomass and nitrogen content, and corresponding soils had higher abundances of nitrification and denitrification genes. These findings highlight that achieving a balance in maximizing crop yields and minimizing nutrient pollution associated with nitrogen fertilizer application requires understanding of how microbial communities respond to fertilizer use.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A core sugarcane root microbiome was identified despite soil community differences between sites.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Organ / stage
roote0
Outcome
core sugarcane root microbiomee0

Verbatim

e0

“Despite large differences in soil microbial communities between test sites, a core sugarcane root microbiome was identified.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 368–492 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugarcane root-enriched core taxa overlapped those of Arabidopsis thaliana.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Outcome
root-enriched core taxa overlape0
Comparator
Arabidopsis thalianae0

Verbatim

e0

“The sugarcane root-enriched core taxa overlap with those of Arabidopsis thaliana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 493–573 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced nitrogen application had little effect on the core root microbiome.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Reduced nitrogen fertilizer applicatione0
Outcome
core root microbiomee0
Direction
remarkably little effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Reduced nitrogen fertilizer application had remarkably little effect on the core root microbiome”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–765 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced nitrogen application did not increase root-associated diazotroph relative abundance.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Reduced nitrogen fertilizer applicatione1
Outcome
relative abundance of root-associated diazotrophse0
Direction
did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“did not increase the relative abundance of root-associated diazotrophs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–840 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑
e1

“Reduced nitrogen fertilizer application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–708 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced nitrogen application did not increase nif gene counts.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Reduced nitrogen fertilizer applicatione1
Outcome
nif gene countse0
Direction
did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“did not increase the relative abundance of root-associated diazotrophs or nif gene counts.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–860 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑
e1

“Reduced nitrogen fertilizer application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–708 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low nitrogen fertilizer crops had lower biomass and nitrogen content.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
low nitrogen fertilizere0
Outcome
biomass and nitrogen contente0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“low nitrogen fertilizer crops had lower biomass and nitrogen content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 878–946 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Standard nitrogen fertilizer crops had improved biomass and nitrogen content.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
Standard nitrogen fertilizere0
Outcome
biomass and nitrogen contente0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Standard nitrogen fertilizer crops had improved biomass and nitrogen content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1243 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soils of standard nitrogen crops had higher abundances of nitrification and denitrification genes.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Outcome
abundances of nitrification and denitrification genese0
Direction
highere0

Verbatim

e0

“corresponding soils had higher abundances of nitrification and denitrification genes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1334 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcanes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–38 · show in text ↑

fertilization · molecular: expression · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

fertilization · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

fertilization · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 26 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

fertilization · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

147 papers: 129 positive, 18 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

143 papers more in this group

See all 147 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.