Abstract
Most sugarcane growing areas in China have undergone over 30 years of continuous monocropping, and long-term chemical fertilizer application has led to severe soil degradation. In order to provide a theoretical basis for the sustainable development of sugarcane production and scientific and reasonable fertilization, the effects of different fertilization levels on agronomic traits and rhizosphere soil bacterial community in plant crop of sugarcane were investigated. Four fertilization levels were set in the experiment conducted in the field of Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences: no fertilization (0%); low fertilization level (25%); half-reduced fertilization level (50%); and full fertilization level (100%). Two sugarcane varieties GT29 and GT58 were used, and agronomic traits in sugarcane and soil physicochemical properties in the rhizosphere were measured. Illumina high-throughput sequencing technology was employed to analyze the bacterial community structure in soil. The results indicated that the cane yield showed the order of half-reduced fertilization level (50%) > full fertilization level (100%) > low fertilization level (25%) > no fertilization (0%) in both varieties, and that in GT58 showed significant differences in different treatments except for that between half-reduced fertilization level (50%) and full fertilization level (100%). The dominant bacterial phyla in the rhizosphere soil included Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteria (> 10%). Variance partitioning analysis (VPA) results indicated that soil physicochemical properties had the most significant impact on the bacterial community, followed by chemical fertilization, and then sugarcane variety. Notably, NO3-, pH, organic matter (OM), available P, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu and Zn contents in soil all had a significant impact on the bacterial community composition (P < 0.05). Differential species analysis revealed that, under high chemical fertilization, three bacterial genera, Chujaibacter, Sporolactobacillus, and Ammoniphilus, were significantly enriched. In contrast, under no fertilization treatment, the bacterial genera such as Flavisolibacter, Aquicella, Ramlibacter, Anaeromyxobacter, Candidatus Solibacter, Polycyclovorans, and Candidatus Koribacter were significantly enriched. Co-occurrence network analysis showed that the half-reduced fertilization level (50%) treatment increased both the number of nodes and connections in the co-occurrence network, promoting positive correlations among the bacterial species in the rhizosphere of sugarcane. In summary, under the conditions of this study, compared to the full fertilization treatment, reducing fertilization by half did not decrease cane yield and did not significantly alter the community diversity of rhizosphere soil bacteria. Therefore, it was recommended as a viable alternative for fertilization in sugarcane.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
In GT29, cane yield ranked 50% above 100%, 25% and 0% fertilizer levels.
Verbatim
e0“The results indicated that the cane yield showed the order of half-reduced fertilization level (50%) > full fertilization level (100%) > low fertilization level (25%) > no fertilization (0%) in both varieties”
e1“Two sugarcane varieties GT29 and GT58 were used”
Claim · model-written summary
In GT58, cane yield ranked 50% above 100%, 25% and 0% fertilizer levels, with no significant difference between 50% and 100%.
Verbatim
e0“The results indicated that the cane yield showed the order of half-reduced fertilization level (50%) > full fertilization level (100%) > low fertilization level (25%) > no fertilization (0%) in both varieties, and that in GT58 showed significant differences in different treatments except for that between half-reduced fertilization level (50%) and full fertilization level (100%).”
e1“Two sugarcane varieties GT29 and GT58 were used”
Claim · model-written summary
Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi and Acidobacteria were dominant in sugarcane rhizosphere soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Interactor
- Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, and AcidobacteriaPseudomonadotaAcidobacteriotaChloroflexotaActinomycetotae0symbiont
- Outcome
- dominant bacterial phylae0
- Value
- > 10%e0
Verbatim
e0“The dominant bacterial phyla in the rhizosphere soil included Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteria (> 10%).”
e1“rhizosphere soil of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil physicochemical properties explained the bacterial community more strongly than fertilization or sugarcane variety.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- chemical fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- bacterial communitye0
- Qualifier
- soil physicochemical propertiese0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Variance partitioning analysis (VPA) results indicated that soil physicochemical properties had the most significant impact on the bacterial community, followed by chemical fertilization, and then sugarcane variety.”
e1“rhizosphere soil of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil NO3-, pH, organic matter, available P, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu and Zn were significantly related to bacterial community composition.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“NO3-, pH, organic matter (OM), available P, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu and Zn contents in soil all had a significant impact on the bacterial community composition (P < 0.05).”
e1“rhizosphere soil of sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
High chemical fertilization enriched Chujaibacter, Sporolactobacillus and Ammoniphilus.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee1
- Treatment
- high chemical fertilizatione0
- Interactor
- Chujaibacter, Sporolactobacillus, and AmmoniphilusSporolactobacillusAmmoniphilusChujaibactere0other
- Outcome
- Chujaibacter, Sporolactobacillus, and Ammoniphiluse0
- Direction
- enrichede0
- Comparator
- no fertilization treatmente2
Verbatim
e0“under high chemical fertilization, three bacterial genera, Chujaibacter, Sporolactobacillus, and Ammoniphilus, were significantly enriched.”
e1“rhizosphere soil of sugarcane”
e2“under no fertilization treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No fertilization enriched Flavisolibacter, Aquicella, Ramlibacter, Anaeromyxobacter, Candidatus Solibacter, Polycyclovorans and Candidatus Koribacter.
Verbatim
e0“under no fertilization treatment, the bacterial genera such as Flavisolibacter, Aquicella, Ramlibacter, Anaeromyxobacter, Candidatus Solibacter, Polycyclovorans, and Candidatus Koribacter were significantly enriched.”
e1“rhizosphere soil of sugarcane”
e2“half-reduced fertilization level (50%) > full fertilization level (100%) > low fertilization level”
Claim · model-written summary
Half fertilizer increased the number of nodes and connections in the rhizosphere bacterial co-occurrence network.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- half-reduced fertilization level (50%) treatmente0
- Outcome
- number of nodes and connectionse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the half-reduced fertilization level (50%) treatment increased both the number of nodes and connections in the co-occurrence network, promoting positive correlations among the bacterial species in the rhizosphere of sugarcane.”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative to full fertilization, half fertilizer did not significantly alter rhizosphere bacterial community diversity.
Verbatim
e0“compared to the full fertilization treatment, reducing fertilization by half did not decrease cane yield and did not significantly alter the community diversity of rhizosphere soil bacteria.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend half fertilizer as a viable sugarcane fertilization alternative.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, it was recommended as a viable alternative for fertilization in sugarcane.”
e1“reducing fertilization by half”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
311 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 papers →fertilization · ecology: diversity · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
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.