Effects of different amendment concentrations on basic physiological indexes
Effects of different amendment concentrations on cassava plant height
Tall cassava plants can use light energy more efficiently than shorter plants, thus improving the quality and yield of tuber blocks. Table 1 describes the effects of different concentrations on growth indexes of four groups. As shown in Table 1, there was a substantial difference in plant height of cassava plants treated with different dosage of modified preparation. All three treatments showed a considerable increase, among which T2 was highest, with an increase of 24.22% compared with T4. Relative to T4, T1 and T3 increased by 15.70% and 12.56%, respectively; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups, as shown in Fig. 1 (P < 0.05).
Table 1
Effects of different concentrations on growth indexes of cassava
Treatment
|
Plant height (m)
|
Diameter of stem base (cm)
|
Maximum perimeter of cassava (cm)
|
Cassava number
|
Weight of cassava per plant (kg)
|
Yield per hectare (kg)
|
T1
|
2.58 ± 0.09 b
|
2.38 ± 0.15 b
|
20.55 ± 2.00 c
|
9.30 ± 1.34 b
|
3.42 ± 0.74 b
|
30827.64 ± 4131.66 ab
|
T2
|
2.77 ± 0.12 a
|
2.60 ± 0.14 a
|
24.90 ± 3.68 a
|
9.82 ± 2.09 a
|
4.57 ± 0.95 a
|
34158.90 ± 4717.86 a
|
T3
|
2.51 ± 0.13 b
|
2.27 ± 0.16 bc
|
22.62 ± 2.26 b
|
8.20 ± 2.10 b
|
3.34 ± 0.61 b
|
26895.60 ± 1470.01 b
|
T4
|
2.23 ± 0.15 c
|
2.17 ± 0.29 c
|
19.10 ± 1.88 c
|
7.70 ± 1.06 b
|
2.01 ± 0.26 c
|
25169.68 ± 2698.92 b
|
Note: The values in the table are mean ± standard deviation; Different lowercase letters in the same column represent significant differences at the P < 0.05 level.
The treatments were as follows: 900 kg/hm2 soil improvement powder (topdressing) + bacteriostatic agent + antiviral agent (T1); 1200 kg/hm2 soil improvement powder (topdressing) + bacteriostatic agent + antiviral agent (T2); 1500 kg/hm2 soil improvement powder (topdressing) + bacteriostatic agent + antiviral agent (T3); and an unfertilized control (T4).
Effects of different amendment concentrations on plant base stem diameter
The stem diameter of cassava can directly reflect the growth potential of cassava. Generally speaking, the taller plants with strong stems have a strong growth potential, and the yield of tuber blocks is also high. As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, the diameter of the base stem of cassava was substantially different among plants treated with different dosages of modified preparation. All three treatments showed thickening, with T1 and T2 increased significantly relative to T4, by 9.68% and 18.82%, respectively (P༜0.05). The increase of T3 was 4.61%, and it was not significantly different from that of T4.
Effects of different amendment concentrations on yield parameters
Tubers are the main product of cassava, and thus the main way to obtain economic benefits; we found that soil amendments can substantially improve the quality and yield of cassava tubers. Table 1 and Fig. 2 show that the maximum tuber circumference, tuber number, yield per plant and yield per hectare of the three treatments all increased after soil amendment. Among the four indexes, T2 showed the most considerable increase by 30.37%, 27.53%, 127.36% and 35.71%, respectively. The effect of T3 was the worst, with increases of 18.43%, 6.49%, 66.17% and 6.86%, respectively. Under T1, the four indexes increased by 7.59%, 20.78%, 70.15% and 22.48%, respectively. According to the weight of tuber per plant, the per-hectare yield of T1, T2, T3 and T4 was 30827.64, 34158.90, 26895.60 and 25169.68 kg, respectively.
The maximum tuber block circumference was significantly increased in T2, T3 and T4, but T1 was not significantly increased (P༜0.05). In terms of the number of tuber, the increase of T1 and T3 was not substantial except for T2. The yield per plant in all three groups was significantly increased, but there was no significant difference between T1 and T3(P༜0.05). The yield per mu increased significantly, but T1 and T3 did not increase significantly.
Effects of different concentration treatments on the quality of cassava tuber blocks
Influence of different concentration treatments on water content of root tubers
Starch content is an important indicator for quality evaluation of cassava. Cassava with a high starch content is highly suitable for deep processing industries such as starch processing. Our study showed that the use of soil amendments changed the starch content, and the starch content gradually decreased with the increase of the application concentration, but there was no substantial difference between groups on the whole. The water content of treated cassava root tuber varied by treatment (Table 2). Relative to T4, a decrease in water content was shown in T2 and T3, of which T2 was greatest, with a decrease of 5.96%. In T1, the water content increased by 1.1%. Moreover, the dry matter content of T2 also increased substantially (an increase by 5.95% relative to T4).
Table 2
Effects of different concentrations on the water content of root tubers
Treatment
|
Water content (%)
|
Dry matter (%)
|
Starch content (%)
|
T1
|
71.70 ± 1.49 a
|
28.30 ± 1.49 b
|
65.66 ± 14.93 a
|
T2
|
64.64 ± 2.72 b
|
35.36 ± 2.72 a
|
63.51 ± 18.28 a
|
T3
|
68.93 ± 0.72 ab
|
31.07 ± 0.72 ab
|
59.06 ± 7.21 a
|
T4
|
70.60 ± 3.43 a
|
29.40 ± 3.43 b
|
76.12 ± 26.56 a
|
Note: The values in the table are mean ± standard deviation; Different lowercase letters in the same column represent significant differences at the P < 0.05 level. |
Influence of different concentration treatments on starch content of root tubers
As shown in Table 2, the root starch content changed after treatment with different dosages of the modified preparation. It decreased in all three treatments, with a decrease of 13.74%, 16.57% and 22.41% in T1, T2 and T3, respectively, but there was no considerable difference among the treatment groups.
Effects of different concentration treatments on the nutrient components of root tubers
The mineral content of cassava directly indicates the tapioca edible nutritional value, which is crucial to inform the breeding of good varieties in the future. Under the action of soil amendment, the mineral content of cassava showed a rising trend overall, including K as one of the highest levels of mineral elements in cassava showed increased substantially.
As shown in Table 3, the contents of ash, Fe, K, Mg, Mn and Zn in T1 all increased, and Zn increased by 38.40% relative to compared with T4, whereas Ca and Na decreased by 5.03% and 7.75%, respectively. The contents of ash, K, Mg and Zn in T2 increased, with Mg increasing by 48.85% and Ca, Fe, Mn and Na all decreasing. The decrease of Fe was considerable at 29.46%. Only the content of Mn decreased by 7.64% in T3, and all the other components showed increases, for example, ash, K and Mg contents increased by 53.29%, 48.64% and 45.29%, respectively.
Table 3
Effects of different concentrations on the nutritional components of cassava
Treatment
|
Ash Content (%)
|
Ca (mg/kg)
|
Fe (mg/kg)
|
K (mg/kg)
|
Mg (mg/kg)
|
Mn (mg/kg)
|
Na (mg/kg)
|
Zn (mg/kg)
|
T1
|
2.17 ±
0.40 a
|
1010.68 ±
236.58 a
|
17.57 ±
5.87 a
|
6274.98 ±
1068.54 a
|
403.26 ±
23.06 a
|
25.19 ±
13.42 a
|
81.02 ±
15.65 a
|
17.95 ±
2.58 a
|
T2
|
1.85 ±
0.70 a
|
992.25 ±
9.29 a
|
8.98 ±
0.18 b
|
5608.66 ±
875.36 a
|
468.60 ±
101.65 a
|
16.32 ±
2.35 a
|
85.59 ±
15.11 a
|
13.24 ±
2.14 ab
|
T3
|
2.56 ±
0.71 a
|
1093.73 ±
264.57 a
|
12.78 ±
4.61 ab
|
7310.04 ±
1263.50 a
|
457.41 ±
111.15 a
|
22.38 ±
7.62 a
|
112.03 ±
43.91 a
|
18.09 ±
1.60 a
|
T4
|
1.67 ±
0.65 a
|
1064.24 ±
490.71 a
|
12.73 ±
3.64 ab
|
4917.95 ±
1784.21 a
|
314.82 ±
72.08 a
|
24.23 ±
5.09 a
|
87.83 ±
21.41 a
|
12.97 ±
3.26 b
|
Note: The values in the table are mean ± standard deviation; Different lowercase letters in the same column represent significant differences at the P < 0.05 level. |
There were differences in the contents of the same element among the three treatments, but most of them were not significant (P༜0.05); only Fe and Zn showed significant changes. The Fe content in T2 was significantly reduced by 29.46%, whereas it was significantly increased by 38.20% in T1. The Zn content in T1 and T3 was significantly increased by 38.40% and 39.48%, respectively.
Effects of different amendment concentrations on microbial diversity of cassava
Sequencing and microbial community alpha diversity
A total of 858918 and 1772862 valid sequences from bacteria and fungi were identified from soil samples respectively (all samples consist of 4 treatments × 2 parts × 3 biological replicates). On average, 71576.5 bacterial and 73869.25 fungal sequences were identified from each sample of soil. At a similar level of 97%, The bacterial sequences were clustered into 21910 OTUs, an average of 1825.8 OTUs were generated from per soil sample (Table 4), with classification results of OTUs are 21 phyla and 347 genus. While the fungal sequences were clustered into 11377 OTUs, an average of 474.04 OTUs were generated from per soil sample (Table 5), with a total of 10 distinct fungal phyla and 528 genus were detected across all samples.
Table 4
The Bacterial Information of Sample
Sample
|
Barcode
|
Seq Num
|
OTU Num
|
S-T1A
|
CGCATA
|
70369
|
1911
|
S-T1B
|
CTTGTA
|
53037
|
1691
|
S-T1C
|
GTTTCG
|
57834
|
1812
|
S-T2A
|
CTCCTG
|
67933
|
1959
|
S-T2B
|
GTCGGA
|
76894
|
1909
|
S-T2C
|
ATCGTT
|
81898
|
1769
|
S-T3A
|
AATATC
|
80327
|
1792
|
S-T3B
|
AAGCTC
|
83767
|
1864
|
S-T3C
|
TTCCAT
|
72515
|
1962
|
S-T4A
|
TCTAGG
|
78135
|
1773
|
S-T4B
|
CTATAC
|
71972
|
1767
|
S-T4C
|
GTCCCA
|
64237
|
1701
|
Table 5
The Fungal Information of Sample
Sample
|
Barcode
|
Seq Num
|
OTU Num
|
S-T1A
|
TACGACA
|
66379
|
780
|
S-T1B
|
TGTGCTA
|
53308
|
745
|
S-T1C
|
TCACTCG
|
62442
|
795
|
S-T2A
|
AGTCGTC
|
57529
|
799
|
S-T2B
|
AGAGCAG
|
71977
|
725
|
S-T2C
|
AGCTCTA
|
67898
|
768
|
S-T3A
|
AGTATAC
|
61032
|
623
|
S-T3B
|
AGTGCGA
|
58757
|
797
|
S-T3C
|
ACACACG
|
65459
|
760
|
S-T4A
|
ACAGCGA
|
71252
|
533
|
S-T4B
|
ACATACT
|
69428
|
565
|
S-T4C
|
ACTCTCA
|
50622
|
733
|
The Shannon index curves indicated that a sufficient amount and quantity of sequencing data was obtained (Supplementary Fig. S1 and S2). Bacterial richness (abundance-based coverage estimator, ACE) and Chao index were used to estimate the abundance and \({\alpha }\) diversity of microorganisms. Through the analyses of alpha diversity (Chao, Ace) (Supplementary Fig. S3, S4, S5 and S6), we found that the diversity of bacteria in the soil samples was as following: T2 > T1 > T3 > T4, while the fungal diversity was dominated by T1, and followed by T2, T3, T4. Compared with the control group, the experimental group had higher microbial diversity, and the soil samples treated with T1 concentration had the highest fungi richness. At the same time, the diversity of bacteria in T2 was the most abundant.
The composition of bacterial and fungal communities
The top ten bacterial phyla in the tested samples were Cyanobacteria_Chloroplast、Proteobacteria、Actinobacteria、Acidobacteria、Chloroflexi、Firmicutes、Planctomycetes、Verrucomicrobia、Bacteroidetes、Candidate_division_WPS-2. Among them, the dominant bacteria phyla in all soil samples were Proteobacteria、Acidobacteria、Actinobacteria and Chloroflexi (Relative abundance > 10%), accounting for 17.8–22.1%, 16.0-17.6%, 17.1–19.8%, and 11.0-13.6%, respectively (Fig. 3). And the top ten fungi phyla in the tested samples were Ascomycota,Basidiomycota༌Glomeromycota༌Mortierellomycota༌Mucoromycota༌Chytridiomycota༌Zoopagomycota༌Kickxellomycota༌Rozellomycota and Blastocladiomycota (Fig. 4). Among them, the dominant fungi phyla in all soil samples were Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, accounting for 80.3% and 12.9%, respectively. (Relative abundance > 10%).
Under different concentration treatment, at the genus level, the heatmap indicated that Gp1 was the most abundant bacteria in the soil, followed by unclassfied_Ktedonobacterales and Gp3. Among them, the relative abundance of Streptophyta was substantially higher in T2 than that of other concentration treatments, accounting for about 7.3% of the identified sequences. As for fungi, the composition differed greatly between the groups after treatment with different concentrations, and the samples under different concentration treatments contained more than 20 species of peculiar fungi. In addition, at the fungal genus level, the relative abundance of unclassfied_Chaetomiaceae in the treatment group was considerably lower than that of T4, and the relative abundance of Psathyrella in the T1 increase substantially compared to other treatment groups (Fig. 5,6).
Venns show us the unique bacterial genus of T2 was Fimbriimonas, the unique bacterial genus of T3 was Candidatus_Procabacter and Propionibacterium, and T1 had no unique bacterial genus. The composition of soil fungal genus differed greatly between the groups after treatment with different concentrations, and the samples under different concentration treatments contained more than 20 species of peculiar fungi. (Fig. 7,8).
At the genus level, we performed a statistical analysis on the soil bacteria and fungi communities of different treatments, using the default logarithm (LDA) value of 2 to identify a total of 11 different bacterial groups and 16 unique fungal species (Supplementary Fig. S7, S8). The T1 bacteria was characterized by the presence of unclassfied_Chitinophagaceae [LDA (log10) > 2.0].The characteristics of the T2 were Nocardioides and unclassfied_Spartobacteria [LDA (log10) > 2.0]. The T3 was characterized by the presence of Microvirga, unclassfied_Chloroplast and Bacillariophyta [LAD (log10) > 2.0]. Compared with bacteria, fungi show greater difference in LDA value.
The community structure of bacterial and fungal communities
The PCoA map based on the Bray-Curtis distance (Supplementary Fig. S9, S10) showed that bacteria and fungi communities from treated soil samples (T1, T2, T3) are clearly separated from the control group (T4), respectively, explaining the 47.31% and 36.95% of the total variation.