Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Effects of bacillus on continuous cropping of sugar beets and their rhizosphere microbial community

24 Views


Abstract

Sugar beet is a vital sugar-producing crop, and continuous cropping poses a significant threat to its growth, leading to a decline in yield and quality. This study aimed to investigate the effects of two bacterial agents, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus mucilaginosus, on the growth, soil physicochemical properties, and rhizosphere microbial community of sugar beet seedlings. We employed pot experiments and amplicon sequencing to analyze the impact of applying two different Bacillus agents on the microbial community structure in the rhizosphere soil of continuously cropped sugar beet and explore the microbial composition, environmental driving factors, and potential functions present within the microbial communities. The results showed that both Bacillus agents and their combination significantly promoted the growth of continuous cropping sugar beet seedlings, reaching or even surpassing the levels observed in crop rotation, improved soil pH, and enhanced soil environment. High-throughput sequencing analysis of the rhizosphere soil revealed that all Bacillus treatments induced changes in the diversity and structural composition of the rhizosphere microbial community, and significantly increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, thereby enriching beneficial microorganisms such as Pseudomonas, Novosphingobium, and Sphingomonas compared with that in the control group. Additionally, the application of Bacillus inoculants significantly enhanced the nitrate respiration, nitrogen respiration, and chitinolytic functions. These two bacterial agents optimized soil physicochemical properties and improved the rhizosphere soil microbial community structure, promoting sugar beet seedling growth and effectively mitigating the negative effects of continuous cropping.

Similar content being viewed by others

Sugarcane cultivation practices modulate rhizosphere microbial community composition and structure

Article
Open access
10 November 2022

Characterizing rhizosphere microbiota of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) from pre-sowing to post-harvest of crop under field conditions

Article
Open access
31 August 2021

Variation of rhizosphere microbial community in continuous mono-maize seed production

Article
Open access
15 January 2021

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) database under accession numbers PRJNA1310802 (ITS) and PRJNA1310801 (16S).

References

  1. Steven, Z., Zhang, R. H. & Stephen, K. In In integrated processing technologies for food and agricultural by-products (ed. Stephen, Z.) 331–351 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chhikara, N. et al. Bioactive compounds of beetroot and utilization in food processing industry: A critical review. Food Chem. 272, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.08.022 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mall, A. K. et al. Sugar beet cultivation in India: Prospects for bio-ethanol production and value-added co-products. Sugar Tech. 23(6), 1218–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01007-0 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jbawi, E. et al. Genotype: Environment interaction study in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Int. J. Environ. 5(3), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.3126/ije.v5i3.15706 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holmquist, L. et al. Major latex protein-like encoding genes contribute to Rhizoctonia solani defense responses in sugar beet. Mol. Genet. Genom. 296(1), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-020-01735-0 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wu, X. et al. The effect of long-term continuous cropping of black pepper on soil bacterial communities as determined by 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0136946–e0136946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136946 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhu, B. et al. Diversity of rhizosphere and endophytic fungi in Atractylodes macrocephala during continuous cropping. PeerJ 8, e8905. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8905 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tang, J., Xue, Z. Q., Daroch, M. & Ma, J. Impact of continuous Salvia miltiorrhiza cropping onrhizosphere actinomycetes and fungi communities. Ann. Microbiol. 65(3), 1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-014-0964-2 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cui, R. F. et al. The response of sugar beet rhizosphere micro-ecological environment to continuous cropping. Front. Microbiol. 13, 956785. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.956785 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kui, L. et al. Large-scale characterization of the soil microbiome in ancient tea plantations using high-throughput 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer amplicon sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 12, 745225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.745225 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pimentel, D. et al. Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. Bioscience 42(5), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311782 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tkacz, A. et al. Stability and succession of the rhizosphere microbiota depends upon plant type and soil composition. ISME J. 9, 2349–2359 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tong, J., Cao, M. & Wang, R. Effects of restoration time on microbial diversity in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil of Bothriochloa ischaemum. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 15, 2155. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102155 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zheng, X. et al. Effects of a microbial restoration substrate on plant growth and rhizo-sphere bacterial community in a continuous tomato crop-ping greenhouse. Sci. Rep. 10, 13729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70737-0 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cao, B. et al. Insight into the variation of bacterial structure in atrazine-contaminated soil regulating by potential phytoremediator: Pennisetum americanum (L.) K. Schum.. Front Microbiol. 9, 864. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00864 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Das, S. et al. Taxonomic and functional responses of soil microbial communities to slag-based fertilizer amendment in rice cropping systems. Environ. Int. 127, 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.012 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kang, P. et al. A comparison of microbial composition under three tree ecosystems using the stochastic process and network complexity approaches. Front. Microbiol. 13, 1018077. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1018077 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang, X. et al. Plant growth and development of tropical seagrass deter-mined rhizodeposition and its related microbial community. Mar Pollut Bull. 199, 115940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Liu, J. et al. Development of a soil quality index for Camellia oleifera forestland yield under three different parent materials in Southern China. Soil Till Res. 176, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.09.013 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Qi, R. M. et al. Temperature effects on soil organic carbon, soil labile organic carbon fractions, and soil enzyme activities under long-term fertilization regimes. Appl. Soil Ecol. 102, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.02.004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ahsan, T. et al. Effects of microbial agent and microbial fertilizer input on soil microbial community structure and diversity in a peanut continuous cropping system. J. Adv. Res. 64, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2023.11.028 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li, M. et al. Effects of continuous cropping of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) on its endophytic and soil bacterial community by high-throughput sequencing. Ann. Microbiol. 70, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13213-020-01583-8 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sun, R. C. et al. Bacterial diversity in soils subjected to long-term chemical fertilization can be more stably maintained with the addition of livestock manure than wheat straw. Soil Biol. Biochem. 88, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.05.007 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, S. N. et al. Cow manure application effectively regulates the soil bacterial community in tea plantation. BMC Microbiol. 20(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01871-y (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cai, X. Y. et al. Effects and mechanisms of symbiotic microbial combination agents to control tomato fusarium crown and root rot disease. Front. Microbiol. 12, 629793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.629793 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Duan, Y. N. et al. The phlorizin-degrading Bacillus licheniformis XNRB-3 mediates soil microorganisms to alleviate apple replant disease. Front. Microbiol. 13, 839484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.839484 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Olanrewaju, O. S., Ayilara, M. S., Ayangbenro, A. S. & Babalola, O. O. Genome mining of three plant growth-promoting bacillus species from maize rhizosphere. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 193(12), 3949–3969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-021-03660-3 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Solanki, M. K. et al. Diversity and antagonistic potential of Bacillusspp. associated to the rhizosphere of tomato for the management of Rhizoctonia solani. Biocontrol. Sci. Technol. 22(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2011.649713 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chen, X. R. et al. Bacillus velezensis strain GUMT319 reshapes soil microbiome biodiversity and increases grape yields. Biology. 11(10), 1486–1486. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101486 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shao, F. F., Tao, W. H., Yan, H. K. & Wang, Q. J. Effects of microbial organic fertilizer (MOF) application on desert soil enzyme activity and jujube yield and quality. Agronomy 13(9), 2427–2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092427 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gajbhiye, A., Rai, A. R. & Meshram, S. U. Isolation, evaluation and characterization of Bacillus subtilis from cotton rhizospheric soil with biocontrol activity against Fusarium oxysporum. World. J. Microb. Biot. 26(7), 1187–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0287-9 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Govindasamy, V. et al. Bacillus and Paenibacillus spp.: Potential PGPR for sustainable agriculture. 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13612-2_15 (2010).

  33. Qiao, J. Q. et al. Addition of plant-growth-promoting Bacillus subtilis PTS-394 on tomato rhizosphere has no durable impact on composition of root microbiome. BMC Microbiol. 17(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-1039-x (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sui, J. K. et al. Effects of Bacillus subtilis T6–1 on the rhizosphere microbial community structure of continuous cropping poplar. Biology. 11(5), 791–791. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11050791 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wang, D. et al. Genomic insights and functional analysis reveal plant growth promotion traits of Paenibacillus mucilaginosus G78. Genes 14(2), 392–392. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14020392 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lu, R. K. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis (ed. Lu, R. K.) pp. 248–254 (1999).

  37. Huang, W. J. et al. Effects of continuous sugar beet cropping on rhizospheric microbial communities. Genes 11(1), 13–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11010013 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kõljalg, U. et al. The taxon hypothesis paradigm: On the unambiguous detection and communication of taxa. Microorganisms. 8(12), 1910–1910. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8121910 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(D1), D590–D596. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Li, Q., Huang, Y., Xin, S. & Li, Z. Y. Comparative analysis of bacterioplankton assemblages from two subtropical karst reservoirs of southwestern China with contrasting trophic status. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 22296. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78459-z (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75(23), 7537–7541. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01541-09 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genomebiology.com (London. Print) 12 (6): R60-R60. http://genomebiology.com/2011/11/6/R60 (2011).

  43. Yuan, M. M. et al. Climate warming enhances microbial network complexity and stability. Nat. Clim. Change. 11(4), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00989-9 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Xu, W. F. et al. Structure and ecological function of the soil microbiome associated with ‘Sanghuang’ mushrooms suffering from fungal diseases. BMC Microbiol. 23(1), 218. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02965-z (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Richard, M. C., David, W. H. & Joseph, W. K. Rhizobacterial colonization of bermudagrass by Bacillus spp. in a Marvyn loamy sand soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 141, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.04.018 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang, Q. X. et al. Wheat rhizosphere colonization by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens W10 and Pseudomonas protegens FD6 suppress soil and in planta abundance of the sharp eyespot pathogen Rhizoctonia cerealis. J. Appl. Microbiol. 134, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxad101 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chen, W. M. et al. Biochar combined with Bacillus subtilis SL-44 as an eco-friendly strategy to improve soil fertility, reduce Fusarium wilt, and promote radish growth. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 251, 114509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114509 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Han, S. C., Kim, K., Maung, C. E. H. & Kim, K. Y. Growth enhancement of tomato by a plant growth promoting bacterium, bacillus subtilis PE7. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fertil. 56(4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.7745/kjssf.2023.56.4.398 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Torres, M. et al. Growth promotion on horticultural crops and antifungal activity of Bacillus velezensis XT1. Appl. Soil Ecol. 150, 103453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103453 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shen, Z. Z. et al. Effect of biofertilizer for suppressing Fusarium wilt disease of banana as well as enhancing microbial and chemical properties of soil under greenhouse trial. Appl. Soil Ecol. 93, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.04.013 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wu, L. X., Wang, Y., Lyu, H. & Chen, X. D. Effects of a compound Trichoderma agent on Coptis chinensis growth, nutrients, enzyme activity, and microbial community of rhizosphere soil. PeerJ 11, e15652. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15652 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Asaf, S., Numan, M., Khan, A. L. & Al-Harrasi, A. Sphingomonas: From diversity and genomics to functional role in environmental remediation and plant growth. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 40(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2019.1709793 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Li, Q. et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas sp. CM11 specifically induces lateral roots. New Phytol. 235(4), 1575–1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18199 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wang, Q. et al. The endophytic bacterium Sphingomonas SaMR12 alleviates Cd stress in oilseed rape through regulation of the GSH-AsA cycle and antioxidative enzymes. BMC Plant Biol. 20, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870.-020-2273-1 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Song, J. et al. Rhizosphere microbiomes of potato cultivated under bacillus subtilis treatment influence the quality of potato tubers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(21), 12065–12065. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222112065 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Zhao, J. et al. The rhizosphere microbial community response to a bio-organic fertilizer: Finding the mechanisms behind the suppression of watermelon Fusarium wilt disease. Acta Physiol. Plant. 40(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-017-2581-8 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Li, X. Y. et al. Microbiome analysis and biocontrol bacteria isolation from rhizosphere soils associated with different sugarcane root rot severity. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10, 1062351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1062351 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible through the collaboration and support of the National Sugar Crop Improvement Centre of Heilongjiang University and Heilongjiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Ecological Restoration and Resource Utilization for Cold Region.

Funding

This research was funded by the Heilongjiang Provincial Postdoctoral Research Funding Program (LBH-Z23255).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Advanced Agriculture and Ecological Environment, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, 150000, China

    Yanchun Sun, Qun Song, Zenghao Wang, Youkai Gao, Liuli Wei, Yuguang Wang, Rui Chen & Gui Geng

Authors

  1. Yanchun Sun
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qun Song
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zenghao Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Youkai Gao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liuli Wei
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuguang Wang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rui Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gui Geng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Qun Song and Zenghao Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original draft preparation; Youkai Gao, Liuli Wei, Rui Chen: Data curation, Sample analysis; Yanchun Sun: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing; Gui Geng, Yuguang Wang: Methodology, Writing-Reviewing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to
Yanchun Sun or Gui Geng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sun, Y., Song, Q., Wang, Z. et al. Effects of bacillus on continuous cropping of sugar beets and their rhizosphere microbial community.
Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30744-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30744-5

Keywords

  • Bacterial agents
  • Successive cropping obstacle
  • Rhizosphere microorganisms
  • Microbial diversity

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Optimization of comprehensive wheat growth index system and monitoring model based on LAI

Marine fishery resource dynamic prediction based on CNN-XGBoost fusion model

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close