Mikrobiol. Z. 2021; 83(1):21-31.
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj83.01.021

Microbiota in the Rhizosphere of Cereal Crops

V.P. Karpenko1, S.P. Poltoretskyi1, V.V. Liubych1, D.M. Adamenko1, I.S. Kravets1,
R.M. Prytuliak1, V.S. Kravchenko1, N.I. Patyka2, V.P. Patyka3

1Uman National University of Horticulture
1 Instytutska Str., Uman, 20305, Ukraine

2Institute of Agrarian Economics
10 Heroes of Defense Str., Kyiv, 03127, Ukraine

3Zabolotny Institute of Microbiology and Virology, NAS of Ukraine
154 Akad. Zabolotny Str., Kyiv, 03143, Ukraine

Today, spelt wheat grain is used to produce high quality food. Intermediate wheatgrass is a promising crop for prairie restoration. One of the elements of biologization is the influence of growing crops on the microbiota of soil rhizosphere. The microbiota of spelt wheat and intermediate wheatgrass soil rhizosphere remains insufficiently studied. Aim. To study the number of individual groups of microbiota in dynamics in the rhizosphere of cereal crops (spelt wheat, intermediate wheatgrass) depending on the weather conditions and the phase of plants development. Methods. Classical microbiological, statistical methods were used in the work. In particular, the study of the number of microorganisms of different ecological and trophic groups (ammonifying, nitrifying, cellulolytic and nitrogen-fixing) was carried out according to generally accepted methods in soil microbiology. The reliability of the influence of factors was determined by the probability value «р» level which was calculated using STATISTICA 8 program. Results. The amount of ammonifying and cellulolytic microorganisms in the soil rhizosphere of spelt wheat is significantly higher compared to soft wheat. The rhizosphere microbiota amount of the intermediate wheatgrass on the 2–3 year of cultivation was more resistant to adverse environmental factors compared to soft wheat. The soil rhizosphere microbiota did not change a lot depending on the phase of plant development during the vegetation period of cereal crops (spelt wheat, intermediate wheatgrass). Conclusions. The formation of rhizosphere microbiota of spelt wheat and intermediate wheatgrass was first analyzed under the conditions of the Right-Bank forest-steppe of Ukraine. The conducted studies indicate the feasibility of growing and use of spelt wheat in breeding programs to create cultivars of soft wheat with higher activity of rhizosphere microbiota. The number of ammonifying, nitrifying and cellulolytic microorganisms of soil rhizosphere of intermediate wheatgrass was significantly higher compared to soft wheat during all growth stages. The conducted studies confirm the practical application of intermediate wheatgrass to preserve and increase soil fertility. Intermediate wheatgrass can be grown for up to three years in one field, as microbiological activity reaches its maximum development.

Keywords: microbiota, ammonifying, nitrifying, cellulolytic microorganisms, Azotobacter, rhizosphere, soft wheat, spelt wheat, intermediate wheatgrass.

Full text (PDF, in English)

  1. Snisarenko TA, Alesina NV. [The influence of some environmental factors on the microbial composition of the rhizosphere and rhizoplana on the example of common oats (Avena sativa)]. Bulletin MRSU. 2014; 3:46–51. Russian.
  2. Musilova L, Ridl J, Polivkova M, Macek E, Uhlik O. Effects of Secondary Plant Metabolites on Microbial Populations: Changes in Community Structure and Metabolic Activity in Contaminated Environments. Int J Mol Sci. 2016; 17(8):1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17081205
  3. Liubych V, Novikov V, Polianetska I, Usyk S, Petrenko V, Khomenko S, Zorunko V, Balabak O, Moskalets V, Moskalets T. Improvement of the process of hydrothermal treatment and peeling of spelt wheat grain during cereal production. Eastern European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2019; 3(99):40–51. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.170297
  4. Crews T, Carton W, Olsson L. Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sust. 2018; 1:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11
  5. Pimentel D, Cerasale D, Stanley R, Perlman R. Annual vs. perennial grain production. Agricult Ecosyst Environ. 2012; 161:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.025
  6. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics. 2016 Edition. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-FK-16-001
  7. Bakker H, Berendsen R, Doornbos R, Wintermans P, Pieterse C. The rhizosphere revisited: Root microbiomics. Front Plant Sci. 2013; 4:165–172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00165
  8. Assainar S, Solaiman Z. Response of wheat to a multiple species microbial inoculant compared to fertilizer application. Front Plant Sci. 2018; 9:1601–1612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01601
  9. Naylor D, DeGraaf S, Purdom E, Coleman-Derr D. Drought and host selection influence bacterial community dynamics in the grass root microbiome. The ISME Journal. 2017; 11:2691–2704. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.118
  10. Xun W, Li W, Huang T, Ren Y, Xiong W, Miao Y, Zhang R. Lon-term agronomic practices alter the composition of asymbiotic diazotrophic bacterial community and their nitrogen fixation genes in an acidic red soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2018; 54:329–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-018-1264-y
  11. Zarraonaindia I, Owens S, Weisenhorn P, West K, Hampto-Marcell J, Lax S, Gilbert J. The soil microbiome influences grapevin-associated microbiota. MBio. 2015; 6:2527–25634. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02527-14
  12. Tsyuk OA, Kyrylyuk VI, Yushchenko LP. Biochemical activity of typical chernozem in different farming systems. Mikrobiol Z. 2017; 79(3):65–71. https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj79.03.065
  13. Demyanyuk OS, Sherstoboeva OV, Tkach ED. [Functional structure of microbial groups of deep chernozem under the influence of hydrothermal and trophic factors]. Mikrobiol Z. 2018; 80(6):94–108. Ukrainian. https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj80.06.094
  14. Lin W, Wu L, Lin S, Zhang A, Zhou M, Lin R, Wang H, Chen J, Zhang Z, Lin R. Metaproteomic analysis of ratoon sugarcane rhizospheric soil. BMC Microbiol. 2013;13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-13-135
  15. Dragovoz IV, Volkogon MV, Yavorskaya VK. [Physiological activity of vermicompost components and creation of a complex growth regulator based on it]. Physiology and biochemistry of cultivated plants. 2006; 38(4):292–300. Ukrainian.
  16. Tsyuk OA, Kirilyuk VI, Yushchenko LP. [Biochemical activity of chernozem typical of different farming systems]. Mikrobiol Z. 2017; 79(3):65–71. Ukrainian. https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj79.03.065