Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jan 19;17(1):e0262691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262691

Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots

Bianbin Qi 1,2, Kuo Zhang 1, Sijun Qin 1,*, Deguo Lyu 1,*, Jiali He 1
Editor: Ying Ma3
PMCID: PMC8773054  PMID: 35045112

Abstract

The interaction between plant, soil and microorganism plays a crucial role in sustainable development of terrestrial ecosystem function and diversity. However, little information is known about how plant growth, soil organic carbon (C) fractions and microorganism respond to exogenous C addition in soils with low organic C content. Three levels of 13C-glucose (equal to 0, 100% and 500% of initial microbial biomass C) were added to non-sterilized (corresponding to treatment abbreviation of CK, Glu-1, Glu-2, respectively) and sterilized soils (corresponding to treatment abbreviation of SS, SS+Glu-1, SS+Glu-2, respectively) planted with apple rootstock (Malus baccata (L.) Borkh.) seedings. The objectives of this study were to analyse the dynamics of soil organic C (SOC) fractions and soil bacterial community diversity with glucose levels and soil sterilization, and to explore the morphology of roots and nitrogen (N) metabolism by plant after glucose addition to sterilized/non-sterilized soils. Results showed that the contents of labile organic C fractions were significantly varied (P<0.05) with the levels of glucose addition and soil sterilization. SS+Glu-2 and Glu-2 treatments increased the contents of labile organic C fractions, on average, by 48.47% and 35.33% compared with no glucose addition, respectively. About 21.42% and 16.17% of glucose-C remained in sterilized and non-sterilized soils, respectively at the end of experiment (day 45). Regardless of soil sterilized or not, the glucose addition increased the richness and diversity indices of soil bacterial community compared with no-glucose addition. The glucose addition optimized root zone conditions, and enhanced root vitality, morphology and biomass. Both SS+Glu-2 and Glu-2 treatments significantly enhanced (P<0.05) the contents of nitrate (NO3N) and nitrite (NO2N), but sharply decreased (P<0.05) the ammonium (NH4+-N) content compared with no glucose addition. Also, these two treatments significantly (P<0.05) increased the enzymic activities and gene transcript levels involved in root N metabolism, which demonstrated that the high level of glucose addition promoted N assimilation and transformation into free amino acids by root. Overall, the addition of exogenous C to not only promotes its fixation and bacterial community diversity in C-poor soils, but also improves root morphology and N absorption by plant.

Introduction

Soil is the largest carbon (C) pool in terrestrial ecosystems. The slight change in soil organic C (SOC) can have a remarkable effect on global C budget and cycle. In addition, SOC is the main component of soil organic matter, which has the advantages of supplying nutrients for crops, increasing crop yields, and improving soil fertility and quality, etc [1,2]. Therefore, exploring the mechanism of SOC dynamics is essential for sustainable development of agricultural and environment. However, the change in total SOC is hard to be monitored in short term due to its high background levels and the heterogeneous properties of soil [3]. Instead, labile organic C (LOC) fractions in soil as sensitive indicators are used to describe the dynamics of SOC storage. LOC fractions generally include water-soluble organic C (WSOC), microbial biomass C (MBC), and particulate organic C (POC) [4]. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of LOC fractions is an important to assessing SOC dynamics in agricultural ecosystems.

Exogenous C input is an effective measure to improve soil quality, promote nutrient absorption, and increase crop production [5,6]. Exogenous C is transferred into LOC fractions and stable SOC in short term [7]. However, LOC fractions show varied responses to exogenous C addition. For instance, exogenous biochar has positive effects on MBC and POC in cultivated Brown soil, but shows negative effects on WSOC in the paddy soil [8,9]. Straw addition increases or has no effects on soil LOC fractions [10,11]. Moreover, some research found that the response of LOC fractions to exogenous C addition is distinctly varied among mineral fertilizers supplies under rice-wheat system [12]. These divergent results should be associated with soil nutrients, native MBC content, and quantity and quality of substrate addition. After adding exogenous C to a soil with rich nutrients and high microbial activities, microorganisms can be quickly activated from a dormant or starvation state. Thus, exogenous C addition changes the contents MBC and SOC and influences the sequestration of exogenous C in soil [1315]. LOC fractions and SOC turnover are closely related with native MBC content. When the amount of exogenous C addition is similar to MBC content, it induces a real priming effect (PE), enhancing native SOC decomposition; when it is higher than MBC content, the PE apparently promotes exogenous C decomposition [16]. Therefore, how LOC fractions of soil respond to the levels of exogenous C addition is limited, especially under C-poor soil conditions.

The supply of exogenous C substrate as microbial energy source increases soil microbial biomass and further extends microbial activities [17]. Moreover, relative abundances of microorganism with different growth strategies are varied with soil nutrient environments, which would shape different soil bacterial community structure [18]. In general, K-strategists have lower growth rates and higher substrate affinities. Conversely, r-strategists have higher growth rates, lower substrate affinities and preferentially assimilate labile C [19]. The supply of labile C leads to the succession of microorganism from r- to K-strategists, and this process mainly depends on nitrogen (N) captured by soil microorganisms [20]. On the other hand, the activated microorganisms acquire additional N sources from the mineralization of soil organic matter under the absence of available N source, which could cause the competition between soil microorganism and plant root for N absorption and utilization [21,22]. Their competition is possibly regulated by bacterial community structure [23]. However, the specific taxonomic groups, not all microorganisms, actively respond to exogenous C substrate [24]. As the complicated soil backgrounds seriously interfere with the utilization of substrate by soil microorganisms [25]. Given that soil sterilization strongly removes native soil microorganism and leaves numerous empty niches for microorganism re-colonization, a new and activated bacterial community structure would be formed [26,27]. The bacterial communities are primarily re-colonized in sterilized soils and their structure turns to higher diversity and evenness during recolonization session [28]. However, the dynamics of soil microbial communities after exogenous C addition to sterilized soil remains elusive.

N is an important and necessary element for plant growth and is a primary element for amino acids and proteins. Nitrate (NO3-) and ammonium (NH4+) are the main available N source of soil. After being taken up by plant roots, NO3- and NH4+ are incorporated into glutamine and glutamate via N metabolizing enzymes, which are used to synthesize amino acids and nitrogenous compounds. N uptake by plant root is highly regulated by the addition of exogenous C to soil [29,30]. Previous research has demonstrated sugar effects on the N metabolism process in plants [31]. Moreover, lower level of sugar addition strongly inhibits NO3- assimilation and decreases amino acid levels of plant [32]. Glucose is acted as an important signal molecule that regulates the genes expression of nitrate reductase (NR) [33]. However, little information is available on how the addition of exogenous C (such as glucose) affects N metabolism and genes expression concerned with N assimilation by plant root.

Apple is one of the principal fruit crops, due to high production capacity as well as economic value. China is of great importance in global apple production, ranking dominantly for planting area and fresh fruit exporting [34]. But more than half of apple harvested yields is less than 22.5 t ha-1 [35]. Most apple orchards are usually established on hills or wastelands which have the characteristics of poor soil properties and low soil organic matter content (less than 1%) [6,36] Therefore, the interaction between SOC dynamics, root development and N metabolism, and soil microorganism is crucial to increasing SOC sequestration and apple yields.

The objectives of this study were to analyse the dynamics of SOC fractions and soil bacterial community composition and diversity with glucose levels, and to explore root morphology of apple and N metabolism by apple root after glucose addition to low C soils. We hypothesized that (ⅰ) Soil LOC fractions increased with the levels of glucose addition; (ⅱ) Higher level of glucose addition increased bacterial community diversity and regulated the key genes involved in N metabolism activities. To address above hypotheses, we added three levels of glucose to non-sterilized/sterilized soils planted with apple rootstock, and determined the effects of glucose addition levels and soil sterilization on LOC fractions, soil bacterial community composition, and root morphology, amino acids, and key genes regulating N metabolism of root.

Materials and methods

Site description

In March 2019, soil samples were collected from a typical apple (Hanfu/Malus baccata) orchard in Xinmin, Liaoning, China (42° 4’ 24"N, 122° 42’ 41"E). The soil type is classified as Hapli-Udic Cambisol (FAO Classification). The altitude is 74 m, the average rainfall is 700 mm, and the average temperature is 7.6°C in this orchard. The orchard was established in 2010 with conventional fertilization and field management. The distances of plant within and between rows were 2 m and 5 m, respectively. About 10 soil cores (40 cm × 40 cm × 40 cm) were sampled between rows of apple trees and sampling sites were about 2 m away from the tree trunks to avoid the interference of apple tree root system. The sampling sites were evenly distributed across the whole orchard to guarantee their representativeness. We picked out the visible plant root, rock pieces and the other debris from soil samples, passed them through a 2 mm sieve, and then fully mixed them for pot experiments. The basic properties of soil samples were as follows: a pH (H2O) value of 6.5, 4.1 g kg−1 soil organic carbon, 0.4 g kg−1 total N, −18.3‰ δ13C value, 188 mg kg−1 MBC, 169 mg kg−1 potentially available N, 11.1 mg kg−1 available phosphorus (P), and 49.8 mg kg−1 available potassium (K), and the percentages of sand, silt, and clay in soil were 72.4%, 26.7%, and 0.9%, respectively. The measured methods of SOC, total N, δ13C value, and MBC were showed in the following section, and the contents of available N, available P, available K, and pH value were analysed with the methods by Le and Marschner [37], and particle size separation was carried out with the method by Jensen et al. [38].

Experimental design

A pot experiment was carried out in a greenhouse (12 h photoperiod, 500 μmol m−2 s−1 photosynthetically active radiation, 17–23°C temperature, 55%-65% relative humidity) in Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China. Part of fresh soil samples was sterilized by autoclaving at 121°C for 1 h, and then oven-dried at 40°C for 2 days [39]. About 1 kg (oven-dried weight) sterilized/non-sterilized soil sub-samples were placed in plastic pots (internal diameter 10 cm, height 12 cm) and then the Malus baccata seedings (one plant per pot) with 6–7 leaves were transplanted into these pots.

The 13C-labelled glucose (13C atom% = 99, Shanghai Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co. Ltd, Shanghai, China) was fully mixed with unlabelled glucose at a ratio of 1:10. The mixed glucose had a δ13C value of 1789‰. High and low levels of mixed glucose at rates of 0.45 g kg-1 and 2.25 g kg-1 soil (equal to 100% and 500% of MBC, respectively) were dissolved in 100 mL distilled water and then the glucose solution was added to the non-sterilized soil (hereafter referred to as Glu-1 and Glu-2, respectively) and sterilized soil (hereafter referred to as SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2, respectively) after the seedlings were transplanted for two weeks. The same amount of tap water and sterilized water (121°C for 20 mins) were applied into non-sterilized (CK) and sterilized (SS) soils, respectively [4042]. Thereafter, the plants in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils were supplied with sterilized water and tap water until harvest, respectively.

After glucose addition for 3, 7, 15, 30, and 45 days, soil samples were randomly collected from five pots with the similar seedling growth (one pot as one replication) per treatment. The aboveground seedings were firstly cut at the root base, and then the roots and soil cores remained in the pots were destructively collected. The soil samples adhered to root were carefully separated with shaking method because the seeding roots occupied the whole pots. After being removed the visible roots, the collected soil sub-samples were mixed thoroughly, and then were divided into half for further analysis. One half of sub-sample was stored at 4°C for soil MBC and WSOC determination within 2 days. The remaining soil sub-sample was air-dried for total SOC and POC determination.

On day 45 after glucose addition, about 20 g homogenized fresh soil samples were collected and stored at -80°C for microbial analysis. And 5 seedling roots were collected from each treatment, then were immediately frozen under liquid N2. The frozen root samples were ground into fine powder with a ball mill (MM400, Retsch, Haan, Germany) and maintained at -80°C for further analysis.

Analysis for soil organic carbon fractions and total nitrogen

MBC was measured by fumigation extraction method [43]. The organic C contents of fumigated and unfumigated extracts were analysed using a Total Organic Carbon Analyzer (Element High TOC Ⅱ, Germany) and adjusted using a conversion coefficient of 0.45.

WSOC was analysed using a modified method by Zhang et al. [44]. Briefly, fresh soil was added with distilled water at a ratio of 1:5, and shaken at 250 rpm for 30 minutes at 25°C. The solution was centrifuged for 15 minutes at 3000 × g, and then the supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter. The filtrate was measured by Total Organic Carbon Analyzer (Element High TOC Ⅱ, Germany).

POC was determined depending on the procedure of Cambardella and Elliott [45]. Ten grams of air-dried soil was extracted with 30 mL (NaPO3)6 (5 g L-1) and shaken at 150 rpm for 15 h. The soil suspension was filtrated through a 53 μm sieve. All materials remaining on the sieve were washed into a dry dish, then oven-dried at 75°C, and ground so as to measure organic C content. The total SOC, total N and POC contents were analysed with an elemental analyser (Elementar vario PYRO cube, Germany).

The contents of SOC and total nitrogen (TN), δ13C values of SOC and LOC fractions were determined by an elemental analyser coupled with isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Isoprime 100 Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer, Germany). The δ13C values were shown relative to Pee Dee Belemnite standard.

δ13C value (‰) of MBC (δ13C MBC) was calculated [46]:

δ13CMBC=[(δ13Cfum×MBCfum)(δ13Cfunum×MBCunfum)]/(MBCfumMBCunfum) (1)

Where MBCfum and and MBCunfum are the amount of organic C (mg kg−1) of fumigated and un-fumigated K2SO4 extracts, respectively; δ13Cfum and δ13Cunfum are the δ13C values (‰) of fumigated and un-fumigated K2SO4 extracts, respectively.

Percentage of glucose-derived SOC in total SOC (fG, %) was calculated [47]:

fG=(δ13CSGδ13CS0)/(δ13CG0δ13CS0) (2)

Where δ13CSG (‰) is the δ13C value of SOC in the treatment with glucose addition; δ13CS0 (‰) is the δ13C value of SOC in the treatment without glucose addition; and δ13CG0 (‰) is the δ13C value of initial addition of glucose.

The residual percentage of glucose C in soil (Rglucose, %) was analysed [48]:

Rglucose=(CSG×fG)×100/CG0 (3)

Where CSG represents the content of SOC derived from glucose C; and CG0 represents initial glucose C content.

DNA extraction, PCR amplification and bioinformatic analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted from soil samples at 45-day using a FastDNA Spin Kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The quality of DNA was analysed with 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and the total quantity of DNA was determined using a Thermo NanoDrop 2000 UV Microvolume Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). The primers 338F (5’-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3’) and 806R (5’-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3’) were chosen to amplify the 16S rRNA genes in the V3-V4 regions [49]. The PCR amplification conditions included an initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min, followed by 27 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 s, annealing at 60°C for 30 s, extension at 72°C for 30 s, and a finial extension at 72°C for 10 min. The PCR products of all samples were purified with a Cycle Pure Kit (OMEGA), pooled in equimolar concentrations and performed on an Illumina (2 × 300 bp) MiSeq machine (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) at the Shanghai Origingene Biotechnology Co. Ltd., China.

The paired-end reads were analysed statistically by Trimmomatic software after depletion of primers. Bases of reads with a tail mass of 20 bp or less, overlapping paired-end reads less than 10 bp, and box sequences at both ends of reads were filtered. The unmatched sequences and singletons were excluded according to the Silva reference database v128 [50]. The operational taxonomic units were defined by clustering nonrepetitive sequences at 97% similarity and classified according to the Silva reference database using the Ribosomal Database Project Bayesian algorithm classifier (RDP) [51]. Then, Usearch version 7.1 was used to cluster the sequences with 97% similarity for operational taxonomic units (OTU) [52].

Difference in the composition of bacterial OTUs according to taxonomic category between treatments was assessed. After centred-log ratio (clr) transformation (log transformation of the geometric mean), the ‘codaSeq.clr’ function was used in the ‘CoDaSeq’ package of R software [53]. The alpha diversity indices of bacterial communities, including ACE, Shannon and Simpson, were analysed using ‘phyloseq’ package of R software. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and redundancy analysis (RDA) were performed using ‘stats’ and ‘vegan’ packages in R software [54], respectively.

The raw sequences were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and Sequence Read Archive (SRA) number was PRJNA765206.

Root surface, volume, total length and biomass

The surface, volume and total length of root were determined by using an image-analysis technique [55]. Roots were washed with distilled water and soaked in water contained in a transparent tray, then placed on Epson Perfection V800 Photo scanner (Epson, Long Beach, USA). The digitized images were measured by Winrhizo (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada). The root was oven-dried for 24 h at 80°C, and weighed with electronic analytical balance.

Measurement of contents of nitrate, nitrite, ammonium and amino acids in root

Content of NO3- in fresh root sample was determined with the method by Patterson et al. [56]. Contents of nitrite (NO2-) and NH4+ were used with the methods by Ogawa et al. [57] and by Bräutigam et al. [58] with some modifications, respectively.

Free amino acid extraction as described by Fürst et al. [59] with some modifications. About 0.3 g fresh root sample was extracted with 1 mL grinding media (deionized water/chloroform/ methanol = 3/5/12, v/v/v). The extract solution was centrifuged at 12000 × g for 15 min at 4°C, filtered through a 0.22 μm organic membrane, and quantified by HPLC-MS/MS (Thermo Fisher Corporation, Waltham, Ma, UAS) with ESI source (Austion, Tx, USA). The HP C18 column (4.6 mm × 150 mm, 5μm) was employed in a HPLC system. The flow rate was 1 mL min-1, and column temperature was set at 50°C. The mobile phase was made of ammonium acetate and acetonitrile (0.1% formic acid each). MS conditions were according to Jin et al. [60].

Activities of key enzymes involved in N metabolism of root

About 0.2 g frozen root sample and 2 mL reaction agent (50 mmol L-1 Tris-HCl with pH 8.0, 2 mmol L-1 MgCl2, 2 mmol L-1 DTT and 0.4 mol L-1 sucrose) were fully homogenized. The homogenates were centrifuged at 12000 × g at 4°C for 10 minutes, then the supernatants were used for the following analysis. The activities of NR and glutamine synthetase (GS) were measured according to Wang et al. [61] and Hageman et al. [62], respectively. Glutamate synthetase (GOGAT) and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) activities were assayed by monitoring the oxidation of NADH at 340 nm for 5 min and 3 min [63], respectively. Glutamic oxalacetic transaminase (GOT) and glutamate pyruvate transaminase (GPT) activities were measured by reacting enzyme extract with asparagine and alanine, respectively [64].

Transcript levels of the genes involved in N metabolism of root

Total RNA from root samples were extracted using the Cetyltrimethyl Ammonium Bromide method [65]. The content and quality of extracted RNA were determination by spectrophotometer (Nano Drop 2000; Thermo Fisher Scientific Ltd., New York, USA). The first-strand cDNA was synthesized by a 20 μL total volume using a PrimeScript RT reagent kit (DRR037A; Takara, Dalian, China) with the instruction of manufacturer’s protocol. Quantitative real-time expression (qRT-PCR) on the genes was performed containing 10 μL of 2×SYBR Green Premix Ex Taq II (DRR820A; Takara, Dalian, China), 0.5 μL cDNA, and 0.2 μL primer. The detail designs for each gene were listed in S1 Table. The reaction was tested in a CFX96 real time system (CFX96; Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). β-Actin was the reference gene. PCR was conducted in five replications for each gene. Relative mRNA expression was calculated according to the 2−ΔΔCt method [66].

Statistical analysis

All data in figures and tables were presented as means ± standard error (SE). SPSS version 19.0 (IBM Software, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan tests was conducted to analyse significant difference among treatments at P < 0.05.

Results

Contents of soil organic carbon fractions and total nitrogen

The addition of glucose significantly increased the content of total SOC by 1.7%~11.7% (S1A Fig). Compared with sterilized soil, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition decreased the content of total SOC, on average, by 3.7%, while that with low level of glucose addition and without glucose addition increased the content of total SOC by 5.4%~7.5% during the whole sampling time.

The Glu-1 and Glu-2 treatments increased the MBC content, on average, by 14.9% and by 46.6% compared with CK treatment, respectively (S1B Fig). The content of MBC was 34.6% and 121.3% higher in the SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments than that in the SS treatment during the whole sampling time. The WSOC content in the SS treatment was, on average, 6.5% higher than that in the CK treatment during the whole sampling time (S1C Fig). The SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments increased the content of WSOC, on average, by 13.4% and 42.7% relative to SS treatment during the whole sampling time. The POC contents appeared gradually increased from 0 to 7 days, and then tended to be stable with sampling time (S1D Fig). The POC content was increased with the glucose addition levels. There was little variation (P>0.05) in POC content between SS+Glu-1 and Glu-1 treatments during the whole sampling time except for 15 and 45 days.

The glucose addition significantly enhanced the TN content of soil by 22.1% (S2A Fig). TN content was significantly increased (P<0.05) by 20.1% and 23.4% in Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments compared with Glu-1 and SS+Glu-1 treatments, respectively. The C/N ratio in Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments was 21.3% and 16.1% lower than that in CK and SS treatments, respectively. The C/N ratio was decreased with the levels of glucose addition (S2B Fig).

δ13C values of total soil organic carbon and its fractions

The δ13C value of total SOC in SS+Glu-2 and SS+Glu-1 treatments was, on average, 10.1% and 12.8% higher than that in Glu-2 and Glu-1 treatments during the whole sampling time, respectively (S3A Fig). The δ13C value of SOC in treatments without glucose-C addition (CK and SS) remained essentially unchanged with sampling time.

The δ13C value of MBC in SS+Glu-2 and Glu-2 treatments was, on average, 39.5% and 31.5% larger than that in SS+Glu-1 and Glu-1 treatments during the whole sampling time, respectively (S3B Fig). The SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments increased δ13C value of WSOC, on average, by 31.1% and by 27.1% compared with Glu-1 and Glu-2 treatments during the whole sampling time, respectively (P<0.05, S3C Fig). The glucose-C addition increased δ13C value of POC by 6.3%~15.8% during the whole sampling time (S3D Fig).

Glucose C residual rate and net SOC balance

About 49.1%~33.3% of glucose C was remained in soil at 3 days, then presented a slow decline trend afterwards (Fig 1). At the end of sampling time (day 45), glucose C residual rate was 19.6%~24.2% in the treatments with low level of glucose addition, and was 28.1%~35.2% in the treatments with high level of glucose addition. The glucose C residual rate in SS+Glu-2 and Glu-2 treatments was, on average, 12.4% and 10.1% larger than that in SS+Glu-1 and Glu-1 treatments during the sampling time, respectively.

Fig 1. Change in glucose C residual rate with sampling time in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition.

Fig 1

Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments at the same sampling time. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different sampling time within the same treatment. Overlapping date points with the same significant differences are indicated by common letters. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

The net SOC balance equalled to the difference between native SOC decomposition and new SOC formation derived from glucose C (Fig 2). The formation of new SOC derived from glucose C almost equalled to the native SOC loss in the Glu-1 treatment. The fixed glucose-C in soil (0.08 g kg-1) was enough to offset the native SOC loss (0.02 g kg-1) in the SS+Glu-1 treatment. The content of net SOC balance was 0.11 g kg-1 and 0.20 g kg-1 in Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments, respectively.

Fig 2. Change in net soil organic carbon balance in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Fig 2

CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

Soil bacterial richness and diversity indices

The coverage, which was used to assess the sequencing quality, exceeded 0.994 in all treatments. The Ace, Chao, Shannon, and Simpson indices were used to evaluate the richness and diversity of soil bacterial communities (Table 1). The values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices were increased with the glucose addition levels, whereas the Simpson index showed the opposite trend. Compared with non-sterilized soil, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition increased the values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices by 13.8%, 7.9% and 11.4%, respectively; and sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition increased them by 17.3%, 13.8% and 2.6%, respectively.

Table 1. The alpha diversity indices of bacterial communities in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Treatment Ace Chao Shannon Simpson Coverage
CK 1511.3±170.5 e 1593.7±107.5 e 5.58±0.06 e 0.040±0.004 a 0.995
Glu-1 1811.1±137.1 d 1806.3±118.2 d 5.71±0.05 d 0.034±0.002 b 0.998
Glu-2 3198.2±169.6 b 3064.7±103.4 b 6.23±0.03 b 0.017±0.001 d 0.994
SS 1755.7±155.3 de 1627.6±120.1 de 5.78±0.03 d 0.032±0.005 b 0.994
SS+Glu-1 2124.1±142.7 c 2055.5±133.9 c 5.85±0.02 c 0.026±0.001 c 0.995
SS+Glu-2 3639.7±137.4 a 3306.0±125.2 a 6.94±0.05 a 0.020±0.001 d 0.994

Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

Soil bacterial community composition

The PCoA plot based on the clr-transformed data was used to presented the changes in soil bacterial community structures. The first two principal components explained 78.9% of total variations in the composition of bacterial communities (Fig 3A). The PCoA1 clearly separated the treatments with and without glucose addition. The non-sterilized and sterilized treatments were differentiated along the PCoA2. As presented by the hierarchical cluster analysis, bacterial communities revealed two clusters comprising samples from all treatment groups (Fig 3B). The treatments of non-sterilized soil and sterilized soil with the same level of glucose addition clustered together.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA, A), hierarchical cluster (B), the relative abundance of bacterial community composition at a phylum level (relative abundance exceeding to 1%, C), and heatmap of the relative abundance of bacterial genera (relative abundance exceeding to 1%, D) in the soils with glucose addition and sterilization at day 45. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

The predominant bacterial phyla in all treatments were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Acidobacteria, with relative abundances larger than 10% (Fig 3C). The glucose addition enhanced the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes by 59.4%, 19.6% and 43.3%, but decreased those of Acidobacteria and Chloroflexi by 41.8% and 39.1%, respectively. The relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Verrucomicrobia were higher in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment. Within the Proteobacteria phylum, the families Bradyrhizobiaceae, Hyphomicrobiaceae and Rhodobiaceae in the order Rhizobiales were in the SS+Glu-2 treatment higher than those in the other treatments (S4 Fig).

The heatmap of soil bacterial genera showed that all samples were clustered into two groups consisting of the treatment with glucose addition and that without glucose addition (Fig 3D). The relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas, Skermanella and Acidibacter,) Firmicutes (Paenibacillus and Trichococcus) and Actinobacteria (Arthrobacter, Sinomonas and Blastococcus) were higher, and those of Proteobacteria (Mesorhizobium and Massilia), Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank), Acidobacteria (Bryobacter) and Actinobacteria (Acidothermus) were lower in the SS+Glu-2 treatment relative to Glu-2 treatment. Moreover, the relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas) and Firmicutes (Bacillus) were higher, and those of Actinobacteria (Blastococcus and Sinomonas) and Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank) were lower in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment.

Root morphology and biomass

The root morphology indices (including surface area, volume, and length) were enhanced with the levels of glucose addition (Fig 4). Under the same level of glucose addition, root surface and volume were not significantly different (P>0.05) between sterilized soil and non-sterilized soil (Fig 4A and 4B). The SS+Glu-2 treatment significantly increased (P<0.05) the total root length by 5.9% compared with Glu-2 treatment (Fig 4C). The sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition increased the root biomass, on average, by 23.2% and 25.4% compared with those without glucose addition, respectively (Fig 4D).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Root surface area (A), root volume (B), total root length (C) and root biomass (D) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

NO3--N, NO2--N and NH4+-N contents of root

The glucose addition significantly enhanced the NO3N and NO2N contents of root by 23.8% and 24.1%, but significantly decreased (P<0.05) the NH4+-N content of root by 11.7% (S5 Fig). The NO3N content of root was significantly enhanced (P<0.05) by 13.1% and 16.5% in Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments compared with Glu-1 and SS+Glu-1 treatments, respectively (S5A Fig). The NO2N content of root was significantly increased by 14.8% and 36.1% in the treatments of SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 compared with SS treatment, respectively (S5B Fig). The NH4+-N content of root in the Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments was 13.8% and 19.1% lower than that in the CK treatment, respectively (S5C Fig).

Activities of enzymes involved in N metabolism of root

The activities of NR, GS, GOGAT and GPT were not significantly different (P>0.05) between Glu-1 and SS+Glu-1 treatments (Fig 5). The high level of glucose addition enhanced the NR activities by 21.9% and 28.6% in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils, respectively (Fig 5A). The Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 treatments significantly increased the GS activities by 27.1% and 29.6% compared with the Glu-1 and SS+Glu-1 treatments, respectively (Fig 5B). The NADH-GDH activities in the SS treatment were higher than those in the CK treatment (Fig 5C). The GOGAT activities in the SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments were 14.1% and 30.9% higher than those in the SS treatment (Fig 5D). Additionally, the GOT and GPT activities in the SS treatment were 23.3% and 10.3% higher than those in CK treatment, respectively (Fig 5E and 5F).

Fig 5. Key enzyme activities involved in nitrogen metabolism of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Fig 5

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

Free amino acid contents of root

The contents of 16 free amino acids were increased with the levels of glucose addition (S2 Table). The most abundant amino acid content in roots was aspartic acid. The SS+Glu-2 and Glu-2 treatments significantly enhanced the contents of all amino acids by 2.2%~29.7% and by 5.1%~37.3% compared with SS and CK treatments, respectively. However, there was little variation (P>0.05) in the contents of lysine, glycine, serine, arginine, proline, and cysteine acids between SS and CK treatments. The SS+Glu-2 treatment considerably enhanced (P<0.05) the contents of aspartic and tyrosine acids by 3.9% and 9.1% compared with Glu-2 treatment, respectively.

Transcript levels of genes involved in N metabolism of root

Compared with SS treatment, the expression level of NR was increased by 1.5-fold and 2.8-fold in the SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments, respectively (Fig 6A). The GS expression level was markedly higher (P<0.05) in the SS+Glu-1 and SS+Glu-2 treatments than that in the SS treatment (Fig 6B). The glucose addition increased the GDH mRNA levels, on average, by 4.4-fold and 2.5-fold in the non-sterilized and sterilized soils compared with no glucose addition, respectively (Fig 6C). The GOGAT transcript level was 1.5-fold higher in the sterilized soils than that in the non-sterilized soils (Fig 6D).

Fig 6.

Fig 6

The transcript levels of genes involved in N metabolism of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. NR (A), GS (B), GDH (C) and GOGAT (D). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

Correlation between nitrogen metabolism of root and root morphology indices

The activities of root N metabolism enzyme were positively correlated with root surface (R2 = 0.832, P < 0.01), root volume (R2 = 0.553, P < 0.05) and root length (R2 = 0.756, P < 0.01) as well as root biomass (R2 = 0.808, P < 0.01), as Fig 7. This implies that N uptake and activities of metabolism enzyme plays an essential role in improving root morphology after glucose addition.

Fig 7. Correlations between root nitrogen metabolism and root morphology indices in soils with glucose addition and sterilization at day 45 **.

Fig 7

means P < 0.01, * means P < 0.05.

Correlation among soil bacterial communities, soil organic carbon fractions and root morphology

The first two axes explained 80.43% and 11.41% of total variations, respectively (Fig 8). The first component separated the soils with glucose additions from the soils without glucose addition and explained 80.43% of total variation. MBC, TN, SOC, POC, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes were closely related. TN, MBC and WSOC significantly affected the morphology indices and NO3N content of root. Proteobacteria had strong positive correlations with root length and biomass, but had strong negative correlations with NH4+-N content of root. Moreover, the NO3N and NO2N of root were positively correlated with SOC, TN and LOC fractions and negatively correlated with C/N ratio of soil.

Fig 8. Redundancy analysis of the relationship among soil bacterial communities (black arrow) at the phylum level, soil nitrogen and organic carbon fractions (red arrow), and root morphology indices (green arrow).

Fig 8

MBC, microbial biomass carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; C/N, ratio of soil organic carbon to total nitrogen; POC, particulate organic carbon; WSOC, water-soluble organic carbon; NH4+-N, ammonium nitrogen of root; NO3N, nitrate nitrogen of root; NO2N, nitrite nitrogen of root; RV, root volume; RS, root surface; RL, root length; RB, root biomass. Square and circle denote the non-sterilized and sterilized soils, respectively. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil sterilization with high level of glucose addition.

Discussion

Dynamics of glucose C fixation and bacterial community in soils with sterilization and glucose addition

Input of exogenous C increased the SOC content [67]. However, some researches demonstrated that the total SOC content is not significantly increased even under excessive exogenous C input into soil [68,69]. The inconsistent results could be mainly because the trade-off between exogenous C and soil fertility together regulates the C sequestration in soil [70]. The C fixed efficiency is lower in soils with high SOC than that in soils with low SOC content [71]. This could suggest that SOC content tends to be saturated with exogenous C addition, and the larger proportion of exogenous C remains in C-poor soil compared with C-rich soil closed to C saturation [72]. In our research, the soils with low nutrients availability could have the large potential of exogenous C fixation and promote SOC sequestration, which supported by net SOC balance (Fig 2).

The net SOC balance depends on the difference between new C gain and native SOC loss [73]. Glucose addition at low level leads to native SOC loss approximately equal to SOC gain in non-sterilized soil (Fig 2). Thus, the balance between accumulation and loss of SOC is probably associated with priming effect [21]. Glucose input to soil could activate dormant microorganisms, causing SOM decomposition [74]. But, new SOC formation derived from glucose C could offset native SOC loss in the sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition. Moreover, the residual rate of glucose-C in the sterilized soil was higher than that in non-sterilized soil under the same level of glucose addition (Fig 1). These results demonstrated that soil sterilization may promote glucose-C sequestration in a low C soil. The process of autoclaving could destroy soil structure and lead to soil particulate finer [75,76], which enhances available surface area and provide many sorption sites for glucose-C retention in soil [77].

Glucose input to soil supply energy source for microorganisms, and they are activated. WSOC as available C is assimilated by soil microorganisms, thereby accelerating the transformation of SOC in the soil [78]. Hence, the WSOC content was increased initially and then decreased with sampling time (S1C Fig). Exogenous glucose C is glued with soil clay particles [79,80], which could contribute to the formation of POC (S3D Fig). After glucose addition to soil, the POC content was increased with sampling time due to soil aggregate formation [81]. The formation of macroaggregate is enhanced with the levels of C input [82], while the decomposition of microaggregates rapidly induce the release of POC from aggregate occlusion and the increase of POC content. Our research did not explore the accumulation dynamics of POC in soil aggregates.

The glucose addition increased the richness and alpha-diversities of soil bacteria (Table 1). Similar results were found in the rhizosphere of Cerasus sachalinensis Kom [83]. The glucose addition enhanced the relative abundances of specific bacterial communities (including Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes at the phylum level) in the low C soil, which is C-limited for microbial growth relative to N nutrient. Both Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria as copiotrophic bacteria (r-strategists) have strong abilities to utilize labile organic C source [84,85]. While the relative abundance of Proteobacteria exceeded to that of Actinobacteria at day 45. Actinobacteria taxa own few amounts of high affinity transporters to transport specific substrate, which leads to their saturated proliferation under C-poor condition. Additionally, Actinobacteria may strongly compete soil nutrients with Proteobacteria [86]. A negative correlation between Acidobacteria and total SOC was found (Fig 8), which could be attributed that high level of glucose addition may produce disorder osmotic and aberrant growth of Acidobacteria cells as oligotrophic bacteria [87,88]. The increase in soil TN content drives the shift of dominant microbial growth strategies from K-to r-strategists [89,90]. Soils with higher level of glucose addition had higher TN content and lower C/N ratio (S2 Fig). And C/N was negatively associated with Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes (opportunistic bacteria, r-strategists) (Fig 8). These results demonstrated that r-strategy decomposers rather than K-strategists dominate at lower substrate C/N ratios.

The composition of bacterial communities at the phylum level was similar, while their relative abundances were different between sterilized and non-sterilized soils. Autoclave sterilization for short term (4 h) kills most of native soil microorganisms, leaving many empty niches for recolonized microbe to fill. On the other hand, plant growth could favor the recolonization of highly desirable microorganisms, which are used to assimilate root exudates as “food source”, once the niches competition was removed via sterilization [42,91]. Therefore, microorganism occupied empty niches in the sterilized soils planted with apple seedlings. Pseudomonas, preferring root exudate C to the other C source, is beneficial bacteria for most plants [92]. This bacteria genus could firstly occupy empty niches in the sterilized soil, which may be the reason that Pseudomonas was more enriched in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment. Regardless of sterilization or not, soil bacterial communities in the treatments without glucose addition were well separated from those in the treatments with glucose addition along the first component, which explained 60.05% of total variation (Fig 3A). This result indicated that the available C substrate supply plays dominate roles in bacterial communitie variation of low C soil. Moreover, the relative abundance of Acidobacterium, belonged to Acidobacteria (K-strategists), was higher than that Bacillus, belonged to Firmicutes (r-strategists), in the soil combined with sterilization and low level of glucose addition (Fig 3D). The K-strategists always dominates under low nutrients availability conditions, but are consistent with their outcompeting r-strategists when resources are limited [93,94].

Root morphology varied with exogenous C addition and soil sterilization

Plant roots grow in the soil, exploring soil nutrients and water availability [95]. Soil bacterial community structure has substantial influences on the growth and health of plant by regulating root morphology and development [96]. The glucose addition and/or soil sterilization significantly increased the indices of root morphology. This was mainly associated with the increase in the relative abundance of Burkholderia (Proteobacteria), Paenibacillus (Firmicutes) and Streptomyces (Actinobacteria) by glucose addition and/or soil sterilization. The bacterial phyla of Proteobacteria, which consists mostly of G- bacteria and diazotrophs, classified as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) [97,98]. This PGPR exerts a beneficial effect on root growth on the production of phytohormone (e.g. IAA) or on nutrients uptake (e.g. N) by plants [99]. Some the other genera, such as Streptomyces, also have PGPR traits to hydrolyse chitin [100]. The genus Paenibacillus is easily isolated from the agricultural soil and rhizosphere [101] and has the characterise against pathogens [102]. Therefore, the above mentioned genera improved root morphology and promoted plant growth due to root hormones levels producing IAA in the rhizosphere and the nutrients availability. Moreover, the growth of rhizosheaths is regulated by the cooperation of soil particles with root hair and polysaccharides released either by root exudates or colonized bacteria. While the larger amount of soluble C release, in sterilized and glucose addition soils (S1C Fig), favours the growth of exopolysaccharides-producing bacteria [39], which could cause more soil aggregates attached on root surface and extend root length. In addition, glucose addition could improve soil stoichiometric ratio of C, N and P and create a suitable environment for soil microbial growth, which in turn could favour root growth in low C soil [103].

Enzymes activities involved in N metabolism of root respond to glucose C addition and soil sterilization

Optimal root zone environment is beneficial to orderly root metabolism process [104]. Our results showed that glucose addition and soil sterilization increased the organic acid content of M. baccata root (S3 Table). The addition of glucose, regardless of soil sterilization, provides available C source for soil microorganism and increases microbial activities [105], which could promote the energy metabolism of root (S6 Fig), root activity (S7 Fig), as well as nutrient absorption by root.

N is an essential mineral nutrient that has profound impacts on plant growth and crop yield. N absorbed by roots is mainly derived from fertiliser, necromass decomposition and native soil organic matter mineralisation. NO3N is the main N source for root. Glucose addition and/or soil sterilization increased the root length and volume (Fig 4), which could enhance the potential ability of N absorption by root. This also could be supported by the highly positive correlation between root morphology and enzymes activities of N metabolism (Fig 7).

Additionally, the exogenous C addition changes the ratio of SOC to TN, and further causes the competition between soil microorganism and plant root for soil N nutrient [106]. All the assimilation of NO3N and NO2N are reduced to NH4+-N through NR [107]. However, the NH4+-N content of root under glucose addition and/or soil sterilization was significantly decreased (S5C Fig). Root assimilates NH4+-N and rapidly converts it into organic compounds through GS, NADH-GOGAT and NADH-GDH [108]. On the whole, glucose addition and/or soil sterilization enhanced the absorption and assimilation of N in root due to the activities of NR, GS, NADH-GDH, NADH-GOGAT (Fig 5) and the mRNA genes expression level (Fig 6), which, in turn, decreased the NH4+-N content in root. NH4+-N as an amino donor of proline is converted to glutamate through NADH-GDH activities and mRNA genes expression, which were higher in SS+Glu-2 treatment than that in the other treatments. This was consistent with the increase of glutamic and proline contents in root (S2 Table). Moreover, glutamate can be further converted to aspartic acid or alanine by GOT or GPT, respectively. Our results obtained that the increased activities of GOT and GPT in high level of glucose addition appeared high content of aspartic or alanine (Fig 5E and 5F). Hence, the supply of available C source for low C soil promotes the exogenous C fixation in soil, optimizes root zone environment, improves root morphology, and further enhances the key enzymic activities of N metabolism and mRNA expression in apple roots.

Conclusions

Glucose addition combined with soil sterilization not only increased the SOC content and new SOC formation derived from glucose C, but also increased the alpha diversity and changed bacterial community structure in soils. Although soil microbial communities were similar between non-sterilization and sterilization, soil sterilization mainly increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia at the phyla level. Furthermore, the glucose addition, especially combined with soil sterilization improved root morphology, promoted the potential abilities of root N metabolism, and increased the amino acid synthesis in root. Overall, these results suggested the supply of C substrate with healthy soil conditions well shapes soil microbial communities and root morphology, and potentially increases soil C sequestration in agroecosystems. However, the complexity of C substrate drives the function and structure of soil microbial communities, which could lead to dynamics of plant growth and soil nutrient transformation. Further research should be focused on the coupled mechanism among nutrients transformation, plant growth and soil C sequestration under supply of complicated C substrates for low C soil.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Contents of total soil organic carbon (A), microbial biomass carbon (B), water soluble organic carbon (C) and particulate organic carbon (D) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments at the same sampling time. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different sampling time within the same treatment. Overlapping date points with the same significant differences are indicated by common letters. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig

Content of total nitrogen (TN) of soil (A) and ratio of total soil organic carbon to TN (C/N, B) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among treatments.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig

δ13C values of soil organic carbon (A), microbial biomass carbon (B), water soluble organic carbon (C) and particulate organic carbon (D) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments at the same sampling time. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different sampling time within the same treatment. Overlapping date points with the same significant differences are indicated by common letters. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. Heatmap of the abundant bacterial family (relative abundance exceeding to 1%) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig

Contents of NO3N (A), NO2N (B) and NH4+-N (C) of apple root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Enzymes activities related to energy metabolism at day 45.

PEPC (A, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase), MDH (B, malate dehydrogenase) and ICDH (C, isocitrate dehydrogenase). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig. Root vitality of Malus baccata (L.) Borkh. in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Gene-specific primers used for quantitative real-time PCR in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition.

CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Change in amino acid contents of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Change in organic acid contents of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We deeply appreciate Dr. Tingting An (College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University, China) for her assistance in this study. Special thanks to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and constructive comments.

Abbreviations

C

carbon

SOC

soil organic carbon

LOC

labile organic carbon

WSOC

water-soluble organic carbon

POC

particulate organic carbon

PE

priming effect

N

nitrogen

TN

total nitrogen

NO3-

nitrate

NO2-

nitrite

NH4+

ammonium

CK

Non-sterilized soil without glucose addition

Glu1

Non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition

Glu2

Non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition

NR

nitrate reductase

GS

glutamine synthetase

GOGAT

glutamate synthetase

GDH

glutamate dehydrogenase

GOT

glutamic oxalacetic transaminase

GPT

glutamic pyruvate transaminase

OTU

operational taxonomic units

C/N

Ratio of soil organic carbon to total nitrogen

PcoA

principal coordinate analysis

RDA

redundancy analysis

PGPR

plant growth promoting rhizobacteria

SS

Sterilized soil with glucose addition

SS+Glu1

Sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition

SS+Glu2

Sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition

Data Availability

We have uploaded RNA-Seq data in the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) at NCBI under accession number PRJNA765206. We have also uploaded our research’s minimal underlying data set to the figshare with the doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.17913878.

Funding Statement

Funded by (1) National Natural Science Foundation of China (31972359) (2) Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0201115) (3) the Agricultural Research and Industrialization Projects of Liaoning Province (2020JH2/10200028) (4) the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-27).

References

  • 1.Lin E, Xiong W, Ju H, Xu YL, Li Y, Bai LP, et al. Climate change impacts on crop yield and quality with CO2 fertilization in China. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005;360(1463):2149–2154. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R. Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2009;28(3):139–163. doi: 10.1080/07352680902776507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen HQ, Hou RX, Gong YS, Li HW, Fan MS, Kuzyakov Y. Effects of 11 years of conservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2009;106(1):85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2009.09.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yang CM, Yang LZ, Zhu OY. Organic carbon and its fractions in paddy soil as affected by different nutrient and water regimes. Geoderma. 2005;124(1–2):133–142. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.04.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Berthrong ST, Buckley DH, Drinkwater LE. Agricultural management and labile carbon additions affect soil microbial community structure and interact with carbon and nitrogen cycling. Microb Ecol. 2013;66:158–170. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0225-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhao ZP, Yan S, Liu F, Ji PH, Wang XY, Tong YA. Effects of chemical fertilizer combined with organic manure on Fuji apple quality, yield and soil fertility in apple orchard on the Loess Plateau of China. Int J Agric Biol Eng. 2014;7(2):45–55. doi: 10.3965/j.ijabe.20140702.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Benbi DK, Brar K, Toor AS, Sharma S. Sensitivity of labile soil organic carbon pools to long-term fertilizer, straw and manure management in rice-wheat system. Pedosphere. 2015;25(4):534–545. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(15)30034-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yang X, Meng J, Lan Y, Chen WF, Yang TX, Yuan J, et al. Effects of maize stover and its biochar on soil CO2 emissions and labile organic carbon fractions in Northeast China. Agric. Ecosyst Environ. 2017;240:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sui YH, Gao JP, Liu CH, Zhang WZ, Lan Y, Li SH, et al. Interactive effects of straw-derived biochar and N fertilization on soil C storage and rice productivity in rice paddies of Northeast China. Sci Total Environ. 2016;544:203–210. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang J, Fu X, Zhao FZ, Sainju UM. Response of soil carbon fractions and dryland maize yield to mulching. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2018;82(2):371–381. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2017.11.0397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mi W, Wu L, Brookes PC, Liu Y, Zhang X, Yang X. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions under integrated management systems in a low-productivity paddy soil given different organic amendments and chemical fertilizers. Soil Till Res. 2016;163:64–70. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.05.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nayak AK, Gangwar B, Shukla AK, Mazumdar SP, Kumar A, Raja R, et al. Long-term effect of different integrated nutrient management on soil organic carbon and its fractions and sustainability of rice-wheat system in Indo Gangetic Plains of India. Field Crop Res. 2012;127:129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Guenet B, Leloup J, Raynaud X, Bardoux G, Abbadie L. Negative priming effect on mineralization in a soil free of vegetation for 80 years. Eur J Soil Sci. 2010;61(3):384–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01234.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Uchida Y, Nishimura S, Akiyama H. The relationship of water-soluble carbon and hot-water-soluble carbon with soil respiration in agricultural fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012;156:116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Qiu QY, Wu LF, Ouyang Z, Li BB, Xu YY, Wu SS, et al. Priming effect of maize residue and urea N on soil organic matter changes with time. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016;100:65–74. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.11.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. Mechanisms of real and apparent priming effects and their dependence on soil microbial biomass and community structure: critical review. Biol Fertil Soils. 2008;45:115–131. doi: 10.1007/s00374-008-0334-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.De Nobili M, Contin M, Mondini C, Brookes P. Soil microbial biomass is triggered into activity by trace amounts of substrate. Soil Biol Biochem. 2001;33(9):1163–1170. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00011-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dong JF, Wang SP, Niu HS, Cui XY, Li LF, et al. Responses of soil microbes and their interactions with plant community after nitrogen and phosphorus addition in a Tibetan alpine steppe. J Soils Sediments. 2020;20(4): 2236–2247. doi: 10.1007/s11368-020-02586-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cycoń M, Markowicz A, Piotrowska-Seget Z. Structural and functional diversity of bacterial community in soil treated with the herbicide napropamide estimated by the DGGE, CLPP and r/K-strategy approaches. Appl Soil Ecol. 2013;72:242–250. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.07.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Blagodatskaya EV, Blagodatsky SA, Anderson TH, Kuzyakov Y. Priming effects in Chernozem induced by glucose and N in relation to microbial growth strategies. Appl Soil Ecol. 2007;37(1–2):95–105. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.05.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fontaine S, Mariotti A, Abbadie L. The priming effect of organic matter: a question of microbial competition? Soil Biol Biochem. 2003;35(6):837–843. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00123-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schimel JP, Weintraub MN. The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biol Biochem. 2003;35(4):549–563. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00015-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dorodnikov M, Blagodatskaya E, Blagodatsky S, Fangmeier A, Kuzyakov Y. Stimulation of r- vs. K-selected microorganisms by elevated atmospheric CO2 depends on soil aggregate size: research article. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009;69(1):43–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00697.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Eilers KG, Lauber CL, Knight R, Fierer N. Shifts in bacterial community structure associated with inputs of low molecular weight carbon compounds to soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42(6):896–903. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bernard L, Mougel C, Maron PA, Nowak V, Lévêque J, Henault C, et al. Dynamics and identification of soil microbial populations actively assimilating carbon from 13C-labelled wheat residue as estimated by DNA- and RNA-SIP techniques. Environ Microbiol. 2010;9(3):752–764. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01197.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Turnbull GA, Morgan JAW, Whipps JM, Saunder JR. The role of bacterial motility in the survival and spread of Pseudomonas fluorescens in soil and in the attachment and colonisation of wheat roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2001;36(1):21–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2001.tb00822.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wertz S, Czarnes S, Bartoli F, Renault P, Commeaux C, Guillaumaud N, et al. Early-stage bacterial colonization between a sterilized remoulded soil clod and natural soil aggregates of the same soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2007;39(12):3127–3137. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Marschner P, Rumberger A. Rapid changes in the rhizosphere bacterial community structure during re-colonization of sterilized soil. Biol Fertil Soils. 2004,40(1):1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00374-004-0736-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhu B, Gutknecht JLM, Herman DJ, Keck DC, Firestone MK, Cheng WX. Rhizosphere priming effects on soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;76:183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ruffel S, Gojon A, Lejay L. Signal interactions in the regulation of root nitrate uptake. J Exp Bot. 2014;65(19):5509–5517. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Iglesias-Bartolomé R, González CA, Kenis JD. Nitrate reductase dephosphorylation is induced by sugars and sugar‐phosphates in corn leaf segments. Physiol Plant. 2004;122(1):62–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2004.00375.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Matt P, Krapp A, Haake V, Mock HP, Stitt M. Decreased Rubisco activity leads to dramatic changes of nitrate metabolism, amino acid metabolism and the levels of phenylpropanoids and nicotine in tobacco antisense RBCS transformants. Plant J. 2002;30(6):663–677. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2002.01323.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Reda M. Response of nitrate reductase activity and NIA genes expression in roots of Arabidopsis hxk1 mutant treated with selected carbon and nitrogen metabolites. Plant Sci. 2015;230:51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [Internet]. FAOSTAT Production Database. [cited 2019]. Available from: http://faostat.fao.org.
  • 35.Li ZH, Ji Q, Zhao SX, Wei BM, Wang XD, Huaaain Q. Changes in C and N fractions with composted manure plus chemical fertilizers applied in apple orchard soil: an in-situ field incubation study on the Loess Plateau, China. Soil Use Manage. 2018;34(2):276–285. doi: 10.1111/sum.12417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang ZT, Peng FT, Tang HX, Wang ZY, Xiao YS. Effect of different organic coverage treatments on the soil properties of peach orchard and plant growth. J Soil Water Conserv. 2011;25(1):142–145. doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2011.01.046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Le THX and Marschner P. Mixing organic amendments with high and low C/N ratio influences nutrient availability and leaching in sandy soil. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2018;18(4):952–964. doi: 10.4067/S0718-95162018005002703 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jensen JL, Schjønning P, Watts CW, Christensen BT, Munkholm LJ. Soil texture analysis revisited: Removal of organic matter matters more than ever. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mahmood T, Mehnaz S, Fleischmann F, Ali R, Hashmi ZH, Iqbal Z. Soil sterilization effects on root growth and formation of rhizosheaths in wheat seedlings. Pedobiologia. 2014;57:123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2013.12.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Qin SJ, Zhou WJ, Lyu D, Liu LZ. Effects of soil sterilization and biological agent inoculation on the root respiratory metabolism and plant growth of Cerasus sachalinensis Kom. Sci Hortic. 2014;170(1):189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.03.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li K, DiLegge M J, Minas I S, et al. Soil sterilization leads to re-colonization of a healthier rhizosphere microbiome. Rhizosphere. 2019;12:100176. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2019;100176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Moreira H, Pereira SIA, Marques APGC, Rangel AOSS, Castro PML. Effects of soil sterilization and metal spiking in plant growth promoting rhizobacteria selection for phytotechnology purposes. Geoderma. 2019;334:72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wu J, Joergensen RG, Pommerening B, Chaussod R, Brookes PC. Measurement of soil microbial biomass C by fumigation extraction an automated procedure. Soil Biol Biochem. 1990;22(8):1167–1169. 22:1167–1169.10.1016/0038-0717(90)90046-3. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhang SR, Wen J, Li T, Xu XX, Deng LJ, Gong GS, et al. Soil carbon fractions of restored lands in Liusha River Valley, Sichuan. Ecol Eng. 2012;40,27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.12.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cambardella CA, Elliott ET. Particulate soil organic matter changes across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1992;56(3):777–783. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600030017x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Engelking B, Flessa H, Joergensen RG. Formation and use of microbial residues after adding sugarcane sucrose to a heated soil devoid of soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008;40(1):97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.07.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Werner RA, Brand WA. Referencing strategies and techniques in stable isotope ratio analysis. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2001;15(7):501–519. doi: 10.1002/rcm.258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Troyer ID, Amery F, Moorleghem CV, Smolders E, Merckx R. Tracing the source and fate of dissolved organic matter in soil after incorporation of a 13C labelled residue: a batch incubation study. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43(3):513–519. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fadrosh DW, Ma B, Gajer P, Sengamalay N, Ott S, Ravel J, et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16s rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina Miseq platform. Microbiome. 2014;2:1–7. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41(D1):D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(16):5261–5267. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics, 2010;26(19):2460–2461. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gloor GB and Reid G. Compositional analysis: a valid approach to analyze microbiome high-throughput sequencing data. Can J Microbiol. 2016;62(8):692–703. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2015-0821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci. 2003, 14(6): 927–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02228.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Agapit C, Gigon A, Blouin M. Earthworm effect on root morphology in a split root system. Plant Biosyst. 2018;152(4):780–786. doi: org/10.1080/11263504.2017.1338627 [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Patterson K, Cakmak T, Cooper A, Lager IDA, Rasmusson AG, Escobar MA. Distinct signalling pathways and transcriptome response signatures differentiate ammonium- and nitrate-supplied plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2010;33(9):1486–1501. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02158.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ogawa T, Fukuoka H, Yano H, Ohkawa Y. Relationships between nitrite reductase activity and genotype-dependent callus growth in rice cell cultures. Plant Cell Rep. 1999;18(7–8):576–581. doi: 10.1007/s002990050625 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bräutigam A, Gagneul D, Weber APM. High-throughput colorimetric method for the parallel assay of glyoxylic acid and ammonium in a single extract. Anal Biochem. 2007;362:151–153. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2006.12.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fürst P, Pollack L, Graser TA, Godel H, Stehle P. Appraisal of four pre-column derivatization methods for the high-performance liquid chromatographic determination of free amino acids in biological materials. J Chromatogr A. 1990;499:557–569. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9673(00)97000-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Jin XH, Huang H, Wang L, Sun L, Dai SL. Transcriptomics and metabolite analysis reveals the molecular mechanism of anthocyanin biosynthesis branch pathway in different Senecio cruentus cultivars. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1307. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wang H, Ma F, Cheng L. Metabolism of organic acids, nitrogen and amino acids in chlorotic leaves of ‘Honeycrisp’ apple (Malus domestica Borkh) with excessive accumulation of carbohydrates. Planta. 2010;232:511–522. doi: 10.1007/s00425-010-1194-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hageman RH, Reed AJ, Femmer RA, Sherrard JH, Dalling MJ, Yoder OC, et al. Some new aspects of the in vivo assay for nitrate reductase in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) leaves: I. REEVALUATION OF NITRATE POOL SIZES. Plant Physiol. 1980; 65:27–32. doi: 10.1104/pp.65.1.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Robinson SA, Slade AP, Fox GG, Phillips R, Ratcliffe RG, Stewart GR. The role of glutamate dehydrogenase in plant nitrogen metabolism. Plant Physiol. 1991;95(2):509–516. doi: 10.1104/pp.95.2.509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bergmeyer HU, Bernt E. Methods for determination of enzyme activity. In: Bergmeyer HU, editors. Methods of enzymatic analysis. 2nd Edition. New York: London Academic; 1974. pp. 837–853. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gasic K, Hernandez A, Korban SS. RNA extraction from different apple tissues rich in polyphenols and polysaccharides for cDNA library construction. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2004;22(4):437–438. doi: 10.1007/BF02772687 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Livak KJ and Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCt method. Methods. 2001;25(4):402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hopkins FM, Filley TR, Gleixner G, Lange M, Top SM, Trumbore SE. Increased belowground carbon inputs and warming promote loss of soil organic carbon through complementary microbial responses. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;76(1):57–69. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Reicosky DC, Evans SD, Cambardella CA, Allmaras RR, Wilts AR, Huggins DR. Continuous corn with moldboard tillage: residue and fertility effects on soil carbon. J Soil Water Conserv. 2002;57(5):277–284. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00148-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Stewart CE, Paustian K, Conant RT, Plante AF, Six J. Soil carbon saturation: implications for measurable carbon pool dynamics in long-term incubations. Soil Biol Biochem. 2009;41(2):357–366. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Meng F, Dungait JAJ, Xu X, Bol R, Zhang X, Wu W. Coupled incorporation of maize (Zea mays L.) straw with nitrogen fertilizer increased soil organic carbon in Fluvic Cambisol. Geoderma. 2017;304:19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.09.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Campbell CA, Lafond GP, Zentner RP, Biederbeck VO. Influence of fertilizer and straw baling on soil organic matter in a thin black Chernozem in western Canada. Soil Biol Biochem. 1991;23(5):443–446. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(91)90007-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Stewart CE, Paustian K, Conant RT, Plante AF, Six J. Soil carbon saturation: evaluation and corroboration by long-term incubations. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008;40(7):1741–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Xu XR, An TT, Zhang JM, Sun ZH, Schaeffer SM, Wang JK. Transformation and stabilization of straw residue carbon in soil affected by soil types, maize straw addition and fertilized levels of soil. Geoderma. 2019;337: 622–629. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gunina A and Kuzyakov Y. Sugars in soil and sweets for microorganisms: Review of origin, content, composition and fate. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;90:87–100. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.07.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Trevors JT. Sterilization and inhibition of microbial activity in soil. J. Microbiol. Methods 1996; 26(1–2):53–59. doi: 10.1016/0167-7012(96)00843-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Berns AE, Philipp H, Narres HD, Burauel P, Vereecken H, Tappe W. Effect of gamma-sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV and fluorescence spectroscopy. Eur J Soil Sci. 2008;59:540–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01016.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Lotrario JB, Stuart BJ, Lam T, Arands RR, Connor OA, Kosson DS. Effects of sterilization methods on the physical characteristics of soil: implications for sorption isotherm analyses. B Environ Contam Tox. 1995;54(5):668–675. doi: 10.1007/BF00206097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Marschner B, Bredow A. Temperature effects on release and ecologically relevant properties of dissolved organic carbon in sterilised and biologically active soil samples. Soil Biol Biochem. 2002;34(4):459–466. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00203-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Sodano M, Said-Pullicino D, Fiori AF, Catoni M, Martin M, Celi L, et al. Sorption of paddy soil-derived dissolved organic matter on hydrous iron oxide-vermiculite mineral phases. Geoderma. 2016;261:169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Schurig C, Smittenberg RH, Berger J, Kraft F, Woche SK, Goebel MO, et al. Microbial cell-envelope fragments and the formation of soil organic matter: a case study from a glacier forefield. Biogeochemistry. 2013;113:595–612. doi: 10.1007/s10533-012-9791-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Li S, Zhang S, Pu YL, Li T, Xu XX, Jia YX, et al. Dynamics of soil labile organic carbon fractions and C-cycle enzyme activities under straw mulch in Chengdu Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2016;155:289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.07.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Shahbaz M, Kuzyakov Y, Heitkamp F. Decrease of soil organic matter stabilization with increasing inputs: mechanisms and controls. Geoderma. 2017;304:76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.05.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zhou WJ, Qin X, Lyu DG, Qin SJ. Effect of glucose on the soil bacterial diversity and function in the rhizosphere of Cerasus sachalinensis. Hortic Plant J. 2021;7(4):307–317. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.02.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Morrissey EM, Mau RL, Schwartz E, McHugh TA, Dijkstra P, Koch BJ, et al. Bacterial carbon use plasticity, phylogenetic diversity and the priming of soil organic matter. IEEE Syst J. 2017;11:1–10. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wang XX, Zhang W, Liu Y, Jia ZJ, Li H, Zhang XD, et al. Identification of microbial strategies for labile substrate utilization at phylogenetic classification using a microcosm approach. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;153: 107970. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107970 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Trivedi P, Anderson IC, Singh BK. Microbial modulators of soil carbon storage: integrating genomic and metabolic knowledge for global prediction. Trends Microbiol. 2013;21:641–651. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2013.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Verastegui Y, Cheng J, Engel K, Kolczynski D, Mortimer S, Lavigne J. et al. Multisubstrate isotope labeling and metagenomic analysis of active soil bacterial communities. MBio. 2014;5(4):e01157–01114. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01157-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Koch AL. Oligotrophs versus copiotrophs. Bioessays. 2001;23(7):657–661. doi: 10.1002/bies.1091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Zeng WJ, Wang ZD, Chen XY, Yao XD, Wang W. Increased nitrogen availability alters soil carbon quality by regulating microbial r‐K growth strategy, metabolic efficiency, and biomass in degraded temperate grasslands. Land Degrad Dev. 2021;32(13):3350–3560. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Kaiser C, Franklin O, Dieckmann U, Richter A. Microbial community dynamics alleviate stoichiometric constraints during litter decay. Ecol Lett. 2014, 17(6):680–690. doi: 10.1111/ele.12269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Badri DV and Vivanco J M. Regulation and function of root exudates. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32(6):666–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01926.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Berendsen RL, Pieterse C, Bakker P. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17(8):478–486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Fierer N, Bradford MA, Jackson RB. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology. 2007;88(6):1354–1364. doi: 10.1890/05-1839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Jenkins SN, Rushton SP, Lanyon CV, Whiteley AS, Waite IS, Brookes PC, et al. Taxon-specific responses of soil bacteria to the addition of low level C inputs. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42(9):1624–1631. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Vennetier M, Zanetti C, Meriaux P, Mary BJM. Tree root architecture: new insights from a comprehensive study on dikes. Plant Soil. 2015;387:81–101. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2272-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Ma LN, Huang WW, Guo CY, Wang RZ, Xiao CW. Soil microbial properties and plant growth responses to carbon and water addition in a temperate steppe: the importance of nutrient availability. PloS One. 2012;7:e35165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Yang Y, Wang N, Guo X, Zhang Y, Ye B. Comparative analysis of bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of maize by high-throughput pyrosequencing. PloS One. 2017;12(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Dommelen AV, Vanderleyden J. Chapter 12: associative nitrogen fixation. In: Bothe H, Ferguson SJ, Newton WE, editors. The Biology of the Nitrogen Cycle. Heverlee: Institut Pasteur; 2007. pp.179–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Kim WI, Cho WK, Kim SN, Chu H, Ryu KY, Yun JC et al. Genetic diversity of cultivable plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in Korea. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;21(8):777–790. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1101.01031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Doumbou CL, Hamby Salove MK, Crawford DL, Beaulieu C. Actinomycetes, promising tools to control plant diseases and to promote plant growth. Phytoprotection. 2001;82(3):85–102. doi: 10.7202/706219ar [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Gardener BB. Ecology of Bacillus and Paenibacillus spp. in Agricultural Systems. Phytopathology. 2004;94(11):1252–1258. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Kumar A, Prakash A, Johri BN. Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystem. In: Maheshwari DK, editors. Bacteria in agrobiology: crop ecosystems. Bhopal: Barkatullah University; 2011.pp. 37–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Tracy SR, Black CR, Roberts JA, Mooney SJ. Exploring the interacting effect of soil texture and bulk density on root system development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environ Exp Bot. 2013;91:38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2013.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Arias-Baldrich C, Osa C, Bosch N, Ruiz-Ballesta I, Monreal JA, García-Mauriño S. Enzymatic activity, gene expression and posttranslational modifications of photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase in ammonium-stressed sorghum plants. J Plant Physiol. 2017;214:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2017.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Hristozkova M, Gigova L, Geneva M, Stancheva I, Velikova V, Marinova G. Influence of mycorrhizal fungi and microalgae dual inoculation on basil plants performance. Gesunde Pflanz. 2018;70:99–107. doi: 10.1007/s10343-018-0420-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Nie M, Pendall E. Do rhizosphere priming effects enhance plant nitrogen uptake under elevated CO2? Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2016;224:50–55. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Gao HB, Jia YX, Guo SR, Lv GY, Wang T, Juan L. Exogenous calcium affects nitrogen metabolism in root-zone hypoxia-stressed musk-melon roots and enhances short-term hypoxia tolerance. J Plant Physiol. 2011;168(11):1217–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2011.01.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Masclaux-Daubresse C, Reisdorf-Cren M, Pageau K, Lelandias M, Grandjean J, Valadier MH, et al. Glutamine synthetase glutamate synthase pathway and glutamate dehydrogenase play distinct roles in the sink source nitrogen cyclein tobacco. Plant Physiol. 2006;140:444–456. doi: 10.1104/pp.105.071910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ying Ma

28 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-22234

Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria community composition in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Qin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure 5, 7 and 8 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewers' Comments to Authors: the manuscript presents the potential to be published in PLOS ONE Journal. Please consider the questions raised below.

Abstract p.2 l.23: Present the meaning of the acronym SOC the first time it appears in the text.

Abbreviations p.3 l.42: Insert meaning of acronyms when they first appear in the text.

Materials and Methods p.9 l.193: Explain better the steps of DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis (How did you check the quality of the extracted DNA? Where and how was the Illumina sequencing performed? What are the steps of data analysis using bioinformatics?).

Materials and Methods p.9 l.193: You must submit the raw FASTQ files from the sequencing to NCBI and inform the study accession number.

Materials and Methods p.9 l.197: Separate "Miseqmachine".

Materials and Methods p.10 l.202: Insert the term "analytical balance".

Result p.12 l.251: Replace for "Results".

Result p.14 l.319: I didn't find Good coverage results (Good, 1953). I suggest presenting these data, which demonstrate the quality of the sequencing.

Result p.14 l.319: Why has soil bacterial diversity not been analyzed? (beta and alpha diversity?). These analyzes contribute to the understanding of the structural dynamics of the community after the application of treatments.

Result p.14 l.319: I raise a reflection on relative abundance results: There is an ongoing debate about the downside of interpreting sequencing data based on its relative abundance (which can cause data distortions). When we convert data into relative abundances, the independent variable appears to be correlated, since the frequency of any microbial community must add 1. To solve this problem, it is more feasible to use mathematical approaches for data composition analysis. The most accepted approach so far is Aitchison's centered logarithmic ratio transformation (clr).

Read:

Gloor GB, Reid G. Compositional analysis: a valid approach to analyze microbiome high-throughput sequencing data. Can J Microbiol. 2016;62(8):692-703. doi:10.1139/cjm-2015-0821

Aitchison J. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological). 1982;44(4):38.

Result p.14 l.319: A differential abundance analysis would also be interesting to highlight soil bacterial genera affected by the treatments.

Result p.14 l.319: Improve the description of phyla and genera found in each treatment (text is confusing).

Result p.14 l.339: In general, clearly demonstrate which treatment presented the best results (text is confusing).

Discussion p.22 l.430: Explore further the effect of soil sterilization on your bacterial community structure beyond the addition of glucose.

Discussion p.22 l.430: The contribution of soil bacteria to apple root growth remained to be discussed more. It would be interesting to correlate changes in community structure with candidate taxa for growth promotion.

Conclusion p.25 l.527: Better explain the applicability/projections of this study to field conditions.

Reviewer #2: The paper entitled “Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria community composition in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots” reports an interesting approach where the authors added glucose to the sterilized and non-sterilized soil. Then, they studied the response of the plant, soil C fractionation, and their bacterial composition. To publish in Plos One journal is necessary improve the following:

-The manuscript careful language revision and standardize the use of American or British English.

-The authors should extend the discussion, including the dynamic of r and k microorganisms when glucose is added.

-The results section is long. I considered that some results can be in the supplementary material.

-Discuss the effect of C addition on C:N ratio and which is their relationship with the results observed.

-The manuscript should show what is the importance of these results to agriculture

Specific comments:

Title:

-The term bacterial community is don't used correctly. Did the Glucose addition promote the bacterial community?

Abstract

- Please describe the abbreviation before the first citation. For example, “SOC”.

Line 30-31: The authors should check the use of the term "richness". Did they calculate the richness indexes?

Keywords:

-Avoid the use of abbreviations, for example: C and N.

Introduction:

-Line 74:78: For me is not clear, how in soil with N depletion the addition of C can increase the N absorption by the plant?

-Line 79-80: Here the authors should approach the dynamic of r and k microorganisms depending of the C source complexity added?

-Line 83: Replace the term “biological desert”

Materials and methods:

-Line 125: Please, clarify the term “debris”.

-Line 127-129: Describe the references used to perform the chemical characterization of the soil.

-Line 145-146. The authors should have irrigated the two soils (sterilized and unsterilized) with sterile water.

-Line 146: change “injetected” for “applied”.

-Line 150-153: The authors should clearly describe the soil collection conditions. Was the soil influenced by the roots?

-Line 155: Clarify the statistical designs. The authors use 30 seedling roots per replicate or treatment.

-Line 166: change “rpm” for “xg”

-Line 193: The sequencing data should be deposited in a database.

-Line 193: Change “microbial” for “bacterial”

-In this section the authors should give more details of methodology used to analyze the data (bioinformatic analyses). How was performed the DNA extraction? for sequencing, did you use kit V2 or V3?

-Line 196: The authors should include the reference of primers used.

-Line 204: The authors should include the reference of technique used.

-Line 230-231: Please check the redaction.

Results:

-In the figures and tables presented, the authors should include the abbreviation definitions in legends.

-Line 255-258: Why does the glucose addition increases the SOC only in low doses?

-Line 320: Please, analyze the data to family level.

-Line 326-327: My suggestion is to compare with the data of soil after sterilization.

-Line 340: Is curiously that root biomass increased in C.

Fig 10. What is the meaning the color in the correlation test.

Discussion

-Line 442-444: This paragraph is not clear, please rewriting.

-Line 444: The authors should not affirm that the glucose increased the “net C sequestration”.

-Line 477-479: How the addition and sterilization increase the indices of root morphology. I consider this result contradictory.

-Line 490-491: The authors should cite the similar studies mentioned.

Conclusions

- The data presented does not permit conclude on changes in bacterial richness when applied glucose or/and sterilize the soil.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jan 19;17(1):e0262691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262691.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Oct 2021

Responses to Comments

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript presents the potential to be published in PLOS ONE Journal. Please consider the questions raised below.

Abstract p.2 l.23: Present the meaning of the acronym SOC the first time it appears in the text.

Answer: We changed “SOC” to “soil organic C (SOC)” in Line 23 because the acronym appeared the first time in the manuscript.

Abbreviations p.3 l.42: Insert meaning of acronyms when they first appear in the text.

Answer: We substituted “Low C soil” to “Low carbon soil”, “Exogenous C” to “Exogenous carbon”, and “N metabolism” to “Nitrogen metabolism” in Line 41.

Materials and Methods p.9 l.193: Explain better the steps of DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis (How did you check the quality of the extracted DNA? Where and how was the Illumina sequencing performed? What are the steps of data analysis using bioinformatics?).

Answer: The detailed steps of DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis were shown as follows:

Genomic DNA was extracted from soil samples at 45-day using a FastDNA Spin Kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The quality of DNA was analysed with 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and the total quantity of DNA was determined using a Thermo NanoDrop 2000 UV Microvolume Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). The primers 338F (5'-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3') and 806R (5'-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3') were chosen to amplify the 16S rRNA genes in the V3-V4 regions [49]. The PCR amplification conditions included an initial denaturation at 95 ℃ for 3 min, followed by 27 cycles of denaturation at 95 ℃ for 30 s, annealing at 60 ℃ for 30 s, extension at 72 °C for 30 s, and a finial extension at 72 ℃ for 10 min. The PCR products of all samples were purified with a Cycle Pure Kit (OMEGA), pooled in equimolar concentrations and performed on an Illumina (2 � 300 bp) MiSeq machine (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) at the Shanghai Origingene Biotechnology Co. Ltd., China.

The paired-end reads were analysed statistically by Trimmomatic software after depletion of primers. Bases of reads with a tail mass of 20 bp or less, overlapping paired-end reads less than 10 bp, and box sequences at both ends of reads were filtered. The unmatched sequences and singletons were excluded according to the Silva reference database v128 [50]. The operational taxonomic units were defined by clustering nonrepetitive sequences at 97% similarity and classified according to the Silva reference database using the Ribosomal Database Project Bayesian algorithm classifier (RDP) [51]. Then, Usearch version 7.1 was used to cluster the sequences with 97% similarity for operational taxonomic units (OTU) [52].

Difference in the composition of bacterial OTUs according to taxonomic category between treatments was assessed. After centred-log ratio (clr) transformation (log transformation of the geometric mean), the ‘codaSeq.clr’ function was used in the ‘CoDaSeq’ package of R software [53]. The alpha diversity indices of bacterial communities, including ACE, Shannon and Simpson, were analysed using ‘phyloseq’ package of R software. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and redundancy analysis (RDA) were performed using ‘stats’ and ‘vegan’ packages in R software [54], respectively.

We also added the detailed steps of DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis in Line 203-229 of the Materials and Methods Section. We also added the new references in the “References” section. The cited references in Materials and Methods were shown as follows:

49. Fadrosh DW, Ma B, Gajer P, Sengamalay N, Ott S, Ravel J, et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16s rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina Miseq platform. Microbiome. 2014;2:1-7. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-6

50. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41(D1):D590-D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219

51. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73(16):5261-5267. doi: org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07

52. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics, 2010;26(19):2460-2461. doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461

53. Gloor GB and Reid G. Compositional analysis: a valid approach to analyze microbiome high-throughput sequencing data. Can. J. Microbiol. 2016;62(8):692-703. doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2015-0821

54. Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 2003, 14(6): 927-930. doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02228.x

Materials and Methods p.9 l.193: You must submit the raw FASTQ files from the sequencing to NCBI and inform the study accession number.

Answer: The raw FASTQ files were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) number was PRJNA765206. Please see Line 230.

Materials and Methods p.9 l.197: Separate "Miseqmachine".

Answer: We changed “Miseqmachine” to “Miseq machine” in Line 213.

Materials and Methods p.10 l.202: Insert the term "analytical balance".

Answer: We changed “The root was oven-dried for 24 h at 80 ℃ for dry weight analysis” into “The root was oven-dried for 24 h at 80 ℃, and weighed with electronic analytical balance” in Line 236.

Result p.12 l.251: Replace for "Results".

Answer: We changed “Result” to “Results” in Line 278. Thanks for your careful review.

Result p.14 l.319: I didn't find Good coverage results (Good, 1953). I suggest presenting these data, which demonstrate the quality of the sequencing.

Answer: Thanks for your professional suggestion. We added the coverage data in Table 1 so as to demonstrate the quality of the sequencing. The coverage exceeded 0.994 in all treatments. Please see Line 342 and Table 1.

Result p.14 l.319: Why has soil bacterial diversity not been analyzed? (beta and alpha diversity?). These analyzes contribute to the understanding of the structural dynamics of the community after the application of treatments.

Answer: We analyzed soil bacterial alpha diversity indices (including Chao, ACE, Shannon, Simpson) and beta diversity in order to understand the contribution of soil sterilization and glucose addition to the structural dynamics of the community. The values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices were increased with the glucose addition levels, whereas the Simpson index showed the opposite trend. Compared with non-sterilized soil, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition increased the values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices by 13.8%, 7.9% and 11.4%, respectively; and sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition increased them by 17.3%, 13.8% and 2.6%, respectively; The PCoA plot based on the clr-transformed data was used to presented the changes of bacterial community structures in soil. The first two principal components explained 78.9% of total variations in the composition of bacterial communities (Fig 3A). The PCoA1 clearly separated the treatments with and without glucose addition. The non-sterilized and sterilized treatments were differentiated along the PCoA2. As presented by the hierarchical cluster analysis, bacterial communities revealed two clusters comprising samples from all treatment groups (Fig 3B). The treatments of non-sterilized soil and sterilized soil with the same level of glucose addition clustered together.

We added these data about alpha and beta diversity in Table 1 and Figure 3 and these results in Line 342-392.

We also added the discussion on the contribution of soil sterilization and glucose addition to soil bacterial communities in Line 526-561. Thanks for your professional comments.

Result p.14 l.319: I raise a reflection on relative abundance results: There is an ongoing debate about the downside of interpreting sequencing data based on its relative abundance (which can cause data distortions). When we convert data into relative abundances, the independent variable appears to be correlated, since the frequency of any microbial community must add 1. To solve this problem, it is more feasible to use mathematical approaches for data composition analysis. The most accepted approach so far is Aitchison's centered logarithmic ratio transformation (clr).

Answer: Thanks for your professional suggestion. We totally agreed with you. We log-transformed the data of soil bacterial communities. After centred-log ratio (clr) transformation (log transformation of the geometric mean), the ‘codaSeq.clr’ function was used in the ‘CoDaSeq’ package of R software. Please see Line 223-229.

Result p.14 l.319: A differential abundance analysis would also be interesting to highlight soil bacterial genera affected by the treatments.

Answer: We added the difference analysis of relative abundance of bacterial community at the genera level among treatments. “The heatmap of soil bacterial genera showed that all samples were clustered into two groups consisting of the treatment with glucose addition and that without glucose addition (Fig 3D). The relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas, Skermanella and Acidibacter,) Firmicutes (Paenibacillus and Trichococcus) and Actinobacteria (Arthrobacter, Sinomonas and Blastococcus) were higher, and those of Proteobacteria (Mesorhizobium and Massilia), Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank), Acidobacteria (Bryobacter) and Actinobacteria (Acidothermus) were lower in the SS+Glu-2 treatment relative to Glu-2 treatment. Moreover, the relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas) and Firmicutes (Bacillus) were higher, and those of Actinobacteria (Blastococcus and Sinomonas) and Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank) were lower in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment.” Please see Line 383-392.

Result p.14 l.319: Improve the description of phyla and genera found in each treatment (text is confusing).

Answer: We rewrote the description about the difference analysis of relative abundances of bacterial communities at the phylum and genera levels among treatments. Please see Line 375-380 and Line 383-392. The detailed revision was shown as follows: The predominant bacterial phyla in all treatments were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Acidobacteria, with relative abundances larger than 10% (Fig 3C). The glucose addition enhanced the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes by 59.4%, 19.6% and 43.3%, but decreased those of Acidobacteria and Chloroflexi by 41.8% and 39.1%, respectively. The relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Verrucomicrobia were higher in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment.

Result p.14 l.339: In general, clearly demonstrate which treatment presented the best results (text is confusing).

Answer: We rewrote the results about root morphology and biomass in order to make them clear. Please see Line 394-400. The detailed revision was showed as follows:

The root morphology indices (including surface area, volume, and length) were enhanced with the levels of glucose addition (Fig 4). Under the same level of glucose addition, root surface and volume were not significantly different (P>0.05) between sterilized soil and non-sterilized soil (Figs 4A and 4B). The SS+Glu-2 treatment significantly increased (P<0.05) the total root length by 5.9% compared with Glu-2 treatment (Fig 4C). The sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition increased the root biomass, on average, by 23.2% and 25.4% compared with those without glucose addition, respectively (Fig 4D).

Discussion p.22 l.430: Explore further the effect of soil sterilization on your bacterial community structure beyond the addition of glucose.

Answer: We further discussed the effect of soil sterilization on bacterial community structure in Line 544-561 of the Discussion section. “The composition of bacterial communities at the phylum level was similar, while their relative abundances were different between sterilized and non-sterilized soils. Autoclave sterilization for short term (4 h) kills most of native soil microorganisms, leaving many empty niches for recolonized microbe to fill. On the other hand, plant growth could favor the recolonization of highly desirable microorganisms, which are used to assimilate root exudates as “food source”, once the niches competition was removed via sterilization [42, 91]. Therefore, microorganism occupied empty niches in the sterilized soils planted with apple seedlings. Pseudomonas, preferring root exudate C to the other C source, is beneficial bacteria for most plants [92]. This bacteria genus could firstly occupy empty niches in the sterilized soil, which may be the reason that Pseudomonas was more enriched in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment. Regardless of sterilization or not, soil bacterial communities in the treatments without glucose addition were well separated from those in the treatments with glucose addition along the first component, which explained 60.05% of total variation (Fig 3A). This result indicated that the available C substrate supply plays dominate roles in bacterial communitie variation of low C soil. Moreover, the relative abundance of Acidobacterium, belonged to Acidobacteria (K-strategists), was higher than that Bacillus, belonged to Firmicutes (r-strategists), in the soil combined with sterilization and low level of glucose addition (Fig 3D). The K-strategists always dominates under low nutrients availability conditions, but are consistent with their outcompeting r-strategists when resources are limited [93, 94].”

Discussion p.22 l.430: The contribution of soil bacteria to apple root growth remained to be discussed more. It would be interesting to correlate changes in community structure with candidate taxa for growth promotion.

Answer: We further discussed the contribution of soil bacteria to apple root growth in Line 566-577. “The glucose addition and/or soil sterilization significantly increased the indices of root morphology. This was mainly associated with the increase in the relative abundance of Burkholderia (Proteobacteria), Paenibacillus (Firmicutes) and Streptomyces (Actinobacteria) by glucose addition and/or soil sterilization. The bacterial phyla of Proteobacteria, which consists mostly of G- bacteria and diazotrophs, classified as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) [97, 98]. This PGPR exerts a beneficial effect on root growth on the production of phytohormone (e.g. IAA) or on nutrients uptake (e.g. N) by plants [99]. Some the other genera, such as Streptomyces, also have PGPR traits to hydrolyse chitin [100]. The genus Paenibacillus is easily isolated from the agricultural soil and rhizosphere [101] and has the characterise against pathogens [102]. Therefore, the above mentioned genera improved root morphology and promoted plant growth due to root hormones levels producing IAA in the rhizosphere and the nutrients availability.”

Conclusion p.25 l.527: Better explain the applicability/projections of this study to field conditions.

Answer: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Now we have the highlight the intention and modified the conclusion (lines 616-628) in the following sentences: “Glucose addition combined with soil sterilization not only increased the SOC content and new SOC formation derived from glucose C, but also increased the alpha and beta diversities of soil bacterial communities. Although soil microbial communities were similar between non-sterilization and sterilization, soil sterilization mainly increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia at the phyla level. Furthermore, the glucose addition, especially combined with soil sterilization improved root morphology, promoted the potential abilities of root N metabolism, and increased the amino acid synthesis in root. Overall, these results suggested the supply of C substrate with heathy soil conditions well shapes soil microbial communities and root morphology, and potentially increases soil C sequestration in agroecosystems. However, the complexity of C substrate drives the function and structure of soil microbial communities, which could lead to dynamics of plant growth and soil nutrient transformation. Further research should be focused on the coupled mechanism among nutrients transformation, plant growth and soil C sequestration under supply of complicated C substrates for low C soil.”

Reviewer: 2

The paper entitled “Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria community composition in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots” reports an interesting approach where the authors added glucose to the sterilized and non-sterilized soil. Then, they studied the response of the plant, soil C fractionation, and their bacterial composition. To publish in Plos One journal is necessary improve the following:

The manuscript careful language revision and standardize the use of American or British English.

Answer: We made careful revision of English language. Dr. Tingting An visited the University of Tennessee for more than one years as a scholar, and published more than 7 SCI papers as the first author or corresponding author. Dr. An made substantial revisions to the manuscript in order to make it more readable. We hope that the revised manuscript is readable and meets the standards for publication.

The authors should extend the discussion, including the dynamic of r and k microorganisms when glucose is added.

Answer: We further discussed the dynamics of r and k microorganisms after the addition of glucose to soil. The glucose addition enhanced the relative abundances of specific bacterial communities (including Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes at the phylum level) in the low C soil, which is C-limited for microbial growth relative to N nutrient. Both Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria as copiotrophic bacteria (r-strategists) have strong abilities to utilize labile organic C source [84, 85]. While the relative abundance of Proteobacteria exceeded to that of Actinobacteria at day 45. Actinobacteria taxa own few amounts of high affinity transporters to transport specific substrate, which leads to their saturated proliferation under C-poor condition. Additionally, Actinobacteria may strongly compete soil nutrients with Proteobacteria [86]. A negative correlation between Acidobacteria and total SOC was found (Fig 8), which could be attributed that high level of glucose addition may produce disorder osmotic and aberrant growth of Acidobacteria cells as oligotrophic bacteria [87, 88]. Please see Line527-538.

The results section is long. I considered that some results can be in the supplementary material.

Answer: Thanks for your valuable comments. We listed some results as supplementary material. Please see the file of supplementary material.

Discuss the effect of C addition on C:N ratio and which is their relationship with the results observed.

Answer: We further discussed the the effect of C addition on C:N ratio and which is their relationship with the results observed. “The increase in soil TN content drives the shift of dominant microbial growth strategies from K-to r-strategists [89, 90]. Soils with higher level of glucose addition had higher TN content and lower C/N ratio (S2 Fig). And C/N was negatively associated with Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes (opportunistic bacteria, r-strategists) (Fig 8). These results demonstrated that r-strategy decomposers rather than K-strategists dominate at lower substrate C/N ratios.” Please see Line538-543.

The manuscript should show what is the importance of these results to agriculture.

Answer: Now we have the highlight the intention and modified the conclusion (lines 616-628) in the following sentences:

“Glucose addition combined with soil sterilization not only increased the SOC content and new SOC formation derived from glucose C, but also increased the alpha and beta diversities of soil bacterial communities. Although soil microbial communities were similar between non-sterilization and sterilization, soil sterilization mainly increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia at the phyla level. Furthermore, the glucose addition, especially combined with soil sterilization improved root morphology, promoted the potential abilities of root N metabolism, and increased the amino acid synthesis in root. Overall, these results suggested the supply of C substrate with heathy soil conditions well shapes soil microbial communities and root morphology, and potentially increases soil C sequestration in agroecosystems. However, the complexity of C substrate drives the function and structure of soil microbial communities, which could lead to dynamics of plant growth and soil nutrient transformation. Further research should be focused on the coupled mechanism among nutrients transformation, plant growth and soil C sequestration under supply of complicated C substrates for low C soil.”

Specific comments:

Title: The term bacterial community is don't used correctly. Did the Glucose addition promote the bacterial community?

Answer: We totally agreed with you that “bacterial community” is not suitably used. We added the data and results about soil bacterial diversity (beta and alpha diversity) in Lines 342-355, Table 1 found that glucose addition markedly increased the bacterial community diversities. We changed the title into “Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots”. Thanks for your valuable comments.

Abstract: Please describe the abbreviation before the first citation. For example, “SOC”.

Answer: We changed “SOC” into “soil organic C (SOC)”. Please see Line 24.

Abstract: Line 30-31: The authors should check the use of the term "richness". Did they calculate the richness indexes?

Answer: Thanks for your professional comment. We added the values of Chao, Ace, and Shannon indices to describe bacteria community richness and diversity in Line 342-348 and Table 1 of the Results section. We found that the glucose addition increased the richness and diversity indices of soil bacterial community compared with no-glucose addition. We changed “Bacterial community richness” to “Bacterial community richness and diversity” in Line 31.

Keywords: Avoid the use of abbreviations, for example: C and N.

Answer: We substituted the abbreviation of C and N with “carbon” and “nitrogen” in the Keywords, in Line 41.

Introduction: Line 74-78: For me is not clear, how in soil with N depletion the addition of C can increase the N absorption by the plant?

Answer: The “nitrogen mining and competition” theory (presented by Fontaine et al., 2011) interprets that easily available C addition stimulates soil microbial growth in the rhizosphere, leading to the mining of additional N from soil organic matter (SOM) by soil microorganisms, that is, the production of some extracellular enzymes and thus enhancement of subsequent SOM decomposition (Fontaine et al., 2003). Living microorganisms require soil nutrients for their growths. Hence, the competition between plants and microorganisms mainly for N and phosphorus (P) in nutrient-limited soils (Kirkby et al., 2011). Microorganisms, as high surface area to volume ratios, show substantially faster initial uptake of all N forms (Fischer et al., 2010). However, the short life cycle of rhizosphere microbes and unidirectional N flux from soil to roots facilitates the transform of N from microorganisms to roots (Rosswall T, 1982; Schmidt et al., 2007). On the other hand, the addition of easily available C is depleted within a few days via microbial utilization and decomposition. The imbalance between absence of new C input and continuous consumption of old C by soil microorganisms leads to the release of N from microbial necromass into the soil, which results in the availability of N for plants (Yakov and Xu, 2013).

The following references have been used to support above explanation:

Fontaine S, Mariotti A, Abbadie L. The priming effect of organic matter: a question of microbial competition? Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(6): 837-843. doi: org/10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00123-8

Kirkby CA, Kirkegaard JA, Richardson AE, et al. Stable soil organic matter: a comparison of C:N:P:S ratios in Australian and other world soils. Geoderma, 2011, 163(3-4): 197-208. doi: org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.010

Fischer H, Ingwersen J, Kuzyakov Y. Microbial uptake of low‐molecular‐weight organic substances out‐competes sorption in soil. European Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 61(4): 504-513. doi: org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01244.x

Rosswall T. Microbiological regulation of the biogeochemical nitrogen cycle. Plant and Soil, 1982, 67(1): 15-34. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7639-9_2

Schmidt SK, Costello EK, Nemergut DR, et al. Biogeochemical consequences of rapid microbial turnover and seasonal succession in soil. Ecology, 2007, 88(6): 1379-1385. doi: org/10.1890/06-0164

Schimel JP, Weintraub MN. The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(4): 549-563. doi: org/10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00015-4

Kuzyakov Y, Xu X. Competition between roots and microorganisms for nitrogen: mechanisms and ecological relevance. New Phytologist, 2013, 198(3): 656-669. doi: 10.1111/nph.12235

Hence, we have added more elaboration on the relationship between exogenous C addition and N absorption by root in introduction. We rewrote this paragraph and focused on microbial strategies responded to C substrate and soil nutrients in order to make it clear. Please see Line 74-83.

Introduction: Line 79-80: Here the authors should approach the dynamic of r and k microorganisms depending of the C source complexity added?

Answer: We add some comments on the dynamics of r and K microorganisms affected by the exogenous C source complexity. Please see Line 74-80.

“Moreover, relative abundances of microorganism with different growth strategies are varied with soil nutrient environments, which would shape different soil microbial community structure [18]. In general, K-strategists have lower growth rates and higher substrate affinities. Conversely, r-strategists have higher growth rates, lower substrate affinities and preferentially assimilate labile C [19]. The supply of labile C leads to the succession of microorganism from r- to K-strategists, and this process mainly depends on nitrogen (N) captured by soil microorganisms [20].”

Introduction: Line 83: Replace the term “biological desert”.

Answer: We changed “biological desert” to “leaves numerous empty niches for microorganism re-colonization” in order to make the sentence clear. Please see Line 87.

Materials and methods: Line 125: Please, clarify the term “debris”.

Answer: We firstly picked out the visible plant roots, rock pieces and the other debris from soil samples before experiment. We changed this sentence into “We picked out the visible plant root, rock pieces and the other debris from soil samples, passed them through a 2 mm sieve, and then fully mixed for pot experiments.” in order to make this sentence clear. Please see Line 130-131.

Materials and methods: Line 127-129: Describe the references used to perform the chemical characterization of the soil.

Answer: Thanks for your careful reading. We add the references used to perform soil basic properties in Line 135-138. The measured methods of SOC, total N, δ13C value, and MBC were showed in the following section, and the contents of available N, available P, available K, and pH value were analysed with the methods by Le and Marschner [37], and particle size separation was carried out with the method by Jensen et al. [38].

Materials and methods: Line 145-146. The authors should have irrigated the two soils (sterilized and unsterilized) with sterile water.

Answer: We really irrigated unsterilized soils with tap water so as to stimulate plant growth condition in fields (Qin et al.2014; Li et al. 2019; Moreira et al. 2019). We would irrigate unsterilized soil with sterile water to avoid the effect of irrigated water on soil microbial community in the future research. We added the cited references in Line 155.

Qin SJ, Zhou WJ, D Lyu, Liu LZ. Effects of soil sterilization and biological agent inoculation on the root respiratory metabolism and plant growth of Cerasus sachalinensis Kom. Sci. Hortic. 2014;170(1):189-195. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.03.019

Li K, DiLegge M J, Minas I S, et al. Soil sterilization leads to re-colonization of a healthier rhizosphere microbiome. Rhizosphere. 2019;12:100176. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2019;100176

Moreira H, Pereira S I A, Marques A P G C, et al. Effects of soil sterilization and metal spiking in plant growth promoting rhizobacteria selection for phytotechnology purposes. Geoderma. 2019;334:72-81. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.025

Materials and methods: Line 146: change “injetected” for “applied”

Answer: We changed “injetected” to “applied” in Line 154.

Materials and methods: Line 150-153: The authors should clearly describe the soil collection conditions. Was the soil influenced by the roots?

Answer: After glucose addition for 3, 7, 15, 30, and 45 days, soil samples were randomly collected from five pots with the similar seedling growth (one pot as one replication) per treatment. The aboveground seedings were firstly cut at the root base, and then the roots and soil cores remained in the pots were destructively collected. The soil samples adhered to root were carefully separated with shaking method because the seeding roots occupied the whole pots. After being removed the visible roots, the collected soil sub-samples were mixed thoroughly, and then were divided into half for further analysis.

The soil was influenced by the roots because the seedling root occupied the whole pot (internal diameter 10 cm, height 12 cm). We added the detailed conditions for soil sample collection. Please see Line 157-162.

Materials and methods: Line 155: Clarify the statistical designs. The authors use 30 seedling roots per replicate or treatment.

Answer: Thanks for your careful revision. We collected 5 pots (1 seedling per pot) per treatment, and set up 6 treatments. Hence, we collected 30 seedling roots (5 seedlings/treatment � 6 treatments) in total on day 45. Sorry for our miswriting.

Materials and methods: Line 166: change “rpm” for “� g”

Answer: We changed 4000 rpm to 3000 � g in Line 175.

Materials and methods: Line 193: The sequencing data should be deposited in a database.

Answer: The raw FASTQ files were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and Sequence Read Archive (SRA) number was PRJNA765206. We added this information in Line 230-231. Thanks for your professional comments.

Materials and methods: Line 193: Change “microbial” for “bacterial.

Answer: We changed “Soil microbial community” to “DNA extraction, PCR amplification and bioinformatic analysis of bacteria” to make the sentence clear. Please see Line 202.

Materials and methods: Line 193: In this section the authors should give more details of methodology used to analyze the data (bioinformatic analyses). How was performed the DNA extraction? for sequencing, did you use kit V2 or V3?

Answer: We added the more details on DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis in Line 203-229. “Genomic DNA was extracted from soil samples at 45-day using a FastDNA Spin Kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The quality of DNA was analysed with 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and the total quantity of DNA was determined using a Thermo NanoDrop 2000 UV Microvolume Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). The primers 338F (5'-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3') and 806R (5'-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3') were chosen to amplify the 16S rRNA genes in the V3-V4 regions [49]. The PCR amplification conditions included an initial denaturation at 95 ℃ for 3 min, followed by 27 cycles of denaturation at 95 ℃ for 30 s, annealing at 60 ℃ for 30 s, extension at 72 °C for 30 s, and a finial extension at 72 ℃ for 10 min. The PCR products of all samples were purified with a Cycle Pure Kit (OMEGA), pooled in equimolar concentrations and performed on an Illumina (2 � 300 bp) MiSeq machine (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) at the Shanghai Origingene Biotechnology Co. Ltd., China.

The paired-end reads were analysed statistically by Trimmomatic software after depletion of primers. Bases of reads with a tail mass of 20 bp or less, overlapping paired-end reads less than 10 bp, and box sequences at both ends of reads were filtered. The unmatched sequences and singletons were excluded according to the Silva reference database v128 [50]. The operational taxonomic units were defined by clustering nonrepetitive sequences at 97% similarity and classified according to the Silva reference database using the Ribosomal Database Project Bayesian algorithm classifier (RDP) [51]. Then, Usearch version 7.1 was used to cluster the sequences with 97% similarity for operational taxonomic units (OTU) [52].

Difference in the composition of bacterial OTUs according to taxonomic category between treatments was assessed. After centred-log ratio (clr) transformation (log transformation of the geometric mean), the ‘codaSeq.clr’ function was used in the ‘CoDaSeq’ package of R software [53]. The alpha diversity indices of bacterial communities, including ACE, Shannon and Simpson, were analysed using ‘phyloseq’ package of R software. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and redundancy analysis (RDA) were performed using ‘stats’ and ‘vegan’ packages in R software [54], respectively.”

Materials and methods: Line 196: The authors should include the reference of primers used.

Answer: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. We added the reference of primers used in Line 209. The cited reference was as following:

Fadrosh DW, Ma B, Gajer P, Sengamalay N, Ott S, Ravel J, et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16s rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina Miseq platform. Microbiome. 2014; 2:1-7. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-6

Materials and methods: Line 204: The authors should include the reference of technique used.

Answer: We added the reference of technique used in Line 234. The cited reference was as following:

Agapit C, Gigon A, Blouin M. Earthworm effect on root morphology in a split root system. Plant Biosyst. 2018; 152(4):780-786. doi: doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2017.1338627

Materials and methods: Line 230-231: Please check the redaction.

Answer: We revised the sentence into “About 0.2 g frozen root sample and 2 mL reaction agent (50 mmol L-1 Tris-HCl with pH 8.0, 2 mmol L-1 MgCl2, 2 mmol L-1 DTT and 0.4 mol L-1 sucrose) were fully homogenized” in order to make it clear. Please see Lines 252-253.

Results: In the figures and tables presented, the authors should include the abbreviation definitions in legends.

Answer: We added the abbreviation definitions in legends in all the figures and tables in order to make them clear. Please see all the figures and tables.

Results: Line 255-258: Why does the glucose addition increases the SOC only in low doses?

Answer: Exogenous C addition to sterilization soil can stimulate microorganisms increase, thereby promoting the increase of microbial biomass (Esch, et al. 2013). This increased microbial biomass can supply more microbial necromass for forming recalcitrant C and benefit SOC accumulation (Schmidt et al., 2011). To a certain extent, the quantity of activated microorganisms increased with the amount of labile C added. In our study, sterilization soil results in clay particles gathered and increase the surface and available sorption site to glucose-C. Hence, residual rate of glucose-C with higher level glucose in SS+Glu-2 treatment increase than Glu-2. Thereby actives more amounts of microorganisms and produces larger microbial biomass and prominently contribute to sequestration of SOC. But the lower level of glucose addition showed the opposite trend. Lower level of glucose-C addition resulted in actived microbe produces less microbial biomass and contribute to less sequestration of SOC in SS+Glu-1.

The following references have been used to support above explanation:

Esch, E. H., Hernandez, D. L., Pasari, J. R., Kantor, R. S. G., & Selmants, P. C. (2013). Response of soil microbial activity to grazing, nitrogen deposition, and exotic cover in a serpentine grassland. Plant and Soil, 366(1–2), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1463-5

Schmidt, M. W., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Trumbore, S. E. (2011). Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386

Results: Line 320: Please, analyze the data to family level.

Answer: We presented the data on soil microbial community structure at the family level in S4 Fig and added the related results in Line 380-382.

Results: Line 326-327: My suggestion is to compare with the data of soil after sterilization.

Answer: We rewrote the results and focused on the comparison of data after sterilization. Please see Line 383-392. The detailed revisions were showed as follows:

The heatmap of soil bacterial genera showed that all samples were clustered into two groups consisting of the treatment with glucose addition and that without glucose addition (Fig 3D). The relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas, Skermanella and Acidibacter,) Firmicutes (Paenibacillus and Trichococcus) and Actinobacteria (Arthrobacter, Sinomonas and Blastococcus) were higher, and those of Proteobacteria (Mesorhizobium and Massilia), Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank), Acidobacteria (Bryobacter) and Actinobacteria (Acidothermus) were lower in the SS+Glu-2 treatment relative to Glu-2 treatment. Moreover, the relative abundances of members of Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas) and Firmicutes (Bacillus) were higher, and those of Actinobacteria (Blastococcus and Sinomonas) and Chloroflexi (Caldilineaceae_norank) were lower in the SS treatment than those in the CK treatment.

Results: Line 340: Is curiously that root biomass increased in C.

Answer: Thanks for your valuable comments. Root biomass increased in SS treatment may be attributed to the following reasons: (1) sterilization removes pathogen and alleviates disease suppression (Sosnowski et al., 2009; Savory, 1966). (2) the high temperature (121 ℃) and pressure (2 bar) during autoclaving affects the physical and chemical structure of the soil and liberates labile C, such as WSOC, and N (Mahmood et al., 2014; Berns et al., 2008), which enhances root development and acquisition of nutrients, then increases the root biomass (3) Since the original soils had been sterilized prior to reinoculation, the community assemblage recolonization phase was primarily influenced by the new habitat and the adequacy of its conditions for each of the inoculated taxon (Mallon et al., 2015), and increased availability of labile C and N (due to steam sterilization) may have influenced the new community formation by promoting the growth of copiotrophic microorganisms. Those copiotrophic microorganisms classified as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) (Dommelen et al, 2007; Ali et al, 2015), benefited root growth and nutrient absorption, thereby improved the biomass of root.

The following references have been cited to support above reasons:

Sosnowski MR, Fletcher JD, Daly AM, Rodoni BC, Viljanen-Rollinson SLH. Techniques for the

treatment, removal and disposal of host material during programmes for plant pathogen eradication. Plant Pathol. 2009;58(4):621-635. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2009.02042.x

Savory BM. Specific replant diseases causing root necrosis and growth depression in perennial fruit and plantation crops. Farnham Royal. 1966 (1).

Marschner B, Bredow A. Temperature effects on release and ecologically relevant properties of dissolved organic carbon in sterilised and biologically active soil samples. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002;

34:459e466. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00203-6

Mahmood T, Mehnaz S, Fleischmann F, Ali R, Hashmi ZH, Iqbal Z. Soil sterilization effects on root growth and formation of rhizosheaths in wheat seedlings. Pedobiologia. 2014;57:123-130. doi: org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2013.12.005

Berns AE, Philipp H, Narres HD, Burauel P, Vereecken H, Tappe W. Effect of gamma-sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV and fluorescence spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2008;59:540-550. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01016.x

Mallon CA, Poly F, LeRoux X, Marring I, vanElsas JD, Salles JF. Resource pulses can alleviate the biodiversity-invasion relationship in soil microbial communities. Ecology, 2015;96(4):915-926. doi: org/10.1890/14-1001.1

Dommelen AV, Vanderleyden J. Chapter 12: associative nitrogen fixation. In: The Biology of the Nitrogen Cycle. Elsiver B.V, 2007; pp.179-192. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52857-5.X5000-0

Ali GS, Norman D, El-Sayed AS. Soluble and volatile metabolites of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs). Adv. Bot. Res. 2015;75:241-284. doi: 10.1016/bs.abr.2015.07.004

Results: Fig 10. What is the meaning the color in the correlation test.

Answer: Thank you for your professional comments. Black arrow represents soil bacterial communities at the phylum level, red arrow represents soil nitrogen and organic carbon fractions, and green arrow represents root morphology indices. Circle and square denote the non-sterilized and sterilized soils, respectively. MBC, microbial biomass carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; C/N, ratio of total soil organic carbon to TN; POC, particulate organic carbon; WSOC, water-soluble organic carbon; NH4+-N, ammonium nitrogen; NO3--N, nitrate nitrogen; NO2--N, nitrite nitrogen; RV, root volume; RS, root surface; RL, root length; RB, root biomass. Please see Fig 8.

Discussion: Line 442-444: This paragraph is not clear, please rewriting.

Answer: We rewrote this paragraph in order to make it clear. Please see Line 506-516. The detailed revision was showed as follows:

“The net SOC balance depends on the difference between new C gain and native SOC loss [73]. Glucose addition at low level leads to native SOC loss approximately equal to SOC gain in non-sterilized soil (Fig 2). Thus, the balance between accumulation and loss of SOC is probably associated with priming effect [21]. Glucose input to soil could activate dormant microorganisms, causing SOM decomposition [74]. But, new SOC formation derived from glucose C could offset native SOC loss in the sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition. Moreover, the residual rate of glucose-C in the sterilized soil was higher than that in non-sterilized soil under the same level of glucose addition (Fig 1). These results demonstrated that soil sterilization may promote glucose-C sequestration in a low C soil. The process of autoclaving could destroy soil structure and lead to soil particulate finer [75, 76], which enhances available surface area and provide many sorption sites for glucose-C retention in soil [77].”

Discussion: Line 444: The authors should not affirm that the glucose increased the “net C sequestration”.

Answer: Thanks for your professional comments. The term of “net C sequestration” is not seriously used in this sentence. We changed the “net C sequestration” into “net SOC balance” in Line 506. In this research, net SOC sequestration equaled to the difference between native SOC and new SOC derived from glucose-C.

Discussion: Line 477-479: How the addition and sterilization increase the indices of root morphology. I consider this result contradictory.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestions. We really found that the glucose addition and sterilization increased the indices of root morphology and enhanced root biomass. The possible reasons are: The glucose addition and/or soil sterilization significantly increased the indices of root morphology. This was mainly associated with the increase in the relative abundance of Burkholderia (Proteobacteria), Paenibacillus (Firmicutes) and Streptomyces (Actinobacteria) by glucose addition and/or soil sterilization. The bacterial phyla of Proteobacteria, which consists mostly of G- bacteria and diazotrophs, classified as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) [97, 98]. This PGPR exerts a beneficial effect on root growth on the production of phytohormone (e.g. IAA) or on nutrients uptake (e.g. N) by plants [99]. Some the other genera, such as Streptomyces, also have PGPR traits to hydrolyse chitin [100]. The genus Paenibacillus is easily isolated from the agricultural soil and rhizosphere [101] and has the characterise against pathogens [102]. Therefore, the above mentioned genera improved root morphology and promoted plant growth due to root hormones levels producing IAA in the rhizosphere and the nutrients availability. Those suggested the positive synergistic effect on root morphology between glucose addition and soil sterilization. Please see Line 566-577.

Discussion: Line 490-491: The authors should cite the similar studies mentioned.

Answer: We checked the references and substituted the references with the similar studies mentioned. Please see Line 551. The following references were showed as follows:

[92] Berendsen R L, Pieterse C, Bakker P. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17(8):478-486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001

Conclusions: The data presented does not permit conclude on changes in bacterial richness when applied glucose or/and sterilize the soil.

Answer: Thanks for your professional comments. We added the data about the diversity and richness indices of soil bacterial community in Results section, Table 1 and Fig 3. “The values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices were increased with the glucose addition levels, whereas the Simpson index showed the opposite trend. Compared with non-sterilized soil, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition increased the values of Ace, Chao and Shannon indices by 13.8%, 7.9% and 11.4%, respectively; and sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition increased them by 17.3%, 13.8% and 2.6%, respectively.” and “The PcoA plot based on the clr-transformed data was used to presented the changes of bacterial community structures in soil. As shown in Fig 3A, the total of 78.9% of variations in the composition of bacterial communities could be explained by the first two principal components. The PCoA1 clearly separate glucose addition samples from without addition samples. The CK and SS treatments were differentiated along the PcoA2, which demonstrated that soil sterilization was a main determinant on the second principal coordinate. For the same addition level, no-sterilized and sterilization soils formed a subgroup. As presented by the hierarchical cluster analysis, bacterial communities revealed two clusters comprising samples from all treatment groups (Fig 3B). the samples of CK and SS were closer to each other and the samples of Glu-1, SS+Glu-1, Glu-2 and SS+Glu-2 were closer to each other.”

So, we rewrote the conclusion that “Glucose addition combined with soil sterilization not only increased the SOC content and new SOC formation derived from glucose C, but also increased the alpha and beta diversities of soil bacterial communities. Although soil microbial communities were similar between non-sterilization and sterilization, soil sterilization mainly increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia at the phyla level. Furthermore, the glucose addition, especially combined with soil sterilization improved root morphology, promoted the potential abilities of root N metabolism, and increased the amino acid synthesis in root. Overall, these results suggested the supply of C substrate with heathy soil conditions well shapes soil microbial communities and root morphology, and potentially increases soil C sequestration in agroecosystems. However, the complexity of C substrate drives the function and structure of soil microbial communities, which could lead to dynamics of plant growth and soil nutrient transformation. Further research should be focused on the coupled mechanism among nutrients transformation, plant growth and soil C sequestration under supply of complicated C substrates for low C soil.”. Please see Line 616-628.

Other revisions:

We updated references according to the added statement in the whole manuscript.

We hope these changes address all the concerns that you have with this manuscript. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Bianbin Qi and Deguo Lv on behalf of Sijun Qin

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ying Ma

2 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-22234R1Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple rootsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Qin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 9. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors improved substantially the manuscript; however, they should consider the following observations:

-The authors should refer to the increase of a-diversity and changes in bacterial community structure (B-diversity. You should avoid the use of the phrase "increase of B-diversity". Please, check throughout the manuscript.

- The authors sequenced V3-V4 16S rRNA region. They should refer to the bacterial community. Please, avoid the use of the microbial community throughout the manuscript.

- The authors should change “heathy soil” for “healthy soil”. Please, check throughout the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jan 19;17(1):e0262691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262691.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Dec 2021

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Ref.: PONE-D-21-22234R1

Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots

Responses to Comments

Reviewer #2:

The authors should refer to the increase of α-diversity and changes in bacterial community structure (β-diversity. You should avoid the use of the phrase "increase of β-diversity". Please, check throughout the manuscript).

Answer: We checked throughout the manuscript and changed “increased the alpha and beta diversities of soil bacterial communities” to “increased the alpha diversity and changed bacterial community structure in soils” in Line 618-619. Thanks for your suggestion.

The authors sequenced V3-V4 16S rRNA region. They should refer to the bacterial community. Please, avoid the use of the microbial community throughout the manuscript.

Answer: We checked the whole manuscript and changed “microbial community” to “bacterial community” in Line 76, 83, 88 and 565. Thanks for your professional comments.

The authors should change “heathy soil” for “healthy soil”. Please, check throughout the manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for your careful revision. We have changed “heathy soil” to “healthy soil” in Line 624. Sorry for our miswriting.

Responses to Journal Requirements

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Answer: We thoroughly checked the reference list of the manuscript to ensure that it is complete and correct. All the cited references in paper have not been retracted. The reference NO. 65 in the previous version “You YL, Wang JB, Shi WS, Pan DM. Extraction of genomic DNA of Litchi chinensis and optimizationof the RAPD reaction system. Biotechnology Bulletin. 2010;4113-115” is published in a Chinses journal. We changed this reference to “Gasic K, Hernandez A, Korban SS. RNA extraction from different apple tissues rich in polyphenols and polysaccharides for cDNA library construction” published in Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2004;22(4):437-438 (a SCI journal) in order to make the citation rational. Please see Line 263.

We hope these changes address all the concerns that you have with this manuscript. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Bianbin Qi and Deguo Lv on behalf of Sijun Qin

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ying Ma

3 Jan 2022

Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots

PONE-D-21-22234R2

Dear Dr. Qin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Ying Ma

10 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-22234R2

Glucose addition promotes C fixation and bacteria diversity in C-poor soils, improves root morphology, and enhances key N metabolism in apple roots

Dear Dr. Qin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ying Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    Contents of total soil organic carbon (A), microbial biomass carbon (B), water soluble organic carbon (C) and particulate organic carbon (D) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments at the same sampling time. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different sampling time within the same treatment. Overlapping date points with the same significant differences are indicated by common letters. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig

    Content of total nitrogen (TN) of soil (A) and ratio of total soil organic carbon to TN (C/N, B) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among treatments.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig

    δ13C values of soil organic carbon (A), microbial biomass carbon (B), water soluble organic carbon (C) and particulate organic carbon (D) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different treatments at the same sampling time. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among different sampling time within the same treatment. Overlapping date points with the same significant differences are indicated by common letters. CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. Heatmap of the abundant bacterial family (relative abundance exceeding to 1%) in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

    CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig

    Contents of NO3N (A), NO2N (B) and NH4+-N (C) of apple root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Enzymes activities related to energy metabolism at day 45.

    PEPC (A, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase), MDH (B, malate dehydrogenase) and ICDH (C, isocitrate dehydrogenase). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig. Root vitality of Malus baccata (L.) Borkh. in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

    Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Gene-specific primers used for quantitative real-time PCR in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition.

    CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Change in amino acid contents of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

    Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Change in organic acid contents of root in the sterilized and non-sterilized soils with glucose addition at day 45.

    Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). CK, non-sterilized soil without glucose addition; Glu-1, non-sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; Glu-2, non-sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition; SS, sterilized soil without glucose addition; SS+Glu-1, sterilized soil with low level of glucose addition; SS+Glu-2, sterilized soil with high level of glucose addition.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    We have uploaded RNA-Seq data in the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) at NCBI under accession number PRJNA765206. We have also uploaded our research’s minimal underlying data set to the figshare with the doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.17913878.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES