Soil Microbial Community Response to Oilseed Crops Introduced
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO OILSEED CROPS INTRODUCED IN LONG-TERM MONOCULTURE WHEAT ROTATIONS By JEREMY HANSEN A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Crop and Soil Sciences MAY 2018 © Copyright by JEREMY HANSEN, 2018 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by JEREMY HANSEN, 2018 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of JEREMY HANSEN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. William F. Schillinger, Ph.D., Chair Tarah S. Sullivan, Ph.D. Timothy C. Paulitz, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank my committee for their support. My advisor, Dr. William Schillinger has always been very encouraging. I appreciate the time that he has spent assisting me in this endeavor. I thank Dr. Tim Paulitz for his depth of knowledge and especially for his willingness to join my committee in the 7th inning stretch. I thank Dr. Sullivan for her time and the expertise she added to this work. I’m grateful for support from the Northwest Sustainable Agroecosystems Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Ann Kennedy is gratefully acknowledged. The technical assistance of John Jacobsen, Bruce Sauer, Steve Schofstoll, Brian Fode, and Samantha Crow is greatly appreciated. I thank collaborating farmers Hal Johnson, Derek Schafer, Rob Dewald, Curtis Hennings, Doug Poole, Tom Poole, and Denver Black for their donation of land, time, and equipment. Grower cooperation was invaluable to this project. I thank Karen Sowers and the Washington Oilseed Cropping Systems team for allowing me to attend and present at their meetings. I’m grateful for the administrative support of Carla Olson, the Crop and Soil Sciences department staff, and Ron Bolton for years of IT support. I thank Deb Marsh and Lisa Lujan for help navigating the graduate school administrative jungle and for a bit of comic relief. Thank you Cole, Bryce, and Ella for the prayers, pep talks, and perspective. Last, I would like to thank my wife, Kristin, for her prayers, patience, and encouragement. iii SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO OILSEED CROPS INTRODUCED IN LONG-TERM MONOCULTURE WHEAT ROTATIONS Abstract by Jeremy Hansen, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2018 Chair: William F. Schillinger Introduction of Cruciferous oilseed crops into monoculture wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping systems has increased in the Inland Pacific Northwest. Canola (Brassica napus L.), and camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) are members of the Brassicaceae family. Canola plants contain glucosinolates, which upon cell rupture and during the decay of residue hydrolyze to produce isothiocyanates. The production of isothiocyanates is the mechanism responsible for the soil biofumigation effect. This effect is commonly considered positive; however, the non- selectivity of isothiocyanates has potential to impact beneficial soil organisms. In a 7-year on- farm winter canola rotation study conducted near Reardan, WA, yields of spring wheat following winter canola declined compared to yields following winter wheat. Objectives of this research were to determine the differences and similarities in the soil microbial communities associated with winter canola and winter wheat, and if those differences were correlated to spring wheat yield response. Microbial biomass and community composition were determined using phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA). Microbial biomass was higher in winter canola compared to the winter wheat. Subsequent spring wheat crops had greater microbial biomass following winter wheat compared to winter canola indicating a residual effect. Similarly, the iv biomarker groups of fungi, mycorrhizae, gram-negative, and gram-positive bacteria were observed to be greater in the winter wheat treatment over winter canola with the same residual effect in the subsequent spring wheat. Discriminant function analysis of the phospholipid fatty acid composition differentiated communities associated with winter wheat from winter canola as well as the communities of spring wheat following winter wheat compared to winter canola. Similar patterns of reduced abundance and shifts in microbial community structure were perceived in a canola/winter wheat rhizosphere study. Camelina, in a wheat-camelina-summer fallow rotation appeared to provide a primer effect on the subsequent fallow microbial community. Microbial abundance decreased from winter wheat, to camelina, to summer fallow. Summer fallow reached significantly lower levels of microbial abundance compared to winter wheat. Given the importance of microbially-mediated soil processes, any decline in members of the community or alteration of the community as a whole could potentially impact the performance of subsequent crops. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Significance of this research to the Inland Pacific Northwest .............................................1 Justification for research in eastern Washington .................................................................2 Brassica crop influences on microbial communities ...........................................................4 Rotational effects of brassica crops on subsequent wheat crop ...........................................8 Research objectives ............................................................................................................11 References ..........................................................................................................................13 2. Soil Microbial Community Response to Canola Introduced in Long-Term Monoculture Wheat Rotation .............................................................................................17 Abstract ..............................................................................................................................17 Introduction ........................................................................................................................18 Materials and methods .......................................................................................................22 Site description and experimental design ....................................................................22 Soil sampling ...............................................................................................................23 Soil chemical analyses .................................................................................................24 Soil microbial enzyme activity ....................................................................................24 vi Soil microbial community biomass and composition ..................................................24 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................................25 Results ................................................................................................................................26 Soil properties and enzyme activities ..........................................................................27 Soil microbial lipid groups and biomass ......................................................................28 Soil microbial community structure .............................................................................28 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................31 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................36 References ..........................................................................................................................46 3. Rhizosphere Microbial Communities of Canola and Wheat at Six Paired Field Sites ........................................................................................................53 Abstract ..............................................................................................................................53 Introduction ........................................................................................................................54 Materials and methods .......................................................................................................57 Site description and experimental design ....................................................................57 Rhizosphere soil chemical analyses .............................................................................58 Rhizosphere microbial enzyme activity .......................................................................58 Rhizosphere microbial community biomass and composition ....................................58 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................................59