A
Phosphorus fertilizers coordinate the reduction of aluminum toxicity and activation of beneficial microbiota to boost Brassica napus adaptation in acidic soils
A
Wen Zhang 1✉ Email Email
Venuste Munyaneza 1✉ Email
Lulu Ren 1✉ Email
Haili Song 1✉ Email
Botao Yi 1✉ Email
Surya Kant 2
Hongmei Cai 1✉ Email
Sheliang Wang 1✉ Email Email
Lei Shi 1✉ Email
Chuang Wang 1✉ Email
Fangsen Xu 1✉ Email
A
Guangda Ding 1✉
1
A
College of Resources and Environment/Microelement Research Center/Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Huazhong Agricultural University 430070 Wuhan China
2 Department of Ecological, Plant and Animal Science, School of Agriculture, Biomedicine & Environment La Trobe University 3083 Bundoora VIC Australia
Wen Zhang a, Venuste Munyaneza a, Lulu Ren a, Haili Songa, Botao Yi a, Surya Kant b, Hongmei Cai a, Sheliang Wang a, Lei Shi a, Chuang Wang a, Fangsen Xu a, and Guangda Ding a,*
a College of Resources and Environment/Microelement Research Center/Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Huazhong Agricultural University, 430070, Wuhan, China
b Department of Ecological, Plant and Animal Science, School of Agriculture, Biomedicine & Environment, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia
Correspondence:
Guangda Ding, dgd@mail.hzau.edu.cn
1The authors contributed equally to this work
Author email addresses:
WZ: zhangw@webmail.hzau.edu.cn
MV: munyvenuste@gmail.com
LR: luluren0808@163.com
SHL:songhl@webmail.hzau.edu.cn
BY: ybt@webmail.hzau.edu.cn
SK: S.Kant@latrobe.edu.au
HC: caihongmei@mail.hzau.edu.cn
SW: sheliangwang2017@mail.hzau.edu.cn
CW: chuang.wang@mail.hzau.edu.cn
LS: leish@mail.hzau.edu.cn
FX: fangsenxu@mail.hzau.edu.cn
Abstract
[Aims]Aluminum (Al) toxicity represents a major constraint to crop productivity in acidic soils. Phosphorus (P) fertilization is known to improve crop adaptation to acidic soils, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood in Brassica napus. This study investigated the effects of P applications on B. napus grown in acidic soil, focusing on their potential to alleviate stress and improve plant performance. [Methods]This study systematically evaluated the adaptability of Brassica napus in acidic soils through a pot experiment with different phosphorus levels. The research covered pH in different soil layers, contents of various aluminum forms, growth at different stages, seed yield and quality of rapeseed, and analyzed the composition and diversity of soil microbial communities among treatments via microbiome analysis, aiming to reveal the regulatory mechanism of phosphorus fertilizer on rapeseed growth and its interaction with soil microbes in acidic soil environments. [Results]Application of P fertilizers effectively reduced reactive Al³⁺ concentrations in all soil layers, creating a less toxic environment for plant roots. Notably, P amendments induced marked restructuring of soil bacterial assemblages, with significant increases in the abundances of Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria. P fertilizers also substantially increased the dry weight, plant height, and seed yield of B. napus. [Conclusion]Overall, this research demonstrates the pivotal role of P fertilizers in alleviating Al toxicity, ameliorating soil acidity, and enhancing nutrient availability in acidic soils, thereby boosting crop yield and growth.
Key words:
Aluminum toxicity
Brassica napus
phosphorus fertilizers
bacterial communities
A
Introduction
Soil acidification refers to the increase in proton (H+) concentration within the soil, leading to a decrease in pH (Kochian et al., 2015; Ryan 2018). Acidic soil, typically defined by a pH of less than 7, usually range between 4.5 and 6. However, soils with pH below 5.5 often adversely affect plant growth and development (Munyaneza et al., 2024; Ryan 2018; von Uexküll 1995). These soils encompass lateritic red soil, lateritic brown soil, red soil, yellow soil, and dry red soil (Bao et al., 2000). Globally, acidic soil constitutes 40–50% of potentially arable lands (Kochian et al., 2015), with those below pH 5.5 covering approximately 39.5 million hm2. In China, the red and yellow soil regions account for about 22.7% of the total land area and acidic soils below pH 6.5 spanning approximately 31.11 million km2, representing 32.4% of the country’s land area (Zhao et al., 2023).
In acidic soils, Al exists in various forms, with their toxicity to plants following the order: Al3+ > Al(OH)2+ > Al(OH)2+ > Al(OH)30 (Bojórquez et al., 2017; Nogueirol et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2023). At pH levels below 4.3, Al3+ becomes the dominant form, exerting the most significant toxic effects on plant growth (Nogueirol et al., 2015). When the soil pH is less than 5.5, crops often experience Al toxicity stress, characterized by inhibited root elongation, impaired nutrient absorption, disrupted physiological metabolism, and reduced yield (Kochian et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2023; Nerva et al., 2022). While Al toxicity is a major limiting factor in acidic soils, other constraints include deficiencies in essential nutrients such as phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg), as well as toxic levels of manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe) (Kopittke et al., 2016; Muhammad et al., 2019). To counteract Al toxicity, plants have developed several adaptive strategies, including internal chelation and external exclusion mechanisms (Kochian et al., 2015; Kopittke et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2021). These mechanisms involve the efflux of Al3+, secretion of organic acids and phenolic compounds, and production of catechol and flavonoids with high affinities for Al3+ efflux (Juan 2002; Kochian et al., 2015). Increasing the rhizosphere pH can alter the forms of Al in soil, shifting it from the highly toxic Al3+ to the less toxic forms Al(OH)2+ and Al(OH)2+, and ultimately to the non- toxic Al(OH)30 as the pH rises from 4.5 to 6 (Bojórquez et al., 2017; Nogueirol et al., 2015). The role of mineral nutrition is also critical in mitigating Al toxicity. Nutrients such as boron (B), Ca, Mg, sulfur(S), P, N, and potassium (K) play an essential role in alleviating the stress associated with acidic soils (Muhammad et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2023). Additionally, plants secrete mucilage in response to Al toxicity, which is primarily composed of polysaccharides, glucose, and polysaccharides aldehydes (Yan et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2011).
P is a vital macronutrient indispensable for the growth and development of plants (Cordell et al., 2014; Herrera et al., 2016; Zou et al., 2022). It serves not only as a crucial structural component in many biological macromolecules but also plays a central role in various physiological and biochemical processes within plant tissues (Hammond 2008; Lambers et al., 2008). However, the tendency for P to bind with soil minerals leads to low efficiency in phosphate fertilizer utilization (Cordell et al., 2014; Kochian et al., 2004; Zou et al., 2022). As a result, crops exhibit minimal seasonal uptake of these fertilizers, with the unabsorbed fraction leaching into the environment, contributing to soil degradation and aquatic eutrophication, issues that pose significant ecological and environmental risks (Lambers et al., 2008; Wen et al., 2024). In acidic soil, the combined effects of low pH levels, elevated Al toxicity, and reduced bioavailable P severely hinder P uptake by plant roots, impairing crop growth and yield (Magalhaes et al., 2018; Wassen et al., 2005; Wen et al., 2024). As soil pH decreases, the interaction between P and Al oxides intensifies, further restricting the availability of inorganic phosphate (Pi) (Dai et al., 2020). In response to these challenges, plants have developed adaptive mechanisms to mitigate P deficiency (Liu et al., 2023). Microorganisms also play a pivotal role in regulating soil P availability and enhancing plant nutrient uptake (Liu et al., 2023). The application of chemical phosphate fertilizers raises soil P levels, thereby influencing the composition and activities of rhizosphere bacteria (Dai et al., 2020; Duan et al., 2020).
Considerable research has focused on the physiological, genetic, and molecular mechanisms underlying plant resistance to Al toxicity (Delhaize et al., 2012; Kochian et al., 2015). However, the potential of plant-microbe interactions in acidic soils to sustainably improve Al resistance and crop productivity in B. napus remains underexplored (Liu et al., 2023; Trivedi et al., 2020; Nerva et al., 2022; Schmitz et al., 2022; Sridhar et al., 2022). The rhizosphere microbiome plays a pivotal role in supporting plant growth and stress tolerance (Durán et al., 2018). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can enhance nutrient acquisition, increase pathogen resistance, and improve overall stress tolerance (Durán et al., 2018; Nerva et al., 2022; Trivedi et al., 2020). Previous studies have highlighted the role of PGPR in mitigating the toxic effects of heavy metals, such as cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), P and Mn, by modifying metal bioavailability through the secretion of organic acids and siderophores (Narayanan 2023; Rajkumar et al., 2012; Moudrikova et al., 2017). These findings inspired our exploration of microbial strategies to improve B. napus yield under acidic and Al stress conditions.
In this study, we address the issues of reduction in crop yield and the concurrent P deficiency induced by Al toxicity in acidic soils. To mitigate soil acidification and enhance Al resistance, we propose the use of P fertilizers, which can lower Al3+ concentrations and modify the soil microbiome. Our objectives of this study were: (1) to investigate the pH levels and concentrations of various Al forms within stratified soil profiles, (2) to analyze the effects of P fertilization (compared to no P fertilization) on the microbial community of acidic soils, and (3) to assess the impact of P fertilization on the growth, yield, and seed quality in B. napus. Our research represents an integrated approach to improving crop yield and promoting agricultural sustainability through the interactions of plants, soil, and the microbiome in acidic soils.
Materials and methods
Soil and plant materials
The soil used in this study was collected from Heshengqiao Town, Xianning City, Hubei Province (29°49 'N, 114°18' E), an area characterized by a subtropical continental monsoon climate. The region has an annual average temperature of 16.8°C, annual precipitation of 1577.4 mm, and an annual average sunshine duration of 1754.5 hours. Cropping in this area is affected by heavy metal contamination resulting from mining activities. The initial soil properties included an Al content of 406.02 mg/kg, a pH of approximately 5.04, and the following basic soil chemical: inorganic N of 16.43mg/kg, available P of 5.67 mg/kg, available K of 92.23 mg/kg, and organic material content of 5.14 g/kg. Brassica napus seedlings from the cultivar Huayou 4, which is known to be sensitive to Al toxicity (Zhang et al., 2023), were used for the experiment.
Experiment design and sampling
The pot experiment was performed at Huazhong Agriculture University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, from October to May of the following year. The pots, each filled with 7 kg collected acid soil, were arranged in a completely randomized design with six replicates per treatment. The experiment included the following treatments: (1) Original soil (OS), (2) Improved soil without P fertilization (OS + 0.2% Ca(OH)2), (3) Original soil with P fertilization at 1.435 g/Kg KH2PO4 (OS + KH2PO4), and (4) Original soil with P fertilization at 2.87 g/Kg KH2PO4 (OS + + KH2PO4). Plants were sampled at three growth stages including seeding, flowering, and maturity.
At the flowering stage, rhizosphere soil was collected by gently removing bulk soil adhering to the roots, shaking the roots to dislodge loosely attached soil, and using a sterile brush to collect residual soil. The collected rhizosphere soil was quickly frozen and stored at − 80°C for high-throughput DNA sequencing analysis. Stratified non-rhizosphere soil samples (2 cm depth per layer, five layers per pot) were collected at seeding and flowering stages, air-dried, and used for pH determination and Al concentration measurements.
Measurement soil pH and Al forms
Soil pH was measured in a 1:2.5 soil-to-water solution using a pH meter (FE20, Mettler Toledo, Shanghai). To quantify different Al forms in the soil, 25 ml of air-dried soil was extracted using four different extractants (KCl, NH4Ac, HCl, and NaOH). After shaking the mixtures for 30 minutes, 1 ml of the clear filtrate was mixed with 50 µl of ascorbic acid, followed by the addition of 0.5 ml of buffer solution and 0.25 ml of dye working solution. The absorbance of the resulting reaction was measured at 535 nm, and all colorimetric measurements were completed within two hours. The Al forms measured included Al3+, Al-HA, Al (OH)30 and Al(OH)2+/ Al(OH)2+. Where Al³⁺, Al(OH)₂⁺, and Al(OH)₂⁺ are highly toxic to plants, while Al (OH)30 and Al-HA have lower toxicity (Lin et al., 2018).
Analysis of plant mineral elements concentration
At the seeding stage, plants samples were harvested and their dry weights recorded. The samples were digested using HNO3, and the concentrations of various mineral elements were quantified using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES, Agilent Technologies 5110, USA). The mineral elements included Al, Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Nickel (Ni), Arsenic (As), Mg, P, boron (B), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), and Zinc (Zn). The concentration of each element was determined by comparing the absorbance values with standard calibration curves.
Measurement of soil available nutrients
Rhizosphere soil samples were collected as described in Section 2.2. The samples were air-dried before analysis of available Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn. To determine the availability of these elements in the rhizosphere, the air-dried soil samples were immersed in 50 ml of 0.1mol/L HCl and agitated at 180 r/min at 25°C for 1.5 hours. The analysis of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn were quantified using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) (Agilent Technologies 5110, USA). The absorbance was proportional to the concentration within a specific range, quantified by comparison to a standard curve.
Soil physicochemical properties
Soil samples for available K, P, N, and soil organic matter (SOM) were collected before seeding and flowering stage. The samples were air-dried and ground to pass through 0.15 mm and 0.85 mm sieve for physical and chemical properties determination. Soil available (K was extracted using CH3COONH4 and measured with a flame photometer (AP-1200, Shanghai Precision Instrument Co., China). Available as extracted using the NaHCO3 method and measured via ultraviolet spectrophotometry (TU-1810, Beijing Persee General Instrument Co. Ltd., China). The soil available N was determined using the alkaline hydrolysis diffusion method, and soil organic matter (SOM) was quantified using the K2Cr2O7 oxidation method.
A
DNA extraction, PCR amplification, and Illumina sequencing
A
Total microbial genomic DNA was extracted from rhizosphere soil samples using the E.Z.N.A.® soil DNA Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA, U.S.) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and concentration of DNA were assessed by 1.0% agarose gel electrophoresis and with a NanoDrop2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, United States). DNA was stored at -80 ℃ until further use. The hypervariable V3-V4 regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene were amplified using primers 338F (5'-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3') and 806R (5'-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3') on a T100 Thermal Cycler (BIO-RAD, USA). The PCR products were extracted from a 2% agarose gel, purified using the PCR Clean-Up Kit (YuHua, Shanghai, China), and quantified using Qubit 4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). The purified amplicons were pooled in equimolar amounts and sequenced on an Illumina PE300/PE250 platform (Illumina, San Diego, USA) following standard protocols provided by Majorbio Bio-Pharm Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).
Seed yield and quality traits
At maturity, plants were harvested from each pot to record growth and yield parameters, including seed yield, thousand-seed weight, seed number per plant, pod number per plant, silique length, seed number per silique, silique weight, total dry weight, plant height, and straw weight. Seed were stored and dried until the water content fell below 10%. Seed quality traits, such as oil content, protein content, moisture content, unsaturated fatty acid, and saturated fatty acid, were measured using a near-infrared analyzer (NIR System3750, Sweden) at the National Rapeseed Engineering Center, Huazhong Agricultural University.
Determination by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
At maturity stage, roots samples were collected, mixed with KBr (1:100, w: w), and ground into a powder. The infrared spectra of the samples were acquired using a Bruker VERTEX 70 spectrometer (Bruker, USA) within a wavelength range of 4000 − 400 cm⁻¹. The spectrometer was set to a resolution of 4 cm⁻¹, and each sample was scanned 32 times to ensure accuracy. Baseline correction was performed using OMNIC 8.2 software (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA), and the wavelengths were normalized to further analysis.
Data analysis
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 25 (IBM Corporation, New York, USA) for data processing and graphing. All data presented as means ± standard deviations (n = 3), with three independent samples per treatment. Significant differences between treatments were determined using Duncan test (p < 0.05), with distinct lowercase letters indicating significant differences. Heat-map analysis was performed using TBtools software (Chen et al.,2020). Bioinformatic analysis of the soil microbiota was conducted using the Majorbio Cloud platform (https://cloud.majorbio.com).
Result
Impact of P fertilizer on plant growth and Al3+ concentration at the seeding stage
A
A
The application of varying amounts of inorganic P fertilizer significantly improved the growth and development of B. napus in acidic soil. This was reflected in increased plant height and biomass accumulation at the seedling stage. Specifically, treatments with inorganic P fertilizers (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄) resulted in a remarkable 7.5-fold increase in shoot dry weight compared to the control treatment (OS), and approximately a 3-fold increase compared to the alkalized treatment (OS + Ca(OH)₂) (Fig. 1a, b). The results also indicated that P fertilizer levels significantly increased the concentrations of Cd, P, B, Cu, and K, while decreasing concentrations of Al and Zn. Notably, P concentration increased linearly by 157.4% and 224.9% relative to the OS treatment, with no significant difference observed between OS and OS + Ca(OH)₂. Importantly, the P fertilizers (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄) reduced Al3+ concentration by 24.3% and 39.8%, respectively, compared to the OS treatment (Fig. 2a, f). These results suggest that P fertilizer application enhanced soil quality and chemical properties, thereby promoting the growth and resistance of B. napus under acidic soil conditions.
Effects of P fertilizer on soil pH and Al form in stratified soil profiles
Soil pH and the distribution of different forms of Al were monitored across various soil layers at the seeding stage. The application of P fertilizer resulted in an increase in soil pH from 5.4 to 6.0 with increasing soil depth, though the differences in pH among the treatments were not statistically significant (Fig. 1c). Compared to the OS treatments, P fertilizer treatment such as OS + Ca(OH)₂, OS + KH₂PO₄, and OS + + KH₂PO₄ led to lower Al³⁺ concentrations in the surface soil layers. However, as soil depth increased, the differences in Al³⁺ concentrations across treatments gradually decreased (Fig. 1c). In the surface soil layers (0–2 cm and 2–4 cm), the treatments OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄ resulted in lower concentrations of Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)2⁺ compared to OS and OS + Ca(OH)₂ treatments. However, the concentrations of Al-HA and Al(OH)₃0 did not show significant differences across treatments (Fig. S1). At deeper soil layers (0–2 cm and 4–6 cm), the total Al concentration was higher in the OS + + KH₂PO₄ compared to OS + Ca(OH)₂ (Fig. S2), while the proportion of active Al remained similar across the treatments (Fig. S3).
The dominant form of Al across all soil layers was Al-HA (77.34–83.35%), followed by Al(OH)₃0 (9.89–11.98%), Al³⁺ (3.83–7.84%) and Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)2+ (3.24–5.18%) (Fig. 2a-e). Compared to the OS treatment, OS + + KH₂PO₄ increased Al-HA concentration but decreased Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)2⁺ concentrations (Fig. 2b, d). No significant differences in Al(OH)₃0 concentration were observed between OS, OS + Ca(OH)₂, OS + KH₂PO₄, and OS + + KH₂PO₄ treatments (Fig. 2c). Furthermore, no significant differences in Al-HA, Al(OH)₃0, and Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)2⁺) were found between the OS + KH₂PO₄, and OS + Ca(OH)₂ treatments (Fig. 2b, c, d).
Effects of P fertilizer on soil physical and chemical properties at the flowering stage
A
The flowering stage is a critical for the yield potential of B. napus. We investigated the effects of P fertilizer application on B. napus grown in acidic soil under Al stress at flowering stage. Notably, the treatments with P fertilizers (OS + KH₂PO₄, and OS + + KH₂PO₄), and OS + Ca(OH)₂ treatments resulted in significant increase in plant height of 108.4%, 158.0%, and 105.9%, respectively (Fig. 3a and Fig. S4). As soil depth increased, a consistent rise in pH was observed across all treatments. While an increase in Al³⁺ concentration was evident in the OS treatment, minimal variations were observed for other Al forms (Al-HA, Al(OH)₃⁰, and Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)2⁺) across the treatments (Fig. 3c and Fig. S5). Specifically, in the OS treatment, the proportion of active Al was highest at 26.6% in the 8–10 cm soil layer and lowest at 13.9% in the 2–4 cm soil layer. In contrast, the P fertilizer (OS + KH₂PO₄, and OS + + KH₂PO₄) and OS + Ca(OH)₂ treatments exhibited the highest proportions of active Al in the in the 4–6 cm, 6–8 cm, and 2–4 cm, soil layers, respectively (Fig. 3b and Fig. S6). At the flowering stage, the Al³⁺ concentration in the OS treatment was similar to that in the OS + + KH₂PO₄ treatment, both approximately 0.14 g/kg. The OS + KH₂PO₄ treatment had a lower Al3+ concentration (around 0.07 g/kg), while OS + Ca(OH)₂ showed the lowest Al3+ concentration (Fig. S7a). The OS + Ca(OH)₂ treatment also exhibited higher levels of Al(OH)₂⁺ + Al(OH)₂⁺ but lower concentration of Al(OH)₃⁰ and Al-HA compared to OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄ (Fig. S7b, c, d). At this stage, the Al-HA concentration in all treatments was approximately 85.52%, a significant increase compared to the seeding stage (Fig. 2e and Fig. S8).
Impact of P fertilizer on the diversity and composition of soil bacterial communities
A
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrated clear differentiation in bacterial communities among the three treatments: the original soil treatment (SAl), the P fertilizer treatment (SP), and the alkalized treatment (SCK), with each treatment exhibiting significant deviations (Fig. 5d). Microbial analysis revealed a total of 4489 microorganisms identified across all three treatments with 1554 species common to all three treatments. Additionally, 510 microorganisms were shared between SP and SAl treatments, while only 266 were common between SCK and SP (Fig. 4a). The amendments introduced in the SCK and SP treatments had a notable impact on the soil bacterial community composition (Fig. 5c). The community bar plot analysis revealed that the dominant bacterial phyla in the soil were Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, Acidobacteriota, Gemmatimonadota, Bacteroidota, Patescibacteria, Cyanobacteria, and Planctomycetota (Fig. 4c). To identify microorganisms exhibiting statistically significant variations, SAl was used as the control for the comparison with the SCK and SP treatments (Fig. 5b). Relative to the SP treatment, the addition of SCK or SP resulted in a notable increase in the relative abundances of Actinobacteriota, while the abundances of Proteobacteria, Myxococcota, Nitrospirota, and Bdellovibrionota decreased. Additionally, the SP treatment exhibited higher relative abundances of Bacteroidota, Verrucomicrobiota, and Armatimonadota compared to SAl, whereas these abundances were lower in the SCK treatment relative to SAl (Fig. 4b).
Identification of differential bacteria with or without P fertilizer
The addition of P fertilizer and alkalized treatment significantly influenced the density and diversity of major bacteria communities. Microbial diversity in SCK and SP treatments was significantly higher compared to SAl treatment (Fig. 6a). Circumferential diagrams for SP and SCK treatments illustrated microbial composition and abundance at the phylum level. The predominant bacterial phyla across treatments were consistent, with Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, Acidobacteriota, and Gemmatimonadota being the most abundant in the rhizosphere (Fig. 5a). Ternary phase diagrams revealed variations in the microbial composition across eight bacterial families in rhizosphere soil samples of B. napus through. Notably, a higher abundance of Micrococcaceae was observed in the soil samples (Fig. 5b). Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) further highlighted significant differences in microbial communities among treatments, identifying 16, 118, and 61 biomarkers for SCK, SAl, and SP treatments, respectively (Fig. 6b, c). Biomarkers in the SCK treatment were predominantly associated with Micrococcales, Actinobacteriota, Actinobacteria, and Micrococcaceae, while the Sal treatment showed enrichment in Proteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Burkholderiales, and Comamonadaceae. Conversely, the SP treatment was characterized by biomarkers such as Bacteroidota, Bacteroidia, Rhodanobacteraceae, and Chitinophagalesin (Fig. 6b, Fig. S10).
Interaction of soil microorganisms and physicochemical properties
Redundancy analysis (RDA) revealed significant correlations between bacterial community structure and soil physicochemical properties, including P, K, Zn, Al, Fe, N, Mn, and pH (Fig. 7a; Fig. S7, S9; Table 1). Two-factor network analysis identified 30 genera influenced by environmental factors, primarily belonging to Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidota, Acidobacteriota, Patescibacteria, Cyanobacteria, and Gemmatimonadota. The pH was positively correlated with Actinobacteriota, particulary Leifsonia and Phycicoccus, but negatively correlated with Al3+ concentration. Conversely, Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteriota exhibited a negative correlation with pH and a positive correlation with Al3+. Additionally, genera such as Gemmatimonas, Terrabacter, Nocardioides, and Leifsonia were strongly influenced by P and K concentration (Fig. 7b). Two-factor network analysis further confirmed the impact of environmental factors on 21 genera, including Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, Gemmatimonadota, Acidobacteriota, and Chloroflexi. Notably, Al concentration was positively associated with Acidobacteriota, Methylomirabilota, Bdellovibrionota, Nitrospirota, and Firmicutes, while exhibiting a negative correlation with Actinobacteriota, a trend directly contrasting its relationship with pH (Fig. 7c).
Table 1
Physical and chemical characteristics of soil
Treatment
pH
Inorganic N (mg/kg)
Available P (mg/kg)
Available K (mg/kg)
Organic material (g/kg)
OS + Ca(OH)2
6.6005 ± 0.2215a
17.85 ± 1.5121a
1.5512 ± 0.1407c
134.6667 ± 13.1993c
5.6433 ± 0.3975a
OS
5.9693 ± 0.2539b
17.3833 ± 1.3199a
3.0162 ± 0.4988c
167.3333 ± 10.8730c
5.5143 ± 0.8530a
OS + KH2PO4
6.5867 ± 0.0450a
14.1167 ± 1.7461b
40.1729 ± 4.5110b
749.3333 ± 30.3462b
6.4933 ± 0.7507a
OS + + KH2PO4
6.5067 ± 0.08219a
9.9167 ± 0.6570c
110.0195 ± 7.0763a
1153.3333 ± 69.8443a
5.6300 ± 0.9021a
Biomass, seed yield, and seed quality at maturity stage
Biomass and seed yield are critical indicators of soil quality and crop productivity. The application of P fertilizer significantly impacted seed yield and silique development, particularly in the Al sensitive B. napus cultivar Huayou 4 (Fig. 8a, f). Compared to the OS treatment, P fertilizer application increased seed yield,1000 grain weight, seed number per plant, and pod number per plant by 74.0–112.2%, 72.1-149.1%, 84.5–147.0%, and 14.4–52.6%, respectively (Fig. 8b-e). In addition to the yield enhancement showed minor variation based on the rate of inorganic P fertilizer application, notable improvements were observed across various parameters. Such as silique length, seed number per silique, silique weight, total dry weight, plant height, and straw weight were significantly increased by 17.0-32.1%, 56.6–64.5%, 274.9-508.7, 181.4-225.8%, 26.2–62.6%, and 239.7–384.0%, respectively, with P fertilizer treatment (Fig. 8g-l). However, while P fertilizer negatively affected oil content compared to OS and OS + Ca(OH)2, it positively influenced protein content and stearic acid levels (Table 2). Among the various parameters, silique weight, total dry weight, and straw weight showed the most substantial contribution to yield improvement, whereas the effects on silique length and plant height were comparatively minor.
A
Table S1
Assignment of absorption peaks in Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectrum in root to Al toxicity
Wavenumber(cm-1)
Functional group
Major component
3369
O-H, N-H stretching
Protein, cellulose, hemicellulose
2935
Saturated C-H stretching
Protein, cellulose, pectin
2364
C ≡ N, P-H stretching
Cyanide
1735
C = O stretching from-COOR
Pectin
1637
C = C stretching
Olefin
1510
N-H deformation
Amide Ⅱ of pectin
1425
C-N stretching
Amide Ⅱ of pectin
1035
-CH deformation or C-C, C-O stretching
Carbohydrate chain from cellulose
Table 2
The response of seed quality traits to phosphate fertilizer application under acidic soil
Treatment
Oil content
 (%)
Protein content 
(%)
Moisture content
 (%)
Unsaturated fatty acid (%)
Saturated fatty acid (%)
Oleic
Linoleic
Linolenic
Stearic
Palmitic
OS+ Ca(OH)2
34.99 ± 0.2876 a
27.87་0.0221 c
9.27 ± 0.0525 a
42.89 ± 0.1497
16.21 ± 0.0746 b
7.34 ± 0.0007
0.17 ± 0.0100 b
4.85 ± 0.0016
OS
32.77 ± 0.0381 b
29.54 ± 0.0974 b
8.39 ± 0.1031 b
43.62 ± 1.5395
17.19 ± 0.0363 b
7.82 ± 0.2057
0.60 ± 0.0047 a
4.81 ± 0.0023
OS+ KH2PO4
31.31 ± 0.0676 c
31.49 ± 0.0717 a
9.27 ±0.1415a
42.49 ± 0.2898
18.94 ± 1.2770 a
8.89 ± 2.0891
0.29 ± 0.0127b
5.29 ± 0.9005
OS++ KH2PO4
31.43 ± 0.1032 c
31.56 ±0.0596a
8.91 ± 0.0096 ab
40.95 ± 2.2458
16.36 ± 2.2458 b
8.64 ± 0.0853
0.18 ± 0.0121 b
4.64 ± 0.0073
Click here to download actual image
Figure S1
Al and P concentration in plants parts
The application of P fertilizer not only supplies essential P for healthy plant growth but also alleviates Al toxicity in acidic soils. Compared to the OS, P fertilizer application (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄) reduced Al concentrations in roots by 18.22–69.95%, in the straw by 44.93–99.65%, and in the silique by 21.08–47.68%. However, a slight increase in Al concentration (3.72–8.25%) was observed in seeds (Fig. 9a). Notably, seeds consistently exhibited the lowest Al accumulation across all treatments (Fig. 9b). P fertilizer also enhanced P concentration and its accumulation in plants, particularly in seeds compared to other tissues (Fig. 9c, d). This demonstrates the dual benefit of P fertilizer in alleviating Al toxicity and enriching P levels in plants, contributing to improved growth and productivity in acidic soils.
The effect of P fertilizer on the FTIR spectral in the root
To delve deeper into the structural variations in functional groups on the root of plants with and without P fertilizer in acidic soil, we performed FTIR spectroscopy across a wavenumber range of 400-4000cm− 1(Fig. 9e, f and Table S1). This analysis unveiled substantial differences in the relative absorbance of characteristic peaks, particularly prominent with P fertilizer treatment (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄). Specifically, the peaks at 2364 cm⁻¹, indicative of the stretching vibrations of saturated C ≡ N and P-H bonds in carboxyl and amide groups, exhibited a notable increase with P fertilizer treatment under Al toxicity. Additionally, a peak at 1035 cm⁻¹, attributed to the stretching of Carbohydrate chain from cellulose, also showed a significant enhancement with P fertilizer treatment under Al toxicity. The elevated relative absorbance at 1735 cm⁻¹ implies a heightened pectin content in the root, which typically correlates with greater susceptibility to Al stress. Consequently, these findings suggest that P fertilizer treatment (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄) are little prone to the adverse effects of Al toxicity compared to original soil (Table S1).
Discussion
Soil acidification and Al toxicity are major challenges to crop production, often exacerbated by nutrient deficiencies and metal toxicity in acidic soils (Kochian et al., 2015; Kopittke et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2012; Muhammad et al., 2019). This study shows that inorganic P fertilizer significantly enhances B. napus growth and soil fertility under acidic conditions. P fertilizer treatments resulted in a remarkable 7.5-fold increase in shoot dry weight compared to the control as well as outperforming alkalized treatments. Soil P levels increased by up to 224%, accompanied by improved concentrations of B, Cu, and K, indicating enhanced fertility (Fig. 1,2). Moreover, P fertilizers effectively reduced Al toxicity, with a 39.8% decrease in Al concentration and a reduction in bioavailable Al³⁺ in surface layers (Fig. 2a). These changes facilitated the transformation of Al into less harmful forms, such as Al-HA, underscoring the critical role of P fertilizers in mitigating Al toxicity and improving soil conditions for plant growth.
Agricultural liming has been a traditional practice for centuries to counteract soil acidification, mitigate Al toxicity, and alleviate P deficiency in soil (Delhaize et al.,2012; Liu et al.,2023; Magalhaes et al.,2018). This study demonstrates that inorganic P fertilizers (OS + KH₂PO₄ and OS + + KH₂PO₄) significantly increase plant development as evidenced by substantial increases in plant height and biomass accumulation, particularly an increase in shoot dry weight compared to the control (OS). Notably, the P fertilizer treatments outperformed the alkalized treatment (OS + Ca(OH)₂), which showed a three-fold increase, underscoring that P application, rather than soil alkalinity alone, plays a pivotal role in promoting plant growth. Moreover, P fertilizers significantly reduced Al toxicity in P-fertilized treatments, fostering a more favorable soil environment for plant growth. Further analysis revealed that P fertilizers reduced bioavailable Al³⁺ concentrations, particularly in surface soil layers, however this effect diminished with soil depth. This suggests that the impact of P fertilizers on Al speciation is more pronounced near the surface (Fig. 1, 3, and Fig. S7). The transformation of Al into less harmful forms, such as Al-HA, highlights complex interactions between P fertilizers and soil components. However, the concentrations of Al-HA and Al(OH)₃0 remained relatively stable across P treatments, indicating their persistence and resistance to treatment-induced changes. The dominance of Al-HA across all treatments emphasizes the importance of organic matter in binding Al in soil (Bojórquez-Quintal et al., 2017; Nogueirol et al., 2015), further supporting the role of P fertilizers in alleviating Al toxicity and improving soil conditions for sustainable crop production.
Soil and plants microbiomes interact through intricate networks that are critical for maintaining ecosystem balance and plant health (Bai et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2022; Rösch et al., 2002). These interactions are particularly sensitive to environmental stress, which can lead to significant shifts in bacterial community structures (Pan et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2015; Lundberg et al., 2012). Understanding soil-plant-microbe interactions under stress conditions, such as acidic soils with Al toxicity, is essential for developing sustainable agricultural practices (Miki et al., 2010; Nerva et al., 2022; Trivedi et al., 2020). Our study highlights the influence of rhizosphere microbiomes on plant health in such conditions, specifically through P fertilizer application. The application of P fertilizers (SP treatments) significantly altered the microbial community composition compared to the control (SAl), with notable increases in the relative abundances of Actinobacteriota and decreases in Proteobacteria, Myxococcota, Nitrospirota, and Bdellovibrionota. These shifts can be attributed to amendments modifying the soil environment, favoring microbial groups adapted to reduced Al toxicity and improved nutrient availability (Fig. 4). Consistent with prior findings, P amendments promoted microbial diversity, as evidenced by higher diversity indices in SCK and SP treatments compared to the SAl control (Fig. 6), reinforcing the critical role of soil chemistry in shaping microbial dynamics (Liu et al., 2023; Paries et al., 2023). A two-factor network analysis further revealed that Actinobacteriota positively correlated with soil pH and negatively correlated with Al3+ concentrations, while Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteriota exhibited opposite trends (Fig. 7). These correlations highlight the sensitivity of microbial communities to soil pH and Al3+ toxicity. Similar to previous studies, our results confirm that soil amendments not only mitigate Al toxicity but also promote beneficial microbial groups capable of enhancing soil health and plant growth (Simonin et al., 2020; Paries et al., 2023). The emergence of distinct biomarkers in SCK and SP treatments underscores the profound impact of P fertilizer on the microbial community, driving shifts in the dominant phyla and improving soil suitability for B. napus cultivation under acidic conditions.
Application of P fertilizer significantly improved yield components, oil content, and plant biomass, highlighting its importance in enhancing overall plant performance (Diepenbrock 2000; Fu et al., 2016; Gomez et al., 2011; Magalhaes et al., 2018; Wyatt et al., 2008). Notable increases in seed yield, 1000-grain weight, seed number per plant, and pod number per plant indicate a strong positive correlation between P availability and crop productivity (Fig. 8). These improvements are particularly significant for addressing food security challenges in regions where soil acidification and Al toxicity limit agricultural potential (Kochian et al., 2015). Interestingly, yield enhancements plateaued beyond certain application rates of P fertilizer, indicating a threshold effect that warrants further investigation to optimize application rates.
Beyond seed yield, parameters such as silique length, seed number per silique, silique weight, total dry weight, plant height, and straw weight were significantly enhanced by P application (Fig. 8), emphasizing its multifaceted benefits. P fertilizer also played a critical role in mitigating Al toxicity by reducing Al concentrations in roots, straw, and siliques, thereby promoting healthier root systems and facilitating nutrient uptake. This protective mechanism may involve the exclusion or sequestration of Al from sensitive tissues, contributing to improved plant health. Furthermore, the preferential accumulation of P in seeds enhances seed vigor and establishment, providing a strategic advantage for future generations and ensuring crop resilience (Zou et al., 2022). At the maturity stage, P fertilizer not only boosted B. napus yield and biomass but also significantly reduced Al concentrations in critical plant tissues. These results highlight its dual role as both a nutrient provider and a mitigator of Al toxicity. Comparatively, previous studies have demonstrated similar protective effects of P fertilizers against soil acidity and metal toxicity, aligning with findings that P improves soil pH and reduces bioavailable Al (Cordell 2014; Paries 2023).
Conclusion
This study highlights the critical role of P fertilization in mitigating Al toxicity and promoting the growth of B. napus in acidic soils. During the seedling stage, P fertilizer application reduced soil Al concentrations and improved soil pH, creating a more favorable environment for plant growth. By the flowering stage, P fertilizer significantly altered the soil's physicochemical properties, facilitating enhanced B. napus development. The application of P fertilizer also influenced microbial diversity, with differential bacterial communities emerging as potential contributors to the alleviation of Al toxicity. At the maturity stage, P fertilization markedly increased yield and biomass while reducing Al accumulation in roots, straw, and pods, thus protecting root health and promoting nutrient uptake. In summary, P fertilization serves as a dual-purpose strategy: providing essential P nutrition and alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soils. These findings provide valuable insights for developing sustainable agricultural practices in acidic soils. Future research should focus on determining the optimal P fertilizer rates and types to maximize productivity while minimizing environmental impacts, ensuring a balance between agricultural sustainability and ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFD1900705).
A
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
A
Author contributions
Guangda Ding supervised the study. Wen Zhang designed and conducted the experiments, performed data interpretation, and wrote the manuscript. Wen Zhang and Guangda Ding provided the experimental materials. Fangsen Xu, Chuang Wang, Lei Shi, Hongmei Cai, Sheliang Wang, and Surya Kant gave critical comments, Lulu Ren, Haili Song, and Botao Yi contributed to the determination of data analysis. Botao Yi contributed to the experiment of stratified soil. Venuste Munyaneza revised to the manuscript. Guangda Ding agrees to serve as the author responsible for contact and ensures communication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
A
Data availability statement
The data supports the finding of this study are available in the supplementary information of this article.
Additional Files
References
1.
Bai et al (2022) The root microbiome: Community assembly and its contributions to plant fitness. J Integr Plant Biol 64:230–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.13226
2.
Bao SD (2000) Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. China Agriculture
3.
Bojórquez-Quintal et al (2017) Aluminum, a Friend or Foe of Higher Plants in Acid Soils. Front Plant Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01767
4.
Chen et al (2020) TBtools: An Integrative Toolkit Developed for Interactive Analyses of Big Biological Data. Mol Plant 13:1194–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.06.009
A
5.
Cooperative Group for Regional Planning of Red and Yellow Soil Use (1985) Regional planning of soil use and improvement in red and yellow soil areas of China. Agricultural, Beijing
6.
Cordell D, White S (2014) Life's Bottleneck: Sustaining the World's Phosphorus for a Food Secure Future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:161–188. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-010213-113300
7.
Dai et al (2020) Long-term nutrient inputs shift soil microbial functional profiles of phosphorus cycling in diverse agroecosystems. ISME J 14:757–770. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0567-9
A
8.
Delhaize et al (2012) Transcriptional regulation of aluminium tolerance genes. Trends Plant Sci 17:341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.02.008
A
9.
Diepenbrock W (2000) Yield analysis of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.): a review. Field Crops Reseach 67:35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00082-4
A
10.
Duan et al (2020) The impact of different morphological and biochemical root traits on phosphorus acquisition and seed yield of Brassica napus. Field Crops Res 258:107960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107960
A
11.
Durán et al (2018) Microbial Interkingdom Interactions in Roots Promote Arabidopsis Survival. Cell 175:973–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.020
A
12.
Fu et al (2016) Research progress and strategies for multifunctional rapeseed: A case study of China. J Integr Agric 15:1673–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2095-3119(16)61384-9
A
13.
Gomez NV, Miralles DJ (2011) Factors that modify early and late reproductive phases in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.): Its impact on seed yield and oil content. Ind Crops Prod 34:1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.07.013
A
14.
Hammond P (2008) Phosphorus Nutrition of Terrestrial Plants
A
15.
Herrera-Estrella L, López-Arredondo D (2016) Phosphorus: The Underrated Element for Feeding the World. Trends Plant Sci 21:461–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.04.010
16.
Juan Barcelo CP (2002) Fast root growth responses, root exudates, and internal detoxification as clues to the mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance: a review. Environ Exp Bot 48:75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(02)00013-8
A
17.
Kochian et al (2015) Plant Adaptation to Acid Soils: The Molecular Basis for Crop Aluminum Resistance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 66:571–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114822
A
18.
Kochian et al (2004) How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:459–493. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141655
A
19.
Kopittke et al (2016) Kinetics and nature of aluminium rhizotoxic effects: a review. J Exp Bot 67:4451–4467. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw233
A
20.
Lambers et al (2008) Plant nutrient-acquisition strategies change with soil age. Trends Ecol Evol 23:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.008
21.
Lin et al (2012) Systemic Regulation of Soybean Nodulation by Acidic Growth Conditions. Plant Physiol 160:2028–2039. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.204149
A
22.
Lin et al (2018) Assessing the potential of biochar and aged biochar to alleviate aluminum toxicity in an acid soil for achieving cabbage productivity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 161:290–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.06.010
A
23.
Liu et al (2023) Root microbiota confers rice resistance to aluminium toxicity and phosphorus deficiency in acidic soils. Nat Food 4:912–924. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00848-0
A
24.
Lundberg et al (2012) Defining the core arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature 488:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11237
25.
Ma et al (2014) Molecular mechanisms of Al tolerance in gramineous plants. Plant Soil 381:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2073-1
A
26.
Magalhaes et al (2018) Emerging Pleiotropic Mechanisms Underlying Aluminum Resistance and Phosphorus Acquisition on Acidic Soils. Front Plant Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01420
A
27.
Magalhaes et al (2018) Emerging pleiotropic mechanisms underlying aluminum resistance and phosphorus acquisition on acidic soils. Front Plant Sci 9:1420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01420
A
28.
Miki et al (2010) Functional diversity of microbial decomposers facilitates plant coexistence in a plant–microbe–soil feedback model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 14251–14256. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914281107
A
29.
Moudrikova et al (2017) Quantification of polyphosphate in microalgae by Raman microscopy and by a reference enzymatic assay. Anal Chem 89:12006–12013. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02393
30.
Muhammad et al (2019) A review: The beneficial effects and possible mechanisms of aluminum on plant growth in acidic soil. J Integr Agric 18:1518–1528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2095-3119(18)61991-4
A
31.
Munyaneza et al (2024) Strategies for alleviating aluminum toxicity in soils and plants. Plant Soil 504:167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06617-7
32.
Narayanan M, Ma Y (2023) Metal tolerance mechanisms in plants and microbe-mediated bioremediation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115413. Environmental Research 222
A
33.
Nerva et al (2022) Breeding toward improved ecological plant–microbiome interactions. Trends Plant Sci 27:1134–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.06.004
A
34.
Nogueirol et al (2015) Tropical soils cultivated with tomato: fractionation and speciation of Al. Environ Monit Assess 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4366-0
A
35.
Pan et al (2022) Root exudates and rhizosphere soil bacterial relationships of Nitraria tangutorum are linked to k-strategists bacterial community under salt stress. Front Plant Sci 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.997292
A
36.
Paries M, Gutjahr C (2023) The good, the bad, and the phosphate: regulation of beneficial and detrimental plant–microbe interactions by the plant phosphate status. New Phytol 239:29–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18933
A
37.
Rajkumar et al (2012) Perspectives of plant-associated microbes in heavy metal phytoremediation. Biotechnol Adv 30:1562–1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.04.011
A
38.
Rösch et al (2002) Biodiversity of denitrifying and dinitrogen-fixing bacteria in an acid forest soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3818–3829. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.68.8.3818-3829.2002
A
39.
Ryan PR (2018) Assessing the role of genetics for improving the yield of Australia’s major grain crops on acid soils. Crop Pasture Sci 69. https://doi.org/10.1071/cp17310
A
40.
Schmitz et al (2022) Synthetic bacterial community derived from a desert rhizosphere confers salt stress resilience to tomato in the presence of a soil microbiome. ISME J 16:1907–1920. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-022-01238-3
A
41.
Shen RF (2008) The behavior of aluminum in soil-plant systems and the adaptation mechanisms of plants. China Science Publishing & Media Ltd
A
42.
Simonin et al (2020) Influence of plant genotype and soil on the wheat rhizosphere microbiome: evidences for a core microbiome across eight african and european soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96:18. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/ fiaa067
A
43.
Sridhar et al (2022) Microbial community shifts correspond with suppression of decomposition 25 years after liming of acidic forest soils. Global Change Biol 28:5399–5415. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16321
A
44.
Trivedi et al (2020) Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:607–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1
A
45.
von Uexküll HR, Mutert M (1995) Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant Soil 171. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00009558
A
46.
Wassen et al (2005) Endangered plants persist under phosphorus limitation. Nature 437:547–550. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03950
A
47.
Wen et al (2024) Harnessing the power of microbes: Enhancing soybean growth in an acidic soil through AMF inoculation rather than P-fertilization. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhae067. Horticulture Research 11
A
48.
Hartmana et al (2008) Environmental and anthropogenic controls over bacterial communities in wetland soils. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(46):17842–17847. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808254105
A
49.
Xia et al (2023) Assessing the impact of biochar on microbes in acidic soils: Alleviating the toxicity of aluminum and acidity. J Environ Manage 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118796
50.
Yan et al., (2021) The aluminum tolerance and detoxification mechanisms in plants; recent advances and prospects. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 52, 1491–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1859306
A
51.
Yang et al (2011) Effect of indole-3-acetic acid on aluminum-induced efflux of malic acid from wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Plant Soil 346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0811-1
A
52.
Yang et al (2013) Interaction of aluminium and drought stress on root growth and crop yield on acid soils. Plant Soil 372:3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1580-1
A
53.
Yu et al (2016) Genome-wide transcriptomic analysis uncovers the molecular basis underlying early flowering and apetalous characteristic in Brassica napus L. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30576. Scientific Reports 6
A
54.
Zhang et al (2017) The unseen rhizosphere root–soil–microbe interactions for crop production. Curr Opin Microbiol 37:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.03.008
A
55.
Zhang et al (2015) The role of mycorrhizal symbiosis in aluminum and phosphorus interactions in relation to aluminum tolerance in soybean. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:10225–10235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6913-6
A
56.
Zhang et al (2023) Screening extreme varieties with aluminum tolerance and analyzing physiological mechanisms of aluminum tolerance. J Huazhong Agricultural Univ 42(6):154–163. https://doi.org/10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2023.06.019
A
57.
Zhao XQ (2023) Scientific Issues and Strategies of Acid Soil Use in China. Acta Pedologica Sinica
A
58.
Zhu et al (2022) Impacts of global change on the phyllosphere microbiome. New Phytol 234:1977–1986. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17928
A
59.
Zou et al (2022) Global trends of cropland phosphorus use and sustainability challenges. Nature 611:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05220-z
Supplementary figures and table
A
Fig. S1
The concentration of different Al form under different soil profile depths at seeding stage
A
Fig. S2
Total Al concentration under different soil profile depths at seeding stage
A
Fig. S3
Proportion of active Al under different soil profile depths at seeding stage
A
Fig. S4
Plant height under different phosphate fertilizer treatments alleviating the effects of acidic soil on Al toxicity at flowering stage
A
Fig. S5
pH at different soil profile depths on Al toxicity at the flowering stage
A
Fig. S6
Total Al concentration under different soil profile depths at flowering stage
A
Fig. S7
Different Al form (a) Al3+, (b) Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)2+, (c) Al(OH)30, and (d) Al-HA at flowering stage on B. napus
A
Fig. S8
Proportion of active on different Al form (Al3+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)30, and Al-HA) at flowering stage on B. napus
A
Fig. S9
Available copper (Cu), iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), and Zinc (Zn) concentrations under phosphate fertilizer treatments in acidic soil at flowering stage
A
Fig. S10
The LEfSe Multi-level Species Difference Discriminant Analysis on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application
Figure 1
A
Fig. 1
The application of phosphate fertilizer alleviating the effects of acidic soil on Al toxicity in B. napus (a) The phenotype of B. napus on alleviating the effects of acidic soil and Al toxicity at the seeding stage. (b) Shoot dry weight at seeding stage. (c) pH and Al3+ concentration at different soil profile depths at seeding stage. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Figure 2
A
Fig. 2
The effect of phosphate fertilizer treatments alleviating the effects of acidic soil on Al toxicity at seedling stage. The concentration of (a) Al3+, (b) Al(OH)30, (c) Al-HA and (d) Al(OH)2++Al(OH)2+. (e) Proportion of different Al forms (Al3+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)30, and Al-HA) at seeding stage. (f) different elements in the root at seeding stage. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Figure 3
A
Fig. 3
The effect of phosphate fertilizer treatments alleviating the effects of acidic soil on Al toxicity at flowering stage. (a) The phenotype of phosphate fertilizer alleviating the effects of acidic soil. (b) Total proportion of Al at different soil profile depths. (c) Different Al forms (Al3+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)2+, Al(OH)30, and Al-HA) at different soil profile depths. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE.
Click here to Correct
Figure 4
A
Fig. 4
Microbial analysis under different phosphorus fertilizer applications under acidic soil to alleviate Al toxicity. (a) Comparative Venn diagram in different treatments showing number of unique and common. (b) Kruskal-Wallis H test bar plot and (c) Percent of community abundance on phylum level on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) and SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Figure 5
A
Fig. 5
Changes in bacterial genera on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application. (a) circus plot, (b) Ternary analysis, (c) Beta diversity analysis, and (d) PCA on OUT level on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Figure 6
A
Fig. 6
Changes in microbial analysis on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application. (a) Kruskai-Wallis H test for ace index, (b) and (c) LEfSe analysis based on genus level. The taxa with significantly different abundances among different treatments are represented by dots with different colors, and from the center outward, they represent the phylum, class, order, family, and genus levels.
Click here to Correct
Figure 7
A
Fig. 7
The correlation heatmap in bacterial genera on alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil through phosphorus fertilizer application. (a) Distance-based redundancy analysis (db-RDA) of the correlation between the bacterial community and P-cycling-related environmental factors. (b) The network analysis on phosphorus fertilizer application alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil. (c) The correlation heatmap on phosphorus fertilizer application alleviating Al toxicity in acidic soil. P, Phosphorus. K, Potassium. Zn, Zinc. Al, Aluminum. Fe, Iron. N, Nitrogen. Mn, Manganese.
Click here to Correct
Figure 8
A
Fig. 8
Effects of phosphate fertilizer on yield parameters in plants grown under acidic soil and Al toxicity. (a) Representative images of the quantity of seeds harvested per plant from each treatment. (b) Seed yield weight, (c) 1000 grain weight, (d) Seed number per plant, and (e) Pod number per plant on mature stage. (f) Representative images of the silique harvested from each treatment. (g) Silique length, (h) Seed number per silique, (i) Silique weight, (j) Total dry weight, (k) Plant height, (l) Straw weight at mature stage on B. napus. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Figure 9
A
Fig. 9
Al and P concentration in different plant tissues at maturity stage under phosphate fertilizer treatments in acidic soil. (a) Al and (c) P concentration of root, straw, silique, and seed. (b) Al and (d) P content in straw, silique, and seed. (e) and (f) Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy spectral analysis in root under different treatments. Values show replicate plot means (n = 3) ± SE. Values followed by a different lowercase letter indicated significant differences according to Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Click here to Correct
Table 1
Table 2
A
Fig. S2
Click here to Correct
Click here to download actual image
Figure S3
Click here to download actual image
Figure S4
Click here to download actual image
Figure S5
Click here to download actual image
Figure S6
Click here to download actual image
Figure S7
Click here to download actual image
Figure S8
Click here to download actual image
Figure S9
Click here to download actual image
Figure S10
Table S1
Total words in MS: 6580
Total words in Title: 21
Total words in Abstract: 228
Total Keyword count: 4
Total Images in MS: 10
Total Tables in MS: 3
Total Reference count: 60