Author
Listed:
- Yangyang Wang
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Zixuan Zhang
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Shuang Zhang
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Wanlin Zhuang
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Zhaoji Shi
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Ziqiang Liu
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Hui Wei
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
- Jiaen Zhang
(Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Department of Ecology, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)
Abstract
Microplastic (MP) pollution has raised global concerns, and biodegradable plastics have been recommended to replace conventional ones. The “plastisphere” has been considered a hotspot for the interactions among organisms and environments, but the differences in the properties of soil microbial communities in the plastisphere of conventional and biodegradable MPs remain unclear. This in situ experiment was conducted to compare the diversity and structure of the bacterial community in the plastisphere of conventional MPs (polyethylene [PE]) and biodegradable MPs (polylactic acid [PLA]) in vegetable fields, orchards, paddy fields, and woodlands. It was discovered that the bacterial α-diversity within the plastisphere was significantly lower than that in the soil across all land use. Significant differences between plastic types were only found in the vegetable field. Regarding the community composition, the relative abundances of Actinobacteriota (43.2%) and Proteobacteria (70.9%) in the plastisphere were found to exceed those in the soil, while the relative abundances of Acidobacteriota (45.5%) and Chloroflexi (27.8%) in the soil were significantly higher. The complexity of the microbial network within the plastisphere was lower than that of the soil. Compared with the soil, the proportion of dispersal limitation in the PLA plastisphere significantly decreased, with the greatest reduction observed in the vegetable field treatment, where it dropped from 57.72% to 3.81%. These findings indicate that different land use types have a greater impact on bacterial community diversity and structure than plastics themselves, and that biodegradable MPs may pose a greater challenge to the ecological function and health of soil ecosystems than conventional MPs.
Suggested Citation
Yangyang Wang & Zixuan Zhang & Shuang Zhang & Wanlin Zhuang & Zhaoji Shi & Ziqiang Liu & Hui Wei & Jiaen Zhang, 2025.
"Land Use Rather than Microplastic Type Determines the Diversity and Structure of Plastisphere Bacterial Communities,"
Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, April.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:7:p:778-:d:1627637
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:7:p:778-:d:1627637. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.