Bacterial community composition and diversity of two different forms of an organic residue of bioenergy crop

PeerJ. 2019 Apr 18:7:e6768. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6768. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

The use of residue of sugarcane ethanol industry named vinasse in fertirrigation is an established and widespread practice in Brazil. Both non-concentrated vinasse (NCV) and concentrated vinasse (CV) are used in fertirrigation, particularly to replace the potassium fertilizer. Although studies on the chemical and organic composition of vinasse and their impact on nitrous oxide emissions when applied in soil have been carried out, no studies have evaluated the microbial community composition and diversity in different forms of vinasse. We assessed the bacterial community composition of NCV and CV by non-culturable and culturable approaches. The non-culturable bacterial community was assessed by next generation sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene and culturable community by isolation of bacterial strains and molecular and biochemical characterization. Additionally, we assessed in the bacterial strains the presence of genes of nitrogen cycle nitrification and denitrification pathways. The microbial community based on 16S rRNA sequences of NCV was overrepresented by Bacilli and Negativicutes while CV was mainly represented by Bacilli class. The isolated strains from the two types of vinasse belong to class Bacilli, similar to Lysinibacillus, encode for nirK gene related to denitrification pathway. This study highlights the bacterial microbial composition particularly in CV what residue is currently recycled and recommended as a sustainable practice in sugarcane cultivation in the tropics.

Keywords: 16S rRNA; Bacteria; Bacteria isolation; Biochemical characterization; Diversity; Nitrogen cycle genes; Sugarcane; Vinasse.

Grants and funding

This research was supported by FAPESP and The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) grant number 729.004.013, 2013/50365-5, BE-Basic/FAPESP 2013/50940-05 and Capes/Nuffic 002_2012. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.