Metagenomic Analysis of Bacterial Community Structure and Dynamics of a Digestate and a More Stabilized Digestate-Derived Compost from Agricultural Waste

Abstract

Recycling of different products and waste materials plays a crucial role in circular economy, where the anaerobic digestion (AD) constitutes an important pillar since it reuses nutrients in the form of organic fertilizers. Knowledge about the digestate and compost microbial community structure and its variations over time is important. The aim of the current study was to investigate the microbiome of a slurry cow digestate produced on a farm (ADG) and of a more stabilized digestate-derived compost (DdC) in order to ascertain their potential uses as organic amendments in agriculture. The results from this study, based on a partial fragment of 16S bacterial rRNA NGS sequencing, showed that there is a greater microbial diversity in the DdC originated from agricultural waste compared to the ADG. Overall, the existence of a higher microbial diversity in the DdC was confirmed by an elevated number (1115) of OTUs identified, compared with the ADG (494 OTUs identified). In the DdC, 74 bacterial orders and 125 families were identified, whereas 27 bacterial orders and 54 families were identified in the ADG. Shannon diversity and Chao1 richness indexes were higher in DdC samples compared to ADG ones (Shannon: 3.014 and 1.573, Chao1: 68 and 24.75; p< 0.001 in both cases). A possible association between the microbiome composition at different stages of composting process and the role that these microorganisms may have on the quality of the compost-like substrate and its future uses is also discussed.

Changes in root endogenous hormone levels and rhizosphere fungi diversity in alfalfa under drought stress

“…1). To comprehensively evaluate αdiversity of fungal communities, OTU, Chao1, Pielou-e, Shannon and Simpson indexes (Deng et al 2022;Mang et al 2022) were used to compare differences in diversity between groups and signi cant differences between treatments (P < 0.01 or 0.05) while coverage and dominance index had no signi cant difference in all treatments (Table 2). Note: OUT, The number of species observed visually, the larger the index the more species observed.…”