Figures & data
Table 1. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on rhizosphere soil N transformation rates in the double-cropping rice fields.
Figure 1. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on rhizosphere soil enzyme activities in a double-cropping rice field (a) was soil urease; (b) was soil protease; (c) was soil β-glucosaminidase; (d) was soil arginase.
![Figure 1. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on rhizosphere soil enzyme activities in a double-cropping rice field (a) was soil urease; (b) was soil protease; (c) was soil β-glucosaminidase; (d) was soil arginase.](/cms/asset/8aa98cb1-5b3b-4005-9586-e127d5f8e786/gags_a_2327412_f0001_b.gif)
Figure 2. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on rhizosphere soil relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria and Actinobacteria in the double-cropping rice fields (a) was Proteobacteria; (b) was Acidobacteria; (c) was Actinobacteria.
![Figure 2. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on rhizosphere soil relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria and Actinobacteria in the double-cropping rice fields (a) was Proteobacteria; (b) was Acidobacteria; (c) was Actinobacteria.](/cms/asset/79814e96-2bf9-4ba0-b45c-fd162e52e2b3/gags_a_2327412_f0002_b.gif)
Table 2. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on abundance of sub, npr, chiA and ureC in rhizosphere soil under the double-cropping rice system.
Figure 3. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on alpha diversity of rhizosphere soil bacterial community in the double-cropping rice fields (a) was Chao 1; (b) was observed OTUs; (c) was Shannon.
![Figure 3. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on alpha diversity of rhizosphere soil bacterial community in the double-cropping rice fields (a) was Chao 1; (b) was observed OTUs; (c) was Shannon.](/cms/asset/4517b237-60ed-439f-add8-ff0551c1d504/gags_a_2327412_f0003_b.gif)
Figure 4. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.1) of the weighted UniFrac distance for rhizosphere soil bacterial community with different long-term fertilizer treatments.
![Figure 4. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.1) of the weighted UniFrac distance for rhizosphere soil bacterial community with different long-term fertilizer treatments.](/cms/asset/56f648da-2227-47a9-bafe-3e6265d2bc5f/gags_a_2327412_f0004_b.gif)
Figure 5. Log2-fold change in relative abundance of OTUs compared with those of the control treatment in rhizosphere soil.
![Figure 5. Log2-fold change in relative abundance of OTUs compared with those of the control treatment in rhizosphere soil.](/cms/asset/b2556a11-af64-4ccd-89f3-f94e3d8eeed7/gags_a_2327412_f0005_oc.jpg)
Figure 6. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on relative abundance of rhizosphere soil bacterial community in the double-cropping rice fields (a) relative abundances of the dominant phyla (>1%) for bacterial ureC. (b) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.09) of the weighted UniFrac distance for bacterial ureC under four fertilizer treatments. (c) Relative abundances of the dominant phyla (>1%) for bacterial chiA. (d) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.05) of the weighted UniFrac distance for bacterial chiA under four fertilizer treatments.
![Figure 6. Effects of different long-term fertilizer treatments on relative abundance of rhizosphere soil bacterial community in the double-cropping rice fields (a) relative abundances of the dominant phyla (>1%) for bacterial ureC. (b) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.09) of the weighted UniFrac distance for bacterial ureC under four fertilizer treatments. (c) Relative abundances of the dominant phyla (>1%) for bacterial chiA. (d) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination (stress = 0.05) of the weighted UniFrac distance for bacterial chiA under four fertilizer treatments.](/cms/asset/e0e5a8dc-b46f-40e2-b088-8e4d7d08edf5/gags_a_2327412_f0006_oc.jpg)