<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3-mathml3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="EN">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Front. Microbiol.</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Frontiers in Microbiology</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">Front. Microbiol.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1664-302X</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Frontiers Media S.A.</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2026.1740768</article-id>
<article-version article-version-type="Version of Record" vocab="NISO-RP-8-2008"/>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Original Research</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Effects of different rotation crops on soil physicochemical properties and microbial community structure in continuous cotton fields</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Duan</surname>
<given-names>Yushui</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
<uri xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/3268678"/>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Project administration" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing &#x2013; original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing &#x2013; original draft</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="methodology" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/methodology/">Methodology</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="investigation" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigation</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Data curation" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Data curation</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="software" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Zhang</surname>
<given-names>Hao</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
<uri xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2885166"/>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Project administration" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="supervision" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Formal analysis" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Formal analysis</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="software" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/software/">Software</role>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>He</surname>
<given-names>Chen</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing</role>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Gao</surname>
<given-names>Gang</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Project administration" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing &#x2013; original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing &#x2013; original draft</role>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
<name>
<surname>Tang</surname>
<given-names>Qiuxiang</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c001"><sup>&#x002A;</sup></xref>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="validation" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Project administration" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Funding acquisition" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/funding-acquisition/">Funding acquisition</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="supervision" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="resources" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/resources/">Resources</role>
<role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="visualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/visualization/">Visualization</role>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="aff1"><institution>Engineering Research Center for Cotton, Ministry of Education, College of Agriculture, Xinjiang Agricultural University</institution>, <city>Urumqi</city>, <country country="cn">China</country></aff>
<author-notes>
<corresp id="c001"><label>&#x002A;</label>Correspondence: Qiuxiang Tang, <email xlink:href="mailto:790058828@qq.com">790058828@qq.com</email></corresp>
</author-notes>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2026-02-27">
<day>27</day>
<month>02</month>
<year>2026</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="collection">
<year>2026</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>17</volume>
<elocation-id>1740768</elocation-id>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>07</day>
<month>11</month>
<year>2025</year>
</date>
<date date-type="rev-recd">
<day>13</day>
<month>02</month>
<year>2026</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted">
<day>16</day>
<month>02</month>
<year>2026</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright &#x00A9; 2026 Duan, Zhang, He, Gao and Tang.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Duan, Zhang, He, Gao and Tang</copyright-holder>
<license>
<ali:license_ref start_date="2026-02-27">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref>
<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)</ext-link>. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract>
<p>Cotton monoculture is widespread in the oasis cotton-growing region of Xinjiang. Long-term continuous cropping has led to declines in soil fertility and imbalances in microbial communities, constraining sustainable, green production. Crop rotation is an effective agronomic practice to mitigate the deleterious effects of continuous cropping; however, the selection of rotation crops and the regulatory mechanisms by which rotation reshapes the soil micro-ecology require systematic clarification. Using continuous cotton (CK) cropping as the control, we combined high-throughput amplicon sequencing with soil physicochemical analyses to evaluate the effects of four previous-crop schemes&#x2014;cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut (CPC), cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean (CSC), cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed (CRC), and cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize (CMC)&#x2014;on soil properties and the microbial community structure. Relative to CK, the CPC, CSC, and CRC treatments led to significantly reductions in yield and gross output value ranging from 38.72 to 62.23% and 34.54 to 55.35%, respectively. Although the net profit under CPC treatment decreased by 36.27% relative to CK, the benefit&#x2013;cost ratio showed no significant difference. CPC significantly increased soil organic matter, available phosphorus, NH4<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, and NO3<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, while decreasing the pH and electrical conductivity, demonstrating the best overall improvement in soil fertility. In the fungal community, under CPC, Basidiomycota and Mortierellomycota significantly increased by 17.15 and 52.37%, respectively, whereas Basidiomycota significantly increased under CSC and CRC (by 17.15 and 20.58%). Functional guild analysis indicated that all four rotation schemes significantly reduced the relative abundance of plant pathogen fungi, with the greatest decrease under CPC (36.80%), with statistically significant differences. In the bacterial community, CPC significantly increased Actinobacteriota, Gemmatimonadota, and Firmicutes by 16.20, 15.75, and 29.73%, respectively, while CRC rose substantially Bacteroidota by 28.58%. Bacterial metabolism constituted the major predicted functional category (79.27&#x2013;79.68%), no significant differences between treatments. Redundancy analysis identified soil moisture and the N/P ratio as key drivers of the variation in the fungal community, while bacterial communities were regulated by N/P, pH, and organic matter. Overall, rotation alleviated continuous-cropping constraints by optimizing soil properties and the soil microbial structure. The results provide an empirical basis for improving soil microbiomes and designing sustainable planting strategies in oasis cotton systems.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>cotton</kwd>
<kwd>functional prediction</kwd>
<kwd>rotation crop</kwd>
<kwd>soil microbiome</kwd>
<kwd>soil physicochemical properties</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source id="sp1">
<institution-wrap>
<institution>Xinjiang Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System&#x2014;Cotton Industry Technology System</institution>
</institution-wrap>
</funding-source>
<award-id rid="sp1">XIARS-03</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source id="sp2">
<institution-wrap>
<institution>National Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System&#x2014;Cotton Industry Technology System</institution>
</institution-wrap>
</funding-source>
<award-id rid="sp2">CARS-15-13</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs3">
<funding-source id="sp3">
<institution-wrap>
<institution>Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Key &#x201C;Research and Development Special Project,&#x201D; &#x201C;Research on Key Technologies for Green-Agricultural Production in Xinjiang,&#x201D; &#x201C;Research on Improving the Quality of Cultivated Agricultural and Green Prevention and Control Technologies for Pests and Diseases&#x201D;</institution>
</institution-wrap>
</funding-source>
<award-id rid="sp3">2022B02033-1</award-id>
</award-group>
<funding-statement>The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Key &#x201C;Research and Development Special Project,&#x201D; &#x201C;Research on Key Technologies for Green-Agricultural Production in Xinjiang,&#x201D; &#x201C;Research on Improving the Quality of Cultivated Agricultural and Green Prevention and Control Technologies for Pests and Diseases&#x201D; (2022B02033-1); the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 32260542); the National Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System&#x2014;Cotton Industry Technology System (CARS-15-13); the Xinjiang Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System&#x2014;Cotton Industry Technology System (XIARS-03).</funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<counts>
<fig-count count="7"/>
<table-count count="3"/>
<equation-count count="4"/>
<ref-count count="63"/>
<page-count count="17"/>
<word-count count="12078"/>
</counts>
<custom-meta-group>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>section-at-acceptance</meta-name>
<meta-value>Microbe and Virus Interactions with Plants</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec sec-type="intro" id="sec1">
<label>1</label>
<title>Introduction</title>
<p>Cotton is the most important cash crop in Xinjiang. As of 2023, Xinjiang&#x2019;s cotton planting area reached 2,369.3 thousand hectares, accounting for 84.98% of China&#x2019;s total cotton acreage and producing 5.112 million tons&#x2014;90.99% of the national output (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref35">National Bureau of Statistics, 2023</xref>). As China&#x2019;s largest base for high-quality cotton, continuous monoculture is widespread in Xinjiang. However, prolonged continuous cotton (CK) cropping progressively degrades soil physicochemical properties, leading to nutrient imbalances, reduced microbial diversity, and an increased incidence of soil-borne pathogens, ultimately undermining yield formation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">Gu et al., 2012</xref>). Crop rotation can optimize soil physicochemical attributes by introducing species from different botanical families (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">Li et al., 2023</xref>). In addition, crop rotation can balance nutrient utilization to avoid excessive depletion of specific elements (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2016</xref>) and restructure the soil microbial community by enriching beneficial taxa, thereby jointly mitigating the adverse effects associated with continuous cropping.</p>
<p>As the most active component of soil ecosystems, the structure and diversity of the soil microbial community are key indicators of the soil quality and health status (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">Kumar et al., 2017</xref>). Different rotation regimes exert varying influences on the microbial community structure and diversity; an appropriately designed rotation can maintain community diversity while enhancing microbial activity and function. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref42">Sun et al. (2020)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref46">Wang et al. (2023)</xref> reported that a millet&#x2013;maize rotation significantly increased the abundances of Mortierella and Glomeromycota among soil fungi, thereby promoting nutrient decomposition and cycling. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref57">Zhang Z. et al. (2025)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref59">Zhang S. J. et al. (2025)</xref> found that a wheat&#x2013;maize rotation significantly increased the relative abundance of Ascomycota, a type of fungus that is predominantly saprotrophic and capable of decomposing plant cellulose and other recalcitrant organic substrates. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref54">Yao et al. (2019)</xref> demonstrated that a peanut&#x2013;watermelon&#x2013;sweet potato rotation increased the abundances of Paenibacillus-like bacteria, Trichoderma, and Brevundimonas, enriching beneficial/antagonistic groups and thus lowering the risk of soil-borne diseases in peanuts. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">Jin et al. (2022)</xref> demonstrated that in a continuous winter-wheat&#x2013;summer-maize annual rotation, introducing summer soybeans at different rotational intervals increased the relative abundance of potentially beneficial fungi. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref58">Zhang et al. (2024)</xref> reported that an alfalfa&#x2013;triticale rotation had limited effects on bacterial community diversity but reduced fungal community richness, and that the result was potentially linked to changes in the soil nitrogen and phosphorus contents.</p>
<p>In Xinjiang, the constraints associated with CK cropping&#x2014;such as soil nutrient imbalances, declines in soil microbial diversity, and reduced crop productivity&#x2014;have become increasingly pronounced, forming a major bottleneck to the sustainable development of the regional cotton industry. Although prior investigations have verified crop rotation as an effective means to improve soils degraded by continuous monoculture, the range of crops examined remains limited, and studies involving rotation of crop groups widely cultivated in Xinjiang, such as legumes (Fabaceae), crucifers (Brassicaceae), and grasses (Poaceae), are lacking. Meanwhile, the soil microbial community is taxonomically and functionally complex, and the mechanisms by which rotation with different crops alters the microbial community dynamics in cotton systems remain poorly understood. Therefore, elucidating the changes in soil physicochemical properties and the microbial community under rotation between cotton and crops from different botanical families will provide essential information for supporting sustainable cotton production in the oasis agroecosystems of Xinjiang.</p>
<p>This study was conducted on an oasis field in Xinjiang that had been continuously planted with cotton for 30&#x202F;years, aiming to address the following questions: (i) how the soil microbial community composition responds to different rotation schemes, and (ii) which soil parameters primarily drive changes in the microbial community composition under different rotation regimes.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="materials|methods" id="sec2">
<label>2</label>
<title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="sec3">
<label>2.1</label>
<title>Experimental site</title>
<p>This experiment was conducted in 2023 at the Laolonghe Farm experimental field of the Western Center, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, in Changji, Xinjiang (31&#x00B0;24&#x2032;97&#x2033;N, 121&#x00B0;29&#x2032;88&#x2033;E), at an elevation of 600&#x202F;m. The area has a typical continental arid climate, with an annual evaporation of 1,787&#x202F;mm, an annual sunshine duration of 2,833&#x202F;h, a mean annual air temperature of 6.6&#x202F;&#x00B0;C, a mean annual precipitation of 160&#x202F;mm, and a frost-free period of 160&#x202F;days. The soil is classified as grey desert soil. The background soil physicochemical properties were as follows: pH 7.98; bulk density 1.48&#x202F;g/cm<sup>3</sup>; soil organic matter (SOM) 12.61&#x202F;g/kg; total N 0.65&#x202F;g/kg; available P 22.04&#x202F;mg/kg, and available K 296.00&#x202F;mg/kg.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec4">
<label>2.2</label>
<title>Field experimental design</title>
<p>Cotton was continuously grown on the site from 1992 to 2022; rotation trials commenced in 2023. A single-factor randomized block design was used. CK served as the control, and four rotation schemes were established: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut (CPC), cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean (CSC), cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed (CRC), cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize (CMC). The tested cultivars were as follows: cotton &#x201C;Zhongmian 113;&#x201D; peanut &#x201C;Huayu 60;&#x201D; soybean &#x201C;Heinong 87;&#x201D; rapeseed &#x201C;Huayouza No. 62;&#x201D; and maize &#x201C;Xinyu 67.&#x201D; The experimental area was 77&#x202F;m in length and 34.65&#x202F;m in width; each plot measured 172.50&#x202F;m<sup>2</sup>. Three plastic mulch strips, each 2.05 meters wide, were laid within each plot. All plant and soil samples were collected from the middle strip to further minimize edge effects. Field management practices were consistent across treatments.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec5">
<label>2.3</label>
<title>Soil sampling</title>
<p>After the harvest of each crop in 2023, soil samples were collected from the 0&#x2013;20&#x202F;cm layer of each plot using a five-point plum-blossom pattern. The samples were passed through a 1&#x202F;mm sieve to remove plant and animal residue and homogenized. The fresh soil was kept refrigerated at a low temperature and promptly transported to the laboratory. One portion was stored at &#x2212;80&#x202F;&#x00B0;C for microbial analyses; one portion was stored at 4&#x202F;&#x00B0;C for determination of soil water content and physicochemical properties, including NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N; and one portion was air-dried for measurements of pH, electrical conductivity (EC), SOM, and available phosphorus (AP), among other physicochemical indices.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec6">
<label>2.4</label>
<title>Measured parameters and methods</title>
<sec id="sec7">
<label>2.4.1</label>
<title>Crop yield measurement</title>
<sec id="sec8">
<label>2.4.1.1</label>
<title>Cotton yield</title>
<p>After reaching the boll-opening stage, cotton within each plot was manually harvested and weighed to calculate seed cotton yield.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec9">
<label>2.4.1.2</label>
<title>Soybean yield</title>
<p>During the late maturity stage, soybeans from 2 rows within each plot were harvested, threshed, and weighed to estimate yield per hectare. Three sampling points were selected per plot, with 5 consecutive plants chosen at each point to measure pods per plant, seeds per plant, and 100-seed weight. These values were then used to calculate pod number and seed number per unit area.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec10">
<label>2.4.1.3</label>
<title>Peanut yield</title>
<p>At harvest, representative sample quadrats of 5.4&#x202F;m<sup>2</sup> were selected from each plot for yield determination.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec11">
<label>2.4.1.4</label>
<title>Rapeseed yield</title>
<p>In the rapeseed season, 6 representative rapeseed plants were randomly selected from each plot. Siliques per plant were counted, and 30 siliques were randomly chosen from each plant to determine seeds per silique. The average was used as the mean seeds per silique. Thousand-seed weight was measured by randomly selecting 6 sets of 1,000 fully air-dried seeds and weighing them using a seed counting board.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec12">
<label>2.4.1.5</label>
<title>Maize yield</title>
<p>At maturity, three sample sections were randomly selected per plot. Two rows of maize from each section were harvested for yield component analysis, including ear number per plot, yield, and grain 100-kernel weight. Theoretical yield was finally calculated based on a standard moisture content of 14%.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="sec13">
<label>2.4.2</label>
<title>Measurement of plant biomass, nitrogen and phosphorus uptake</title>
<sec id="sec14">
<label>2.4.2.1</label>
<title>Dry matter accumulation</title>
<p>Plant samples were placed in kraft paper bags, deactivated at 105&#x202F;&#x00B0;C for 30&#x202F;min, and then dried at 80&#x202F;&#x00B0;C to constant weight before weighing. Dry matter accumulation per plant and per population was calculated based on planting density.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec15">
<label>2.4.2.2</label>
<title>Nitrogen uptake (mg/plant)</title>
<p>Total plant nitrogen concentration was determined using the micro-Kjeldahl method after digestion with concentrated H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>&#x2013;H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>. Nitrogen uptake was calculated as nitrogen concentration multiplied by biomass.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec16">
<label>2.4.2.3</label>
<title>Phosphorus uptake (mg/plant)</title>
<p>Plants were washed and separated into aboveground and belowground parts, dried, weighed, and ground. Plant phosphorus concentration was determined using the molybdenum antimony anti-colorimetric method after H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>&#x2013;H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> digestion. Plant phosphorus uptake was obtained by multiplying plant phosphorus concentration by plant dry weight.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="sec17">
<label>2.4.3</label>
<title>Determination of soil physicochemical properties</title>
<p>The soil water content was determined by the oven-drying method. The soil pH was measured using a pH meter. SOM was quantified by potassium dichromate oxidation&#x2013;colorimetry. Alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen was measured by the alkali diffusion method, ammonium N (NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N) was determined by indophenol blue colorimetry, and nitrate N (NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N) was determined by UV spectrophotometry. The content of AP was determined by the molybdenum&#x2013;antimony anti-colorimetry method and measured by flame photometry. All methods followed the procedures in the reference soil agro-chemical analysis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">Bao, 2000</xref>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec18">
<label>2.4.4</label>
<title>Economic benefit calculation</title>
<disp-formula id="E1">
<mml:math id="M1">
<mml:mtext>Total input</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Material costs</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>+</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Labor costs</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>;</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="E2">
<mml:math id="M2">
<mml:mtable columnalign="left" displaystyle="true">
<mml:mtr>
<mml:mtd>
<mml:mtext>Total revenue</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Economic value of harvested</mml:mtext>
<mml:mspace width="0.25em"/>
</mml:mtd>
</mml:mtr>
<mml:mtr>
<mml:mtd>
<mml:mtext>products</mml:mtext>
<mml:mspace width="0.33em"/>
<mml:mi>per</mml:mi>
<mml:mspace width="0.33em"/>
<mml:mtext>hectare</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Yield</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>&#x00D7;</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Crop price</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>;</mml:mo>
</mml:mtd>
</mml:mtr>
</mml:mtable>
</mml:math>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="E3">
<mml:math id="M3">
<mml:mi>Net</mml:mi>
<mml:mspace width="0.25em"/>
<mml:mtext>profit</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Total revenue</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>&#x2013;</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Total input</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>;</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="E4">
<mml:math id="M4">
<mml:mtext>Benefit</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>&#x2013;</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>cost ratio</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Total revenue</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>&#x00F7;</mml:mo>
<mml:mtext>Total input</mml:mtext>
<mml:mo>.</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</disp-formula>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="sec19">
<label>2.5</label>
<title>DNA extraction and high-throughput sequencing</title>
<p>Soil microbial samples were preserved in BIOSHARP 5&#x202F;mL microbial cryovials. Total genomic DNA was extracted using the VAMNE Stool/Soil DNA Extraction Kit (Vazyme Biotech Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China; Cat. No. DM401-C3-P2). The V3&#x2013;V4 hypervariable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified with primers 338F (5&#x2032;-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCA-3&#x2032;) and 806R (5&#x2032;-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3&#x2032;), while the fungal ITS1 region was amplified with primers ITS1F (5&#x2032;-CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA-3&#x2032;) and ITS2 (5&#x2032;-GCTGCGTTCTTCATCGATGC-3&#x2032;). PCR amplicons were purified using Vazyme VAHTSTM DNA Clean Beads (Vazyme, Nanjing, China), quantified with the Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen, United States), and subsequently sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform (2&#x202F;&#x00D7;&#x202F;300&#x202F;bp paired-end) with three replicates per sample. Raw sequencing reads were subjected to quality filtering using Trimmomatic (version 0.33) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">Bolger et al., 2014</xref>) and primer removal using Cutadapt (version 1.8.3) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref32">Martin, 2011</xref>). To obtain both high-resolution sequence variants and enable comparison with traditional similarity-based methods, we employed two parallel bioinformatic pipelines: (1) a denoising-based approach using the DADA2 plugin within QIIME2 2020.6 to generate an amplicon sequence variant (ASV) table, and (2) a clustering-based approach using USEARCH (version 10) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">Edgar, 2013</xref>) to cluster sequences into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at a 97% similarity threshold, with chimera removal performed by UCHIME (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">Knight, 2011</xref>). All downstream analyses, including taxonomic annotation and diversity calculations, were performed based on the derived ASV and OTU tables. A total of 1,216,371 raw paired-end reads were obtained for the bacterial community across 15 samples, yielding 1,143,209 high-quality reads after processing. For the fungal community, 1,088,997 raw paired-end reads were obtained, resulting in 952,319 high-quality reads following the same preprocessing steps. Taxonomic annotation for bacterial OTUs was performed against the SILVA Release 132 database. Alpha-diversity indices (ACE, Chao1, Shannon, Simpson) were calculated using the core diversity analyses pipeline within QIIME2 2020.6.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec20">
<label>2.6</label>
<title>Statistical analysis</title>
<p>Preliminary data sorting was performed using Excel 2021. Statistical analysis and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted using DPS 2021 software (Version 9.01) to assess differences in soil physicochemical properties, yield, economic benefits, and microbial characteristics among different treatments. Results in tables are presented as mean&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;standard deviation, with the significance level set at <italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05. Subsequent data analysis and graphical visualization were performed using Origin 2021 software (Version 9.8.0.200) and R language. Within QIIME2, the ASV table was used to evaluate various alpha diversity indices, including the Chao1 index, ACE index, Shannon index, and Simpson index. Single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed, with Tukey&#x2019;s HSD and Duncan&#x2019;s tests used to compare treatment means. Prior to conducting the ANOVA, Levene&#x2019;s test was applied to assess the homogeneity of variances. R v3.1.1 (with the VennDiagram package v1.6.9) was used to analyze the number of shared and unique phyla of soil bacteria and fungi across all samples, visualized via Venn diagrams. Using the SILVA database as a reference, a naive Bayes classifier was employed for taxonomic annotation of feature sequences, obtaining species classification information for each feature. Community composition at each sample was then statistically analyzed across various levels (phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). QIIME software was used to generate species abundance tables at different taxonomic levels, which were then visualized using R language tools to create community structure plots at respective taxonomic levels, illustrating differences in bacterial and fungal community composition. The significance of these differences was tested using analysis of similarities (ANOSIM).</p>
<p>Distance-based redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed using R software to explore the relationships between soil physicochemical properties and soil bacterial and eukaryotic taxa. Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis was conducted to display differentially abundant features at the phylum, class, order, family, and genus levels, explaining differences among various soil sampling locations and intercropping treatments. LEfSe employed the non-parametric factorial Kruskal&#x2013;Wallis sum-rank test to identify features with significantly different abundances (phylum, class, order, family, genus, species), followed by linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to estimate the effect size of each differentially abundant feature. Features were considered significantly different if they met the criteria of <italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05 and an effect size threshold (on a log10 scale) of 3.5. All bioinformatics analyses were completed using the online tools available on the BMK Cloud platform.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="results" id="sec21">
<label>3</label>
<title>Results</title>
<sec id="sec22">
<label>3.1</label>
<title>The impact of different crop rotation patterns on crop yield and economic benefits</title>
<p>The yield and economic returns of different preceding crops varied according to the cultivation indices, as summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table 1</xref>. Compared with the CK treatment, the four rotation treatments significant increased plant nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by 30.09&#x2013;65.66% and 3.55&#x2013;45.50%, respectively. In contrast, the CPC, CSC, and CRC treatments resulted in reductions in dry matter accumulation, yield, gross output value, and net profit relative to CK, with significant decreases ranging from 33.47&#x2013;83.55%, 38.72&#x2013;62.23%, 34.54&#x2013;55.35%, and 36.27&#x2013;66.58%, respectively. Conversely, the CMC treatment significant increased dry matter accumulation and yield by 82.55 and 31.58%, respectively. Additionally, although the net profit under the CPC treatment was 36.27% lower than that under CK, no significant difference was observed in the benefit&#x2013;cost ratio.</p>
<table-wrap position="float" id="tab1">
<label>Table 1</label>
<caption>
<p>Yield and economic benefit of different crop rotations.</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left" valign="top">Planting pattern</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">DM (g/plant)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">PNU (mg/plant)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">PPU (mg/plant)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Yield (kg/hm<sup>&#x2212;2</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">GOV (CNY/hm<sup>&#x2212;2</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">NP (CNY/hm<sup>&#x2212;2</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">OIR</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CK</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">51.32 &#x00B1; 4.23b</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">1417.96 &#x00B1; 71.29d</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">294.08 &#x00B1; 10.02c</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6143 &#x00B1; 56.48b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">39930 &#x00B1; 113.46a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">19830 &#x00B1; 106.30a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char=".">1.98a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CPC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">38.45 &#x00B1; 3.74c</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">2218.57 &#x00B1; 27.63b</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">304.91 &#x00B1; 9.39bc</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">3764 &#x00B1; 31.12c</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">26138 &#x00B1; 518.31b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">12638 &#x00B1; 452.77b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char=".">1.95a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CSC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">37.42 &#x00B1; 4.08c</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">2028.40 &#x00B1; 16.85c</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">315.44 &#x00B1; 10.35b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">3374 &#x00B1; 23.90d</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">21859 &#x00B1; 450.01d</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">8359 &#x00B1; 224.95d</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char=".">1.62c</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CRC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">27.96 &#x00B1; 5.92d</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">1059.58 &#x00B1; 81.90e</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">275.84 &#x00B1; 12.01d</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">2320 &#x00B1; 57.85e</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">17828 &#x00B1; 426.89e</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6628 &#x00B1; 337.02e</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char=".">1.59c</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CMC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">294.06 &#x00B1; 17.31a</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">4128.94 &#x00B1; 59.66a</td>
<td align="char" valign="bottom" char="&#x00B1;">539.56 &#x00B1; 24.72a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">8979 &#x00B1; 40.32a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">24063 &#x00B1; 330.08c</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">9913 &#x00B1; 232.48a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char=".">1.70b</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<p>Table values are expressed as mean&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;standard deviation. Different lowercase letters following data in the same row indicate significant differences between treatments (<italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05). CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize. DM, dry matter accumulation amount; PNU, plant nitrogen uptake; PPU, plant phosphorus uptake; GOV, gross output value; NP, net profit; OIR, output&#x2013;input ratio.</p>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec23">
<label>3.2</label>
<title>The effects of different rotation schemes on soil physicochemical properties</title>
<p>Different rotation schemes exhibited variation in the effects on soil physicochemical properties (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">Table 2</xref>). Relative to the CK control, all four rotation modes increased SOM, AP, NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, while reducing the soil pH and EC. The CPC and CSC treatments produced significant increases compared to CK of 9.48&#x2013;10.56% for SOM, 14.15&#x2013;39.68% for AP, 5.33&#x2013;17.61% for NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, and 18.10&#x2013;28.89% for NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N. In contrast, EC and pH decreased by 2.23&#x2013;11.09% and 2.16&#x2013;5.54%, respectively, but the differences were not statistically significant. In addition, under CPC, there were significantly increased in AP and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N by 11.84&#x2013;28.09% and 4.31&#x2013;18.87%, respectively, compared to the other rotation treatments.</p>
<table-wrap position="float" id="tab2">
<label>Table 2</label>
<caption>
<p>Soil physicochemical properties of cotton fields under different crop rotations.</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left" valign="top">Cropping pattern</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Electrical conductivity (&#x03BC;S/cm)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Soil moisture content (%)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">pH</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Soil organic matter (g&#x202F;kg<sup>&#x2212;1</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Available phosphorus (mg&#x202F;kg<sup>&#x2212;1</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N (mg&#x202F;kg<sup>&#x2212;1</sup>)</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">NO&#x2083;<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N (mg&#x202F;kg<sup>&#x2212;1</sup>)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CK</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1271&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;93.20a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">12.56&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.87a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7.88&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.23a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">12.02&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.71c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">20.49&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.94c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4.69&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.7c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">73.38&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;3.92c</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CPC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1230&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;57.15ab</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.68&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.52a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7.68&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.15a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.16&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.33ab</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">28.62&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;2.61a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4.94&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.97a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">94.58&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;3.94a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CSC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1130&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;98.99c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.87&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.47a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7.71&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.13a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.41&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.25a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">24.54&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.83b</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">5.56&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.03a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">90.50&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;3.83a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CRC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1164&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;73.64bc</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.25&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.36a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7.76&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.18a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">12.78&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.31bc</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">25.23&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;2.32b</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">3.84&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.02c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">76.73&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;4.27bc</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">CMC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1208&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;76.98ab</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13.02&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.25a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7.78&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.21a</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">12.12&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;0.12c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">20.58&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.44c</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4.51&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;1.22b</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">84.14&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;4.52b</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<p>Table values are expressed as mean&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;standard deviation. Different lowercase letters following data in the same row indicate significant differences between treatments (<italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05). CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec24">
<label>3.3</label>
<title>The effects of different rotation modes on OTU clustering of soil microorganisms</title>
<p>A total of 2,579 effective fungal OTUs were identified using a 97% sequence similarity threshold; the distribution patterns are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>, fungi. The numbers of fungal OTUs under the CK, CSC, CPC, CRC, and CMC treatments were 471, 821, 344, 937, and 392, respectively, indicating that different rotation schemes influenced the richness of fungal taxa. The analysis of shared and unique OTUs showed that only 15 fungal OTUs were common to all treatments, accounting for 0.58% of the total fungal OTUs, suggesting the presence of a small core fungal consortium across treatments. Concurrently, each rotation mode harbored treatment-specific OTUs: the numbers of unique fungal OTUs under CK, CSC, CPC, CRC, and CMC were 339, 666, 247, 786, and 288, respectively, representing 13.14, 25.82, 9.58, 30.48, and 11.17% of the total fungal OTUs.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig1">
<label>Figure 1</label>
<caption>
<p>Venn diagram of fungal and bacterial OTU richness under different crop rotations. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g001.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Two Venn diagrams show the distribution of fungi and bacteria species among five groups labeled CK, CMC, CRC, CPC, and CSC, illustrating overlapping and unique species counts for each group and their intersections.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>At the same 97% similarity level, 20,710 effective bacterial OTUs were obtained (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>, bacteria). The numbers of bacterial OTUs under CK, CSC, CPC, CRC, and CMC were 5,051, 4,292, 4,278, 5,102, and 7,702, respectively, demonstrating that rotation treatments also affected bacterial richness. An analysis of shared/unique taxa showed that 412 bacterial OTUs were common to all treatments, accounting for 1.99% of the total bacterial OTUs, again indicating a small core consortium across treatments. Treatment-specific bacterial OTUs were also evident: CK, CSC, CPC, CRC, and CMC harbored 3,250, 2,436, 2,661, 3,343, and 6,013 unique bacterial OTUs, corresponding to 15.69, 11.76, 12.85, 16.14, and 29.03% of the total bacterial OTUs, respectively.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec25">
<label>3.4</label>
<title>Effects of different rotation schemes on microbial richness and diversity</title>
<p>In this study, four &#x03B1;-diversity indices&#x2014;ACE, Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson&#x2014;were calculated to evaluate the diversity characteristics of the soil microbial communities (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">Table 3</xref>). The results revealed significant differences in &#x03B1;-diversity among sample types. Compared to CK, all four crop rotation treatments significantly enhanced the &#x03B1;-diversity levels of both the soil bacterial and fungal communities (<italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05).</p>
<table-wrap position="float" id="tab3">
<label>Table 3</label>
<caption>
<p>Alpha diversity of soil fungi and bacteria under different crop rotations.</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Microbial communities</th>
<th align="left" valign="top">Cropping pattern</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">ACE index</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Chaol index</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Shannon index</th>
<th align="center" valign="top">Simpson index</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="5">Fungi</td>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CK</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">164.18 &#x00B1; 11.48b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">167.67 &#x00B1; 15.17b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">5.98 &#x00B1; 0.52a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9800 &#x00B1; 0.01a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CPC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">201.06 &#x00B1; 13.25a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">216.98 &#x00B1; 21.31a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6.02 &#x00B1; 0.64a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9600 &#x00B1; 0.01a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CSC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">199.76 &#x00B1; 5.48a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">215.50 &#x00B1; 15.40a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6.81 &#x00B1; 0.75a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9700 &#x00B1; 0.01a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CRC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">205.37 &#x00B1; 10.04a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">217.82 &#x00B1; 19.84a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6.68 &#x00B1; 0.72a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9600 &#x00B1; 0.01a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CMC</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">206.43 &#x00B1; 11.58a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">205.22 &#x00B1; 11.78a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">6.40 &#x00B1; 0.41a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9800 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="5">Bacteria</td>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CK</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1645.90 &#x00B1; 18.56c</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1644.25 &#x00B1; 19.07c</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">9.79 &#x00B1; 0.19ab</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9959 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CPC</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">2050.34 &#x00B1; 61.75a</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">2073.48 &#x00B1; 23.28a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">10.04 &#x00B1; 0.19a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9981 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CSC</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">2089.11 &#x00B1; 22.31a</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">2085.75 &#x00B1; 21.58a</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">9.83 &#x00B1; 0.04ab</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9979 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CRC</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1733.74 &#x00B1; 15.82b</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1744.68 &#x00B1; 8.82b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">9.61 &#x00B1; 0.08b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9983 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CMC</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1771.47 &#x00B1; 8.94b</td>
<td align="char" valign="top" char="&#x00B1;">1769.34 &#x00B1; 14.22b</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">9.81 &#x00B1; 0.03ab</td>
<td align="char" valign="middle" char="&#x00B1;">0.9931 &#x00B1; 0.00a</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<p>Table values are expressed as mean&#x202F;&#x00B1;&#x202F;standard deviation. Different lowercase letters following data in the same row indicate significant differences between treatments (<italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05). CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<p>In fungal communities, different crop rotation patterns significantly increased the ACE index and Chao1 index. The respective ACE, Chao1, and Shannon indices under the CPC, CSC, CRC, and CMC treatments were increased significantly by 17.81&#x2013;20.47%, 18.30&#x2013;23.02%, and 0.66&#x2013;12.19% relative to the CK treatment. Notably, there were no significant differences in fungal &#x03B1;-diversity indices among the four rotation treatments (CPC, CSC, CRC, and CMC).</p>
<p>For the bacterial communities, different crop rotation patterns significantly increased the ACE index Chao1 index and Shannon index, the ACE and Chao1 indices under the CPC, CSC, CRC, and CMC treatments were significantly higher than those of the CK, with the increases ranging from 5.07 to 21.22% for ACE and 5.76 to 21.17% for the Chao1 index. In contrast, neither the Simpson index for the bacterial communities showed significant differences among treatments, suggesting that crop rotation primarily influenced bacterial richness (as reflected by the ACE and Chao1 indices) rather than community evenness (partially indicated by the Shannon and Simpson indices). Furthermore, among the four rotation treatments, CPC and CSC resulted in significantly higher ACE and Chao1 indices compared to CRC and CMC, indicating that the crop combinations in the CPC and CSC treatments may be more effective in enhancing soil bacterial richness.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec26">
<label>3.5</label>
<title>The effects of rotation on the relative abundance of soil microorganisms</title>
<p>Different crop rotation schemes significantly altered the fungal community composition, with notable disparities observed among the various treatments (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>). Across all treatments, the phylum Ascomycota accounted for 58.29&#x2013;65.64% of the total fungal community, while Basidiomycota represented 10.92&#x2013;13.75%. Compared to the CK treatment, the CPC rotation resulted in significant reductions in the relative abundances of Ascomycota, unclassified_Fungi, Olpidiomycota, and Chytridiomycota, by 4.89, 72.65, 72.14, and 56.48%, respectively. In contrast, the relative abundances of Basidiomycota and Mortierellomycota were significantly increased by 17.15 and 52.37%. Additionally, under the CMC treatment, the relative abundances of Basidiomycota and Mortierellomycota increased significantly by 4.55 and 37.84%, respectively, compared to CK. Significant differences in fungal community composition were also detected among treatments. At the genus level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2B</xref>), <italic>Fusarium</italic> accounted for 6.75&#x2013;13.49%, <italic>Mortierella</italic> for 5.18&#x2013;18.59%, and <italic>Plectosphaerella</italic> for 3.68&#x2013;6.74% across treatments. Relative to CK, the CPC treatment significantly reduced the relative abundances of <italic>Fusarium</italic>, <italic>Plectosphaerella</italic>, and <italic>Alternaria</italic> by 27.62, 1.63, and 3.19%, respectively, while significantly increased the relative abundances of <italic>Mortierella</italic>, <italic>Cladosporium</italic>, <italic>Vishniacozyma</italic>, and <italic>Botryotrichum</italic> by 70.31, 31.16, 10.57, and 49.58%, respectively.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig2">
<label>Figure 2</label>
<caption>
<p>Changes in relative abundance of fungi at the phylum <bold>(A)</bold> and genus <bold>(B)</bold> levels, and bacteria at the phylum <bold>(C)</bold> and genus <bold>(D)</bold> levels under different crop rotations. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g002.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Four grouped bar charts labeled A, B, C, and D show the relative abundance percentages of various fungi and bacterial groups across five treatments (CK, CPC, CSC, CRC, CMC), with each colored section representing a different taxonomic category. Each chart includes a labeled legend identifying the categories represented.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>In contrast to the fungal community, the effects of crop rotation on the bacterial community structure were more pronounced (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C</xref>). Compared to CK, the CPC treatment significantly increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Gemmatimonadota, and Firmicutes by 7.84, 16.20, 15.75, and 29.73%, respectively, while reducing Acidobacteriota and Chloroflexi by 26.16 and 18.43%. In comparison, the CMC and CSC treatments decreased Proteobacteria by 10.06 and 4.08%, and Actinobacteriota by 24.07 and 2.80%, respectively. The CRC treatment increased Bacteroidota by 28.58% but reduced Gemmatimonadota by 12.14%. At the bacterial genus level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>), <italic>unclassified_Gemmatimonadaceae</italic> and <italic>unclassified_Vicinamibacterales</italic> accounted for 3.88&#x2013;5.60% and 3.45&#x2013;4.61% across treatments, respectively. Compared to CK, the CPC treatment significantly increased the relative abundances of <italic>unclassified_Gemmatimonadaceae</italic> and <italic>Sphingomonas</italic> by 19.72 and 13.45%, respectively, while decreasing <italic>unclassified_Bacteria</italic> and <italic>unclassified_Vicinamibacteraceae</italic> by 37.36 and 25.81%. The CRC and CSC treatments alsosignificant increased <italic>unclassified_Gemmatimonadaceae</italic> by 19.23 and 58.75%, and <italic>Sphingomonas</italic> by 18.41 and 9.51%, respectively, while significant reduced <italic>unclassified_Vicinamibacteraceae</italic> by 14.21 and 12.37%.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec27">
<label>3.6</label>
<title>RDA of soil properties and microbial communities under different rotations</title>
<p>Redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed to elucidate the relationships between soil fungal community diversity and environmental factors in cotton fields (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figures 3A</xref>,<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">B</xref>). The results indicated that the divergence in fungal community structure under different crop rotation treatments was significantly correlated with soil physicochemical properties.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig3">
<label>Figure 3</label>
<caption>
<p>RDA analysis of soil physicochemical properties and fungal phylum level <bold>(A)</bold>, genus level <bold>(B)</bold>, bacterial phylum level <bold>(C)</bold>, and genus level <bold>(D)</bold> communities under different previous crops. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g003.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Four panel figure displays RDA ordination plots with environmental variables and microbial taxa for five soil treatments: CK, CMC, CPC, CRC, and CSC. Each panel shows axes labeled RDA1 and RDA2 with percent variance explained, colored symbols representing treatments, arrows for variables such as pH, EC, SOM, AP, SMC, and nutrients, and microbial group names in blue.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>At the phylum level, the RDA ordination explained 25.52 and 12.37% of the total variation in fungal community composition along the first and second axes, respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>), suggesting that the selected soil properties effectively accounted for the structural differences in fungal communities. Monte Carlo permutation tests further identified EC, AP, pH, soil moisture content (SMC), and SOM as key environmental drivers of the variation in the fungal community structure (<italic>p</italic>&#x202F;&#x003C;&#x202F;0.05). Specifically, SOM, SMC, and AP exhibited significant positive correlations with Ascomycota. SOM and SMC showed significant positive correlations with Mortierellomycota, Rozellomycota, and Mucoromycota. EC demonstrated significant negative correlations with Mortierellomycota and Rozellomycota. NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N showed significant negative correlations with unclassified_Fungi and Chytridiomycota. NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N and NO&#x2083;<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N exhibited significant positive correlations with Mortierellomycota and Rozellomycota. At the genus level, the RDA axes explained 16.92 and 11.1% of the variation in fungal community composition, respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3B</xref>). Soil AP was significantly positively correlated with the relative abundances of <italic>Mortierella</italic> and <italic>Vishniacozyma</italic>, and NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N was positively correlated with <italic>Alternaria</italic> and <italic>Mouterella</italic>. In contrast, SMC was negatively correlated with <italic>Fusarium</italic> and <italic>Alternaria</italic>.</p>
<p>The ordination analysis also revealed distinct associations between soil bacterial community diversity and physicochemical factors at both the phylum and genus levels (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figures 3C</xref>,<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">D</xref>). At the phylum level, the RDA axes explained 13.21 and 12.95% of the bacterial community variation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3C</xref>), indicating that the bacterial community structure was influenced by the combined effects of multiple soil properties. Different factors exhibited varying influences on bacterial phyla: NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N showed a significant negative correlation with Actinobacteriota and Chloroflexi, while exhibiting a significant positive correlation with Acidobacteria. SOM demonstrated significant positive correlations with Proteobacteria, Gemmatimonadota, and Bacteroidota. pH was negatively correlated with Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, and Gemmatimonadota. EC showed significant negative correlations with Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidota, and Gemmatimonadota. SMC was positively correlated with Actinobacteriota and Acidobacteria, and displayed a significant positive correlation with Proteobacteria. At the genus level, the RDA axes accounted for 18.52 and 7.8% of the bacterial community variation, respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3D</xref>). AP was positively correlated with <italic>Sphingomonas</italic> and <italic>Subgroup_10</italic>, while SOM was positively correlated with <italic>unclassified_Bacteria</italic> and <italic>unclassified_Chloroflexi.</italic> Conversely, NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N and pH were negatively correlated with <italic>unclassified_Microscillaceae</italic>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec28">
<label>3.7</label>
<title>The significant impact of different crop rotations on the enrichment of soil microorganisms</title>
<p>The LEfSe analysis revealed distinct soil microbial taxa associated with different crop rotation treatments. A total of 14 differentially abundant taxa were identified in the fungal community (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4A</xref>). Specifically, <italic>s_unclassified Cladosporium</italic>, <italic>Cladosporium</italic> (genus), Cladosporiaceae (family), Cladosporiales (order), <italic>Vishniacozyma</italic>, f_Bulleribasidiaceae, and o_Tremellales were significantly enriched in the CK treatment. The order Cantharellales was enriched under the CMC treatment. In the CPC treatment, <italic>s_Botryotinia_ranunculi</italic>, <italic>Botryotinia</italic> (genus), and Sclerotiniaceae (family) were significantly enriched. Meanwhile, Saccharomycetaceae (family), <italic>s_unclassified_Ceratobasidiaceae</italic>, and <italic>g_unclassified_Ceratobasidiaceae</italic> were markedly enriched in the CRC treatment.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig4">
<label>Figure 4</label>
<caption>
<p>LEfSe analysis of microorganisms under different crop rotations: <bold>(A)</bold> branching diagram of LEfSe analysis for fungi; <bold>(B)</bold> CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g004.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Two circular cladograms display taxonomic relationships for two sample groups, with colored branches indicating significant taxa. Legends identify color codes: CK (red), CMC (green), CPC (blue), CRC (purple), and CSC (orange in the second cladogram). Each legend links these groups to specific taxonomic names represented in the diagrams. Both cladograms have detailed labels for each color-coded taxon, enabling comparison of microbiological or phylogenetic distributions among experimental groups.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>LEfSe analysis revealed that 28 different microbial taxa were identified in soil bacterial communities under different rotation treatments (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4B</xref>). The species <italic>s_unclassified_Haliangium</italic> was significantly enriched in the CK treatment. Under the CPC treatment, multiple beneficial bacterial taxa were enriched, including Bacillaceae (family), <italic>Bacillus</italic> (genus), <italic>s_unclassified_Bacillus</italic>, Micrococcaceae (family), Micrococcales (order), <italic>Pontibacter</italic>, <italic>s_classified_Micrococcaceae</italic>, Sphingobacteriaceae, Sphingobacteriales, Rhizobiales, and Rhizobiaceae. The CRC treatment led to significant enrichment of <italic>s_unclassified_Adhaeribacter</italic>, <italic>Adhaeribacter</italic> (genus), <italic>s_unclassified_Pontibacter</italic>, Hymenobacteraceae, <italic>Pontibacter,</italic> Micrococcales <italic>s_unclassified_Microscillaceae</italic>, Micrococcaceae, Cytophagales, Rhizobiales, and <italic>Lysobacter</italic>. In the CSC treatment, the significantly enriched taxa included <italic>s_unclassified_Subgroup_10</italic>, <italic>Haliangium</italic> (genus), Haliangiaceae (family), and Haliangiales (order).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec29">
<label>3.8</label>
<title>Predicted microbial functions under different rotations</title>
<p>FUNGuild was used to classify fungal trophic modes as pathotrophs (34.59&#x2013;54.73%), symbiotrophs (6.31&#x2013;10.19%), and saprotrophs (37.76&#x2013;59.10%). These were further subdivided into undefined saprotrophs, plant pathogens, coprophilous saprotrophs, plant saprotrophs, wood saprotrophs, animal pathogens, fungal parasites, endophytes, animal parasites, ectomycorrhizal fungi, and others (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>). Relative to CK, plant pathogens significantly declined by 40.40, 37.80, 36.25, and 36.36% under CPC, CSC, CRC, and CMC, respectively; endophytes significantly increased under CPC and CSC (6.26 and 6.04%; +66.45% and +65.23%), and coprophilous saprotrophs significantly increased under CPC, CSC, and CMC by 12.19%, 13.65%, and 39.55%. Undefined saprotrophs did not differ significantly among treatments. The relative abundance of plant pathogenic fungi significantly decreased under different crop rotation patterns, and the cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut treatment had a more pronounced effect on the predicted functional potential of soil fungi.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig5">
<label>Figure 5</label>
<caption>
<p>Predicted fungal functions under different crop rotations. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g005.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Stacked bar chart showing relative abundance percentages of fungal functional groups by category (CMC, CRC, CSC, CPC, CK), with each bar divided into colored segments representing categories such as undefined saprotroph, plant pathogen, dung saprotroph, plant saprotroph, wood saprotroph, animal pathogen, fungal parasite, endophyte, animal parasite, ectomycorrhizal, and other. The legend clarifies category colors, and bars show similar distribution patterns among groups.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>PICRUSt predictions based on the KEGG database showed Level 1 functions of soil bacteria were categorized into six major groups: metabolism, genetic information processing, environmental information processing, cellular processes, organismal systems, and human diseases. These were further subdivided into specific subfunctions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>). At Level-2, 45 subfunctions were detected; the main categories were global and overview maps (42.35&#x2013;42.61%), carbohydrate metabolism (8.86&#x2013;9.15%), amino acid metabolism (7.34&#x2013;7.60%), energy metabolism (4.35&#x2013;4.44%), membrane transport (3.21&#x2013;3.46%), metabolism of cofactors and vitamins (4.10&#x2013;4.20%), and nucleotide metabolism (3.12&#x2013;3.30%). Compared to CK, CPC significantly decreased global and overview maps (&#x2212;0.42%), energy metabolism (&#x2212;1.80%), and nucleotide metabolism (&#x2212;1.37%), while significantly increased amino acid metabolism (+1.05%), carbohydrate metabolism (+2.95%), and membrane transport (+5.31%). Under CMC, amino acid metabolism and global and overview maps were significantly declined (&#x2212;2.39% and &#x2212;0.61%), whereas carbohydrate metabolism and membrane transport were increased (+1.77% and +7.22%).</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig6">
<label>Figure 6</label>
<caption>
<p>Column chart of soil bacterial secondary functions under different crop rotations. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;peanut; CSC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;soybean; CRC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;rapeseed; CMC: cotton&#x202F;&#x2192;&#x202F;maize.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g006.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Stacked bar chart comparing the relative abundance percentages of multiple functional categories across five conditions labeled CK, CPC, CSC, CRC, and CMC, with each color representing a distinct biological function as detailed in the adjacent legend.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec id="sec30">
<label>3.9</label>
<title>Analysis of soil physicochemical properties, microbial communities, and crop yield in cotton fields under different rotation systems</title>
<p>The coupling relationships among DM, Yield, N uptake, P uptake, soil microbial communities, and physicochemical factors were systematically evaluated using Pearson correlation analysis (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figures 7A</xref>,<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">B</xref>). At the fungal level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7A</xref>), DM, Yield, N uptake, and P uptake showed correlation coefficients greater than 0.8 among themselves, indicating significant positive correlations and a high degree of synergy among dry matter accumulation, yield, and nitrogen and phosphorus uptake processes. At the dominant phylum level of the fungal community, DM, N uptake, and P uptake exhibited significant positive correlations with Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Mortierellomycota, and Rozellomycota. Yield showed significant positive correlations with Ascomycota, unclassified_Fungi, and Kickxellomycota. In contrast, DM, Yield, N uptake, and P uptake were significantly negatively correlated with Chytridiomycota and Olpidiomycota. Furthermore, DM, Yield, N uptake, and P uptake were significantly positively correlated with SOM, AP, NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, and NO&#x2083;<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, but negatively correlated with EC. Meanwhile, these four indices generally showed significant positive correlations with fungal diversity indices such as ACE, Chao1, and Shannon, but were mostly negatively correlated with the Simpson index.</p>
<fig position="float" id="fig7">
<label>Figure 7</label>
<caption>
<p>Correlation heatmap of soil physicochemical properties, microbial community, and crop yield in cotton fields under different crop rotations. CK: continuous cotton; CPC: cotton &#x2192; peanut; CSC: cotton &#x2192; soybean; CRC: cotton &#x2192; rapeseed; CMC: cotton &#x2192; corn. DM: dry matter accumulation; N uptake: plant nitrogen uptake; P uptake: plant phosphorus uptake; EC: electrical conductivity; SMC: soil moisture content; SOM: soil organic matter; AP: available phosphorus; ACE: ACE index; Chao1: Chao1 index; Shannon: Shannon index; Simpson: Simpson index; OTU: Operational taxonomic unit.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fmicb-17-1740768-g007.tif" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff">
<alt-text content-type="machine-generated">Figure containing two correlation heatmaps labeled A and B, showing relationships among microbial taxa, soil properties, and plant performance metrics; colored ellipses represent correlation coefficients from -1.0 (blue) to 1.0 (red), with significance indicated by asterisks.</alt-text>
</graphic>
</fig>
<p>At the bacterial level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7B</xref>), DM, Yield, N uptake, and P uptake demonstrated significant positive correlations with the relative abundances of several dominant bacterial phyla, such as Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidota, and Firmicutes, while showing significant negative correlations with Actinobacteriota and Chloroflexi. Notably, N uptake and P uptake were more responsive to changes in these bacterial taxa. Regarding physicochemical properties, the four indices generally showed significant positive correlations with indicators such as SOM, AP, NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, NO&#x2083;<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, EC, and SMC, but were significantly negatively correlated with pH Simultaneously, they exhibited significant positive correlations with bacterial community diversity indices like ACE, Chao1, and Shannon, while showing negative correlations with the Simpson index.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="discussion" id="sec31">
<label>4</label>
<title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="sec32">
<label>4.1</label>
<title>The effects of different rotation schemes on soil physicochemical properties</title>
<p>Continuous cropping is especially common in modern, intensive cotton production in Xinjiang; however, long-term monoculture produces a suite of soil ecological problems&#x2014;including nutrient imbalances, deterioration of the physical structure, and declines in water-use efficiency&#x2014;that severely constrain the sustainability of cotton agroecosystems (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref31">Lupwayi et al., 2024</xref>). In contrast, crop rotation can be tailored to plant-specific biological traits to purposefully adjust the soil physicochemical conditions and promote the balanced utilization of soil nutrients and water; thus, rotation constitutes an effective agronomic measure to alleviate the drawbacks associated with continuous cropping. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">Han S. et al. (2024)</xref> demonstrated in continuously cropped cotton fields of northern Xinjiang that rotation with wheat, soybean, maize, and processing tomato significantly improved the soil physicochemical properties, providing practical guidance for optimizing rotation systems in cotton fields.</p>
<p>The present study confirms that the ameliorative effects of different rotation schemes on the physicochemical properties of cotton-field soil vary significantly depending on the crop choice. Notably, rotation with peanut and soybean (both legumes) produced the most pronounced improvements: relative to long-term CK, the peanut rotation significantly increased the contents of AP, NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, and SOM by 28.41%, 23.20%, and 8.66%, respectively; the soybean rotation significantly reduced EC and pH by 11.45 and 2.16%, respectively, while significantly increasing NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, and AP by 27.66%, 12.79%, and 16.50%, respectively. The results concur with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref56">Zhang et al. (2019)</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref61">Zheng et al. (2021)</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref57">Zhang Z. et al. (2025)</xref>, and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref59">Zhang S. J. et al. (2025)</xref>. Collectively, the results reinforce the recognized advantages of legumes within rotation systems: through symbiosis with rhizobia, legumes can meet approximately 40&#x2013;60% of their nitrogen demand via biological nitrogen fixation, thereby substantially reducing the reliance on native soil N; moreover, decomposition of legume residues returns nitrogen to the soil, markedly elevating soil N levels.</p>
<p>It is noteworthy that the rotation effects were crop-specific. Under CRC rotation, the soil nitrogen content did not differ significantly from CK, consistent with the study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref44">Tang et al. (2020)</xref>; the core reason is that rapeseed is a typically high-N-demand crop whose growth cycle entails substantial nitrogen consumption, making net N accumulation in soil difficult to achieve (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">Ren and Lu, 2016</xref>). Under CMC rotation, the soil moisture content did not differ significantly from CK, in line with the study by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">Chai et al. (2022)</xref>. This is possibly because maize and cotton are both high-water-use crops with similar temporal patterns of soil water demand, which limits the capacity of rotation to enhance the coordination and retention of soil moisture.</p>
<p>In sum, the extent to which rotation improves soil physicochemical properties in cotton fields depends on the choice of the rotation crop. Legumes (peanuts, soybeans) possess clear advantages for enhancing soil fertility (N, P, and SOM) and optimizing the chemical milieu (reductions in EC and pH), whereas rapeseed and maize have more limited effects on specific physicochemical indicators (i.e., N and water).</p>
<p>Rational cropping practices that leverage the advantages of rotation systems facilitate more efficient utilization of soil nutrient resources by crops. Studies have shown that after continuous cultivation of wheat and rapeseed for over three years, introducing legume crops into short-term rotations can enhance soil N and P availability and promote nitrogen recovery efficiency (NRE) and phosphorus recovery efficiency (PRE) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref41">Song et al., 2021</xref>). Research by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">Han F. et al. (2024)</xref> indicated that maize/peanut rotation significantly improved the land equivalent ratio of subsequent intercropping and monoculture systems, leading to substantially higher economic benefits compared to continuous cropping. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref45">Tewolde et al. (2021)</xref> demonstrated that a cotton&#x2013;maize&#x2013;soybean rotation system increased both crop yield and the magnitude of soil mineral nutrient removal at harvest. Similarly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref62">Zhou et al. (2021)</xref> reported that rotating soybean and maize with cotton enhanced crop yield, improved soil health, and provided additional ecosystem services and profitability.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec33">
<label>4.2</label>
<title>Effects of different rotation schemes on the soil microbial community</title>
<p>As the most active functional component of soil ecosystems, the structure and diversity of the soil microbial community constitute core biological indicators for evaluating soil quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref52">Yan et al., 2024</xref>). By altering the physicochemical properties of the tilled layer and introducing crop-specific microbial consortia, rotation can markedly regulate the fungal abundance, diversity, and community composition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Hartman et al., 2020</xref>), thereby influencing the soil ecological functions. In the present study, compared to CK, the four types of crop rotation treatments can significantly increase the ACE index, Chao1 index, and Shannon index of fungi in the 0&#x2013;20&#x202F;cm topsoil layer. This aligns with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref53">Yang et al. (2022)</xref> in similar cotton-rotation systems and confirms the generality of rotation-induced enhancements in fungal richness and diversity. Mechanistically, rotation can optimize the soil C/N ratio and promote the decomposition and transformation of SOM, thereby providing more abundant carbon and nitrogen sources for fungal growth and indirectly enhancing fungal diversity and richness (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref40">Song et al., 2022</xref>). This process reflects a coordinated response between the soil physicochemical milieu and the microbial community.</p>
<p>At the phylum level, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota were the dominant fungal phyla across all treatments, with relative abundances of 58.29&#x2013;65.64% and 10.92&#x2013;13.75%, respectively. These results are consistent with previous studies in cotton and other agricultural ecosystems (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">Liu et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">Liu et al., 2018</xref>). As typical saprotrophic fungi, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota possess the ability to degrade lignin and decompose organic matter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref60">Zhang et al., 2013</xref>), making these fungi key drivers of soil carbon cycling and nutrient transformation. The relative abundance of Mortierellomycota under CPC and CSC treatments significantly increased by 52.37 and 43.44% compared to CK, respectively. Fungi in the Mortierellomycota promote plant growth by facilitating the release of soil nitrogen and phosphorus and increasing soil organic carbon content (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref37">Ning et al., 2022</xref>).</p>
<p>Notably, the soil fungal diversity indices under the CPC and CSC treatments (legume rotation) were significantly higher than those under other schemes. This is likely related to the biological characteristics of leguminous crops: their symbiotic nitrogen fixation with rhizobia improves the soil nitrogen status, while their root exudates provide diverse ecological niches for fungi, thereby enhancing fungal community diversity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">Liu H. et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">Liu J. X. et al., 2019</xref>).</p>
<p>At the genus level, compared to continuous cropping, the relative abundance of <italic>Mortierella</italic> was significantly increased by 70.25%, 14.26%, and 34.79% under the CPC, CSC, and CMC treatments, this can enhance soil fertility and strengthen plant uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus by degrading cellulose and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic fungi (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref51">Xiong et al., 2017</xref>). Concurrently, all rotation treatments reduced the relative abundance of <italic>Fusarium</italic>. This result directly demonstrates the important role of crop rotation in controlling soil-borne diseases and ensuring sustainable crop production (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">Hong et al., 2025</xref>).</p>
<p>RDA further revealed the driving effects of soil physicochemical factors on the fungal community structure, with SOM, SMC, and AP showed significant positive correlations with Ascomycota, while SOM and SMC were significantly positively correlated with Mortierellomycota, Rozellomycota, and Mucoromycota. In contrast, EC exhibited significant negative correlations with Mortierellomycota and Rozellomycota. NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N was significantly positively correlated with <italic>Mortierella</italic> and <italic>Alternaria</italic>. These findings were consistent with those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref63">Zhu et al. (2023)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">Hao et al. (2024)</xref> indicated that the soil water content is also a key factor affecting fungal diversity, suggesting that changes in fungal community structure result from the interactive effects of multiple environmental factors rather than a single factor.</p>
<p>In summary, this study has confirmed that different rotation patterns can significantly regulate the fungal community structure, enhance fungal richness and diversity, and specifically alter the relative abundance of key fungal taxa (e.g., <italic>Mortierella</italic>, <italic>Fusarium</italic>) by modifying the soil physicochemical environment in cotton fields, thereby optimizing soil ecological function.</p>
<p>Compared to the fungal communities, soil bacterial communities are more sensitive to environmental change (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref43">Tang et al., 2023</xref>), and dynamic shifts in their structure and diversity can rapidly reflect changes in the quality of soil ecosystems. The alpha diversity analysis revealed that compared to CK cropping, the effects of different rotation treatments on soil bacterial community richness and diversity varied significantly. The four rotation treatments significantly increased the ACE index by 5.07&#x2013;21.22% and the Chao1 index by 5.76&#x2013;21.17%. These results were consistent with those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref48">Wang et al. (2022)</xref>, further confirming that the choice of rotation crop species is a key factor regulating bacterial community characteristics.</p>
<p>The regulatory effects of different rotation treatments on the dominant phyla showed distinct specificity and were closely linked to changes in soil nutrients. The CPC rotation increased the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, and Gemmatimonadota by 7.84%, 16.20%, and 15.75%, respectively, while significantly decreasing the relative abundance of Chloroflexi by 18.43%. The results are similar to those reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref33">Nan et al. (2021)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref55">Yin et al. (2020)</xref>. The core mechanism lies in the ability of leguminous crops to significantly increase SOM, AP, and inorganic nitrogen. Proteobacteria and Actinobacteriota are typical &#x201C;high-fertility-preferring&#x201D; bacterial groups (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">Jiang et al., 2021</xref>), and their increased abundance exhibits a synergistic response to improvements in soil nutrient levels. Chloroflexi are typical oligotrophic bacteria whose growth and reproduction are sensitive to soil nutrient concentrations.</p>
<p>At the bacterial genus level, the CPC rotation increased the relative abundances of <italic>unclassified_Gemmatimonadaceae</italic> and <italic>Sphingomonas</italic> by 19.72 and 13.45%, respectively, consistent with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref47">Wang et al. (2020)</xref>. <italic>Sphingomonas</italic> can exert probiotic functions by secreting plant growth-promoting substances and inhibiting pathogenic microorganisms, while <italic>unclassified_Gemmatimonadaceae</italic> participates in the degradation and transformation of SOM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">Daniel et al., 2009</xref>). The increased abundances of these genera can synergistically affect soil ecological functions and create a favorable environment for crop growth.</p>
<p>The redundancy analysis identified the driving mechanisms of soil physicochemical factors on the bacterial community structure, with the regulatory effects of each factor showing clear group specificity: soil SOM showed significant positive correlations with Proteobacteria, Gemmatimonadota, and Bacteroidota, while pH exhibited significant negative correlations with Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, and Gemmatimonadota indicating that a moderate decrease in soil pH is more conducive to the growth and reproduction of bacteria in these two phyla. This result aligns with the study by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref39">Shen et al. (2015)</xref>, and the underlying mechanism is that pH indirectly regulates bacterial metabolic activity by altering the forms of nutrients and enzyme activities in the soil micro-environment. SOM was significantly positively correlated with Proteobacteria and <italic>unclassified_Bacteria</italic>, consistent with previous research (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">Li et al., 2016</xref>). Mechanistically, Proteobacteria possess a strong capacity for decomposing and utilizing organic matter, and the positive correlation between their abundance and SOM content essentially reflects the fact that SOM provides sufficient carbon and energy sources for this bacterial group (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">Fierer et al., 2007</xref>).</p>
<p>In summary, crop rotation improves soil ecological functions and crop yield by regulating the physicochemical environment of cotton fields, enhancing fungal and bacterial community richness and diversity, specifically optimizing functional microbial groups (e.g., Mortierella and Actinobacteria), and inhibiting pathogenic microorganisms. However, this study did not clarify interspecific interactions among microbial taxa, and the dynamic legacy effects of rotation soils require further investigation. Future research integrating high-throughput sequencing and molecular interaction experiments will provide more comprehensive support for the precise optimization of rotation systems.</p>
<p>This study represents a short-term rotational cropping experiment spanning only one year. Soil samples were collected exclusively from the 0&#x2013;20&#x202F;cm plow layer, failing to elucidate microbial interactions in deeper soil horizons or fully reveal the mechanisms by which crop rotation influences the critical root zone of cotton. Furthermore, functional predictions have not yet been validated using enzyme activity or metabolomics data; such validation will be conducted in subsequent experiments. Future studies will collect samples from the 0&#x2013;40&#x202F;cm profile and deeper layers. Integrating high-throughput sequencing with molecular interaction experiments will provide more comprehensive support for the precise optimization of crop rotation systems.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec34">
<label>4.3</label>
<title>The effects of different rotation species on microbial ecological functions</title>
<p>The ecological functions of soil fungi are directly linked to crop growth, development, and health status. The composition and dynamic changes of fungal functional groups serve as key indicators for assessing the service capacity of soil ecosystems. In this study, the FUNGuild tool was utilized to predict micro-ecological functions, categorizing and predicting the ecological roles of soil fungi in cotton fields under various crop rotation treatments based on their resource utilization strategies and nutrient acquisition modes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref36">Nguyen et al., 2016</xref>). This approach clarified the regulatory effect of rotation patterns on the structure of fungal functional groups, providing functional-level insights into the mechanisms by which crop rotation alleviates the problems associated with continuous cropping. Regarding pathotrophic fungi, their relative abundance in the CK cropping treatment was as high as 54.73%, while all rotation treatments significantly reduced their relative abundance by 30.61&#x2013;36.80%, consistent with findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref49">Wang et al. (2010)</xref> in soils under continuous cropping systems. As a potential reservoir of plant pathogens, an excessively high abundance of pathotrophic fungi increases the risk of soil-borne diseases and negatively affects plant growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Anthony et al., 2017</xref>). The results of this study demonstrated a significant increase in the relative abundance of <italic>Fusarium</italic> under continuous cropping. This genus comprises multiple pathogenic fungi that can secrete toxins (e.g., fumonisins and fusaric acid), which disrupt root cell structures, inhibit enzyme activity, and consequently impede plant growth and development (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">Chen et al., 2024</xref>). The suppressive effect of crop rotation on pathotrophic fungi essentially operates by altering the soil micro-environment and fungal ecological niches, thereby reducing the competitive advantage and colonization capacity of pathogens and mitigating their potential harm. This represents one of the key functional mechanisms through which crop rotation alleviates the negative effects of continuous cropping.</p>
<p>All rotation treatments significantly increased the relative abundances of saprotrophic fungi compared to the control treatment. The underlying mechanisms can be interpreted from two perspectives. On the one hand, saprotrophic fungi possess the ability to decompose complex organic matter, converting insoluble organic substrates into small-molecule nutrients accessible to plants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref34">Nan et al., 2023</xref>). The differential input of crop residues during rotation provides diverse carbon and energy sources for saprotrophic fungi, accelerating the decomposition and transformation of SOM and thereby driving the enrichment of this fungal group. On the other hand, rotation modifies soil physicochemical properties, optimizing the micro-environment for saprotrophic fungal growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">Liu et al., 2014</xref>). The increased abundance of saprotrophic fungi not only enhances the soil&#x2019;s nutrient supply capacity but also improves its structure through the decomposition of organic matter.</p>
<p>Symbiotic fungi play essential ecological roles in promoting nutrient uptake, enhancing stress resistance, and improving crop quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">Igiehon and Babalola, 2017</xref>). The results of this study showed that, compared to CK, CPC, CSC, and CRC rotation significantly increased the relative abundance of symbiotic fungi by 11.96%, 23.99%, and 26.30%, respectively. In contrast, CMC rotation did not exhibit a significant effect. This suggests that the enrichment of symbiotic fungi is strongly dependent on the specific crop species used in the rotation.</p>
<p>In summary, different rotation treatments optimize soil ecological functions by suppressing pathotrophic fungi, enriching saprotrophic fungi involved in the decomposition of organic matter, and promoting symbiotic fungi that enhance plant growth. This process constitutes a core mechanism through which crop rotation alleviates the negative effects of continuous cropping and improves soil quality.</p>
<p>Changes in the soil bacterial community structure are often accompanied by dynamic adjustments to their ecological functions, with differences in functional gene abundance serving as the molecular basis for these functional shifts. In this study, PICRUSt functional prediction analysis was employed to compare high-throughput sequencing data of bacterial communities with the KEGG database, systematically elucidating the regulatory effects of different rotation treatments on functional gene profiles and ecological functions of soil bacteria in cotton fields. This provides molecular-level evidence for understanding the mechanisms by which crop rotation improves soil ecosystem services.</p>
<p>At the level of primary functional classification, metabolism was the absolutely dominant function across all treatments, with a relative abundance of 79.28&#x2013;79.69%. This result aligns with previous studies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">Ding et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref50">Xia et al., 2020</xref>), confirming that metabolism is the core process through which soil bacteria participate in material cycling and energy transformation. The result indicates that bacteria convert organic and inorganic substances in the soil into forms utilizable by both themselves and crop plants, thereby linking soil fertility levels to crop growth requirements.</p>
<p>The regulatory effects of different rotation treatments on key metabolic functions of bacteria varied significantly and were closely related to the crop species used in the rotation. The CPC rotation treatment exhibited the most pronounced functional enhancement, increasing the abundance of metabolic functional genes by 0.20% compared to CK. Notably, the abundances of functional genes related to amino acid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, and membrane transport increased by 1.05%, 2.95%, and 5.31%, respectively. CSC and CRC rotations primarily enhanced the abundance of amino acid metabolism-related functional genes, with respective increases of 1.05 and 0.53%. The enhancement of these key metabolic functional gene abundances essentially reflects the directional succession of bacterial community functions driven by changes in the soil micro-environment induced by crop rotation. On the one hand, root exudates and residue decomposition products from different rotation crops provide diverse substrate resources for bacteria, stimulating the expression and enrichment of functional genes associated with substrate degradation and absorption (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">Chen et al., 2025</xref>). On the other hand, the improved soil nutrient status resulting from rotation further optimizes the bacterial growth environment, enhancing their metabolic activity and thereby promoting the abundance of functional genes directly involved in nutrient transformation, such as those involved in amino acid metabolism (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">He et al., 2013</xref>).</p>
<p>In this study, the relative abundances of bacterial functional categories related to metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and carbohydrate metabolism were significantly higher under different rotation treatments than in the control treatment, a pattern consistent with the aforementioned mechanism.</p>
<p>In conclusion, different crop rotation treatments can directionally enhance key metabolic functions related to nutrient transformation and material cycling (e.g., amino acid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism) by regulating the functional gene profiles of soil bacteria in cotton fields, with the CPC rotation showing the most significant functional optimization effect. These results not only reveal the bacterial functional mechanisms through which crop rotation improves soil fertility and promotes crop growth but also provide functional-level evidence for the precise selection of crops in cotton rotation systems. Both FUNGuild and PICRUSt2 are prediction tools that require subsequent validation through measurements of microbial carbon and nitrogen content and enzyme activity (such as urease and phosphatase).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="conclusions" id="sec35">
<label>5</label>
<title>Conclusion</title>
<p>Compared to CK, all rotation regimes significantly increased soil water content, SOM, AP, and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N by 3.75&#x2013;8.19%, 0.82&#x2013;10.37%, 0.44&#x2013;28.41%, and 4.37&#x2013;22.41%, respectively; notably, the CPC rotation markedly enhanced soil C- and N-related nutrients by 28.41 and 22.41%, respectively. Fungal and bacterial &#x03B1;-diversity indices were significantly higher under all rotations than under continuous cropping. Relative to the control, Glomeromycota increased by 3.5% under the CPC rotation, and Mucoromycota increased by 6.07 and 4.24% under CPC and CSC systems, respectively. On the bacterial side, Proteobacteria and Actinobacteriota increased by 2.02 and 2.13% under the CPC rotation, indicating notable shifts in the dominant functional microbial groups of cotton soils. RDA identified soil pH, SMC, AP, and SOM as the key environmental drivers structuring the microbial communities. Fungal functional prediction identified pathotrophs as the most abundant group under continuous cropping, whereas rotation significantly enriched saprotrophs. Bacterial functional prediction identified metabolism as the dominant function across treatments; under the CPC rotation, the relative abundances of genes related to overall metabolism, amino acid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, and membrane transport were comparatively higher. Correlation heatmap analysis revealed that DM, Yield, N uptake, and P uptake were positively correlated with Ascomycota but negatively correlated with Chytridiomycota and Olpidiomycota. They also showed positive correlations with several dominant bacterial phyla, including Proteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidota, and Firmicutes, as well as generally exhibited positive correlations with physicochemical indicators such as SOM, AP, NH&#x2084;<sup>+</sup>&#x2013;N, NO&#x2083;<sup>&#x2212;</sup>&#x2013;N, EC, and SMC. These results suggest that shifts in microbial communities under different crop rotation systems can influence soil nutrient supply capacity, thereby exerting potential effects on crop nutrient uptake and yield formation.</p>
<p>Taken together, the results indicate that rotation optimizes cotton soil ecosystems by improving soil physicochemical properties and reshaping the microbial community structure and function, with the CPC scheme exhibiting the greatest overall benefits. This work provides quantitative evidence with which to guide the selection of cotton rotation strategies and offers a theoretical basis for enhancing soil productivity and alleviating the problems associated with continuous cropping through microbial community regulation, thereby supporting sustainable agricultural development in cotton-growing regions. A long-term positioning experiment is currently underway, integrating soil enzyme activity measurements, microbial biomass analysis, and metabolomics to validate functional prediction results and decipher multidimensional driving factors. Simultaneously, we fully recognize that the long-term sustainability effects of crop rotation and its impacts on deeper soil layers require further investigation.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<sec sec-type="data-availability" id="sec36">
<title>Data availability statement</title>
<p>The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="author-contributions" id="sec37">
<title>Author contributions</title>
<p>YD: Project administration, Writing &#x2013; original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Software. HZ: Project administration, Supervision, Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing, Formal analysis, Software. CH: Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing. GG: Project administration, Writing &#x2013; original draft. QT: Validation, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing, Resources, Visualization.</p>
</sec>
<ack>
<title>Acknowledgments</title>
<p>The authors thank the staff of the Laolonghe Farm Experimental Station (CAAS Western Center) for field support and sample logistics. The authors thank LetPub (<ext-link xlink:href="http://www.letpub.com.cn" ext-link-type="uri">www.letpub.com.cn</ext-link>) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.</p>
</ack>
<sec sec-type="COI-statement" id="sec38">
<title>Conflict of interest</title>
<p>The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="ai-statement" id="sec39">
<title>Generative AI statement</title>
<p>The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.</p>
<p>Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="disclaimer" id="sec40">
<title>Publisher&#x2019;s note</title>
<p>All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.</p>
</sec>
<ref-list>
<title>References</title>
<ref id="ref1"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Anthony</surname><given-names>M. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Frey</surname><given-names>S. D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Stinson</surname><given-names>K. A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Fungal community homogenization, shift in dominant trophic guild, and appearance of novel taxa with biotic invasion</article-title>. <source>Ecosphere</source> <volume>8</volume>:<fpage>e01951</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/ecs2.1951</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref2"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bao</surname><given-names>S. D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>). <source>Soil agro-chemical analysis</source>. <edition>3rd</edition> Edn. <publisher-loc>Beijing</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>China Agriculture Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bolger</surname><given-names>A. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Marc</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bjoern</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data</article-title>. <source>Bioinformatics</source> <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>2114</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>2120</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24695404</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chai</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cui</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Effects of cotton-maize rotation on soil characteristics and water use efficiency in maize field under conservation tillage</article-title>. <source>Water Saving Irrig.</source> <volume>11</volume>, <fpage>34</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>41</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12396/jsgg.2022059</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Z. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>B. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cai</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>X. H.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Analysis of the potential of <italic>Polygonatum sibiricum</italic> rotation to improve soil microbial community and alleviate continuous cropping obstacle of <italic>Panax notoginseng</italic></article-title>. <source>Acta Phytopathol. Sin.</source> <volume>54</volume>, <fpage>787</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>798</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13926/j.cnki.apps..000883</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>X. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hu</surname><given-names>Y. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>L&#x00FC;</surname><given-names>J. T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>You</surname><given-names>L. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Z. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Dai</surname><given-names>W. C.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2025</year>). <article-title>Effects of biochar application on bacterial community structure and symbiotic network analysis in acidic purple soil</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>46</volume>, <fpage>8071</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>8081</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.202412036</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Daniel</surname><given-names>L. M. C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pozzi</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Foresti</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chinalia</surname><given-names>F. A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>Removal of ammonium via simultaneous nitrification-denitrification nitrite-shortcut in a single packed-bed batch reactor</article-title>. <source>Bioresour. Technol.</source> <volume>100</volume>, <fpage>1100</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1107</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.biortech.2008.08.003</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18793833</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref8"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Delgado-Baquerizo</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Maestre</surname><given-names>F. T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Reich</surname><given-names>P. B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jeffries</surname><given-names>T. C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Gaitan</surname><given-names>J. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Encinar</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems</article-title>. <source>Nat. Commun.</source> <volume>7</volume>:<fpage>10541</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ncomms10541</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26817514</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>Y. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>Y. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Gao</surname><given-names>G. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cao</surname><given-names>H. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>B. B.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Soil bacterial community structure and functional prediction of <italic>Pinus sylvestris</italic> var. <italic>mongolica</italic> plantations in the Hulun Buir Sandy land</article-title>. <source>Acta Ecol. Sin.</source> <volume>41</volume>, <fpage>4131</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>4139</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5846/stxb202005251335</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref10"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Edgar</surname><given-names>R. C.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads</article-title>. <source>Nat. Methods</source> <volume>10</volume>:<fpage>996</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nmeth.2604</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fierer</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bradford</surname><given-names>M. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jackson</surname><given-names>R. B.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria</article-title>. <source>Ecology</source> <volume>88</volume>, <fpage>1354</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1364</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1890/05-1839</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17601128</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gu</surname><given-names>M. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>W. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Mao</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ge</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>Microbial community diversity of rhizosphere soil in continuous cotton cropping system in Xinjiang</article-title>. <source>Acta Ecol. Sin.</source> <volume>32</volume>, <fpage>3031</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>3040</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5846/stxb201104170503</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Javed</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hussain</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Maize/peanut rotation intercropping improves ecosystem carbon budget and economic benefits in the dry farming regions of China</article-title>. <source>J. Environ. Manag.</source> <volume>353</volume>:<fpage>353</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120090</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38301480</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ye</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Effects of after crop tomato and maize on the soil microenvironment and microbial diversity in a long-term cotton continuous cropping field</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>15</volume>:<fpage>1410219</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2024.1410219</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">39101036</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hao</surname><given-names>H. B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yue</surname><given-names>Y. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xiao</surname><given-names>T. T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Z. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>J. J.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Effects of the rice-mushroom rotation pattern on soil properties and microbial community succession in paddy fields</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>15</volume>:<fpage>1449922</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2024.1449922</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">39113843</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hartman</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>van der Heijden</surname><given-names>M. G. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wittwer</surname><given-names>R. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Banerjee</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Schlaeppi</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Correction to: cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming</article-title>. <source>Microbiome</source> <volume>8</volume>:<fpage>14</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s40168-017-0389-9</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29338764</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>He</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liao</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>Profiling of microbial PLFAs: implications for interspecific interactions due to intercropping which increase phosphorus uptake in phosphorus limited acidic soils</article-title>. <source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source> <volume>57</volume>, <fpage>625</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>634</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.027</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref18"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hong</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xing</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Su</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhuang</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2025</year>). <article-title>Pandan-vanilla rotation mitigates Fusarium wilt disease in vanilla: insights from rhizosphere microbial community shifts</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>16</volume>:<fpage>1496701</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2025.1496701</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">40606166</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Igiehon</surname><given-names>N. O.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Babalola</surname><given-names>O. O.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Biofertilizers and sustainable agriculture: exploring arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi</article-title>. <source>Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.</source> <volume>101</volume>, <fpage>4871</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>4881</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00253-017-8344-z</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28547568</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>X. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>F. X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>J. G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Effect of cropping patterns onbacterial community diversity and metabolic function in rhizosphere soil of <italic>Angelica sinensis</italic></article-title>. <source>Chin. J. Appl. Ecol.</source> <volume>32</volume>, <fpage>4254</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>4262</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13287/j.1001-9332.202112.031</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>H. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yue</surname><given-names>J. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>Y. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>D. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>S. Y.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Response of soil fungal communities in diversified rotations of wheat and different crops</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>43</volume>, <fpage>3338</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>3347</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.202109069</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref22"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Knight</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection</article-title>. <source>Bioinformatics</source> <volume>27</volume>, <fpage>2194</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>2200</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21700674</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref23"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shahid</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tripathi</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Mohanty</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bhattacharyya</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Variation of functional diversity of soil microbial community in sub-humid tropical rice-rice cropping system under long-term organic and inorganic fertilization</article-title>. <source>Ecol. Indic.</source> <volume>73</volume>, <fpage>536</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>543</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.014</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref24"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>Use of mulberry&#x2013;soybean intercropping in salt&#x2013;alkali soil impacts the diversity of the soil bacterial community</article-title>. <source>Microb. Biotechnol.</source> <volume>9</volume>, <fpage>293</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>304</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/1751-7915.12342</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26892826</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref25"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Q. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>J. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Z. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pan</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>Z. H.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Crop rotations increased soil ecosystem multifunctionality by improving keystone taxa and soil properties in potatoes</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>14</volume>:<fpage>1034761</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2023.1034761</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Z. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>F. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>J. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>B. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>R. X.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Effects of farmland mulching patterns on soil microbial diversity and community structure in dryland</article-title>. <source>Acta Ecol. Sin.</source> <volume>41</volume>, <fpage>2750</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>2760</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5846/stxb201904130739</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>J. X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Z. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bao</surname><given-names>J. B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chai</surname><given-names>B. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>Distribution pattern and diversity maintenance mechanisms of fungal community in subalpine lakes</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>40</volume>, <fpage>2382</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>2393</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.201809200</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref28"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2018</year>). <article-title>Soil pH determines fungal diversity along an elevation gradient in Southwestern China</article-title>. <source>Sci. China Life Sci.</source> <volume>61</volume>, <fpage>718</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>726</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11427-017-9200-1</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref29"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pan</surname><given-names>F. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>X. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>F. B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>Response of soil fungal community structure to long-term continuous soybean cropping</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>3316</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2018.03316</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref30"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sui</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chu</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>High throughput sequencing analysis of biogeographical distribution of bacterial communities in the black soils of Northeast China</article-title>. <source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source> <volume>70</volume>, <fpage>113</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>122</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.014</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref31"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lupwayi</surname><given-names>N. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Turkington</surname><given-names>T. K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tidemann</surname><given-names>B. D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kubota</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Polo</surname><given-names>R. O.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Crop rotation and fungicides impact microbial biomass, diversity and enzyme activities in the wheat rhizosphere</article-title>. <source>Front. Agron.</source> <volume>6</volume>:<fpage>1455448</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fagro.2024.1455448</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref32"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads</article-title>. <source>EMBnet J.</source> <volume>17</volume>, <fpage>10</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>12</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14806/ej.17.1.200</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref33"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nan</surname><given-names>L. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>Q. E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X. Q.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Effects of alfalfa post-harvest rotation on soil bacterial community in arid desert oasis</article-title>. <source>Acta Agrestia Sin.</source> <volume>29</volume>, <fpage>25</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>32</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.01.004</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref34"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nan</surname><given-names>Z. W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Meng</surname><given-names>W. W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Dai</surname><given-names>H. C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Structure and function of soil fungal community in rotation fallow farmland in alluvial plain of lower Yellow River</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>44</volume>, <fpage>482</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>493</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.202203233</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref35"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><collab id="coll1">National Bureau of Statistics</collab> (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Announcement of national bureau of statistics on cotton output in 2023</article-title>. <source>China Cotton Processing</source> <volume>6</volume>, <fpage>15</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>20</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref36"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nguyen</surname><given-names>N. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bates</surname><given-names>S. T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Branco</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tedersoo</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Menke</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild</article-title>. <source>Fungal Ecol.</source> <volume>20</volume>, <fpage>241</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>248</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref37"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ning</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>C. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ma</surname><given-names>D. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cai</surname><given-names>Z. J.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Effects of <italic>Mortierella</italic> on nutrient availability and straw decomposition in soil</article-title>. <source>Acta Pedol. Sin.</source> <volume>59</volume>, <fpage>206</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>217</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11766/trxb202006020213</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref38"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lu</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>Integrated nitrogen management strategy for winter oilseed rape (<italic>Brassica napus</italic> L.) in China</article-title>. <source>Sci. Agric. Sin.</source> <volume>49</volume>, <fpage>3506</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>3521</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2016.18.005</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref39"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ni</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chu</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2015</year>). <article-title>Distinct soil bacterial communities along a small-scale elevational gradient in alpine tundra</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>6</volume>:<fpage>582</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2015.00582</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref40"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tao</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Characteristics of soil fungal communities in soybean rotations</article-title>. <source>Front. Plant Sci.</source> <volume>13</volume>:<fpage>926731</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fpls.2022.926731</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref41"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lowrie</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus resorption improves wheat grain yield in rotation with legume crops in South-Eastern Australia</article-title>. <source>Soil Tillage Res.</source> <volume>209</volume>:<fpage>104978</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.still.2021.104978</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref42"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kang</surname><given-names>J. H.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Characteristics of soil nutrients and fungal community composition in crop rhizosphere under different rotation patterns</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>41</volume>, <fpage>4682</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>4689</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.202001031</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33124401</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref43"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ma</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Marsden</surname><given-names>K. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chadwick</surname><given-names>D. R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kuzyakov</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Microbial community succession in soil is mainly driven by carbon and nitrogen contents rather than phosphorus and sulphur contents</article-title>. <source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source> <volume>180</volume>:<fpage>109019</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109019</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref44"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>C. C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Weng</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Effects of different fertilization modes on crop yields and soil nutrients under rapeseed-cotton rotation</article-title>. <source>Hunan Agric. Sci.</source> <volume>7</volume>, <fpage>36</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>40</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.16498/j.cnki.hnnykx.2020.007.010</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref45"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tewolde</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Buehring</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Way</surname><given-names>T. R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Feng</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sistant</surname><given-names>K. R.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Yield and nutrient removal of cotton-corn-soybean rotation systems fertilized with poultry litter</article-title>. <source>Agron. J.</source> <volume>113</volume>, <fpage>5483</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>5498</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/agj2.20857</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref46"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>G. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hao</surname><given-names>X. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>E. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>H. Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>A. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>Q. L.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Distribution characteristics of the soil fungi community in the rhizosphere of foxtail millet under different planting patterns</article-title>. <source>Chin. J. Eco-Agric.</source> <volume>31</volume>, <fpage>677</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>689</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12357/cjea.20220577</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref47"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>H. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>S. D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>R. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>S. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pang</surname><given-names>C. Y.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Effects of crop rotation on bacterial communities in cotton rhizosphere soil</article-title>. <source>Biotechnol. Bull.</source> <volume>36</volume>, <fpage>117</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>124</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2020-0685</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref48"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>X. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Z. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>R. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Niu</surname><given-names>Y. N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>L. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tian</surname><given-names>J. X.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Soil bacterial community characteristics and ecological function prediction of alfalfa and crop rotation systems in the Loess Plateau, Northwest China</article-title>. <source>Chin. J. Appl. Ecol.</source> <volume>33</volume>, <fpage>1109</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1117</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13287/j.1001-9332.202204.028</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref49"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Scheu</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ke</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Tillage, residue burning and crop rotation alter soil fungal community and water-stable aggregation in arable fields</article-title>. <source>Soil Tillage Res.</source> <volume>107</volume>, <fpage>71</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>79</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.still.2010.02.008</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref50"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Xia</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Gao</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Responses of rhizosphere soil bacteria to 2-year tillage rotation treatments during fallow period in semiarid southeastern loess plateau</article-title>. <source>PeerJ</source> <volume>8</volume>:<fpage>e8853</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7717/peerj.8853</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32411509</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref51"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Xiong</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Q. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>H. S.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Distinct roles for soil fungal and bacterial communities associated with the suppression of vanilla Fusarium wilt disease</article-title>. <source>Soil Biol. Biochem.</source> <volume>107</volume>, <fpage>198</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>207</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.01.010</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref52"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tu</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>Tobacco crop rotation enhances the stability and complexity of microbial networks</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>15</volume>:<fpage>1416256</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2024.1416256</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref53"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lin</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yin</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Analysis on the structure and function of soil fungi community in different crop rotation modes</article-title>. <source>Acta Sci. Circumst.</source> <volume>42</volume>, <fpage>432</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>442</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2021.0326</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref54"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yao</surname><given-names>X. D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X. G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>C. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Z. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>X. X.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>Microzone distribution characteristics of soil microbial community with peanut cropping system, monocropping or rotation</article-title>. <source>Acta Pedol. Sin.</source> <volume>56</volume>, <fpage>975</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>985</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11766/trxb201807020131</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref55"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yin</surname><given-names>G. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Y. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>S. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Characteristics of soil nutrients and bacterial community composition under different rotation patterns in grassland</article-title>. <source>Acta Ecol. Sin.</source> <volume>40</volume>, <fpage>1542</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1550</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5846/stxb201901100088</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref56"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>Effects of maize/soybean and maize/peanut intercropping systems on crops nitrogen uptake and nodulation nitrogen fixation</article-title>. <source>Chin. J. Eco-Agric.</source> <volume>27</volume>, <fpage>1183</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1194</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.181055</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref57"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lin</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yin</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2025</year>). <article-title>Effects of rotation corn on potato yield, quality, and soil microbial communities</article-title>. <source>Front. Microbiol.</source> <volume>16</volume>:<fpage>1493333</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fmicb.2025.1493333</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">40309109</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref58"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jia</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2024</year>). <article-title>The effects of alfalfatriticale rotation on soil bacterial and fungal community diversity and co-occurrence network in coastal saline-alkaline soil</article-title>. <source>Ecol. Environ. Sci.</source> <volume>33</volume>, <fpage>1048</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1062</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.07.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref59"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>S. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>L. W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>G. Y.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2025</year>). <article-title>The impact of diversified crops and wheat-maize rotations on soil quality in the North China Plain</article-title>. <source>Sci. Agric. Sin.</source> <volume>58</volume>, <fpage>238</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>251</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.02.003</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref60"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>S. J.</given-names> <suffix>Jr.</suffix></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Y. Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>H. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>G. D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>Soil moisture effect on bacterial and fungal community in Beilu River (Tibetan Plateau) permafrost soils with different vegetation types</article-title>. <source>J. Appl. Microbiol.</source> <volume>114</volume>, <fpage>1054</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1065</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jam.12106</pub-id>, <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23241008</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref61"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zheng</surname><given-names>Y. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>L. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zheng</surname><given-names>Y. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Z. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>X. W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>T. Y.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Relationship between carbon metabolism indices of peanut leaves and nitrogen fixation ability of nodules</article-title>. <source>J. Plant Nutr. Fertil.</source> <volume>27</volume>, <fpage>75</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>86</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.11674/zwyf.20174</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref62"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>X. V.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Larson</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Sykes</surname><given-names>V. R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ashworth</surname><given-names>A. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Allen</surname><given-names>F. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Crop rotation, cover crop, and poultry litter effects on no-tillage cotton profitability</article-title>. <source>Agron. J.</source> <volume>113</volume>, <fpage>2648</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>2663</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/agj2.20661</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref63"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>S. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hui</surname><given-names>C. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>X. T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>W. Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Z. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>H. H.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Effects of different planting years of <italic>Dendrocalamus brandisii</italic> on soil fungal community</article-title>. <source>Huan Jing Ke Xue</source> <volume>44</volume>, <fpage>3408</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>3417</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.13227/j.hjkx.202206118</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
</ref-list>
<fn-group>
<fn fn-type="custom" custom-type="edited-by" id="fn0001">
<p>Edited by: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/566548/overview">Akhtar Rasool</ext-link>, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="custom" custom-type="reviewed-by" id="fn0002">
<p>Reviewed by: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1130159/overview">Jianhua Zhang</ext-link>, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China</p>
<p><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2914771/overview">Shijie Zhang</ext-link>, Zhengzhou University, China</p>
</fn>
</fn-group>
</back>
</article>