4.7 Article

Impacts of bulk soil microbial community structure on rhizosphere microbiomes of Zea mays

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 392, Issue 1-2, Pages 115-126

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-015-2446-0

Keywords

Soil microbiome; Rhizosphere; Community dynamics; Zea mays; Illumina MiSeq

Funding

  1. USDA NIFA [2011-67012-30938]
  2. NIFA [687058, 2011-67012-30938] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has frequently been shown that plants interact with soils to shape rhizosphere microbiomes. However, previous work has not distinguished between effects of soil properties per se, and effects attributable to the resident microbial communities of those soils. We aimed to test whether differences in the structure of bulk soil microbial communities, within a given soil type, would carry over to impact the structure of the rhizosphere microbial community. We used repeated chemical amendments to develop divergent bulk soil microbial community starting points from which rhizosphere development proceeded. Additionally, we contrasted rhizosphere microbiomes associated with two different cultivars of corn (Zea mays). A wide range of bacterial and archaeal taxa responded to chemical resource amendments, which reduced bulk soil microbiome diversities. Corn genotypes P9714XR and 35F40 had largely similar impacts on rhizosphere microbiome development, although significant differences were evident in select treatments. Notably, in cases where resource amendments altered bulk soil microbial community composition, legacy effects persisted into the rhizosphere. Our results suggest that rhizosphere microbial communities may develop into different states depending on site history and prior selective events. This work advances our understanding of soil microbiome dynamics and responsiveness to change in the form of simple resource amendments and the development of the rhizosphere.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available