4.6 Article

Comparative study of neighboring Holm oak and olive trees-belowground microbial communities subjected to different soil management

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236796

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad [AGL2016-75729-C2-1-R]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacio'n/Agencia Estatal de Investigacio'n [PID2019-106283RB-I00]
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is well-known that different plant species, and even plant varieties, promote different assemblages of the microbial communities associated with them. Here, we investigate how microbial communities (bacteria and fungi) undergo changes within the influence of woody plants (two olive cultivars, one tolerant and another susceptible to the soilborne fungal pathogenVerticillium dahliae, plus wild Holm oak) grown in the same soil but with different management (agriculturalversusnative). By the use of metabarcoding sequencing we determined that the native Holm oak trees rhizosphere bacterial communities were different from its bulk soil, with differences in some genera likeGp4,Gp6andSolirubrobacter. Moreover, the agricultural management used in the olive orchard led to belowground microbiota differences with respect to the natural conditions both in bulk soils and rhizospheres. Indeed,GemmatimonasandFusariumwere more abundant in olive orchard soils. However, agricultural management removed the differences in the microbial communities between the two olive cultivars, and these differences were minor respect to the olive bulk soil. According to our results, and at least under the agronomical conditions here examined, the composition and structure of the rhizospheric microbial communities do not seem to play a major role in olive tolerance toV.dahliae.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available