4.7 Article

Plant host and soil origin influence fungal and bacterial assemblages in the roots of woody plants

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 13, 页码 3356-3370

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12821

关键词

454 pyrosequencing; bacterial communities; fungal communities; Glomeromycota; phylotyping; Pinus; Populus; Quercus; root endophytes

资金

  1. Genomic Science Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science - Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Plant Microbe Interfaces Scientific Focus Area
  2. National Science Foundation [EF-0832858, DEB-1011504, DEB-1145511]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1300426] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial communities in plant roots provide critical links between above- and belowground processes in terrestrial ecosystems. Variation in root communities has been attributed to plant host effects and microbial host preferences, as well as to factors pertaining to soil conditions, microbial biogeography and the presence of viable microbial propagules. To address hypotheses regarding the influence of plant host and soil biogeography on root fungal and bacterial communities, we designed a trap-plant bioassay experiment. Replicate Populus, Quercus and Pinus plants were grown in three soils originating from alternate field sites. Fungal and bacterial community profiles in the root of each replicate were assessed through multiplex 454 amplicon sequencing of four loci (i.e., 16S, SSU, ITS, LSU rDNA). Soil origin had a larger effect on fungal community composition than did host species, but the opposite was true for bacterial communities. Populus hosted the highest diversity of rhizospheric fungi and bacteria. Root communities on Quercus and Pinus were more similar to each other than to Populus. Overall, fungal root symbionts appear to be more constrained by dispersal and biogeography than by host availability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据