4.5 Article

Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 5, 期 18, 页码 3857-3868

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1652

关键词

Microbial community structure; microbial diversity; soil bacteria; soil fungi; terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms (T-RFLP)

资金

  1. CONICYT [PFB 23/2008]
  2. Instituto de Ecologia & Biodiversidad (IEB-Chile) [ICM P05-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural ecosystems provide services to agriculture such as pest control, soil nutrients, and key microbial components. These services and others in turn provide essential elements that fuel biomass productivity. Responsible agricultural management and conservation of natural habitats can enhance these ecosystem services. Vineyards are currently driving land-use changes in many Mediterranean ecosystems. These land-use changes could have important effects on the supporting ecosystems services related to the soil properties and the microbial communities associated with forests and vineyard soils. Here, we explore soil bacterial and fungal communities present in sclerophyllous forests and organic vineyards from three different wine growing areas in central Chile. We employed terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms (T-RFLP) to describe the soil microbial communities inhabiting native forests and vineyards in central Chile. We found that the bacterial community changed between the sampled growing areas; however, the fungal community did not differ. At the local scale, our findings show that fungal communities differed between habitats because fungi species might be more sensitive to land-use change compared to bacterial species, as bacterial communities did not change between forests and vineyards. We discuss these findings based on the sensitivity of microbial communities to soil properties and land-use change. Finally, we focus our conclusions on the importance of naturally derived ecosystem services to vineyards.

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

4.5
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