4.5 Article

The response of soil and phyllosphere microbial communities to repeated application of the fungicide iprodione: accelerated biodegradation or toxicity?

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 96, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa056

关键词

iprodione; phyllosphere; soil; biodegradation; microbial diversity; Paenarthrobacter sp.

资金

  1. State Scholarship Foundation of Greece
  2. European Social Fund
  3. Greek State

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pesticides interact with microorganisms in various ways with the outcome being negative or positive for the soil microbiota. Pesticides' effects on soil microorganisms have been studied extensively in soil but not in other pesticides-exposed microbial habitats like the phyllosphere. We tested the hypothesis that soil and phyllosphere support distinct microbial communities, but exhibit a similar response (accelerated biodegradation or toxicity) to repeated exposure to the fungicide iprodione. Pepper plants received four repeated foliage or soil applications of iprodione, which accelerated its degradation in soil (DT50_1st = 1.23 and DT50_4th = 0.48 days) and on plant leaves (DT50_1st > 365 and DT50_4th = 5.95 days). The composition of the epiphytic and soil bacterial and fungal communities, determined by amplicon sequencing, was significantly altered by iprodione. The archaeal epiphytic and soil communities responded differently; the former showed no response to iprodione. Three iprodione-degrading Paenarthrobacter strains were isolated from soil and phyllosphere. They hydrolyzed iprodione to 3,5-dichloraniline via the formation of 3,5-dichlorophenyl-carboxiamide and 3,5-dichlorophenylurea-acetate, a pathway shared by other soil-derived arthrobacters implying a phylogenetic specialization in iprodione biotransformation. Our results suggest that iprodione-repeated application could affect soil and epiphytic microbial communities with implications for the homeostasis of the plant-soil system and agricultural production.

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