4.5 Article

The natural recovery of soil microbial community and nitrogen functions after pasture abandonment in the Amazon region

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa149

关键词

ecosystem function; metagenomics; microbial ecology; restoration; tropical forest

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo
  2. CAPES [FAPESP 2017/02635-4, BIOTA 2014/50320-4]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [132374/2016-1]
  4. CNPq [311008/2016-0]
  5. FAPESP [2017/16757-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the impacts of forest-to-pasture conversion on the dynamic of soil microbial communities, especially those involved in the N-cycle, and their potential functions, using DNA-metagenomic sequencing coupled with the quantification of marker genes for N-cycling. We also evaluated whether the community's dynamic was reestablished with secondary forest growth. In general, the microbial community structure was influenced by changes in soil chemical properties. Aluminum and nitrate significantly correlated to community structure and with 12 out of 21 microbial phyla. The N-related microbial groups and their potential functions were also affected by land-use change, with pasture being clearly different from primary and secondary forest systems. The microbial community analysis demonstrated that forest-to-pasture conversion increased the abundance of different microbial groups related to nitrogen fixation, including Bacteroidetes, Chloroflexi and Firmicutes. In contrast, after pasture abandonment and with the secondary forest regeneration, there was an increase in the abundance of Proteobacteria taxa and denitrification genes. Our multi-analytical approach indicated that the secondary forest presented some signs of resilience, suggesting that the N-related microbial groups and their potential functions can be recovered over time with implications for future ecological restoration programs.

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