4.5 Article

Bacterial community in soil and tree roots of Picea abies shows little response to clearcutting

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 98, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiac118

关键词

bacteria; clearcut; forest management; root decomposition

资金

  1. Czech Science Foundation [2014961S]
  2. Charles University Grant Agency [1152119]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clearcutting has significant consequences for temperate forests, particularly on bacterial community composition, which responds less significantly compared to fungal communities. It indicates independent development of the two microbial domains.
Clearcutting represents a standard management practice in temperate forests with dramatic consequences for the forest ecosystem. The removal of trees responsible for the bulk of primary production can result in a complex response of the soil microbiome. While studies have shown that tree root-symbiotic ectomycorrhizal fungi disappear from soil and decomposing fine roots of trees become a hotspot for fungal decomposition, the fate of the bacterial component of the soil microbiome following clearcutting is unclear. Here, we investigated the response of bacterial community composition for 2 years following clearcutting of a Picea abies stand in soil, rhizosphere and tree roots, by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. While in the first few months after clearcutting there was no significant response of bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere and soil, bacterial communities associated with tree roots underwent more profound changes over time. Acidobacteria were abundant in rhizosphere and soil, while Firmicutes were strongly represented in the roots. In addition, bacterial communities on decomposing roots were significantly different from those on pre-clearcut live roots. Compared with fungi, the response of bacterial communities to clearcutting was much less pronounced, indicating independent development of the two microbial domains.

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