3.9 Article

Shifts in community structure and function of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in biological soil crusts along a revegetation chronosequence in the Tengger Desert

期刊

SCIENCES IN COLD AND ARID REGIONS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 139-149

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1226.2019.00139

关键词

ammonia-oxidizing archaea; biological soil crusts; GeoChip 5.0; network analysis

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA2003010301]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41621001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metagenomic studies have demonstrated the existence of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and revealed they are responsible for ammoxidation in some extreme environments. However, the changes in compositional structure and ammonia-oxidation capacity of AOA communities in biological soil crusts (BSCs) of desert ecosystems remain poorly understood. Here, we utilized Illumina MiSeq sequencing and microbial functional gene array (GeoChip 5.0) to assess the above changes along a 51-year revegetation chronosequence in the Tengger Desert, China. The results showed a significant difference in AOA-community richness between 5-year-old BSCs and older ones. The most dominant phylum during BSC development was Crenarchaeota, and the corresponding species were ammonia-oxidizing Crenarchaeote and environmental samples Crenarchaeota. Network analysis revealed that the positive correlations among dominant taxa increased, and their cooperation was reinforced in AOA communities during BSC succession. Redundancy analysis showed that the dominant factor influencing the change in AOA-community structure was soil texture. GeoChip 5.0 indicated that the amoA gene abundances of AOA and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) were basically the same, demonstrating that AOA and AOB played an equally important role during BSCs development. Our study of the long-term succession of BSC demonstrated a persistent response of AOA communities to revegetation development in desert ecosystems.

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

3.9
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