4.6 Article

Changes in the soil microbial community structure with latitude in eastern China, based on phospholipid fatty acid analysis

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 43, 期 2-3, 页码 234-240

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.08.002

关键词

Soil microbial community structure; Phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA); Latitude; Biogeography; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40671092]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB121104]
  3. National Nature Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [40425007]
  4. Biotechnological and Biological Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) profiles were measured in soils from 14 sites in eastern China representing typical geographic zones of varying latitude from north (47.4 degrees N) to south (21.4 degrees N). Amounts of soil microbial biomass, measured as total amounts of PLFAs, showed no regular trend with latitude, but were positively correlated with soil organic carbon content, the concentration of humic acid and amorphous iron oxide. Soil microbial community structure showed some biogeographical distribution trends and was separated into three groups in a cluster analysis and principal coordinate analysis of log transformed PLFA concentrations (mol%). Soils in the first group came from northern China with medium mean annual temperature (1.2-15.7 degrees C) and rainfall (550-1021 mm). Soils in the second group originated from southern China with a relatively higher mean annual temperature (15.7-21.2 degrees C) and rainfall (1021-1690 mm). Soils clustered in the third group originated from the most southerly region. The northern soils contained relatively more bacteria and Grain-negative PLFAs, while the southern soils had more fungi and pressure indexed PLFAs. These differences in soil microbial community structure were largely explained by soil pH, while other site and soil characteristics were less important. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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