4.7 Article

Rapid changes in the rhizosphere bacterial community structure during re-colonization of sterilized soil

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 1-6

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-004-0736-4

关键词

succession; bacterial community structure; denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; diversity; rhizosphere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diversity has been shown to be pivotal in ecosystem stability and resilience. It is therefore important to increase our knowledge about the development of diversity. The aim of this study was to investigate the temporal dynamics of the bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of wheat plants growing in a soil in which the initial conditions for bacterial re-colonization were modified by mixing different amounts of sterilized with native soil at ratios of 19:1, 9:1, 4:1 and 1:1. Additional treatments comprised sterilized soil or native soil. Plant dry weight at day 20 decreased with increasing percentage of native soil in the mix. The bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere was assessed by polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) at days 3, 14 and 20 after planting. The bacterial community in the sterilized soil had a lower diversity and evenness than the native soil. Both diversity and evenness increased with time in the sterilized soil. Community structure in the different mixes changed over time and the changes were mix-specific. Principal component analyses of the DGGE banding patterns showed clear differences between the treatments particularly at day 3 and day 14 and revealed changes in community structure within a few days in a given treatment. The results of the present study show that bacterial communities rapidly re-colonize sterilized soil. During re-colonization, the community structure changes rapidly with a general trend towards higher diversity and evenness. The changes in community structure over time are also affected by the amount of sterile substrate to be re-colonized.

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

4.7
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