4.0 Article

Quantitative estimation of flagellate community structure and diversity in soil samples

期刊

PROTIST
卷 152, 期 4, 页码 301-314

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1078/1434-4610-00069

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterotrophic flagellates occur in nearly all soils and, in most cases, many different species are present. Nevertheless, quantitative data on their community structure and diversity are sparse, possibly due to a lack of suitable techniques. Previous studies have tended to focus on either total flagellate numbers and biomass, or the identification and description of flagellate species present. With the increased awareness of the role of biodiversity and of food web interactions, the quantification of species within the community and their response to environmental change is likely to become more important. The present paper describes a modification of the most probable number method that allows such a quantification of individual flagellate morphotypes in soil samples. Observations were also made on the biomass of flagellate morphotypes in soil. 20 to 25 morphotypes of heterotrophic flagellates were detectable per gram of two different arable soils, which were treated experimentally to test the technique. One of the soils was fumigated with chloroform vapour for different lengths of time (0, 0.5, 2 or 24 hours); this led to a reduction in the number of morphotypes, in the Shannon diversity index and in the evenness. The other soil was planted with wheat, and while rhizosphere soils contained the same morphotypes as bulk soil, the abundance of individual morphotypes was significantly different and the Shannon diversity index in rhizosphere soils was significantly higher. Soil influenced by an elevated CO2 level likewise differed significantly in morphotype abundance when compared to soil exposed to ambient levels Of CO2. The technique recovered more than 80% of the discernible morphotypes and could also be used to quantify amoebal and ciliate communities in a similar way.

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

4.0
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