4.5 Article

Rhizobia from wild legumes: diversity, taxonomy, ecology, nitrogen fixation and biotechnology

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 91, 期 2-3, 页码 143-153

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1656(01)00342-X

关键词

biotechnology; diversity; ecology; N-2 fixation; Rhizobium; wild legumes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild legumes (herb or tree) are widely distributed in and regions and actively contribute to soil fertility in these environments. The N-2-fixing activity and tolerance to drastic conditions may be higher in wild legumes than in,crop legumes. The wild legumes in and zones harbor diverse and promiscuous rhizobia in their root-nodules. Specificity existed only in few rhizobia from wild legumes, however, the majority of them are with wide host range. Based on phenotypic characteristics and molecular techniques (protein profiles, polysaccharides, plasmids, DNA-DNA hybridization, 16SrRNA, etc.), the root-nodule bacteria that was isolated from wild legumes had been classified into four genera (Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium). The rhizobia of wild legumes in and zones, exhibit higher tolerance to the prevailing adverse conditions, e.g.. salt stress, elevated temperatures and desiccation. These rhizobia may be used to inoculate wild, as well as, crop legumes, cultivated in reclaimed desert lands. Recent reports indicated that the wild-legume rhizobia formed successful symbioses with some grain legumes. Moreover, intercropping of some N-2-fixing tree legumes (e.g. Lablab, Leucaena, Sesbania, etc.) to pasture grasses improved biomass yield and herb quality. In recent years, the rhizobia of wild legumes turn the attention of biotechnologists. These bacteria may have specific traits that can be transferred to other rhizobia through genetic engineering tools or used to produce industrially important compounds. Therefore, these bacteria are very important from both economic and environmental points of view. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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