4.4 Article

Spatially explicit depiction of a floral epiphytic bacterial community reveals role for environmental filtering within petals

期刊

MICROBIOLOGYOPEN
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.1158

关键词

Anthosphere; community ecology; Helianthus tuberosus; plant microbiome; spatial structure; Verbesina alternifolia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studying the microbiome of flowers revealed similarities and differences in the petal microbiome of different plants. The bacterial community on petals is influenced by the varying ultraviolet absorption along the petal, with a majority of the community being culturable.
The microbiome of flowers (anthosphere) is an understudied compartment of the plant microbiome. Within the flower, petals represent a heterogeneous environment for microbes in terms of resources and environmental stress. Yet, little is known of drivers of structure and function of the epiphytic microbial community at the within-petal scale. We characterized the petal microbiome in two co-flowering plants that differ in the pattern of ultraviolet (UV) absorption along their petals. Bacterial communities were similar between plant hosts, with only rare phylogenetically distant species contributing to differences. The epiphyte community was highly culturable (75% of families) lending confidence in the spatially explicit isolation and characterization of bacteria. In one host, petals were heterogeneous in UV absorption along their length, and in these, there was a negative relationship between growth rate and position on the petal, as well as lower UV tolerance in strains isolated from the UV-absorbing base than from UV reflecting tip. A similar pattern was not seen in microbes isolated from a second host whose petals had uniform patterning along their length. Across strains, the variation in carbon usage and chemical tolerance followed common phylogenetic patterns. This work highlights the value of petals for spatially explicit explorations of bacteria of the anthosphere.

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

4.4
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