4.0 Article

Isolation and identification of endophytes from roots of Cymbidium goeringii and Cymbidium faberi (Orchidaceae)

Journal

NOVA HEDWIGIA
Volume 101, Issue 1-2, Pages 57-64

Publisher

GEBRUDER BORNTRAEGER
DOI: 10.1127/nova_hedwigia/2014/0234

Keywords

Fungi; internal transcribed spacer; orchids; root endophytes

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31070015]
  2. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation [2009CDB362]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endophytic micro-organisms may form mutualistic symbioses with plants, and some enhance plant survival especially in adverse environments. To further understand the diversity of endophytes in orchids, internal root-associated fungi were isolated from two terrestrial orchids, Cymbidium goeringii and C. faberi. From three sampling sites in Hubei Province in Central China, over 120 isolates were obtained and grouped into 15 morphotypes based on morphological characteristics, of which 21 representative strains were selected for DNA sequencing with ITS rDNA primers. Complementing the preliminary morphological observations, the BLAST search results identified fungi from C. goeringii as species of Tulasnella (Tulasnellaceae), Exophiala (Herpotrichiellaceae), Cryptosporiopsis (Dermateaceae), Fusarium (Nectriaceae), Cylindrocarpon (Nectriaceae) and Nigrospora (Trichosphaeriales). The dominant taxon was Tulasnella cf. calospora, and this finding is consistent with previous research. The fungi associated with C. faberi were species of Umbelopsis (Umbelopsidaceae), Trichoderma (Hypocreaceae), Fusarium and Tulasnella. The dominant taxon was Umbelopsis from these samples collected from two locations. Endophytic or root-associated fungi were isolated only from two potted C. goeringii and two wild C. faberi plants, so a more extensive collection of materials is needed to fully investigate diversity of endophytic microflora associated with Cymbidium spp.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available