4.4 Article

Comparative study of endophytic and endophytic diazotrophic bacterial communities across rice landraces grown in the highlands of northern Thailand

Journal

ARCHIVES OF MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 196, Issue 1, Pages 35-49

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00203-013-0940-4

Keywords

Bacterial community; Bacterial endophytes; 16S rRNA gene; nifH gene; Cluster analysis; Principal component analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Office of the Higher Education Commission, Thailand under the National Research University Project
  2. Graduated School of Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
  3. Thailand Research Fund [RTA5580007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Communities of bacterial endophytes within the rice landraces cultivated in the highlands of northern Thailand were studied using fingerprinting data of 16S rRNA and nifH genes profiling by polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. The bacterial communities' richness, diversity index, evenness, and stability were varied depending on the plant tissues, stages of growth, and rice cultivars. These indices for the endophytic diazotrophic bacteria within the landrace rice Bue Wah Bo were significantly the lowest. The endophytic bacteria revealed greater diversity by cluster analysis with seven clusters compared to the endophytic diazotrophic bacteria (three clusters). Principal component analysis suggested that the endophytic bacteria showed that the community structures across the rice landraces had a higher stability than those of the endophytic diazotrophic bacteria. Uncultured bacteria were found dominantly in both bacterial communities, while higher generic varieties were observed in the endophytic diazotrophic bacterial community. These differences in bacterial communities might be influenced either by genetic variation in the rice landraces or the rice cultivation system, where the nitrogen input affects the endophytic diazotrophic bacterial community.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available