4.6 Article

Microbial community and functional genes in the rhizosphere of alfalfa in crude oil-contaminated soil

期刊

出版社

HIGHER EDUCATION PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11783-012-0405-z

关键词

crude oil-contaminated soil; phytoremediation; rhizosphere effects; rhizobox; functional genes

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2008BAC43B01]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40730738]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rhizobox system constructed with crude oil-contaminated soil was vegetated with alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) to evaluate the rhizosphere effects on the soil microbial population and functional structure, and to explore the potential mechanisms by which plants enhance the removal of crude oil in soil. During the 80-day experiment, 31.6% of oil was removed from the adjacent rhizosphere (AR); this value was 27% and 53%higher than the percentage of oil removed from the far rhizosphere (FR) and from the non-rhizosphere (NR), respectively. The populations of heterotrophic bacteria and hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria were higher in the AR and FR than in the NR. However, the removal rate of crude oil was positively correlated with the proportion of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria in the rhizosphere. In total, 796, 731, and 379 functional genes were detected by microarray in the AR, FR, and NR, respectively. Higher proportions of functional genes related to carbon degradation and organic remediation, were found in rhizosphere soil compared with NR soil, suggesting that the rhizosphere selectively increased the abundance of these specific functional genes. The increase in water-holding capacity and decrease in pH as well as salinity of the soil all followed the order of AR > FR > NR. Canonical component analysis showed that salinity was the most important environmental factor influencing the microbial functional structure in the rhizosphere and that salinity was negatively correlated with the abundance of carbon and organic degradation genes.

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

4.6
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