4.5 Article

Seasonal variation of epiphytic bacteria in the phyllosphere of Gingko biloba, Pinus bungeana and Sabina chinensis

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa017

关键词

seasonal changes; phyllosphere; 16S rRNA genes; diazotrophic bacteria; nifH genes; bacterial amoA genes

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31570494]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0501404]
  3. Key Research Programof Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences [QYZDB-SSW-DQC026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phyllosphere harbors diverse microorganisms, which influence plant growth and health. In order to understand the extent to which environmental factors affect epiphytic microbial communities, we characterized microbial communities on leaves of three separate tree species present on the college campus, and also present within a forest park over two seasons. Quantitative PCR analysis showed the quantity of 16S rRNA genes was lower in May compared with October, while the abundances of functional genes (nifH and bacterial amoA genes) were extremely high in May. High-throughput sequencing revealed a large variation in the diversity and composition of bacterial and diazotrophic communities over the two seasons, and showed the abundance of functional genera, such as Nocardioides, Bacillus and Zoogloea were significantly elevated in May. In addition, xenobiotic biodegradation pathways of bacterial communities were clearly elevated in May. Network analysis showed the correlations between phyllospheric bacteria in May were more complex than that in October and showed greater negative correlations. These results were consistent in all tree species in this study. This study showed that phyllospheric bacteria varied greatly in different seasons, which implies that different growing seasons should be considered in the exploitation of the interactions between phyllospheric microorganisms and host plants.

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