4.2 Article

Isolation and molecular characterization of the fungal endophytic microbiome from conventionally and organically grown avocado trees in South Florida

期刊

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 977-986

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-016-1219-3

关键词

Persea americana; Host-fungal association; New host record; Plant pathogen; Agroecosystem

类别

资金

  1. USDA-NIFA Hispanic Serving Institutions Grant [2011-38422-30804]
  2. NIFA [579119, 2011-38422-30804] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fungal endophytes are the most ubiquitous and highly diverse microorganisms that inhabit the interior of healthy plants. They are important in plant ecology and offer untapped potential to improve plant health and productivity in agroecosystems. The endophytic assemblage of avocado is poorly understood; therefore, surveys of fungal endophytes of Persea americana Mill. (Avocado) in South Florida organic and conventional orchards were conducted. A total of 17 endophytic fungal species were recovered from healthy avocado terminal branches. Endophytic fungal species were identified by rDNA sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region, using UNITE Species Hypotheses to reliably assign a taxon name, and determined as belonging to the genera Alternaria, Cladosporium, Colletotrichum, Corynespora, Diaporthe, Lasiodiplodia, Neofusicoccum, Neopestalotiopsis, Phyllosticta, and Strelitziana. Endophyte community assemblage differed between organic and conventional agroecosystems. This is the first report of Alternaria eichhorniae, Cladosporium tenuissimum, Corynespora cassiicola, Colletotrichum alatae, Diaporthe fraxini-angustifoliae, Lasiodiplodia gonubiensis, Neofusicoccum algeriense, Neofusicoccum andinum, Neopestalotiopsis foedans, Phyllosticta capitalensis, and Strelitziana africana as endophytes of avocado. Evaluation using pathogenicity tests on avocado leaves and terminal branches showed that endophytic fungal isolates did not cause disease symptoms.

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

4.2
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