4.3 Article

Barrenia, a new genus associated with roots of switchgrass and pine in the oligotrophic pine barrens

期刊

FUNGAL BIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 12, 页码 1216-1225

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2015.09.010

关键词

Dark septate endophytes; Grass; Growth promotion; Leotiomycetes; Phylogeny; Taxonomy

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of the United States [DEB 1145174, DEB 1452971]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology [1452971] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new genus Barrenia is described based on multi-gene phylogenetic analyses and phenotypic and ecological characters. Isolated from roots of switchgrass and pitch pine in the acidic and oligotrophic New Jersey Pine Barrens in this study, Barrenia likely has a wide distribution because its internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequence has high similarity with a number of GenBank sequences from various ecological studies. The majority of these matching samples were from roots of plants in acidic, nutrient-poor environments, as well as from managed sugarcane plantations. Phylogenetic analyses based on ITS, LSU, and RPB1 sequence data strongly support that Barrenia is a monophyletic clade in Helotiales, distinct from any known taxa. Barrenia is phylogenetically close to Acidomelania, Loramyces, Mollisia, and Phialocephala fortinii - Acephala applanata species complex (PAC), the dark septate endophytes. Barrenia can be distinguished from Loramyces and Mollisia by its association with living plant roots. Taxa in PAC also are root endophytes but they have complex phialid arrangements that appear to be lacking in Banenia. Plant-fungal interaction experiments showed that Barrenia panicia and Acidomelania panicicola significantly promoted root hair growth in switchgrass. Results from this work will facilitate ecological and evolutionary studies on root-associated fungi. (C) 2015 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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