| Literature DB >> 27835688 |
Martin B Nadeau1, Damase P Khasa1.
Abstract
Little is known about edaphiEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27835688 PMCID: PMC5106017 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Phylogenetic tree containing all ECM fungal taxa (in bold) that have been identified on the four sites (mining site (MS) in red, Trecesson nursery (TN) in yellow, forest edge (FE) in turquoise, and natural forest (NF) in green) with their corresponding GenBank accession number–Taxa not in bold refer to the most similar blastn results and GenBank taxa used for ECM fungal species identification.
Fig 2Phylogenetic trees showing the ECM fungal community of each site and the genetic distance among species within site.
Fig 3(a) Relative frequency and (b) Relative abundance of all identified ECM fungal species within each sampling site (mining site (MS), Trecesson nursery (TN), forest edge (FE), and natural forest (NF)).
Fig 4Two-way cluster analysis (α = 0.05) showing groups of species thriving in same habitats (small coloured rectangles) (darker grey squares mean higher abundance; Big red rectangle = no difference between site species composition).
Fig 5Principal component analysis (α = 0.05) showing linear patterns of a wide range of variables across the ecological gradient (Sampling sites: MS = mining site, FE = forest edge, NF = naturel forest, and TN = Trecesson nursery) (only the axis 1 is significant; closer to center means smaller values) (MYC = % of roots colonized by ECM fungi).