| Literature DB >> 31578453 |
Franziska Wemheuer1,2, Bernd Wemheuer3,4, Rolf Daniel3, Stefan Vidal5.
Abstract
Green islands (the re-greening of senescent leaf tissues) are particularly evident on leaves infected with fungal pathogens. To date, there is only a limited number of studies investigating foliar endophytic microorganisms in phytopathogen-infected leaves. Here, we analysed bacterial and fungal endophyte communities in leaves without green islands (control leaves; CL), within green island areas (GLA) and the surrounding yellow leaf areas (YLA) of leaves with green islands of Acer campestre and A. platanoides. GLA samples of A. campestre and A. platanoides were dominated by Sawadaea polyfida and S. bicornis, respectively, suggesting that these fungi might be responsible for the green islands. We detected a higher fungal richness and diversity in CL compared to GLA samples of A. campestre. Leaf status (CL, GLA, YLA) significantly altered the composition of fungal communities of A. campestre. This was related to differences in fungal community composition between YLA and GLA samples. Site was the main driver of bacterial communities, suggesting that bacterial and fungal endophytes are shaped by different factors. Overall, we observed Acer species-specific responses of endophyte communities towards the presence of green islands and/or leaf type, which might be attributed to several fungi and bacteria specifically associated with one Acer species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31578453 PMCID: PMC6775154 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50540-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Leaves of A. campestre and A. platanoides without (control leaves; CL) and with green islands. Leaves with green islands contained green (GLA) and yellow leaf area (YLA) samples.
Study design and sample numbers investigated in this study. Leaves of and with and without green islands were collected at three sites (Molkengrund, Am Kehr and Friedland) in Germany at 1st November 2015.
| Site 1 (Molkengrund) | Site 2 (Am Kehr) | Site 3 (Friedland) | Leaf number | Sample number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Control leaves (CL) | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | |
| Leaves with green islands* | 6 | 3 | 12 | 24 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Control leaves (CL) | 1 | 8 | 9 | 9 | |
| Leaves with green islands* | 4 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Note that leaves with green islands contained green (GLA) and yellow leaf area (YLA) samples.
Figure 2Abundant (a) fungal species and (b) bacterial genera in leaves without and with green islands of A. campestre and A. platanoides. Only fungal and bacterial groups with an average abundance of 0.01% and 0.5%, respectively, are shown. Fungal and bacterial groups with an average abundance of less than 0.01% and 0.5%, respectively, are summarized as “others”. Note that Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium was shortened for visualization. Abbreviations: CL, control leaves without green islands; YLA, yellow leaf area; GLA, green island area; Site 1, Molkengrund; Site 2, Am Kehr; Site 3, Friedland.
Alpha diversity measures (mean ± standard deviation) for bacterial and fungal endophytes in leaves with and without green islands of A. campestre and A. platanoides collected at at three sites (Molkengrund, Am Kehr and Friedland) in Germany. Abbreviations: CL, control leaves without green islands; GIL, leaves with green islands; YLA, yellow leaf area; GLA, green island area; Ac, Acer campestre; Ap, Acer platanoides.
| Bacterial endophytes | Fungal endophytes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richness | Diversity | Faith’s PD | Richness | Diversity | |
| Ac | 244 ± 70 | 3.15 ± 0.79A | 5.56 ± 1.31 | 77 ± 65 | 1.38 ± 0.83 |
| Ap | 242 ± 88 | 3.38 ± 0.66B | 5.65 ± 1.71 | 77 ± 66 | 1.31 ± 0.77 |
|
| |||||
| Leaves with green islands (GIL)* | 229 ± 75 | 3.03 ± 0.89 | 5.32 ± 1.44 | 59 ± 46A | 1.16 ± 0.66A |
| - Green leaf area (GLA) | 228 ± 78 | 3.07 ± 0.94 | 5.39 ± 1.48 | 49 ± 24a | 1.01 ± 0.45a |
| - Yellow leaf area (YLA) | 229 ± 77 | 2.99 ± 0.87 | 5.25 ± 1.45 | 70 ± 61ab | 1.32 ± 0.81ab |
| Control leaves (CL) | 285 ± 25 | 3.45 ± 0.28 | 6.22 ± 0.49 | 123 ± 86Bb | 1.98 ± 0.98Bb |
|
| |||||
| Leaves with green islands (GIL)* | 238 ± 87 | 3.35 ± 0.66 | 5.57 ± 1.67 | 66 ± 53 | 1.20 ± 0.67 |
| - Green leaf area (GLA) | 230 ± 93 | 3.25 ± 0.72 | 5.36 ± 1.64 | 56 ± 18 | 1.19 ± 0.31 |
| - Yellow leaf area (YLA) | 246 ± 85 | 3.46 ± 0.61 | 5.78 ± 1.75 | 75 ± 73 | 1.21 ± 0.92 |
| Control leaves (CL) | 252 ± 94 | 3.46 ± 0.71 | 5.89 ± 1.92 | 112 ± 92 | 1.67 ± 0.97 |
|
| |||||
| Ac - CL | 280 ± NA | 3.15 ± NA | 6.09 ± NA | 54 ± NA | 1.24 ± NA |
| Ac - GIL | 165 ± 57 | 2.65 ± 1.28 | 4.21 ± 1.48 | 43 ± 21 | 0.99 ± 0.3 |
| Ac - GLA | 163 ± 84 | 2.73 ± 1.72 | 4.43 ± 2.18 | 37 ± 7 | 0.83 ± 0.2 |
| Ac - YLA | 168 ± 32 | 2.57 ± 1.05 | 3.98 ± 0.78 | 50 ± 31 | 1.14 ± 0.35 |
| Ap - CL | 209 ± 89 | 3.15 ± 0.89 | 4.94 ± 1.59 | 89 ± 95 | 1.29 ± 0.99 |
| Ap - GIL | 180 ± 61 | 3.02 ± 0.68 | 4.62 ± 1.45 | 40 ± 16 | 0.94 ± 0.34 |
| Ap - GLA | 157 ± 57 | 2.84 ± 0.73 | 4.19 ± 1.2 | 41 ± 10 | 1.13 ± 0.24 |
| Ap - YLA | 203 ± 60 | 3.2 ± 0.64 | 5.04 ± 1.67 | 39 ± 21 | 0.75 ± 0.34 |
|
| |||||
| Ac - GIL | 210 ± 59 | 2.89 ± 0.96 | 4.98 ± 1.2 | 49 ± 35 | 0.93 ± 0.61 |
| Ac - GLA | 217 ± 66 | 2.94 ± 0.91 | 5.15 ± 1.42 | 38 ± 7 | 0.88 ± 0.65 |
| Ac - YLA | 202 ± 60 | 2.84 ± 1.15 | 4.81 ± 1.12 | 60 ± 50 | 0.98 ± 0.68 |
| Ap - CL | 296 ± 89 | 3.77 ± 0.36 | 6.84 ± 1.91 | 135 ± 96 | 2.04 ± 0.91 |
| Ap - GIL | 296 ± 70 | 3.68 ± 0.46 | 6.53 ± 1.32 | 91 ± 65 | 1.45 ± 0.82 |
| Ap - GLA | 304 ± 52 | 3.66 ± 0.45 | 6.53 ± 1.11 | 71 ± 10 | 1.25 ± 0.38 |
| Ap - YLA | 289 ± 88 | 3.71 ± 0.51 | 6.53 ± 1.62 | 111 ± 91 | 1.66 ± 1.12 |
|
| |||||
| Ac - CL | 286 ± 26 | 3.49 ± 0.27 | 6.24 ± 0.52 | 131 ± 88 | 2.07 ± 1.01 |
| Ac - GIL | 282 ± 62 | 3.37 ± 0.39 | 6.26 ± 1.01 | 77 ± 61 | 1.45 ± 0.78 |
| Ac - GLA | 277 ± 59 | 3.37 ± 0.36 | 6.16 ± 0.8 | 65 ± 30 | 1.21 ± 0.38 |
| Ac - YLA | 287 ± 72 | 3.36 ± 0.46 | 6.36 ± 1.28 | 89 ± 84 | 1.7 ± 1.03 |
Alpha diversity values are represented by richness (number of observed zOTUs), diversity (Shannon diversity index H’) and phylogenetic diversity (Faith’s PD). Note that the Faith’s PD was not calculated for fungi due to the high variability in the fungal ITS region.
Abbreviation: NA, not available (standard deviation not available due to the low number of replicates).
*Leaves with green islands (GIL) contained green (GLA) and yellow leaf area (YLA) samples.
A,BDifferent superscript letters indicate significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) between the two Acer species (bacterial data) or between leaves with and without green islands (fungal data).
a,bDifferent superscript letters indicate significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) between the three leaf states CL, YLA and GLA (fungal data). There was a marginally significant difference in fungal richness between CL and YLA samples of A. campestre (P = 0.053) and between CL and YLA samples of the entire dataset (P = 0.054). For further details, see Supplementary Table S6.
Summary of PERMANOVA results for the analysis of differences in endophyte community composition across the different factors (i.e., site, leaf status, Acer species and their interactions).
| df* | Bacterial endophyte communities | Fungal endophyte communities | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS | MS | Pseudo-F | P -value | perm | SS | MS | Pseudo-F | P -value | perm | ||
|
|
| ||||||||||
| 1 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 1.06 | 0.49 | 30 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 1.01 | 0.49 | 30 | |
| Leaf status (Le) | 2 | 0.41 | 0.20 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 993 | 1.94 | 0.97 | 5.91 |
| 996 |
| Site (Si) | 2 | 1.45 | 0.72 | 2.55 |
| 998 | 1.28 | 0.64 | 3.38 |
| 999 |
| SpxLe | 2 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 1.16 | 0.47 | 999 | 1.31 | 0.65 | 2.20 | 0.26 | 998 |
| SpxSi | 1 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 1.67 |
| 997 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 3.65 |
| 998 |
| LexSi | 4 | 1.06 | 0.27 | 0.94 | 0.62 | 998 | 0.57 | 0.14 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 998 |
| SpxLexSi | 1 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 998 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 1.79 | 0.10 | 999 |
| Residual | 51 | 14.46 | 0.28 | 9.64 | 0.19 | ||||||
| Total | 64 | 20.20 | 20.09 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 1.12 | 0.44 | 30 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 30 | |
| Green island presence (In) | 1 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.77 | 0.66 | 333 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 2.16 |
| 341 |
| Site (Si) | 2 | 1.11 | 0.55 | 2.03 |
| 997 | 0.86 | 0.43 | 1.83 | 0.02 | 998 |
| SpxIn | 1 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 1.30 | 0.21 | 999 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 1.47 | 0.22 | 998 |
| SpxSi | 1 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 1.74 |
| 999 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 2.93 |
| 998 |
| InxSi | 2 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 1.37 | 0.10 | 998 | 0.41 | 0.21 | 0.87 | 0.58 | 998 |
| Res | 56 | 15.29 | 0.27 | 13.16 | 0.23 | ||||||
| Total | 64 | 20.20 | 20.09 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Leaf status (Le) | 2 | 0.51 | 0.25 | 0.93 | 0.57 | 972 | 1.97 | 0.99 | 6.83 |
| 965 |
| Site (Si) | 2 | 1.01 | 0.51 | 1.96 |
| 998 | 1.05 | 0.52 | 2.69 |
| 999 |
| LexSi | 3 | 0.82 | 0.27 | 1.06 | 0.37 | 997 | 0.42 | 0.14 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 999 |
| Res | 25 | 6.48 | 0.26 | 4.86 | 0.19 | ||||||
| Total | 32 | 9.22 | 9.41 | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Leaf status (Le) | 2 | 0.43 | 0.22 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 180 | 2.09 | 1.04 | 3.93 | 0.14 | 180 |
| Site (Si) | 1 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 4.09 |
| 998 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 9.47 |
| 999 |
| LexSi | 2 | 0.43 | 0.22 | 0.71 | 0.94 | 996 | 0.53 | 0.27 | 1.44 | 0.16 | 996 |
| Res | 26 | 7.99 | 0.31 | 4.78 | 0.18 | ||||||
| Total | 31 | 10.19 | 9.20 | ||||||||
Data were analysed with site as random effect and Acer species as well as leaf status (model 1) or presence of green islands (model 2) as fixed factors. Each Acer species was also tested separately with site as random and leaf status as fixed factor (models 3 and 4). Results of the PERMANOVA are based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities with 999 permutations (perm).
*The degree of freedom (df) is the same for bacteria and fungi.
AMultiple comparison revealed a marginally significant difference between all GLA and YLA samples (t = 4.11, P = 0.09, permutations = 192) and a significant difference between GLA and YLA samples of A. campestre (t = 4.1, P = 0.048, permutations = 192).
Figure 3Response of fungal (a) and bacterial (b) endophyte communities in leaves of A. campestre and A. platanoides towards green island presence and leaf status. Ordination is based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities between samples. NMDS ordination of bacterial and fungal communities is color-coded by leaf status. Note that the nMDS axes have different scales for each ordination. NMDS ordination plots for weighted UniFrac dissimilarities can be found in the Supplementary Material as Figure S4. Abbreviations: CL, control leaves; YLA, yellow leaf area; GLA, green island area.
Summary of findings. Effect of site, Acer species, presence of green islands or leaf status on bacterial and fungal richness, alpha diversity values and comnmunity composition.
| Bacterial endophyte community | Fungal endophyte community | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richness | Diversity | Faith’s PD | Composition | Richness | Diversity | Composition | |
|
| |||||||
| Site | + | + | + | + | — | — | + |
| o | + | o | — | — | — | — | |
| Green islands | — | — | — | — | + | + | — |
| Leaf status | — | — | — | — | + | + | + |
|
| |||||||
| Site | + | — | + | + | — | — | + |
| Green islands | — | — | — | NA | + | + | NA |
| Leaf status | — | — | — | — | o | o | + |
|
| |||||||
| Site | + | + | + | + | — | — | + |
| Green islands | — | — | — | NA | o | — | NA |
| Leaf status | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
+, significant (≤0.05); − not significant (>0.05); o, marginally significant (≤0.1).
Alpha diversity values are represented by richness (number of observed zOTUs), diversity (Shannon diversity index H’) and phylogenetic diversity (Faith’s PD). Results for community composition are based on model 1 (model with leaf status) and Bray-Curtis dissimilarities.
Abbreviations: NA, not available (not calculated as there was no effect of green island presence on endophyte community composition when testing the entire dataset).
Figure 4Bacterial and fungal zOTUs significantly associated with yellow (YLA) and green leaf areas (GLA) of A. campestre (Ac) and A. plantanoides (Ap) leaves with green islands.