| Literature DB >> 32300174 |
Mei-Man Zhang1, Shao-Hui Fan1, Feng-Ying Guan2, Xin-Rong Yan1, Zi-Xu Yin1.
Abstract
Moso bamboo (Phyllostachysheterocycla (Carr.) Mitford cv.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32300174 PMCID: PMC7162984 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-63547-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Plant communitiesand soil physicochemical characteristics of the five sampled sites of mixed bamboo–broad-leaved forest.
| Forest type | SR1 | SR2 | pH | MS (%) | SOC (g/kg) | TN (mg/g) | TP (mg/g) | C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 2 | 1 | 4.80 ± 0.04ab | 15.6 ± 0.9b | 32 ± 14a | 4.8 ± 0.4a | 0.10 ± 0.01a | 6.3 ± 2.6a |
| B1 | 3 | 1 | 4.83 ± 0.05ab | 15.0 ± 1.2b | 22 ± 1a | 3.7 ± 0.4bc | 0.097 ± 0.006a | 6.1 ± 0.8a |
| C1 | 5 | 3 | 4.71 ± 0.03b | 23.3 ± 3.7a | 40 ± 6a | 4.5 ± 0.2ab | 0.11 ± 0.02a | 8.8 ± 0.9a |
| D1 | 4 | 4 | 4.86 ± 0.04a | 14.5 ± 2.2b | 39 ± 12a | 3.5 ± 0.3c | 0.09 ± 0.02a | 10.8 ± 1.2a |
| E1 | 4 | 4 | 4.72 ± 0.04b | 28.9 ± 3.2a | 38 ± 10a | 3.8 ± 0.2abc | 0.090 ± 0.006a | 9.8 ± 1.1a |
SR1, tree layer species richness; SR2, update layer species richness;MS, soil moisture; SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, soil total nitrogen; TP, soil total phosphorus; C/N, carbon nitrogen ratio.Relabel different mixing ratios of bamboo and broad-leaved mixed forest with A-E (10% or less(A1), 10–20%(B1), 20–30%(C1), 30–40%(D1), and more than 40%(E1). Values are means ± standard error (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant at level of 0.05.
Soil bacteria richness and diversity estimation under five mixing ratios of bamboo–broad-leaved forest.
| Forest | Sample ID | Number of OTUs | ACE Index | Shannon’s Index | Coverage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A11 | 2,342 | 2,763.96 | 6.0453 | 99.10 | |
| A1 | A12 | 2,412 | 2,883.25 | 6.0975 | 99.03 |
| A13 | 2,395 | 2,801.70 | 6.0229 | 99.09 | |
| B11 | 2,458 | 2,846.60 | 6.3482 | 98.94 | |
| B1 | B12 | 2,392 | 2,932.63 | 5.9669 | 98.98 |
| B13 | 2,327 | 2,817.89 | 6.075 | 98.91 | |
| C11 | 2,285 | 2,761.33 | 5.8007 | 99.04 | |
| C1 | C12 | 2,177 | 2,697.71 | 5.6904 | 98.98 |
| C13 | 2,237 | 2,743.12 | 5.7691 | 98.98 | |
| D11 | 2,423 | 2,906.25 | 6.0741 | 98.98 | |
| D1 | D12 | 2,387 | 2,826.78 | 6.0304 | 99.07 |
| D13 | 2,429 | 2,825.72 | 6.2019 | 99.09 | |
| E11 | 2,719 | 3,223.74 | 6.1895 | 98.88 | |
| E1 | E12 | 2,226 | 2,712.04 | 5.8366 | 99.06 |
| E13 | 2,178 | 2,626.24 | 5.8907 | 99.11 | |
Figure 1Rarefaction curves of 16S rDNA for high-throughput sequencing of 15 soil bacteria communities.
Figure 2The community composition ofdominant bacteria phyla along mixing ratio.
Figure 3Heatmap diagram shown the dominant 23 bacterial OTUs under five mixing ratios of bamboo–broad-leaved forest.
Figure 4PCoA plot of soil bacterial communities from five mixing ratio types forests based on the Bray-Curtis distance.
Figure 5Thestatistically significant biomarkers among five mixing ratios of bamboo–broad-leaved forests analyzed by LEfSe. (A) Soil bacterial gene that were differentially among five mixing ratios of bamboo–broad-leaved forests cladogram generated from LEfSe analysis. (B) Differences in key OTUs identified as differentiating among five mixing ratios of bamboo–broad-leaved forests.
Figure 6(A) RDA analysis showing the correlations between microbial community structure and environmental factors. (B) Venn diagram used to interpret the influence ofenvironmental factors on soil microbial communities. Environmentalfactors as shown in Table 1.