Reducing management intensity according to the topography of pastures can change the dominant plant species from sown forages to weeds. It is unclear how changes in species dominance in plant community drive spatial variation in soil bacterial community characteristics and functions in association with edaphic condition. Analysing separately the effects of both plant communities and soil chemical properties on bacterial community is crucial for understanding the biogeographic process at a small scale. In this paper, we investigated soil bacterial responses in five plant communities (two forage and three weed), where >65% of the coverage was by one or two species. The structure and composition of the bacterial communities in the different microbiome were analysed using sequencing and their characteristics were assessed using the Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways. Firmicutes and Planctomycetes responded only to one specific plant community, and each plant community harboured unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the species level. There were a large percentage of uniquely absent OTUs for specific plant communities, suggesting that a negative effect is critical in the relationship between plants and bacteria. Bacterial diversity indices were influenced more by soil chemical properties than by plant communities. Some putative functions related to C and N recycling including nitrogen fixation were correlated with pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and nutrient levels, and this also implied that some biological functions, such as ureolysis and carbon metabolism, may decline when fertilisation intensity is reduced. Taken together, these results suggest that a shift of dominant species in plant community exerts individual effects on the bacterial community composition, which is different from the effect of soil chemical properties.
Reducing management intensity according to the topography of pastures can change the dominant plant species from sown forages to weeds. It is unclear how changes in species dominance in plant community drive spatial variation in soil bacterial community characteristics and functions in association with edaphic condition. Analysing separately the effects of both plant communities and soil chemical properties on bacterial community is cn class="Chemical">rucial for unpan>derstanding the biogeographic process at a n class="Chemical">small scale. In this paper, we investigated soil bacterial responses in five plant communities (two forage and three weed), where >65% of the coverage was by one or two species. The structure and composition of the bacterial communities in the different microbiome were analysed using sequencing and their characteristics were assessed using the Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways. Firmicutes and Planctomycetes responded only to one specific plant community, and each plant community harboured unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the species level. There were a large percentage of uniquely absent OTUs for specific plant communities, suggesting that a negative effect is critical in the relationship between plants and bacteria. Bacterial diversity indices were influenced more by soil chemical properties than by plant communities. Some putative functions related to C and N recycling including nitrogen fixation were correlated with pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and nutrient levels, and this also implied that some biological functions, such as ureolysis and carbon metabolism, may decline when fertilisation intensity is reduced. Taken together, these results suggest that a shift of dominant species in plant community exerts individual effects on the bacterial community composition, which is different from the effect of soil chemical properties.
Authors: Suzanne M Prober; Jonathan W Leff; Scott T Bates; Elizabeth T Borer; Jennifer Firn; W Stanley Harpole; Eric M Lind; Eric W Seabloom; Peter B Adler; Jonathan D Bakker; Elsa E Cleland; Nicole M DeCrappeo; Elizabeth DeLorenze; Nicole Hagenah; Yann Hautier; Kirsten S Hofmockel; Kevin P Kirkman; Johannes M H Knops; Kimberly J La Pierre; Andrew S MacDougall; Rebecca L McCulley; Charles E Mitchell; Anita C Risch; Martin Schuetz; Carly J Stevens; Ryan J Williams; Noah Fierer Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: H Faoro; A C Alves; E M Souza; L U Rigo; L M Cruz; S M Al-Janabi; R A Monteiro; V A Baura; F O Pedrosa Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Anders Lanzén; Lur Epelde; Carlos Garbisu; Mikel Anza; Iker Martín-Sánchez; Fernando Blanco; Iker Mijangos Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 5.640