Site properties have a stronger influence than fire severity on ectomycorrhizal fungi and associated N-cycling bacteria in regenerating post-beetle-killed lodgepole pine forests

. 2015 Sep ; 60 (5) : 399-410. [epub] 20141225

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid25540132

Following a pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, Canada, we investigated the effect of fire severity on rhizosphere soil chemistry and ectomycorrhizal fungi (ECM) and associated denitrifying and nitrogen (N)-fixing bacteria in the root systems of regenerating lodgepole pine seedlings at two site types (wet and dry) and three fire severities (low, moderate, and high). The site type was found to have a much larger impact on all measurements than fire severity. Wet and dry sites differed significantly for almost all soil properties measured, with higher values identified from wet types, except for pH and percent sand that were greater on dry sites. Fire severity caused few changes in soil chemical status. Generally, bacterial communities differed little, whereas ECM morphotype analysis revealed ectomycorrhizal diversity was lower on dry sites, with a corresponding division in community structure between wet and dry sites. Molecular profiling of the fungal ITS region confirmed these results, with a clear difference in community structure seen between wet and dry sites. The ability of ECM fungi to colonize seedlings growing in both wet and dry soils may positively contribute to subsequent regeneration. We conclude that despite consecutive landscape disturbances (mountain pine beetle infestation followed by wildfire), the "signature" of moisture on chemistry and ECM community structure remained pronounced.

Zobrazit více v PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008 Feb;279(1):15-22 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006 Sep;57(3):409-19 PubMed

ISME J. 2014 Sep;8(9):1920-31 PubMed

Ecology. 2006 Nov;87(11):2773-86 PubMed

New Phytol. 2007;176(1):22-36 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2007 Jun;17(4):259-70 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005 Jun 1;53(1):41-50 PubMed

Environ Microbiol. 2003 Jul;5(7):539-54 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(16):5276-83 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 May;71(5):2713-22 PubMed

ISME J. 2012 Dec;6(12):2199-218 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Jul;69(7):3772-6 PubMed

Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jan;8(1):95-8 PubMed

Microb Ecol. 2006 Jul;52(1):114-26 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Feb;72(2):1270-8 PubMed

PLoS One. 2013 Jun 05;8(6):e65004 PubMed

Oecologia. 2013 Aug;172(4):1179-89 PubMed

FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2004 Sep 1;49(3):401-17 PubMed

Environ Microbiol. 2006 Dec;8(12):2224-30 PubMed

Mycorrhiza. 2009 Feb;19(2):99-111 PubMed

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 29;110(5):1756-60 PubMed

Ecology. 2014 Apr;95(4):1096-103 PubMed

Oecologia. 2005 Mar;143(1):1-10 PubMed

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...