不同生态环境下银中杨内生菌群落结构及生态位变异

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20200206

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: This paper aims at studying the diversity of endosphere bacterial and fungal microbiome in roots and stems of Populus alba×P. berolinensis grown in three different sites, and the results would provide scientific basis for the study of interactions between plants and microorganisms. Method: The roots and stems of poplar were collected from three different sites:Changweizi village of Linyuan town in Daqing city, Cuohai farm in Qiqihar city and Hancunhe Dongying nursery in Fangshan District. After surface disinfection, microbial DNA was extracted and sequenced by Illumina MiSeq using 16 s rRNA and internal transcribed spacer amplicon (ITS) amplifiers to determine the bacterial and fungal communities associated with the different plant habitats and niches. Results: According to the 97% sequence similarity cut-off level, the reads of bacteria and fungi were clustered into 1541 and 240 OTU, respectively. In comparison with the database, we found that Actinobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidia were the dominant endophytic bacteria, and the fungal community was dominated by Dothideomycetes, Agaricomycetes, Sordariomycetes and Tremellomycetes. The results of alpha and beta diversity showed that the stem endophytic communities of poplar in Beijing, Daqing and Qiqihar were obviously clustered and could not be distinguished. However, the endophytic community of roots was dependent on plant organs and growth environment. The Mantel test results showed that pH, and soil organic matter (SOM) contents and potassium (K) content were significantly correlated with the microbial communities (P < 0.05). However, the nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) content did not appear to be important factors explaining the variance in the communities of poplar root endophytes. We identified the core microbiome in the different organs of poplar grown in different environmental conditions, and obtained a total of 23 core bacteria OTU belonging to 6 classes, and 22 core fungi OTU belonging to 7 classes, respectively. Species indicator analysis revealed seven root endophytic bacterial indicator OTUs:Actinophytocola, Actinoplanes, Pseudonocardia, Rhodomicrobium, Streptomyces, Variovorax and Bradyrhizobium; five stem endophytic bacterial indicator OTUs:Bifidobacterium, Dialister, Faecalibacterium, Micrococcus and Rhodococcus; two root endophytic fungal indicator OTUs:Leptosphaeria and Ilyonectria; three stem endophytic fungal indicator OTUs:Pleosporales, Alternaria and Endosporium. The UpSetR results showed that 51 (3.30%) OTUs of bacteria were shared by 6 groups, and the unique OTU of 6 groups accounted for 4.54-15.44%; one (0.42%) OTU of fungi was shared by 6 groups, and the unique OTU of 6 groups accounted for 2.92-29.17%. Conclusion: The bacterial and fungal community structure depends on the pH, the soil organic matter content and potassium (K) content. Each plant organ represents a unique ecological niche for the endophytic communities. Finally, we have identified the indicator operational taxonomic units (OTU) and core microbiome associated with the different ecological niches of Populus and different environmental conditions. The results provide a basis for further study of host-microbial interactions with the identified abundant OTU of Populus.

Key words: Populus alba×P. berolinensis, environmental condition, endophytic communities, niche differentiation, amplicon Illumina MiSeq

CLC Number:

S718.46

Yanbo Wang,Weixi Zhang,Changjun Ding,Xiaohua Su. Community Structure and Niche Differentiation of Endophytic Microbiome in Populus alba×P. berolinensis under Different Ecological Environment[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(2): 48-60.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 2

Fig.4

Table 3

Fig.5

Table 5

Fig.6

Table 4

References 0

	华苟根, 郭坚华. 红球菌属的分类及应用研究进展. 微生物学通报, 2003. 30 (4): 107- 111. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-2654.2003.04.027
	Hua G G , Guo J H . The taxonomy and application of Rhodococcus. Microbiology China, 2003. 30 (4): 107- 111. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-2654.2003.04.027
	刘丛丛, 韩俊杰, 刘宏伟. 小球腔菌属次级代谢产物的化学及其生物学活性研究进展. 天然产物研究与开发, 2017. 29 (12): 2163- 2174.
	Liu C C , Han J J , Liu H W . Secondary metabolites produced by Leptosphaeria and their bioactivities. Natural Product Research and Development, 2017. 29 (12): 2163- 2174.
	王艳云, 郭笃发. 黄河三角洲盐碱地土壤真菌多样性. 北方园艺, 2016. 40 (18): 185- 189.
	Wang Y Y , Guo D F . Fungal diversity of saline alkali soil in Yellow River Delta. Northern Horticulture, 2016. 40 (18): 185- 189.
	Antoun H , Beauchamp C J , Goussard N , et al. Potential of Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium species as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on non-legumes:effect on radishes (Raphanus sativus L.). Plant and Soil, 1998. 204 (1): 57- 67. doi: 10.1023/A:1004326910584
	Azarias Guimarães A , Florentino L A , Alves Almeida K , et al. High diversity of Bradyrhizobium strains isolated from several legume species and land uses in Brazilian tropical ecosystems. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 2015. 38 (6): 433- 441. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2015.06.006
	Beckers B, Beeck M O D, Thijs S, et al. 2016. Performance of 16s rDNA primer pairs in the study of rhizosphere and endosphere bacterial microbiomes in metabarcoding studies. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7.
	Beckers B , Beeck M O D , Weyens N , et al. Structural variability and niche differentiation in the rhizosphere and endosphere bacterial microbiome of field-grown poplar trees. Microbiome, 2017. 5 (1): 25. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0241-2
	Bolger A , Lohse M , Usadel B . Trimmomatic:a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics, 2014. 30, 2114- 2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170
	Bulgarelli D , Rott M , Schlaeppi K , et al. Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature, 2012. 488 (4709): 91- 95.
	Bulgarelli D , Schlaeppi K , Spaepen S , et al. Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annual Review Plant Biology, 2013. 64 (1): 807- 838. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106
	Cáceres M D , Legendre P . Associations between species and groups of sites:indices and statistical inference. Ecology, 2009. 90 (12): 3566- 3574. doi: 10.1890/08-1823.1
	Carrion V J , Cordovez V , Tyc O , et al. Involvement of Burkholderiaceae and sulfurous volatiles in disease-suppressive soils. The ISME Journal, 2018. 12 (9): 2307- 2321. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0186-x
	Compant S , Clément C , Sessitsch A . Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo-and endosphere of plants:their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2009. 42 (5): 669- 678.
	Dickie I . Insidious effects of sequencing errors on perceived diversity in molecular surveys. New Phytologist, 2010. 188 (4): 916- 918. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03473.x
	Edgar R , Haas B , Clemente J , et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics, 2011. 27 (6): 2194- 2200.
	Fonseca-García C, Coleman-Derr D, Garrido E, et al. 2016. The cacti microbiome: interplay between habitat-filtering and host-specificity. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7.
	Gołębiewski M , Deja-Sikora E , Cichosz M , et al. 16S rDNA pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial community in heavy metals polluted soils. Microbial Ecology, 2014. 67 (3): 635- 647. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0344-7
	Gottel N R , Castro H F , Kerley M , et al. Distinct microbial communities within the endosphere and rhizosphere of Populus deltoides roots across contrasting soil types. Applied and Enviromental Microbiology, 2011. 77 (7): 5934- 5944.
	Hallmann J A , Quadt-Hallmann A , Mahaffee W F , et al. Endophytic bacteria in agricultural crops. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2011. 43 (6): 895- 914.
	Hardoim , Pablo R , Overbeek V , et al. Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth. Trends in Microbiology, 2008. 16 (10): 463- 471. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2008.07.008
	Hartman W H , Richardson C J , Vilgalys R , et al. Environmental and anthropogenic controls over bacterial communities in wetland soils. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2008. 105 (46): 17842- 17847. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808254105
	Hibbett D S . A phylogenetic overview of the Agaricomycotina. Mycologia, 2007. 98 (6): 917- 925.
	Inceoǧlu O , Salles J F , Van O L , et al. Effects of plant genotype and growth stage on the betaproteobacterial communities associated with different potato cultivars in two fields. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010. 76 (11): 3675- 3684. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00040-10
	Ishida T A , Nara K , Ma S , et al. Ectomycorrhizal fungal community in alkaline-saline soil in northeastern China. Mycorrhiza, 2009. 19 (5): 329- 335. doi: 10.1007/s00572-008-0219-9
	Ivica L , Peer B . Interactive tree of life v2:online annotation and display of phylogenetic trees made easy. Nucleic Acids Research, 2011. 39 (suppl 2): W475- W478.
	Janpen P , Kiwamu M , Kamonluck T , et al. The communities of endophytic diazotrophic bacteria in cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.). Applied Soil Ecology, 2009. 42 (2): 141- 149. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.02.008
	Kesari V , Ramesh A M , Rangan L . Rhizobium pongamiae sp. nov. from root nodules of Pongamia pinnata. Biomed Research International, 2013. (1): 165198.
	Lauber C L , Hamady M , Knight R , et al. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009. 75 (15): 5111- 5120. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00335-09
	Liu H , Carvalhais L C , Crawford M , et al. Inner plant values:diversity, colonization and benefits from endophytic bacteria. Frontiers Microbiology, 2017. 8, 2552. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02552
	Lozupone C A , Knight R . Global patterns in bacterial diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007. 104 (27): 11436- 11440. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611525104
	Lu X , Zhang Y , Liu C , et al. Characterization of the antimonite-and arsenite-oxidizing bacterium Bosea sp. AS-1 and its potential application in arsenic removal. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2018. 359, 527- 534. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.07.112
	Lunsmann V , Kappelmeyer U , Benndorf R , et al. In situ protein-SIP highlights Burkholderiaceae as key players degrading toluene by para ring hydroxylation in a constructed wetland model. Environmental Microbiology, 2016. 18 (4): 1176- 1186. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13133
	Magoč T , Salzberg S . Flash:fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics, 2011. 27 (21): 2957- 2963. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
	Marschner P , Solaiman Z , Rengel Z . Growth, phosphorus uptake, and rhizosphere microbial-community composition of a phosphorus-efficient wheat cultivar in soils differing in pH. Journal of Plant Nutrition & Soil Science, 2005. 168 (3): 343- 351.
	Merilä P , Malmivaara-Lämsä M , Spetz P , et al. Soil organic matter quality as a link between microbial community structure and vegetation composition along a successional gradient in a boreal forest. Applied Soil Ecology, 2010. 46 (2): 259- 267. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.08.003
	Naveed M , Mitter B , Reichenauer T G , et al. Increased drought stress resilience of maize through endophytic colonization by Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN and Enterobacter sp. FD17. Environmental & Experimental Botany, 2014. 97 (97): 30- 39.
	Perez-Pantoja D , Donoso R , Agullo L , et al. Genomic analysis of the potential for aromatic compounds biodegradation in Burkholderiales. Environmental Microbiology, 2012. 14 (5): 1091- 1117. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02613.x
	Podolich O , Ardanov P , Zaets I , et al. Reviving of the endophytic bacterial community as a putative mechanism of plant resistance. Plant and Soil, 2014. 388 (1/2): 367- 377.
	Prischl M , Hackl E , Pastar M , et al. Genetically modified Bt maize lines containing cry3Bb1, cry1A105 or cry1Ab2 do not affect the structure and functioning of root-associated endophyte communities. Applied Soil Ecology, 2012. 54, 39- 48. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.12.005
	Rangjaroen C , Rerkasem B , Teaumroong N , et al. Comparative study of endophytic and endophytic diazotrophic bacterial communities across rice landraces grown in the highlands of northern Thailand. Archives of Microbiology, 2014. 196 (1): 35- 49.
	Rasche F , Velvis H , Zachow C , et al. Impact of transgenic potatoes expressing anti-bacterial agents on bacterial endophytes is comparable with the effects of plant genotype, soil type and pathogen infection. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2006. 43 (3): 555- 566. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01169.x
	Redman R S , Ok K Y , Woodward C J D A , et al. Increased fitness of rice plants to abiotic stress via habitat adapted symbiosis:astrategy for mitigating impacts of climate change. Plos One, 2011. 6 (7): e14823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014823
	Reeuwijk L P v, International Soil R, Information C. 1995. Procedures for soil analysis. International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
	Rozek K , Rola K , Blaszkowski J , et al. Associations of root-inhabiting fungi with herbaceous plant species of temperate forests in relation to soil chemical properties. Science of the Total Enivironment, 2018. 649, 1573- 1579.
	Sannigrahi P , Ragauskas A J , Tuskan G A . Poplar as a feedstock for biofuels:A review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2010. 4 (2): 209- 226. doi: 10.1002/bbb.206
	Shakya M , Gottel N , Castro H , et al. A multifactor analysis of fungal and bacterial community structure in the root microbiome of mature Populus deltoides trees. Plos One, 2013. 8 (10): e76382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076382
	Singh R , Dubey A K . Diversity and applications of endophytic actinobacteria of plants in special and other ecological niches. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018. 9, 1767. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01767
	Tardif S, Yergeau É, Tremblay J, et al. 2016. The Willow microbiome is influenced by soil petroleum-hydrocarbon concentration with plant compartment-specific effects. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7.
	Thiem D, Gołębiewski M, Hulisz P, et al. 2018. How does salinity shape bacterial and fungal microbiomes of Alnus glutinosa roots? Frontiers in Microbiology, 9: 651.
	Tsuneda A , Davey M L , Hambleton S , et al. Endosporium, a new endoconidial genus allied to the Myriangiales. Botany, 2008. 86 (9): 1020- 1033. doi: 10.1139/B08-054
	Tsuneda A T M N , Currah R S . Scleroconidioma, a new genus of dematiaceous Hyphomycetes. Canadian Journal of Botany, Canadian Journal of Botany, 2000. 78 (10): 1294- 1298. doi: 10.1139/cjb-78-10-1294
	Ulrich K , Ulrich A , Ewald D . Diversity of endophytic bacterial communities in poplar grown under field conditions. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2008. 63 (2): 169- 180.
	Vandenkoornhuyse P , Quaiser A , Duhamel M , et al. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytologist, 2015. 206 (4): 1196- 1206. doi: 10.1111/nph.13312
	Vandeputte O , Oden S , Mol A , et al. Biosynthesis of auxin by the gram-positive phytopathogen Rhodococcus fascians is controlled by compounds specific to infected plant tissues. Applied and Enviromental Microbiology, 2005. 71 (3): 1169- 1177. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.3.1169-1177.2005
	Whitaker B K , Reynolds H L , Applied and Enviromental Microbidogy , Clay K . Foliar fungal endophyte communities are structured by environment but not host ecotype in Panicum virgatum (switchgrass). Ecology, 2018. 99 (12): 2703- 2711. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2543
	Yaish M W , Alharrasi I , Alansari A S , et al. The use of high throughput DNA sequence analysis to assess the endophytic microbiome of date palm roots grown under different levels of salt stress. International Microbiology, 2016a. 19, 143- 155.
	Yaish M W , Al-Lawati A , Jana G A , et al. Impact of soil salinity on the structure of the bacterial endophytic community identified from the roots of caliph medic (Medicago truncatula). Plos One, 2016b. 11 (7): e0159007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159007
	Yu X , Yang J , Wang E , et al. Effects of growth stage and fulvic acid on the diversity and dynamics of endophytic bacterial community in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves. Front Microbiol, 2015. 6, 867.
	Zhang L , Yue Q , Yang K , et al. Analysis of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and ciprofloxacin-degrading microbial community in the combined Fe-C micro-electrolysis-UBAF process for the elimination of high-level ciprofloxacin. Chemosphere, 2018. 193, 645- 654. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.056
	Zloch M , Thiem D , Gadzala-Kopciuch R , et al. Synthesis of siderophores by plant-associated metallotolerant bacteria under exposure to Cd²⁺. Chemosphere, 2016. 156, 312- 325. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.130

质量指标 Quality metrics	微生物 Microorganism	根Root			茎Stem
质量指标 Quality metrics	微生物 Microorganism	大庆Daqing	北京Beijing	齐齐哈尔Qiqihar	大庆Daqing	北京Beijing	齐齐哈尔Qiqihar
平均序列数Average of reads	细菌Bacteria	56 322±1 404	48 408±2357	51 063±2 249	65 134±7 121	67 383±8 655	60 422±7 691
平均序列数Average of reads	真菌Fungi	43 887±2 355	51 118±4 313	47 400±2 332	72 160±4 296	69 731±3 178	71 812±1 953
平均读长Average read length	细菌Bacteria	397±1	395±0	395±0	394±0	394±0	394±0
平均读长Average read length	真菌Fungi	318±12	277±9	268±25	282±17	276±22	274±9
非目标序列Non-target rRNA (%) 线粒体/叶绿体/质体 Mitochondria/Chloroplast/Plastid	细菌Bacteria 真菌Fungi	0.03±0.01 0	0.02±0.00 0	0.01±0.01 0	0 0	0.01±0.00 0	0.01±0.00 0
未分类序列 Unclassified reads(%)	细菌Bacteria 真菌Fungi	0.02±0.01 4.45±2.14	0.02±0.01 24.11±12.05	0.24±0.24 0.89±0.75	0 19.93±13.88	0 25.42±16.49	0 4.75±2.07

地点 Locations	pH	土壤有机质含量 SOM/(g·kg^-1)	氮含量 N/(g·kg^-1)	磷含量 P/(g·kg^-1)	钾含量 K/(g·kg^-1)
大庆Daqing	9.40±0.01a	5.28±0.04c	0.73±0.03c	0.25±0.03b	34.69±0.51a
齐齐哈尔Qiqihar	8.22±0.02b	14.50±0.24a	1.05±0.04a	0.71±0.01a	30.91±1.08b
北京Beijing	7.09±0.15c	11.14±0.64b	0.92±0.04b	0.25±0.02b	18.78±0.72c

环境因素 Environment factors	细菌Bacteria		真菌Fungi
环境因素 Environment factors	R	P	R	P
pH	0.634	0.005^**	0.456	0.009^**
SOM	0.478	0.022^*	0.468	0.003^**
K	0.499	0.012^*	0.412	0.008^**
N	0.305	0.069	0.334	0.051
P	0.244	0.134	0.323	0.052

内生菌类型 Endophytic type	OTU(属或以上) OTU(genus or higher)	植物器官/种植地点 Plant compartments/Plant locations	指标值 Indicator value	P	相对丰度 Relative abundance(%)
细菌 Bacteria	Actinophytocola	根Root	0.943	0.001^***	14.51
	游动放线菌属Actinoplanes	根Root	0.943	0.001^***	1.28
	假诺卡氏菌属Pseudonocardia	根Root	0.882	0.003^**	1.39
	红微菌属Rhodomicrobium	根Root	0.882	0.001^***	3.23
	链霉菌属Streptomyces	根Root	0.999	0.001^***	11.91
	贪噬菌属Variovorax	根Root	0.957	0.004^**	1.84
	慢生根瘤菌属Bradyrhizobium	根Root	0.957	0.011^*	1.33
	双歧杆菌属Bifidobacterium	茎Stem	0.917	0.004^**	1.75
	小杆菌属Dialister	茎Stem	0.739	0.041^*	1.66
	粪杆菌属Faecalibacterium	茎Stem	0.814	0.026^*	1.48
	微球菌属Micrococcus	茎Stem	0.810	0.017^*	1.46
	红球菌属Rhodococcus	茎Stem	0.980	0.002^**	1.31
	Actinophytocola	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	0.989	0.044^*	1.66
	Acidibacter	齐齐哈尔(根)Qiqihar(Root)	1.000	0.036^*	1.44
真菌 Fungi	小球腔菌属Leptosphaeria	根Root	0.816	0.007^**	7.99
	Ilyonectria	根Root	0.943	0.001^***	4.37
	格孢腔目Pleosporales	茎Stem	0.995	0.002^**	42.40
	链格孢属Alternaria	茎Stem	0.810	0.047^*	4.57
	Endosporium	茎Stem	0.816	0.008^*	48.55
	木霉属Trichoderma	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	1.000	0.032^*	2.72
	口蘑属Tricholoma	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	1.000	0.032^*	8.88
	锤舌菌纲Leotiomycetes	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	0.989	0.032^*	2.28
	革菌科Thelephoraceae	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	1.000	0.032^*	6.01
	子囊菌门Ascomycota	大庆(根)Daqing (Root)	1.000	0.032^*	42.69
	隐球菌属Cryptococcus	齐齐哈尔(根)Qiqihar(Root)	1.000	0.032^*	2.14
	Neosetophoma	北京(茎)Beijing (Stem)	1.000	0.036^*	2.25

内生菌类型 Endophytic type	影响因子 Impact factor	分组 Groups	属或以上Genus or higher	各分组的丰度Abundance of each group(%)			P
内生菌类型 Endophytic type	影响因子 Impact factor	分组 Groups	属或以上Genus or higher	第1分组 The first group	第2分组 The second group	第3分组 The third group	P
细菌 Bacteria	种植地点 Plant locations	DR/JR/QR	慢生根瘤菌属Bradyrhizobium	1.17	0.08	5.00	0.036^*
	种植地点 Plant locations	DR/JR/QR	青枯菌属Ralstonia	0.39	1.79	3.63	0.047^*
	植物器官 Plant compartments	DR/DS	红球菌属Rhodococcus	3.38	47.05		0.001^***
			根瘤菌属Rhizobium	9.24	0.12		0.007^**
			红微菌属Rhodomicrobium	3.48	0		0.039^*
		JR/JS	红球菌属Rhodococcus	6.69	41.03		0.019^*
		QR/QS	青枯菌属Ralstonia	3.63	11.3		0.008^**
			慢生根瘤菌属Bradyrhizobium	3.98	0.45		0.025^*
			红球菌属Rhodococcus	24.29	44.28		0.047^*
真菌 Fungi	种植地点 Plant locations	DR/JR/QR	子囊菌门Ascomycota	53.49	3.01	0.09	0.027^*
			小球腔菌属Leptosphaeria	1.33	22.71	0	0.035^*
			口蘑属Tricholoma	8.88	0	0	0.022^*
	植物器官 Plant compartments	DR/DS	子囊菌门Ascomycota Endosporium	53.49	0.09		< 0.001^***
		DR/DS	子囊菌门Ascomycota Endosporium	0	68.10		0.008^**
		JR/JS	革菌目Thelephorales	6.08	0		0.017^*
		QR/QS	格孢菌目Pleosporales Endosporium	0.23	78.50		< 0.001^***
		QR/QS	格孢菌目Pleosporales Endosporium	0	77.90		0.023^*

Community Structure and Niche Differentiation of Endophytic Microbiome in Populus alba×P. berolinensis under Different Ecological Environment

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 0

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments