2018
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.14376
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bacteria inhabiting deadwood of 13 tree species are heterogeneously distributed between sapwood and heartwood

Abstract: Deadwood represents an important structural component of forest ecosystems, where it provides diverse niches for saproxylic biota. Although wood-inhabiting prokaryotes are involved in its degradation, knowledge about their diversity and the drivers of community structure is scarce. To explore the effect of deadwood substrate on microbial distribution, the present study focuses on the microbial communities of deadwood logs from 13 different tree species investigated using an amplicon based deep-sequencing analy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
74
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
5
74
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A possible explanation might be that the anatomical and physicochemical properties of deadwood strongly differ between broadleaved and coniferous tree species (Wilson & White, 1986; Meerts, 2002; Weedon et al ., 2009), which can explain their frequently distinct communities of saproxylic taxa (Purahong et al ., 2018). Analyses of wood‐inhabiting fungi and bacteria using molecular data and a small set of wood properties demonstrated the importance of physicochemical properties (pH, density, extractives, lignin content, and water content) in determining community composition (Moll et al ., 2018; Purahong et al ., 2018). Additionally, the phylogenetic relatedness of the tree species might also play a role in determining saproxylic beetle communities, as wood properties seem to be more similar in closely related than in distantly related tree species (Thorn et al ., 2015; Purahong et al ., 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A possible explanation might be that the anatomical and physicochemical properties of deadwood strongly differ between broadleaved and coniferous tree species (Wilson & White, 1986; Meerts, 2002; Weedon et al ., 2009), which can explain their frequently distinct communities of saproxylic taxa (Purahong et al ., 2018). Analyses of wood‐inhabiting fungi and bacteria using molecular data and a small set of wood properties demonstrated the importance of physicochemical properties (pH, density, extractives, lignin content, and water content) in determining community composition (Moll et al ., 2018; Purahong et al ., 2018). Additionally, the phylogenetic relatedness of the tree species might also play a role in determining saproxylic beetle communities, as wood properties seem to be more similar in closely related than in distantly related tree species (Thorn et al ., 2015; Purahong et al ., 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wood traits differed significantly between the heartwood of different tree species for lignin and acid-soluble lignin, water content, pH, and C content, and between the sapwoods for acid-soluble lignin (30). Modules of the sapwood fungal network were formed on the basis of tree identity rather than wood traits.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The current study presents findings from the BELongDead (Biodiversity Exploratories Long-term Deadwood) experiment that observes decomposition of deadwood logs of 13 deciduous and coniferous temperate tree species, standardized by the same starting time point of decomposition (28). Prior to this study, the wood-colonizing fungal and prokaryotic communities and their spatial distribution in sapwood and heartwood were analyzed using amplicon sequencing, revealing tree species-related differences for both groups and spatial differences mainly for the prokaryotes (29,30). However, it remained unclear how the two groups are comparatively linked to the deadwood resource.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PCR genomic DNA amplicon libraries of the targeted microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) were produced from the genomic DNA templates. The bacterial 16S and fungal ITS2 within the rDNA region were amplified using a modified primer mix: P5_8N_515F + P5_7N_515F (forward) together with P7_2N_806R + P7_1N_806R (Caporaso et al, 2012;Moll et al, 2018) for the bacteria, and P5-5N-ITS4 (Gardes and Bruns, 1993;Leonhardt et al, 2019)/P7-4N-fITS7 (Ihrmark et al, 2012;Leonhardt et al, 2019) for the fungi, all containing the Illumina adapter sequences (see Supplementary Table S2 for an overview of the utilized primer sequences according to Hendgen et al, 2018). All PCRs were conducted using the proofreading KAPA Hifi polymerase (Kapa Biosystems, Boston, MA, United States).…”
Section: Dna Extraction Amplification and Sequencingmentioning
confidence: 99%