Display options
Cite
Castañeda LE, Godoy K, Manzano M, et al. Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile. Ecol Evol. 2015;5(18):3857-68doi: 10.1002/ece3.1652.
Castañeda, L. E., Godoy, K., Manzano, M., Marquet, P. A., & Barbosa, O. (2015). Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile. Ecology and evolution, 5(18), 3857-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1652
Castañeda, Luis E, et al. "Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile." Ecology and evolution vol. 5,18 (2015): 3857-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1652
Castañeda LE, Godoy K, Manzano M, Marquet PA, Barbosa O. Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile. Ecol Evol. 2015 Aug 24;5(18):3857-68. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1652. eCollection 2015 Sep. PMID: 26445647; PMCID: PMC4588659.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ecol Evol. 2015 Aug 24;5(18):3857-68. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1652. eCollection 2015 Sep.

Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile.

Ecology and evolution

Luis E Castañeda, Karina Godoy, Marlene Manzano, Pablo A Marquet, Olga Barbosa

Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Ciencias Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas Campus Isla Teja Universidad Austral de Chile Valdivia Chile ; Instituto de Ecología & Biodiversidad (IEB-Chile) Casilla 653 Santiago Chile.
  2. Instituto de Ecología & Biodiversidad (IEB-Chile) Casilla 653 Santiago Chile ; Departamento de Ecología Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Alameda 340 Santiago Chile.
  3. Instituto de Ecología & Biodiversidad (IEB-Chile) Casilla 653 Santiago Chile ; Departamento de Ecología Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Alameda 340 Santiago Chile ; The Santa Fe Institute Santa Fe New Mexico 87501 ; Laboratorio Internacional de Cambio Global Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Alameda 340 Santiago Chile ; Centro Cambio Global UC Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 Santiago Chile.

PMID: 26445647 PMCID: PMC4588659 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1652

Abstract

Natural ecosystems provide services to agriculture such as pest control, soil nutrients, and key microbial components. These services and others in turn provide essential elements that fuel biomass productivity. Responsible agricultural management and conservation of natural habitats can enhance these ecosystem services. Vineyards are currently driving land-use changes in many Mediterranean ecosystems. These land-use changes could have important effects on the supporting ecosystems services related to the soil properties and the microbial communities associated with forests and vineyard soils. Here, we explore soil bacterial and fungal communities present in sclerophyllous forests and organic vineyards from three different wine growing areas in central Chile. We employed terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms (T-RFLP) to describe the soil microbial communities inhabiting native forests and vineyards in central Chile. We found that the bacterial community changed between the sampled growing areas; however, the fungal community did not differ. At the local scale, our findings show that fungal communities differed between habitats because fungi species might be more sensitive to land-use change compared to bacterial species, as bacterial communities did not change between forests and vineyards. We discuss these findings based on the sensitivity of microbial communities to soil properties and land-use change. Finally, we focus our conclusions on the importance of naturally derived ecosystem services to vineyards.

Keywords: Microbial community structure; microbial diversity; soil bacteria; soil fungi; terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms (T‐RFLP)

References

  1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Mar;75(6):1589-96 - PubMed
  2. Science. 2004 Jul 23;305(5683):509-13 - PubMed
  3. Ecol Evol. 2015 Aug 24;5(18):3857-68 - PubMed
  4. Microb Ecol. 2012 May;63(4):804-12 - PubMed
  5. Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):570-4 - PubMed
  6. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Sep 27;365(1554):2959-71 - PubMed
  7. Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;8(5):929-38 - PubMed
  8. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Feb;69(2):926-32 - PubMed
  9. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 18;8(11):e80522 - PubMed
  10. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Sep;11(9):362-6 - PubMed
  11. Ecol Lett. 2015 Jan;18(1):108-18 - PubMed
  12. ISME J. 2010 Apr;4(4):553-63 - PubMed
  13. Int J Food Microbiol. 2012 Feb 15;153(3):243-59 - PubMed
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 23;110(17):6907-12 - PubMed
  15. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013 Jun;84(3):588-602 - PubMed
  16. Science. 2004 Jun 11;304(5677):1629-33 - PubMed
  17. Nature. 2000 Apr 27;404(6781):990-2 - PubMed
  18. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Dec;78(24):8587-94 - PubMed
  19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 17;103(3):626-31 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 21;9(8):e105515 - PubMed
  21. Mol Ecol. 1993 Apr;2(2):113-8 - PubMed
  22. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Dec;72(12):7804-12 - PubMed
  23. Nature. 2004 Dec 9;432(7018):747-50 - PubMed
  24. J Environ Manage. 2001 Dec;63(4):337-65 - PubMed
  25. Ecol Lett. 2008 Mar;11(3):296-310 - PubMed
  26. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Oct;82(20):6955-9 - PubMed
  27. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 7;111(1):5-6 - PubMed
  28. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 24;101(34):12579-82 - PubMed
  29. Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):853-8 - PubMed
  30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 26;104(52):20666-71 - PubMed
  31. Environ Microbiol. 2004 Oct;6(10):1070-80 - PubMed
  32. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 7;111(1):E139-48 - PubMed

Publication Types