It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Plant breeding reduces the genetic diversity of plants and could influence the composition, structure, and diversity of the rhizosphere microbiome, selecting more homogeneous and specialized microbes. In this study, we used 16S rRNA sequencing to assess the bacterial community in the rhizosphere of different lines and modern cowpea cultivars, to investigate the effect of cowpea breeding on bacterial community assembly. Thus, two African lines (IT85F-2687 and IT82D-60) and two Brazilian cultivars (BRS-Guariba and BRS-Tumucumaque) of cowpea were assessed to verify if the generation advance and genetic breeding influence the bacterial community in the rhizosphere. No significant differences were found in the structure, richness, and diversity of bacterial community structure between the rhizosphere of the different cowpea genotypes, and only slight differences were found at the OTU level. The complexity of the co-occurrence network decreased from African lines to Brazilian cultivars. Regarding functional prediction, the core functions were significantly altered according to the genotypes. In general, African lines presented a more abundance of groups related to chemoheterotrophy, while the rhizosphere of the modern cultivars decreased functions related to cellulolysis. This study showed that the genetic breeding process affects the dynamics of the rhizosphere community, decreasing the complexity of interaction in one cultivar. As these cowpea genotypes are genetically related, it could suggest a new hypothesis of how genetic breeding of similar genotypes could influence the rhizosphere microbiome.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Federal University of Piauí, Plant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Teresina, Brazil (GRID:grid.412380.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2176 3398)
2 University of Sao Paulo, Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Piracicaba, Brazil (GRID:grid.11899.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0722)
3 Federal University of Piauí, Soil Microbial Ecology Group, Agricultural Science Center, Teresina, Brazil (GRID:grid.412380.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2176 3398)
4 Federal University of Ceará, Laboratório de Ecologia Microbiana E Biotecnologia, Fortaleza, Brazil (GRID:grid.8395.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2160 0329)
5 Federal University of Ceará, Soil Science Department, Fortaleza, Brazil (GRID:grid.8395.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2160 0329)
6 Embrapa Meio Norte, Teresina, Brazil (GRID:grid.412380.c)