Rhizobial diversity is associated with inoculation history at a two-continent scale
FEMS Microbiology Ecology, ISSN: 1574-6941, Vol: 98, Issue: 5
2022
- 4Citations
- 8Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
A total of 120 Mesorhizobium strains collected from the central dry zone of Myanmar were analyzed in a pot experiment to evaluate nodulation and symbiotic effectiveness (SE%) in chickpea plants. Phylogenetic analyses revealed all strains belonged to the genus Mesorhizobium according to 16-23S rDNA IGS and the majority of chickpea nodulating rhizobia in Myanmar soils were most closely related to M. gobiense, M. muleiense, M. silamurunense, M. tamadayense and M. temperatum. Around two-thirds of the Myanmar strains (68%) were most closely related to Indian strain IC-2058 (CA-181), which is also most closely related to M. gobiense. There were no strains that were closely related to the cognate rhizobial species to nodulate chickpea: M. ciceri and M. mediterraneum. Strains with diverse 16S-23S rDNA IGS shared similar nodC and nifH gene sequences with chickpea symbionts. Detailed sequence analysis of nodC and nifH found that the strains in Myanmar were somewhat divergent from the group including M. ciceri and were more closely related to M. muleiense and IC-2058. A cross-continent analysis between strains isolated in Australia compared with Myanmar found that there was little overlap in species, where Australian soils were dominated with M. ciceri, M. temperatum and M. huakuii. The only co-occurring species found in both Myanmar and Australia were M. tamadayense and M. silumurunense. Continued inoculation with CC1192 may have reduced diversity of chickpea strains in Australian soils. Isolated strains in Australian and Myanmar had similar adaptive traits, which in some cases were also phylogenetically related. The genetic discrepancy between chickpea nodulating strains in Australia and Myanmar is not only due to inoculation history but to adaptation to soil conditions and crop management over a long period, and there has been virtually no loss of symbiotic efficiency over this time in strains isolated from soils in Myanmar.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85130000036&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiac044; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35416244; https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/doi/10.1093/femsec/fiac044/6567838; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiac044; https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/98/5/fiac044/6567838
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know