Abstract
Phyllosphere exudates create specialized microhabitats that shape microbial community diversity. We explored the microbiome associated with two sorghum phyllosphere exudates, the epicuticular wax and aerial root mucilage. We assessed the microbiome associated with the wax from sorghum plants over two growth stages, and the root mucilage additionally from nitrogen-fertilized and nonfertilized plants. In parallel, we isolated and characterized hundreds of bacteria from wax and mucilage, and integrated data from cultivation-independent and cultivation-dependent approaches to gain insights into exudate diversity and bacterial phenotypes. We found that Sphingomonadaceae and Rhizobiaceae families were the major taxa in the wax regardless of water availability and plant developmental stage to plants. The cultivation-independent mucilage-associated bacterial microbiome contained the families Erwiniaceae, Flavobacteriaceae, Rhizobiaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, and Sphingomonadaceae, and its structure was strongly influenced by sorghum development but only modestly influenced by fertilization. In contrast, the fungal community structure of mucilage was strongly affected by the year of sampling but not by fertilization or plant developmental stage, suggesting a decoupling of fungal–bacterial dynamics in the mucilage. Our bacterial isolate collection from wax and mucilage had several isolates that matched 100% to detected amplicon sequence variants, and were enriched on media that selected for phenotypes that included phosphate solubilization, putative diazotrophy, resistance to desiccation, capability to grow on methanol as a carbon source, and ability to grow in the presence of linalool and β-caryophyllene (terpenes in sorghum wax). This work expands our understanding of the microbiome of phyllosphere exudates and supports our long-term goal to translate microbiome research to support sorghum cultivation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Sphingomonadaceae and Rhizobiaceae predominated in sorghum wax across water availability and developmental stages.
- Interactor
- SphingomonadaceaeSphingomonadaceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- major taxa in the waxe0
- Qualifier
- regardless of water availability and plant developmental stagee0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sphingomonadaceae and Rhizobiaceae families were the major taxa in the wax regardless of water availability and plant developmental stage to plants”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobiaceae was a major taxon in sorghum wax across water availability and developmental stages.
- Interactor
- RhizobiaceaeRhizobiaceaee0symbiont
- Outcome
- major taxa in the waxe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sphingomonadaceae and Rhizobiaceae families were the major taxa in the wax regardless of water availability and plant developmental stage to plants”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum mucilage bacterial communities included Erwiniaceae, Flavobacteriaceae and Rhizobiaceae.
- Interactor
- ErwiniaceaeErwiniaceaee0other
- Outcome
- mucilage-associated bacterial microbiomee0
- Qualifier
- Flavobacteriaceae, Rhizobiaceaee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cultivation-independent mucilage-associated bacterial microbiome contained the families Erwiniaceae, Flavobacteriaceae, Rhizobiaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, and Sphingomonadaceae”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum mucilage bacterial communities included Pseudomonadaceae and Sphingomonadaceae.
- Interactor
- PseudomonadaceaePseudomonadaceaee0other
- Outcome
- mucilage-associated bacterial microbiomee0
- Qualifier
- Sphingomonadaceaee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cultivation-independent mucilage-associated bacterial microbiome contained the families Erwiniaceae, Flavobacteriaceae, Rhizobiaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, and Sphingomonadaceae”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum development strongly influenced mucilage bacterial community structure.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its structure was strongly influenced by sorghum development but only modestly influenced by fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization modestly influenced sorghum mucilage bacterial community structure.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its structure was strongly influenced by sorghum development but only modestly influenced by fertilization”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sampling year strongly affected sorghum mucilage fungal community structure.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the fungal community structure of mucilage was strongly affected by the year of sampling but not by fertilization or plant developmental stage”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization did not affect sorghum mucilage fungal community structure.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the fungal community structure of mucilage was strongly affected by the year of sampling but not by fertilization or plant developmental stage”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant developmental stage did not affect sorghum mucilage fungal community structure.
- Organ / stage
- plant developmental stagee0
- Outcome
- fungal community structure of mucilagee0
- Direction
- note0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the fungal community structure of mucilage was strongly affected by the year of sampling but not by fertilization or plant developmental stage”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Some bacterial isolates from sorghum wax and mucilage exactly matched detected amplicon sequence variants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our bacterial isolate collection from wax and mucilage had several isolates that matched 100% to detected amplicon sequence variants”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum exudate isolates were enriched for phosphate solubilization, putative diazotrophy and desiccation resistance.
- Outcome
- phosphate solubilization, putative diazotrophy, resistance to desiccatione0
- Direction
- enrichede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were enriched on media that selected for phenotypes that included phosphate solubilization, putative diazotrophy, resistance to desiccation”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum exudate isolates were enriched for methanol use and growth in linalool and β-caryophyllene.
- Outcome
- capability to grow on methanol as a carbon source, and ability to grow in the presence of linalool and β-caryophyllenee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“capability to grow on methanol as a carbon source, and ability to grow in the presence of linalool and β-caryophyllene (terpenes in sorghum wax)”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: biology · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.