Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript. More
General situation of the research area
The research area was conducted at Liufangzi village, Gongzhuling city, Jilin Province (N43°34′10″, E124°52′55″), as shown in Fig. 8. The area has a continental monsoon climate in the humid area of the middle temperate zone, with an average annual precipitation of 594.8 mm, which is mainly concentrated in June and August. The average annual temperature is 5.6 °C, and the daily average temperature drops to 0 °C in November of each year, with a freezing period of up to five months. Corn is one of the main commodity crops in the area, with a sowing date in early May and a harvest date in early October.
Figure 8
Location of study area (Liufangzi Village, Gongzhuling City, Jilin Province).
Full size image
The soil of the site is a silty loam black soil, which had been planted with monoculture corn with no tillage for 5 years. On October 5, 2018 (after the autumn harvest), a flat field was selected to set up the experiment. Soil samples were collected using the zigzag sampling method, and selective physical and chemical properties of soil were determined, including pH (5.48), organic matter (26.4 g kg−1), clay (29.12%), and soil bulk density (1.21 g cm−3 in 5–10 cm and 1.53 g cm−3 in 20–25 cm).
Reagents and instruments
Reagents
The main raw material of the added impervious agent was corn starch and acrylic compound, which was entrusted to Jilin Yida Chemical Co., Ltd. The added urea was an analytical reagent, and the reagents used for analysis included H2SO4, H3PO4, NaOH, NH4OH, NH4Cl, K2S2O8, Na2B4O7, KNO3, KNO2, K2Cr2O7, FeSO4, sulfonamide, and naphthalene ethylenediamine hydrochloride; these were all analytical reagents provided by Beijing Chemical Plant.
Instruments laboratory-built soil leaching column; continuous flow injection analyser (SKALAR SA++, Netherlands).
Test plot setup and agronomic practices
The experimental plots were maintained in the field consisting of (1) CK (no-tillage control treatment, with corn straw removed and soil left under no-till management); (2) ploughing treatment (corn straw was removed and then mouldboard ploughed to a 30 cm depth); (3) straw returning treatment (corn straw (25.32% moist) was incorporated into the soil on October 5, 2018 (after autumn harvest), with an application amount of 1.25 kg m−2. Briefly, corn straw was chopped into small pieces (0.5 cm length), evenly placed on the soil surface, and then incorporated into the soil with ploughing (the depth of 30 cm)); and (4) impervious agent addition treatment (the impervious agent mentioned previously evenly laid on the soil surface at the amount of 15 g m−2 and then incorporated into the 0–30 cm soil by mouldboard ploughing). The abovementioned field operations were conducted after corn harvest in the fall of 2018 with a testing area of 10 m × 50 m for each plot and three replicates for each treatment. In the following spring (2019), grain corn was planted in all treatment plots with a planting density of 65,000 plants ha−1. All plots were managed in the same way with a one-time fertilization application of 200–90-90 kg (N-P-K) ha−1 and 2,4-d spray as weed control.
For all the above treatments (including the control treatment), undisturbed soils (0–30 cm layer) were collected with an undisturbed soil column (refer to Fig. 9) for the leaching experiment on September 25, 2019 (before autumn harvest, after 350 days of straw returning to the field); soil samples of 0–15 cm were collected for determination of soil organic matter and adsorption experiment of nitrogen in the soil; and soil samples of 5–10 cm and 20–25 cm layers were collected for determination of soil bulk density. In addition, for the straw returning treatment, one sampling was added on May 25, 2019 (one month after sowing, 230 days after straw returning), for the determination of soil organic matter content and soil bulk density, nitrogen adsorption and leaching experiment in soil.
Figure 9
Schematic diagram of simulated leaching device of undisturbed soil column. (a) Soil extraction; (b) leaching; (c) physical map of leaching in undisturbed soil column. 1: Handle; 2.3.4: guide port; 5.6: screw port; 7: punching plate. I main body of leaching column; II soil cutter; III leaching solution collector.
Full size image
The soil samples used for soil organic matter determination and nitrogen absorption testing were air dried, sieved through a 2-mm sieve and visible plant debris and stones were removed, and then stored.
Experiment of nitrogen adsorption in soil
Ten parts of the soil samples (air-dried, More
1.
Erős, T., O’Hanley, J. R. & Czeglédi, I. A unified model for optimizing riverscape conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1871–1883 (2018).
Google Scholar
2.
Ruggeri, P., Pasternak, E. & Okamura, B. To remain or leave: Dispersal variation and its genetic consequences in benthic freshwater invertebrates. Ecol. Evol. 9, 12069–12088 (2019).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
3.
Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V. M. & Turlure, C. Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol. Rev. 88, 310–326 (2013).
PubMed Google Scholar
4.
Geist, J. Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25, 447–453 (2015).
Google Scholar
5.
Kujala, H., Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., Elith, J. & Moilanen, A. Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 2249–2261 (2018).
Google Scholar
6.
Johnson, J. B., Peat, S. M. & Adams, B. J. Where’s the ecology in molecular ecology?. Oikos 118, 1601–1609 (2009).
Google Scholar
7.
Janse, J. H. et al. GLOBIO-aquatic, a global model of human impact on the biodiversity of inland aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Policy 48, 99–114 (2015).
Google Scholar
8.
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
ADS PubMed CAS Google Scholar
9.
Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A. & Galli, A. Projecting future human demand on the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indic. 16, 3–10 (2012).
Google Scholar
10.
Yawson, D. O., Adu, M. O. & Armah, F. A. Impacts of climate change and mitigation policies on malt barley supplies and associated virtual water flows in the UK. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).
Google Scholar
11.
Naidoo, R. et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9495–9500 (2008).
ADS PubMed CAS Google Scholar
12.
Hermoso, V., Villero, D., Clavero, M. & Brotons, L. Spatial prioritisation of EU’s LIFE-Nature programme to strengthen the conservation impact of Natura 2000. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1575–1582 (2018).
Google Scholar
13.
Hermoso, V., Morán-Ordóñez, A., Canessa, S. & Brotons, L. Realising the potential of Natura 2000 to achieve EU conservation goals as 2020 approaches. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
CAS Google Scholar
14.
Lobera, G., Pardo, I., García, L. & García, C. Disentangling spatio-temporal drivers influencing benthic communities in temporary streams. Aquat. Sci. 81, 1–17 (2019).
CAS Google Scholar
15.
Richman, N. I. et al. Multiple drivers of decline in the global status of freshwater crayfish (Decapoda: Astacidea). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140060 (2015).
16.
Manenti, R. et al. Causes and consequences of crayfish extinction: Stream connectivity, habitat changes, alien species and ecosystem services. Freshw. Biol. 64, 284–293 (2019).
Google Scholar
17.
Kozák, P., Füreder, L., Kouba, A., Reynolds, J. & Souty-Grosset, C. Current conservation strategies for European crayfish. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 01, https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2011018 (2011).
18.
Pârvulescu, L. Introducing a new Austropotamobius crayfish species (Crustacea, Decapoda, Astacidae): A miocene endemism of the Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Zool. Anz. 279, 94–102 (2019).
Google Scholar
19.
Kouba, A., Petrusek, A. & Kozák, P. Continental-wide distribution of crayfish species in Europe: Update and maps. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 413, 05–31 (2014).
Google Scholar
20.
Pârvulescu, L. et al. A journey on plate tectonics sheds light on European crayfish phylogeography. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1957–1971 (2019).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
21.
Pârvulescu, L. & Zaharia, C. Current limitations of the stone crayfish distribution in Romania: Implications for its conservation status. Limnologica 43, 143–150 (2013).
Google Scholar
22.
Klobučar, G. I. V. et al. Role of the Dinaric Karst (western Balkans) in shaping the phylogeographic structure of the threatened crayfish Austropotamobius torrentium. Freshw. Biol. 58, 1089–1105 (2013).
Google Scholar
23.
Qian, S. S., Cuffney, T. F., Alameddine, I., McMahon, G. & Reckhow, K. H. On the application of multilevel modeling in environmental and ecological studies. Ecology 91, 355–361 (2010).
PubMed Google Scholar
24.
Manning, P. et al. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 427–436 (2018).
PubMed Google Scholar
25.
Koizumi, I., Usio, N., Kawai, T., Azuma, N. & Masuda, R. Loss of genetic diversity means loss of geological information: The endangered Japanese crayfish exhibits remarkable historical footprints. PLoS ONE 7, e33986 (2012).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
26.
McNyset, K. M. Use of ecological niche modelling to predict distributions of freshwater fish species in Kansas. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 14, 243–255 (2005).
Google Scholar
27.
Henrys, P. A. & Jarvis, S. G. Integration of ground survey and remote sensing derived data: Producing robust indicators of habitat extent and condition. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8104–8112 (2019).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
28.
Pârvulescu, L., Zaharia, C., Satmari, A. & Drăguţ, L. Is the distribution pattern of the stone crayfish in the Carpathians related to karstic refugia from Pleistocene glaciations?. Freshw. Sci. 32, 1410–1419 (2013).
Google Scholar
29.
Longshaw, M. & Stebbing, P. Biology and Ecology of Crayfish. (CRC Press, 2015).
30.
Chucholl, C. The bad and the super-bad: Prioritising the threat of six invasive alien to three imperilled native crayfishes. Biol. Invasions 18, 1967–1988 (2016).
Google Scholar
31.
Chucholl, C. & Schrimpf, A. The decline of endangered stone crayfish (Austropotamobius torrentium) in southern Germany is related to the spread of invasive alien species and land-use change. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26, 44–56 (2016).
Google Scholar
32.
Pârvulescu, L. et al. Flash-flood potential: A proxy for crayfish habitat stability. Ecohydrology 9, 1507–1516 (2016).
Google Scholar
33.
Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG2004 (2007).
34.
Şandric, I. et al. Integrating catchment land cover data to remotely assess freshwater quality: A step forward in heterogeneity analysis of river networks. Aquat. Sci. 81, 26 (2019).
Google Scholar
35.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S. & Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29 (2012).
Google Scholar
36.
Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K. & Whiteley, A. R. Estimating landscape resistance to movement: A review. Landsc. Ecol. 27, 777–797 (2012).
Google Scholar
37.
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).
Google Scholar
38.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).
39.
Freeman, E. A. & Moisen, G. G. A comparison of the performance of threshold criteria for binary classification in terms of predicted prevalence and kappa. Ecol. Modell. 217, 48–58 (2008).
Google Scholar
40.
Iorgu, E. I., Popa, O. P., Petrescu, A.-M. & Popa, L. O. Cross-amplification of microsatellite loci in the endangered stone-crayfish Austropotamobius torrentium (Crustacea: Decapoda). Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 08, https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2011021 (2011).
41.
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. genalex 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288–295 (2006).
42.
Goudet, J. FSTAT (Version 1.2): A computer program to calculate F-statistics. J. Hered. 86, 485–486 (1995).
43.
Rousset, F. genepop’007: A complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).
PubMed Google Scholar
44.
Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. & Shipley, P. micro-checker: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).
Google Scholar
45.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M. & Rubin, D. B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 39, 1–22 (1977).
MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
46.
Chapuis, M. P. & Estoup, A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 621–631 (2007).
PubMed CAS Google Scholar
47.
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F‐statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution (N. Y). 38, 1358–1370 (1984).
48.
Hammer, D. A. T., Ryan, P. D., Hammer, Ø. & Harper, D. A. T. Past: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica vol. 4 https://palaeo-electronica.orghttp//palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm. (2001).
49.
Nei, M., Tajima, F. & Tateno, Y. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. J. Mol. Evol. 19, 153–170 (1983).
ADS PubMed CAS Google Scholar
50.
Langella, O. Populations, 1.2. 30. https://bioinformatics.org/~tryphon/populations (1999).
51.
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Donnelly, P. Association mapping in structured populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67, 170–181 (2000).
PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
52.
Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).
PubMed CAS Google Scholar
53.
Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. Clumpak: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191 (2015).
PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
54.
Vähä, J. P. & Primmer, C. R. Efficiency of model-based Bayesian methods for detecting hybrid individuals under different hybridization scenarios and with different numbers of loci. Mol. Ecol. 15, 63–72 (2005).
Google Scholar
55.
Bergl, R. A. & Viglant, L. Genetic analysis reveals population structure and recent migration within the highly fragmented range of the Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). Mol. Ecol. 16, 501–516 (2006).
Google Scholar
56.
Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 1–15 (2010).
Google Scholar
57.
Paetkau, D., Calvert, W., Stirling, I. & Strobeck, C. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol. 4, 347–354 (1995).
PubMed CAS Google Scholar
58.
Duchesne, P. & Turgeon, J. FLOCK Provides Reliable Solutions to the ‘“Number of Populations”’ Problem. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/ess038.
59.
Janes, J. K. et al. The K = 2 conundrum. Mol. Ecol. 26, 3594–3602 (2017).
PubMed Google Scholar
60.
Funk, S. M. et al. Major inconsistencies of inferred population genetic structure estimated in a large set of domestic horse breeds using microsatellites. Ecol. Evol. 10, 4261–4279 (2020).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
61.
Berger, C., Štambuk, A., Maguire, I., Weiss, S. & Füreder, L. Integrating genetics and morphometrics in species conservation—A case study on the stone crayfish, Austropotamobius torrentium. Limnologica 69, 28–38 (2018).
Google Scholar
62.
Iojă, C. I. et al. The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2468–2476 (2010).
Google Scholar
63.
Rabăgia, T. & Maţenco, L. Tertiary tectonic and sedimentological evolution of the South Carpathians foredeep: Tectonic vs eustatic control. Mar. Pet. Geol. 16, 719–740 (1999).
64.
Rãdoane, M., Rãdoane, N. & Dumitriu, D. Geomorphological evolution of longitudinal river profiles in the Carpathians. Geomorphology 50, 293–306 (2003).
ADS Google Scholar
65.
Helms, B., Loughman, Z. J., Brown, B. L. & Stoeckel, J. Recent advances in crayfish biology, ecology, and conservation. Freshw. Sci. 32, 1273–1275 (2013).
Google Scholar
66.
Svobodová, J. et al. The relationship between water quality and indigenous and alien crayfish distribution in the Czech Republic: Patterns and conservation implications. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22, 776–786 (2012).
Google Scholar
67.
Pöckl, M. & Streissl, F. Austropotamobius torrentium as an indicator for habitat quality in running waters? Bull. Français la Pêche la Piscic. 743–758, https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2005030 (2005).
68.
Magyar, I. et al. Progradation of the paleo-Danube shelf margin across the Pannonian Basin during the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene. Glob. Planet. Change 103, 168–173 (2013).
ADS Google Scholar
69.
Zhang, Y., Luan, P., Ren, G., Hu, G. & Yin, J. Estimating the inbreeding level and genetic relatedness in an isolated population of critically endangered Sichuan taimen (Hucho Bleekeri) using genome-wide SNP markers. Ecol. Evol. 10, 1390–1400 (2020).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
70.
Hoarau, G. et al. Low effective population size and evidence for inbreeding in an overexploited flatfish, plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.). Proc. Biol. Sci. 272, 497–503 (2005).
71.
Jourdan, J. et al. Reintroduction of freshwater macroinvertebrates: Challenges and opportunities. Biol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12458 (2018).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
72.
Oidtmann, B., Heitz, E., Rogers, D. & Hoffmann, R. Transmission of crayfish plague. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 52, 159–167 (2002).
PubMed Google Scholar
73.
Rusch, J. C. et al. Simultaneous detection of native and invasive crayfish and Aphanomyces astaci from environmental DNA samples in a wide range of habitats in Central Europe. NeoBiota (2020).
74.
Hall, Q. A., Curtis, J. M., Williams, J. & Stunz, G. W. The importance of newly-opened tidal inlets as spawning corridors for adult Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Fish. Res. 212, 48–55 (2019).
Google Scholar
75.
Stewart, F. E. C., Darlington, S., Volpe, J. P., McAdie, M. & Fisher, J. T. Corridors best facilitate functional connectivity across a protected area network. Sci. Rep. 9, 10852 (2019).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
76.
Strauss, A., White, A. & Boots, M. Invading with biological weapons: The importance of disease-mediated invasions. Funct. Ecol. 26, 1249–1261 (2012).
Google Scholar
77.
Clavero, M. & García-Berthou, E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 110 (2005).
PubMed Google Scholar
78.
Nunes, A. L., Tricarico, E., Panov, V. E., Cardoso, A. C. & Katsanevakis, S. Pathways and gateways of freshwater invasions in Europe. Aquat. Invasions 10, 359–370 (2015).
Google Scholar
79.
Zeng, Y. & Yeo, D. C. J. Assessing the aggregated risk of invasive crayfish and climate change to freshwater crabs: A Southeast Asian case study. Biol. Conserv. 223, 58–67 (2018).
Google Scholar
80.
Alonso, F., Temino, C. & Diéguez-Uribeondo, J. Status of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet, 1858), in Spain: Distribution and legislation. 31–53 (2000).
81.
Van Dyck, H. & Baguette, M. Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements?. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6, 535–545 (2005).
Google Scholar
82.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M. & Brooks, T. M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76 (2006).
PubMed Google Scholar
83.
Füreder, L., Gherardi, F. & Souty-Grosset, C. Austropotamobius torrentium. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010 e.T2431A9439449 https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-3.RLTS.T2431A9439449.en (2010). More
NEWS
10 September 2020
Fires are releasing record levels of carbon dioxide, partly because they are burning ancient peatlands that have been a carbon sink.
Alexandra Witze
Search for this author in:
Northern fires (like the one shown here in the Novosibirsk Region of south Siberia) released record-setting amounts of carbon dioxide this year.Credit: Kirill Kukhmar/TASS/Getty
Wildfires blazed along the Arctic Circle this summer, incinerating tundra, blanketing Siberian cities in smoke and capping the second extraordinary fire season in a row. By the time the fire season waned at the end of last month, the blazes had emitted a record 244 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — that’s 35% more than last year, which also set records. One culprit, scientists say, could be peatlands that are burning as the top of the world melts.
Peatlands are carbon-rich soils that accumulate as waterlogged plants slowly decay, sometimes over thousands of years. They are the most carbon-dense ecosystems on Earth; a typical northern peatland packs in roughly ten times as much carbon as a boreal forest. When peat burns, it releases its ancient carbon to the atmosphere, adding to the heat-trapping gases that cause climate change.
Nearly half the world’s peatland-stored carbon lies between 60 and 70 degrees north, along the Arctic Circle. The problem with this is that historically frozen carbon-rich soils are expected to thaw as the planet warms, making them even more vulnerable to wildfires and more likely to release large amounts of carbon. It’s a feedback loop: as peatlands release more carbon, global warming increases, which thaws more peat and causes more wildfires. A study published last month1 shows that northern peatlands could eventually shift from being a net sink for carbon to a net source of carbon, further accelerating climate change.
The unprecedented Arctic wildfires of 2019 and 2020 show that transformational shifts are already under way, says Thomas Smith, an environmental geographer at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “Alarming is the right term.”
Zombie fires
The fire season in the Arctic kicked off unusually early this year: as early as May, there were fires blazing north of the tree line in Siberia, which normally wouldn’t happen until around July. One reason is that temperatures in winter and spring were warmer than usual, priming the landscape to burn. It’s also possible that peat fires had been smouldering beneath the ice and snow all winter and then emerged, zombie-like, in the spring as the snow melted. Scientists have shown that this kind of low-temperature, flameless combustion can burn in peat and other organic matter, such as coal, for months or even years.
Because of the early start, individual Arctic wildfires have been burning for longer than usual, and “they’re starting much farther north than they used to — in landscapes that we thought were fire-resistant rather than fire-prone”, says Jessica McCarty, a geographer at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
Sources: Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service/European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts; Hugelius, G. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20438–20446 (2020)
Researchers are now assessing just how bad this Arctic fire season was. The Russian Wildfires Remote Monitoring System catalogued 18,591 separate fires in Russia’s two easternmost districts, with a total of nearly 14 million hectares burnt, says Evgeny Shvetsov, a fire specialist at the Sukachev Institute of Forest, which is part of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Krasnoyarsk. Most of the burning happened in permafrost zones, where the ground is normally frozen year-round.
To estimate the record carbon dioxide emissions, scientists with the European Commission’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service used satellites to study the wildfires’ locations and intensity, and then calculated how much fuel each had probably burnt. Yet even that is likely to be an underestimate, says Mark Parrington, an atmospheric scientist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, who was involved in the analysis. Fires that burn in peatland can be too low-intensity for satellite sensors to capture.
The problem with peat
How much this year’s Arctic fires will affect global climate over the long term depends on what they burnt. That’s because peatlands, unlike boreal forest, do not regrow quickly after a fire, so the carbon released is permanently lost to the atmosphere.
Smith has calculated that about half of the Arctic wildfires in May and June were on peatlands — and that in many cases, the fires went on for days, suggesting that they were fuelled by thick layers of peat or other soil rich in organic matter.
And the August study1 found that there are nearly four million square kilometres of peatlands in northern latitudes. More of that than previously thought is frozen and shallow — and therefore vulnerable to thawing and drying out, says Gustaf Hugelius, a permafrost scientist at Stockholm University who led the investigation. He and his colleagues also found that although peatlands have been helping to cool the climate for thousands of years, by storing carbon as they accumulate, they will probably become a net source of carbon being released into the atmosphere — which could happen by the end of the century.
Fire risk in Siberia is predicted to increase as the climate warms2, but by many measures, the shift has already arrived, says Amber Soja, an environmental scientist who studies Arctic fires at the US National Institute of Aerospace in Hampton, Virginia. “What you would expect is already happening,” she says. “And in some cases faster than we would have expected.”
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02568-y
References
1.
Hugelius, G. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20438–20446 (2020).
2.
Sherstyukov, B. G. & Sherstyukov, A. B. Russian Meteorol. Hydrol. 39, 292–301 (2014).
Download references
Latest on:
Atmospheric science
Climate change
Environmental sciences
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.
Related Articles More
1.
Dressler, R. L. In Phylogeny and Classification of the Orchid Family (ed. Dressler, R. L.) 7–13 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).
Google Scholar
2.
Delforge, P. In Orchids of Europe, Nord Africa and the Middle East (ed. Delforge, P.) 67–68 (A & C Black Publishers, London, 2001).
Google Scholar
3.
Barman, D. & Devadas, R. Climate change on orchid population and conservation strategies: a review. J. Crop Weed. 9(12), 1–12 (2013).
Google Scholar
4.
Fay, M. F. Orchid conservation: how can we meet the challenges in the twenty-first century. Bot. Stud. 5, 1–6 (2018).
Google Scholar
5.
Brovkin, V. Climate–vegetation interaction. J. Phys. IV FRANCE 12, 57–72 (2002).
Google Scholar
6.
Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02121 (2004).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
7.
Anderson, M. G. & Ferree, C. E. Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS ONE 5(7), e11554 (2010).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
8.
Bálint, M. et al. Cryptic biodiversity loss linked to global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change. 1, 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1191 (2011).
ADS Article Google Scholar
9.
Kolanowska, M. Niche conservatism and the future potential range of Epipactis helleborine (Orchidaceae). PLoS ONE 8(10), e77352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077352 (2013).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
10.
Kolanowska, M. The naturalization status of African Spotted Orchid (Oeceoclades maculata) in Neotropics. Plant Biosyst. 148(5), 1049–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2013.824042 (2014).
Article Google Scholar
11.
Kolanowska, M. & Konowalik, K. Niche conservatism and future changes in the potential area coverage of Arundina graminifolia, an invasive orchid species from Southeast Asia. Biotropica 46(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12089 (2014).
Article Google Scholar
12.
Konowalik, K. & Kolanowska, M. Climatic niche shift and possible future spread of the invasive South African Orchid Disa bracteata in Australia and adjacent areas. PeerJ. 6, e6107. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6107 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
13.
Kolanowska, M. et al. Global warming not so harmful for all plants – response of holomycotrophic orchid species for the future climate change. Sci. Rep. 7, 12704. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13088-7 (2017).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
14.
Naczk, A. & Kolanowska, M. Glacial refugia and future habitat coverage of selected Dactylorhiza representatives (Orchidaceae). PLoS ONE 10(11), e0143478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143478 (2015).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
15.
Kolanowska, M. & Rykaczewski, M. From the past to the future – glacial refugia, current distribution patterns and future potential range changes of Diodonopsis (Orchidaceae) representatives. Lankesteriana. 17(2), 315–327 (2017).
Google Scholar
16.
Wang, H. H. et al. Species distribution modelling for conservation of an endangered endemic orchid. AoB Plants 7, plv039 (2015).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
17.
Tsiftsis, S., Djordjević, V. & Tsiripidis, I. Neottia cordata (Orchidaceae) at its southernmost distribution border in Europe: threat status and effectiveness of Natura 2000 Network for its conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 48, 27–35 (2019).
Google Scholar
18.
Vollering, J., Schuiteman, A., de Vogel, E., van Vugt, R. & Raes, N. Phytogeography of New Guinean orchids: patterns of species richness and turnover. J. Biogeogr. 43(1), 204–214 (2016).
Google Scholar
19.
Reina-Rodríguez, G. A., Rubiano Mejía, J. E., Castro Llanos, F. A. & Soriano, I. Orchid distribution and bioclimatic niches as a strategy to climate change in areas of tropical dry forest in Colombia. Lankesteriana 17(1), 17–47 (2017).
Google Scholar
20.
Gogol-Prokurat, M. Predicting habitat suitability for rare plants at local spatial scales using a species distribution model. Ecol. Appl. 21, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1190.1 (2011).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
21.
Dudley, T. L. & Bean, D. W. Tamarisk biocontrol, endangered species risk and resolution of conflict through riparian restoration. Biocontrol 57, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-011-9436-9 (2012).
Article Google Scholar
22.
Antúnez, P. et al. The potential distribution of tree species in three periods of time under a climate change scenario. Forests 9(10), 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100628 (2018).
Article Google Scholar
23.
Wilson, C. D., Roberts, D. & Reid, N. Applying species distribution modeling to identify areas of high conservation value for endangered species: a case study using Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Biol. Cons. 144, 821–829 (2011).
Google Scholar
24.
Koch, R., Almeida-Cortez, J. S. & Kleinschmit, B. Revealing areas of high nature conservation importance in a seasonally dry tropical forest in Brazil: combination of modelled plant diversity hot spots and threat patterns. J. Nat. Conserv. 35, 24–39 (2017).
Google Scholar
25.
Spiers, J. A., Oatham, M. P., Rostant, L. V. & Farrell, A. D. Applying species distribution modelling to improving conservation based decisions: a gap analysis of Trinidad and Tobago’s endemic vascular plants. Biodivers. Conserv. 27(11), 2931–2949 (2018).
Google Scholar
26.
Ramírez, S. R., Gravendeel, B., Singer, R. B., Marshall, C. R. & Pierce, N. E. Dating the origin of the Orchidaceae from a fossil orchid with its pollinator. Nature 448, 1042–1045 (2007).
ADS PubMed Google Scholar
27.
Conran, J. G., Bannister, J. M. & Lee, D. E. Earliest orchid macrofossils: early Miocene Dendrobium and Earina (Orchidaceae: Epidendroideae) from New Zealand. Am. J. Bot. 96(2), 466–474 (2009).
PubMed Google Scholar
28.
Kenny, J. 2008. Orchids of Trinidad and Tobago (ed. Kenny, J.) 1–127 (Prospect Press, 2008).
29.
Swarts, N. D. & Dixon, K. W. Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Ann. Bot. 104(3), 543–556 (2009).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
30.
Teketay, D. History, botany and ecological requirements of coffee. Walia 20, 28–50 (1999).
Google Scholar
31.
Tupac, O. J., Ackerman, J. D. & Bayman, P. Diversity and host specificity of endophytic Rhizoctonia-like fungi from tropical orchids. Am. J. Bot. 89(11), 1852–1858 (2002).
Google Scholar
32.
Pellegrino, G., Luca, A. & Bellusci, F. Relationships between orchid and fungal biodiversity: mycorrhizal preferences in Mediterranean orchids. Plant Biosyst. 150(2), 180–189 (2016).
Google Scholar
33.
Suárez, J. P. & Kottke, I. Main fungal partners and different levels of specificity of orchid mycorrhizae in the tropical mountain forests of Ecuador. Lankesteriana 16(2), 299–305 (2016).
Google Scholar
34.
Senthilkumar, S. Mycorrhizal fungi of endangered orchid species in Kolli, a part of eastern ghats, South India. Lankesteriana 7, 15–156 (2003).
Google Scholar
35.
Pereira, O. L., Rollemberg, C. L., Borges, A. C., Matsuoka, K. & Kasuya, M. C. M. Epulorhiza epiphytica sp. nov. isolated from mycorrhizal roots of epiphytic orchids in Brazil. Mycoscience 44, 153–155 (2003).
Google Scholar
36.
Tedersoo, L. Biogeography of mycorrhizal symbiosis (Springer, Cham, 2017).
Google Scholar
37.
Waud, M., Brys, R., Van Landuyt, W., Lievens, B. & Jacquemyn, H. Mycorrhizal specificity does not limit the distribution of an endangered orchid species. Mol. Ecol. 26(6), 1687–1701 (2017).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
38.
van der Cingel, N. A. An atlas of orchid pollination: America, Africa, Asia and Australia (A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, 2001).
Google Scholar
39.
Pansarin, E. R. & Maria do Carmo, E. A. Biologia reprodutiva e polinização de duas espécies de Polystachya Hook. no Sudeste do Brasil: evidência de pseudocleistogamia em Polystachyeae (Orchidaceae). Rev. Bras. Bot. 29(3), 423–432 (2006).
40.
Chakraborty, D. et al. Selecting populations for non-analogous climate conditions using universal response functions: the case of Douglas-Fir in Central Europe. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0136357 (2015).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
41.
Broennimann, O. & Guisan, A. Predicting current and future biological invasions: both native and invaded ranges matter. Biol. Lett. 4, 585–589 (2008).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
42.
Abrams, M. D. Adaptations of forest ecosystems to air pollution and climate change. Tree Physiol. 31, 258–261 (2011).
PubMed Google Scholar
43.
Atwater, D. Z., Ervine, C. & Barney, J. N. Climatic niche shifts are common in introduced plants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 34–43 (2018).
PubMed Google Scholar
44.
Konowalik, K. & Kolanowska, M. Climatic niche shift and possible future spread of the invasive South African Orchid Disa bracteata in Australia and adjacent areas. PeerJ 6, e6107 (2018).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
45.
Early, R. & Sax, D. F. Climatic niche shifts between species’ native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1356–1365 (2014).
Google Scholar
46.
Baranow, P. & Mytnik-Ejsmont, J. Two new species of Polystachya Hook. (Orchidaceae) from Africa. Plant Syst Evol. 281, 11–16 (2009).
Google Scholar
47.
Mytnik-Ejsmont, J. & Baranow, P. Taxonomic study of Polystachya Hook. (Orchidaceae) from Asia. Plant Syst. Evol. 290, 57–63 (2010).
Google Scholar
48.
Russell, A. et al. Phylogenetics and cytology of a pantropical orchid genus Polystachya (Polystachyinae, Vandeae, Orchidaceae): Evidence from plastid DNA sequence data. Taxon 59(2), 389–404 (2010).
Google Scholar
49.
McCartney, C. African affinities, part I: the surprising relationship of some of Florida’s wild orchids. Orchids 69(2), 130–139 (2010).
Google Scholar
50.
Mytnik-Ejsmont, J. A monograph of the subtribe Polystachyinae Schltr. (Orchidaceae) (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk, 2011).
Google Scholar
51.
GBIF Occurrence Download; https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.ks410t (2018).
52.
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M. & Schapire, R. E. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In: ICML ’04. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine learning. 655–662 (ACM, New York, 2004).
53.
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).
Google Scholar
54.
Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17, 43–57 (2011).
Google Scholar
55.
Barve, N. et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222, 1810–1819 (2011).
Google Scholar
56.
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Google Scholar
57.
WorldClim (version 1.4) www.worldclim.org
58.
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33, 607–611 (2010).
Google Scholar
59.
Chung, M. Y. et al. Comparison of genetic variation between northern and southern populations of Lilium cernuum (Liliaceae): Implications for Pleistocene refugia. PLoS ONE 13(1), e0190520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190520 (2018).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
60.
Kim, S. H. et al. Phylogeography and ecological niche modeling reveal reduced genetic diversity and colonization patterns of skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus; Araceae) from Glacial Refugia in Eastern North America. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00648 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
61.
Moss, R. et al. Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008)
62.
Weyant, J. et al. Report of 2.6 Versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCPP Evaluation Panel (IPCC Secretariat, 2009).
63.
Sohel, S. I., Akhter, S., Ullah, H., Haque, E. & Rana, P. Predicting impacts of climate change on forest tree species of Bangladesh: evidence from threatened Dysoxylum binectariferum (Roxb.) Hook.f. ex Bedd. (Meliaceae). Forest 10(1), 154–160 (2016).
Google Scholar
64.
Sony, R. K., Sen, S., Kumar, S., Sen, M. & Jayahari, K. M. Niche models inform the effects of climate change on the endangered Nilgiri Tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) populations in the southern Western Ghats, India. Ecol. Eng. 120, 355–363 (2018).
Google Scholar
65.
Mason, S. J. & Graham, N. E. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves statistical significance and interpretation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 128, 2145–2166 (2002).
ADS Google Scholar
66.
Evangelista, P. H. et al. Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers. Distrib. 14, 808–817 (2008).
Google Scholar
67.
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).
Google Scholar
68.
Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith J. Dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. R package version 1.1-4. https://cran.r-project.org/package=dismo (2017)
69.
Phillips, S. B., Aneja, V. P., Kang, D. & Arya, S. P. Modelling and analysis of the atmospheric nitrogen deposition in North Carolina. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 6, 231–252 (2006).
Google Scholar
70.
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. Environmental nicheequivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches toniche evolution. Evolution 62, 2868–2883. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.2008.62.issue-11 (2008).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
71.
Schoener, T. W. The Anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49, 704–726. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935534 (1968).
Article Google Scholar
72.
Heibl, C. & Calenge, C. Phyloclim: integrating phylogenetics and climatic Niche modeling. R package version 0.9-4 https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/phyloclim/phyloclim.pdf (2015).
73.
Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226 (2008).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
74.
Leps, J. & Smilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
Google Scholar
75.
Peterson, A. T. et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions (MPB-49) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2011).
Google Scholar More
In-flight dosing system
The system used in this work is detailed in Fig. 1. It can be broken down into three primary modules: (1) a “coarse tracking” system that uses a pair of stereoscopic cameras to identify the three dimensional location of a target subject, which is passed on to (2) the “fine tracking” system that uses a single higher speed camera and a fast scanning mirror (FSM) to keep the target in the middle of the field of view (FOV) of the camera using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control loop, and (3) the laser dosing system that fires the laser pulse, which is co-aligned with the fine tracking system to ensure the laser pulse is accurately applied to the subject even while it is moving. For both the coarse and fine tracking systems, subjects are identified by the size of their silhouettes generated from near infrared LED back-illumination or reflection. As demonstrated in Fig. 1b, the subject cages were 20 cm cubes constructed from clear acrylic, but with the side facing the tracking and dosing systems made of borosilicate glass, placed two meters away from the FSM. A high-speed video camera (Vision Research Phantom) was set up to record a small subset of experiments at 2000 frames per second as well. For all experiments, each cage contained only a single subject to be illuminated, or “dosed,” with the laser, and conditions were set such that a subject could be dosed only when it was at least 2.5 to 5 cm away from any wall of the cage to ensure the subject was flying normally, rather than taking wing or alighting.
Figure 1
Schematics and images of in-flight dosing setup. (a) Schematic (not to scale) of primary dosing system components and communication lines among them. Note that the mirror control and 3D position subsystems were run on separate kernels within the same PC. (b) Image of complete system setup including the test cage location, LED backlighting, and control electronics. Cameras for coarse and fine tracking, the fast scanning mirror (FSM), and dosing laser path are contained in the white circle and better seen in (c) close-up image of core tracking and dosing system components and alignment among them. Red line represents fine tracking image path, green line the dosing laser path (laser not shown), and yellow line the combined fine tracking and dosing laser path.
Full size image
Prior to commencing the laser dosing experiments, a number of parameters were defined to analyze the results, as detailed in Table 1 and Fig. 2. The key outcome, in line with our previous study15 and with WHO guidelines on insecticide treatments17, was whether the subjects were alive or disabled (i.e. dead or moribund) 24 h after the treatment. To characterize how well the subjects were tracked during the laser pulse, the tracking error was defined as how far the insect’s centroid was from the center of the fine tracking camera’s FOV. Other parameters defined in Table 1 relate to the “occlusion factor,” or how much of the laser beam’s energy (assuming a Gaussian profile) overlapped with the target’s outline, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. From the coarse tracking system’s output of xyz position of the target, we could also define velocity, speed, and both linear and angular acceleration of the subjects before, during, and after the laser pulse.
Table 1 Definitions of all parameters tracked or calculated for each in-flight dosing event.
Full size table
Figure 2
Representative fine tracking camera images of A. stephensi silhouettes. In each frame, the approximate outline of the thorax and abdomen is drawn (thick black lines) according to a set pixel intensity threshold. The centroid of this region is then calculated (intersection of red crosshairs) and compared with the center of the camera’s field of view (green dot) to determine the current tracking error and provide input to the fine tracking PID loop controlling the direction of the scanning mirror. The green circle around the green dot represents the spot size of the laser (2.5 mm diameter for all images shown here); occlusion factor represents how much of this laser spot (assuming a Gaussian profile) overlaps with the body of the subject. The images in (a) demonstrate a typical time course for a single subject in 1 ms intervals, and those in (b) show representative depictions of tracking errors ranging from 1 to 5 pixels for various subjects.
Full size image
Initial results with 532 nm laser
Initial experiments were conducted with A. stephensi subjects and a 532 nm laser (Verdi, Coherent) using parameters for power (3 W), pulse duration (25 ms), and laser spot diameter (2.5 mm) that were defined in our previous work15 as an optimal combination of potential cost and mortality performance. As seen in Supplemental Video 1, the system could be quite effective in disabling a flying mosquito with these parameters. Of note from the video, along with flight tracking data for numerous trials (not shown), the 25 ms pulse duration appeared to be short enough that the mosquitoes did not perceptibly alter their flight pattern during the pulse to throw off the tracking algorithm. From Fig. 3a,b, though, the initial system did not have consistent enough tracking performance, such that survival of the subjects was almost entirely dictated by how well the fine tracking system kept the target near the center of its FOV. From this initial experiment on a sample of 80 subjects, we set limits for mean and maximum tracking error during the laser pulse as 2 and 3 pixels, respectively, where each pixel represents ~ 250 μm. Figure 3c,d demonstrates that the system was able to achieve and maintain this performance after modifying the PID loop parameters, and that there was no longer any association between tracking performance and mortality at these conditions. These criteria were evaluated and assured for all mortality data reported in this manuscript (i.e. a Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no significant differences in tracking errors among subjects that survived or were disabled by the laser pulses). Further, Supplemental Fig. S1 shows that flight behavior, in particular speed and linear acceleration, did correlate with tracking accuracy, but that the system was able to meet the noted tracking requirements even at the extremes of flight behavior that could be observed in this study given the restricted flight volumes (though the typical values seen here largely align with available data for other Anopheles mosquitoes18,19).
Figure 3
Influence of mean and maximum tracking errors on mortality outcomes. Initial mortality outcomes using LD90 conditions with a 532 nm laser from previous anesthetized work showed strong correlation with (a) mean and (b) maximum tracking errors over the 25 ms pulse duration. After setting and achieving new tracking error targets of less than 2 pixels mean and 3 pixels max (see Fig. 2b for depictions of overlap between the laser spot and the subject for various error magnitudes), identical experiments no longer showed any correlation with (c) mean or (d) maximum tracking errors. Moribund and dead outcomes were grouped in (c) and (d), labeled “Disabled,” and subsequent experiments since they both represent functional kills and are grouped as such in WHO guidelines for insecticide trials.
Full size image
Mortality results were analyzed as in Fig. 4. Each data point represents the mortality outcomes (i.e. percentage of targets that were dead or moribund at 24 h, assuming acceptable control mortality 2 × that of the other experiments at 445 or 532 nm. Note that this greater LD90 fluence value for the smaller spot still represented a lower pulse energy than required for the larger spots given the spot size differential.
Table 2 List of in-flight dosing experimental conditions and resulting LD90 fluence values for A. stephensi subjects.
Full size table
Figure 5
Dose–response curves for all experiments from Table 2, other than the two constant pulse energy tests. The x-axis is plotted on a log scale to allow clear visualization of the curves at both low and high fluence values. Individual data points and error bars not shown for the sake of clarity. The intersections of the dashed horizontal line at 90% mortality with the dose–response curves indicate the LD90 points, which are also presented in Table 2, along with pseudo R2 values for the logistic regression fits.
Full size image
Dosing with near infrared wavelengths
Two near infrared (NIR) laser sources were examined as well—a custom constructed 1,064 nm (1 μm) fiber laser with a maximum output of 30 W and a commercial 1,570 nm (1.5 μm) fiber laser (IPG Photonics) with a maximum deliverable output of 11 W. The right-hand side of Fig. 5 shows the dose–response curves for these laser sources in addition to those using visible wavelengths. All of the infrared experiments resulted in significantly higher LD90 fluence levels compared with the visible lasers, and given the log scale of Fig. 5, varying experimental conditions with the 1 μm source led to comparatively larger changes in LD90 compared with the visible sources. As with the blue diode, the small spot (1.5 mm) had the highest LD90 fluence, but unlike the visible lasers, the larger spot (4 mm) offered a lower LD90 fluence compared with the baseline 2.5 mm. For the 1.5 μm source, there was insufficient mortality at the maximum power available from this source with a 2.5 mm spot and 25 ms pulse duration, so Fig. 5 shows a curve using slightly longer pulse durations to make up the additional fluence required. From the available data, it appears that the LD90 fluence levels for the 1 μm and 1.5 μm sources are at least at reasonably comparable levels.
Effects of longer pulse durations with lower power
We then further explored the effects of increasing the pulse duration to determine whether this could relax the optical power required from the laser source, given that laser cost is correlated with output power. Figure 6a,b show the results for the 532 nm and 1,064 nm sources, respectively, with spot diameters of 2.5 mm and pulse duration set to 25, 50, or 100 ms. In all cases, the optical power was adjusted according to the pulse duration to supply a constant pulse energy, and therefore fluence at approximately the LD75 level determined from previous experiments, which was chosen to ensure a low likelihood of any data point being 100% mortality (i.e., a saturated signal). As evidenced from Fig. 6a and Table 3, at 532 nm there was a significant drop off in mortality at the longer pulse durations, although the effect is smaller going from 50 to 100 ms compared with the initial drop from 25 to 50 ms. Similar, but smaller magnitude effects were seen with the 1 μm source in Fig. 6b and Table 3. Supplemental Fig. S2 shows that the tracking accuracy for these experiments somewhat mirrors the mortality performance, with a notable decrement from 25 to 50 ms but no significant change from 50 to 100 ms.
Figure 6
Mortality results for experiments with constant pulse energy achieved by proportionally adjusting the power according to pulse duration (25, 50, and 100 ms). Dosing was performed with both the (a) 532 nm and (b) 1,064 nm lasers, both using a 2.5 mm spot size, and set to the approximate LD75 fluence value from the dose–response curves (solid curves with dashed line 95% confidence intervals of logistic regression fit) from the corresponding 25 ms experiments. Error bars on individual points represent 95% confidence intervals of exact binomial probabilities. Statistical differences among mortality at the various pulse durations summarized in Table 3. The slight offsets on the x axis in (a) stem from slight changes in the beam spot size as a function of power.
Full size image
Table 3 Results of χ2 tests for mortality equivalence among experiments with constant pulse energy but varied amounts of power and pulse duration (25, 50, and 100 ms).
Full size table
Comparing dosing performance across other insects
Using the same system and procedures, experiments were also run on SWD and ACP subjects as a way of cursorily exploring laser-insect interaction for species of interest besides A. stephensi. For SWD, a full dose–response curve was created for the 1 μm laser with typical exposure settings (2.5 mm spot diameter and 25 ms pulse duration). The LD90 fluence from this work was 8.6 J/cm2, compared with 12.9 J/cm2 for A. stephensi under the same conditions. Tracking performance on SWD subjects was comparable to that for A. stephensi, given that flight parameters such as speed and acceleration were comparable as well. With ACP subjects, inducing them to fly in the cages was very difficult. As such, we could not process a sufficient number of subjects to create a proper dose–response curve. Based on the limited data available, and as demonstrated in Supplemental Video 2, the system as set for the mosquito LD90 condition with the 1 μm laser, 2.5 mm spot diameter and 25 ms pulse duration was effective in tracking and disabling the ACP subjects, despite their very different flying behavior (greater speeds and accelerations, limited durations) relative to the other test species.
Longer range dosing system demonstration
As a final proof of principle test, a long-range version of the system from Fig. 1 was configured. This system worked at a distance of 30 m instead of 2 m, facilitated primarily by modifying the optics used for the coarse and fine tracking systems. Given the reduced flexibility of this system, it was only used with the 1 μm laser with a 2.5 mm spot diameter and 25 ms pulse duration. Rather than acquiring new dose–response curves, which was impractical given the setup’s location in a building ~ 30 km away from the insect-housing chamber, we verified the efficacy of the system using the LD90 conditions established by short-range dosing. Supplemental Video 3 shows this system dosing an A. stephensi subject from the same stock as used for short-range testing, and Supplemental Video 4 shows the same for a wild-sourced Culex pipiens mosquito obtained in a local pond. Note that the wild C. pipiens was substantially larger in size than the lab-reared A. stephensi. In all of the limited number of tests of this system for both species (10 A. stephensi and 5 C. pipiens), the mortality rate was 100%. More
1.
Yang, J., Kloepper, J. W. & Ryu, C. M. Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress. Trends Plant Sci. 14, 1–4 (2009).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
2.
Kearl, J. et al. Salt-tolerant halophyte rhizosphere bacteria stimulate growth of alfalfa in salty soil. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01849 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
3.
Khan, N. et al. Comparative physiological and metabolic analysis reveals a complex mechanism involved in drought tolerance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) induced by PGPR and PGRs. Sci. Rep. 9, 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38702-8 (2019).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
4.
Compant, S., Samad, A., Faist, H. & Sessitsch, A. A review on the plant microbiome: ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. J. Adv. Res. 19, 29–37 (2019).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
5.
Bruto, M., Prigent-Combaret, C., Muller, D. & Moënne-Loccoz, Y. Analysis of genes contributing to plant-beneficial functions in plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and related Proteobacteria. Sci. Rep. 4, 6261. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06261 (2014).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
6.
Timmusk, S. Perspectives and challenges of microbial application for crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00049 (2017).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
7.
Sessitsch, A., Pfaffenbichler, N. & Mitter, B. Microbiome applications from lab to field: facing complexity. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 194–198 (2019).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8.
Olanrewaju, O. S., Glick, B. R. & Babalola, O. O. Mechanisms of action of plant growth promoting bacteria. World J. Microb. Biot 33, 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-017-2364-9 (2017).
CAS Article Google Scholar
9.
Gupta, A. et al. Whole genome sequencing and analysis of plant growth promoting bacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of plantation crops coconut, cocoa and arecanut. PLoS ONE 9, e104259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104259 (2014).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
10.
Pérez-Jaramillo, J. E., Carrión, V. J., de Hollander, M. & Raaijmakers, J. M. The wild side of plant microbiomes. Microbiome 6, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0519-z (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
11.
Song, J. Y. et al. Genome sequence of the Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacterium Bacillus sp. strain JS. J. Bacteriol. 19, 14. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00676-12 (2012).
CAS Article Google Scholar
12.
Duan, J., Jiang, W., Cheng, Z., Heikkila, J. J. & Glick, B. R. The complete genome sequence of the Plant Growth-Promoting bacterium Pseudomonas sp. UW4. PLoS ONE 8, e58640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058640 (2013).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
13.
Li, S. et al. Complete genome sequence of Paenibacillus polymyxa SQR-21, a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium with antifungal activity and rhizosphere colonization ability. Genome Announc. 2, e00281-e314. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00281-14 (2014).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
14.
Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 579–590 (2017).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15.
Penrose, D. M. & Glick, B. R. Methods for isolating and characterizing ACC deaminase-containing plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Physiol. Plantarum 118, 10–15 (2003).
CAS Google Scholar
16.
Lo, K. J., Lin, S. S., Lu, C. W., Kuo, C. H. & Liu, C. T. Whole-genome sequencing and comparative analysis of two plant-associated strains of Rhodopseudomonas palustris (PS3 and YSC3). Sci. Rep. 8, 12769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31128-8 (2018).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
17.
Liu, W. et al. Whole genome analysis of halotolerant and alkalotolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Klebsiella sp. D5A. Sci. Rep. 6, 20–22 (2016).
Google Scholar
18.
Andrés-Barrao, C. et al. Complete genome sequence analysis of Enterobacter sp. SA187, a plant multi-stress tolerance promoting endophytic bacterium. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02023 (2017).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
19.
Esmaeel, Q. et al. Draft genome sequence of plant growth-promoting Burkholderia sp. strain BE12, isolated from the rhizosphere of maize. Genome Announc. 6, e00299-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00299-18 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
20.
Wang, Z. et al. Draft genome analysis offers insights into the mechanism by which Streptomyces chartreusis WZS021 increases drought tolerance in sugarcane. Front. Microbiol. 10, 3262. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03262 (2019).
Article Google Scholar
21.
Matteoli, F. P. et al. Genome sequencing and assessment of plant growth-promoting properties of a Serratia marcescens strain isolated from vermicompost. BMC Genomics 19, 750. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-5130-y (2018).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
22.
Yu, Z. et al. Complete genome sequence of the nitrogen-fixing bacterium Azospirillum humicireducens type strain SgZ-5T. Stand. Genomic Sci. 13, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-018-0322-2 (2018).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
23.
Westerman, R. L. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. SSSA Book Series 3 3rd edn. (Madison, SSSA, 1990).
Google Scholar
24.
Bharti, N., Pandey, S. S., Barnawal, D., Patel, V. K. & Kalra, A. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Dietzia natronolimnaea modulates the expression of stress responsive genes providing protection of wheat from salinity stress. Sci. Rep. 6, 34768. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34768 (2016).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
25.
Sharma, S., Kulkarni, J. & Jha, B. Halotolerant rhizobacteria promote growth and enhance salinity tolerance in peanut. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01600 (2016).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
26.
Gupta, S. & Pandey, S. ACC Deaminase producing bacteria with multifarious plant growth promoting traits alleviates salinity stress in French Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) plants. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01506 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
27.
Pan, J. et al. The growth promotion of two salt-tolerant plant groups with PGPR inoculation: a meta-analysis. Sustainability 11, 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020378 (2019).
CAS Article Google Scholar
28.
Vurukonda, S. S. K. P., Vardharajula, S., Shrivastava, M. & SkZ, A. Multifunctional Pseudomonas putida strain FBKV2 from arid rhizosphere soil and its growth promotional effects on maize under drought stress. Rhizosphere 1, 4–13 (2016).
Google Scholar
29.
Marasco, R. et al. Salicornia strobilacea (synonym of Halocnemum strobilaceum) grown under different tidal regimes selects rhizosphere bacteria capable of promoting plant growth. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1286. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01286 (2016).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
30.
Mukhtar, S. et al. Impact of soil salinity on the microbial structure of halophyte rhizosphere microbiome. World J. Microb. Biot. 34, 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-018-2509-5 (2018).
CAS Article Google Scholar
31.
Patten, C. L. & Glick, B. R. Role of Pseudomonas putida indoleacetic acid in development of the host plant root system Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68(3795), 3801 (2002).
Google Scholar
32.
Etesami, H., Alikhani, H. A. & Hosseini, H. M. Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) production trait, a useful screening to select endophytic and rhizosphere competent bacteria for rice growth promoting agents. MethodsX 2, 72–78 (2015).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
33.
Abbamondi, G. R. et al. Plant growth-promoting effects of rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria associated with different tomato cultivars and new tomato hybrids. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-015-0051-3 (2016).
CAS Article Google Scholar
34.
Gupta, S. & Pandey, S. Unravelling the biochemistry and genetics of ACC deaminase-An enzyme alleviating the biotic and abiotic stress in plants. Plant gene 18, 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plgene.2019.100175 (2019).
CAS Article Google Scholar
35.
Khamna, S., Yokota, A., Peberdy, J. F. & Lumyong, S. Indole-3-acetic acid production by Streptomyces sp. isolated from some Thai medicinal plant rhizosphere soils. EurAsian J. BioSciences 4, 23–32 (2010).
CAS Google Scholar
36.
Spaepen, S. & Vanderleyden, J. Auxin and plant-microbe interactions. C. S. H. Perspect. Biol. 3, a001438. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a001438 (2011).
CAS Article Google Scholar
37.
Patten, C. L. & Glick, B. R. Bacterial biosynthesis of indole-3-acetic acid. Can. J. Microbiol. 42, 207–220 (1996).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
38.
Majeed, A., Abbasi, K. M., Hameed, S., Imran, A. & Rahim, N. Isolation and characterization of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on plant growth promotion. Front. Microbiol. 6, 198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00198 (2015).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
39.
Apine, O. A. & Jadhav, J. P. Optimization of medium for indole-3-acetic acid production using Pantoea agglomerans strain PVM. J. Appl. Microbiol. 110, 1235–1244 (2011).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
40.
Checcucci, A. et al. Role and regulation of ACC deaminase gene in Sinorhizobium melilotr: Is it a symbiotic, rhizospheric or endophytic gene?. Front. Genet. 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00006 (2017).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
41.
Belimov, A. A. et al. Cadmium-tolerant plant growth-promoting bacteria associated with the roots of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern.). Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 241–250 (2005).
CAS Google Scholar
42.
Khan, N. A., Khan, M. I. R., Ferrante, A. & Poor, P. Editorial: ethylene: a key regulatory molecule in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01782 (2017).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
43.
Glick, B. R. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol. Res. 169, 30–39 (2014).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
44.
Wang, Z. et al. Isolation and characterization of a phosphorus-solubilizing bacterium from rhizosphere soils and its colonization of Chinese Cabbage (Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis). Front. Microbiol. 8, 1270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01270 (2017).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
45.
Dinesh, R. et al. Isolation, characterization, and evaluation of multi-trait plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for their growth promoting and disease suppressing effects on ginger. Microbiol. Res. 173, 34–43 (2015).
PubMed Google Scholar
46.
Niu, X., Song, L., Xiao, Y. & Ge, W. Drought-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria associated with foxtail millet in a semi-arid agroecosystem and their potential in alleviating drought stress. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02580 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
47.
Singh, V. K., Singh, A. K., Singh, P. P. & Kumar, A. Interaction of plant growth promoting bacteria with tomato under abiotic stress: a review. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 267, 129–140 (2018).
CAS Google Scholar
48.
Grover, M., Bodhankar, S., Maheswari, M. & Srinivasarao, C. Actinomycetes as mitigators of climate change and abiotic stress. In Plant Growth Promoting Actinobacteria: A New Avenue for Enhancing the Productivity and Soil Fertility of Grain Legumes (eds Subramaniam, G. et al.) 203–212 (Springer, Berlin, 2016).
Google Scholar
49.
Sang, M. K., Jeong, J. J., Kim, J. & Kim, K. D. Growth promotion and root colonisation in pepper plants by phosphate-solubilising Chryseobacterium sp strain ISE14 that suppresses Phytophthora blight. Ann. Appl. Biol. 172, 208–223 (2018).
CAS Google Scholar
50.
Xiao, X., Fan, M., Wang, E., Chen, W. & Wei, G. Interactions of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and soil factors in two leguminous plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biot. 101, 8485–8497 (2017).
CAS Google Scholar
51.
Abdelkrim, S. et al. Effect of Pb-resistant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation on growth and lead uptake by Lathyrus sativus. J. Basic Microb. 58, 579–589 (2018).
CAS Google Scholar
52.
Liu, Y. et al. Characterization of Lysobacter capsici strain NF87–2 and its biocontrol activities against phytopathogens. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 155, 859–869 (2019).
CAS Google Scholar
53.
Edgar, R. C. Accuracy of taxonomy prediction for 16S rRNA and fungal ITS sequences. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4652 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
54.
Lee, Z. M., Bussema, C. III. & Schmidt, T. M. rrnDB: documenting the number of rRNA and tRNA genes in bacteria and archaea. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D489–D493 (2008).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
55.
Shen, X., Hu, H., Peng, H., Wang, W. & Zhang, X. Comparative genomic analysis of four representative plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in Pseudomonas. BMC Genomics 14, 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-271 (2013).
CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
56.
Niazi, A. et al. Genome analysis of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. Plantarum UCMB5113: a rhizobacterium that improves plant growth and stress management. PloS ONE 9, e104651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104651 (2014).
ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
57.
Riggs, P. J., Chelius, M. K., Leonardo, I. A., Kaeppler, S. M. & Triplett, E. W. Enhanced maize productivity by inoculation with diazotrophic bacteria. Funct. Plant Biol. 28, 829–836 (2001).
Google Scholar
58.
Saleem, M., Arshad, M., Hussain, S. & Bhatti, A. S. Perspective of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) containing ACC deaminase in stress agriculture. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot. 34, 635–648 (2007).
CAS Google Scholar
59.
Dorjey, S., Gupta, V. & Razdan, V. K. Evaluation of Pseudomonas fluorescens isolates for the management of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici and Rhizoctonia solani causing wilt complex in tomato. Indian Phytopathol. 70, 127–130 (2017).
Google Scholar
60.
Dardanelli, M. S. et al. Changes in flavonoids secreted by Phaseolus vulgaris roots in the presence of salt and the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Chryseobacterium balustinum. Appl. Soil Ecol. 75, 31–38 (2012).
Google Scholar
61.
Ogut, M., Er, F. & Brohi, A. Excessive phosphorus fertilization does not increase cadmium concentrations in soil or carrots (Daucus carota L.) grown in Konya (Turkey). Acta Agr. Scand B-S.P. 60, 420–426 (2010).
CAS Google Scholar
62.
Rodríguez, H., Fraga, R., Gonzalez, T. & Bashan, Y. Genetics of phosphate solubilization and its potential applications for improving plant growth-promoting bacteria. Plant Soil 287, 15–21 (2006).
Google Scholar
63.
Kalayu, G. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms: Promising approach as biofertilizers. Int. J. Agron. 2019, 4917256. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4917256 (2019).
CAS Article Google Scholar
64.
Mellidou, I. et al. Silencing S-adenosyl-L-methionine decarboxylase (SAMDC) in Nicotiana tabacum points at a polyamine-dependent trade-off between growth and tolerance responses. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00379 (2016).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
65.
Michael, A. J. Biosynthesis of polyamines and polyamine-containing molecules. Biochem. J. 473, 2315–2329 (2016).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
66.
Nascimento, F. X., Hernández, A. G., Glick, B. R. & Rossi, M. J. Plant growth-promoting activities and genomic analysis of the stress-resistant Bacillus megaterium STB1, a bacterium of agricultural and biotechnological interest. Biotechnol. Rep. 25, e00406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00406 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
67.
Goswami, R. et al. Optimization of growth determinants of a potent cellulolytic bacterium isolated from lignocellulosic biomass for enhancing biogas production. Clean Technol. Envir. 18, 1565–1583 (2016).
CAS Google Scholar
68.
Vokou, D., Giannakou, U., Kontaxi, C. & Vareltzidou, S. Axios. Aliakmon and gallikos delta complex, Νorthern Greece. In Encyclopedia of Wetlands, Vol. 4 World Wetlands (eds Finlayson, M. et al.) (Springer, Berlin, 2016).
Google Scholar
69.
Mellidou, I., Keulemans, J., Kanellis, A. & Davey, M. W. Regulation of fruit ascorbic acid concentrations in high and low vitamin C tomato cultivars during ripening. BMC Plant Biol. 12, 239–258 (2012).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
70.
Bouyoucos, G. J. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Agron. J. 54, 464–465 (1962).
Google Scholar
71.
Sparks, D. L. Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical Methods, SSSA Book Series 5 (ASA. Madison, WI, SSSA, 1996).
Google Scholar
72.
Karamanoli, K., Bouligaraki, P., Constantinidou, H. I. & Lindow, S. E. Polyphenolic compounds on leaves limit iron availability and affect growth of epiphytic bacteria. Ann. Appl. Biol. 159, 99–108 (2011).
CAS Google Scholar
73.
Eevers, N. et al. Optimization of isolation and cultivation of bacterial endophytes through addition of plant extract to nutrient media. Microb. Biotechnol. 8, 707–715 (2015).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
74.
Louden, B. C., Haarmann, D. & Lynne, A. M. Use of blue agar CAS assay for siderophore detection. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 12, 51. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.249 (2011).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
75.
García, C. A., De Rossi, B. P., Alcaraz, E., Vay, C. & Franco, M. Siderophores of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: detection and determination of their chemical nature. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 44, 150–154 (2012).
PubMed Google Scholar
76.
Dworkin, M. & Foster, J. Experiments with some microorganisms which utilize ethane and hydrogen. J. Bacteriol. 75, 592–601 (1958).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
77.
Hontzeas, N., Zoidakis, J., Glick, B. R. & Abu-Omar, M. M. Expression and characterization of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase from the rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida UW4: a key enzyme in bacterial plant growth promotion. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1703, 11–19 (2004).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
78.
Bradford, M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of micro gram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein—dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72, 248–258 (1976).
CAS Google Scholar
79.
Nautiyal, C. S. An efficient microbiological growth medium for screening phosphate solubilizing microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 170, 265–270 (1999).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
80.
Luziatelli, F., Ficca, A. G., Colla, G., Švecová, E. B. & Ruzzi, M. Foliar application of vegetal-derived bioactive compounds stimulates the growth of beneficial bacteria and enhances microbiome biodiversity in lettuce. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00060 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
81.
Herlemann, D. P. R. et al. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 5, 1571–1579 (2011).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
82.
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
83.
Afgan, E. et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2, W537–W544 (2018).
Google Scholar
84.
Li, D. et al. MEGAHIT v.10: a fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods 1, 3–11 (2016).
Google Scholar
85.
Seeman, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 15, 2068–2069 (2014).
Google Scholar
86.
Thompson, J. D., Gibson, T. J. & Higgins, D. G. Multiple sequence alignment using ClustalW and ClustalX. Curr Protoc Bioinform. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471250953.bi0203s00 (2002).
Article Google Scholar
87.
Hall, T. A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl. Acid S. 41, 95–98 (1999).
CAS Google Scholar
88.
Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
89.
Felsenstein, J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the Bootstrap. Evolution 39, 783–791 (1985).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
90.
Wu, S., Zhu, Z., Fu, L., Niu, B. & Li, W. WebMGA: a customizable web server for fast metagenomic sequence analysis. BMC Genomics 12, 444. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-444 (2011).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
91.
Kamou, N. N. et al. Isolation screening and characterisation of local beneficial rhizobacteria based upon their ability to suppress the growth of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici and tomato foot and root rot. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 25(8), 928–949 (2015).
Google Scholar More
Total P and available P
Fertilizer application significantly (P 0.05). The highest increase in available P concentration in NPK + S treatment observed in the 60–100 cm soil depth, with the increase of 111% and 115% in 60–80 cm and 80–100 cm soil depths, respectively, over CK treatment.
Figure 2
Effect of long-term application of chemical fertilizer, organic manure, and straw on total phosphorus (P) and available P concentrations. * indicates significant difference at P 3.6%) was associated with OM treatment, especially at the 0–20 and 20–40 cm soil depths (Fig. 3). The PAC values under NPK, NPK + S and OM treatments increased by 7.6%, 4.5% and 11.5% in the 0–20 cm soil depth and 4.2%, 1.3%, and 5.8% in 20–40 cm soil depth, respectively as compared to the CK treatment. However, PAC value for soil depth below 40 cm showed the trend, NPK More
