Fanjuan Meng , Dan Li , Mu Peng , Qiuyu Wang

Colleague of Life Science, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China
Author    Correspondence author
Molecular Soil Biology, 2016, Vol. 7, No. 2   
Received: 30 Jan., 2016    Accepted: 04 Feb., 2016    Published: 03 Feb., 2016

This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

To compare and evaluate the soil bacterial community composition of Maoershan National Forest Park, we analyzed soil samples from four replicated land-use types (hardwood forests, cultivated lands, settlement and slash lands) by using a denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) method based on 16S rRNA gene fragments from the total DNA. Forty-two DGGE bands were excised for sequencing. Our results revealed that the conversion of the natural forest to other land-use types had a significant effect on the soil bacterial community. Bacteroidetes was absent in forest soils. Beta-Proteobacteria was unique to settlement soils, whereas Cyanobacteria and Verrucomicrobia were absent in agricultural soils. Additionally, Acidobacteria and Proteobacteria (α, β, γ, δ classes) were the dominant bacterial communities in all soils. Thus, conversion of the forest land into other land-use types resulted in changes in the bacterial communities which may affect the productivity of the soil ecosystem. Together these results suggested that the utility of using sequence-based approaches to analyze bacterial communities as such analyses provide detailed information on individual bacterial community composition and permit the robust assessment of the biogeographical patterns exhibited by soil microbial communities.

Bacterial community structure; 16S rRNA; Forest; Conversion of land-use

(The advance publishing of the abstract of this manuscript does not mean final published, the end result whether or not published will depend on the comments of peer reviewers and decision of our editorial board.)