Research Article |
Corresponding author: Xiang Sun ( sunx@tauex.tau.ac.il ) Corresponding author: Liang-Dong Guo ( guold@im.ac.cn ) Academic editor: Pradeep Divakar
© 2020 Jia-Long Li, Xiang Sun, Yong Zheng, Peng-Peng Lü, Yong-Long Wang, Liang-Dong Guo.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Li J-L, Sun X, Zheng Y, Lü P-P, Wang Y-L, Guo L-D (2020) Diversity and community of culturable endophytic fungi from stems and roots of desert halophytes in northwest China. MycoKeys 62: 75-95. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.62.38923
|
Halophytes have high species diversity and play important roles in ecosystems. However, endophytic fungi of halophytes in desert ecosystems have been less investigated. In this study, we examined endophytic fungi associated with the stem and root of ten halophytic species colonizing the Gurbantonggut desert. A total of 36 endophytic fungal taxa were obtained, dominated by Alternaria eichhorniae, Monosporascus ibericus, and Pezizomycotina sp.1. The colonization rate and species richness of endophytic fungi varied in the ten plant species, with higher rates in roots than in stems. The endophytic fungal community composition was significantly affected by plant identity and tissue type. Some endophytic fungi showed significant host and tissue preferences. This finding suggests that host identity and tissue type structure endophytic fungal community in a desert ecosystem.
community composition, desert halophyte, endophytic fungi, host preference, richness, tissue preference
Endophytic fungi live within plant organs for some time or throughout their life, without causing apparent harm to their host (
The endophytic fungal colonization rate, diversity, and community composition is affected by host species, tissue types, and abiotic factors (e.g.,
Halophytes constitute about 1% of the world’s flora, survive and reproduce in saline habitats such as coastal and salinized inland regions (
Inland halophytes form extensive symbiotic relations with endophytic fungi in harsh environments, which benefit their hosts by promoting resistance against high salinity stress (
In order to improve our understanding of the endophytic fungi of desert halophytes, we selected ten halophyte species in the Gurbantonggut desert, Xinjiang, northwest China. The endophytic fungi were isolated from the stems and roots of halophytes and identified according to morphological characteristics and molecular data. This study aimed to reveal how the colonization rate, diversity, and community composition of endophytic fungi differed among halophytes species and tissue types. Besides, it will also provide preliminary data of halophyte endophytes for future studies in bioactive natural products, ecosystem reconstruction, or agricultural application in desert regions.
The study was carried out at the Fukang Desert Ecosystem Observation and Experiment Station, Chinese Academy of Sciences, located in the southern edge of the Gurbantonggut desert in China (44°17'N–44°22'N, 87°55'E–87°56'E, 448–461 m above sea level). The site has a continental arid temperate climate, with an annual mean temperature of 6.6 °C (a maximum of 44.2 °C in hot, dry summer and a minimum of -42.2 °C in freezing winter) (
On 30th July 2015, we selected ten halophyte species Bassia dasyphylla (Fisch. et C. A. Mey.) Kuntze, Ceratocarpus arenarius L., Kalidium foliatum (Pall.) Moq., Salsola nitraria Pall., Suaeda acuminata (C. A. Mey.) Moq., Su. salsa (L.) Pall. (Chenopodiaceae), Eragrostis minor Host (Poaceae), Reaumuria songarica (Pall.) Maxim. (Tamaricaceae), Seriphidium santolinum (Schrenk) Poljak (Asteraceae), and Peganum harmala (L.) (Zygophyllaceae) at the site. Ten healthy individuals of each plant species were uprooted to collect twig and root samples at the location. All sampled individuals of the same species were more than 50 m away from each other, in order to reduce the spatial autocorrelation and recover representative local endophyte community (
Since most of the plant species involved in the current study (except for E. minor) possess reduced leaves, which are hard to discern from the stems, we selected only stems to isolate endophytes colonized aerial parts of the plants. Roots and stems of individual plants were cut into 5 mm long segments (ca. 2 mm in diameter). Eight root segments and 8 stem segments were randomly selected from each sample. In total, 1600 segments (10 plant species × 10 individuals × 2 tissue types × 8 segments) were used for endophyte isolation in this study.
Surface sterilization was conducted according to
Subcultures on PDA were examined periodically, and the sporulated isolates were identified based on their morphological characteristics. The non-sporulated cultures were designated as mycelia sterilia, which were divided into different “morphotypes” according to colony color, texture, and growth rate on PDA (
Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh cultures following the protocol of
The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of rDNA was amplified using primer pairs ITS4 (
A value of 97% of ITS region identity was used as a DNA barcoding threshold for OTU clustering (
Fungal taxa | accession no. | Closest blast match in GenBank (accession no.) | Identity (%) | UNITE taxon name (SH code at 1.5% threshold) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acremonium alternatum | KY114893 | Acremonium alternatum (AY566992) | 100 | Pezizomycotina (SH1560626.08FU) |
Alternaria chlamydospora | KY114895 | Alternaria chlamydospora (NR136039) | 99 | Alternaria chlamydospora (SH1505867.08FU) |
Alternaria eichhorniae | KY114894 | Alternaria burnsii (KR604836) | 100 | Alternaria eichhorniae (SH1526398.08FU) |
Aspergillus flavus | KY114898 | Aspergillus flavus (KU296258) | 100 | Aspergillus flavus (SH1532605.08FU) |
Aspergillus fumigatiaffinis | KY114899 | Aspergillus fumigatiaffinis (MH474422) | 100 | Aspergillus fumigatus (SH1529985.08FU) |
Aspergillus terreus | KY114900 | Aspergillus terreus (KM249873) | 100 | Aspergillus terreus (SH1530841.08FU) |
Aureobasidium pullulans | KY114901 | Aureobasidium pullulans (MH857648) | 100 | Aureobasidium pullulans (SH1515060.08FU) |
Bipolaris prieskaensis | KY114902 | Bipolaris prieskaensis (JQ517482) | 100 | Bipolaris prieskaensis (SH1526609.08FU) |
Cladosporium limoniforme | KY114903 | Cladosporium limoniforme (KT600401) | 100 | Mycosphaerella tassiana (SH1572792.08FU) |
Curvularia inaequalis | KY114905 | Curvularia inaequalis (KT192305) | 99 | Curvularia inaequalis (SH1526407.08FU) |
Didymella glomerata | KY114906 | Didymella glomerata (FJ427004) | 99 | Didymella exigua (SH1547057.08FU) |
Fusarium avenaceum | KY114907 | Fusarium avenaceum (JN631748) | 100 | Gibberella tricincta (SH1546323.08FU) |
Fusarium incarnatum | KY114908 | Fusarium incarnatum (KT748520) | 100 | Gibberella intricans (SH1610158.08FU) |
Fusarium oxysporum | KY114909 | Fusarium oxysporum (EU429440) | 100 | Gibberella fujikuroi (SH1610157.08FU) |
Fusarium proliferatum | KY114910 | Fusarium proliferatum (KP132229) | 100 | Fusarium proliferatum (SH1610159.08FU) |
Humicola fuscoatra | KY114911 | Humicola fuscoatra (KP101183) | 99 | Pezizomycotina (SH1642162.08FU) |
Monosporascus ibericus | KY114912 | Monosporascus ibericus (JQ973832) | 97 | Monosporascus ibericus (SH1578625.08FU) |
Monosporascus sp. | KY114913 | Monosporascus sp. (KT269082) | 97 | Monosporascus (SH1578615.08FU) |
Neocamarosporium obiones | KY114896 | Ascochyta obiones (GU230752) | 100 | Pleosporales (SH1524225.08FU) |
Neocamarosporium sp.1 | KY114914 | Neocamarosporium goegapense (KJ869163) | 94 | Neocamarosporium salsolae (SH1524232.08FU) |
Neocamarosporium sp.2 | KY114916 | Neocamarosporium sp. (KY940767) | 97 | Neocamarosporium (SH1524244.08FU) |
Neocamarosporium sp.3 | KY114897 | Pleospora calvescens (MH861148) | 96 | Pleosporales (SH1524225.08FU) |
Neodidymelliopsis polemonii | KY114915 | Neodidymelliopsis polemonii (KT389532) | 100 | Didymella exigua (SH1547057.08FU) |
Paraphaeosphaeria sporulosa | KY114904 | Coniothyrium sporulosum (DQ865113) | 97 | Paraphaeosphaeria sporulosa (SH1582449.08FU) |
Pezizomycotina sp.1 | KY114922 | Pleomonodictys descalsii (NR_154369) | 88 | Pezizomycotina (SH1574559.08FU) |
Pezizomycotina sp.2 | KY114923 | Trematosphaeria grisea (NR132039) | 86 | Pezizomycotina (SH1574559.08FU) |
Pleosporales sp. | KY114917 | Pleosporales sp. (KF887149) | 96 | Pleosporales (SH1582443.08FU) |
Preussia sp.1 | KY114918 | Preussia terricola (GQ203765) | 92 | Preussia terricola (SH1642175.08FU) |
Preussia sp.2 | KY114919 | Preussia sp. (HM007080) | 99 | Preussia (SH1541731.08FU) |
Sarocladium kiliense | KY114920 | Sarocladium kiliense (KM231849) | 99 | Sarocladium kiliense (SH1541920.08FU) |
Simplicillium obclavatum | KY114921 | Simplicillium obclavatum (AB604000) | 99 | Simplicillium obclavatum (SH1584064.08FU) |
Trematosphaeriaceae sp. | KY114924 | Medicopsis romeroi (KF015657) | 88 | Medicopsis romeroi (SH1613813.08FU) |
Trichocomaceae sp. | KY114925 | Talaromyces purpureogenus (KM086709) | 86 | Talaromyces marneffei (SH1516144.08FU) |
Ulocladium oblongo-obovoideum | KY114926 | Ulocladium oblongo-obovoideum (MH863976) | 100 | Alternaria eichhorniae (SH1526398.08FU) |
Xylaria hypoxylon | KY114927 | Xylaria hypoxylon (KF306342) | 100 | Xylariaceae (SH1541119.08FU) |
Xylariales sp. | KY114928 | Xylariales sp. (KC460867) | 98 | Xylariales (SH1578643.08FU) |
All statistical analyses were carried out in R 3.3.1 (
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to test the effect of plant species or tissue type (stem and root) on the colonization rate and species richness of endophytic fungi. Multiple comparisons were performed using post hoc Tukey’s HSD (Honest Significant Difference) tests to examine the significant differences among the plant species or tissue types at P < 0.05 level. All data were tested for normality and homogeneity of variance before ANOVA. In cases where satisfactory results of homogeneity of variance amongst plant species after square root and transformation were not observed (e.g., in stems), then nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pairwise comparisons was applied to examine the significant difference among plant species at P < 0.05 level. T-test was applied to examine the significant difference of the colonization rate and species richness of endophytic fungi between stems and roots for each plant species at P < 0.05 level. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) was performed to observe the correlation between endophytic fungi and plant species or tissue types with the ‘cca’ function in the vegan package (
The host-fungus association preferences were evaluated based on a d’ interaction specialization index (
A total of 1046 fungal strains were recovered from 1600 tissue segments from ten halophyte species. The colonization rate of endophytic fungi ranged from 7.5 ± 3.33% to 83.75 ± 8.95% in stems, from 33.75 ± 11.19% to 97.5 ± 1.67% in roots, and from 38.75 ± 2.46% to 85.63 ± 2.28% overall for the entire plant among the ten halophyte species (Fig.
Colonization rate of endophytic fungi in stem, root, and total (stem + root) tissues of the ten halophyte species. Data are means ± SE (n = 10). Columns without shared lowercase, uppercase, and italic letters denote the significant difference in the stem, root, and total tissues among the halophyte species, respectively. Asterisks above bars indicate significant difference between stem and root tissues for each plant species (** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001).
In total, 36 fungal taxa were isolated and identified based on morphological characters and ITS sequences (Table
Endophytic fungal richness in stem, root and total (stem + root) tissues of the ten halophyte species. Data are means ± SE (n = 10). Columns without shared lowercase, uppercase, and italic letters denote significant difference in the stem, root, and total tissues among the plant species, respectively. Asterisks above bars indicate the significant difference between stem and root tissues for each halophyte species (* P<0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001).
Of the 36 endophytic fungi, 32 were recovered from roots, 27 from stems, and 23 were common in both roots and stems (Fig.
The CCA results indicated that the endophytic fungal community composition was significantly different between stems and roots of the ten halophyte species (Fig.
Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination plot of endophytic fungal communities of stem and root tissues (A) and halophyte species (B). Dotted ellipses indicate 95% confidence intervals around centroids of tissue type (A) and plant species (B), B. dasyphylla = Bassia dasyphylla, C. arenarius = Ceratocarpus arenarius, K. foliatum = Kalidium foliatum, Sa. nitraria = Salsola nitraria, Su. acuminata = Suaeda acuminata, Su. salsa = Suaeda salsa, E. minor = Eragrostis minor, R. songarica = Reaumuria songarica, Se. santolinum = Seriphidium santolinum, and P. harmala = Peganum harmala.
Host-fungus association preference analysis showed that five out of ten halophyte species showed significant preferences to endophytic fungi, especially strong preferences in E. minor, R. songarica, and Se. santolinum (Fig.
Preferences observed in the plant-fungus associations. A Preference scores. The standardized d’ estimate of preferences for fungal taxon is shown for each halophyte (column), and the standardized d’ estimate of preferences for plant species is indicated for each of the fungal taxon (row). Each cell in the matrix indicates a two-dimensional preference (2DP) estimate, which measures to what extent the association of a focal plant-fungus pair was observed more/less frequently than expected by chance. P values were shown as false discovery rates (FDRs) in the plant/fungus analysis. B Relationship between 2DP and FDR-adjusted P values, 2DP values larger than 2.5 and those smaller than -2.5 represented strong preference and avoidance, respectively (PFDR < 0.05). Significance: *, P < 0.05, **, P < 0.01, ***, P < 0.001.
The colonization rate and species richness of endophytic fungi varied among desert halophyte species in the current study. Similar results have been reported in previous studies in mangrove (
We found that the endophytic fungi community composition is halophyte species-dependent. Similar results have been reported in some previous studies on halophytes and desert plants (
Community composition of endophytic fungi was also affected by plant tissue types (root and stem), which corroborate earlier studies carried out in semi-arid and arid ecosystems (
The present study revealed high diversity of endophytic fungi associated with desert halophytes, and their colonization rate and diversity of endophytic fungi vary from plant to plant and is higher in roots than in stems. The endophytic fungal community composition is affected by plant species and tissue type as some endophytic fungi showed strong host and tissue preferences. The current study will provide preliminary data for exploration into diverse bioactive natural products originated from halophyte endophytes, and prospects on ecosystem reconstruction or desert agriculture development.
We are grateful to Ms. Tie-Mu-Er-Bie-Ke Ba-He-Jia-Yi-Na-Er, Mr. Yong-Xin Zang and Hai Zhu from Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences for their help with sampling and plant identification. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31470151 and 31470228).