Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Sep 11;18(9):e0291250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291250

Legume-nodulating rhizobia are widespread in soils and plants across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Jonathan N A Abe 1, Ishwora Dhungana 1, Nhu H Nguyen 1,*
Editor: Ying Ma2
PMCID: PMC10495000  PMID: 37695782

Abstract

Legumes and their interaction with rhizobia represent one of the most well-characterized symbioses that are widespread across both natural and agricultural environments. However, larger distribution patterns and host associations on isolated Pacific islands with many native and introduced hosts have not been well-documented. Here, we used molecular and culturing techniques to characterize rhizobia from soils and 24 native and introduced legume species on the island of O’ahu, Hawai‘i. We chose two of these isolates to inoculate an endemic legume tree, Erythina sandwicensis to measure nodulation potentials and host benefits. We found that all rhizobia genera can be found in the soil, where only Cupriavidus was found at all sites, although at lower abundance relative to other more common genera such as Rhizobium (and close relatives), Bradyzhizobium, and Devosia. Bradyrhizobium was the most common nodulator of legumes, where the strain Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1 is a generalist capable of forming nodules on nine different host species, including two native species. In greenhouse nursery inoculations, the two different Bradyrhizobium strains successfully nodulate the endemic E. sandwicensis; both strains equally and significantly increased seedling biomass in nursery inoculations. Overall, this work provides a molecular-based framework in which to study potential native and introduced rhizobia on one of the most isolated archipelagos on the planet.

Introduction

The Hawaiian Islands due to their isolation have developed a biogeographic landscape that is prone to invasion of introduced organisms, including soil microbes that range from pathogenic to mutualistic lifestyles. Although most microbial introductions were not recorded, the Nitrogen Fixation for Tropical Agricultural Legumes (NifTAL) Project, which started in Hawai‘i in 1975, introduced a large number of non-native rhizobia to the islands [1]. The project expanded research on legumes, rhizobia, and inoculation methods that would increase the biological nitrogen fixation efficiency of legumes. At least some of the 1774 non-native rhizobia strains that came from this project [24] were used in experiments in Hawaiian soils to produce the inoculant technology that would eventually be spread across the tropical world [1, 5, 6].

Currently, the occurrence and distribution of rhizobia, whether introduced or not, and to which hosts they associate is not known. Hawai‘i has 16 endemic legume species, 7 indigenous species, and at least 174 recorded introduced species [7]. Some introduced species, whether they arrived on purpose or by accident, are found on many, if not all, of the major Hawaiian Islands. These may be in the form of trees such as Leucaena leucocephala and Prosopis pallida that prefer open dryland habitats, or as many herbaceous weeds in the genera Chamaecrista, Crotalaria, Desmodium, Macroptilium, Medicago, and Mimosa that invade open agricultural and disturbed habitats [7, 8].

Two of the most important endemic legumes that occur on all the main Hawaiian Islands are trees: Acacia koa and Erythrina sandwicensis. Although A. koa can be found widespread throughout low to high elevation, it dominates canopies in the low mesic to high altitude (900–1800 m) montane rainforests [9, 10]. As volcanic soils are deficient in nitrogen [11], A. koa significantly contribute to soil nitrogen cycling by providing nitrogen-rich foliage to the litter layer, support many threatened and endangered bird species, and serve as economically important timber [12]. It is actively being planted in many forest habitat restoration projects [13, 14] with the use of a species of Bradyrhizobium as a seedling nursery inoculant [15]. The second species, Erythrina sandwicensis, wiliwili in Hawaiian, is a keystone species of the dry lowland forest ecosystem across all of the major Hawaiian Islands but is classified as threatened due to tremendous pressure from multiple fronts [16]. Current restoration efforts generally do not use rhizobia inoculants that could provide multiple benefits to E. sandwicensis seedlings during the nursery stage and beyond in the field.

Currently, there remains a gap in our knowledge regarding the identity and distribution of rhizobia species in Hawai‘i, leguminous plants that they associate within, and the soils that they reside. Fine-scale molecular characterization of rhizobia and their associations with hosts is the first step to understanding the ecology of native legumes and their associated symbionts, and aid in the restoration efforts of native legume species. This may include identification of associated rhizobia species or strains, and monitoring of these associations during host establishment in the field. Characterization of the soil is also crucial to develop an understanding of the potential inoculum in that soil, for both restoration and agriculture. Here, we use molecular and culture methods to identify rhizobia genera associated with soils and within nodules of native and non-native legumes across the island of O‘ahu. Then we inoculated selected strains onto E. sandwicensis seedlings to show their potentials as nursery inoculants for this threatened species.

Material and methods

Sampling and isolation

Soil and legume nodules were sampled across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i with permission from landowners (Fig 1). The sampling location and site characteristics are shown listed in S1 Table. At each site, at least 3 soil samples were haphazardly sampled from the top 15 cm and combined to make one sample for a total of 377 samples. The soil samples come from diverse soil environments, some of which may not necessarily have leguminous plants actively growing. For sites that have leguminous plants, we targeted a diversity of species, and when possible, multiple plants of the same species were sampled. For each plant, the flowers, leaves, and pods were photographed for identification. Roots of the collected plants were washed thoroughly, and nodules were separated from the larger rooting system and washed until all apparent soil had been removed. Both soil and nodules were transported back to the laboratory for further processing.

Fig 1. Map of sampling locations across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

Fig 1

The size of the dots indicates the number of samples collected and sequenced at that site.

For rhizobia isolation, one root nodule from each plant was washed in 95% ethanol for seven seconds, then soaked in a 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (30% bleach solution) with several drops of Tween 20 for 3 minutes and washed in five successive baths of sterile water. The surface-sterilized root nodules were crushed in 1 mL of sterile water and the nodule solution was then diluted serially to 10−6 in water. 100 μL of 10−6 diluted root nodule solution was plated on yeast mannitol agar (YMA, 1 g yeast extract, 10 g mannitol, 0.5 g potassium phosphate dibasic, 0.2 g magnesium sulfate, 0.1 g sodium chloride, and 30 g agar, 1 L water) and incubated for at least 8 days at 27°C. All morphologically distinct colonies from each nodule were further purified and maintained on YMA.

Molecular methods

Amplicon library preparation and sequencing followed standard protocols [17]. Briefly, soil samples were homogenized and 0.25 g was used to extract DNA using the PowerSoil Max kit (Qiagen, USA). The amplicon libraries were prepared using a two-step, dual barcoding method [17], using the Earth Microbiome Project primer pairs 515F [18] and 806R [19]. The libraries were sequenced with Illumina MiSeq. The DNA sequences were analyzed using QIIME2 [20] for data quality control following our established pipeline [21]. The ASVs were identified using the SILVA v138 database [22], and the known genera of rhizobia [23] were separated from the main dataset for further analyses.

To identify the cultures, DNA was extracted from actively growing cells using a standard Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) buffer/chloroform extraction protocol and amplified using the primer pair 515FB (5’ GTGYCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA 3’) [18] and 926RB (5’ CCGYCAATTYMTTTRAGTTT 3’) [19] that target the V4-V5 variable region of the 16S rRNA gene using the following PCR parameters: 95°C for 30s, 95°C for 30s, 49°C for 30 s, 68°C for 60s, repeat steps 2–4 34x, 68°C for 300 s. PCR products were cleaned using solid phase reversible immobilization (SPRI) magnetic beads prior to sequencing using Sanger technology. The resulting chromatograms were manually edited for correct base calls and sequences were clustered at the 99% sequence similarity using the online CD-HIT Suite [24] and representative sequences of each cluster were identified using BLAST that matches to GenBank’s curated type strain database.

Inoculation assay

To determine the efficiency of rhizobia inoculations on the endemic and threatened tree E. sandwicensis, we selected two different Bradyrhizobium strains that were found with this host: Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1 (isolate UHC282) is a generalist found across the island of O‘ahu across multiple hosts, and Bradyrhizobium strain JA9 (isolate UHC283) was found only in nodules associated with E. sandwicensis. A nutrient-poor Oxisol, Wahiawa Series soil collected from the Poamoho Research Station (21.5750803°, -158.10241°), was sieved using a 1 mm mesh, mixed 1:1 (v/v) with perlite to improve drainage, and autoclave sterilized at 121°C for 30 minutes twice, with thorough mixing in between. Fresh cultures of the two isolates above were suspended in double deionized water and immediately inoculated onto the soil to achieve 106 rhizobia cells/mL of soil. Sterile plastic pots were filled with 480 mL of inoculated soil, or sterile uninoculated soil watered with 5 mL of 0.5% KNO3 weekly as a positive control and watered with tap water as a negative control. Seeds were surface sterilized and scarified, prior to planting into each pot, and grown for 10 weeks under greenhouse conditions with daily watering. There were five replicates per treatment (N = 20).

To measure inoculum efficiency, we used a combination of several non-destructive metrics that allowed us to preserve these threatened plants. Stem height was measured from the soil line of the plant to the tip apical meristem; approximate stem volume was calculated using the formula for cone volume V = (1/3)πr2h using basal stem radius (r) and height (h). The total number of nodules was counted, and some were cut open to confirm active nodulation through color. Wet weight of the whole seedling was taken by first washing the root system clean of soil and dabbed dry prior to weighing, taking care to perform these steps as consistently as possible. Together, these data provided a general measure of inoculum efficiency of the inoculated rhizobia strains [25].

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted by using R [26]. The sampling map was drawn using the package ggmap [27]. For each sample in the soil dataset, the sequence data were condensed at the genus level, and the data was collapsed to presence and absence. The data was then normalized across each sampling site by percentage. In other words, the prevalence of taxa in this study was based on its presence relative to total number of samples. This prevalence was plotted as a “bubble chart” using the ggplot2 package [28]. To measure whether there is differential occurrence between site disturbance, we used the “adonis” function in the vegan package [29]. The mean differences between E. sandwicensis growth were conducted via the Least Significant Distance test with a 0.95 confidence interval with the agricolae package [30], and graphs were plotted by using the ggplot2 package [28]. When calculating the averages for each experimental group, the seedlings that did not have nodules were not incorporated. Only two of the seedlings in the positive (fertilized) control survived, and thus this treatment was removed from further analyses.

Results

Rhizobia from soil sequences

In this study, we identified 18 genera of rhizobia on O‘ahu from soils and nodules (Fig 2). Some genera could not be separated from each other (e.g. the Rhizobium complex = Allorhizobium-Neorhizobium-Pararhizobium-Rhizobium; the Burkholderia complex = Burkholderia-Paraburkholderia; the Methylobacterium complex = Methylobacterium-Methylorubrum) based on the short V4 segment of the 16S rRNA gene. We note that it was not possible to clearly detect which members of Burkholderia and the Methylobacterium complex nodulate legumes based on the sequence data, but they have been included for completeness. Therefore, we report 13 operational genera. Of these, the Rhizobium complex, Bradyrhizobium, Devosia, Mesorhizobium, and Microvirga appear to be the most widespread, but only Cupriavidus was found across all sites sampled, although often at lower abundance than other genera.

Fig 2. Genera of plant-nodulating rhizobia that occur on the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

Fig 2

The presence of each genus (or genus complex) is indicated by a dot where the size corresponds to the normalized abundance. The sites are clustered based on the presence of genera and their normalized abundance.

Although the rhizobia genera do not seem to cluster according to sites, soil or land-use, agricultural sites tend to have most, if not all genera, whereas non-agricultural sites tend to have fewer (Fig 2). Of note is the Waimea Ridge site that is only accessible through helicopter. This site has the lowest genus richness with only Bradyrhizobium, the Burkholderia complex, Cupriavidus, and the Methylobacterium complex. There was no significance difference (p = 0.545) between the genera that occurred in agricultural soils compared to less disturbed or natural soils.

Rhizobia isolates from nodules

We cultured 55 rhizobia isolates from 24 different legume species (Table 1). The majority of isolates (62%) were sampled from the Poamoho Research Station site. The isolates were identified as Bradyrhizobium (30 isolates, 3 strains), Ensifer (Sinorhizobium, 10 isolates, 3 strains), Rhizobium (6 isolates, 2 strains), Mesorhizobium (2 isolates, 1 strain), Cupriavidus (6 isolate, 1 strain), and Bosea (1 isolate, 1 strain). The most common strain, Bradyrhizobium strain JA1 (23 isolates, 98.92% match to Bradyrhizobium elkanii) was found with nine legume species, including E. sandwicensis and A. koa, the two endemic legume species sampled in this study. The other notable strains were Bradyrhizobium strain JA2 (98.92% match to Bradyrhizobium vignae), Ensifer strain JA3 (99.18% match to Ensifer alkalisoli/medicae complex), Rhizobium strain JA4 (99.18% match to Rhizobium indigoferae), and Cupriavidus strain JA10 (99.52% match to Cupriavidus oxalaticus) came from diverse hosts.

Table 1. Bacteria strains isolated from legume nodules of diverse hosts on the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

Strain Host Species Locality Isolate GenBank Acession Best BLAST to Type# % Match to Type
JA1 Acacia koa Camp Palehua UHC275 MT703739 Bradyrhizobium elkanii 98.92%
JA1 Acacia koa Camp Palehua UHC276 MT703740
JA1 Acacia koa Camp Palehua UHC277 MT703741
JA1 Acacia koa Camp Palehua UHC278 MT703742
JA1 Arachis pintoi Poamoho Station UHC271 MT703735
JA1 Arachis pintoi Poamoho Station UHC274* MT703738
JA1 Canavalia sericea Waimanalo Beach UHC251 MT703716
JA1 Centrosema pubescens Poamoho Station UHC240 MT703705
JA1 Chamaecrista nictitans Poamoho Station UHC269 MT703733
JA1 Chamaecrista nictitans Poamoho Station UHC270 MT703734
JA1 Chamaecrista nictitans Poamoho Station UHC273 MT703737
JA1 Crotalaria juncea Waialua Farms UHC250 MT703715
JA1 Crotalaria pallida Poamoho Station UHC235 MT703700
JA1 Crotalaria spectabilis Poamoho Station UHC226 MT703691
JA1 Erythrina sandwicenesis Koko Crater BG UHC282 MT703746
JA1 Indigofera spicata Poamoho Station UHC227 MT703692
JA1 Indigofera suffruticosa Poamoho Station UHC254 MT703719
JA1 Macroptilium lathyroides Poamoho Station UHC236 MT703701
JA1 Pachyrhizus erosus Poamoho Station UHC237 MT703702
JA1 Pachyrhizus erosus Poamoho Station UHC263 MT703728
JA1 Pachyrhizus erosus Poamoho Station UHC267 MT703731
JA1 Psophocarpus tetragonolobus Waimanalo Station UHC247 MT703712
JA1 Vigna unguiculata Poamoho Station UHC230 MT703695
JA2 Desmodium tortuosum Waimanalo Station UHC246 MT703711 Bradyrhizobium vignae 98.92%
JA2 Indigofera suffruticosa Poamoho Station UHC225* MT703690
JA2 Pachyrhizus erosus Poamoho Station UHC272 MT703736
JA2 Unidentified sp. 1 Poamoho Station UHC252 MT703717
JA2 Unidentified sp. 2 Poamoho Station UHC268 MT703732
JA2 Vigna sp. 1 Waimanalo Station UHC245 MT703710
JA3 Chamaecrista nictitans Poamoho Station UHC231 MT703696 Ensifer alkalisoli/medicae 99.18%
JA3 Chamaecrista nictitans Poamoho Station UHC232 MT703697
JA3 Medicago sativa Poamoho Station UHC234 MT703699
JA3 Medicago sativa Poamoho Station UHC255 MT703720
JA3 Medicago sativa Poamoho Station UHC256 MT703721
JA3 Medicago sativa Poamoho Station UHC258* MT703723
JA3 Unidentified sp. 2 Poamoho Station UHC233 MT703698
JA4 Arachis pintoi Poamoho Station UHC261 MT703726 Rhizobium indigoferae 99.18%
JA4 Arachis pintoi Poamoho Station UHC262 MT703727
JA4 Desmodium tortuosum Waimanalo Station UHC248 MT703713
JA4 Leucaena leucocephala Poamoho Station UHC259 MT703724
JA4 Phaseolus vulgaris Waimanalo Station UHC243* MT703708
JA5 Leucaena leucocephala Waimanalo Station UHC242 MT703707 Ensifer glycinis 98.92%
JA5 Leucaena leucocephala UH Manoa Campus UHC253* MT703718
JA6 Leucaena leucocephala Poamoho Station UHC257* MT703722 Mesorhizobium acaciae 99.18%
JA6 Leucaena leucocephala Poamoho Station UHC260 MT703725
JA8 Crotalaria juncea Poamoho Station UHC238* MT703703 Ensifer adhaerens 99.18%
JA9 Erythrina sandwicenesis Koko Crater BG UHC283* MT703747 Bradyrhizobium betae 98.88%
JA10 Mimosa pudica Waimanalo Station UHC241 MT703706 Cupriavidus oxalaticus 99.52%
JA10 Mimosa pudica O’ahu UHC533 OM980333
JA10 Mimosa pudica Wa’ahila Ridge UHC539 OM980334
JA10 Mimosa pudica Wa’ahila Ridge UHC540* OM980335
JA10 Mimosa pudica UH Manoa Campus UHC541 OM980336
JA10 Mimosa pudica UH Manoa Campus UHC542 OM980337
JA11 Neonotonia wightii Poamoho Station UHC229* MT703694 Rhizobium alamii 98.89%
JA12 Crotalaria juncea Poamoho Station UHC536 OM980339 Bosea robiniae 99.77%

Endemic host species are in bolded font. The asterisk

(*) indicates the representative isolate for a strain, determined as the best sequence for that strain by the CD-HIT software.

# The BLAST results show the best match to that representative sequence to the most closely related Type strain. BG = Botanical Garden.

The overwhelming majority of individual plants associated with multiple rhizobia strains, whether they were collected from the same location (e.g. Arachis pintoi) or from different locations (e.g. Crotalaria juncea, Leucaena leucocephala) (Table 1). It is worth noting that the two endemic plant species E. sandwicensis and A. koa were both associated with Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1, but in addition, E. sandwicensis was associated with Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA9. Generally, an individual nodule contains only one isolate of rhizobia (although they can contain other bacteria). We found that in two cases, a single nodule contained two different rhizobia strains. An Arachis pintoi nodule contained Bradyrhizobium JA1 and Rhizobium sp. strain JA4, and a Desmodium tortuosum nodule, contained both Rhizobium sp. strain JA4 and Agrobacterium sp. strain JA13.

Inoculation assays

Inoculation of seedlings using the cell slurry method successfully produced nodules and had positive effects on the host in certain measurements (Fig 3). 80% of inoculated plants formed nodules, although the number of nodules was relatively few and tended to cluster close the main taproot. There was no significant number of nodules formed between the two isolates. Nodulated plants produced noticeably larger root systems compared to the control. Although we did not quantify the density of these roots, the contribution of the larger inoculated root system likely contributed to the overall significant increase in plant wet weight biomass compared to the control (p < 0.001). Colonization by isolate UHC283 (strain JA9) significantly increased total wet plant biomass compared to isolate UHC282 (strain JA1) and the control. There were no significant differences between stem height (p = 0.662) and stem volume (p = 0.299) of either isolate compared to each other and the negative control.

Fig 3. Erythrina sandwicensis seedling response to inoculation with Mesorhizobium spp.

Fig 3

Isolate UHC282 (strain JA1) and Bradyrhizobium sp. isolate UHC283 (strain JA9). A) wet biomass, B) stem height, C) stem volume, and D) number of nodules. Letters above the standard error bars represent significance differences.

Discussion

In this study, we characterized plant-nodulating rhizobia from 12 sites across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i from both soil and active nodules and found that all plant-nodulating rhizobia genera are present on O‘ahu, although only a subset of these genera were found forming nodules. We did not detect any discernable patterns in the distribution of these genera, suggesting that they are ubiquitous in disturbed habitats. Of these habitats, agricultural sites tend to have the largest number of genera compared to the undisturbed Waimea Ridge site that has the fewest genera. This observation is consistent with our understanding of the history of agriculture and introduction of microbes to agricultural sites, but the lower rhizobia genera richness reflects the lower richness of native Hawaiian plant species in intact habitats.

Of the five most common genera, Cupriavidus can be found at all sites but only Bradyrhizobium can nodulate a variety of host plants. Cupriavidus (Order Burkholdariales) were isolated exclusively from Mimosa pudica nodules and is consistent with their preference for only Mimosa species [31]. Here we found the genus to be present in the broad array of soils from nutrient poor agricultural soils to undisturbed native soils, and soils with thick fungal mycelium mats. Many of these soils do not have M. pudica plants, but there is evidence showing that Cupriavidus necator can nodulate various leguminous species [32, 33], including Leucaena leucocephala that is widely distributed across O’ahu, with the exception of the more undisturbed sites. In contrast, the most common strain that associates broadly with many hosts was Bradyrhizobium JA1. These findings reflect other works showing that Bradyrhizobium species are ubiquitous in tropical soils due to their ability to nodulate a broad range of tropical legumes [9, 34, 35]. We also isolated Ensifer, Mesorhizobium, and Rhizobium, but these occurred in lower frequency than Bradyrhizobium, although they are also widespread. The exceptions are Devosia and Microvirga (Order Hyphomicrobiales), which we were not able to isolate, perhaps due to their low level of occurrence. The occurrence of Cupriavidus and other rhizobia such as Mesorhizobium in the rhizosphere of many non-legume plant hosts and fungal-rich habitats suggests that they have an external “free living” phase in the rhizosphere where they consume root and fungal exudates [3638], and a more well-known symbiotic phase inside of nodules. A much more detailed sampling and species-level identification these rhizobia strains will be required to confirm these associations.

We observed an occurrence of multiple rhizobia strains within a single nodule (“mixed nodulation”) of the ground peanut Arachis pintoi. The nodule contained Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1 and Rhizobium sp. strain JA4. This phenomenon of mixed nodulation is unusual because through host sanctioning, legumes preferentially select strains that have higher rates of nitrogen fixation. Certain rhizobia species are inefficient at fixing nitrogen or cannot fix nitrogen; thus, these rhizobia would be sanctioned from nodulating the respective legume [39]. However, mixed nodulation of different strains with varying nitrogen fixation efficiencies does not necessarily impact the plant negatively [40]. Therefore, less efficient rhizobia strains have evolved mechanisms that allow them to escape sanction and cohabit the same nodule with efficient strains. The fact that we have discovered multiple strains associating with a single nodule with limited sampling suggests that this occurrence is more common in nature than previously thought and deserves further attention in future works.

We showed that soil inoculations with fresh cultures, followed by planting E. sandwicensis seeds, is a relatively effective way to introduce rhizobia to seedlings in a nursery setting. At the soil inoculation rate of 1×106 cells/ml of soil, only 80% of seedlings were successfully nodulated. Various factors could have contributed to this, including the deactivation active cells prior to seedlings forming colonizable roots. The time of inoculation to germination of E. sandwicensis usually ranges about 5–10 days. Perhaps this time delay was enough to render enough rhizobia cells dead or inactive so that they are no longer able to nodulate seedlings. Seedlings that were successfully inoculated had significantly larger biomass. Since there were no significant differences in stem height and volume, the difference was likely driven by a larger and denser root system. Measurements using dry weight would have been the best practice, but we chose to preserve these threatened plants and found that a combination of various measurements provided acceptable data to distinguish the treatments apart [25]. We found that inoculation using Mesorhizobium strain JA1 wasn’t as effective as the less common Bradyrhizobium strain JA9. This indicates that perhaps strain JA9 is more specific to E. sandwicensis, although much more rigorous sampling will be required to confirm this relationship.

Our understanding of the patterns of rhizobia and host associations are limited in this study because of several factors. Although our soil dataset allowed some inferences into the occurrence of rhizobia across the island, our modest sampling of host-connected nodules and the low resolution of 16S rRNA gene did not allow us to make strong conclusions about the specific patterns of host and symbiont associations, nor did they provide enough insights into whether some strains were native or introduced. However, as Hawai‘i is the “invasive capital” of the world, it is likely that many of the strains we found with non-native plants also came by ways of human introductions. What is clear, however, is that the NifTAL project brought in many non-native strains to Hawai‘i [5] and these strains likely still exist, especially in agricultural soils such as the ones we sampled in this study. The strains isolated from the two species of endemic plants came from somewhat disturbed habitats, and thus it is difficult to determine whether they are truly native strains. On the island of O‘ahu where we sampled, the few intact habitats left are found in upper elevation ridges with relatively minor disturbance from anthropogenic activities. Future sampling of native legumes from these undisturbed habitats will be more meaningful to isolate native strains, as there is a general pattern of native microbes occurring with native plants, exemplified by some species of mushroom-forming fungi in native forest habitats [41].

Conclusions

In this study, we showed that the soils across the island of O‘ahu contain diverse rhizobia, some of which can be isolated from legume nodules. We gained insights into some general patterns such as the richness of rhizobia genera, and the generalist strains that occur widely across our sampling sites. This suggests that there is a constant source of rhizobia inoculants in these soils, and cultivation of leguminous plants do not need inoculants, except for those that associate with specific strains of rhizobia. Using strains that were isolated from E. sandwicensis, we showed that E. sandwicensis seedlings can be inoculated with fresh cultures, resulting in seedlings with significantly larger biomass. Although both strains resulted in positive seedling growth, there appears to be differences in plant biomass, so therefore we recommend that seedlings be inoculated with Bradyrhizobium strain JA9 in the nursery before transplanting into the ground. Future research to test delivery systems, such as applying lyophilized inoculum directly into the soil, mixing directly into water and applying to the medium surface with growing plants, or coating of seeds for field inoculations will be helpful to the restoration efforts of the threatened and endangered legumes in Hawai‘i.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Site location and characteristics of the soil samples in this study.

Samples at each site was obtained with permission from landowners. The GPS coordinates at these sites are not reported to protect the identity of each farm as per our sampling agreement.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Jesse Mikasobe-Kealiinohomoku for enthusiastic help with fieldwork collecting nodules from native legumes, and Michael Muszynski for guidance to JNAA during his development as an undergraduate researcher. JNAA thanks Forest and Kim Starr for assistance in identification of some legume host plants.

Data Availability

Sequence data is available under GenBank accession numbers MT703690-MT703747, OM980333-OM980337, and Sequence Read Archive BioProjects PRJNA551045, PRJNA661121, PRJNA661131, PRJNA995197, PRJNA996221, PRJNA996231, PRJNA996312, and PRJNA996313; R analysis scripts are available on the GitHub repository for this project https://github.com/nnguyenlab/rhizobia.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) at UH M?noa, project 11930-JABE to JNAA, and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Hatch project 8042H to NHN, managed by the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bose JI. The Legume/Rhizobium symbiosis in tropical agriculture: A bibliographic update. NifTAL Project, Hawaii. Honolulu: Dept. of Agronomy and Soil Science, Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hawaii at Manoa; 1980. p. 167. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sahgal M, Jaggi V. Rhizobia: Culture Collections, Identification, and Methods of Preservation. In: Sharma SK, Varma A, editors. Microbial Resource Conservation: Conventional to Modern Approaches. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 175–197. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96971-8_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Somasegaran P. Abridged Catalogue of Rhizobia from the Collection of the NifTAL Microbiological Resource Center. Paia, HI: NifTAL Project; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reyes VG, Somasegaran P, Munns DN. Catalog of selected strains from the NifTAL Rhizobium collection. Paia, HI: NifTAL Project; 1978. p. 8. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Davis RJ, Cady FB, Wood CL, Chan CPY. Design and analysis of an international experimental network: legume inoculation trials in the NifTAL Project, the INLIT experience. Davis RJ (Robert J), editor. Research Series 042. Honolulu: Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bose JI. The Legume/Rhizobium Symbiosis in Tropical Agriculture: A Selective Bibliography with Annotations. NifTAL Project, Hawaii. Honolulu: Dept. of Agronomy and Soil Science, Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hawaii at Manoa; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Imada CT. Hawaiian native and naturalized vascular plants checklist. Bishop Museum Technical Report. 2012;60: 1–380. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Holm L, Plucknett D, Pancho J, Herberger J. The world’s worst weeds. Distribution and biology. Honolulu: University press of Hawaii; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nakao P, Kitayama K. Distribution of Bradyrhizobium spp. and Endemic Leguminous Tree Acacia Koa Along an Altitudinal Transect on the Windward Slope of Haleakala, Maui, Hawaii. Biotropica. 1996;28: 400. doi: 10.2307/2389204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Whitesell CD. Acacia Koa A. Gray. In: Burns RM, Honkal BH, editors. Silvics of North America: Volume 2 Hardwoods Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1990. p. 877. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vitousek PM, Farrington H. Nutrient limitation and soil development: Experimental test of a biogeochemical theory. Biogeochemistry. 1997;37: 63–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Baker PJ, Scowcroft PG, Ewel JJ. Koa (Acacia koa) Ecology and Silviculture. General Technical Report PSQ-GTR-211. General Technical Report PSQ-GTR-211. Albany, CA: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwest Research Station; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Horiuchi B, Jeffrey J. Native plant propagation and habitat restoration at Hakalau Forest National Wildlie Refuge, Hawaii. Dumroese RK, Riley LE, Landis TD, editors. National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations-1999, 2000, and 2001. Proceedings RMRS-P-24. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2002. p. 403. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Trauernicht C, Ticktin T, Fraiola H, Hastings Z, Tsuneyoshi A. Active restoration enhances recovery of a Hawaiian mesic forest after fire. For Ecol Manage. 2018;411: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dumroese RK, Jacobs DF, Davis AS. Inoculating acacia koa with bradyrhizobium and applying fertilizer in the nursery: Effects on nodule formation and seedling growth. HortScience. 2009;44: 443–446. doi: 10.21273/hortsci.44.2.443 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grave EF. Reproductive Ecology and Population Genetics of Hawaiian Wiliwili, Erythrina sandwicensis (Fabaceae). University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Heisey S, Ryals R, Maaz TM, Nguyen NH. A single application of compost can leave lasting impacts on soil microbial community structure and alter cross-domain interaction networks. Frontiers in Soil Science. 2022;2: 749212. doi: 10.3389/fsoil.2022.749212 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18: 1403–1414. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Apprill A, McNally S, Parsons R, Weber L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 2015;75: 129–137. doi: 10.3354/ame01753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Publishing Group. 2010;7: 335–336. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nguyen NH. Nguyen Lab amplicon analysis pipeline with QIIME2. 2019. Available: https://github.com/nnguyenlab/amplicon-pipeline [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41: D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sprent JI, Ardley J, James EK. Biogeography of nodulated legumes and their nitrogen-fixing symbionts. New Phytologist. 2017;215: 40–56. doi: 10.1111/nph.14474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang Y, Niu B, Gao Y, Fu L, Li W. CD-HIT Suite: a web server for clustering and comparing biological sequences. Bioinformatics. 2010/01/06. 2010;26: 680–682. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hardarson G, Danso SKA. Methods for measuring biological nitrogen fixation in grain legumes. Plant and Soil. 1993. pp. 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Team RC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kahle D, Wickham H. ggmap: Spatial Visualization with ggplot2. R J. 2013;5: 144–161. Available: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2013-1/kahle-wickham.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis Using the Grammar of Graphics. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2019.1565254 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2022. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan [Google Scholar]
  • 30.de Mendiburu F. agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Elliott GN, Chen W-MM, Chou J-HH, Wang H- CC, Sheu S- YY, Perin L, et al. Burkholderia phymatum is a highly effective nitrogen-fixing symbiont of Mimosa spp. and fixes nitrogen ex planta. New Phytologist. 2007;173: 168–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01894.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.da Silva K, Florentino LA, da Silva KB, de Brandt E, Vandamme P, de Souza Moreira FM. Cupriavidus necator isolates are able to fix nitrogen in symbiosis with different legume species. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2012;35: 175–182. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2011.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Florentino LA, Jaramillo PMD, Silva KB, da Silva JS, de Oliveira SM, de Souza Moreira FM. Physiological and symbiotic diversity of Cupriavidus necator strains isolated from nodules of Leguminosae species. Sci Agric. 2012;69: 247–258. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162012000400003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Graham PH, Hubbell DH. Legume-Rhizobium Relationships in Tropical Agriculture. Tropical forages in livestock production systems. 1975;24: 9–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jaiswal SK, Dakora FD. Widespread distribution of highly adapted Bradyrhizobium species nodulating diverse legumes in Africa. Front Microbiol. 2019;10: 310. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yuan MM, Kakouridis A, Starr E, Nguyen N, Shi S, Zhou J, et al. Fungal-bacterial cooccurrence patterns differ between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nonmycorrhizal fungi across soil niches. mBio. 2021;12: 1–19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.03509-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Starr EP, Shi S, Blazewicz SJ, Koch BJ, Probst AJ, Hungate BA, et al. Stable-Isotope-Informed, Genome-Resolved Metagenomics Uncovers Potential Cross-Kingdom Interactions in Rhizosphere Soil. mSphere. 2021;6. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00085-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nguyen NH. Fungal Hyphosphere Microbiomes Are Distinct from Surrounding Substrates and Show Consistent Association Patterns. Microbiol Spectr. 2023;11: e04708–22. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.04708-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Denison FR, Kiers TE. Lifestyle alternatives for rhizobia: mutualism, parasitism, and forgoing symbiosis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2004;237: 187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.femsle.2004.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Checcucci A, Azzarello E, Bazzicalupo M, Galardini M, Lagomarsino A, Mancuso S, et al. Mixed nodule infection in Sinorhizobium meliloti—Medicago sativa symbiosis suggest the presence of cheating behavior. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7: 835. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Desjardin DE, Hemmes DE. Agaricales of the hawaiian islands 9. Five new white-spored species from native montane wet forests. Mycologia. 2011;103: 1441–1450. doi: 10.3852/11-114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ying Ma

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

4 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-15692Legume-nodulating rhizobia are widespread in soils and plants across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘iPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In my opinion, the manuscript is well presented and with interesting results. My suggestion would be to prove that in fact 2 different bacteria can be in the same nodule and further amplify, sequence and analyze some nodulation gene to explain the nodulation variability of bacteria isolated from nodules. This result could even demonstrate which bacteria originated from other regions or from Hawaii.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents an interesting piece of research in the field of rhizobiology that tries to characterize root nodulating isolates of the rhizobia complex from soils and plants in the island of O'ahu, Hawai. The manuscript is worth reading particularly when it comes to sustainability in the sense of the beneficial impacts of biological nitrogen fixation on the restoration of indigenous legumes as well as in soil health and legume crop productivity. However, the manuscript fails to present the anticipated outcome of the initially planned target. Below are a few of the most crucial comments that needs to be addressed for this manuscript to be published on PLOs.

1. Of all the isolates obtained from such a large group of legumes, what is the basis for choosing or limiting yourself to only two isolates for the nodulation inoculation study?

2. Can the authors please elaborate in your introduction how molecular characterization of rhizobia important in the restoration of native legumes?

3. The various legumes species indicated in Table 1 undoubtedly have different requirement, growth stage, seasonal requirement for growth as well as nodulation process. Hence, it is very difficult to say that all of the studied legumes would reach their active nodulation or growth stage all at the same time, say during the time of sample collection. Some of the legumes might be at their active nodulation stage, while a number of others might wither away their nodules or become senescence. So, how were the authors able to sample active nodules all the same time for all the different species of native legumes?

4. How the concentration of the initial inoculum adjusted before introduced into the soil? How was the inoculum introduced and at what rate?

5. No clear information was provided about the experimental layout, the treatments and their replication.

6. How was evaluation for nodulation performed 10 weeks after planting and inoculation, while most legumes become actively nodulating around the 6th to 7th week? Is this the same for all the legumes tested?

7. I am wondering while in the introductory section the authors mentioned about the role of rhizobia or the legume rhizobium symbiosis in the restoration of native legumes, no effort was made to evaluate the inoculated rhizobia for their nitrogen fixation ability. Even the nodulation evaluation was not sufficient as it could have been wise to include such parameters as nodule dry weight, nodule positions on the root as well as color of the nodules.

8. Table 1. What do you mean by 'the representative sequence of the strain'? Do you mean to refer to 'type strains', if so how was it determined?

9. In the materials and methods, please indicate the method (and citation) used to generate the results in Figure 2.

10. Why was not a phylogenetic analysis made to elucidate the evolutionary relatedness and taxonomic delineation of the rhizobia isolated which could also be used to study how these legumes made adaptations to be the microbial symbionts of their respective legumes.

11. No result is provided for the amplicon sequencing from the soil despite describing the library preparation and Illumina sequencing techniques. These results need to be included in the manuscript including their interpretation and discussion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ahmed Idris Hassen

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 11;18(9):e0291250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291250.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jul 2023

Response to Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: In my opinion, the manuscript is well presented and with interesting results. My suggestion would be to prove that in fact 2 different bacteria can be in the same nodule and further amplify, sequence and analyze some nodulation gene to explain the nodulation variability of bacteria isolated from nodules. This result could even demonstrate which bacteria originated from other regions or from Hawaii.

This is indeed an interesting topic. Unfortunately, the data gathering phase of the project is complete and we do not have the capacity to fulfill this request. We feel that it is beyond the scope of the work that we’d like to present. However, to address this comment, we have added a paragraph to the discussion (Lines 284-295) on this mixed inoculation phenomenon and referenced studies that have already pursued this area of research.

“We observed an occurrence of multiple rhizobia strains within a single nodule (“mixed nodulation”) of the ground peanut Arachis pintoi. The nodule contained Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1 and Rhizobium sp. strain JA4. This phenomenon of mixed nodulation is unusual because through host sanctioning, legumes preferentially select strains that have higher rates of nitrogen fixation. Certain rhizobia species are inefficient at fixing nitrogen or cannot fix nitrogen; thus, these rhizobia would be sanctioned from nodulating the respective legume [39]. However, mixed nodulation of different strains with varying nitrogen fixation efficiencies does not necessarily impact the plant negatively [40]. Therefore, less efficient rhizobia strains have evolved mechanisms that allow them to escape sanction and cohabit the same nodule with efficient strains. The fact that we have discovered multiple strains associating with a single nodule with limited sampling suggests that this occurrence is more common in nature than previously thought and deserves further attention in future works.”

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents an interesting piece of research in the field of rhizobiology that tries to characterize root nodulating isolates of the rhizobia complex from soils and plants in the island of O'ahu, Hawai. The manuscript is worth reading particularly when it comes to sustainability in the sense of the beneficial impacts of biological nitrogen fixation on the restoration of indigenous legumes as well as in soil health and legume crop productivity. However, the manuscript fails to present the anticipated outcome of the initially planned target. Below are a few of the most crucial comments that needs to be addressed for this manuscript to be published on PLOs.

1. Of all the isolates obtained from such a large group of legumes, what is the basis for choosing or limiting yourself to only two isolates for the nodulation inoculation study?

We had limited access to the seeds of this threatened plant, so we had to limit the inoculation portion of this study to just the two strains that were found with this host. The reasoning for selecting these two strains was explained in Lines 133-137:

“To determine the efficiency of rhizobia inoculations on the endemic and threatened tree E. sandwicensis, we selected two different Bradyrhizobium strains that were found with this host: Bradyrhizobium sp. strain JA1 (isolate UHC282) is a generalist found across the island of O‘ahu across multiple hosts, and Bradyrhizobium strain JA9 (isolate UHC283) was found only in nodules associated with E. sandwicensis.”

2. Can the authors please elaborate in your introduction how molecular characterization of rhizobia important in the restoration of native legumes?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following to the introduction, Lines 72-75:

“This may include identification of host-associated rhizobia species or strains, followed by monitoring of these associations during host establishment. Characterization of the soil is also crucial to develop an understanding of the potential inoculum in that soil, for both restoration and agriculture.”

3. The various legumes species indicated in Table 1 undoubtedly have different requirement, growth stage, seasonal requirement for growth as well as nodulation process. Hence, it is very difficult to say that all of the studied legumes would reach their active nodulation or growth stage all at the same time, say during the time of sample collection. Some of the legumes might be at their active nodulation stage, while a number of others might wither away their nodules or become senescence. So, how were the authors able to sample active nodules all the same time for all the different species of native legumes?

We agree with this assessment that perhaps not all nodules were active when sampled. However, we did not claim to have sampled active nodules. We sampled the soils that have plants actively growing. To avoid any confusion, we have clarified the sentence to indicate that the activity was from the plant, and not the nodules in Lines 85-86:

“The soil samples come from diverse soil environments, some of which may not

have leguminous plants actively growing.”

4. How the concentration of the initial inoculum adjusted before introduced into the soil? How was the inoculum introduced and at what rate?

We have reported this in Lines 140-142:

“Fresh cultures of the two isolates above were suspended in double deionized water and immediately inoculated onto the soil to achieve 106 rhizobia cells/mL of soil.”

5. No clear information was provided about the experimental layout, the treatments and their replication.

We are unsure what the review meant by experimental layout. How we treated the plants, inoculated the soils, and the replication was reported in Lines 137-146. We have added the total number of plants to try and clarify this confusion in Lines 145-146:

“There were five replicates per treatment (N=20).”

6. How was evaluation for nodulation performed 10 weeks after planting and inoculation, while most legumes become actively nodulating around the 6th to 7th week? Is this the same for all the legumes tested?

We did observe nodulation after 6 weeks, but chose to wait until 10 weeks to make sure that we gave all the plants plenty of time to be nodulated in case there are latencies in development that we did not anticipate. Because this is a host that has not been studied for nodulation before, we decided to be conservative in our time. We sampled all the greenhouse inoculated legumes at the same time at 10 weeks.

7. I am wondering while in the introductory section the authors mentioned about the role of rhizobia or the legume rhizobium symbiosis in the restoration of native legumes, no effort was made to evaluate the inoculated rhizobia for their nitrogen fixation ability. Even the nodulation evaluation was not sufficient as it could have been wise to include such parameters as nodule dry weight, nodule positions on the root as well as color of the nodules.

We have chosen to use the biomass of the plant as a proxy for active nitrogen fixation. Since our soil was nitrogen poor, any significant growth that came from the plant must have come from fixation. This was shown in Figure 1A where uninoculated plants were significantly smaller than inoculated plants. We have added our observations of the color of the nodules in Lines 151-152:

“The total number of nodules was counted, and some were cut open to confirm active nodulation through color.”

8. Table 1. What do you mean by 'the representative sequence of the strain'? Do you mean to refer to 'type strains', if so how was it determined?

The sentence was indeed confusing. Each strain has multiple isolates, so we picked one to represent the strain. This representative is determined by the CD-HIT software that we used to make multiple comparisons of the strains. It is based on sequence length and the number of sequences that matches exactly to it. We have clarified the table caption in Lines 214-217:

“The asterisk (*) indicates the representative isolate for a strain, determined as the best sequence for that strain by the CD-HIT software. # The BLAST results show the best match to that representative sequence to the most closely related Type strain.”

9. In the materials and methods, please indicate the method (and citation) used to generate the results in Figure 2.

The method and citation were added to lines 163-164:

“This prevalence was plotted as a “bubble chart” using the ggplot2 package [28]”

10. Why was not a phylogenetic analysis made to elucidate the evolutionary relatedness and taxonomic delineation of the rhizobia isolated which could also be used to study how these legumes made adaptations to be the microbial symbionts of their respective legumes.

This would be a nice next step to this study. Currently the limited sampling of any single species, and the short segment of the 16S rRNA gene sequenced does not allow for robust determination of any co-evolutionary relationships.

11. No result is provided for the amplicon sequencing from the soil despite describing the library preparation and Illumina sequencing techniques. These results need to be included in the manuscript including their interpretation and discussion.

Figure 2 shows these data. We have clarified this in Line 175:

“In this study, we identified 18 genera of rhizobia on O‘ahu from soils and nodules (Fig 2).”

We also noted that the reviewer indicated “no” in the review questionnaire #3. “Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?”. All the raw sequence data have been deposited to GenBank and the Sequence Read Archive (SRA). These data are scheduled to be released on Sept. 1, 2023 or when this manuscript has been published. The scripts used to process those data have been deposited on GitHub. This can be found under the “Availability of data and material” statement on Lines 363-367.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ying Ma

24 Aug 2023

Legume-nodulating rhizobia are widespread in soils and plants across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

PONE-D-23-15692R1

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: As I mentioned in the previous article, the paper brings new information that I believe is important to be published. Every suggestion and question I asked was addressed. Therefore, I recommend publishing the article.

Reviewer #2: The reviewers have made all my comments in the initial review process. The English standard is good, and all typo errors have been corrected.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ahmed Idris Hassen

**********

Acceptance letter

Ying Ma

1 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-15692R1

Legume-nodulating rhizobia are widespread in soils and plants across the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Dear Dr. Nguyen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ying Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Site location and characteristics of the soil samples in this study.

    Samples at each site was obtained with permission from landowners. The GPS coordinates at these sites are not reported to protect the identity of each farm as per our sampling agreement.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Sequence data is available under GenBank accession numbers MT703690-MT703747, OM980333-OM980337, and Sequence Read Archive BioProjects PRJNA551045, PRJNA661121, PRJNA661131, PRJNA995197, PRJNA996221, PRJNA996231, PRJNA996312, and PRJNA996313; R analysis scripts are available on the GitHub repository for this project https://github.com/nnguyenlab/rhizobia.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES