Table 4.
Differences of T-RFs on the T-RFLP map of soil samples at the pod stage.
| Treatments | Number of effective T-RFsa | Added effective fragment size (bp) and species they may represent compared with the control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The pot assay in 2012 | Msp I | C | 10 | |
| Y | 18 | Azoarcus sp. (83), Capnocytophaga sp. (83, 86), Bacteroides sp. (96), Rhizobium sp. (126), Agrobacterium sp. (128), Paracoccus sp./Rhodobacter sp. (130), Desulfotomaculum sp./Frankia sp. (140), 66 | ||
| D | 14 | Bacillus sp./Paenibacillus sp./Halobacillus sp. (148), Heliorestis sp. (288), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), Microcystis sp. (500) | ||
| Y + D | 17 | Bacteroides sp. (96), Heliorestis sp. (288), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), Buchnera sp. (501), 61, 66, 98 | ||
| The pot assay in 2013 | Msp I | C | 11 | |
| Y | 19 | Microcystis sp./Oceanospirillum sp./Saccharothrix sp. (129), Bacillus sp./Eubacterium sp. (136), Bacillus sp./Paenibacillus sp./Rubrobacter sp. (138), Burkholderia sp./Eubacterium sp./Frankia sp. (141), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), 66, 92, 467 | ||
| D | 15 | Azoarcus sp./Capnocytophaga sp. (83), Rhizobium sp. (126), Bacillus sp./Eubacterium sp. (136), 62 | ||
| Y + D | 24 | Bacillus sp./Eubacterium sp. (136), Bacillus sp./Paenibacillus sp./Rubrobacter sp. (138), Burkholderia sp./Eubacterium sp./Frankia sp. (141), Cyclobacterium sp./Nocardioides sp. (142), Geotoga sp./Propioniferax sp. (199), Nevskia sp./Sporomusa sp. (290), Burkholderia sp. (426), 62, 66, 92, 224, 436, 467 | ||
| Hha I | C | 13 | ||
| Y | 15 | Clostridium sp. (66), Bacillus sp./Paenibacillus sp./Thermoactinomyces sp. (238) | ||
| D | 16 | Bacteroides sp./Flavobacterium sp./Persicobacter sp. (96), Planctomyces sp. (126), 130 | ||
| Y + D | 18 | Clostridium sp. (66), Bacteroides sp. (98), Lactobacillus sp. (174), Halobacteroides sp. (551), Azoarcus sp./Clostridium sp./Desulfotomaculum sp. (571) | ||
| Alu I | C | 12 | ||
| Y | 14 | Clostridium sp. (66), Lactobacillus sp. (273) | ||
| D | 16 | Cytophaga sp. (83), Fusobacterium sp./Pyrenomonas sp. (131), Lactobacillus sp. (273), 126 | ||
| Y + D | 14 | Clostridium sp. (66), Pediococcus sp./Rubrivivax sp. (274) | ||
| The field assay in 2013 | Msp I | C | 19 | |
| Y | 27 | Agrobacterium sp. (128), Bacillus sp./Corynebacterium sp./Rhodomicrobium sp./Streptomyces sp. (161), Microbacterium sp. (172), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), 66, 168, 421, 467 | ||
| D | 29 | Agrobacterium sp. (128), Bacillus sp./Pseudomonas sp./Thermomonospora sp. (146), Microbacterium sp. (172), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), 61, 66, 168, 421, 436, 467 | ||
| Y + D | 26 | Microbacterium sp. (172), Francisella sp./Nannocystis sp. (484), Achromatium sp./Eubacterium sp./Methylomicrobium sp. (487), Marchantia sp./Skeletonema sp. (502), 66, 168, 467 | ||
| Hha I | C | 14 | ||
| Y | 17 | Salinicoccus sp. (63), Acholeplasma sp. (221), Thermomonospora sp. (379) | ||
| D | 19 | Salinicoccus sp. (63), Bacteroides sp. (98), Acholeplasma sp. (221), Clostridium sp./Eubacterium sp./Flavobacterium sp./Lactobacillus sp. (233), Corynebacterium sp. (378) | ||
| Y + D | 18 | Salinicoccus sp. (63), Bacteroides sp. (98), Acinetobacter sp./Actinobacillus sp./Azoarcus sp./Burkholderia sp./Nitrosospira sp./Pseudomonas sp. (207), Aeromonas sp./Photobacterium sp. (572) | ||
| Alu I | C | 14 | ||
| Y | 21 | Clostridium sp. (66), Eubacterium sp. (81), Mesorhizobium sp./Rhizobium sp./Rhodomicrobium sp. (141), Achromatium sp./Azoarcus sp. (152), Streptococcus sp. (168), Bacteroides sp./Paenibacillus sp./Thermoactinomyces sp. (244), 285 | ||
| D | 20 | Clostridium sp. (66), Mesorhizobium sp./Rhizobium sp./Rhodomicrobium sp. (141), Streptococcus sp. (168), Amycolatopsis sp./Brevibacillus sp./Butyrivibrio sp. (198), Rhizobium sp./Rubrobacter sp. (204), Lactobacillus sp. (231) | ||
| Y + D | 20 | Clostridium sp. (66), Eubacterium sp. (81), Mesorhizobium sp./Rhizobium sp./Rhodomicrobium sp. (141), Streptococcus sp. (168), Amycolatopsis sp./Brevibacillus sp./Butyrivibrio sp. (198), Abiotrophia sp. (215) | ||
Note: Ap = ni/N × 100, where ni represents the peak area of one distinct T-RF and N is the sum of all peak areas in the T-RFLP map. Species with bold numbers cannot be speculated by T-RFLP Phylogenetic Assignment Tool. C, control, received no inoculation; Y, YZ29 inoculation; D, DZ13 inoculation; Y + D, YZ29 and DZ13 inoculation.
a
Effective T-RFs represent the percentage abundance (Ap) of each T-RF equal or greater than 1% between 50 and 600 bp.