Effects of elevated atmospheric CO₂ on rhizosphere microbial community of Pinus densiflora (Korean red pine)

References

• An J, Chang H, Han SH, Khamzina A, Son Y. 2020. Changes in basic soil properties and enzyme activities along an afforestation series on the dry Arial Sea Bed, Kazakhstan. For Sci Technol. 16:26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Bader MKF, Mildner M, Baumann C, Leuzinger S, Körner C. 2016. Photosynthetic enhancement and diurnal stem and soil carbon fluxes in a mature Norway spruce stand under elevated CO2. Environ Exp Bot. 124:110–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battles JJ, Robards T, Das A, Waring K, Gilless JK, Biging G, Schurr F. 2008. Climate change impacts on forest growth and tree mortality: a data-driven modeling study in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, California. Clim Change. 87(S1):193–213.
   Google Scholar
• Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 30(15):2114–2120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun J, Kim KY, Lee JH, Choi Y. 2010. The analysis of oral microbial communities of wild-type and toll-like receptor 2-deficient mice using a 454 GS FLX Titanium pyrosequencer. BMC Microbiol. 10(1):101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dhyani A, Jain R, Pandey A. 2019. Contribution of root-associated microbial communities on soil quality of oak and pine forests in the Himalayan ecosystem. Trop Ecol. 60(2):271–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamady M, Lozupone C, Knight R. 2010. Fast UniFrac: facilitating high-throughput phylogenetic analyses of microbial communities including analysis of pyrosequencing and PhyloChip data. ISME J. 4(1):17–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Z, Piceno Y, Deng Y, Xu M, Lu Z, DeSantis T, Andersen G, Hobbie SE, Reich PB, Zhou J. 2012. The phylogenetic composition and structure of soil microbial communities shifts in response to elevated carbon dioxide. ISME J. 6(2):259–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jach ME, Ceulemans R. 1999. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on phenology, growth and crown structure of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings after two years of exposure in the field. Tree Physiol. 19(4–5):289–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janouš D, Pokorný R, Brossaud J, Marek M. 2000. Long-term effects of elevated CO2 on woody tissues respiration of Norway spruce studied in open-top chambers. Biologia Plant. 43(1):41–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jifon JL, Wolfe DW. 2005. High temperature-induced sink limitation alters growth and photosynthetic acclimation to elevated CO2 in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). JASHS. 130(4):515–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo H, Chang H, An J, Cho MS, Son Y. 2019. Species specific physiological responses of Pinus densiflora and Larix Kaempferi seedlings to open-field experimental warming and precipitation manipulation. For Sci Technol. 15(1):44–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kalra Y, Maynard DG. 1991. Methods manual for forest soil and plant analysis. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre. Information report, NOR-X-319E, Edmonton, Alberta, p. 116.
   Google Scholar
• Kang JW, Kim HT, Lee WY, Choi MN, Park EJ. 2015. Identification of a potential metabolic marker, inositol, for the inherently fast growth trait by stems of Pinus densiflora via a retrospective approach. Can J For Res. 45(6):770–775.
   Google Scholar
• Kim OS, Cho YJ, Lee K, Yoon SH, Kim M, Na H, Park SC, Jeon YS, Lee JH, Yi H, et al. 2012. Introducing EzTaxon-e: a prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene sequence database with phylotypes that represent uncultured species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 62(Pt_3):716–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuzyakov Y, Horwath WR, Dorodnikov M, Blagodatskaya E. 2019. Review and synthesis of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on soil processes: no changes in pools, but increased fluxes and accelerated cycles. Soil Biol Biochem. 128:66–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitat E, Boussard H. 1995. Comparative response on gas exchange of Picea spp. exposed to increased atmospheric CO2 in open top chambers at two test sites. J Biogeogr. 22(2/3):241–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larimer FW, Chain P, Hauser L, Lamerdin J, Malfatti S, Do L, Land ML, Pelletier DA, Beatty JT, Lang AS, Tabita FR, et al. 2004. Complete genome sequence of the metabolically versatile photosynthetic bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris. Nat Biotechnol. 22(1):55–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau JA, Lennon JT, Heath KD. 2017. Trees harness the power of microbes to survive climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 114(42):11009–11011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SY, Eom YB. 2016. Analysis of microbial composition associated with freshwater and seawater. Biomed Sci Lett. 22(4):150–159.
   Google Scholar
• Malisorn K, Chanchampa S, Kanchanasin P, Tanasupawat S. 2020. Identification and plant growth-promoting activities of proteobacteria isolated from root nodules and rhizospheric soils. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 20:479–493.
   Google Scholar
• Morin X, Fahse L, Jactel H, Scherer-Lorenzen M, García-Valdés R, Bugmann H. 2018. Long-term response of forest productivity to climate change is mostly driven by change in tree species composition. Sci Rep. 8(1):5627.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute of Forest Science. 2014a. Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis I- soil physical properties. Seoul, Korea: National Institute of Forest Science; p. 6–16.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Forest Science. 2014b. Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis II- soil chemical properties. Seoul, Korea: National Institute of Forest Science; p. 6–256.
   Google Scholar
• Ncipha XG, Sivakumar V. 2019. Natural carbon sequestration by forestry. Sustainable agriculture reviews; p. 73–92. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nie M, Bell C, Wallenstein MD, Pendall E. 2015. Increased plant productivity and decreased microbial respiratory C loss by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria under elevated CO2. Sci Rep. 5:9212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior SA, Runion GB, Marble SC, Rogers HH, Gilliam CH, Torbert HA. 2011. A review of elevated atmospheric CO2 effects on plant growth and water relations: implications for horticulture. HortScience. 46(2):158–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pritchard S. 2011. Soil organisms and global climate change. Plant Pathol. 60(1):82–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pushnik JC, Garcia-Ibilcieta D, Bauer S, Anderson PD, Bell J, Houpis JL. 1999. Biochemical responses and altered genetic expression patterns in Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Doug ex P. Laws) grown under elevated CO2. In: Sheppard LJ, Cape JN, editors. Forest growth responses to the pollution climate of the 21st century. Springer-Dordrecht; 413–422.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk J, Bellasio C, Johnson DA, Beerling DJ. 2019. Response of photosynthesis, growth and water relations of a savannah-adapted tree and grass grown across high to low CO2. Ann Bot. 124(1):77–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tissue DT, Griffin KL, Turnbull MH, Whitehead D. 2001. Canopy position and needle age affect photosynthetic response in field-grown Pinus radiata after five years of exposure to elevated carbon dioxide partial pressure. Tree Physiol. 21(12–13):915–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang P, Marsh EL, Ainsworth EA, Leakey AD, Sheflin AM, Schachtman DP. 2017. Shifts in microbial communities in soil, rhizosphere and roots of two major crop systems under elevated CO2 and O3. Sci Rep. 7(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yadav SK, Singh H, Ginwal H, Barthwal S. 2019. Elevated CO2 Enhanced Growth and Physiological Process of Populus deltoides Bartr. Ex Marsh Indian For. 145(1):23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav AN, Verma P, Kumar V, Sangwan P, Mishra S, Panjiar N, Gupta VK, Saxena AK. 2018. New and future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering. Penicillium system properties and applications; p. 3–18. Amsterdam: Elsvier.
   Google Scholar