Search

The microbiome of flowers (anthosphere) is an understudied compartment of the plant microbiome. Within the flower, petals represent a heterogeneous environment for microbes in terms of resources and environmental stress. Yet, little is known of drivers of structure and function of the epiphytic microbial community at the within-petal scale. We characterized the petal microbiome in two co-flowering plants that differ in the pattern of ultraviolet (UV) absorption along their petals. Bacterial communities were similar between plant hosts, with only rare phylogenetically distant species contributing to differences. The epiphyte community was highly culturable (75% of families) lending confidence in the spatially explicit isolation and characterization of bacteria. In one host, petals were heterogeneous in UV absorption along their length, and in these, there was a negative relationship between growth rate and position on the petal, as well as lower UV tolerance in strains isolated from the UV-absorbing base than from UV reflecting tip. A similar pattern was not seen in microbes isolated from a second host whose petals had uniform patterning along their length. Across strains, the variation in carbon usage and chemical tolerance followed common phylogenetic patterns. This work highlights the value of petals for spatially explicit explorations of bacteria of the anthosphere.

Premise Methods Results Conclusions Intraspecific variation in flower microbiome composition can mediate pollination and reproduction, and so understanding the community assembly processes driving this variation is critical. Yet the relative importance of trait‐based host filtering and dispersal in shaping among‐species variation in floral microbiomes remains unknown.Within two clades of Brassicaceae, we compared diversity and composition of floral microbiomes in natural populations of focal nickel and selenium hyperaccumulator species and two of their non‐accumulating relatives. We assessed the relative strengths of floral elemental composition, plant phylogenetic distance (host filtering), and geography (dispersal) in driving floral microbiome composition.Species in the nickel hyperaccumulator clade had strongly divergent floral microbiomes, the most of that variation driven by floral elemental composition, followed by geographic distance between plant populations and, lastly, phylogenetic distance. Conversely, within the selenium hyperaccumulator clade, floral microbiome divergence was much lower among the species and elemental composition, geography, and plant phylogeny were far weaker determinants of microbiome variation.Our results show that the strength of elemental hyperaccumulation's effect on floral microbiomes differs substantially among plant clades, possibly due to variation in elements as selective filters or in long‐distance dispersal probability in different habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Premise: Whole‐genome duplication (neopolyploidy) can instantly differentiate the phenotype of neopolyploids from their diploid progenitors. These phenotypic shifts in organs such as roots and leaves could also differentiate the way neopolyploids interact with microbial species. While some studies have addressed how specific microbial interactions are affected by neopolyploidy, we lack an understanding of how genome duplication affects the diversity and composition of microbial communities. Methods: We performed a common garden experiment with multiple clones of artificially synthesized autotetraploids and their ancestral diploids, derived from 13 genotypes of wild strawberry, Fragaria vesca. We sequenced epiphytic bacteria and fungi from roots and leaves and characterized microbial communities and leaf functional traits. Results: Autotetraploidy had no effect on bacterial alpha diversity of either organ, but it did have a genotype‐dependent effect on the diversity of fungi on leaves. In contrast, autotetraploidy restructured the community composition of leaf bacteria and had a genotype‐dependent effect on fungal community composition in both organs. The most differentially abundant bacterial taxon on leaves belonged to the Sphingomonas, while a member of the Trichoderma was the most differentially abundant fungal taxon on roots. Ploidy‐induced change in leaf size was strongly correlated with a change in bacterial but not fungal leaf communities. Conclusions: Genome duplication can immediately alter aspects of the plant microbiome, but this effect varies by host genotype and bacterial and fungal community. Expanding these studies to wild settings where plants are exposed continuously to microbes are needed to confirm the patterns observed here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Selaginella rhizophore is a unique and enigmatic organ whose homology with roots, shoots, or neither of the two remains unresolved. Nevertheless, rhizophore-like organs have been documented in several fossil lycophytes. Here we test the homology of these organs through comparisons with the architecture of rhizophore vascularization in Selaginella., We document rhizophore vascularization in nine Selaginella species using cleared whole-mounts and histological sectioning combined with three-dimensional reconstruction., Three patterns of rhizophore vascularization are present in Selaginella and each is comparable to those observed in rhizophore-like organs of fossil lycophytes. More compellingly, we found that all Selaginella species sampled exhibit tracheids that arc backward from the stem and side branch into the rhizophore base. This tracheid curvature is consistent with acropetal auxin transport previously documented in the rhizophore and is indicative of the redirection of basipetal auxin from the shoot into the rhizophore during development., The tracheid curvature observed in Selaginella rhizophores provides an anatomical fingerprint for the patterns of auxin flow that underpin rhizophore development. Similar tracheid geometry may be present and should be searched for in fossils to address rhizophore homology and the conservation of auxin-related developmental mechanisms from early stages of lycophyte evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]