2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microbial activity and community structure of a soil after heavy metal contamination in a model forest ecosystem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
65
0
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
1
65
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Changes in microbial community structure, as determined by changes in PLFA profiles, have been reported in Cu-, Ni-, Cr-, and Zn-contaminated soils [11,12]. Therefore, the PLFA profiles were also used to investigate the effect of Cu-based fungicides on soil microbial community structure in this study.…”
Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Changes in microbial community structure, as determined by changes in PLFA profiles, have been reported in Cu-, Ni-, Cr-, and Zn-contaminated soils [11,12]. Therefore, the PLFA profiles were also used to investigate the effect of Cu-based fungicides on soil microbial community structure in this study.…”
Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…A total of 14 environmental variables were adopted as the explanatory variables in RDA: three heavy metals (copper, zinc and lead) which were all exceeded their Effects-Range-Low (ERL) values, two organic pollutants (TBT and total PAHs), five physicochemical properties (pH, moisture, TOM, TKN and TKP), three microbial properties (THB, DHA and CAT) and one descriptive variable assigned to characterize the sampling time (Time). A forward selection followed by the Monte Carlo permutation test was performed to test which variable had a significant influence on the microbial EL-FAME composition (Frey et al, 2006;Andersen et al, 2010). A simpler model was built to select a subset of main important factors with a low extent of cross correlation, which would help to avoid the "arch effect" in the sample scatter plot (Lepš and Šmilauer, 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nine month old plants were taken from the pots and shaken carefully to remove the nonadhering soil particles. Then a brush was used to gently remove the adhering rhizosphere soil particles from plant roots, which were passed through a 1 mm sieve and stored in a DNA extraction buffer (Frey et al 2006) at -20°C until analysis. Soil DNA from the rhizosphere samples was prepared by a bead beating procedure (Frey et al 2008).…”
Section: Microbial Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to the T-RFLP analysis, digests were desalted with Montage SEQ96 sequencing reaction clean-up kit (Millipore Corporation), according to the manufacturer's instructions. T-RFLP analyses were performed according to Frey et al (2006). Two microlitres of digested PCR products were analysed along with 0.2 ll of internal size standard ROX500 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and 12 ll HiDi formamide (Applied Biosystems) on an ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) with 36 cm capillaries filled with POP-4 polymer.…”
Section: Terminal Restriction Enzyme Fragment Length Polymorphism Anamentioning
confidence: 99%