Leguminous tree root nodule nitrogen-fixing bacteria are critical for recuperation of soil C and N cycle processes after disturbance in tropical forests, while other nodule-associated bacteria (NAB) may enhance nodule development and activity, and plant growth. However, little is known of these root nodule microbiomes. Through DNA analysis, we evaluated the bacterial taxa associated with the root nodules of the 1-year-old, 2-year-old, 13-year-old, and old growth Inga punctata trees in a cloud forest. Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens was the dominant taxon found in all nodules at 63.16% to 85.71% mean percent sequences (MPS) of the total nodule bacterial DNA and was found in the youngest nodules examined (1 year old), suggesting that it is the primary nodular bacteria. There were 26 other NAB genera with collective MPS levels between 7.4% to 12.2%, while 15 of these genera were found in the Bulk Forest soils at collective MPS levels of 4.6%. These bacterial community compositions were different between the NAB and Bulk Forest soils, suggesting the NAB became concentrated within the root nodules, resulting in communities with different compositions from the Bulk Forest soils. Twenty-three of the 26 NAB genera were previously identified with the potential to perform 9 plant growth promoting (PGP) activities, suggesting their importance in root nodule development and plant growth. These NAB communities appeared to successionally develop over time into more complex taxonomic communities, which is consistent with the outcome of advanced microbial communities following succession. The presence of both B. diazoefficiens and the NAB communities in the nodules across all ages of tree roots, and the potential for PGP activities linked with most of the NAB genera, suggest the importance of B. diazoefficiens and the NAB community for nodule development and enhanced development and growth of I. punctata throughout its lifespan, and most critically in the younger plants.
Citation: William D. Eaton, Debra A. Hamilton, Wen Chen, Alexander Lemenze, Patricia Soteropoulos. Use of high throughput DNA analysis to characterize the nodule-associated bacterial community from four ages of Inga punctata trees in a Costa Rican cloud forest[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 572-595. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024027
[1] | Dingjun Lou, Zongrong Qin . The structure of minimally 2-subconnected graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 9871-9883. doi: 10.3934/math.2022550 |
[2] | Xia Hong, Wei Feng . Completely independent spanning trees in some Cartesian product graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16127-16136. doi: 10.3934/math.2023823 |
[3] | Xiaoxue Hu, Jiangxu Kong . An improved upper bound for the dynamic list coloring of 1-planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7337-7348. doi: 10.3934/math.2022409 |
[4] | Hongyu Chen, Li Zhang . A smaller upper bound for the list injective chromatic number of planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 289-310. doi: 10.3934/math.2025014 |
[5] | Yunfeng Tang, Huixin Yin, Miaomiao Han . Star edge coloring of K2,t-free planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13154-13161. doi: 10.3934/math.2023664 |
[6] | Yuehua Bu, Qi Jia, Hongguo Zhu, Junlei Zhu . Acyclic edge coloring of planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10828-10841. doi: 10.3934/math.2022605 |
[7] | Saba Al-Kaseasbeh, Ahmad Erfanian . A bipartite graph associated to elements and cosets of subgroups of a finite group. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10395-10404. doi: 10.3934/math.2021603 |
[8] | Dijian Wang, Dongdong Gao . Laplacian integral signed graphs with few cycles. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 7021-7031. doi: 10.3934/math.2023354 |
[9] | Yuehua Bu, Qiang Yang, Junlei Zhu, Hongguo Zhu . Injective coloring of planar graphs with girth 5. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 17081-17090. doi: 10.3934/math.2023872 |
[10] | Akbar Ali, Darko Dimitrov, Tamás Réti, Abdulaziz Mutlaq Alotaibi, Abdulaziz M. Alanazi, Taher S. Hassan . Degree-based graphical indices of k-cyclic graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13540-13554. doi: 10.3934/math.2025609 |
Leguminous tree root nodule nitrogen-fixing bacteria are critical for recuperation of soil C and N cycle processes after disturbance in tropical forests, while other nodule-associated bacteria (NAB) may enhance nodule development and activity, and plant growth. However, little is known of these root nodule microbiomes. Through DNA analysis, we evaluated the bacterial taxa associated with the root nodules of the 1-year-old, 2-year-old, 13-year-old, and old growth Inga punctata trees in a cloud forest. Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens was the dominant taxon found in all nodules at 63.16% to 85.71% mean percent sequences (MPS) of the total nodule bacterial DNA and was found in the youngest nodules examined (1 year old), suggesting that it is the primary nodular bacteria. There were 26 other NAB genera with collective MPS levels between 7.4% to 12.2%, while 15 of these genera were found in the Bulk Forest soils at collective MPS levels of 4.6%. These bacterial community compositions were different between the NAB and Bulk Forest soils, suggesting the NAB became concentrated within the root nodules, resulting in communities with different compositions from the Bulk Forest soils. Twenty-three of the 26 NAB genera were previously identified with the potential to perform 9 plant growth promoting (PGP) activities, suggesting their importance in root nodule development and plant growth. These NAB communities appeared to successionally develop over time into more complex taxonomic communities, which is consistent with the outcome of advanced microbial communities following succession. The presence of both B. diazoefficiens and the NAB communities in the nodules across all ages of tree roots, and the potential for PGP activities linked with most of the NAB genera, suggest the importance of B. diazoefficiens and the NAB community for nodule development and enhanced development and growth of I. punctata throughout its lifespan, and most critically in the younger plants.
Connectivity is an important property of graphs. It has been extensively studied (see [1]). A graph G=(V,E) is called k-connected (k≥1) (k-edge-connected) if, for any subset S⊆V(G) (S⊆E(G)) with |S|<k, G−S is connected. The connectivity κ(G) (edge connectivity λ(G)) is the order (size) of minimum cutset (edge cutset) S⊆V(G) (S⊆E(G)). When G is a complete graph Kn, we define that κ(G)=n−1.
In recent years, conditional connectivities attract researchers' attention. For example, Peroche [2] studied several sorts of connectivities, including cyclic edge (vertex) connectivity, and their relations. A cyclic edge (vertex) cutset S of G is an edge (vertex) cutset whose deletion disconnects G such that at least two of the components of G−S contain a cycle respectively. The cyclic edge (vertex) connectivity, denoted by cλ(G) (cκ(G)), is the cardinality of a minimum cyclic edge (vertex) cutset of G. Dvoŕǎk, Kára, Král and Pangrác [3] obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity of cubic graphs. Lou and Wang [4] obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity for k-regular graphs. Then Lou and Liang [5] improved the algorithm to have time complexity O(k9V6). Lou [6] also obtained a square time algorithm to determine the cyclic edge connectivity of planar graphs. In [7], Liang, Lou and Zhang obtained the first efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic vertex connectivity of cubic graphs. Liang and Lou [8] also showed that there is an efficient algorithm to determine the cyclic vertex connectivity for k-regular graphs with any fixed k.
Another related concept is linkage. Let G be a graph with at least 2k vertices. If, for any 2k vertices u1,u2,⋯,uk,v1,v2,⋯,vk, there are k disjoint paths Pi from ui to vi(i=1,2,⋯,k) in G, then G is called k-linked. Thomassen [9] mentioned that a necessary condition for G to be k-linked is that G is (2k−1)-connected. But this condition is not sufficient unless k=1. He also gave a complete characterization of 2-linked graphs. Bollobás and Thomason [10] proved that if κ(G)≥22k, then G is k-linked. Kawarabayashi, Kostochka and Yu [11] proved that every 2k-connected graph with average degree at least 12k is k-linked.
In [12], Qin, Lou, Zhu and Liang introduced the new concept of k-subconnected graphs. Let G be a graph with at least 2k vertices. If, for any 2k vertices v1,v2,⋯,v2k in G, there are k vertex-disjoint paths joining v1,v2,⋯,v2k in pairs, then G is called k-subconnected. If G is k-subconnected and ν(G)≥3k−1, then G is called a properly k-subconnected graph. In [12], Qin et al. showed that a properly k-subconnected graph is also a properly (k−1)-subconnected graph. But only when ν(G)≥3k−1, that G is k-subconnected implies that G is (k−1)-subconnected. Qin et al. [12] also gave a sufficient condition for a graph to be k-subconnected and a necessary and sufficient condition for a graph to be a properly k-subconnected graph (see Lemmas 1 and 2 and Corollary 3 in this paper).
If G has at least 2k vertices, that G is k-linked implies that G is k-connected, while that G is k-connected implies that G is k-subconnected (see Lemma 6 in this paper). Also in a k-connected graph G, deleting arbitrarily some edges from G, the resulting graph H is still k-subconnected. So a graph H to be k-subconnected is a spanning substructure of a k-connected graph G. To study k-subconnected graphs may help to know more properties in the structure of k-connected graphs. Notice that a k-connected graph may have a spanning substructure to be m-subconnected for m>k.
K-subconnected graphs have some background in matching theory. The proof of the necessary and sufficient condition [12] for properly k-subconnected graphs uses similar technique to matching theory.
Let S be a subset of V(G) of a graph G. We denote by G[S] the induced subetaaph of G on S. We also denote by ω(G) the number of components of G. We also use ν(G) and ε(G) to denote |V(G)| and |E(G)|. If G is a planar graph, we denote by ϕ(G) the number of faces in the planar embedding of G. Let H be a graph. A subdivision of H is a graph H′ obtained by replacing some edges by paths respectively in H. For other terminology and notation not defined in this paper, the reader is referred to [13].
In this section, we shall present some known results and some straightforward corollaries of the known results which will be used in the proof of our main theorems.
Lemma 1 (Theorem 1 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 2k vertices. Then G is k-subconnected if, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Lemma 2 (Theorem 2 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 3k−1 vertices. If G is a properly k-subconnected graph, then, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Only when v≥3k−1, that G is k-subconnected implies that G is (k-1)-subconnected. Here is an counterexample. Let S=Kk−2 be a complete graph of k−2 vertices, let H be k copies of K2, and let G be a graph with V(G)=V(S)∪V(H) and E(G)=E(S)∪E(H)∪{uv|u∈V(S),v∈V(H)}. Then v(G)=3k−2, and G is not (k-1)-subconnected since we can choose 2(k-1) vertices by taking one vertex from each copy of K2 in H and taking all vertices of S, then these 2(k-1) vertices cannot be joined by k-1 independent paths in pairs. But G is k-subconnected since when we take any 2k vertices from G, some pairs of vertices will be taken from several same K2 's in H, and then the 2k vertices can be joined by k independent paths in pairs.
Corollary 3 (Theorem 3 of [12]). Let G be a connected graph with at least 3k−1 vertices. Then G is a properly k-subconnected graph if and only if, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1.
Lemma 4 ([14]). Every 4-connected planar graph is Hamiltonian.
Lemma 5. If a graph G has a Hamilton path, then G is k-subconnected for each k such that 1≤k≤ν(G)/2.
Proof. Let P be a Hamilton path in G. Let vi, i=1,2,⋯,2k, be any 2k vertices in V(G). Without loss of generality, assume that v1,v2,⋯,v2k appear on P in turn. Then there are k paths Pi on P from v2i−1 to v2i, i=1,2,⋯,k, respectively. So G is k-subconnected.
Lemma 6. A k-connected graph G with at least 2k vertices is k-subconnected.
Proof. Let G be a k-connected graph with at least 2k vertices. Then G does not have a cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, so the statement that, for any cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1, ω(G−S)≤|S|+1 is true. By Lemma 1, G is k-subconnected.
In this section, we shall show the k-subconnectedness of planar graphs with different connectivities, and show the bounds of k-subconnectedness are sharp.
Corollary 7. A 1-connected planar graph G with at least 2 vertices is 1-subconnected.
Proof. By Lemma 6, the result follows.
Corollary 8. A 2-connected planar graph G with at least 4 vertices is 2-subconnected.
Proof. By Lemma 6, the result follows.
Theorem 9. A 4-connected planar graph G is k-subconnected for each k such that 1≤k≤ν(G)/2.
Proof. By Lemma 4, G has a Hamilton cycle C, and then has a Hamilton path P. By Lemma 5, the result follows.
Theorem 10. A 3-connected planar graph G with at least 2k vertices is k-subconnected for k=4,5,6.
Proof. Suppose that G is a 3-connected planar graph with at least 2k vertices which is not k-subconnected. By Lemma 1, there is a cutset S⊆V(G) with |S|≤k−1≤ such that ω(G−S)≥|S|+2. Since G is 3-connected, there is no cutset with less than 3 vertices and so |S|≥3. On the other hand, k=4,5,6, so |S|≤5. Thus let us consider three cases.
In the first case, |S|=3. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C5 be different components of G−S, and S={x1,x2,x3}. Since G is 3-connected, every Ci is adjacent to each xj (1≤i≤5,1≤j≤3). Contract every Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,5) to obtain a planar graph G′ as G is planar. Then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, which contradicts the fact that G′ is a planar graph.
In the second case, |S|=4. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C6 be different components of G−S and S={x1,x2,x3,x4}. Contract every Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,6) to obtain a planar graph G′ as G is planar. Since G is 3-connected, each C′i is adjacent to at least 3 vertices in S (1≤i≤6). (In the whole proof, we shall consider that C′i is adjacent to only 3 vertices in S, and we shall neglect other vertices in S which are possibly adjacent to C′i). Since the number of 3-vertex-combinations in S is C(4,3)=4, but C′1,C′2,⋯,C′6 have 6 vertices, by the Pigeonhole Principle, there are two vertices in {C′1,C′2,⋯,C′6} which are adjacent to the same three vertices in S. Without loss of generality, assume that C′1 and C′2 are both adjacent to x1,x2,x3. If there is another C′i (3≤i≤6) adjacent to x1,x2,x3, say C′3, then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, which contradicts the fact that G′ is planar (which also contradicts the assumption that G is a planar graph because G has a subetaaph which can be contracted to a K3,3). So C′i cannot be adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time (i=3,4,5,6).
Suppose C′3 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4. If one of C′4,C′5,C′6 is adjacent to both x1 and x4, say C′4, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x1, so G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. Since C′4,C′5,C′6 are all not adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, they are all adjacent to x4. But each of them cannot be adjacent to both x1 and x4. So they are all not adjacent to x1. Hence C′4,C′5,C′6 are all adjacent to x2,x3,x4 at the same time. Then G′[{x2,x3,x4}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is a planar graph.
The cases that C′3 is adjacent to x1,x3,x4 or x1,x2,x4 are similar.
In the third case, |S|=5. By our assumption, ω(G−S)≥|S|+2, let C1,C2,⋯,C7 be different components of G−S and S={x1,x2,⋯,x5}. Since G is planar, contracting Ci to a vertex C′i (i=1,2,⋯,7), we obtain a planar graph G′. Also since G is 3-connected, every C′i is adjacent to at least 3 vertices in S (1≤i≤7).
Case 1. There are two of C′i (i=1,2,⋯,7) adjacent to the same three vertices in S. Without loss of generality, assume that C′1 and C′2 are both adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time.
If there is another vertex C′i (3≤i≤7) adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, say C′3. Then G′[{x1,x2,x3}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So C′3 cannot be adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time. Without loss of generality, we have two subcases.
Suppose C′3 is only adjacent to two vertices in {x1,x2,x3}, say x2 and x3. Then C′3 must be adjacent to one of x4 and x5 as G is 3-connected. Without loss of generality, assume that C′3 is also adjacent to x4. If one of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4, say C′4. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x1, hence G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So none of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4.
Case (1.1). Suppose that C′4 is adjacent to three vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} .
If C′4 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, then the case is similar to that C′3 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time, and we have a contradiction. So C′4 is not adjacent to x1,x2,x3 at the same time. If C′4 is adjacent to x1, since C′4 is adjacent to three vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} but not x1,x2,x3, so C′4 is adjacent to x1 and x4, by the argument above, we have a contradiction. Hence C′4 can be adjacent only to x2,x3,x4.
Now x1 and x4 are symmetric, while x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}]. Then C′i(i=5,6,7) must be adjacent to x5, we have two cases as follows.
Notice that now there are not i and j, 5≤i≠j≤7, such that C′i is adjacent to x1 and C′j is adjacent to x4, otherwise C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′jx5C′ix1, then G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′i,C′j}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contrary to the fact that G′ is planar.
Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5. If C′6 is also adjacent to x3,x4,x5, then C′7 cannot be adjacent to x3,x4,x5, otherwise G′[{x3,x4,x5}∪{C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5, then C′7 is connected to x3 by path C′7x2C′2x3, and then G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. But C′7 is connected to x4 by path C′7x2C′3x4, then G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction again. If C′6 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, suppose C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5, then this case is similar to that C′6 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 and C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Then suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Now C′3 is connected to x5 by path C′3x4C′5x5, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. Then C′6 is connected to x4 by path C′6x5C′7x4, hence G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. Now the cases that C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5 and that C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 are symmetric, we only discuss the former. Then C′5 is connected to x2 by path C′5x3C′4x2, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. Now C′7 is connected to x4 by path C′7x5C′6x4. Hence G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5. If C′6 and C′7 are both adjacent to x2,x3,x5, then G′[{x2,x3,x5}∪{C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a K3,3, contradicting the fact that G′ is planar. So one of C′5, C′6, C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, the other two are adjacent to x3,x4,x5; or one of C′5, C′6, C′7 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5, the other two are adjacent to x2,x3,x5; or C′5 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, C′6 is adjacent to x3,x4,x5 and C′7 is adjacent to x2,x4,x5. These three cases are symmetric to cases discussed above. (Notice that the roles of C′5, C′6 and C′7 are symmetric.)
Case (1.2). Now suppose {x2,x3,x4} - N(C′4)≠∅.
Notice that {x2,x3,x4} - N(C′i)≠∅ for 5≤i≤7, otherwise the C′i (5≤i≤7) is similar to C′4 as discussed above, and the other three in {C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7} are similar to C′5,C′6,C′7, by the same argument as above, we obtain a contradiction. Also since C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7 each cannot be adjacent to both x1 and x4, all of C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7 must be adjacent to x5. Now x1 and x4 are not symmetric but x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}].
First, suppose C′4 is adjacent to x4 and x3 besides x5. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4 and x3. If C′6 is also adjacent to x4 and x3, then G′[{x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x2, now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x2C′2x3, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x1, then C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x1C′2x3, and G′[{x1,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3 a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Now C′6 is connected to x4 by path C′6x2C′3x4, so G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Next we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′6 is connected to x2 by path C′6x5C′4x4C′3x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4,x2. By the symmetry of the roles of C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7, we only consider the cases of C′6 as follows. Suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x2. Then C′4 is connected to x2 by path C′4x3C′3x2, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x4,x1. Now C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then we consider C′7. By the symmetry of the roles of C′7 and C′6, we only consider the cases that C′7 is adjacent to {x3,x2},{x3,x1},{x2,x1} respectively. If C′7 is adjacent to x3,x2, then C′5 is connected to x3 by path C′5x4C′4x3, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. If C′7 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′5x5C′7x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. If C′7 is adjacent to x2,x1, then C′7 is connected to x3 by path C′7x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′5 is adjacent to x4,x1. Then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′5x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x2. By symmetry of C′5 and C′6, we only need to consider the following cases. Suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then C′3 is connected to x5 by path C′3x4C′4x5, and G′[{x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′3,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1, then C′3 is connected to x1 by path C′3x4C′4x5C′6x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, by the same argument as last case, we also obtain a contradiction. Now we suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′5 is connected to x2 by path C′5x5C′4x4C′3x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1. Then C′5 is connected to x3 by path C′5x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Since the case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x2 is symmetric to the case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x3, we do not discuss this case. The case that C′4 is adjacent to x4,x1 is excluded by the discussion before Case (1.1). So we suppose C′4 is adjacent to x3,x2 now. By symmetry, we only need to consider the following cases. Suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x2, then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x2. Then G′[{x2,x3,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Now C′6 is connected to x2 by path C′6x1C′1x2, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose that C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1, then C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x1C′1x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Now suppose C′5 is adjacent to x3,x1, then suppose C′6 is adjacent to x3,x1. Then C′4 is connected to x1 by path C′4x2C′1x1, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. So suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1. Now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1, and C′6 can be adjacent only to x2,x1, by the same argument as last case, we can obtain a contradiction. Now suppose C′4 is adjacent to x3,x1, then suppose C′5 and C′6 are both adjacent to x3,x1. But G′[{x1,x3,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction. So we suppose C′6 is adjacent to x2,x1 subject to the above assumption of C′4 and C′5. Now C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3, and G′[{x1,x2,x3,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. Then suppose C′5 is adjacent to x2,x1. Substituting C′5 for C′6 in the discussion of last case, we can obtain a contradiction. The remaining case is that C′4,C′5,C′6 are all adjacent to x2,x1. Then G′[{x1,x2,x5}∪{C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains K3,3, a contradiction.
Now we come back to the discussion of the first paragraph in Case 1. We have the second subcase as follows.
Suppose C′3 is adjacent to only one vertex in {x1,x2,x3}. By the symmetry of the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7, we can assume that each of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 is adjacent to only one vertex in {x1,x2,x3}. So all of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are adjacent to both x4 and x5, and one of x1,x2,x3. But x1,x2,x3 have only 3 vertices and C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 have 5 vertices, by the Pigeonhole Principle, there are C′i and C′j (3≤i≠j≤7) adjacent to x4,x5 and the same xr in {x1,x2,x3}, and there is a C′k (k≠i,j and 3≤k≤7) such that C′k is adjacent to x4,x5. We use C′i and C′j to replace C′1 and C′2, and C′k to replace C′3, then Case 1 still happens. The proof is the same as before.
Now suppose that Case 1 does not happen. Then, for any two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7), |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|≤2.
Case 2. Suppose there are two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7) such that |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|=2.
Without loss of generality, assume that N(C′1)={x1,x2,x3}, N(C′2)={x2,x3,x4} such that |N(C′1)∩N(C′2)|=2.
Case (2.1). C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4 are adjacent to only vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}.
Since G is 3-connected and Case 1 does not happen, then N(C′3)={x1,x2,x4} and N(C′4)={x1,x3,x4}. In G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4}], any two of x1,x2,x3,x4 are symmetric, and any two of C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4 are symmetric. Since Case 1 does not happen, N(C′j) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4} (j=5,6,7). So C′j must be adjacent to x5 (j=5,6,7). By the symmetry of any two of x1,x2,x3,x4, we can assume that C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4. Also by the assumption of Case 2, C′6 is adjacent to x1 and x2, or adjacent to x2 and x3. In the first case, {x1,x2} and {x3,x4} are symmetric, then C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and C′2 is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and C′6 is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction. In the second case, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′4 is adjacent to x3,x4, and is connected to x2 by path C′4x1C′1x2, C′5 is adjacent to x3,x4, and is connected to x2 by path C′5x5C′6x2. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′4,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2). N(C′i)⊆{x1,x2,x3,x4} for i=1,2,3 but N(C′j)⊈{x1,x2,x3,x4} for 4≤j≤7.
Then N(C′3)={x1,x2,x4}. (The case that N(C′3)={x1,x3,x4} is symmetric, and the proof is similar). As the neighbourhood of C′i (i=4,5,6,7) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, C′i is adjacent to x5 for i=4,5,6,7. In G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3}], any two of x1,x3,x4 are symmetric, and any two of C′1,C′2,C′3 are symmetric. By the assumption of Case 2, we have the following four cases.
Case (2.2.1). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x4,x5}, and N(C′6)={x1,x3,x5}.
Notice that any two of x1,x3,x4 are symmetric, since Case (2.1) does not happen, N(C′7) is not contained in {x1,x3,x4,x5}, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}. Now C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′7x5C′4x4. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2.2). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x3,x5}.
Now x1 and x4 are symmetric. By the assumption of Case 2, as Case (2.2.1) does not hold, we have two cases: N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}; or N(C′6)={x2,x3,x5}. Suppose N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}. Then C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, contradicting to the fact that G′ is planar. Suppose N(C′6)={x2,x3,x5}. Then C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′6x5C′4x4. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.2.3). Suppose N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}.
Now x3 and x4 are symmetric. We have two cases: (1) N(C′5)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}; (2) N(C′5)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x2,x5}.
In the first case, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′6 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
In the second case, C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
There remains the last case in Case (2.2) as follows.
Case (2.2.4). Suppose N(C′4)={x2,x3,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x2,x5}.
Now C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′6 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′6x5C′4x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3). Suppose only C′1,C′2 are adjacent only to vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}.
Since N(C′i) is not contained in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, C′i is adjacent to x5 for i=3,4,⋯,7. Now x1 and x4 are symmetric, x2 and x3 are symmetric in G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4}∪{C′1,C′2}]. By the assumption of Case 2, each C′i is adjacent to exactly two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} besides x5 (i=3,4,⋯,7), and C′i and C′j (3≤i<j≤7) are not adjacent to the same two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}. Since the number of combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} is totally C(4,2)=4×32!=6, there is exactly one combination of two vertices which are not adjacent to the same C′i (3≤i≤7), and for each of the other combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4}, the two vertices are both adjacent to one C′i (3≤i≤7). Considering the symmetry of the roles of C′i (i=3,4,⋯,7), there are six cases to take five combinations from the totally six combinations of two vertices in {x1,x2,x3,x4} such that the two vertices of each of the five combinations are both adjacent to a C′i (3≤i≤7). Also considering the symmetry of x1 and x4, and x2 and x3, there remains 3 cases as follows.
Case (2.3.1). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x1 and x4.
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x2,x5}, N(C′4)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}.
Now C′7 is adjacent to x2,x3,x5, C′4 is adjacent to x3,x5, and is connected to x2 by path C′4x4C′2x2, C′3 is adjacent to x2,x5, and is connected to x3 by path C′3x1C′6x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′2,C′3,C′4,C′6,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3.2). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x1 and x2. (For x1,x3; x2,x4; x3,x4, the discussion is similar.)
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x4,x5}, N(C′4)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′5)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′6)={x3,x4,x5}, N(C′7)={x2,x3,x5}.
Now C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3,x4, C′1 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x4 by path C′1x1C′3x4, C′5 is adjacent to x2,x4, and is connected to x3 by path C′5x5C′7x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′5,C′7}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case (2.3.3). No C′i (3≤i≤7) is adjacent to both x2 and x3.
Since the roles of C′3,C′4,⋯,C′7 are symmetric, without loss of generality, assume that N(C′3)={x1,x4,x5}, N(C′4)={x1,x2,x5}, N(C′5)={x1,x3,x5}, N(C′6)={x2,x4,x5}, N(C′7)={x3,x4,x5}.
Now C′1 is adjacent to x1,x2,x3, C′2 is adjacent to x2,x3, and is connected to x1 by path C′2x4C′3x1, C′4 is adjacent to x1,x2, and is connected to x3 by path C′4x5C′5x3. So G′[{x1,x2,x3,x4,x5}∪{C′1,C′2,C′3,C′4,C′5}] contains a subdivision of K3,3, a contradiction.
Case 3. Suppose that, for any two vertices C′i and C′j (1≤i<j≤7), |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|≤1 and Cases 1 and 2 do not hold.
Since |N(C′i)|=|N(C′j)|=3 and |S|=5, |N(C′i)∩N(C′j)|=1 (1≤i<j≤7). Without loss of generality, assume that N(C′1)={x1,x2,x3}, and N(C′2)={x3,x4,x5}. Then N(C′1)∩N(C′2)={x3}. By the assumption of Case 3, |N(C′3)∩N(C′1)|=1, then there are two vertices of N(C′3) which are not in {x1,x2,x3}, hence |N(C′3)∩N(C′2)|≥2, which contradicts the assumption of Case 3.
In all cases discussed above, we can always obtain contradiction. So ω(G−S)≥|S|+2 does not hold. By Lemma 1, when ν(G)≥2k, G is k-subconnected for k=4,5,6.
Remark 1. Now we give some counterexamples to show the sharpness of Corollaries 7 and 8, and Theorem 10. Let H be a connected planar graph, let G1,G2,G3 be three copies of H, and let v be a vertex not in Gi (i=1,2,3). Let G be the graph such that v is joined to Gi (i=1,2,3) by an edge respectively. Then G is a 1-connected planar graph, but G is not 2-subconnected since we take a vertex vi in Gi (i=1,2,3) and let v4=v, then there are not two independent paths joining v1,v2,v3,v4 in two pairs in G. So Corollary 7 is sharp.
Let H be a planar embedding of a 2-connected planar graph, let G1,G2,G3,G4 be four copies of H, let v5 and v6 be two vertices not in Gi (i=1,2,3,4). Let G be the graph such that v5 and v6 are joined to two different vertices on the outer face of Gi (i=1,2,3,4) by edges respectively. Then G is a 2-connected planar graph, but is not 3-subconnected since we take a vertex vi in Gi (i=1,2,3,4), then there are not three independent paths joining v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6 in three pairs. So Corollary 8 is sharp.
Let G0 be a triangle with vertex set {v4,v5,v6}, then insert a vertex vi into a triangle inner face of Gi−1 and join vi to every vertex on the face by an edge respectively to obtain Gi for i=1,2,3. Let G=G3. Notice that ν(G)=6, ε(G0)=3, and each time when we insert a vertex, the number of edges increases by 3. So ε(G)=3+3+3+3=12. By the Euler's Formula, ϕ=ε−ν+2=12−6+2=8. Let H be a planar embedding of a 3-connected planar graph. Then put a copy of H into every face of G and join each vertex on the triangle face of G to a distinct vertex on the outer face of H to obtain a planar graph G′. Then G′ is a 3-connected planar graph with ν(G′)≥2k for k=7, but G′ is not 7-subconnected since we have a cutset S={v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6}, but G′−S has 8 copies of H (8 components) and ω(G′−S)=8≥|S|+2. By Lemma 1, the conclusion holds. So Theorem 10 is sharp.
Remark 2. For a 3-connected planar graph G with at least 2k vertices, by Lemma 6, G is obviously k-subconnected for k=1,2,3.
In the last section, we prove the k-subconnectivity of k′-connected planar graphs for k′=1,2,⋯,5.
Since a k-subconnected graph is a spanning substructure of a k-connected graph, in the future, we can work on the number of edges deleted from a k-connected graph such that the resulting graph is still k-subconnected.
We may also extend the k-subconnectivity of planar graphs to find the subconnectivity of general graphs with a higher genus.
[1] | Lojka B, Dumas L, Preininger D, et al. (2010) The use and integration of Inga edulis in agroforestry systems in the amazon–review article. Agri Trop Subtrop 43: 352-359. |
[2] | Macedo MO, Resende AS, Garcia PC, et al. (2008) Changes in soil C and N stocks and nutrient dynamics 13 years after recovery of degraded land using leguminous nitrogen-fixer trees. For Ecol Manag 255: 1516-1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.11.007 |
[3] | Piotto D (2008) A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations. For Ecol Manage 255: 781-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.065 |
[4] | Amazonas NT, Martinelli LA, Piccolo MDC, et al. (2011) Nitrogen dynamics ecosystem development in tropical forest restoration. For Ecol Manag 262: 1551-1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.003 |
[5] | Chazdon RL, Broadbent EN, Rozendaal DMA, et al. (2016) Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci Adv : e1501639-e1501639. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501639 |
[6] | Davidson EA, de Carvalho CJR, Figueira AM, et al. (2007) Recuperation of nitrogen cycling in Amazonian forests following agricultural abandonment. Nature 447: 995-998. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05900 |
[7] | Gehring C, Vlek PLG, de Souza LAG, et al. (2005) Biological nitrogen fixation in secondary regrowth and mature rainforest of central Amazonia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 111: 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.06.009 |
[8] | da Silva K, de Meyer SE, Rouws LFM, et al. (2014) Bradyrhizobium inga sp. nov., isolated from effective nodules of Inga laurina grown in Cerrado soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 64: 3395-3401. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.063727-0 |
[9] | Hernández-Oaxaca D, Claro-Mendoza KL, Rogel MA, et al. (2022) Genomic diversity of Bradyrhizobium from the tree legumes Inga and Lysiloma (Caesalpinioideae-Mimosoid Clade). Diversity 14: 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14070518 |
[10] | Hernández-Oaxaca D, Claro K, Rogel MA, et al. (2023) Novel symbiovars ingae, lysilomae and lysilomaefficiens in Bradyrhizobia from tree-legume nodules. Syst Appl Microbiol 46: 126433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2023.126433 |
[11] | Leblanc HA, McGraw RL, Nygren P, et al. (2005) Neotropical legume tree Inga edulis forms N2-fixing symbiosis with fast-growing Bradyrhizobium strains. Plant Soil 275: 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-0808-8 |
[12] | Parker MA (2015) The spread of Bradyrhizobium lineages across host legume clades: From Abarema to Zygia. Microbial Ecol 69: 630-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-014-0503-5 |
[13] | Tian R, Parker M, Seshadri R, et al. (2015) High-quality permanent draft genome sequence of Bradyrhizobium sp. Ai1a-2; a microsymbiont of Andira inermis discovered in Costa Rica. Stand Gen Sci 10: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-015-0007-z |
[14] | Etesami H (2022) Root nodules of legumes: A suitable ecological niche for isolating non-rhizobial bacteria with biotechnological potential in agriculture. Curr Res Biotech 4: 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2022.01.003 |
[15] | Martínez-Hidalgo P, Hirsch AM (2017) The nodule microbiome: N2-fixing rhizobia do not live alone. Phytobiomes J 1: 70-82. https://doi/10.1094/PBIOMES-12-16-0019-RVW |
[16] | Velázquez E, Carro L, Flores-Félix JD, et al. (2017) The legume nodule microbiome: A source of plant growth-promoting bacteria. Probiotics and Plant Health . Singapore: Springer 41-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3473-2_3 |
[17] | Busby RR, Rodriguez G, Gebhart DL, et al. (2016) Native Lespedeza species harbor greater non-rhizobial bacterial diversity in root nodules compared to the coexisting invader, L. cuneata. Plant Soil 401: 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2763-3 |
[18] | Debnath S, Chakraborty S, Langthasa M, et al. (2023) Non-rhizobial nodule endophytes improve nodulation, change root exudation pattern and promote the growth of lentil, for prospective application in fallow soil. Front Plant Sci 14: 1152875. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1152875 |
[19] | Mushtaq S, Shafiq M, Tariq MR, et al. (2023) Interaction between bacterial endophytes and host plants. Front Plant Sci 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1092105 |
[20] | Preyanga R, Anandham R, Krishnamoorthy R, et al. (2021) Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) nodule rhizobium and passenger endophytic bacterial cultivable diversity and their impact on plant growth promotion. Rhizosphere 17: 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100309 |
[21] | Selvakumar G, Panneerselvam P, Ganeshamurthy AN (2013) Legume root nodule associated bacteria. Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Fundamentals and Advances . New Delhi: Springer 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1287-4_8 |
[22] | Velázquez E, Carro L, Flores-Félix JD, et al. (2019) Bacteria-inducing legime nodules involved in the improvement of plant growth, health and nutritionin. Microbiome in Plant Heath and Disease . Singapore: Springer 41-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8495-0_4 |
[23] | Eaton WD, Hamilton DA (2022) Enhanced carbon, nitrogen and associated bacterial community compositional complexity, stability, evenness, and differences within the tree-soils of Inga punctata along an age gradient of planted trees in reforestation plots. Plant Soil 484: 327-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05793-8 |
[24] | Lojka B, Lojkova J, Banout J, et al. (2008) Performance of an improved fallow system in the Peruvian Amazon modelling approach. Agrofor Syst 72: 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9079-0 |
[25] | Aguiar LM, Souza MF, de Laia ML, et al. (2020) Metagenomic analysis reveals mechanisms of atrazine biodegradation promoted by tree species. Environ Pollut 267: 115636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115636 |
[26] | Eaton WD, McGee KM, Hoke E, et al. (2020) Influence of two important leguminous trees on their soil microbiomes and nitrogen cycle activities in a primary and recovering secondary forest in the northern zone of Costa Rica. Soil Syst 4: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040065 |
[27] | Bodor A, Bounedjoum N, Vincze GE, et al. (2020) Challenges of unculturable bacteria: environmental perspectives. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 19: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09522-4 |
[28] | Hofer U (2018) The majority is uncultured. Nat Rev Microbiol 16: 716-717. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0097-x |
[29] | Steen AD, Crits-Christoph A, Carini P, et al. (2019) High proportions of bacteria and archaea across most biomes remain uncultured. ISME J 13: 3126-3130. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0484-y |
[30] | Hakim S, Mirza BS, Zaheer A, et al. (2018) Retrieved 16S rRNA and nifH sequences reveal co-dominance of Bradyrhizobium and Ensifer (Sinorhizobium) strains in field-collected root nodules of the promiscuous host Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102: 485-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8609-6 |
[31] | Hakim S, Mirza BS, Imran A, et al. (2020) Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA tag shows disparity in rhizobial and non-rhizobial diversity associated with root nodules of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) growing in different habitats in Pakistan. Microbiol Res 231: 126356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2019.126356 |
[32] | Hartman K, van der Heijden MG, Roussely-Provent V, et al. (2017) Deciphering composition and function of the root microbiome of a legume plant. Microbiome 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-016-0220-z |
[33] | Johnson G (2019) High throughput DNA extraction of legume root nodules for rhizobial metagenomics. AMB Express 9: 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-019-0771-z |
[34] | Wigley K, Moot D, Wakelin SA, et al. (2017) Diverse bacterial taxa inhabit root nodules of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) in New Zealand pastoral soils. Plant Soil 420: 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3395-6 |
[35] | Xiao X, Chen W, Zong L, et al. (2017) Two cultivated legume plants reveal the enrichment process of the microbiome in the rhizocompartments. Mol Ecol 26: 1641-1651. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14027 |
[36] | Holdridge LR, Poveda LJ (1975). Árboles de Costa Rica. Centro Cientı´fico Tropical, San José, Costa Rica, 546 |
[37] | Haber W (2000) An introduction to cloud forest trees. Monteverde: Ecology and Conservation of a Tropical Cloud Forest . New York: Oxford University Press. |
[38] | LaVal R Datos casa LaVal (2020). Available from: https://monteverde-institute.org/mvi-digital-collections.html |
[39] | McGee KM, Eaton WD, Porter TM, et al. (2019) Soil microbiomes associated with two dominant Costa Rican tree species, and implications for remediation: A case study from a Costa Rican conservation area. Appl Soil Ecol 137: 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.02.007 |
[40] | Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, et al. (2007) Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 5261-5267. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07 |
[41] | Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, et al. (2017) Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0237-y |
[42] | Weir BS The current taxonomy of rhizobia. NZ Rhizobia website (2016). Available from: https://www.rhizobia.co.nz/taxonomy/rhizobia |
[43] | Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for primer: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd. |
[44] | Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: Variation in taxonomic distinctness. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 216: 265-278. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps216265 |
[45] | Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x |
[46] | Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User manual. Plymouth: PRIMER-E. |
[47] | Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84: 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0511:CAOPCA]2.0.CO;2 |
[48] | Allison SD, Martiny JBH (2008) Colloquium paper: resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 11512-11519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801925105 |
[49] | Griffiths BS, Philippot L (2013) Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37: 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00343.x |
[50] | Grimm V, Wissel C (1997) Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion. Oecologia 109: 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050090 |
[51] | Louca S, Doebeli M (2016) Transient dynamics of competitive exclusion in microbial communities. Environ Microbiol 18: 1863-1874. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13058 |
[52] | Louca S, Jacques SMS, Pires APF, et al. (2016) High taxonomic variability despite stable functional structure across microbial communities. Nat Ecol Evol 1: 0015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0015 |
[53] | Shade A, Peter H, Allison SD, et al. (2012) Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front Microbiol 3: 417. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00417 |
[54] | Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops JM (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441: 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04742 |
[55] | van Ruijven J, Berendse F (2007) Contrasting effects of diversity on the temporal stability of plant populations. Oikos 116: 1323-1330. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40235179 |
[56] | Hartshorn GS, Hammel B, McDade LA, et al. (1994) Vegetation types and floristic patterns. La Selva: Ecology and Natural History of A Neotropical Rain Forest . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. |
[57] | Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, et al. (2009) Agrolforestry tree Database: A tree reference and selection guide. version 4.0. World Agroforestry Centre Kenya. |
[58] | Delamuta JRM, Ribeiro RA, Ormeño-Orrillo E, et al. (2013) Polyphasic evidence supporting the reclassification of Bradyrhizobium japonicum group Ia strains as Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 63: 3342-3351. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.049130-0 |
[59] | Lafay B, Burdon JJ (2007) Molecular diversity of legume root-nodule bacteria in Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. PLoS ONE : e277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000277 |
[60] | Li JH, Wang ET, Chen WF, et al. (2008) Genetic diversity and potential for promotion of plant growth detected in nodule endophytic bacteria of soybean grown in Heilongjiang province of China. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.014 |
[61] | Chidebe IN, Jaiswal SK, Dakora FD (2018) Distribution and phylogeny of microsymbionts associated with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) nodulation in three agroecological regions of Mozambique. Appl Environ Microbiol 84: e01712-e01717. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01712-17 |
[62] | Jaiswal SK, Dakora FD (2019) Widespread distribution of highly adapted Bradyrhizobium species nodulating diverse legumes in Africa. Front Microbiol 10: 310. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00310 |
[63] | Lopez BDO, dos Teixeira AFS, Michel DC, et al. (2022) Genetic and symbiotic characterization of rhizobia nodulating legumes in a mining area in Southeast Brazil. Scientia Agricola 79: e20200238. https://doi.org/ 10.1590/1678-992x-2020-0238 |
[64] | Naamala J, Jaiswal SK, Dakora FD (2016) Microsymbiont diversity and phylogeny of native bradyrhizobia associated with soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) nodulation in South African soils. Syst Appl Microbiol 39: 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2016.05.009 |
[65] | Ramírez MDA, España M, Aguirre C, et al. (2019) Burkholderia and Paraburkholderia are predominant soybean rhizobial genera in Venezuelan soils in different climatic and topographical regions. Microbes Environ 34: 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME18076 |
[66] | Fisher RF (1995) Amelioration of degraded rain forest soils by plantations of native trees. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 59: 544549. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900020039x |
[67] | Justino G, Omena-Garcia R, Santos A dos, et al. (2017) Nitrogen used strategies of nodulated amazonian legume: Inga edulis. J Trop For Sci 29: 1-9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44028269 |
[68] | Omena-Garcia RP, Justino GC, Ferreira de Araujo VB, et al. (2015) Mineral nitrogen associated changes in growth and xylem-N compounds in Amazonian legume tree. J Plant Nutr 4: 584-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.957389 |
[69] | Bedmar EJ, Bueno E, Correa D, et al. (2013) Ecology of denitrification in soils and plant-associated bacteria. Beneficial Plant-Microbial Interactions: Ecology and Applications . Boca Raton: CRC Press 164-182. https://doi.org. 10.1201/b15251-9 |
[70] | Fernández N, Cabrera JJ, Varadarajan AR, et al. (2019) An integrated systems approach unveils new aspects of microoxia-mediated regulation in Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens. Front Microbiol 10: 924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00924 |
[71] | Salas A, Cabrera JJ, Jiménez-Leiva A, et al. (2021) Bacterial nitric oxide metabolism: recent insights in rhizobia. Adv Microb Phys 7: 259-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ampbs.2021.05.001 |
[72] | Nishihata S, Kondo T, Tanaka K, et al. (2018) Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens USDA110 PhaR functions for pleiotropic regulation of cellular processes besides PHB accumulation. BMC Microbiol 18: 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-018-1317-2 |
[73] | Wu C, Lo J, Urban C, et al. (2022) Acetyl-CoA synthesis through a bicyclic carbon-fixing pathway in gas-fermenting bacteria. Nat Synth 1: 615-625. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s44160-022-00095-4 |
[74] | Fu SF, Wei JY, Chen HW, et al. (2015) Indole-3-acetic acid: A widespread physiological code in interactions of fungi with other organisms. Plant Signal Behav 10: e1048052. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2015.1048052 |
[75] | Gupta P, Rani R, Usmani Z, et al. (2019) The role of plant-associated bacteria in phytoremediation of trace metals in contaminated soils. New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering . Amsterdam: Elsevier 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64191-5.00005-5 |
[76] | Sarode P, Rane M, Kadam M, et al. (2013) Role of microbial siderophores in improving crop productivity in wheat. Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Productivity . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 287-308. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-37241-4_12 |
[77] | Scavino AF, Pedraza RO (2013) The role of siderophores in plant growth-promoting bacteria. Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Productivity . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37241-4_11 |
[78] | Khan MS, Ahmad E, Zaidi A, et al. (2013) Functional aspect of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria: Importance in crop production. Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Productivity . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 237-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37241-4_10 |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Dingjun Lou, Zongrong Qin, The structure of minimally 2-subconnected graphs, 2022, 7, 2473-6988, 9871, 10.3934/math.2022550 |