NMDS illustrating the phyllosphere bacterial community showing separate clusters of bacterial communities between (A) the epiphytic (red) and the endophytic (blue) bacterial communities from leaves sampled from south side canopy areas and (B) different clusters for A. raddiana (blue) and A. tortilis (green) for endophytic bacterial communities.

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... 2) indicating a different bacterial community and diversity pattern that exists in these two microbial communities. To compare the diversities of epiphytic and endophytic bacterial communities extracted from leaf samples, acacia samples from south canopy sides (Table 2) were analyzed and plotted using NMDS based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix (Fig. 2). Two separate clusters for endophytic and epiphytic bacterial communities ( Fig. 2A) were found to be significantly different (p = 0.005). However, while both acacia species (A. raddiana and A. tortilis) demonstrated separate clusters within the endophytic bacterial communities (p-value = 0.006, Fig. 2A and B), they did not separate ...

Context 2

... these two microbial communities. To compare the diversities of epiphytic and endophytic bacterial communities extracted from leaf samples, acacia samples from south canopy sides (Table 2) were analyzed and plotted using NMDS based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix (Fig. 2). Two separate clusters for endophytic and epiphytic bacterial communities ( Fig. 2A) were found to be significantly different (p = 0.005). However, while both acacia species (A. raddiana and A. tortilis) demonstrated separate clusters within the endophytic bacterial communities (p-value = 0.006, Fig. 2A and B), they did not separate into different clusters in the epiphytic samples (p-value = 0.585, Fig. 2A). To ...

Context 3

... NMDS based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix (Fig. 2). Two separate clusters for endophytic and epiphytic bacterial communities ( Fig. 2A) were found to be significantly different (p = 0.005). However, while both acacia species (A. raddiana and A. tortilis) demonstrated separate clusters within the endophytic bacterial communities (p-value = 0.006, Fig. 2A and B), they did not separate into different clusters in the epiphytic samples (p-value = 0.585, Fig. 2A). To illustrate these differences, major bacterial phyla were plotted for both species in epi- and endophytic samples (Fig. 3). Epiphytic samples showed significantly higher abundance of Actinobacteria, Cyanobacteria and ...

Context 4

... communities ( Fig. 2A) were found to be significantly different (p = 0.005). However, while both acacia species (A. raddiana and A. tortilis) demonstrated separate clusters within the endophytic bacterial communities (p-value = 0.006, Fig. 2A and B), they did not separate into different clusters in the epiphytic samples (p-value = 0.585, Fig. 2A). To illustrate these differences, major bacterial phyla were plotted for both species in epi- and endophytic samples (Fig. 3). Epiphytic samples showed significantly higher abundance of Actinobacteria, Cyanobacteria and significantly lower abundance of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria compared with endophytic samples from the same ...

Context 5

... decreasing stomatal conductance and increased concentration of abscisic acid [36]and many other metabolites and enzymes [37]. These plant responses were shown to affect plants-microbiome colonization [32,38,39]. Moreover, our results showed that the endophytic and epiphytic bacterial communities were significantly different from each other ( Fig. 2A). In fact, endophytic but not epiphytic bacteria communities, differed between the two acacia species (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4) - specific to the host (acacia tree). This potentially indicates that endophytic bacteria were horizontally transmitted and that they might be more affected by genotypic factors rather than abiotic factors ...