TABLE 3

Bacteria that differed significantly by residue amendmenta

ComparisonExptbNo. of OTUscNo. of generadGenera shared between data setse
MR > MBKM_A (1204)57 (10)8 (3)Chitinophaga, Opitutus, Rhodoplanes
KM_B (933)40 (9)7 (3)
N_A (962)66 (26)22 (13)Adhaeribacter, Azohydromonas, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Chitinophaga, Cupriavidus, Delftia, Dokdonella, Mesorhizobium, Novosphingobium, Pseudomonas, Ramlibacter, Stenotrophomonas
N_B (977)156 (35)25 (13)
MR < MBKM_A (1204)49 (7)3 (2)Candidatus Koribacter,” Pseudomonas
KM_B (933)22 (5)4 (2)
N_A (962)44 (11)6 (3)Bacillus, “Candidatus Koribacter,” “Candidatus Solibacter”
N_B (977)113 (20)13 (3)
  • a Significantly different at a P of <0.001. Abbreviations are for crop (i.e., millet [M]) and residue (i.e., residue-amended [R] or bare [B] soil).

  • b Four independent experiments were performed at two field sites (Keur Matar [KM] or Nioro [N]) in 2013. Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of OTUs analyzed in DESeq2, which are the numbers of OTUs at a >0.001% abundance.

  • c Numbers of bacterial OTUs enriched by more than 2-fold for a particular experiment are listed (P < 0.001). Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of OTUs belonging to the named genera.

  • d Numbers of bacterial genera enriched by more than 2-fold for a particular experiment are listed (P < 0.001). Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of genera shared between the two data sets.

  • e The names of only those genera whose patterns of enrichment were consistent in the two experiments at each location are listed, but those observed across all four experiments are in bold.