TABLE 2

Uneven responses of different taxonomic groups (family level) of bacteria and fungi to H2 exposure as a function of land use typea

Taxonomic group% more abundant in:
PoplarFarmlandLarch
eH2aH2eH2aH2eH2aH2
Bacteria
    Nocardioidaceae (10, 9, 8)b0100700560
    Xanthomonadaceae (32, 29, 33)061690690
    Intrasporangiaceae (7, 6, 7)0435701000
    Sphingomonadaceae (13, 11, 12)0755402718
    Hyphomonadaceae (6, 6, 7)00500330
    Sphingobacteriaceae (8, 8, 8)0631313250
    Gemmatimonadaceae (30, 26, 28)1150713190
    S47 (6, 6, 6)05000017
    Frankiaceae (6, 6, 6)01700500
    0319-7L14OR (18, 14, 18)72001100
    RB25CL (9, 7, 9)670330140
    Flexibacteriaceae (19, 22, 20)6015160518
    OM190OR (6, 7, 7)570017014
    Bdellovibrionaceae (13, 9, 8)0005400
    Rhodobacteraceae (10, 8, 9)0110101350
Fungi
    Cortinariaceae (6, 14, 0)NAcNA0172164
    Helotiaceae (8, 22, 0)NANA250050
  • a The percentages shown are the proportions of OTUs that were more abundant in the aH2 or eH2 treatment for each land use type. This reduced data set consists of microbial families containing at least six OTUs and of which >50% of the OTUs responded to the treatment in at least one land use type.

  • b The values in parentheses are the numbers of OTUs found in the respective land use types.

  • c NA, not available.