Search
2023 Volume 3
Article Contents
MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review

More Information
  • Human domestication of grasses has been pivotal to human civilization as a main caloric source, however this has come at the expense of decreased genetic diversity. As plants evolved alongside a plethora of microorganisms, some of them critical to plant growth and health, domesticated plants demonstrate consistently changed rhizobiomes, along with lowered tolerance to stress. In the last few decades, the interest in specific beneficial microorganisms to staple crops has been growing gradually, due to improved high-output data techniques, extensive research, and rising concerns on the production of enough food for a growing world population undergoing world climate change. Here, we review how wheat domestication trade-off effects may have impacted the recruitment of an ideal rhizobiome assembly, describe known wheat-specific beneficial species of both fungi and bacteria, and propose the exploration of wild relatives and indigenous species for identification and reinstatement of beneficial microbial interactions that may have been lost through the effects of domestication.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Diamond J. 2002. Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418:700−7

    doi: 10.1038/nature01019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Hancock JF. 2005. Contributions of domesticated plant studies to our understanding of plant evolution. Annals of Botany 96:953−63

    doi: 10.1093/aob/mci259

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Burke GR, Strand MR. 2012. Polydnaviruses of parasitic wasps: domestication of viruses to act as gene delivery vectors. Insects 3:91−119

    doi: 10.3390/insects3010091

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Gentles T. 1958. An observation of the domestication of aphids by ants. Blue Jay 16(4):172−74

    doi: 10.29173/bluejay2543

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Zeder MA, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, Bradley DG. 2006. Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends in Genetics 22:139−55

    doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Smartt J. 1990. Grain Legumes: Evolution and Genetic Resources. UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525483

    [7]

    Ramadoss D, Lakkineni VK, Bose P, Ali S, Annapurna K. 2013. Mitigation of salt stress in wheat seedlings by halotolerant bacteria isolated from saline habitats. SpringerPlus 2:6

    doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Chatrath R, Mishra B, Ortiz Ferrara G, Singh SK, Joshi AK. 2007. Challenges to wheat production in South Asia. Euphytica 157:447−56

    doi: 10.1007/s10681-007-9515-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Whitehead SR, Poveda K. 2019. Resource allocation trade-offs and the loss of chemical defences during apple domestication. Annals of Botany 123:1029−41

    doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Huang X, Wang B, Xi J, Zhang Y, He C, et al. 2018. Transcriptome comparison reveals distinct selection patterns in domesticated and wild Agave species, the important CAM plants. International Journal of Genomics 2018:5716518

    doi: 10.1155/2018/5716518

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Pérez-Jaramillo JE, Carrión VJ, de Hollander M, Raaijmakers JM. 2018. The wild side of plant microbiomes. Microbiome 6:143

    doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0519-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Lind EM, Borer E, Seabloom E, Adler P, Bakker JD, et al. 2013. Life-history constraints in grassland plant species: a growth-defence trade-off is the norm. Ecology Letters 16:513−21

    doi: 10.1111/ele.12078

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Gustafson P, Raskina O, Ma X, Nevo E. 2009. Wheat evolution, domestication, and improvement. In Wheat Science and Trade, ed. Carver BF. USA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780813818832.ch1

    [14]

    Abbo S, Pinhasi van-Oss R, Gopher A, Saranga Y, Ofner I, et al. 2014. Plant domestication versus crop evolution: a conceptual framework for cereals and grain legumes. Trends in Plant Science 19:351−60

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.12.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Peng JH, Sun D, Nevo E. 2011. Domestication evolution, genetics and genomics in wheat. Molecular Breeding 28:281−301

    doi: 10.1007/s11032-011-9608-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Koricheva J. 2002. Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83:176−90

    doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0176:MAOSOV]2.0.CO;2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Purugganan MD, Fuller DQ. 2009. The nature of selection during plant domestication. Nature 457:843−8

    doi: 10.1038/nature07895

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Karrenberg S, Suter M. 2003. Phenotypic trade-offs in the sexual reproduction of Salicaceae from flood Plains. American Journal of Botany 90:749−54

    doi: 10.3732/ajb.90.5.749

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Tenaillon MI, U'Ren J, Tenaillon O, Gaut BS. 2004. Selection versus demography: a multilocus investigation of the domestication process in maize. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21:1214−25

    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msh102

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Haudry A, Cenci A, Ravel C, Bataillon T, Brunel D, et al. 2007. Grinding up wheat: a massive loss of nucleotide diversity since domestication. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24:1506−17

    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm077

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Zaremba LS, Smoleński WH. 2000. Optimal portfolio choice under a liability constraint. Annals of Operations Research 97:131−41

    doi: 10.1023/A:1018996712442

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Mayrose M, Kane NC, Mayrose I, Dlugosch KM, Rieseberg LH. 2011. Increased growth in sunflower correlates with reduced defences and altered gene expression in response to biotic and abiotic stress. Molecular Ecology 20:4683−94

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05301.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Charmet G. 2011. Wheat domestication: lessons for the future. Comptes Rendus Biologies 334:212−20

    doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Harlan JR, de Wet JMJ, Price EG. 1973. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution 27:311−25

    doi: 10.2307/2406971

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Gioia T, Nagel KA, Beleggia R, Fragasso M, Ficco DBM, et al. 2015. Impact of domestication on the phenotypic architecture of durum wheat under contrasting nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Experimental Botany 66:5519−30

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv289

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Iannucci A, Fragasso M, Beleggia R, Nigro F, Papa R. 2017. Evolution of the crop rhizosphere: impact of domestication on root exudates in tetraploid wheat (Triticum turgidum L.). Frontiers in Plant Science 8:2124

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.02124

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Abdullaeva Y, Ambika Manirajan B, Honermeier B, Schnell S, Cardinale M. 2021. Domestication affects the composition, diversity, and co-occurrence of the cereal seed microbiota. Journal of Advanced Research 31:75−86

    doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.12.008

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504−9

    doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.504

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Pérez-Jaramillo JE, Mendes R, Raaijmakers JM. 2016. Impact of plant domestication on rhizosphere microbiome assembly and functions. Plant Molecular Biology 90:635−44

    doi: 10.1007/s11103-015-0337-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Robinson RJ, Fraaije BA, Clark IM, Jackson RW, Hirsch PR, et al. 2016. Endophytic bacterial community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum) is determined by plant tissue type, developmental stage and soil nutrient availability. Plant and Soil 405:381−96

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2495-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    López-Bucio J, Nieto-Jacobo MF, Ramírez-Rodríguez V, Herrera-Estrella L. 2000. Organic acid metabolism in plants: from adaptive physiology to transgenic varieties for cultivation in extreme soils. Plant Science 160:1−13

    doi: 10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00347-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    He L, Mazza Rodrigues JL, Soudzilovskaia NA, Barceló M, Olsson PA, et al. 2020. Global biogeography of fungal and bacterial biomass carbon in topsoil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry X:151

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Chatzav M, Peleg Z, Ozturk L, Yazici A, Fahima T, et al. 2010. Genetic diversity for grain nutrients in wild emmer wheat: potential for wheat improvement. Annals of Botany 105:1211−20

    doi: 10.1093/aob/mcq024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Drew GC, Stevens EJ, King KC. 2021. Microbial evolution and transitions along the parasite-mutualist continuum. Nature Reviews Microbiology 19:623−38

    doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00550-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Mendes R, Garbeva P, Raaijmakers JM. 2013. The rhizosphere microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 37:634−63

    doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12028

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Levy A, Conway JM, Dangl JL, Woyke T. 2018. Elucidating bacterial gene functions in the plant microbiome. Cell Host & Microbe 24:475−85

    doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2018.09.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Yang J, Kloepper JW, Ryu CM. 2009. Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress. Trends in Plant Science 14:1−4

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Sharma MP, Srivastava K, Sharma SK. 2010. Biochemical characterization and metabolic diversity of soybean rhizobia isolated from Malwa region of Central India. Plant, Soil and Environment 56:375−83

    doi: 10.17221/247/2009-PSE

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Narula N, Deubel A, Gans W, Behl RK, Merbach W. 2006. Paranodules and colonization of wheat roots by phytohormone producing bacteria in soil. Plant, Soil and Environment 52:119−29

    doi: 10.17221/3355-PSE

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Kenawy A, Dailin DJ, Abo-Zaid GA, Malek RA, Ambehabati KK, et al. 2019. Biosynthesis of antibiotics by PGPR and their roles in biocontrol of plant diseases. In Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Stress Management . Microorganisms for Sustainability, ed. Sayyed R. vol 13. Singapore: Springer. pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6986-5_1

    [41]

    Fernando WGD, Ramarathnam R, Krishnamoorthy AS, Savchuk SC. 2005. Identification and use of potential bacterial organic antifungal volatiles in biocontrol. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37(5):955−64

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.021

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Chen Q, Cui H, Su J, Penuelas J, Zhu Y. 2019. Antibiotic resistomes in plant microbiomes. Trends in Plant Science 24:530−41

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.02.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Adesemoye AO, Torbert HA, Kloepper JW. 2008. Enhanced plant nutrient use efficiency with PGPR and AMF in an integrated nutrient management system. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 54:876−86

    doi: 10.1139/W08-081

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Abbasi MK, Sharif S, Kazmi M, Sultan T, Aslam M. 2011. Isolation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on improving growth, yield and nutrient uptake of plants. Plant Biosystems - an International Journal Dealing With All Aspects of Plant Biology 145:159−68

    doi: 10.1080/11263504.2010.542318

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    El-Borollosy AM, Oraby MM. 2012. Induced systemic resistance against Cucumber mosaic Cucumovirus and promotion of cucumber growth by some plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annals of Agricultural Sciences 57:91−97

    doi: 10.1016/j.aoas.2012.08.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Saskia KS bohm, Maria G, Jasper H, Wietse M, Garbeva P, et al. 2018. The Role of Soil Beneficial Bacteria in Wheat Production: A Review. Phytobiomes J 1(3):1−26

    doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Sayyed RZ. 2019. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Stress Management. 2:XVI, 419. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6986-5

    [48]

    Jetiyanon K, Kloepper JW. 2002. Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases. Biological Control 24:285−91

    doi: 10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00022-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Çakmakçı R, Turan M, Güllüce M, Şahin F. 2014. Rhizobacteria for reduced fertilizer inputs in wheat (Triticum aestivum spp. vulgare) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) on Aridisols in Turkey. International Journal of Plant Production 8:163−82

    Google Scholar

    [50]

    Adesemoye AO, Torbert HA, Kloepper JW. 2009. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria allow reduced application rates of chemical fertilizers. Microbial Ecology 58:921−29

    doi: 10.1007/s00248-009-9531-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Ilyas N, Mumtaz K, Akhtar N, Yasmin H, Sayyed RZ, et al. 2020. Exopolysaccharides producing bacteria for the amelioration of drought stress in wheat. Sustainability 12:8876

    doi: 10.3390/su12218876

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    Strickland MS, Rousk J. 2010. Considering fungal: bacterial dominance in soils–Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42:1385−95

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Bardgett RD, Hobbs PJ, Frostegård Å. 1996. Changes in soil fungal: bacterial biomass ratios following reductions in the intensity of management of an upland grassland. Biology and Fertility of Soils 22:261−64

    doi: 10.1007/BF00382522

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Zhu X, Song F, Liu S, Liu F. 2016. Arbuscular mycorrhiza improve growth, nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen use efficiency in wheat grown under elevated CO2. Mycorrhiza 26:133−40

    doi: 10.1007/s00572-015-0654-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Abdel-Salam E, Alatar A, El-Sheikh MA. 2018. Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alleviates harmful effects of drought stress on damask rose. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 25:1772−80

    doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.10.015

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Begum N, Qin C, Ahanger MA, Raza S, Khan MI, et al. 2019. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: implications in abiotic stress tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:1068

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01068

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Thirkell TJ, Charters MD, Elliott AJ, Sait SM, Field KJ. 2017. Are mycorrhizal fungi our sustainable saviours? Considerations for achieving food security Journal of Ecology 105:921−29

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12788

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Darmwal NS, Gaur AC. 1988. Associative effect of cellulolytic fungi and Azospirillum lipoferum on yield and nitrogen uptake by wheat. Plant and Soil 107:211−18

    doi: 10.1007/BF02370549

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Ridout M, Newcombe G. 2016. Disease suppression in winter wheat from novel symbiosis with forest fungi. Fungal Ecology 20:40−48

    doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2015.10.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Links MG, Demeke T, Gräfenhan T, Hill JE, Hemmingsen SM, et al. 2014. Simultaneous profiling of seed-associated bacteria and fungi reveals antagonistic interactions between microorganisms within a shared epiphytic microbiome on Triticum and Brassica seeds. New Phytologist 202:542−53

    doi: 10.1111/nph.12693

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Xiao C, Chi R, He H, Qiu G, Wang D, et al. 2009. Isolation of phosphate-solubilizing fungi from phosphate mines and their effect on wheat seedling growth. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 159:330−42

    doi: 10.1007/s12010-009-8590-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62]

    Khokhar I, Haider MS, Mukhtar I, Ali A, Mushtaq S, et al. 2013. Effect of Penicillium species culture filtrate on seedling growth of wheat. International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science 3:24−29

    Google Scholar

    [63]

    Schlaeppi K, Bulgarelli D. 2015. The plant microbiome at work. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions® 28:212−17

    doi: 10.1094/MPMI-10-14-0334-FI

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64]

    Philippot L, Raaijmakers JM, Lemanceau P, van der Putten WH. 2013. Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nature Reviews Microbiology 11:789−99

    doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3109

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [65]

    Hinsinger P, Gobran GR, Gregory PJ, Wenzel WW. 2005. Rhizosphere geometry and heterogeneity arising from root-mediated physical and chemical processes. New Phytologist 168:293−303

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01512.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66]

    Preece C, Peñuelas J. 2020. A return to the wild: root exudates and food security. Trends in Plant Science 25:14−21

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.09.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67]

    Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM. 2006. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annual Review of Plant Biology 57:233−66

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105159

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68]

    Jones DL, Nguyen C, Finlay RD. 2009. Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil–root interface. Plant and Soil 321:5−33

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-9925-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69]

    Badri DV, Vivanco JM. 2009. Regulation and function of root exudates. Plant, Cell & Environment 32:666−81

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01926.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70]

    Ahmad S, Veyrat N, Gordon-Weeks R, Zhang Y, Martin J, et al. 2011. Benzoxazinoid metabolites regulate innate immunity against aphids and fungi in maize. Plant Physiology 157:317−27

    doi: 10.1104/pp.111.180224

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71]

    Schenkel D, Lemfack MC, Piechulla B, Splivallo R. 2015. A meta-analysis approach for assessing the diversity and specificity of belowground root and microbial volatiles. Frontiers in Plant Science 6:707

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00707

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72]

    Pineda A, Kaplan I, Bezemer TM. 2017. Steering soil microbiomes to suppress aboveground insect pests. Trends in Plant Science 22:770−78

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.07.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73]

    Niculaes C, Abramov A, Hannemann L, Frey M. 2018. Plant protection by benzoxazinoids—recent insights into biosynthesis and function. Agronomy 8:143

    doi: 10.3390/agronomy8080143

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74]

    Haichar FEZ, Santaella C, Heulin T, Achouak W. 2014. Root exudates mediated interactions belowground. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 77:69−80

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [75]

    Sasse J, Martinoia E, Northen T. 2018. Feed your friends: do plant exudates shape the root microbiome? Trends in Plant Science 23:25−41

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.09.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [76]

    Johnston-Monje D, Mousa WK, Lazarovits G, Raizada MN. 2014. Impact of swapping soils on the endophytic bacterial communities of pre-domesticated, ancient and modern maize. BMC Plant Biology 14:233

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-014-0233-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [77]

    Johnston-Monje D, Raizada MN. 2011. Conservation and diversity of seed associated endophytes in Zea across boundaries of evolution, ethnography and ecology. PLoS One 6:e20396

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020396

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [78]

    Zhou X, Wang J, Zhang Z, Li W, Chen W, et al. 2020. Microbiota in the rhizosphere and seed of rice from China, with reference to their transmission and biogeography. Frontiers in Microbiology 11:995

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00995

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [79]

    Schlaeppi K, Dombrowski N, Oter RG, van Themaat EVL, Schulze-Lefert P. 2014. Quantitative divergence of the bacterial root microbiota in Arabidopsis thaliana relatives. PNAS 111:585−92

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321597111

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [80]

    Edwards J, Johnson C, Santos-Medellín C, Lurie E, Podishetty NK, et al. 2015. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice. PNAS 112:E911−E920

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423603112

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [81]

    Szoboszlay M, Lambers J, Chappell J, Kupper JV, Moe LA, et al. 2015. Comparison of root system architecture and rhizosphere microbial communities of Balsas teosinte and domesticated corn cultivars. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 80:34−44

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [82]

    Bulgarelli D, Schlaeppi K, Spaepen S, van Themaat EVL, Schulze-Lefert P. 2013. Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology 64:807−38

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [83]

    Schnorr SL, Candela M, Rampelli S, Centanni M, Consolandi C, et al. 2014. Gut microbiome of the hadza hunter-gatherers. Nature Communications 5:3654

    doi: 10.1038/ncomms4654

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [84]

    Hetrick BAD, Wilson GWT, Figge DAH. 1994. The influence of mycorrhizal symbiosis and fertilizer amendments on establishment of vegetation in heavy metal mine spoil. Environmental Pollution 86:171−79

    doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(94)90188-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [85]

    Aleklett K, Leff JW, Fierer N, Hart M. 2015. Wild plant species growing closely connected in a subalpine meadow host distinct root-associated bacterial communities. PeerJ 3:e804

    doi: 10.7717/peerj.804

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [86]

    Abdullaeva Y, Ratering S, Ambika Manirajan B, Rosado-Porto D, Schnell S, et al. 2022. Domestication impacts the wheat-associated microbiota and the rhizosphere colonization by seed- and soil-originated microbiomes, across different fields. Frontiers in Plant Science 12:806915

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.806915

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [87]

    Berlemont R, Martiny AC. 2015. Genomic potential for polysaccharide deconstruction in bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 81:1513−19

    doi: 10.1128/AEM.03718-14

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [88]

    Javed MT, Akram MS, Tanwir K, Javed Chaudhary H, Ali Q, et al. 2017. Cadmium spiked soil modulates root organic acids exudation and ionic contents of two differentially Cd tolerant maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 141:216−25

    doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.03.027

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [89]

    Albuzio A, Ferrari G. 1989. Modulation of the molecular size of humic substances by organic acids of the root exudates. Plant and Soil 113:237−41

    doi: 10.1007/BF02280186

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [90]

    Oleghe E, Naveed M, Baggs EM, Hallett PD. 2017. Plant exudates improve the mechanical conditions for root penetration through compacted soils. Plant and Soil 421:19−30

    doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3424-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [91]

    Cortés AJ, Monserrate FA, Ramírez-Villegas J, Madriñán S, Blair MW. 2013. Drought tolerance in wild plant populations: the case of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). PLoS One 8:e62898

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062898

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [92]

    Pérez-Jaramillo JE, Carrión VJ, Bosse M, Ferrão LFV, de Hollander M, et al. 2017. Linking rhizosphere microbiome composition of wild and domesticated Phaseolus vulgaris to genotypic and root phenotypic traits. The ISME Journal 11:2244−57

    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.85

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [93]

    Placido DF, Campbell MT, Folsom JJ, Cui X, Kruger GR, et al. 2013. Introgression of novel traits from a wild wheat relative improves drought adaptation in wheat. Plant Physiology 161:1806−19

    doi: 10.1104/pp.113.214262

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [94]

    Bacher H, Zhu F, Gao T, Liu K, Dhatt BK, et al. 2021. Wild emmer introgression alters root-to-shoot growth dynamics in durum wheat in response to water stress. Plant Physiology 187:1149−62

    doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiab292

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [95]

    Waines JG, Ehdaie B. 2007. Domestication and crop physiology: roots of green-revolution wheat. Annals of Botany 100:991−98

    doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm180

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [96]

    Al-Karaki GN, Al-Raddad A. 1997. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and drought stress on growth and nutrient uptake of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Mycorrhiza 7:83−8888

    doi: 10.1007/s005720050166

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [97]

    Hetrick BAD, Wilson GWT, Gill BS, Cox TS. 1995. Chromosome location of mycorrhizal responsive genes in wheat. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:891−97

    Google Scholar

    [98]

    Boscaiu M, Donat PM, Llinares J, Vicente O. 2012. Stress-tolerant wild plants: a source of knowledge and biotechnological tools for the genetic improvement of stress tolerance in crop plants. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 40:323−27

    doi: 10.15835/nbha4028199

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [99]

    Sharma S, Sharma R, Pujar M, Yadav D, Yadav Y, et al. 2021. Use of wild Pennisetum species for improving biotic and abiotic stress tolerance in pearl millet. Crop Science 61:289−304

    doi: 10.1002/csc2.20408

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [100]

    Rubio Teso ML, Lara-Romero C, Rubiales D, Parra-Quijano M, Iriondo JM. 2022. Searching for abiotic tolerant and biotic stress resistant wild lentils for introgression breeding through predictive characterization. Frontiers in Plant Science 13:817849

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.817849

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [101]

    Lau JA, Lennon JT. 2011. Evolutionary ecology of plant-microbe interactions: soil microbial structure alters selection on plant traits. New Phytologist 192:215−24

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03790.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [102]

    Rolli E, Marasco R, Vigani G, Ettoumi B, Mapelli F, et al. 2015. Improved plant resistance to drought is promoted by the root-associated microbiome as a water stress-dependent trait. Environmental Microbiology 17:316−31

    doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12439

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [103]

    Chaluvadi S, Bennetzen JL. 2018. Species-associated differences in the below-ground microbiomes of wild and domesticated Setaria. Frontiers in Plant Science 9:1183

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01183

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [104]

    Pérez-Jaramillo JE, de Hollander M, Ramírez CA, Mendes R, Raaijmakers JM, et al. 2019. Deciphering rhizosphere microbiome assembly of wild and modern common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in native and agricultural soils from Colombia. Microbiome 7:114

    doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0727-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [105]

    Lugtenberg B, Kamilova F. 2009. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology 63:541−56

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.162918

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [106]

    Germida J, Siciliano S. 2001. Taxonomic diversity of bacteria associated with the roots of modern, recent and ancient wheat cultivars. Biology and Fertility of Soils 33:410−15

    doi: 10.1007/s003740100343

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [107]

    Martínez-Romero E, Aguirre-Noyola JL, Taco-Taype N, Martínez-Romero J, Zuñiga-Dávila D. 2020. Plant microbiota modified by plant domestication. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 43:126106

    doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2020.126106

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Blaschkauer M, Rachmilevitch S. 2023. Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review. Grass Research 3:5 doi: 10.48130/GR-2023-0005
    Blaschkauer M, Rachmilevitch S. 2023. Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review. Grass Research 3:5 doi: 10.48130/GR-2023-0005

Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

Article Metrics

Article views(4076) PDF downloads(453)

Other Articles By Authors

MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review

Grass Research  3 Article number: 5  (2023)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Human domestication of grasses has been pivotal to human civilization as a main caloric source, however this has come at the expense of decreased genetic diversity. As plants evolved alongside a plethora of microorganisms, some of them critical to plant growth and health, domesticated plants demonstrate consistently changed rhizobiomes, along with lowered tolerance to stress. In the last few decades, the interest in specific beneficial microorganisms to staple crops has been growing gradually, due to improved high-output data techniques, extensive research, and rising concerns on the production of enough food for a growing world population undergoing world climate change. Here, we review how wheat domestication trade-off effects may have impacted the recruitment of an ideal rhizobiome assembly, describe known wheat-specific beneficial species of both fungi and bacteria, and propose the exploration of wild relatives and indigenous species for identification and reinstatement of beneficial microbial interactions that may have been lost through the effects of domestication.

    • Humans have domesticated plants and animals since the Neolithic revolution around 13,000 years ago, which enabled the first sedentary agricultural societies and eventual development of human societies[1]. In domestication processes, morphological and physiological changes in plant and animal traits are chosen and developed through specific nurturing and breeding of wild species for the enhancement of specific beneficial traits[2]. While humans have had by far the highest success rate in domesticating species, in number and geographical area, domestication is in no way specific or limited to homo sapiens, as ants have been observed to domesticate aphids, viruses have been domesticated by parasitic wasps, and more[3,4]. Indeed, by looking at domestication as a type of co-evolution between two species, for reciprocal fitness increases and geographic spread, we can assume domestication to be a specific kind of mutualism, in which both species nurture one another for traits through multispecies interactions[5].

      Grasses are among the most important staple crops for human use. Historically, wheat (triticum sp.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) were the two first domesticated plants, followed by maize (Zea mays) and rice (Oryza sativa), with many more following for indirect consumption trough fodder, or industrial uses, like rye-grass (Lolium sp.) and cottons (Gossypim sp.) respectively[6]. Wheat, maize and rice are the three major cereal crops cultivated and consumed world wide, supplying food, feed and industrial raw materials for more than one-third of the world's population as both spring and winter crops[7,8]. Wheat is the second most produced staple crop, after maize (World food situation: FAO cereal supply and demand brief, 2016), while using the most land area compared to any other food crop, at 220.4 MHa (United Nations, 2016). Among the main producers, most are situated in areas under critical danger of desertification, according to UNEP's 1997 World Atlas of Desertification (2nd Edition), as can be seen in Fig. 1, and as such, the food production growth needed to feed the world population up to 2050 will come 90% from intensification of existing agricultural systems, and only 10% from expanding arable land.

      Figure 1. 

      Correlation between main wheat producer world areas and extent of soil degradation, according to Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) 2018 reports and UNEP's 1997 World Atlas of Desertification (2nd Edition).

    • In plants, domestication is usually associated with phenotypic traits like germination success rates, size, seed retention, root architecture, and other physiological and morphological traits, in functions of desired edibility and usage of specific plant organs[911]. From the plant's point of view, the development of such traits will depend on a shift in resource allocation, usually from stress tolerance, towards growth and reproduction[12,13].

      The genetic suite of traits marking the divergence from a crop's wild relative is called 'domestication syndrome' and will take place biochemically as a conversion from the production of growth-related primary metabolites (common among all plants) to defense-related secondary metabolites that will be unique to the plant species, and/or to the event that induced their synthesis[14,15]. This exchange is critical since plant resources are limited and its defenses are metabolically expensive, carbon and nitrogen-wise[16]. The amplification of a defensive trait is usually generated through specific selection of individual genes and their neighboring regions (between 10−100 kb)[17] thus also possibly affecting random non-deleterious genes. Indeed, tradeoffs can also happen naturally due to the genetic links and placement of genes in chromosomes, as observed in Salicaceae seeds for example, which demonstrate a tradeoff between seed number and seed mass naturally, with seed mass strongly correlating with seed longevity[18]. This tradeoff can then easily turn into a genetic bottleneck in dry seasons since the species depends on plain floods for its survival. Thus, natural and artificial (anthropogenic) causes will eventually bring forth a reduction in gene diversity, as can be observed in the domesticated maize (Zea mays ssp. Mays), which demonstrates a loss of 38% in nucleotide diversity in comparison to its ancestor (Zea mays ssp. Parviglumis)[19], and in wheat that demonstrated 69% and 84% reduced diversity in bread and durum wheat respectively[20]. Many other cultivars, like corn, olives and sunflowers have been compared with their wild ancestors and show that the hypothesis of a trade-off between increased yields and defenses to be widely supported[12,21,22].

      The domestication of wheat is especially well recorded due to the species importance to humans, with its first polyploidization event occurring around 500,000−150,000 years before the present, to form a new amphi-tetraploid species with 14 chromosome pairs named Triticum turgidum L. sp dicoccoides, which was in turn domesticated to form Triticum dicoccum – the direct ancestor of durum wheat. A second polyploidization occurred around the Neolithic (Agriculture) revolution ~10,000 years before present, between Triticum dicoccum and the wild diploid species Triticum tauschii to form the modern hexaploid Triticum aestivum – the 'bread wheat'[23], characterized by traits like reduced maturity shattering of spikelet, glume reduction, loss of seed dormancy, increased carbohydrates and decreased proteins and minerals in the seed's germplasm[24].

      Additional phenotypical differences between domesticated and wild emmer have been observed to include increased shoot biomass in general, with higher total leaf area, and shoot fresh weight in particular, among the domesticated varieties in comparison to their wild counterparts[25]. Also, underground phenotypical differences to the plant's root architecture have also been observed to be substantial, with root biomass in general[26], and specific traits like primary and total root length, depth, width and dry weight in particular being observed to be higher in domesticated genotypes, compared to wild ones[25]. Differences were also observed in the exudation profile of the root's system among domesticated and wild genotypes, were despite the observation of general increase in exudation of organic compounds[27] in domesticated genotypes, specific compounds like poly alcohols, were found to be significantly higher in the wild emmer than in domesticated durum varieties[26].

      It is important to state that along the plant's domesticated traits, its environment also had progressive changes, with human development and agrotechnical advances like increasing inputs of chemicals as fertilization and pesticides – leading to a decrease in both necessity and capacity of plants to self-support naturally[28], along direct changes to the soil physical, chemical, and microbial components[29]. Indeed, higher abundances of bacterial endophytes have been observed in wheat rhizosphere under low nutrients treatment[30], which along an increased amount of organic acids released into the rhizosphere in nutrient-poor plants[31], both support the theory that the domestication syndrome of wheat, as far as its effects on its rhizobiome, was driven by both genetics and human manipulation of agricultural soil.

    • The rhizosphere harbors a substantial number of microorganisms interacting with roots, with bacteria and fungi accounting for more than 90% of the total soil microbial biomass[32,33]. Fungi and bacteria in the soil interact with plants along a parasite-mutualist continuum, in which the microbes may harm or benefit its host as a function of the relative benefits and costs to each species[34]. Indeed, soil microorganisms play an essential part on plants' health and performance by positively or negatively manipulating their biochemistry, development and physiology[35].

      Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), microorganisms that colonize the rhizosphere and roots, are known to improve both yields and tolerance of biotic and abiotic stresses in plants[36,37]. PGPRs can also help enhance plant growth through nitrogen fixation[38], hormonal secretions[39], specific antifungal and antibiotic activity[4042], facilitation of essential minerals uptake[43,44] and induction of systemic resistance[4548]. Specific strains have been found to help reduce the need for chemical fertilizers while maintaining commercially viable yields and grain quality[49] thus contributing to local and global environment by decreasing non-renewable resource dependence[50]. Furthermore, different studies demonstrate that there is also potential for exopolysaccharides (EPS) producing bacteria, like Bacillus subtilis and Azospirillum brasilense in water-stress amelioration[51].

      Fungi also play a critical role in the rhizospheric microbial community, having a total soil microbial biomass ratio of fungi: bacteria ranging from 1:1 in agricultural soils and up to 1000:1 in coniferous forests[52], as intensity of soil management shows a high correlation to lower values, a phenomenon commonly thought to be caused by tillage and fertilization[53]. The Glomeromycota Arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) for example, are considered a main player in maintaining soil carbon pools, as it can forms symbiotic relationships with nearly 90% of all plant species[54,55] by adding their hyphae to plant's roots, thus increasing the plant's water and mineral uptake network[56]. AMF will also expedite decomposition of organic matter, improving soil structure and nutrient carriage capacity[57]. Other fungi species have been found to increase grain yield, nitrogen uptake[58], alleviate biotic and abiotic stresses[59,60], promote growth through phosphorous solubility in soil[61] and increase seedling roots[62], among many other benefits.

      As such, maintaining a beneficial and healthy rhizospheric community, should be in the plants' human caretakers best interests[63] as partially summarized for wheat in Table 1 (bacteria) and Table 2 (fungi) below.

      Table 1.  Known PGPR species for wheat.

      OrganismBenefitSource
      Azospirillum brasilensis Sp. 245Growth rate. Water stress alleviation(Alvarez, Sueldo, and Barassi 2015)
      Azospirillum lipoferumWater stress alleviation(Agami, Ghramh, and Hashem 2017)
      Burkholderia phytofirmansWater use efficiency. Grain yield. Photosynthetic rates(Poupin 2015)
      Bacillus amyloliquefaciensTemperature stress alleviation(Tiwari et al. 2017)
      Azospirillum brasilense Sp245Temperature stress alleviation(Hernaández-esquivel and Castro-mercado 2020)
      Pseudomonas PutidaTemperature stress alleviation(Zulfikar Ali et al. 2011)
      Pseudomonas fluorescensSalt stress alleviation(Fathalla and El-Mageed 2020)
      Pantoea agglomeransTemperature stress alleviation(Cherif-Silini et al. 2019)
      Mycobacterium spTemperature stress alleviation(Dilfuza Egamberdieva and Phylogeny 2014)
      Pseudomonas PutidaWater stress alleviation(Mahmoudi et al. 2019)
      Pseudomonas extremorientalisSalinity tolerance(D. Egamberdieva 2011)
      Pseudomonas chlororaphisSalinity stress alleviation (Mahmoudi et al. 2019)
      Bacillus pumilusSalinity stress alleviation. Proline accumulation. P solubilization(Ansari, Ahmad, and Pichtel 2019)
      Hallobacillus sp. SL3Root length. Dry weight(Ramadoss et al. 2013)
      Enterobacter asburiaeNumber of tillers. Grain weight. Growth rates(Kang et al. 2015)
      Pseudomonas aureantiacaIncreased seedling root growth(Dilfuza Egamberdieva 2009)
      Bacillus safensisIncrease in root and shoot biomass, height of plants, yield, as well as increase in chlorophyll content(Chakraborty et al. 2013)
      Aeromonas hydrophila/caviae (strain MAS-765Increased the dry matter yield of roots and shoots(Ashraf, Hasnain, and Berge 2004)
      Bacillus mojavensisIncrease in root and shoot weight, chlorophyll content, and nutrient uptake under salt stress(Pourbabaee AA, Bahmani E, Alikhani HA 2016)
      Lactobacillus plantarumIncreased PGPR abundance(Agnolucci et al. 2019)
      Stenotrophomonas rhizophilaBiotic stress resistance(Liu et al. 2021)
      Curtobacterium flaccumfaciensGrowth promotor under drought(Hone et al. 2021)

      Table 2.  Known beneficial fungi species for wheat.

      OrganismBenefitsSource
      Morchella snyderiIncreased root systems, biotic and abiotic stress alleviation(Ridout and Newcombe 2016)
      Penicillium sp.Abiotic stress alleviation
      Rhizophagus irregularisNutrient uptake, growth, and yield(Li et al. 2018)
      Penicillum expansumGrowth promotors trough P solubility in soil(Xiao et al. 2009)
      Mucor ramosissimus
      Candida krissii
      Azospirillum lipoferumGrain yield increase, nitrogen uptake(Gaur 1988)
      Trichoderma sp.Systemic resistance, mycotoxin suppression, seed germination rate increase(Basinska-Barczak Aneta 2020) (Basinska-Barczak Aneta 2020) (Nawrocka and Małolepsza 2013)
      Funneliformis mosseaeIncreased nutrient content, lower free radicals and increased root area under salt stress(Links et al. 2014)
      Penicillium olivicolorIncreased seedling root(Khokhar et al. 2013)
      Sebacina VermiferaIncreased biomass along resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses.(Ray and Craven 2016)
      Chaetomium sp.Biotic stress alleviation(Blaszczyk, Salamon, and Katarzyna 2021)
      Gloms etunicatum
      Glomus intraradices
      Increased micro and macronutrients uptake in seedlings(Mardukhi et al. 2011)
      Aspergillus nigerCatalase activity, nitrifier (Ripa et al. 2019)
      Aspergilus flavus
    • In the past decade, with increasing understanding of the importance of the relationship between plants and their soil microbiome, the shaping of a plant's rhizobiome has come under study[64]. The 'Rhizospheric effect' (RE), defined as the chemical, biological and physical changes in the immediate vicinity of plants roots in the soil, and including the apoplastic spaces inside roots (the 'endorhizosphere'), is created through root exudates, decomposition of organic matter and rhizodeposition[65]. These will modify the soil environment in a way that will benefit the plant through recruitment of specific microorganisms, thus forming a distinct micro-environment and microbiome living within it[65,66].

      It is estimated that plants allocate around 10% of all their fixed carbon (reaching up to 30%−40% of total fixed carbon in seedlings[67]) to compounds intended to be exuded to the rhizosphere[68]. These exudates can contain protons (H+), oxygen, water and inorganic acids, but mainly consist of primary and secondary metabolites, like amino acids, carbohydrates, organic acids, flavonoids, glucosinolates, hormones and etc.[69]. These compounds have shown to mediate interactions between the plant and its surroundings, from the immediate physical characteristics of the soil to other organisms like other plants, fungi, microbes insects or even herbivores[60,7073]. Specific root exudates such as strigolactones and flavonoids for example, have been observed to play critical roles in communication between plants and rhizospheric microbes, from attracting beneficial PGPRs and mycorrhizal fungi, to staving off parasites[74].

      The microbial composition of the rhizosphere has been observed to develop through both recruitment of a specific subset from the existing community in the soil[75], and through the seed's microbiome, inherited from its maternal tissues[76,77]. While there are various factors to the strength of the RE (and thus, the distinction of the new microbiome and rhizospheric physical properties from the bulk soil), the seed microbiome and its genotype have been observed to have a greater effect than the soil existing microbial community[77,78].

    • Although not all plants have been observed to maintain a distinct rhizobiome from the bulk soil, like in the case of rice and Arabidopsis[79,80], among those that do, it has been found that the rhizobiomes of domesticated crops have shown to differ significantly from their wild relatives[81,82].

      Shifts in bacterial abundance and community composition are common in many domesticated interactions across evolutionary kingdoms. For example, a higher abundance of Bacteroidetes were found in the gut of hunter-gatherers' individuals of rural regions than in their modern, 'westernized' counterparts[83]. In plants, a general negative effect on the capacity for the formation of new symbiotic associations with PGPRs and mycorrhiza has been observed[29] in addition to decreased ability to benefit from existing mycorrhizal presence[84] in domesticated cultivars in comparison to their wild counterparts. Meta-analysis of root microbiome compositions consistently shows an enrichment in Bacteroidetes in wild relatives, while the predominant families in domesticated varieties are mainly Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria[11,85,86]. The exact mode of interaction between Bacteroidetes and roots is still unknown, but a cautious assumption on the dependency on root exudates can be argued based on the phylum's recognized capacity to degrade complex organic polymers[87].

      It is also relevant to observe that in addition to the exudates' direct effects on the rhizobiome, there is also the indirect effect of the complexity and extent of root's presence effects on physical soil properties like pH[88], carbon content[89] and compaction[90], which cannot be ignored and has yet to be further studied and fully understood.

      Root architecture, as it reflects closely the rhizospheric microbial architecture[65] must also be considered in addition to their exudates profile when comparing domesticated and wild plant varieties. Wild bean for example, which is known for its higher drought tolerance in comparison to its domesticated relative[91] demonstrates higher specific root length (SRL, i.e., root length per unit of root dry mass) and lower root density[92]. High SRL has been associated with higher efficiency of water search and uptake of nutrients in low water and nutrients soils, but the specific biochemistry of this correlation has not been clarified up to now. In wheat we see that wild relatives like Agropyron elongatum and T. turgidum spp. Dicoccoides demonstrate improved water stress adaptation in comparison to modern cultivars, seemingly through increased root biomass[93,94] and that in general, modern cultivars consistently demonstrate smaller shoot systems than their wild and older counterparts[95].

      As a possible result of both architecture, exudates and probably other unknown parameters (such as carbon partitioning in the plant) differing between modern and wild wheat, we see also that in general, modern domesticated tetraploid and hexaploid (durum and bread accordingly) genotypes demonstrate a lower MD (mycorrhizal dependence – the degree of dependence on mycorrhizal symbiosis for maximum growth and yield) than their wild ancestors counterparts like T. tauschii[96]. Likewise, it is relevant to mention that domestication effects are still in development as observed by Hetrick et al., where it is described how varieties developed after 1975 had lower MD than those developed earlier[97].

    • A correlation can then be suggested, between the observed loss of genetic variability in domesticated plants in general and grasses in particular, and the limited capacity for interaction and recruitment of beneficial microorganisms, along other morphological and physiological domestication syndrome traits. Indeed, as wild crops are consistently more tolerant to stresses than their domesticated counterparts[98100], and the extensive observed benefits of microorganisms' presence in tolerance of biotic and abiotic stresses[40,101,102], we can carefully assume that a part of the wild cultivar's durability to biotic and abiotic stresses is due to the biome it has recruited from the soil and inherited through maternal tissues in the seed. Indeed, wild genotypes microbiomes are proven to be consistently more diverse than their domesticated counterparts[92,103,104].

      While a number of successfully developed commercial field crops inoculant exist based on popular and well-characterized species and strains of both fungi and bacteria, these products usually have unpredictable and unexpected lower performance in the field, due to the complexity of parameters in vivo and in situ between the product microbes, host and environment[99,105]. The gap between the expected positive effect of an inoculant, and its efficacy in the field, highlights the possibility that the use of microbial products, should be tailor-made for specific crops, climates, soils and geography, most of which would be solved by searching for specific microbes from the crop's wild relative's rhizobiome.

      Latest studies elucidating specific differences in seed biomes between domesticated and wild genotypes, have shown various Pseudomonas ssp. (known to include several species beneficial in regard to general health, productivity, and even bio-control in plants)[27], and some Enterobacteria (known to include common PGPR species) species to appear in higher abundance in wild species seed metagenomes than in domesticated ones[106]. Also in rice, studies have found that despite the fact that both domesticated and wild species contained methylotropic and methanogenic archaea, some specific beneficial methanotrophs (Methylococcaceae and Methylocystaceae) had a higher affinity for the wild rice species[107] and could be further studied for their possible potential in domesticated crops.

      These differences between various domesticated and wild genotypes represent a significant untapped potential for discovery of novel beneficial strains for agricultural crops, in a world focusing on the challenges of feeding a growing world population under changing climates.

      Moreover, as domesticated cultivars have lost their communication and recruitment capacity, it is up to agriculture's human caretakers to take up the call and reestablish the beneficial dynamics between plants and its original biome.

      • This work has been partly financed by the Goldinger Trust, The Irving Goldman Foundation inc.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2023 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (1)  Table (2) References (107)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Blaschkauer M, Rachmilevitch S. 2023. Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review. Grass Research 3:5 doi: 10.48130/GR-2023-0005
    Blaschkauer M, Rachmilevitch S. 2023. Domestication in wheat affects its rhizobiome recruitment capacity: a review. Grass Research 3:5 doi: 10.48130/GR-2023-0005

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return