SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
jobm201300818-sm-0001-SuppData-S1.doc17442K

Figure S1. Minimum evolution trees for bacterial 16S rRNA sequences (700 bp) obtained from eight clone libraries in control and salt addition groups: (A) C0; (B) C30; (C) C60; (D) J0; (E) J15; (F) J30; (G) J45; and (H) J60. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (500 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 50% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Jukes–Cantor model.

Figure S2. Cluster analysis of bacterial community based on T-RFLP data of samples in the control and salt addition groups.

Table S1. Descriptive statistics for environmental data and the abundance of bacteria, for the samples from control and salt addition groups during 60 continuous days.

Table S2. Phylogenetic affiliation and detection frequency of bacterial 16S rDNA sequences in eight clone libraries of control and salt addition groups.

Table S3. LIBSHUFF compares the homology and heterogeneity of the eight detected libraries generated from the control groups (0.3‰): C0, C30, and C60, and salt addition groups: J0 (salinity: 0.3‰), J15 (salinity: 1.5‰), J30 (salinity: 3.0‰), J45 (salinity: 35‰), and J60 (salinity: 90‰). Libraries considered to have no significant differences are listed.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.