Fig 1.
Different watermelon varieties with oval and circular shapes.
(a) Matured watermelon fruits growing in the same field with identical management. (b) Cross-sectional view of the watermelon fruits.
Table 1.
The primer sequence of rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria and fungi.
Fig 2.
Comparison of soil bacterial community structures in rhizospheres of OW, CW and BG.
(a) The Shannon index of soil bacterial diversity at the OTU level. (b) The Ace index of soil bacterial richness at the OTU level. (c) The Chao 1 index of soil bacterial richness at the OTU level. (d) PCoA of soil bacterial communities at the OTU level. (e) PLS-DA of soil bacterial communities at the OTU level. (f) Venn analyses of soil bacteria for the three treatments at the OTU level. (g) Compositions of dominant soil bacterial community at the phylum level. (h) Compositions of dominant soil bacterial community at the genus level. (i) LEfSe analysis of dominant soil bacteria (LDA > 3.5). *0.01 < P ≤ 0.05, **0.001 < P ≤ 0.01 using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The evolutionary level, from phylum to genus, is shown by circles. Each circle’s diameter varies according on how numerous the group is. Distinct prefixes (p: Phylum; c: Class; o: Order; f: Family; g: Genus) denote distinct levels. OW, oval watermelon; CW, circular watermelon; BG, background. The same as below.
Fig 3.
Comparison of soil fungal community structures in rhizospheres of OW, CW and BG.
(a) The Shannon index of soil fungal diversity at the OTU level. (b) The Ace index of soil fungal richness at the OTU level. (c) The Chao 1 index of soil fungal richness at the OTU level. (d) PCoA of soil fungal communities at the OTU level. (e) PLS-DA of soil fungal communities at the OTU level. (f) Venn analyses of soil fungal communities at the OTU level. (g) Compositions of dominant soil fungi at the phylum level. (h) Compositions of dominant soil fungi at the genus level. (i) LEfSe analysis of dominant soil fungi (LDA > 3.5).
Fig 4.
Comparison of endophytic bacterial community structures in stems between oval (OW) and circular watermelons (CW).
(a) The Shannon index of endophytic bacterial diversity at the OTU level. (b) The Ace index of endophytic bacterial richness at the OTU level. (c) The Chao 1 index of endophytic bacterial richness at the OTU level. (d) PCoA of endophytic bacterial communities at the OTU level. (e) PLS-DA of endophytic bacterial communities at the OTU level. (f) Venn analyses of endophytic bacteria for the two treatments at the OTU level. (g) Compositions of dominant endophytic bacterial communities at the phylum level. (h) Compositions of dominant endophytic bacterial communities at the genus level. (i) LEfSe analysis of dominant endophytic bacteria (LDA > 2.0).
Fig 5.
Comparison of endophytic fungal community structures in stems between oval (OW) and circular watermelons (CW).
(a) The Shannon index of endophytic fungal diversity at the OTU level. (b) The Ace index of endophytic fungal richness at the OTU level. (c) The Chao 1 index of endophytic fungal richness at the OTU level. (d) PCoA of endophytic fungal communities at the OTU level. (e) PLS-DA of endophytic fungal communities at the OTU level. (f) Venn analyses of endophytic fungi at the OTU level. (g) Compositions of dominant endophytic fungi at the phylum level. (h) Compositions of dominant endophytic fungi at the genus level. (d) LEfSe analysis of dominant endophytic fungi (LDA > 2.0).
Fig 6.
Phenotypic predictions of dominant rhizospheric (a, b, c) and endophytic (d) bacteria. *0.01 < P ≤ 0.05 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test).