Erratum to: Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (2006) 90:19–27 DOI 10.1007/s10482-006-9056-z

In the published article [1] we reported that Lysobacter sp. predominated in the rhizosphere bacterial communities of two sand dune plant species.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Representative ARDRA patterns of 16S rRNA gene clones derived from the bacterial community in the rhizosphere of sand dune plants. The arrow indicates the direction of electrophoresis

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Rarefaction curves based on the ARDRA typing of pooled 16S rRNA gene clones for the assessment of bacterial diversity in the sand dune plants

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of major bacterial taxa in the rhizosphere of sand dune plants. ALF, Alphaproteobacteria; BET, Betaproteobacteria; GAM, Gammaproteobacteria; BAC, Bacteroidetes; ACT, Actinobacteria; HA, Holophaga/Acidobacteria; VER, Verrucomicrobia

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Phylogenetic tree of representative 16S rRNA gene clones using partial sequences (461 nucleotides selected between positions 50 and 571 according to E. coli numbering system). Strains in bold letters indicate the clones, and the references are the isolates obtained from the previous study (Park et al., 2005)

Full size image
Table 1 Distribution of ARDRA types among 16S rRNA gene clones as determined using HaeIII
Full size table
Table 2 Diversity indices of bacterial community in the rhizosphere of sand dune plants based on the ARDRA types using HaeIII
Full size table

Regrettably, we have recently established that this finding was an artefact as the Lysobacter sequences in fact derived from a reagent (achromopeptidase) that was used in the DNA extraction protocol (we note that the supplier has now discontinued this product).

Clearly this finding invalidates the main conclusion of our paper (as highlighted by the original title). However, we are confident that the data relating to the other ARDRA types (and the representative 16S rRNA sequences reported) are a genuine representation of the rhizosphere microbiomes investigated. Thus, whilst the data and conclusions related to clone GAM1 (16S rRNA accession number DQ157047) are invalid, we hope that the other data reported remain of interest to the scientific community.

In this erratum, we provide revised tables and figures.