01928naa a2200505 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902400440006010000180010424501090012226000090023130000150024052006030025565000150085865000170087365000160089065000120090665000180091865000220093665000150095865000160097365300180098965300220100770000120102970000160104170000140105770000160107170000170108770000150110470000150111970000160113470000120115070000190116270000130118170000150119470000170120970000270122670000170125370000200127070000180129070000200130870000170132870000190134577300580136419720882026-01-21       2013    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d7 ahttps://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct1122DOI1 aGEHLOT, H. S.  aAn invasive Mimosa in India does not adopt the symbionts of its native relatives.h[electronic resource]  c2013  ap. 179-196  aThe large monophyletic genus Mimosa comprises approx. 500 species, most of which are native to the New World, with Central Brazil being the main centre of radiation. All Brazilian Mimosa spp. so far examined are nodulated by rhizobia in the betaproteobacterial genus Burkholderia. Approximately 10 Mya, transoceanic dispersal resulted in the Indian subcontinent hosting up to six endemic Mimosa spp. The nodulation ability and rhizobial symbionts of two of these, M. hamata and M. himalayana, both from north-west India, are here examined, and compared with those of M. pudica, an invasive species.  aArid zones  aBurkholderia  aCupriavidus  aEnsifer  aMimosa pudica  aNitrogen fixation  aNodulation  aThar Desert  aMimosa hamata  aMimosa himalayana1 aTAK, N.1 aKAUSHIK, M.1 aMITRA, S.1 aCHEN, W. M.1 aPOWELEIT, N.1 aPANWAR, D.1 aPOONAR, N.1 aPARIHAR, R.1 aTAK, A.1 aSANKHLA, I. S.1 aOJHA, A.1 aRAO, S. R.1 aSIMON, M. F.1 aREIS JUNIOR, F. B. dos1 aPERIGOLO, N.1 aTRIPATHI, A. K.1 aSPRENT, J. I.1 aYOUNG, J. P. W.1 aJAMES, E. K.1 aGYANESHWAR, P.  tAnnals of Botanygv. 112, n. 1, p. 179-196, May 2013.