Brazilian Trees May Harbor Millions of Unidentified Species of Bacteria

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Atlantic forest of Brazil, which in the past 400 years has been reduced to less than 8 percent of its original size, could contain as many as 13 million unidentified species of bacteria, a new study has found. Not only do the results point to an abundance of life still remaining the forest, but they indicate a potentially untapped resource for drug development.

"Besides the importance of these bacteria in ecosystem stability, they can also be sources of biochemical compounds for the pharmaceutical industry and agriculture," says Marcio Lambais of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, whose team published their results in today's issue of Science.

The scientists conducted their survey by collecting 20 to 30 leaves from each of nine different tree species throughout the forest. In the lab, the researchers processed about 12 grams of leaves from each tree at a time, rinsing them in special solution that dislodged surface microbes. They analyzed the DNA from the microbes to get a general view of how similar the communities in different trees were to each other. From there, they selected two tree species that hosted similar bacterial communities and one species that contained a very distinct community. They sequenced fragments of DNA from the microbes to get a more detailed picture of the different bacteria present and to estimate the diversity in the forest.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The team found that even trees of the same species had some variation when it came to the bacterial communities living on their leaves, but there was significantly more variation among trees of different species. Calculations indicated that each tree could harbor anywhere between 95 to 671 different species of bacteria. And when the scientists extrapolated the number to include all leafy surfaces, they came up with 2 million to 13 million new bacterial species.

"We were quite surprised and euphoric when we extrapolated the figures. We suspected that the diversity would be high, but not that high. Now we need to understand how these communities function and their roles in the ecosystem," Lambais remarks. He and his team are currently studying the diversity of bacteria on the leaves of seven more tree species from another location in the forest. By looking at a higher number of individual trees, they hope to gain a better understanding of, among other things, whether the bacterial communities are affected by the location of their host tree.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe