| Literature DB >> 22670891 |
Melanie Kuffner1, Brigitte Hai, Thomas Rattei, Christelle Melodelima, Michael Schloter, Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Robert Jandl, Andreas Schindlbacher, Angela Sessitsch.
Abstract
Climate warming may induce shifts in soil microbial communities possibly altering the long-term carbon mineralization potential of soils. We assessed the response of the bacterial community in a forest soil to experimental soil warming (+4 °C) in the context of seasonal fluctuations. Three experimental plots were sampled in the fourth year of warming in summer and winter and compared to control plots by 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. We sequenced 17,308 amplicons per sample and analysed operational taxonomic units at genetic distances of 0.03, 0.10 and 0.25, with respective Good's coverages of 0.900, 0.977 and 0.998. Diversity indices did not differ between summer, winter, control or warmed samples. Summer and winter samples differed in community structure at a genetic distance of 0.25, corresponding approximately to phylum level. This was mainly because of an increase of Actinobacteria in winter. Abundance patterns of dominant taxa (> 0.06% of all reads) were analysed individually and revealed, that seasonal shifts were coherent among related phylogenetic groups. Seasonal community dynamics were subtle compared to the dynamics of soil respiration. Despite a pronounced respiration response to soil warming, we did not detect warming effects on community structure or composition. Fine-scale shifts may have been concealed by the considerable spatial variation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22670891 PMCID: PMC3556523 DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01420.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FEMS Microbiol Ecol ISSN: 0168-6496 Impact factor: 4.194
Soil characteristics in summer and winter
| Sample (symbol used in figures) | Plot | Treatment | Soil temperature (°C) | Bacterial PLFA | Soil respiration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer (29 July 2008) | |||||
| 1 | Control | 13.0 | 209 | 4.47 (± 0.19) | |
| | 2 | Control | 13.4 | 136 | 5.69 (± 0.62) |
| | 3 | Control | 13.4 | 144 | 4.19 (± 0.37) |
| | 4 | Warmed | 16.8 | 158 | 5.20 (± 0.63) |
| | 5 | Warmed | 17.3 | 132 | 6.67 (± 1.73) |
| | 6 | Warmed | 16.7 | 128 | 5.60 (± 0.56) |
| Winter (18.03.2009) | |||||
| | 1 | Control | 0.6 | 228 | 0.22 (± 0.03) |
| | 2 | Control | ND | 134 | 0.26 (± 0.01) |
| | 3 | Control | ND | 199 | 0.24 (± 0.01) |
| | 4 | Warmed | 0.6 | 231 | 0.13 (± 0.03) |
| | 5 | Warmed | ND | 166 | 0.33 (± 0.03) |
| | 6 | Warmed | ND | 166 | 0.20 (± 0.02) |
Data from Schindlbacher et al., 2011.
The same plots were warmed every snow free season, warming was suspended every winter.
Fig. 1Diversity of OTUs. Rarefaction analysis, OTU counts and estimates of richness and diversity. (a and d) OTUs0.03, (b and e) OTUs0.10, (c and f) OTUs0.25. Sample symbols: • ▪ ▲ – control plots, ○ ◊ ▽ – warmed plots, black-summer, grey-winter. In panels d–f observed OTUs, and ACEs are plotted on the primary, 1/D-values on the secondary y-axis. Error bars span the 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 2Differences in community structure. NMDS of pairwise Jaccard distances between samples. The abundance variant of the Jaccard index was calculated based on the distribution of (a) OTUs0.03, (b) OTUs0.10, (c) OTUs0.25 and (d) phylum affiliations of the individual reads. Arrows indicate the direction of increased abundance of phyla, for which a significant gradient is displayed in the NMDS (P < 0.1). Sample symbols: • ▪ ▲ – control plots, ○ ◊ ▽ – warmed plots, black-summer, grey-winter. *Significant difference between summer and winter (npmanova, P < 0.05).
Phylotypes with abundance shifts between summer and winter in all plots
| Relative abundance (reads per sample) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phylotype | Summer | Winter |
| 1914 (±182) | 1417 (±107) | |
| Group 7 | 79 (±5) | 50 (±10) |
| Group 3 | 22 (±5) | 9 (±1) |
| 6369 (±637) | 5009 (±196) | |
| | 83 (±20) | 31 (±10) |
| | 1792 (±50) | 1120 (±83) |
| | 201 (±17) | 98 (±20) |
| | 1050 (±98) | 829 (±53) |
| Unclassified | 303 (±70) | 91 (±14) |
| | 194 (±18) | 110 (±28) |
| 4998 (±253) | 6872 (±375) | |
| ( | ||
| | 198 (±10) | 270 (±24) |
| | 2180 (±195) | 3030 (±225) |
| | 1543 (±164) | 2081 (±163) |
| | 398 (±14) | 628 (±70) |
| TM7 | 15 (±1) | 44 (±11) |
| ( | ||
| Unclassified | 27 (±3) | 42 (±6) |
Significant difference between summer and winter (paired t-test, n = 6, P < 0.05).
In total, 17 308 reads were analysed from each sample, so that the number of reads affiliated with a given phylotype corresponds to the relative abundance of this phylotype. Means (±SE) are given and were calculated over the six samples obtained from the six different plots.
Data were square root–transformed for the paired t-test.
For easier perception of phylogenetic lineages, additional taxonomic levels, which did not display seasonal shifts, are included between parentheses.
Out of all identified phylotypes at any taxonomic level, the table contains those that consistently either increased or decreased from summer to winter in all plots.
Fig. 3Phylogenetic community composition. Relative abundance of (a) abundant phyla (> 1% of total reads) and proteobacterial classes, (b) rare phyla. Sample symbols: • ▪ ▲ – control plots, ○ ◊ ▽ – warmed plots, black – summer, grey – winter.