| Literature DB >> 23638384 |
Nguyen E López-Lozano1, Karla B Heidelberg, William C Nelson, Felipe García-Oliva, Luis E Eguiarte, Valeria Souza.
Abstract
Ecological succession is one of the most important concepts in ecology. However for microbial community succession, there is a lack of a solid theoretical framework regarding succession in microorganisms. This is in part due to microbial community complexity and plasticity but also because little is known about temporal patterns of microbial community shifts in different kinds of ecosystems, including arid soils. The Cuatro Cienegas Basin (CCB) in Coahuila, Mexico, is an arid zone with high diversity and endemisms that has recently been threatened by aquifer overexploitation. The gypsum-based soil system of the CCB is one of the most oligotrophic places in the world. We undertook a comparative 16S rRNA 454 pyrosequencing study to evaluate microbial community succession and recovery over a year after disturbance at two sites. Results were related to concurrent measurements of humidity, organic matter and total C and N content. While each site differed in both biogeochemistry and biodiversity, both present similar pattern of change at the beginning of the succession that diverged in later stages. After one year, experimentally disturbed soil was not similar to established and undisturbed adjacent soil communities indicating recovery and succession in disturbed soils is a long process.Entities:
Keywords: Coahuila; Cuatro Cienegas Basin; High throughput pyrosequencing; Soil microbial diversity; Succession experiment
Year: 2013 PMID: 23638384 PMCID: PMC3628611 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Soil and nutrients.
Soil biogeochemical parameters in each sampling date for both sites Dry Lagoon and River. Analysis was done as a 2 way ANOVA, the mean ± SD with F values and significance levels.
|
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| TOC (mg.g−1) | 0.3 ± 0.13 | 1.8 ± 0.60 | 2.5 ± 0.03 | 3.9 ± 0.30 | 2.9 ± 0.20 | 6.5 ± 0.60 | 9.8 ± 0.86 | 7 ± 1.10 | 15 ± 2.10 | 4 ± 1.70 | 61.4 | 10.68 | 7.67 |
| TN (mg.g −1) | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 0.13 ± 0.004 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.8 ± 0.01 | 0.6 ± 0.08 | 0.6 ± 0.03 | 0.8 ± 0.04 | 0.7 ± 0.06 | 226.9 | 3.58 | 0.77 |
| TP (mg.g −1) | 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.01 ± 0.002 | 0.01 ± 0.001 | 0.05 ± 0.002 | 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.04 ± 0.006 | 0.08 ± 0.045 | 0.03 ± 0.001 | 0.15 ± 0.001 | 0.04 ± 0.001 | 19.76 | 9.37 | 3.91 |
| DOC (µg.g −1) | 508 ± 53 | 817.4 ± 146 | 218.4 ± 26 | 170 ± 206.6 | 13.5 ± 14 | 239 ± 33 | 712 ± 132 | 371 ± 27 | 830 ± 375 | 94.3 ± 47 | 3.75 | 4.66 | 0.36 |
| DON (µg.g −1) | 4.6 ± 1 | 6.7 ± 0.9 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 8.2 ± 1.1 | 8.2 ± 4.5 | 27 ± 1 | 10.3 ± 1.7 | 3.7 ± 0.6 | 25.5 ± 2.2 | 10.3 ± 0.6 | 13.09 | 12.72 | 4.47 |
| DIP (µg.g −1) | 0.02 ± 0.004 | 0.004 ± 0.004 | 0.02 ± 0.006 | 0.04 ± 0.006 | 0.005 ± 0.003 | 0.007 ± 0.004 | 0.01 ± 0.008 | 0.006 ± 0.006 | 0.14 ± 0.030 | 0.004 ± 0.04 | 8.95 | 24.81 | 10.57 |
| DOP (µg.g −1) | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.01 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 1.8 ± 0.06 | 1.5 ± 0.05 | 1.5 ± 0.05 | 1.45 ± 0.05 | 0.65 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.04 | 1.33 | 15.83 | 2.48 |
| Ammonium (µg.g −1) | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.08 ± 0.08 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | 2 ± 0.9 | 1 ± 0.2 | 4.8 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 1.5 | 6.9 ± 1.2 | 7.8 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 29.08 | 10.68 | 4.31 |
| Nitrates (µg.g −1) | 0 ± 0 | 0.6 ± 0.5 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 0 ± 0 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | 13.91 | 0.96 | 1.61 |
| micC (µg.g −1) | 0 ± 0 | 172.3 ± 45 | 267 ± 127 | 62 ± 10 | 92 ± 26 | 0 ± 0 | 182 ± 12 | 348.6 ± 69 | 139 ± 18 | 219 ± 38 | 10.27 | 6.22 | 0.89 |
| micN (µg.g −1) | 0 ± 0 | 3.4 ± 0.6 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 7.3 ± 0.2 | 2 ± 0.3 | 0 ± 0 | 3.2 ± 1 | 5.3 ± 1.4 | 6.8 ± 2.8 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 2.89 | 3.69 | 9.31 |
Notes.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01.
P < 0.0001.
not significant.
Changes in biogeochemical parameters.
Biogeochemical parameters of microcosms and undisturbed soil samples of each site for the last sampling date, 12 months (n = 3). Mean ± SD with F values and significance levels.
| Effect | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Site | Site* treatment | |||||
| Dry Lagoon undisturbed | Dry Lagoon microcosms | River undisturbed | River microcosms | ||||
| TOC (mg.g−1) | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 23.2 ± 3.9 | 4 ± 1.7 | 19.7 | 24.8 | 19.9 |
| TN (mg.g−1) | 0.2 ± 0.005 | 0.24 ± 0.015 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.06 | 5.02 | 54.7 | 6.6 |
| TP (mg.g−1) | 0.023 ± 0.001 | 0.024 ± 0.001 | 0.06 ± 0.008 | 0.04 ± 0.006 | 2.3 | 26.9 | 5.2 |
| DOC (µg.g−1) | 13.5 ± 9.4 | 94.3 ± 35.4 | 20.4 ± 9.4 | 110 ± 12.3 | 0.2 | 38.8 | 0.008 |
| DON (µg.g−1) | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 8.2 ± 4.5 | 0.5 ± 0.12 | 9.5 ± 0.6 | 24.2 | 0.15 | 2.8 |
| DIP (µg.g−1) | 0.0 ± 0 | 0.005 ± 0.003 | 0.0 ± 0 | 0.004 ± 0.004 | 3.7 | 0.36 | 0.032 |
| DOP (µg.g−1) | 1.5 ± 0.04 | 1.8 ± 0.06 | 1.1 ± 0.05 | 1.43 ± 0.04 | 45.5 | 77.82 | 0.2 |
| Ammonium (µg.g−1) | 0.95 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 1.45 ± 0.1 | 13.4 | 0.26 | 3.06 |
| Nitrates (µg.g−1) | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.34 ± 0.2 | 0.0 ± 0 | 0.0 ± 0 | 0.86 | 5.4 | 0.85 |
| MicC (µg.g−1) | 43.5 ± 20 | 92.1 ± 25.7 | 206 ± 17 | 219 ± 38 | 1.4 | 32 | 0.46 |
| MicN (µg.g−1) | 4.9 ± 0.7 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 11.2 ± 2.6 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 9.1 | 12.3 | 1.05 |
Notes.
P < 0.05.
P < 0.01.
P < 0.0001.
not significant.
Microbial diversity.
Distribution of bacterial phyla. The relative abundance of bacterial phyla in each of the sampling dates and site. Values represent the percentage of each group in the respective library.
|
|
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before sterilization | 3 months | 6 months | 9 months | 12 months | Undisturbed soil | Before sterilization | 3 months | 6 months | 9 months | 12 months | Undisturbed soil | |
| Acidobacteria | 44.41 | 30.56 | 42.02 | 24.26 | 42.68 | 33.36 | 59.60 | 49.32 | 47.49 | 39.04 | 46.49 | 48.55 |
| Bacteroidetes | 4.68 | 0.24 | 2.40 | 7.40 | 7.34 | 3.16 | 9.03 | 0.00 | 5.35 | 9.28 | 8.07 | 3.40 |
| Chloroflexi | 0.98 | 0.01 | 1.25 | 4.61 | 0.97 | 9.36 | 2.05 | 8.37 | 2.85 | 4.90 | 3.73 | 11.72 |
| Gemmatimonadetes | 0.70 | 0.02 | 1.71 | 0.82 | 1.48 | 0.48 | 1.92 | 0.02 | 3.25 | 3.17 | 2.00 | 1.40 |
| Deferribacteres | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.90 | 1.08 | 1.62 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 1.60 |
| TM6 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 4.53 | 0.51 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 0.02 | 0.94 | 3.60 | 0.38 | 1.09 |
| Firmicutes | 0.31 | 10.73 | 0.59 | 2.04 | 0.37 | 2.44 | 0.82 | 21.69 | 0.86 | 2.16 | 0.98 | 2.80 |
| Actinobacteria | 0.63 | 4.69 | 1.00 | 0.74 | 0.43 | 1.74 | 0.60 | 0.19 | 1.24 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 1.65 |
| Deinococcus-Thermus | 2.80 | 0.33 | 6.09 | 2.26 | 0.69 | 1.21 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 6.27 | 5.62 | 1.02 | 0.46 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.48 |
| Verrucomicrobia | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 2.38 | 1.24 | 0.72 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.30 | 1.34 | 0.91 |
| Chlamydiae | 1.01 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 0.85 | 1.62 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 1.28 | 0.86 | 1.81 |
| Planctomycetes | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 4.62 | 1.22 | 1.65 | 1.38 | 0.38 |
| TM7 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 3.65 | 0.42 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.00 | 0.39 | 1.18 | 0.52 | 0.43 |
| TA06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.97 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.06 |
| OP11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.41 | 1.86 | 0.02 | 0.82 |
| unclassified | 33.59 | 12.01 | 33.56 | 26.63 | 18.21 | 30.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Alphaproteobacteria | 1.88 | 0.16 | 1.14 | 3.52 | 4.32 | 2.47 | 7.23 | 0.15 | 4.37 | 3.39 | 5.75 | 4.24 |
| Betaproteobacteria | 0.04 | 6.56 | 0.03 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 1.35 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.53 | 0.19 |
| Deltaproteobacteria | 0.54 | 8.95 | 0.30 | 1.04 | 0.59 | 3.64 | 4.31 | 0.85 | 4.98 | 3.77 | 2.01 | 8.59 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | 5.84 | 24.95 | 7.32 | 12.27 | 17.47 | 3.86 | 21.40 | 10.52 | 15.20 | 13.36 | 20.26 | 5.27 |
| Other groups (<1%) | 1.10 | 0.47 | 1.41 | 3.02 | 1.80 | 3.86 | 1.70 | 0.04 | 1.92 | 3.17 | 2.69 | 4.15 |
16S diversity.
Bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon diversity analysis of two arid soil sites in Cuatro Cienegas, Coahuila, Mexico.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 6586 | 4917 | 882 | 43226 | (39437–47450) | 7.31 | (7.27–7.34) | 0.007 | (0.006–0.007) | 99811 | (96592–103144) | 0.63 |
|
| 4106 | 2760 | 587 | 20166 | (18253–22337) | 6.07 | (6.03–6.11) | 0.020 | (0.019–0.021) | 47720 | (45885–49636) | 0.78 |
|
| 7518 | 5830 | 1093 | 42815 | (39583–46372) | 7.59 | (7.56–7.63) | 0.004 | (0.004–0.004) | 106755 | (103366–110262) | 0.61 |
|
| 3552 | 2433 | 451 | 10097 | (9334–10961) | 7.17 | (7.15–7.21) | 0.002 | (0.002–0.003) | 18720 | (17980–19497) | 0.77 |
|
| 6882 | 5114 | 808 | 60661 | (54582–67515) | 7.70 | (7.66–7.73) | 0.004 | (0.004–0.005) | 137126 | (133112–141267) | 0.58 |
|
| 8258 | 7157 | 1135 | 53773 | (49545–58434) | 8.16 | (8.13–8.19) | 0.001 | (0.001–0.001) | 130419 | (126816–134131) | 0.57 |
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 8268 | 6797 | 1085 | 53676 | (49534–58233) | 7.80 | (7.76–7.83) | 0.005 | (0.004–0.005) | 140680 | (136580–144910) | 0.56 |
|
| 3785 | 2878 | 657 | 17395 | (15706–19323) | 6.04 | (6.00–6.08) | 0.013 | (0.013–0.014) | 32413 | (31077–33815) | 0.81 |
|
| 9001 | 7289 | 1148 | 61455 | (56784–66583) | 8.24 | (8.21–8.26) | 0.001 | (0.001–0.002) | 161368 | (156754–166125) | 0.52 |
|
| 6530 | 6607 | 1202 | 33236 | (30685–36056) | 7.35 | (7.32–7.38) | 0.003 | (0.003–0.003) | 94400 | (91445–97457) | 0.69 |
|
| 6356 | 4728 | 734 | 27928 | (25926–30135) | 7.80 | (7.75–7.82) | 0.002 | (0.002–0.002) | 67224 | (65075–69452) | 0.62 |
|
| 8461 | 7019 | 1171 | 52934 | (48931–57332) | 8.23 | (8.20–8.25) | 0.001 | (0.001–0.001) | 125851 | (122223–129596) | 0.54 |
Notes.
All samples were normalized to 10,441 sequences (Table S3) for diversity comparison, values in parentheses represent the lower and upper 95% confidence interval associated with the Chao1 nonparametric estimator.
Values calculated based on 97% threshold.
Lower and upper 95% confident intervals associated with the diversity parameter.
Good’s coverage estimator.
Figure 1Sampling effect.
Rarefaction curves of the A) Dry Lagoon and B) River in all sampling dates (3, 6, 9 and 12 months). OTUs were determined at 97% sequence identity.
Relationship between soil and diversity.
Spearman’s rank correlations between the relative abundances of the most abundant bacterial phyla, proteobacterial classes and bacterial families, and the soil properties in CCB. Bold numbers: P < 0.05; Bold and underlined numbers P < 0.001.
|
| Humidity | Total organic carbon | Total nitrogen | Nitrate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Acidobacteria | 0.54 |
|
|
|
| Bacteroidetes | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.51 | −0.16 |
| Chloroflexi |
|
| 0.51 | −0.24 |
| Firmicutes | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.26 | −0.01 |
| Deinococcus-Thermus | 0.02 | −0.13 | −0.23 | 0.05 |
| Gemmatimonadetes | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.51 | −0.27 |
| Actinobacteria | −0.07 | −0.30 | −0.16 | 0.42 |
| TM6 |
|
| 0.49 | 0.03 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0.50 | −0.12 |
|
| ||||
| Alphaproteobacteria | 0.49 | 0.47 |
| −0.10 |
| Betaproteobacteria | −0.06 | −0.02 | 0.24 | 0.22 |
| Deltaproteobacteria | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.53 | −0.01 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | −0.12 | −0.02 | 0.22 | 0.07 |
|
| ||||
| Acidobacteriaceae |
|
|
|
|
| Holophagaceae |
|
|
|
|
| RB25 (Holophagae) |
|
|
|
|
| SJA-36 (Holophagae) |
|
|
| −0.70 |
| Unclassified Acidobacteria |
|
|
|
|
| Moraxellaceae | −0.12 | −0.22 | −0.29 | −0.05 |
| Chitinophagaceae | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.53 | −0.04 |
| Truepera | −0.11 | −0.24 | −0.30 | 0.07 |
| Anaerolineaceae | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.09 |
| Pseudomonadaceae | −0.45 | −0.24 | −0.10 | 0.18 |
| Streptococcaceae | −0.50 | −0.43 | −0.53 | 0.24 |
| Enterobacteriaceae |
| 0.51 | 0.39 |
|
| GIF3 (Chloroflexi) |
|
|
|
|
| Alcaligenaceae | −0.37 | −0.24 | −0.03 | 0.50 |
| unclassified Deltaproteobacteria |
|
|
|
|
| Listeriaceae | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.18 | −0.46 |
Figure 2Relationship between diversity and environment.
CCA ordination biplot of the most abundant family composition during the secondary succesional process. Vectors represent the soil characteristics, while centroids indicate different 454 pyrosequence 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries across the time. Temporal replicates that are close together on the ordination diagram are more similar (in terms of their microbial community structure) than replicates that are farther apart.
Figure 3Relationship between samples.
Clustering of the 16S rRNA community composition at 97% similarity based on the Bray-Curtis algorithm of ecotype abundance. The cluster diagram of sample similarity generated using the Jaccard Index showed the same pattern (data not shown).