| Literature DB >> 24032030 |
Franciska T de Vries1, Ashley Shade.
Abstract
Soil microbial communities are intricately linked to ecosystem functioning because they play important roles in carbon and nitrogen cycling. Still, we know little about how soil microbial communities will be affected by disturbances expected with climate change. This is a significant gap in understanding, as the stability of microbial communities, defined as a community's ability to resist and recover from disturbances, likely has consequences for ecosystem function. Here, we propose a framework for predicting a community's response to climate change, based on specific functional traits present in the community, the relative dominance of r- and K-strategists, and the soil environment. We hypothesize that the relative abundance of r- and K-strategists will inform about a community's resistance and resilience to climate change associated disturbances. We also propose that other factors specific to soils, such as moisture content and the presence of plants, may enhance a community's resilience. For example, recent evidence suggests microbial grazers, resource availability, and plant roots each impact on microbial community stability. We explore these hypotheses by offering three vignettes of published data that we re-analyzed. Our results show that community measures of the relative abundance of r- and K-strategists, as well as environmental properties like resource availability and the abundance and diversity of higher trophic levels, can contribute to explaining the response of microbial community composition to climate change-related disturbances. However, further investigation and experimental validation is necessary to directly test these hypotheses across a wide range of soil ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: PLFA; bacteria; disturbance; drought; fungi; pyrosequencing; resilience; resistance
Year: 2013 PMID: 24032030 PMCID: PMC3768296 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Examples of microbial traits and the genes involved that might play a role in the resistance and resilience of microbial communities to climate change.
| Desiccation and heat resistance | otsBA, otsA | Trehalose synthesis Capsule | Drought, warming | Canovas et al., |
| neuO | O- acetylation | |||
| Sporulation | >500 | Multiple | Wide range of disturbances | Higgins and Dworkin, |
| Use of specific N forms | amoA | Ammonia oxidation | Increased nitrogen availability through warming and rewetting after drought, changes in dominant N forms through warming, changes in soil moisture, and changes in soil C availability through elevated CO2 | Lamb et al., |
| cnorB | Nitric oxide reduction | |||
| nosZ | Nitrous oxide reduction | |||
| narG | Nitrate reduction | |||
| nirK, nirS | Nitrite reduction | |||
| nifH | Nitrogen fixation | |||
| Use of specific C forms | chiA | Chitin degradation | Changes in soil C availability through rewetting after drought, and elevated CO2 | Theuerl and Buscot, |
| mcrA | Methanogenesis | |||
| pmoA | Methane oxidation | |||
| gtlA | Citrate synthesis | |||
| cbhI | Cellulose degradation | |||
| lcc | Lignin and phenol oxidation | |||
| β glu | Glucose oxidation |
Axis loadings of individual PLFA in Case study 1.
Axis 1 explained 43% of variation, axis 2 explained 14% of variation. PLFAs marked green, red, and yellow are representative of Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungi, respectively.
Case study 1: regression models explaining microbial community resistance to the glasshouse-based drought.
| Single, linear | 0.93 | <0.0001 | PC1 scores | −0.008 | <0.0001 | 0.79 |
| Single, linear | 1.01 | <0.0001 | F/B ratio | −1.48 | 0.0005 | 0.56 |
| Single, non-linear | 0.75 | <0.0001 | Gram+/gram− ratio | +3.7 * 10−3 | <0.0001 | 0.88 |
| (Gram+/gram− ratio)2 | −1.8 * 10−5 | <0.0001 | ||||
| Multiple, non-linear | 0.83 | <0.0001 | PC1 | −5.0 * 10−3 | 0.034 | 0.91 |
| Gram+/gram− ratio | +2.3 * 10−4 | 0.006 | ||||
| (Gram+/gram− ratio)2 | −1.3 * 10−5 | 0.002 |
Case study 1: regression models explaining variation in microbial community resilience after the glasshouse-based drought.
| Single, linear | 0.93 | <0.0001 | Microarthropod richness | +0.004 | 0.001 | 0.12 |
| Single, linear | 0.96 | <0.0001 | Protozoa numbers | −7.0 * 10−8 | <0.0001 | 0.33 |
| Single, linear | 0.95 | <0.0001 | PC1 | −0.005 | <0.0001 | 0.50 |
| Single, linear | 0.93 | <0.0001 | Microbial biomass C/N | +0.006 | 0.009 | 0.07 |
| Single, non-linear | 0.91 | <0.0001 | Gram+/gram− ratio | +4.1 * 10−4 | 0.006 | 0.16 |
| (Gram+/gram− ratio)2 | −6.2 * 10−6 | 0.05 | ||||
| Multiple, linear | 0.91 | <0.0001 | Protozoa numbers | −5.1 * 10−9 | <0.0001 | 0.63 |
| PC1 | −4.1 * 10−3 | <0.0001 | ||||
| Gram+/gram− ratio | +3.2 * 10−4 | 0.001 | ||||
| F/B ratio | 0.34 | 0.002 |
Figure 1Case study 1: the presence of a plant increased the resilience of microbial community composition 77 days after ending the glasshouse-based drought [ Resilience was greater in grassland than in wheat [F(1, 24) = 5.36, P = 0.029]; there were no interaction effects between land use or previous drought. Pairwise comparisons within land use and field drought treatments indicated that only within the wheat field drought treatment the treatments with and without plant were (marginally) significantly different (Tukey's HSD comparison, P = 0.059, indicated by an asterisk).
Case study 2: regression models explaining variation in microbial community resilience at day 30 after ending the glasshouse-based drought.
| Single, linear | 0.95 | <0.0001 | F/B ratio | −3.76 | 0.0094 | 0.65 |
| Single, linear | 0.94 | <0.0001 | PC1 scores | +0.003 | 0.013 | 0.62 |
| Single, non-linear | 1.04 | <0.0001 | Gram+/gram− ratio | −0.137 | 0.021 | 0.77 |
| (Gram+/gram− ratio)2 | +0.0359 | 0.028 | ||||
| Single, linear | 0.96 | <0.001 | Microbial biomass | −1.7 * 10−5 | 0.024 | 0.53 |
Axis loadings of individual PLFA in Case study 2.
Axis 1 explained 53% of variation, axis 2 explained 15% of variation. PLFAs marked green, red, and yellow are representative of Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungi, respectively.
CA axis scores for the 20 most abundant bacterial taxa in Case study 3.
| 7721 | −0.052755783 | 0.128596257 | 1232 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Hyphomicrobiaceae; g__Rhodoplanes; s__ |
| 7592 | −0.277985389 | 0.384482383 | 559 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Bradyrhizobiaceae |
| 5179 | −0.031267675 | 0.274724392 | 477 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Hyphomicrobiaceae; g__Rhodoplanes; s__ |
| 4450 | −0.368835276 | −0.01104972 | 434 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Deltaproteobacteria; o__Syntrophobacterales; f__Syntrophobacteraceae; g__; s__ |
| 3664 | −0.203535915 | 0.204631553 | 397 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Hyphomicrobiaceae; g__Rhodoplanes; s__ |
| 232 | 0.317417102 | −0.327066878 | 291 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria-5; o__; f__; g__; s__ |
| 6514 | 0.374990616 | 0.045919714 | 275 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria-2; o__; f__; g__; s__ |
| 3615 | 0.148161131 | 0.186057802 | 271 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria-2; o__; f__; g__; s__ |
| 6194 | 0.272492541 | −0.440098295 | 243 | k__Bacteria; p__Nitrospirae; c__Nitrospira; o__Nitrospirales; f__Nitrospiraceae; g__Nitrospira; s__ |
| 1968 | 0.406077387 | −0.153510689 | 236 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Hyphomicrobiaceae; g__Rhodoplanes; s__ |
| 2877 | −0.452435542 | 0.331937119 | 214 | k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Flavobacteriia; o__Flavobacteriales; f__Flavobacteriaceae; g__Flavobacterium |
| 5980 | 1.037736522 | −0.623269339 | 211 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria-2; o__; f__; g__; s__ |
| 3158 | 0.511248597 | −0.360815747 | 177 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Betaproteobacteria; o__; f__; g__; s__ |
| 741 | 0.561319057 | −0.242946783 | 166 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria; o__Acidobacteriales; f__Koribacteraceae; g__; s__ |
| 9410 | 0.330214073 | 0.053950661 | 162 | k__Bacteria; p__Acidobacteria; c__Acidobacteria; o__Acidobacteriales; f__Koribacteraceae; g__Candidatus Koribacter; s__ |
| 4283 | −0.21498302 | 0.197813008 | 158 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Rhodobiaceae; g__; s__ |
| 2587 | −0.012292612 | 0.229939177 | 157 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Alphaproteobacteria; o__Rhizobiales; f__Hyphomicrobiaceae; g__Rhodoplanes; s__ |
| 2250 | 0.126551331 | −0.137573106 | 154 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Deltaproteobacteria; o__Syntrophobacterales; f__Syntrophobacteraceae; g__; s__ |
| 8618 | −0.03958676 | 0.222012965 | 153 | k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Xanthomonadales; f__Sinobacteraceae; g__; s__ |
CA axis 1 explained 5.47% and CA axis 2 explained 5.05% of variation.
Case study 3: regression models explaining variation in microbial community resilience after litter addition, litter removal, and rainfall exclusion.
| Single, linear | 0.22 | <0.0001 | Nitrate | +0.006 | 0.026 | 0.34 |
| Single, non-linear | 0.44 | <0.0001 | Moisture | −0.004 | 0.005 | 0.52 |
| Multiple, linear | 0.40 | <0.0001 | Nitrate | +0.004 | 0.023 | 0.71 |
| Moisture | −0.035 | 0.005 |
Pearson correlation coefficients between variables explaining microbial community resistance in Case study 1.
| PC1 axis | |||
| F/B ratio | |||
| Gram+/Gram− ratio | − |
Underlines values designate significant correlations (P < 0.05).
Pearson correlation coefficients between variables explaining microbial community resilience in Case study 2.
| F/B ratio | ||||
| PC1 | − | |||
| Gram+/Gram− ratio | 0.59 | − | ||
| Microbial biomass | 0.63 | − |
Underlines values designate significant correlations (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Framework for predicting microbial community response to climate change. The bottom part of the figure illustrates the necessity of characterizing and annotating specific functional genes (here conceptually represented by colored sequences) that code for microbial traits of importance for community responses for specific disturbances associated with climate change. Once known and annotated, these genes can inform about the relative abundance of a suite of genes that may underlie a community's response to climate change (arrow 1). The middle part designates the relative abundance of functional genes present in a community. This space is multidimensional and here we chose to visualize C cycling genes, N cycling genes, and drought resistance genes (see Table 1), but other known and unknown genes such as those involved in sporulation or specific dispersal mechanisms should be included. The functional genes present in a community may, or may not, have a relationship with the dominance of r- and K-strategists or with the community's environment (colored dots in middle and upper part). The role of specific functional genes in a community's response and their links with the r-K spectrum are yet to be elucidated (arrow 2). The upper part of the figure indicates a community's response to climate change, as determined by the relative abundance of r- and K-strategists and the community's environment (in this case nutrient availability, but this can be replaced by other environmental factors such as the abundance or richness of higher trophic levels). A K-strategist dominated microbial community in a nutrient-poor environment likely has high resistance, whereas an r-dominated community in a nutrient-rich environment likely has high resilience. The exact shape of the surface might vary depending on specific circumstances.
Pearson correlation coefficients between variables explaining microbial community resilience in Case study 1.
| Protozoa | ||||||
| Microarthropods | − | |||||
| PC1 | − | |||||
| F/B ratio | 0.10 | |||||
| Gram+/Gram− ratio | −0.08 | 0.015 | − | − | ||
| Microbial C/N ratio | −0.09 | 0.18 | − | −0.21 | 0.21 |
Underlines values designate significant corrections (p < 0.05).