| Literature DB >> 26483766 |
Ryan J Newton1, Sandra L McLellan1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Lake Michigan; bacterial community; bacterioplankton; freshwater; oligotyping; urban ecology
Year: 2015 PMID: 26483766 PMCID: PMC4586452 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Map of Milwaukee, WI, USA urban estuary and nearshore Lake Michigan. Sampling locations included in this study are indicated with site names.
Chemical and physical properties of sampled environments.
| Temperature (°C) | 19.4 (11.8–24.6) | 21.6 (7.5–26.8) | 22.1 (12.7–29.1) | 19.3 (12.3–25.0) | 17.0 (10.4–21.7) | 17.5 (8.6–21.5) | 16.4 (6.9–22.9) |
| pH | 8.0 (7.5–8.5) | 8.2 (7.7–8.6) | 7.8 (7.4–8.3) | 8.0 (7.6–8.4) | 8.4 (8.0–8.7) | 8.4 (8.2–8.6) | 8.4 (8.2–8.6) |
| Conductivity (μS/cm) | 587 (257–799) | 807 (210–896) | 700 (336–997) | 615 (315–899) | 294 (279–341) | 285 (274–305) | 285 (275–292) |
| Susp. solids (mg l−1) | 6 (4–80) | 12 (4–100) | 8 (3–170) | 10 (6–140) | bd (bd–bd) | bd (bd–bd) | bd (bd–bd) |
| Total P (μ | 68 (bd–230) | 115 (44–290) | 100 (bd–280) | 82 (42–260) | bd (bd–72) | bd (bd–bd) | bd (bd–25) |
| TKN (mg l−1) | 0.60 (bd–1.10) | 0.72 (bd–1.60) | 0.68 (bd–1.60) | 0.62 (bd–1.40) | bd (bd–0.62) | bd (bd–0.83) | bd (bd–0.84) |
| NO3/NO2 (mg l−1) | 0.71 (0.38–1.10) | 0.90 (0.24–1.40) | 0.58 (0.27–1.10) | 0.71 (0.35–1.20) | 0.27 (bd–0.44) | 0.26 (bd–0.30) | 0.29 (bd–0.31) |
| Chlorophyll | 6.0 (0.9–17.8) | 6.4 (3.3–34.8) | 6.7 (2.1–52.9) | 6.0 (1.8–27) | 1.2 (0.3–7.2) | 0.8 (bd–7.5) | 0.4 (0.2–1.8) |
The Median (Range) are listed for each water chemical/physical property measurement.
Abbreviations: Susp. Solids, Suspended Solids; Total P, Total Phosphorus; TKN, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; bd, below detection.
The detection limits are as follows: Suspended Solids 1 mg l−1, Total Phosphorus 20 μg l−1, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.36 mg l−1, Nitrate/Nitrite 0.20 mg l−1, Chlorophyll a 0.11 μg l−1.
Figure 2Heatmap indicating the relative abundance of all bacterial families with a mean relative abundance of ≥1% among either all Urban Estuary or all Lake Michigan samples. Common freshwater lineages as described in Newton et al. (2011a) are indicated with their respective family assignments. A previously compiled freshwater dataset is also depicted (FW Database) and consists of bacterial group distributions inferred from whole community 16S rRNA gene amplification and clone library construction across 47 lakes as described in Newton et al. (2011a).
Figure 3Non-metric multidimensional scaling plot indicating the community composition relationships (Bray-Curtis similarity) between the Urban Estuary (green) and Lake Michigan (blue) samples. Community composition is based on the grouping of sequences by taxonomic assignment to genus and compiled as the relative contribution of each taxon to the community.
Diversity comparison between Urban estuary and Lake Michigan samples.
| Urban estuary | 432 ± 104 | 7 ± 6 | 49 ± 23 | 2680 ± 1232 | 68 ± 40 | 584 ± 463 |
| Lake Michigan | 185 ± 25 | 5 ± 2 | 16 ± 3 | 1015 ± 440 | 37 ± 14 | 145 ± 85 |
| Mann-Whitney U | 400 | 277 | 400 | 379 | 325 | 370 |
Mean and standard deviation are reported.
Indicates significance at p < 0.01.
Indicates significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 4Magnitude of habitat preference between the Urban Estuary waters and Lake Michigan for common freshwater genera/lineages. Habitat preference is determined by the ratio of the mean relative abundance of each genus/lineage among the urban estuary samples vs. its mean relative abundance in the Lake Michigan samples. Bars plotting to the left indicate an urban estuary preference while bars plotting to the right indicate a Lake Michigan preference. A significant association (Mann-Whitney U-test, p ≤ 0.01) with either environment is indicated by an asterisk. Bar color indicates bacterial phylum where yellow, Actinobacteria; green, Bacteroidetes; orange, Alphaproteobacteria; blue, Betaproteobacteria; and purple, Verrucomicrobia.
Oligotype diversity comparisons for common freshwater genera/lineages.
| Urban estuary | 144 ± 20 | 14 ± 4 | 19 ± 4 |
| Lake Michigan | 127 ± 18 | 14 ± 4 | 16 ± 2 |
| Mann-Whitney U | 92 | 64 | 96 |
Mean and standard deviation are reported.
Indicates significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 5Oligotype composition within each freshwater bacterial genus/lineage among samples is indicated in stacked bar plots. The relationship of the oligotype composition in each sample is depicted with a cluster dendrogram based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity among samples. Fully black bars indicate no sequences were recovered from that genus/lineage in that sample. Samples were clustered via an unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean calculation. Samples collected from the urban estuary are labeled with a green circle while those collected from Lake Michigan are labeled with a blue circle.
Figure 6Classification results for oligotype distributions between the urban estuary and Lake Michigan samples. Specialization was set with a threshold of K = 0.75, a coverage limit = 30, and P = 0.01/351. Classification status is indicated by point color and shape. The specialist and rarity thresholds are indicated by dotted lines.