| Literature DB >> 28681284 |
Agnieszka Wolinska1, Magdalena Frąc2, Karolina Oszust2, Anna Szafranek-Nakonieczna3, Urszula Zielenkiewicz4, Zofia Stępniewska3.
Abstract
The main goal of the study was to find differences in the bacterial community structure resulting from different ways of meadow management in order to get the first insight into microbial biodiversity in meadow samples. The next generation sequencing technique (454-pyrosequencing) was accompanied with the community level physiological profiling (CLPP) method in order to acquire combined knowledge of both genetic and catabolic bacterial fingerprinting of two studied meadows (hayland and pasture). Soil samples (FAO: Mollic Gleysol) were taken in April 2015 from the surface layer (0-20 cm). Significant differences of the bacterial community structure between the two analyzed meadows resulted from different land mode were evidenced by pyrosequencing and CLPP techniques. It was found that Alpha- and Gammaproteobacteria dominated in the hayland, whereas Delta- and Betaproteobacteria prevailed in the pasture. Additionally, the hayland displayed lower Firmicutes diversity than the pasture. Predominant bacterial taxa: Acidobacteria, together with Chloroflexi and Bacteroidetes seemed to be insensitive to the mode of land use, because their abundance remained at a similar level in the both studied meadows. The CLPP analysis confirmed much faster degradation of the carbon sources by microorganisms from the hayland rather than from the pasture. Amino acids were the most favoured carbon source groups utilized by microorganisms in contrast to carbohydrates, which were utilized to the lowest extent. The study clearly proved that the consequences of even moderate anthropogenic management are always changes in bacterial community structure and their metabolic activity. Bacterial taxa that are sensitive and resistant on modes of land use were determined.Entities:
Keywords: 454-Pyrosequencing; Bacterial diversity; CLPP; Meadows
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28681284 PMCID: PMC5498651 DOI: 10.1007/s11274-017-2318-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Microbiol Biotechnol ISSN: 0959-3993 Impact factor: 3.312
Soils physical and chemical characteristics (±SD)
| Land use | Clay (mm) | Silt (mm) | Sand (mm) | Moisture (%) | pH (H20) | Eh (mV) | TOC (%) | BD (Mg/m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.002 | 0.002–0.05 | 0.05–2.0 | ||||||
| HAY | 1.31 | 17.53 | 81.16 | 9.10 ± 0.15 | 5.66 ± 0.03 | 467.0 ± 0.11 | 27.4 ± 0.31 | 0.77 ± 0.05 |
| PAS | 1.27 | 15.09 | 83.04 | 7.80 ± 0.09 | 5.89 ± 0.05 | 427.4 ± 0.15 | 21.2 ± 0.27 | 0.62 ± 0.02 |
Summary of 454-pyrosequencing statistics, species richness and diversity indices at genetic distances of 3% for HAY and PAS sites
| Land use | nseqs | Coverage | Chao1 | ACE |
|
|
| OTU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAY | 24,062 | 0.877068 | 10219.3 | 13272.5 | 7.552 | 0.002163 | 462.29 | 5706 |
| PAS | 31,368 | 0.882269 | 12905.1 | 16450.7 | 7.857 | 0.001296 | 771.39 | 7308 |
H′ Shannon–Weaver index of general diversity, D Simpson index of diversity, 1/D Simpson index of dominance
Fig. 1Main phyla of bacteria and Proteobacteria classes detected in Mollic Gleysol under different modes of land use. Mean values of three replicates with standard error are presented
Fig. 2Taxonomic composition based on NGS sequencing across Proteobacteria classes in the two investigated meadows (HAY hayland, PAS pasture)
Fig. 3Phylogenetic comparison of soil metagenomes across other phyla detected in the two investigated meadows (HAY hayland, PAS pasture)
Fig. 4Average well-colour development (AWCD) of metabolized substrates calculated from Biolog EcoPlate™ data for the two studied meadows: hayland (HAY) and pasture (PAS). Vertical bars represent the 0.95 confidence intervals
Fig. 5Substrate richness of metabolized substrates calculated from Biolog EcoPlate™ data for the two studied meadows: hayland (HAY) and pasture (PAS). Vertical bars represent the 0.95 confidence intervals. The different letters indicate significant differences between the meadows (Tukey’s mean separation test, p < 0.05)
Fig. 6Total carbon source utilization response (%) tracked according to the meadow type (HAY-hayland and PAS-pasture) for the different carbon substrate groups
Fig. 7Biolog EcoPlate™ diagram of the intensity of carbon substrate utilization. HAY hayland, PAS pasture, n = 3