| Literature DB >> 29213260 |
Abigail Tomasek1,2, Christopher Staley3, Ping Wang3, Thomas Kaiser3, Nicole Lurndahl4, Jessica L Kozarek1, Miki Hondzo1,2, Michael J Sadowsky3,5.
Abstract
While modern developments in agriculture have allowed for increases in crop yields and rapid human population growth, they have also drastically altered biogeochemical cycles, including the biotransformation of nitrogen. Denitrification is a critical process performed by bacteria and fungi that removes nitrate in surface waters, thereby serving as a potential natural remediation strategy. We previously reported that constant inundation resulted in a coupling of denitrification gene abundances with denitrification rates in sediments, but these relationships were not maintained in periodically-inundated or non-inundated environments. In this study, we utilized Illumina next-generation sequencing to further evaluate how the microbial community responds to these hydrologic regimes and how this community is related to denitrification rates at three sites along a creek in an agricultural watershed over 2 years. The hydrologic connectivity of the sampling location had a significantly greater influence on the denitrification rate (P = 0.010), denitrification gene abundances (P < 0.001), and the prokaryotic community (P < 0.001), than did other spatiotemporal factors (e.g., creek sample site or sample month) within the same year. However, annual variability among denitrification rates was also observed (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the denitrification rate was significantly positively correlated with water nitrate concentration (Spearman's ρ = 0.56, P < 0.0001), denitrification gene abundances (ρ = 0.23-0.47, P ≤ 0.006), and the abundances of members of the families Burkholderiaceae, Anaerolinaceae, Microbacteriaceae, Acidimicrobineae incertae sedis, Cytophagaceae, and Hyphomicrobiaceae (ρ = 0.17-0.25, P ≤ 0.041). Prokaryotic community composition accounted for the least amount of variation in denitrification rates (22%), while the collective influence of spatiotemporal factors and gene abundances accounted for 37%, with 40% of the variation related to interactions among all parameters. Results of this study suggest that the hydrologic connectivity at each location had a greater effect on the prokaryotic community than did spatiotemporal differences, where inundation is associated with shifts favoring increased denitrification potential. We further establish that while complex interactions among the prokaryotic community influence denitrification, the link between hydrologic connectivity, microbial community composition, and genetic potential for biogeochemical cycling is a promising avenue to explore hydrologic remediation strategies such as periodic flooding.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial community structure; denitrification; hydrology; qPCR; sequencing; soil
Year: 2017 PMID: 29213260 PMCID: PMC5702768 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Hydrologic parameters, nitrate concentration, and denitrification potential among channel sites.
| 2014 | SMC1 | 9 | 0.004 ± 0.000 | 0.28 ± 0.4 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | 13.51 ± 20.24 | 7.70 ± 14.64 | 15.24 ± 13.03 |
| SMC2 | 9 | 0.003 ± 0.004B | 0.31 ± 0.24B | 11.43 ± 16.88 | 4.29 ± 6.14B | 28.69 ± 9.77AB | ||
| SMC3 | 9 | 0.018 ± 0.010B | 0.13 ± 0.02B | 13.16 ± 10.69 | 4.66 ± 5.20B | 5.49 ± 6.37B | ||
| 2015 | SMC1 | 15 | 0.012 ± 0.009B | 0.89 ± 1.1 | 0.64 ± 0.08A | 17.18 ± 10.81 | 14.23 ± 11.79B | 24.48 ± 15.83B |
| SMC2 | 15 | 0.016 ± 0.009B | 0.52 ± 0.23A | 17.79 ± 11.29 | 30.16 ± 27.77A | 47.79 ± 40.22A | ||
| SMC3 | 15 | 0.043 ± 0.025A | 0.18 ± 0.07B | 14.00 ± 5.43 | 4.24 ± 4.76B | 5.30 ± 5.45B | ||
| Fisher's | <0.0001 | 0.196 | <0.001 | 0.796 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
Values as mean ± standard deviation are shown, and n represents the number of samples for each site. Data from site SMC1 in 2014 were excluded from analyses due to multicolinearity.
Fisher's F statistics for the ANOVA model. Separate models were calculated for each variable.
.
Figure 1Mean denitrification rates of triplicate samples collected from channel positions at (A) SMC1, (B) SMC2, and (C) SMC3. Error bars reflect standard deviation. Blue bars represent DNU and red bars represent DNA.
Figure 216S rRNA and denitrification gene abundances from samples collected at (A) SMC1, (B) SMC2, and (C) SMC3. Error bars reflect standard deviation of triplicate samples.
Differences in denitrification gene abundances due to temporal, spatial, and geographic features.
| 2015 > 2014 (0.020) | NS | SMC2 > SMC3 (0.005) | |
| 2015 > 2014 (0.010) | floodzone > nonfloodzone (0.037) | SMC2 > SMC3 (0.012) | |
| NS | nonfloodzone < others (< 0.001) | SMC2 > SMC1 > SMC3 (≤ 0.035) | |
| 2015 > 2014 (< 0.0001) | NS | SMC2 > others (< 0.001) | |
| 2015 > 2014 (< 0.0001) | NS | SMC2 > SMC1 > SMC3 (≤ 0.039) | |
| NS | Nonfloodzone < others (≤ 0.047) | SMC2 > SMC1 > SMC3 (≤ 0.032) |
Tukey's post-hoc P values are shown in parentheses, where significant (P < 0.05). Only the abundances of cnorBB did not show some significant variation among months of sampling (P ≥ 0.105).
NS: no significant differences were observed in relation to the variable.
Figure 3Distribution of the 15 most abundant classes from samples collected in (A) 2014 and (B) 2015. Numbers in parentheses reflect sample size. Samples in 2015 that did not meet the rarefaction depth of 38,000 sequence reads were excluded from the dataset. Less abundant classes were present at a mean ≤1.6% of sequence reads, among all samples.
Figure 4Principal coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrices from samples collected in (A) 2014 (r2 = 0.82) and (B) 2015 (r2 = 0.73). Legend: SMC1 (•), SMC2 (■), SMC3 (♦), channel (blue), floodzone (green), nonfloodzone (orange). Relative abundances of families shown (among the 15 most abundant shown in Figure S4) were significantly correlated with ordination position (P < 0.05). Families that were not significantly correlated are not shown.
Figure 5Canonical correspondence analysis of sampling sites, years, and positions; denitrification rates; denitrification gene abundances; and family abundances (among the 10 most abundant). Legend: sampling sites (■), years (♦), positions (•), denitrification rates (■), denitrification genes (▴), and prokaryotic families (•).