| Literature DB >> 29335587 |
Yantian Ma1,2, Jinqian Li1, Juan Wu1, Zhaoyu Kong1, Larry M Feinstein3, Xia Ding1, Gang Ge1, Lan Wu4,5.
Abstract
The water regime is often the primary force driving the evolution of freshEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29335587 PMCID: PMC5768796 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19153-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Environmental variables and vegetation characteristics from the different plots of Lake Poyang.
| Plots | Water level heights (WH, m) | Hydroperiod (days) | SM/% | pH | AFDM/% | TOC | TN | TP | NH4-N | NO3-N | Vegetation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation species | Vegetation abundance | Predominant species | |||||||||||
| H6 | 4.80 | 30–35 | 26.25 ± 0.35 e | 5.02 ± 0.05 d | 7.21 ± 0.32 b | 15.54 ± 0.36 b | 1.63 ± 0.08 ab | 0.24 ± 0.01 bc | 3.95 ± 0.71 b | 1.13 ± 0.48 a | 5.00 ± 0.00 a | 13.00 ± 0.58 a | |
| H5 | 3.17 | 75–90 | 28.45 ± 0.21 d | 5.03 ± 0.02 d | 8.18 ± 0.33 a | 19.02 ± 0.76 a | 1.87 ± 0.47 a | 0.19 ± 0.01 c | 5.57 ± 0.84 b | 0.73 ± 0.35 a | 5.00 ± 0.00 a | 10.33 ± 0.33 a | |
| H4 | 1.76 | 110–125 | 28.87 ± 0.16 d | 5.24 ± 0.04 d | 6.90 ± 0.13 b | 9.76 ± 0.29 cd | 1.32 ± 0.13 ab | 0.29 ± 0.02 b | 3.10 ± 0.57 b | 0.66 ± 0.12 a | 3.33 ± 0.33 b | 6.67 ± 0.33 b | |
| H3 | 0.51 | 160–180 | 31.64 ± 0.64 c | 6.48 ± 0.05 a | 6.63 ± 0.01 b | 9.08 ± 0.38 d | 0.62 ± 0.14 b | 0.37 ± 0.02 a | 3.01 ± 0.13 b | 0.91 ± 0.08 a | 3.67 ± 0.33 b | 6.67 ± 1.76 b | |
| H2 | 0.25 | 180–200 | 37.10 ± 0.37 b | 6.07 ± 0.10 b | 6.29 ± 0.16 b | 10.76 ± 0.54 cd | 1.09 ± 0.27 ab | 0.29 ± 0.03 b | 6.24 ± 1.01 b | 0.84 ± 0.15 a | 0 c | 0 c | |
| H1 | 0 | 365 | 40.40 ± 0.29 a | 5.81 ± 0.07 c | 6.79 ± 0.23 b | 11.68 ± 0.41 c | 1.48 ± 0.16 ab | 0.27 ± 0.01 b | 23.54 ± 1.00 a | 0.98 ± 0.18 a | 0 c | 0 c | |
Water level heights (WH), the height above the water level; SM, soil moisture; AFDM, ash free dry mass; TOC, total organic carbon; Vegetation species, the mean number of plant species per plot; Vegetation abundance, the total number of plants per plot; All data are represented by the mean ± s.d., significant differences are marked with different letters in each column (p < 0. 05, n = 3).
Figure 1The H-clust analysis of the bacterial (upper) and fungal (lower) T-RFLP profiles and the corresponding diversity index from each plot. The A, B and C after the plot name indicate the triplicates.
The soil enzymes, microbial biomass and respiration features among the plots in this study.
| Plots | BX | BG | NAG | PHOS | MBC | MBN | BR | qCO2 | Microbial C | Microbial N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H6 | 17.33 ± 3.13 a | 25.67 ± 3.17 a | 19.09 ± 1.32 a | 453.81 ± 8.22 b | 211.47 ± 12.05a | 22.15 ± 0.90a | 9.95 ± 0.78ab | 0.05 ± 0.01b | 1.35 ± 0.09a | 1.36 ± 0.05a |
| H5 | 40.23 ± 10.53 b | 70.44 ± 11.09 b | 54.97 ± 5.71 b | 875.78 ± 90.52 c | 235.17 ± 19.90a | 22.40 ± 1.82a | 12.28 ± 0.13a | 0.05 ± 0.004b | 1.25 ± 0.27a | 1.37 ± 0.67a |
| H4 | 3.90 ± 0.93 a | 25.00 ± 6.38 a | 13.06 ± 2.52 a | 170.07 ± 17.19 a | 71.13 ± 4.41b | 5.63 ± 0.37e | 10.32 ± 0.52ab | 0.15 ± 0.01a | 0.73 ± 0.06b | 0.43 ± 0.04b |
| H3 | 3.26 ± 0.96 a | 26.52 ± 5.40 a | 15.77 ± 3.22 a | 86.50 ± 22.42 a | 50.12 ± 4.16b | 5.30 ± 0.12c | 10.47 ± 0.93ab | 0.21 ± 0.02a | 0.56 ± 0.07b | 0.95 ± 0.42ab |
| H2 | 2.57 ± 0.44 a | 47.07 ± 5.65 ab | 14.50 ± 1.09 a | 93.97 ± 20.57 a | 46.90 ± 10.29b | 1.33 ± 0.12d | 8.58 ± 0.44b | 0.20 ± 0.04a | 0.44 ± 0.09b | 0.14 ± 0.09b |
| H1 | 3.08 ± 0.69 a | 54.92 ± 13.79 ab | 14.30 ± 3.68 a | 66.22 ± 13.48 a | 83.33 ± 6.63b | 9.94 ± 1.08b | 11.22 ± 1.09ab | 0.13 ± 0.01a | 0.72 ± 0.08b | 0.68 ± 0.13ab |
Microbial C/N is represented by MBC/TOC and MBN/TN.
Figure 2The PCA results of the carbon substrate utilization patterns among the different plots (96 hours).
The significantly correlated relationships (Pearson) between the community profiles and variables (p < 0.05).
| Characteristics | Profiles | Variables | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positively correlated | Negatively correlated | ||
| Microbial biomass and respiration | Microbial biomass (MBC/MBN) | AFDM, TOC, TN, WH | SM, TP, pH, Hydroperiod |
| qCO2 | SM, pH, TP | AFDM, TOC, TN, WH | |
| Soil enzymes | BX/NAG/PHOS | AFDM, TOC, TN, MBC, MBN, WH | SM, pH, TP, hydroperiod |
| BG | TOC | TP | |
| Bacterial biodiversity | Taxa | qCO2, pH, TP | MBC, MBN, TOC |
| Simpson/Evenness | TP | NH4-N | |
| Shannon | TP, pH | TOC | |
| Fungal biodiversity | Taxa | qCO2, pH, TP | MBC, MBN, All C/N/P variables |
| Simpson | — | All C/N/P parameters, AFDM | |
| Shannon | NO3-N | MBC, All C/N/P parameters, AFDM | |
| Evenness | — | BG | |
| Vegetation | VS/VD | NBC, MBN, BX, NAG, PHOS, TOC, AFDM, WH | qCO2, SM, pH, NH4-N, hydroperiod |
Abbreviations: AFDM, ash free dry mass; TOC, total organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; WH: the height above the water level; SM, soil moisture; TP, total phosphate; MBC/MBN, microbial biomass carbon/nitrogen; VS/VD, vegetation species/abundance.
Figure 3The coordinate analysis between the environmental factors and bacterial communities (A), fungal communities (B) and carbon utilization profiles (C) using the db-RDA method.
Figure 4Correlation among environmental heterogeneity, microbial dissimilarity (bacteria and fungi), carbon utilization profiles and soil activities (biomass, enzymes and respiration). Solid lines represent the linear regressions and the significance levels determined by Mantel tests (9999 permutations).
Figure 5The proportion of variance in the community composition (a for bacterial community, b for fungal community) and functional traits (c for carbon utilization profiles, d for soil activities) explained by the environmental components (X1) and spatial distance (X2). Each diagram represents the variation in a given dissimilarity metric partitioned into the relative effects of each component or combination of components. Unexplained variation (residuals) is marked on each plot.
Figure 6Study field and sampling sites in Lake Poyang of China. The location of the study field in Lake Poyang is shown in (A) (generated by ArcGIS 10.2, www.esri.com), and three sampling belts with six plots were placed as shown in (B); the vertical distance to the water level is demonstrated in (C).