| Literature DB >> 29452849 |
Camila Cesário Fernandes1, Luciano Takeshi Kishi1, Erica Mendes Lopes1, Wellington Pine Omori2, Jackson Antonio Marcondes de Souza2, Lucia Maria Carareto Alves1, Eliana Gertrudes de Macedo Lemos3.
Abstract
Human activities on the Earth's surface change the landscape of natural ecosystems. Mining practices are one of the most severe human activities, drastically altering the chemical, physical and biological properties of the soil environment. Bacterial communities in soil play an important role in the maintenance of ecological relationships. This work shows bacterial diversity, metabolic repertoire and physiological behavior in five ecosystems samples with different levels of impact. These ecosystems belong to a historical area in Iron Quadrangle, Minas Gerais, Brazil, which suffered mining activities until its total depletion without recovery since today. The results revealed Proteobacteria as the most predominant phylum followed by Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Planctomycetes, and Bacteroidetes. Soils that have not undergone anthropological actions exhibit an increase ability to degrade carbon sources. The richest soil with the high diversity was found in ecosystems that have suffered anthropogenic action. Our study shows profile of diversity inferring metabolic profile, which may elucidate the mechanisms underlying changes in community structure in situ mining sites in Brazil. Our data comes from contributing to know the bacterial diversity, relationship between these bacteria and can explore strategies for natural bioremediation in mining areas or adjacent areas under regeneration process in iron mining areas.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial diversity; Brazilian soils; Functional diversity; Iron mine
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29452849 PMCID: PMC6066727 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2017.12.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Figure 1Location of the Córrego do Meio mine, Sabará, Minas Gerais State, in the southeast of Brazil. A. Sampling site distribution within the different five ecosystems is shown in the enlarged central image (modified from Google Earth). Characteristic vegetation of each ecosystem (ASF, EFS, BCS, SIC and GIM) is shown in Table 1. B. Sampling scheme used for collecting soils samples according to Moreira et al. (2010) is shown in the higher right; black point represents the soil samples.
Ecosystems sampled in this study.
| Vegetation type | ID | Latitude | Longitude | Soil type | Impact level | Vegetation features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic semi-deciduous forest (ASF) | ASF6 | 19°51′41.41″S | 43°48′7.90″O | Clay loam | Semi-deciduous secondary forest originally, belonging to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest biome (BAFB), about 12.9% of the CeBio area. It shows different stages of natural regeneration | |
| ASF7 | 19°51′44.60″S | 43°48′6.81″O | Silty clay loam | None to low | ||
| ASF8 | 19°51′40.38″S | 43°48′4.76″O | Clay loam | |||
| Neotropical Savannah (BCS) | BCS1 | 19°51′48.47″S | 43°48′20.08″O | Clay loam | Soil covered with herbaceous layer dominated by mixed grasses, dicotyledonous herbs, and shrubs with scattered trees (lower than 8 m), about 17.8% of the CeBio area | |
| BCS2 | 19°51′45.42″S | 43°48′21.12″O | Loam | None to low | ||
| BCS3 | 19°51′42.38″S | 43°48′22.18″O | Loam | |||
| Ironstone outcrops (SIC) | SIC1 | 19°50′2.06″S | 43°44′7.40″O | Clay loam | Characterized by the strong presence of | |
| SIC2 | 19°50′5.13″S | 43°44′6.35″O | Sandy loam | None to low | ||
| SIC6 | 19°50′7.25″S | 43°44′1.99″O | Clay loam | |||
| Eucalyptus planted area (EFS) | EFS1 | 19°51′40.35″S | 43°48′26.58″O | Clay loam | Originally part of the BAFB, it represents about 43.8% of the CeBio area. In 2006, trees of | |
| EFS2 | 19°51′36.27″S | 43°48′24.25″O | Clay loam | Medium to high | ||
| EFS3 | 19°51′39.32″S | 43°48′23.29″O | Loam | |||
| Grass landscape former Iron-tailing Mound (GIM) | GIM2 | 19°51′40.56″S | 43°47′53.75″O | Sandy loam | Soil covered with grass, mostly | |
| GIM3 | 19°51′39.62″S | 43°47′50.61″O | Loam | High | ||
| GIM4 | 19°51′38.59″S | 43°47′47.36″O | Clay loam | |||
Chemical parameters and metal concentration from soil samples of CeBio and the limits permitted by law.
| Soil sample | Organic matter | pH | K | P | Zn | Fe | Mn | Cu | B | S | Cr | Ni |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | |||||||||||
| ASF | 4.77 (+0.92)c | 4.65 (+0.11)b | 68.5 (+0.88)a | 1.9325 (+0.16)a | 7.56 (+1.44)a | 94.545 (+2.35)a | 67.83 (+2.50)a | 3.0275 (+2.46)a | 7.08 (+7.34)a | 11.155 (+2.39)b | 12.9 (+0.92)ab | 15.05 (+1.50)ab |
| BCS | 3.46 (+0.84)b | 4.95 (+0.11)b | 48 (+0.32)ab | 1.4975 (+0.29)a | 0.88 (+0.08)a | 102.735 (+8.30)a | 22.46 (+4.13)a | 2.1025 (+9.05)abc | 0.0875 (+1.23)a | 11.1175 (+6.75)b | 26.65 (+0.84)a | 16.3 (+3.90)a |
| EFS | 5.09 (+0.25)b | 4.725 (+0.05)b | 38 (+0.16)ab | 1.935 (+0.77)a | 0.765 (+0.11)a | 122.66 (+4.32)a | 18.2625 (+5.44)a | 2.7625 (+5.07)ab | 0.1225 (+3.00)a | 17.465 (+2.65)ab | 27.45 (+0.25)a | 15.9 (+1.75)a |
| SIC | 9.57 (+0.41)a | 4.5 (+0.58)b | 56 (+0.11)ab | 3.81 (+0.50)a | 1.8025 (+0.58)a | 236.7175 (+4.75)a | 17.0975 (+3.40)a | 0.6975 (+2.00)c | 0.25 (+1.30)a | 14.4475 (+0.58)ab | 9.01 (+3.41)b | 6.05 (+1.75)b |
| GIM | 1.32 (+0.17)b | 5.95 (+0.92)a | 32.5 (+0.16)b | 6.65 (+0.62)a | 0.6125 (+0.40)a | 43.3275 (+2.88)a | 41.9075 (+2.90)a | 0.735 (+4.84)bc | 0.185 (+5.33)a | 28.9375 (+0.15)a | 19.4 (+0.17)ab | 13.95 (+1.22)a |
| Background (Nascimento, 2014) | 180.9 | 492.8 | 1284.5 | 387.7 | 17.3 | 9.00 | ||||||
| Background (CONAMA) | 12,300 | NE | NE | 35.7 | NE | NE | 37.3 | 1800 | ||||
Tukey analysis – (small letters no difference between ecosystems).
NE – not established.
* CONAMA resolution 420/09.
Sequencing results and diversity estimates.
| Sample | Sequencing results | Diversity estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sequences | Total OTUs | ACE | Chao1 | Shannon | Simpson | |
| BCS1 | 85,313 | 1931 | 2534 | 2522 | 8.274 | 0.986 |
| BCS2 | 207,062 | 2011 | 2368 | 2429 | 7.538 | 0.974 |
| BCS3 | 576,501 | 3280 | 3502 | 3577 | 9.012 | 0.993 |
| Mean value BSC | 2407 | 2801 | 2843 | 8.27 ± 0.73 | 0.98 ± 0.009 | |
| SIC1 | 535,103 | 3109 | 3383 | 3487 | 8.810 | 0.992 |
| SIC2 | 562,264 | 2489 | 2743 | 2674 | 7.740 | 0.983 |
| SIC6 | 446,362 | 3037 | 3372 | 3463 | 8.348 | 0.990 |
| Mean value SIC | 2878 | 3166 | 3208 | 8.29 + 0.53 | 0.99 + 0.004 | |
| GIM2 | 540,761 | 3438 | 3745 | 3770 | 9.329 | 0.995 |
| GIM3 | 832,481 | 3780 | 3999 | 4103 | 9.560 | 0.996 |
| GIM4 | 171,291 | 2792 | 3259 | 3360 | 8.764 | 0.993 |
| Mean value GIM | 3777 | 4042 | 3744 | 9.52 + 0.18 | 0.99 + 0.005 | |
| EFS1 | 531,479 | 2500 | 2731 | 2753 | 8.440 | 0.990 |
| EFS2 | 263,852 | 2483 | 2796 | 2837 | 8.473 | 0.988 |
| EFS3 | 97,912 | 2029 | 2482 | 2494 | 8.405 | 0.982 |
| Mean value EFS | 2337 | 2669 | 2695 | 8.43 + 0.03 | 0.99 + 0.004 | |
| ASF6 | 570,726 | 3341 | 3544 | 3561 | 9.146 | 0.993 |
| ASF7 | 221,574 | 2347 | 2719 | 2764 | 7.785 | 0.985 |
| ASF8 | 653,469 | 1291 | 1389 | 1411 | 7.687 | 0.986 |
| Mean value ASF | 2326 | 2550 | 2579 | 8.20 + 0.83 | 0.92 + 0.004 | |
Figure 2Taxonomic distribution of bacterial family in all soil samples from CeBio.
Figure 3Taxonomic distribution of bacterial genera in all soil samples from CeBio.
Figure 4A heatmap of hierarchical clustering showing PICRUSt-predicted community metagenomes of five CeBio soils samples and 41 level-2 KEGG pathways.
Figure 5Heatmap of hierarchical cluster analyses from 15 soil samples and 31 sources of carbon showing metabolic diversity and community-level physiological profile (CLPP) in all time of incubation.
Figure 6Principal coordinates analyses (PCoA) calculated from the consumption of carbon sources of microbial communities, soil samples, and metals.