| Literature DB >> 29978046 |
Battle Karimi1, Sébastien Terrat1, Samuel Dequiedt1, Nicolas P A Saby2, Walid Horrigue1, Mélanie Lelièvre3, Virginie Nowak1, Claudy Jolivet2, Dominique Arrouays2, Patrick Wincker4, Corinne Cruaud4, Antonio Bispo2, Pierre-Alain Maron1, Nicolas Chemidlin Prévost Bouré1, Lionel Ranjard1.
Abstract
Over the last two decades, a considerable effort has been made to decipher the biogeography of soil microbial communities as a whole, from small to broad scales. In contrast, few studies have focused on the taxonomic groups constituting these communities; thus, our knowledge of their ecological attributes and the drivers determining their composition and distribution is limited. We applied a pyrosequencing approach targeting 16S ribosomal RNA (rREntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29978046 PMCID: PMC6031370 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat1808
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Sampling design.
Map of France and the systematic sampling grid (16 × 16 km) of the French Soil Quality Monitoring Network (RMQS) ().
Fig. 2Representativeness of bacterial and archaeal phyla in French soils.
Left: The proportion of sampling sites where phyla were present. Right: The average relative abundance of the phyla. The four groups were determined by ascendant hierarchical clustering (fig. S1). The statistical differences in the phyla distributions are indicated in table S1.
Fig. 3Relative abundance of the 47 main genera.
The main genera presented more than 0.5% of sequences on average and occurred in more than 75% of sites. The genera were classified across the bacterial and archaeal phyla. “Others” corresponds to the sum of all genera within each phylum representing fewer than 0.5% of sequences.
Fig. 4Mapping of abundance of the most dominant bacterial and archaeal phyla across France.
For each map, d is the range in kilometers estimated by the model, and R2 corresponds to the correlation between the predicted and measured values. The quality parameters and the model types are detailed in table S2.
Fig. 5Comparison of maps phylum/genera.
(A) Four examples of a phylum for which the spatial distribution is consistent with its major genus. (B) Two examples of a phylum for which the spatial distribution represents the cumulative distributions of all genera belonging to the phylum. The complete set of maps is available in fig. S4.
Fig. 6Variance partitioning of the microbial phyla across France according to environmental and spatial parameters.
(A) The 20 microbial phyla are ranked from the most to the least abundant. The explained variance corresponds to the sum of the adjusted R2 values of the significant parameters within the contextual groups (soil physicochemical parameters, land management, spatial descriptors, climate, interactions between soil physicochemical properties and land management). The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Missing values indicate that no variable of the related group was retained in the model. (B to D) Contribution and effect of environmental parameters, land management, and spatial descriptors (PCNM at medium and coarse scales) on the distribution of bacterial and archaeal phyla. The colors depict the direction of the standardized partial regression coefficients (green, positive effect; red, negative effect). The height of the shape and the values indicate the percentage of variance explained by environmental parameters [for (B) and (D), proportions are comparable between boxes] and the coefficient of the standardized partial regression of each land management type. For this last effect, the coefficients are relative to a reference level grouping of 60 samples unclassified in the four types (C). The explained variance represents the respective significant contribution of each variable and was calculated by considering all other variables using partial regression models and adjusting the R2 values.