| Literature DB >> 30272014 |
Ademir Sergio Ferreira de Araujo1, Lucas William Mendes2, Leandro Nascimento Lemos2, Jadson Emanuel Lopes Antunes3, Jose Evando Aguiar Beserra3, Maria do Carmo Catanho Pereira de Lyra4, Marcia do Vale Barreto Figueiredo4, Ângela Celis de Almeida Lopes3, Regina Lucia Ferreira Gomes3, Walderly Melgaço Bezerra5, Vania Maria Maciel Melo5, Fabio Fernando de Araujo6, Stefan Geisen7.
Abstract
Biodiversity underlies ecosystem functioning. While aboveground biodiversity is often well studied, the belowground microbiome, in particular protists, remains largely unknown. Indeed, holistic insights into soil microbiome structures in natural soils, especially in hyperdiverse biomes such as the Brazilian Cerrado, remain unexplored. Here, we study the soil microbiome across four major vegetation zones of the Cerrado, ranging from grass-dominated to tree-dominated vegetation with a focus on protists. We show that protist taxon richness increases towards the tree-dominated climax vegetation. Early successional habitats consisting of primary grass vegetation host most potential plant pathogens and least animal parasites. Using network analyses combining protist with prokaryotic and fungal sequences, we show that microbiome complexity increases towards climax vegetation. Together, this suggests that protists are key microbiome components and that vegetation succession towards climax vegetation is stimulated by higher loads of animal and plant pathogens. At the same time, an increase in microbiome complexity towards climax vegetation might enhance system stability.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30272014 PMCID: PMC6127325 DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0129-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Commun Biol ISSN: 2399-3642
Fig. 1The composition of eukaryotic communities based on 18S rRNA gene. a General abundance of sequences affiliated to eukaryote groups across all Cerrado vegetation zones. b Comparison of eukaryotic abundances between different vegetation zones. Different lowercase letters refer to significant differences between the vegetation zones (White’s non-parametric t-test, P < 0.05). ‘Other animals’ include Annelida, Arthropoda, Cnidaria, Mollusca, Gastrotricha, Platyhelmintes, Porifera, Rotifera and Tardigrada
Fig. 2Diversity and structure of protist communities in soils from a vegetation gradient of the Brazilian Cerrado. Taxonomic diversity (a) and richness (b) are based on OTU level affiliated to PR[2] at 97% similarity. Error bars represent the standard deviation of ten independent replicates. Different lowercase letters refer to significant differences between treatments based on Tukey’s HSD test (P < 0.05). c Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) of protist community patterns and soil characteristics. Arrows indicate correlation between environmental parameters and protist profile. The significance of these correlations was evaluated via the Monte Carlo permutation test and is indicated by * (P < 0.05). Significant clusters (PERMANOVA, P < 0.05) are indicated by dashed lines in the graph
Fig. 3Heatmaps showing the differential abundance of protist supergroup (a), phyla (b), and functional categories (c) in soils from the vegetation gradient. The colour key relates the heatmap colours to the standard score (z-score), i.e. the deviation from row mean in units of standard deviation above or below the mean. Asterisks indicate significantly different group abundances (White’s non-parametric t-test, P < 0.05), which is illustrated by different lowercase letters inside the boxes. Circles are proportional to the relative abundance of each group in all samples. Only phyla with average abundance > 0.01% were included in the figure
Correlations and topological properties of the networks
| Network properties | Grass | Grass and shrubs | Shrubs and trees | Trees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of nodesa | 19 | 50 | 97 | 101 |
| Number of edgesb | 10 | 98 | 929 | 606 |
| Positive edgesc | 10 | 98 | 929 | 578 |
| Negative edgesd | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 |
| Modularitye | 0.88 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| Number of communitiesf | 9 | 8 | 5 | 16 |
| Network diameterg | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Average path lengthh | 1 | 2.42 | 1.89 | 2.54 |
| Average degreei | 0.526 | 3.92 | 19.15 | 12 |
| Average clustering coefficientj | 0 | 0.54 | 0.74 | 0.72 |
aMicrobial taxon (at family level) with at least one significant (P < 0.01) and strong (SparCC > 0.9 or < −0.9) correlation
bNumber of connections/correlations obtained by SparCC analysis
cSparCC positive correlation ( > 0.9 with P < 0.01)
dSparCC negative correlation ( < −0.9 with P < 0.01)
eThe capability of the nodes to form highly connected communities, that is, a structure with high density of between nodes connections (inferred by Gephi)
fA community is defined as a group of nodes densely connected internally (Gephi)
gThe longest distance between nodes in the network, measured in number of edges (Gephi)
hAverage network distance between all pair of nodes or the average length of all edges in the network (Gephi)
iThe average number of connections per node in the network, that is, the node connectivity (Gephi)
jHow nodes are embedded in their neighbourhood and the degree to which they tend to cluster together (Gephi)
Fig. 4Network co-occurrence analysis of all microbiome eukaryotes and prokaryotes in soils from the vegetation gradient. A connection stands for SparCC correlation with magnitude of > 0.9 (positive correlation – black edges) or < −0.9 (negative correlation – red edges) and statistically significant (P < 0.001). Each node represents different prokaryotic or eukaryotic families, and the size of the node is proportional to the number of connections (degree)