Literature DB >> 30836877

Microbial communities in hummingbird feeders are distinct from floral nectar and influenced by bird visitation.

Casie Lee1, Lisa A Tell1, Tiffany Hilfer1, Rachel L Vannette2.   

Abstract

Human provisioning can shape resource availability for wildlife, but consequences for microbiota availability and exchange remain relatively unexplored. Here, we characterized microbial communities on bills and faecal material of hummingbirds and their food resources, including feeders and floral nectar. We experimentally manipulated bird visitation to feeders and examined effects on sucrose solution microbial communities. Birds, feeders and flowers hosted distinct bacterial and fungal communities. Proteobacteria comprised over 80% of nectar bacteria but feeder solutions contained a high relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. Hummingbirds hosted bacterial taxa commonly found in other birds and novel genera including Zymobacter [Proteobacteria] and Ascomycete fungi. For feeders, bird-visited and unvisited solutions both accumulated abundant microbial populations that changed solution pH, but microbial composition was largely determined by visitation treatment. Our results reveal that feeders host abundant microbial populations, including some bird-associated microbial taxa. Microbial taxa in feeders were primarily non-pathogenic bacteria and fungi but differed substantially from those in floral nectar. These results demonstrate that human provisioning influences microbial intake by free-ranging hummingbirds; however, it is unknown how these changes impact hummingbird gastrointestinal flora or health.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calypte anna; community assembly; floral nectar; human–bird interactions; hummingbird microbiome; wildlife

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30836877      PMCID: PMC6458324          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  37 in total

Review 1.  Intestinal microbiota is a plastic factor responding to environmental changes.

Authors:  Marco Candela; Elena Biagi; Simone Maccaferri; Silvia Turroni; Patrizia Brigidi
Journal:  Trends Microbiol       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 17.079

Review 2.  Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attraction of mutualists and protection from exploiters.

Authors:  Marcia González-Teuber; Martin Heil
Journal:  Plant Signal Behav       Date:  2009-09-24

Review 3.  Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife.

Authors:  P Daszak; A A Cunningham; A D Hyatt
Journal:  Acta Trop       Date:  2001-02-23       Impact factor: 3.112

4.  Treatment of water for aquatic bacterial growth studies.

Authors:  J S Colbourne; R M Trew; P J Dennis
Journal:  J Appl Bacteriol       Date:  1988-07

5.  Anthropogenic resource subsidies and host-parasite dynamics in wildlife.

Authors:  Daniel J Becker; Richard J Hall; Kristian M Forbes; Raina K Plowright; Sonia Altizer
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  From wetland specialist to hand-fed generalist: shifts in diet and condition with provisioning for a recently urbanized wading bird.

Authors:  Maureen H Murray; Anjelika D Kidd; Shannon E Curry; Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman; Michael J Yabsley; Henry C Adams; Taylor Ellison; Catharine N Welch; Sonia M Hernandez
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Inheritance and Establishment of Gut Microbiota in Chickens.

Authors:  Jinmei Ding; Ronghua Dai; Lingyu Yang; Chuan He; Ke Xu; Shuyun Liu; Wenjing Zhao; Lu Xiao; Lingxiao Luo; Yan Zhang; He Meng
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 8.  Human-nature interactions and the consequences and drivers of provisioning wildlife.

Authors:  Daniel T C Cox; Kevin J Gaston
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 6.671

9.  Age-related differences in the cloacal microbiota of a wild bird species.

Authors:  Wouter F D van Dongen; Joël White; Hanja B Brandl; Yoshan Moodley; Thomas Merkling; Sarah Leclaire; Pierrick Blanchard; Etienne Danchin; Scott A Hatch; Richard H Wagner
Journal:  BMC Ecol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 2.964

10.  phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data.

Authors:  Paul J McMurdie; Susan Holmes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Potential effects of nectar microbes on pollinator health.

Authors:  Valerie N Martin; Robert N Schaeffer; Tadashi Fukami
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 6.671

2.  Anti-microbial activity of whole blood and plasma collected from Anna's Hummingbirds (Calypte anna) against three different microbes.

Authors:  Andrea M DeRogatis; Leilani V Nguyen; Ruta R Bandivadekar; Kirk C Klasing; Lisa A Tell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The effect of toxic pyridine-alkaloid secondary metabolites on the sunbird gut microbiome.

Authors:  Mohanraj Gunasekaran; Maya Lalzar; Yehonatan Sharaby; Ido Izhaki; Malka Halpern
Journal:  NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 7.290

4.  Direct Evidence That Sunbirds' Gut Microbiota Degrades Floral Nectar's Toxic Alkaloids.

Authors:  Mohanraj Gunasekaran; Beny Trabelcy; Ido Izhaki; Malka Halpern
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Microbial communities associated with mounds of the Orange-footed scrubfowl Megapodius reinwardt.

Authors:  Karla Cardenas Gomez; Alea Rose; Karen Susanne Gibb; Keith A Christian
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 3.061

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.