| Literature DB >> 31001220 |
Jeonghwan Jang1, Emily L Anderson2, Rodney T Venterea2,3, Michael J Sadowsky1,2, Carl J Rosen2, Gary W Feyereisen3, Satoshi Ishii1,2.
Abstract
Woodchip bioreactor technology removes nitrate from agricultural subsurface drainage by using denitrifying microorganisms. Although woodchip bioreactors have demonstrated success in many field locations, lowEntities:
Keywords: Cellulomonas; denitrification; drainage; nitrate removal; woodchip bioreactor
Year: 2019 PMID: 31001220 PMCID: PMC6454037 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00635
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1(A) N2O production and (B) DOC concentrations from the microcosms supplemented with nitrate (i.e., treatments WINA and WIN) during 48-h incubation. N2O production was not observed from the microcosms without nitrate addition (i.e., treatments WIA and WI): , Microcosms incubated with nitrate and acetate (i.e., treatment WINA) and , microcosms incubated with nitrate only (i.e., treatment WIN).
Figure 2Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plots showing β diversity between microbial communities for (A) DNA and (B) cDNA samples. The β diversity was calculated using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. Red, no-incubation control (i.e., treatment W); blue, microcosms incubated with acetate (i.e., treatments WINA and WIN); and orange, microcosms incubated without acetate (i.e., treatments WIA and WI). Microbial communities in the microcosms incubated with nitrate (i.e., treatments WINA and WIN) were clustered together.
Figure 3Heatmaps showing relative abundance of sequence reads in operational taxonomic units (OTUs) for (A) DNA and (B) cDNA samples. Only OTUs that showed different abundance between incubation conditions are shown. Assigned genus names are shown for the OTUs that showed significant differences between the three sample types (i.e., microcosms incubated with nitrate [treatments WINA and WIN], microcosms incubated without nitrate [treatments WIA and WI], and no-incubation control [treatment W]) by analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. For detailed sample information, see Supplementary Table S2.
Figure 4Relative abundance (%) of Cellulomonas rRNA in the sequencing libraries. Mean ± SD (n = 3) is shown. W, no-incubation control; WINA, woodchip microcosms incubated with nitrate and acetate additions; WIN, woodchip microcosms incubated with nitrate addition; WIA, woodchip microcosms incubated with acetate addition; WI, woodchip microcosms incubated without any additives.
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree generated based on the deduced NirK sequences using the maximum likelihood method. GenBank accession numbers are shown in square brackets. Bootstrap values (%) were generated from 1000 replicates, and the values >70% are shown. Branch lengths correspond to sequence differences as indicated by the scale bar.
Figure 6Transcription level of Cellulomonas nirK in the woodchip microcosms. Transcription levels were normalized by the amount of the 16S rRNA. Mean ± SD (n = 3) is shown. W, no-incubation control; WINA, woodchip microcosms incubated with nitrate and acetate additions; WIN, woodchip microcosms incubated with nitrate addition; WIA, woodchip microcosms incubated with acetate addition; WI, woodchip microcosms incubated without any additives.