| Literature DB >> 31244819 |
Anna Maria Fiore-Donno1,2, Tim Richter-Heitmann3, Florine Degrune4,5, Kenneth Dumack1,2, Kathleen M Regan6, Sven Marhan7, Runa S Boeddinghaus7, Matthias C Rillig4,5, Michael W Friedrich3, Ellen Kandeler7, Michael Bonkowski1,2.
Abstract
Soil protists are increasingly appreciated as essential components of soil foodwebs; however, there is a dearth of information on the factors structuring their communities. Here we investigate the importance of different biotic and abiotic factors as key drivers of spatial and seasonal distribution of protistan communities. We conducted an intensive survey of a 10 m2 grassland plot in Germany, focusing on a major group of protists, the Cercozoa. From 177 soil samples, collected from April to November, we obtained 694 Operational Taxonomy Units representing >6 million Illumina reads. All major cercozoan taxonomic and functional groups were present, dominated by the small flagellates of the Glissomonadida. We found evidence of environmental selection structuring the cercozoan communities both spatially and seasonally. Spatial analyses indicated that communities were correlated within a range of 3.5 m. Seasonal variations in the abundance of bacterivores and bacteria, followed by that of omnivores suggested a dynamic prey-predator succession. The most influential edaphic properties were moisture and clay content, which differentially affected each functional group. Our study is based on an intense sampling of protists at a small scale, thus providing a detailed description of the biodiversity of different taxa/functional groups and the ecological processes involved in shaping their distribution.Entities:
Keywords: biogeography; dispersal limitation; environmental selection; functional traits; microbial assembly; protozoa; soil ecology; soil protists
Year: 2019 PMID: 31244819 PMCID: PMC6579879 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01332
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Number of reads retrieved at each step of the bioinformatic pipeline.
| Mock community (11 taxa) | Unique | Genuine Cercozoa | Aligned | Non-chimeric | Clustered 97% sim. | OTUs rel. abundance ≥ 0.01 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representative sequences | 8430 | 7582 | 7552 | 7319 | 182 | 11 |
| All sequences | 22818 | 14723 | 14693 | 14321 | 14321 | 14031 |
| % removed | 0 | 10 | 0.2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Representative sequences | 10052231 | 5556619 | 1324 | 694 | ||
| All sequences | 10052231 | 10029413 | 7856763 | 6225241 | ||
| % removed | 0 | 22 | 21 | |||
FIGURE 1Sankey diagram showing the relative contribution of the OTUs to the taxonomic diversity. Taxonomical assignment is based on the best hit by BLAST. From left to right, names refer to phyla (Cercozoa, Endomyxa), class (ending -ea), and orders (ending -ida). “Unassigned” refer to sequences that could not be assigned to the next lower-ranking taxon or to “incertae sedis” order or families. Numbers are percentages of sequences’ abundances – taxa represented by <1% are not shown.
FIGURE 2Functional diversity of cercozoan taxa. The relative proportions of functional groups classified according to nutrition, morphology, and locomotion modes.
Spatial correlations and effect of distance on beta-diversity.
| A | Mantel test | B | Mantel correlograms | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mantel R | Smallest distance | Largest distance | |||||
| All OTUs | 0.1661 | 0.0001 | All OTUs, 9 classes | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.0008 |
| All OTUs, 16 classes | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.75 | 0.0024 | |||
| All OTUs, 32 classes | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.875 | 0.0198 | |||
| Gliding on substrate | 0.1609 | 0.0001 | Gliding on substrate | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.0008 |
| Bacterivores | 0.1642 | 0.0001 | Bacterivores | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.001 |
| Flagellates | 0.1384 | 0.0001 | Flagellates | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.0032 |
| Amoeboflagellates | 0.1714 | 0.0001 | Amoeboflagellates | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.0008 |
| Testate | 0.0941 | 0.0002 | Testate | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 3.5 | 0.0274 |
| April | 0.2702 | 0.0022 | April | 0.45 | 0.001 | 3.5 | 0.0176 |
| May | 0.1141 | 0.1041 | May | Mantel not significant | |||
| June | 0.2608 | 0.001 | June | 0.45 | 0.0001 | – | – |
| August | 0.1654 | 0.0183 | August | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 2.5 | 0.0136 |
| October | 0.1239 | 0.0332 | October | 0.45 | 0.0001 | 1.5 | 0.0103 |
| November | 0.1121 | 0.0791 | November | 0.45 | 0.0008 | 1.5 | 0.0277 |
FIGURE 3Effect of distance on the beta-diversity of the cercozoan communities. (A) Mantel correlograms based on Bray-Curtis OTUs dissimilarities compared to Euclidian spatial distances and the Spearman correlation coefficient. Three distance classes were considered, resulting in intervals of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 m. Only significant values (p < 0.05) are highlighted with black squares. Positive correlations were detected at distances from 0.45 to 3.875 m, no correlations at distances between 4.0 and 5.5 m. From 5.5 to 12.4 m, the communities were negatively correlated. (B) Mantel correlograms as above, calculated for OTUs grouped by the most represented functional traits, with nine distance classes.
FIGURE 4Box plots of the seasonal variation in the relative abundance of the 12 most abundant cercozoan families characterized by their nutrition mode (in different colors). Note that the y-scale varies between graphs. The small letters a, b, and c designate statistically significant differences in abundance between sampling dates (contrasts of estimated marginal means on generalized least squares models after correction for spatial autocorrelation). A change of letter from “a” to “b”, or “c” indicates a significant difference between sampling dates; “ab” indicate non-significant differences between dates sharing those letters.
FIGURE 5Venn diagram of variance partitioning analysis illustrating the effect of distance, season, and environment (biotic and abiotic edaphic factors) on the cercozoan communities. Values show the percentage of explained variance by each set of variables, and of joined effects in the intersections.
ANOVA results of the most parsimonious RDA model including selected edaphic and biotic parameters.
| Best abiotic predictors | ||
|---|---|---|
| Soil moisture | 11.546 | 0.001 |
| % of clay | 4.8303 | 0.001 |
| Soil organic C | 3.7957 | 0.001 |
| pH | 3.3318 | 0.001 |
| Total N | 2.1179 | 0.001 |
| NO3 | 1.929 | 0.007 |
| N microbial biomass | 6.9191 | 0.001 |
| Number of bacteria | 4.1349 | 0.001 |
| Litter | 2.361 | 0.001 |
| Archaeal 16S | 1.7796 | 0.004 |
| Total plant biomass | 1.6192 | 0.004 |
| Fungal PLFAs | 1.5051 | 0.024 |
| C microbial biomass | 1.4467 | 0.033 |
FIGURE 6Schematic illustration showing the positive (+) or negative (–) interactions between the four most influential soil physicochemical parameters (based on the ANOVA, Table 3), and the relative abundances of the major families or morphotypes (details of the models in Supplementary Table S6).