| Literature DB >> 32009695 |
Marija Sciberras1, Karen Tait2, Guillaume Brochain2, Jan G Hiddink1, Rachel Hale3, Jasmin A Godbold3, Martin Solan3.
Abstract
Microbes and benthic macro-invertebrates interact in sediments to play a major role in the biogeochemical cycling of organic matter, but the extent to which their contributions are modified following natural and anthropogenic changes has received little attention. Here, we investigate how nitrogen transformations, ascertained from changes in archaeal and bacterial N-cycling microbes and water macronutrient concentrations ([NH4-N], [NO2-N], [NO3-N]), in sand and sandy mud sediments differ when macrofaunal communities that have previously experienced contrasting levels of chronic fishing disturbance are exposed to organic matter enrichment. We find that differences in macrofaunal community structure related to differences in fishing activity affect the capacity of the macrofauna to mediate microbial nitrogen cycling in sand, but not in sandy mud environments. Whilst we found no evidence for a change in ammonia oxidiser community structure, we did find an increase in archaeal and bacterial denitrifier (AnirKa, nirS) and anammox (hzo) transcripts in macrofaunal communities characterized by higher ratios of suspension to deposit feeders, and a lower density but higher biomass of sediment-reworking fauna. Our findings suggest that nitrogen transformation in shelf sandy sediments is dependent on the stimulation of specific nitrogen cycling pathways that are associated with differences in the composition and context-dependent expression of the functional traits that belong to the resident bioturbating macrofauna community.Entities:
Keywords: Ammonia-oxidisers; Bioturbation; Bottom fishing; Denitrification; Ecosystem functioning; Microbial–invertebrate interactions; Nitrogen cycling
Year: 2017 PMID: 32009695 PMCID: PMC6961516 DOI: 10.1007/s10533-017-0370-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biogeochemistry ISSN: 0168-2563 Impact factor: 4.825
Summary of environmental characteristics and bottom fishing frequency of our study sites
| Site code | Geographical location (latitude, longitude) | Fishing frequency (times fished per annum) | Depth (m) | Tide stress (Nm−2) | Wave stress (Nm−2) | Sand (%) | Mud (%) | Organic matter (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sM-low | 54.15 N, −3.63 W | 3.8 | 26.00 | 0.17 | 0.69 | 33.48 ± 2.62 | 66.48 ± 2.62 | 70 ± 6.33 |
| sM-high | 54.26 N, −3.73 W | 8.4 | 28.54 | 0.22 | 0.68 | 36.43 ± 1.98 | 63.55 ± 1.99 | 90 ± 12.65 |
| S-low | 54.20 N, −4.05 W | 0.25 | 19.80 | 0.17 | 1.00 | 99.51 ± 0.38 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 40 ± 6.33 |
| S-high | 54.26 N, −4.19 W | 1.63 | 18.79 | 0.11 | 0.73 | 94.2 ± 0.68 | 4.7 ± 0.53 | 70 ± 9.49 |
Values for percent sand, percent mud and organic matter content (mg) are given as mean ± SE (n = 10)
Linear regression models to examine the effects of fishing frequency and enrichment (full factorial, F × E) in sand (S), for macro-invertebrate community (Models 1–4: invertebrate density, biomass and species richness, the ratio of suspension to deposit feeders), sediment reworking groups (Ri, reworking group density and biomass, Models 5–6), microbial community (Models 7–12: abundance of bacterial and archaeal denitrifiers (AnirKa, nirS), anammox (hzo), archaeal and bacterial nitrifiers (AOA amoA, AOB amoA) and ratio of bacterial and archaeal amoA transcripts) and associated levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (Models 13–15: [NO2–N], [NO3–N], [NH4–N])
| Sediment type: SAND (S) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macro-invertebrate community (Initial linear model: response variable ~F × E) | |||||||
| Model ID | Model | Response variable | Fishing frequency (F) | Enrichment (E) | Interaction (F:E) | Intercept only | Variance–covariate |
| 1 | GLS | Macro-invertebrate density | L = 2.54, df = 1, p = 0.11 | E | |||
| 2 | GLS | Macro-invertebrate biomass | L = 3.37, df = 1, p = 0.07 | E × F | |||
| 3 | GLS | Species richness | L = 1.32, df = 1, p = 0.25 | E | |||
| 4 | GLS | suspension: deposit feeders ratio | L = 17.07, df = 1, p < 0.001 | F | |||
The test statistic (L-ratio or F value), degrees of freedom (df) and probability value (p) are listed for marginal (p < 0.075) or significant (p < 0.05) terms. Where all independent variables were found insignificant, we present the intercept only model. The class of variance-covariate used to specify different variances for each level of stratification within-group are also provided
Fig. 1The a independent effect of fishing frequency on the ratio of suspension:deposit feeders (mean ± SE) and b a non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of square-root transformed Bray–Curtis resemblance matrix of macro-invertebrate density for communities in sand. In b contrasting levels of bottom fishing frequency (open symbol low, closed symbol high) and organic matter enrichment (circle non-enriched, square enriched) are presented, and the MDS dimensionality representation stress value is indicated
The similarity percentage (SIMPER) dissimilarity tables (up to 90% of cumulative differences) of taxa (a) density and (b) biomass in sandy sites that experienced contrasting levels of fishing frequency (Levels: low and high fishing frequency)
| Species | Feeding mode | Sediment reworking functional type (Queiros et al. | Mobility (Queiros et al. | Low fishing frequency | High fishing frequency | Contr. diss. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Groups tested: Taxon density between low and high fishing activity in sandy sediment | ||||||
|
| SubDF (MarLIN | UC/DC | 1 | 3.59 | 1.56 | 8.81 |
|
| PSF, ASF (MarLIN | SM | 1 | 0.34 | 3.00 | 8.74 |
|
| SubDF, Det (MarLIN | SM | 3 | 2.88 | 0.00 | 8.39 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 3 | 2.57 | 0.85 | 6.93 |
| Asteroid juvenile | – | E | 3 | 1.46 | 0.00 | 4.29 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 1 | 0.20 | 1.11 | 3.36 |
|
| SDFa | SM | 2 | 0.14 | 0.73 | 2.64 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.94 | 0.20 | 2.60 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 3 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 2.43 |
|
| Pred, Scava | B | 3 | 0.10 | 0.71 | 2.28 |
|
| SubDFa | B | 3 | 0.20 | 0.76 | 2.27 |
|
| SDFa | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.64 | 2.07 |
|
| SDFa | SM | 2 | 0.20 | 0.66 | 2.03 |
|
| ASFa, PSF | SM | 2 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 1.94 |
|
| SDF, SubDF, PSF, ASF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 1.91 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | UC/DC | 2 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 1.79 |
|
| SDFa, SubDF | SM | 3 | 0.58 | 0.10 | 1.75 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | UC/DC | 1 | 0.61 | 0.10 | 1.70 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | R | 4 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 1.67 |
|
| ASFa, PSF | SM | 2 | 0.44 | 0.30 | 1.62 |
|
| – | SM | 2 | 0.54 | 0.10 | 1.61 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 4 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 1.58 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 1.57 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 1.53 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 1.51 |
|
| ASF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 1.22 |
|
| Preda, Scav | B | 3 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 1.20 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 1.15 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | UC/DC | 2 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 1.14 |
| Terebellidae | – | UC/DC | 1 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 1.09 |
| Syllidae | – | B | 3 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 1.05 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.79 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.76 |
| Nematoda | – | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.75 |
|
| SDFa | UC/DC | 2 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.70 |
|
| SubDFa | B | 3 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.70 |
| Sabellidae | – | SM | 1 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.64 |
|
| SDFa, SubDF | SM | 3 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.57 |
|
| SubDFa | B | 3 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.57 |
|
| SDF, Pred, ASF (MarLIN | E | 4 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.53 |
|
| Preda, Scav | B | 3 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.52 |
| b. Groups tested: Taxon biomass between low and high fishing activity in sandy sediment | ||||||
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.28 | 1.06 | 19.76 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | R | 4 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 11.17 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | UC/DC | 2 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 6.19 |
|
| SubDF(MarLIN | UC/DC | 1 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 6.06 |
|
| PSF, ASF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 4.94 |
|
| PSF, ASF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 4.41 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 3.06 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 2.94 |
|
| PSF, ASF (MarLIN | SM | 1 | 0.01 | 0.1 | 2.56 |
|
| Preda, Scav | B | 3 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 2.13 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 1.96 |
|
| SubDFa | B | 3 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 1.92 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 1 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 1.91 |
|
| Preda, Scav | B | 3 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 1.88 |
|
| ASFa, PSF | SM | 2 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 1.85 |
|
| SDFa | UC/DC | 2 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 1.38 |
|
| SDF, Pred, ASF (MarLIN | E | 4 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 1.36 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 1.26 |
|
| PSF, ASF, SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.26 |
| Asteroid juvenile | – | E | 3 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.22 |
|
| PSF, Pred (MarLIN | SM | 1 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.18 |
|
| SubDF, Det (MarLIN | SM | 3 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.01 |
|
| ASFa, PSF | SM | 2 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.95 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.88 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.87 |
|
| ASF (MarLIN | SM | 2 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.82 |
|
| SDF, SubDF (MarLIN | B | 4 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.80 |
|
| Pred, Scav (MarLIN | B | 3 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.77 |
|
| Preda, Scav | B | 3 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.77 |
Information on species feeding mode/s (SDF for surface deposit feeder; SubDF for subsurface deposit feeder; ASF for active suspension feeder; PSF for passive suspension feeder; Pred for predator; Scav for scavenger; Det for detritivore; feeding mode was not allocated to taxon level higher than genus and are denoted by “–”), sediment reworking functional type (E for epifauna; SM for surficial modifiers; UC/DC for upward and downward conveyors; B for biodiffusors; and R for regenerators) and mobility (1 for organisms that live in fixed tubes; 2 indicates limited movement; 3 indicates slow, free movement through the sediment matrix; 4 indicates free movement via burrow system) are provided
aBiological traits database developed under the BENTHIS (Benthic Ecosystem Fisheries Impact Studies) project. [16/07/2016]. http://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis/Results.htm
Fig. 2The a interactive effects of sediment reworking group identity and the frequency of fishing on sediment reworking group density, and b, c the independent effects of organic matter enrichment and sediment reworking group identity on sediment reworking group biomass in sandy sediments (mean ± SE). In a contrasting levels of bottom fishing frequency (open symbol low, closed symbol high) are presented. In a and c sediment reworking groups include epifauna (E), surficial modifiers (SM), conveyors (C), biodiffusors (B) and regenerators (R)
Fig. 3The independent effects of a fishing frequency and b organic matter enrichment on abundance of the metabolically active bacterial denitrifier (nirS) and the independent effect of fishing frequency on c archaeal (AnirKa) denitrifiers and d anammox (hzo) hydrazine oxidoreductase transcripts in sandy sediments. Values plotted are mean ± SE
Fig. 4The independent effect of fishing frequency on a [NO2–N] and b [NO3–N] in sandy sediments. Values plotted are mean ± SE
Linear regression models to examine the effects of fishing frequency and enrichment (full factorial, F × E) in sandy mud (sM), for macro-invertebrate community (Models 16–19: invertebrate density, biomass and species richness, the ratio of suspension to deposit feeders), sediment reworking groups (Ri, reworking group density and biomass, Models 20–21), microbial community (Models 22–27: abundance of bacterial and archaeal denitrifiers (nirS, AnirKa), anammox (hzo), archaeal and bacterial nitrifiers (AOA amoA, AOB amoA) and ratio of bacterial and archaeal amoA transcripts) and associated levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (Models 28–30: [NO2–N], [NO3–N], [NH4–N])
| Sediment type: sandy Mud (sM) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macro-invertebrate community (Initial linear model: response variable ~F × E) | |||||||
| Model ID | Model | Response variable | Fishing frequency (F) | Enrichment (E) | Interaction (F: E) | Intercept only | Variance–covariate |
| 16 | GLS | Macro-invertebrate density | L = 5.27, df = 1, p = 0.02 | L = 4.31, df = 1, p = 0.04 | F | ||
| 17 | GLS | Species richness | L = 3.83, df = 1, p = 0.05 | L = 7.75, df = 1, p = 0.005 | F | ||
| 18 | GLS | Macro-invertebrate biomass | L = 1.29, df = 1, p = 0.26 | F × E | |||
| 19 | LM | suspension: deposit feeders ratio | F = 12.33, df = 16, p = 0.77 | – | |||
The test statistic (L-ratio or F value), degrees of freedom (df) and probability value (p) are listed for marginal (p < 0.075) or significant (p < 0.05) terms. Where all independent variables were found insignificant, we present the intercept only model. The class of variance-covariate used to specify different variances for each level of stratification within-group are also provided
Fig. 5The independent effects of fishing frequency and organic matter enrichment on a, b total macrofaunal density c, d species richness and e, f sediment reworking group density. Sediment reworking group density g and biomass h were dependent on sediment reworking group identity (SM surficial modifiers, C conveyors, B biodiffusors). There were no species for sediment reworking groups E (epifauna) and R (regenerators) in sandy mud. Values plotted are mean ± SE
Fig. 6Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of square-root transformed Bray–Curtis resemblance matrix of macro-invertebrate density for communities in sandy mud that experienced contrasting levels of bottom fishing frequency (open symbol low, closed symbol high) and of organic enrichment (circle non-enriched, square enriched). MDS dimensionality representation stress value = 0.1
Fig. 7The independent effects of a fishing frequency and b organic matter enrichment on archaeal (AnirKa) denitrifiers, and of c organic matter enrichment on the ratio of bacterial to archaeal ammonia oxidisers (AOB:AOA amoA). Values plotted are mean ± SE