| Literature DB >> 33452897 |
Mathilde Borg Dahl1, Derek Peršoh2, Anke Jentsch3, Jürgen Kreyling4.
Abstract
Winter temperatures are projected to increase in Central Europe. Subsequently, snow cover will decrease, leading to increased soil temperature variability, with potentially different consequences for soil frost depending on e.g. altitude. Here, we experimentally evaluated the effects of increased winter soil temperature variability on the root associated mycobiome of two plant species (Calluna vulgaris and Holcus lanatus) at two sites in Germany; a colder and wetter upland site with high snow accumulation and a warmer and drier lowland site, with low snow accumulation. Mesocosm monocultures were set-up in spring 2010 at both sites (with soil and plants originating from the lowland site). In the following winter, an experimental warming pulse treatment was initiated by overhead infrared heaters and warming wires at the soil surface for half of the mesocosms at both sites. At the lowland site, the warming treatment resulted in a reduced number of days with soil frost as well as increased the average daily temperature amplitude. Contrary, the treatment caused no changes in these parameters at the upland site, which was in general a much more frost affected site. Soil and plant roots were sampled before and after the following growing season (spring and autumn 2011). High-throughput sequencing was used for profiling of the root-associated fungal (ITS marker) community (mycobiome). Site was found to have a profound effect on the composition of the mycobiome, which at the upland site was dominated by fast growing saprotrophs (Mortierellomycota), and at the lowland site by plant species-specific symbionts (e.g. Rhizoscyphus ericae and Microdochium bolleyi for C. vulgaris and H. lanatus respectively). The transplantation to the colder upland site and the temperature treatment at the warmer lowland site had comparable consequences for the mycobiome, implying that winter climate change resulting in higher temperature variability has large consequences for mycobiome structures regardless of absolute temperature of a given site.Entities:
Keywords: Calluna vulgaris; Climate change; DNA barcoding; EVENT experiments; Holcus lanatus; Plant-fungi associations; Root associated mycobiome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33452897 PMCID: PMC8384817 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-020-01667-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552
Overview of the main trends from previously published results of the experiment. Red columns indicate warming treatments. Arrows indicate the directional change relative to ambient plots. Cross-treatment bars indicate site-specific effects. ns, non-significant. For further details, see Schuerings et al. (2014a), 2014b [15, 18]. All measurements were taken at multiple time points in the winter 2010/2011, except biomass which was measured at the end of the growing season 2011 and 2012. 1)For H. lanatus harvested completely twice a year for C. vulgaris, biomass was estimated based on biometric measurements and calibrated against harvested individuals. 2)Measured from leaf material and only measured at the lowland site. NSC is cryoprotective structures (lowering freezing point of the plant tissue). 3)Root length was acquired via minirhizotron technique in a clear plastic tube monitoring root development. 4)Plant-available N measured with resin stick method install in each mesocosm during the winter. 5)Measured with bait-lamina sticks containing 16 baits which were inserted vertically in the top soil layer of every mesocosm prior to the warming pulses treatment. 6)Potential extracellular enzymatic activity measured from soil extractions with assays for beta-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase, acid phosphatase, xylosidase (the latter two showed only site-specific differences)
Fig. 1Schematic overview of experimental timeline and sampling. Ten replicates of Calluna vulgaris and Holcus lanatus were planted and distributed to two sites (five replicates per plant per site) in May 2010; warming pulses (indicated with red arrows) were administrated through-out the winter 2010/2011 and root samples collected on March 14 and December 1 2011 (before and after the 2011 growing season)
Overview on bioinformatics processing steps and taxonomic assignment
| Assembled reads | 3,542,865 |
|---|---|
| OTUs (97% similarity) | 1077 |
| OTUs annotated to (accumulated percentage) | |
| Species | 376 (34.9%) |
| Genus | 209 (54.3%) |
| Family | 30 (57.1%) |
| Order | 162 (72.1%) |
| Class | 55 (77.3%) |
| Phylum | 90 (85.6%) |
| Kingdom (fungi) | 41 (89.4%) |
| Unclassified | 114 (100%) |
Fig. 2a Histogram of the average soil temperatures between Dec 1, 2010, and Feb 28, 2011 (bin width: 0.5 °C). The number of days (N) with average (Ave.) soil temperatures ≤ − 0.5 °C are indicated in blue and summarized in the upper right corner of each plot. Max. = the number of day with maximum soil temperatures ≤ − 0.5 °C. b Daily soil temperature fluctuation (difference between the maximum and minimum observed daily temperature). Boxes represent the first and third quartile, median (line) and outliers (dots) are indicated as are ANOVA results (p < 0.05; Tukey HSD groups: a–c). c Average daily soil temperature (blue line) and standard deviation (grey area) for the period. Data is a mean of two or four replicates from ambient and warming plots respectively
Fig. 3Distance based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) of the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix of the fungal community (133 of 963 OTUs occurred in only one sample and were excluded for this plot). Symbols represent: C. vulgaris (circles), H. lanatus (triangle), upland (hollow), lowland (filled), ambient temperature (blue) and warming (red). Symbols are scaled to the number of OTUs in a given sample (ranging from 47 to 178 OTUs)
Summary of distance-based redundancy analysis (dbRDA). First two rows show the ANOVA result for the axis and the proportion of constrained community variance explained by the axis (significant p values are in itals). Below are the biplot scores of the experimental variables (for each variable the highest axis scores are in italic)
| dbRDA1 | bdRDA2 | dbRDA3 | dbRDA4 | dbRDA5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance ( | 0.072 | 0.425 | |||
| Explained variance (%) | 11.1 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 1.5 |
| Biplot scores for constraining variables | |||||
| Lowland | − 0.383 | 0.051 | − 0.098 | − 0.028 | |
| Upland | 0.559 | − 0.075 | 0.142 | 0.041 | |
| Ambient | − 0.019 | − 0.108 | 0.190 | − 0.090 | |
| Warming | 0.024 | 0.137 | − 0.242 | 0.114 | |
| | 0.450 | − 0.065 | 0.062 | − 0.046 | |
| | − 0.309 | 0.045 | − 0.043 | 0.032 | |
| Sampling date | 0.142 | 0.092 | 0.270 | 0.529 | |
| No. days with soil frost | 0.489 | − 0.192 | 0.477 | 0.188 | |
Fig. 4Relative abundance of the main phyla (a) and orders (b) for each site (upland and lowland) and plant species (C. vulgaris and H. lanatus). Taxa with < 2% relative abundance were summarized as ‘other’, for b also unclassified OTUs of Ascomycota and Dothideomycetes were placed under ‘others’. As. = Ascomucota, Mor. = Mortierellomycota
Summary of OTU richness, main phyla (Asco-. Basidio- and Mortierellomycota) and functional classes recovered from the two sites (Up: upland, Low: lowland), plant species (Cv: Calluna vulgaris, Hl: Holcus lanatus), treatment (A, ambient; W, warming) and sampling time (Sp, spring; Au, autumn). Values are given as mean ± SD for the number of OTUs (1st line) and their relative abundance (2nd line) per sample. Data was normalized to 30,000 reads per sample prior to analysis. Significant differences within the four categories are indicated with *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (Kruskal-Wallis test)
| Site (up/low) | Plant species (Cv/Hl) | Treatment (A/W) | Sampling time (Sp/Au) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investigated samples | 24/35 | 24/35 | 33/26 | 26/33 |
| OTUs per sample | 91 ± 35/97 ± 27 | 85 ± 27/101 ± 31* | 100 ± 30/88 ± 32 | 87 ± 24/103 ± 33* |
| Ascomycota | 58.7 ± 24.9/75.7 ± 23.6** (53.8 ± 33.4%/91.2 ± 16.5%)*** | 62.2 ± 26.7/73.3 ± 23.8 (76.3 ± 35.5%/75.8 ± 27.5%) | 75 ± 25.6/60.8 ± 23.3* (80.1 ± 31.2%/70.7 ± 29.8%) | 63.4 ± 22.8/73 ± 26.8 (83.3 ± 27.8%/70.2 ± 32%) |
| Basidiomycota | 8.9 ± 5/7.4 ± 3.9 (8.5 ± 9.3%/3.1 ± 4.9%)** | 7 ± 4.6/8.8 ± 4.2 (5.2 ± 7.7%/5.4 ± 7.4%) | 7.8 ± 4.1/8.3 ± 4.8 (4.5 ± 7.2%/6.2 ± 7.7%) | 8.2 ± 3.9/7.9 ± 4.8 (4.8 ± 7.1%/5.6 ± 7.8%) |
| Mortierellomycota | 19.7 ± 10.9/7.9 ± 6.5*** (37.6 ± 36.8%/5.2 ± 14%)*** | 11 ± 9.7/13.9 ± 10.6 (18.6 ± 35.7%/18.2 ± 26.3%) | 11.5 ± 9.1/14.3 ± 11.6 (15 ± 31.5%/22.7 ± 28.4%) | 8 ± 9.3/16.5 ± 9.6*** (11.5 ± 26.6%/23.8 ± 32.1%)*** |
| Wood Saprotroph (5.2% of all fungal OTUs) | 3 ± 4/5 ± 5 (4 ± 13.4%/1.8 ± 4.5%) | 4 ± 6/4 ± 4 (2.6 ± 6.6%/2.8 ± 10.7%) | 5 ± 5/3 ± 3 (2.4 ± 5.7%/3.1 ± 12.4%) | 4 ± 5/4 ± 5 (1.6 ± 4.6%/3.6 ± 11.6%) |
| Saprotroph-Symbiotroph (11.4% of all fungal OTUs) | 21 ± 11/9 ± 7*** (41.3 ± 35.4%/5.7 ± 14.4%)*** | 11 ± 10/16 ± 11 (18.5 ± 35.6%/21.3 ± 27%) | 13 ± 9/15 ± 12(17.9 ± 32.1%/23.1 ± 28.7%) | 9 ± 9/18 ± 10*** (12.6 ± 26.7%/26.1 ± 32.4%)* |
| Saprotroph (22.5% of all fungal OTUs) | 22 ± 9/17 ± 8*** (21.2 ± 21.2%/17.1 ± 22.2%) | 14 ± 6/23 ± 9*** (8.4 ± 10%/25.9 ± 24.7%)** | 21 ± 8/16 ± 9 (21.7 ± 20.9%/15.1 ± 22.6%)* | 16 ± 8/21 ± 9*** (20.3 ± 24%/17.6 ± 20%) |
| Ericoid Mycorrhizal (3.3% of all fungal OTUs) | 1 ± 2/6 ± 6*** (0.0 ± 0.0%/12 ± 23.8%)*** | 8 ± 6/1 ± 1*** (17.2 ± 27.2%/0.2 ± 1%)*** | 4 ± 6/4 ± 5 (7.1 ± 17%/7.1 ± 21.9%) | 5 ± 6/3 ± 5 (11.1 ± 25.5%/3.9 ± 11.5%) |
| Ectomycorrhizal (2.4% of all fungal OTUs) | 1 ± 1/3 ± 2*** (1.2 ± 3.9%/1.0 ± 2.6%) | 3 ± 3/1 ± 2*** (1.1 ± 3.3%/1.1 ± 3.1%) | 3 ± 2/1 ± 1*** (1.2 ± 3.2%/0.9 ± 3.2%) | 3 ± 2/2 ± 2 (0.9 ± 2.9%/1.2 ± 3.4%) |
| Arbuskular Mycorrhizal (1.1% of all fungal OTUs) | 0.3 ± 0.7/0.5 ± 0.9 (0.1 ± 0.4%/0 ± 0.2%) | 0.4 ± 0.8/0.3 ± 0.8 (0 ± 0%/0.1 ± 0.3%) | 0.3 ± 0.8/0.4 ± 0.9 (0.1 ± 0.3%/0.1 ± 0.2%) | 0.3 ± 0.7/0.4 ± 0.9 (0.1 ± 0.2%/0.1 ± 0.3%) |
Summary of FUNguild classification. Functional groups with a total abundance < 0.01 across confidence score is summarized under ‘other’, this count: ‘Arbuscular mycorrhizal’, ‘Fungal parasite-litter saprotroph’, ‘pathotroph-saprotroph’ and ‘symbiotroph’
| Classification | Confidence | Abundance | Richness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ectomycorrhizal | Highly probable | 0.1% | 7 |
| Ectomycorrhizal | Probable | 1.0% | 13 |
| Ectomycorrhizal | Possible | 0.02% | 3 |
| Ericoid mycorrhizal | Probable | 6.4% | 29 |
| Ericoid mycorrhizal | Possible | 0.7% | 3 |
| Pathotroph-symbiotroph | Probable | 0.6% | 22 |
| Pathotroph-symbiotroph | Possible | 10.3% | 65 |
| Plant pathogen | Highly probable | 0.0002% | 1 |
| Plant pathogen | Probable | 7.0% | 77 |
| Saprotroph | Highly probable | 0.3% | 10 |
| Saprotroph | Probable | 11.9% | 135 |
| Saprotroph | Possible | 6.6% | 72 |
| Saprotroph-symbiotroph | Highly probable | 0.001% | 1 |
| Saprotroph-symbiotroph | Probable | 0.03% | 4 |
| Saprotroph-symbiotroph | Possible | 20.2% | 105 |
| Wood Saprotroph | Highly probable | 0.2% | 9 |
| Wood saprotroph | Probable | 1.6% | 18 |
| Wood saprotroph | Possible | 0.9% | 23 |
| Other | NA | 1.3% | 54 |
| Sum assigned | 69.0% | 651 | |
| Not assigned | – | 31.0% | 271 |
Fig. 5Heatmap of the ten most frequent and abundant OTUs from each site (upland and lowland), representing 43.1% of the total community (rarefied). Data was normalized to 30,000 reads per sample prior to analysis. Red colours indicate relatively high abundance; blue colours indicate relatively low abundance for a given OTU across samples. OTUs with similar distribution pattern across samples are clustered. Upper colour bar represents the sample sorting by plant species C. vulgaris (purple) and H. lanatus (green) and treatment: ambient (A, light colour) and warming (W, dark colour). Sample ID is given at the bottom (Au: Autumn sample, Sp: Spring sample). Taxonomic classification and OTU ID are given at the right side