| Literature DB >> 35356520 |
Evy Goossens1, Roschong Boonyarittichaikij1,2, Daan Dekeukeleire3, Lionel Hertzog3, Sarah Van Praet1, Frank Pasmans1, Dries Bonte3, Kris Verheyen4, Luc Lens3, An Martel1, Elin Verbrugghe1.
Abstract
Despite the microbiome's key role in health and fitness, little is known about the environmental factors shaping the gut microbiome of wild birds. With habitat fragmentation being recognised as a major threat to biological diversity, we here determined how forest structure influences the bacterial species richness and diversity of wild great tit nestlings (Parus major). Using an Illumina metabarcoding approach which amplifies the 16S bacterial ribosomal RNA gene, we measured gut microbiota diversity and composition from 49 great tit nestlings, originating from 23 different nests that were located in 22 different study plots across a gradient of forest fragmentation and tree species diversity. Per nest, an average microbiome was determined on which the influence of tree species (composition and richness) and forest fragmentation (fragment area and edge density) was examined and whether this was linked to host characteristics (body condition and fledging success). We found an interaction effect of edge density with tree species richness or composition on both the microbial richness (alpha diversity: Chao1 and Shannon) and community structure (beta diversity: weighted and unweighted UniFrac). No significant short-term impact was observed of the overall faecal microbiome on host characteristics, but rather an adverse effect of specific bacterial genera on fledging success. These results highlight the influence of environmental factors on the microbial richness as well as the phylogenetic diversity during a life stage where the birds' microbiota is shaped, which could lead to long-term consequences for host fitness.Entities:
Keywords: faeces; forest fragmentation; great tits (Parus major); microbiota; tree species diversity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35356520 PMCID: PMC8959704 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.790189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Map showing the location of all study plots. The 22 study plots are established in forest fragments with varying size and tree layer. Every study plot is represented by a coloured symbol corresponding to its respective tree species composition. Fsyl, European Beech (Fagus sylvatica, L); Qrob, Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur, L); Qrub, Red Oak (Quercus rubra, L).
FIGURE 2Taxonomy plot of gut microbiota of juvenile great tits. Composition analysis per nestbox at (A) Phylum level showing the five most abundant phyla and (B) Class level showing the 13 most abundant classes.
FIGURE 3Influence of edge density and tree diversity on alpha diversity. Shown is the alpha diversity depending on the edge density in (A) monoculture, (B) 2 species, and (C) 3 species forests. Each point represents one nestbox, which is considered as one biological replicate. Fsyl, European Beech (Fagus sylvatica, L); Qrob, Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur, L); Qrub, Red Oak (Quercus rubra, L). Chao1: estimated OTU richness and Shannon: estimated community diversity.
Differentially abundant genera linked to an edge effect in monoculture plots.
| Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus | baseMean | log2 fold change | lfcSE | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Microbacteriaceae |
| 95.76019 | 0.00757 | 0.00194 | 0.00500 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Microbacteriaceae |
| 32.34403 | 0.00633 | 0.00176 | 0.00841 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Micrococcaceae |
| 79.87509 | −0.0045 | 0.00107 | 0.00195 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Micrococcaceae |
| 328.35829 | 0.0102 | 0.00186 | <0.00001 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Micrococcaceae |
| 262.31776 | 0.00926 | 0.00181 | 0.00003 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Cellulomonadaceae |
| 14.90286 | 0.00845 | 0.00257 | 0.02389 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Corynebacteriales | Dietziaceae |
| 33.86723 | 0.01118 | 0.00304 | 0.00728 |
| Proteobacteria | Betaproteobacteria | Burkholderiales | Burkholderiaceae |
| 59.05551 | 0.00392 | 0.00105 | 0.00680 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Lactobacillales | Streptococcaceae |
| 155.09241 | −0.00488 | 0.00156 | 0.03341 |
| Firmicutes | Erysipelotrichia | Erysipelotrichales | Erysipelotrichaceae |
| 123.11971 | 0.00567 | 0.00180 | 0.03341 |
| Firmicutes | Clostridia | Clostridiales | Lachnospiraceae |
| 7.19277 | −0.00521 | 0.00168 | 0.03499 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Microbacteriaceae |
| 42.4276 | 0.00376 | 0.00100 | 0.00680 |
The faecal microbiome of great tits nesting in monoculture forest fragments were analysed using DESeq2 analysis to identify differentially abundant taxa along a gradient of edge density. Significant differences in genus level abundance (adjusted p-value < 0.05) in the faecal microbiota from great tits along a gradient of edge density. The taxonomic classification, the baseMean, the log
Differentially abundant genera linked to fledging success.
| Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus | baseMean | log2 fold change | lfcSE | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Microbacteriaceae |
| 57.97086 | −4.96097 | 1.54935 | 0.01465 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Micrococcaceae |
| 97.60023 | −4.53600 | 1.25073 | 0.00514 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Micrococcaceae |
| 13.95047 | −6.69727 | 1.90552 | 0.00591 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Dermabacteraceae |
| 144.81196 | −5.63555 | 1.58524 | 0.00553 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Micrococcales | Brevibacteriaceae |
| 233.08480 | −6.05455 | 1.16893 | 0.00002 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Corynebacteriales | Nocardiaceae |
| 56.78876 | −7.79145 | 2.27969 | 0.00782 |
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Dietziaceae |
| 33.74808 | −10.02806 | 2.17538 | 0.00022 | |
| Actinobacteria | Thermoleophilia | Solirubrobacterales | Patulibacteraceae |
| 11.39001 | −5.57505 | 1.75776 | 0.01525 |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | Legionellales | Coxiellaceae |
| 15.20776 | −3.41905 | 1.20995 | 0.03997 |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | Enterobacteriales | Enterobacteriaceae |
| 343.56698 | −16.86702 | 5.17961 | 0.01297 |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | Sphingomonadales | Sphingomonadaceae |
| 736.07041 | −2.11996 | 0.59077 | 0.00536 |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | Rickettsiales | Anaplasmataceae |
| 13.85976 | −21.25073 | 5.77625 | 0.00471 |
| Saccharibacteria | uncultured bacterium | uncultured bacterium | uncultured bacterium |
| 40.93864 | −7.19182 | 1.94072 | 0.00471 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Bacillales | Bacillaceae |
| 7.84285 | −18.19205 | 5.80793 | 0.01643 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Bacillales | Listeriaceae |
| 8.75038 | −8.00489 | 2.57606 | 0.01688 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Lactobacillales | Carnobacteriaceae |
| 8.45595 | −12.15891 | 3.00312 | 0.00166 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Lactobacillales | Carnobacteriaceae |
| 1659.98838 | −3.66081 | 0.89935 | 0.00166 |
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Bacillales | Staphylococcaceae |
| 243.77101 | −5.78625 | 1.49281 | 0.00285 |
| Firmicutes | Clostridia | Clostridiales | Lachnospiraceae |
| 116.39970 | −30.00000 | 5.80680 | 0.00002 |
The faecal microbiome of great tits were analysed using DESeq2 analysis to identify differentially abundant taxa that are associated with fledging success. Significant differences in genus level abundance (adjusted p-value < 0.05) in the faecal microbiota from great tits that are linked to fledging success. The taxonomic classification, the baseMean, the log