| Literature DB >> 35602050 |
Bobo Wu1,2, Peng Wang1,2, Adam Thomas Devlin1, Yuanyang She1,2, Jun Zhao3, Yang Xia1,2, Yi Huang1,2, Lu Chen1,2, Hua Zhang1,2, Minghua Nie1,2, Mingjun Ding1,2.
Abstract
Bacterioplankton are essential components of riverine ecosystems. However, the mechanisms (deterministic or stochastic processes) and co-occurrence networks by which these communities respond to anthropogenic disturbances are not well understood. Here, we integrated niche-neutrality dynamic balancing and co-occurrence network analysis to investigate the dispersal dynamics of bacterioplankton communities along human activity intensity gradients. Results showed that the lower reaches (where intensity of human activity is high) had an increased composition of bacterioplankton communities which induced strong increases in bacterioplankton diversity. Human activity intensity changes influenced bacterioplankton community assembly via regulation of the deterministic-stochastic balance, with deterministic processes more important as human activity increases. Bacterioplankton molecular ecological network stability and robustness were higher on average in the upper reaches (where there is lower intensity of human activity), but a human activity intensity increase of about 10%/10% can reduce co-occurrence network stability of bacterioplankton communities by an average of 0.62%/0.42% in the dry and wet season, respectively. In addition, water chemistry (especially NO3 --N and Cl-) contributed more to explaining community assembly (especially the composition) than geographic distance and land use in the dry season, while the bacterioplankton community (especially the bacterioplankton network) was more influenced by distance (especially the length of rivers and dendritic streams) and land use (especially forest regions) in the wet season. Our research provides a new perspective of community assembly in rivers and important insights into future research on environmental monitoring and classified management of aquatic ecosystems under the influence of human activity.Entities:
Keywords: assembly processes; bacterioplankton; human activity intensity; network stability; river
Year: 2022 PMID: 35602050 PMCID: PMC9114710 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.806036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Location of the Le’an River and our sample sites. The cities of Wuyuan, Dexing, and Leping are indicated.
FIGURE 2Relative bacterioplankton community abundances of during the wet and dry seasons, from upstream to downstream. Compositions are shown as bacterioplankton phyla distributions. Taxa with relative abundances <1% are grouped in red and labeled as “others.”
FIGURE 3Relative bacterioplankton communities abundances of during the wet and dry seasons. Compositions are shown as freshwater and non-freshwater bacterial OTU distributions.
FIGURE 4Neutral community model (NCM). The occurrence frequencies predicted for the dry season and wet season are displayed, which represents bacterioplankton communities for low, moderate, and large HAILS values in the Le’an River. The best fit to the neutral community model is given as solid blue lines (Chen et al., 2019), and the dashed blue lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. OTUs that occur more or less frequently than predicted are displayed in cyan and red, respectively. The R2 values indicate the model fit and m describes the immigration rate.
FIGURE 5C-scores of null models. If observed C-scores are greater than simulated C-scores (i.e., C-score > C-score) non-random co-occurrence is indicated. Standardized effect size less than –2 and greater than +2 represent aggregation and segregation, respectively.
FIGURE 6Mean habitat niche breadth comparison for all taxa along the HAILS gradient [different letters indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05 level (Mo et al., 2021)].
Parameters of bacterioplankton community network topology during the dry/wet season in the Le’an River.
| Network indexes | Dry/Wet season | ||||||||
| Upper reaches | Middle reaches | Lower reaches | |||||||
| Total nodes (TN) | 100/173 | 131/159 | 98/191 | 112/212 | 123/223 | 146/230 | 125/219 | 173/216 | 235/268 |
| Total links (TL) | 184/594 | 276/543 | 146/642 | 191/768 | 180/655 | 288/673 | 308/788 | 467/486 | 663/786 |
| Negative links (NL) | 49/267 | 135/216 | 50/288 | 76/351 | 54/279 | 114/269 | 107/283 | 110/204 | 189/380 |
| Positive links (PL) | 135/327 | 141/327 | 96/354 | 115/417 | 126/376 | 174/404 | 201/505 | 357/282 | 474/406 |
| Negative/Positive (NP) | 0.36/0.82 | 0.96/0.66 | 0.52/0.81 | 0.66/0.84 | 0.43/0.74/ | 0.66/0.67 | 0.53/0.56 | 0.31/0.72 | 0.40/0.94 |
| R square of power-law (R) | 0.51/0.15 | 0.19/0.08 | 0.54/0.10 | 0.61/0.09 | 0.92/0.32 | 0.53/0.36 | 0.30/0.23 | 0.47/0.36 | 0.34/0.24 |
| Average degree (avgK) | 3.68/6.87 | 4.21/6.83 | 2.98/6.72 | 3.41/7.25 | 2.93/5.87 | 3.95/5.85 | 4.93/7.20 | 5.40/4.50 | 5.64/5.87 |
| Average clustering coefficient (avgCC) | 0.59/0.64 | 0.69/0.65 | 0.59/0.70 | 0.54/0.71 | 0.58/0.75 | 0.71/0.70 | 0.66/0.68 | 0.62/0.66 | 0.71/0.80 |
| Average path distance (APD) | 1.05/1.26 | 1.25/1.06 | 1.02/1.21 | 1.35/1.07 | 1.37/1.12 | 1.08/1.21 | 1.17/1.27 | 2.24/1.28 | 1.45/1.16 |
| Centralization of degree (CD) | 0.07/0.10 | 0.07/0.09 | 0.07/0.06 | 0.07/0.08 | 0.04/0.06 | 0.05/0.05 | 0.10/0.08 | 0.10/0.04 | 0.06/0.04 |
| Graph density (GD) | 0.04/0.04 | 0.03/0.04 | 0.03/0.04 | 0.03/0.03 | 0.02/0.03 | 0.03/0.03 | 0.04/0.03 | 0.03/0.02 | 0.02/0.02 |
| Number of module (NM) | 49/54 | 37/47 | 32/46 | 37/49 | 35/48 | 32/48 | 33/40 | 31/42 | 30/42 |
| Modularity (M) | 0.85/0.90 | 0.71/0.92 | 0.73/0.79 | 0.89/0.87 | 0.91/0.87 | 0.86/0.80 | 0.82/0.82 | 0.84/0.71 | 0.82/0.70 |
FIGURE 7The stability-decay curves for the nine bacterioplankton molecular ecological networks in the Le’an River. Linear regression relationships are shown between the Number of module and HAILS in the (A) dry season and (B) wet season, respectively. The slopes of all lines were significantly less than zero and significantly different in pairwise comparison.
Correlations of different combinations of environmental factors and bacterioplankton communities, as determined by Bioenv analysis.
| Combination in dry season | Correlation | Combination in wet season | Correlation | |
| Land use | Forest |
| Forest |
|
| Farmland + Forest | 0.2391 | Forest + Freshwater | 0.4336 | |
| Farmland + Forest + Freshwater | 0.1932 | Farmland + Forest + Freshwater | 0.4304 | |
| Farmland + Forest + Freshwater + Urban | 0.1770 | Farmland + Forest + Freshwater + Urban | 0.3752 | |
| Water chemistry | NO3–-N | 0.6312 | NO3–-N |
|
| NO3–-N + Cl– |
| NO3–-N + Cl– | 0.6248 | |
| NO3–-N + Cl– + As | 0.6268 | NO3–-N + Cl–+ FNU | 0.5938 | |
| NO3–-N + Cl– + As + Cd | 0.6343 | NO3–-N + Cl– + FNU + NH4+-N | 0.5841 | |
| Geographic distance | River length |
| River length | 0.6027 |
| River length + Mean dendritic stream length | 0.4716 | River length+ Mean dendritic stream length |
| |
| River length + Mean dendritic stream length + Cumulative dendritic distance | 0.4461 | River length+ Mean dendritic stream length + Cumulative dendritic distance | 0.5799 | |
| River length + Mean dendritic stream length + Cumulative dendritic distance + Catchment area | 0.4138 | River length + Mean dendritic stream length + Cumulative dendritic distance + Catchment area | 0.5581 |
Maximum values are indicated by bold text.
Correlations of different combinations of environmental factors and bacterioplankton network indexes (TN, TL, avgK, avgCC, GD, NM, and M), as determined by Bioenv analysis.
| Combination in dry season | Correlation | Combination in wet season | Correlation | |
| Land use | Forest | 0.5761 | Forest+ Grassland | 0.4677 |
| Forest + Freshwater |
| Farmland + Forest + Urban |
| |
| Forest + Freshwater + Other | 0.6021 | Farmland + Forest + Grassland + Urban | 0.4824 | |
| Forest + Freshwater + Urban+ Other | 0.5997 | Farmland + Forest + Grassland + Urban + Freshwaters | 0.4569 | |
| Water chemistry | Cl– |
| Cl– + Cd | 0.5097 |
| Cl– + Cd | 0.4561 | Cl– + Cd + TP | 0.5022 | |
| Cl– + Cr +TOC | 0.3194 | Cl– + Cd + NO3–-N + TOC |
| |
| Cl– + Cr +TOC + Co | 0.2463 | Cl– + Cd + NO3–-N + TOC +pH | 0.5042 | |
| Geographic distance | River length |
| Mean dendritic stream length |
|
| River length + Cumulative dendritic distance | 0.4404 | River length + Mean dendritic stream length | 0.5079 | |
| River length + Cumulative dendritic distance + Catchment area | 0.4353 | River length + Mean dendritic stream length + Catchment area | 0.4757 | |
| River length + Cumulative dendritic distance + Catchment area+ Mean dendritic stream length | 0.4154 | River length + Mean dendritic stream length + Catchment area + Cumulative dendritic distance | 0.4662 |
Maximum values are indicated by bold text.
FIGURE 8Variation partitioning for Le’an River bacterioplankton communities. The effects on (A) dry season composition, (B) wet season composition, (C) dry season networks, and (D) wet season networks are evaluated based on land use, water chemistry, and geographic distance parameter contributions (see Supplementary Figure 6). Panels [a], [b], and [c] represent pure contributions of individual explanatory matrices; panels [d], [f], and [e] represent the combined contributions of two explanatory matrices; panel [g] represents the joint contribution of three explanatory matrices. “Unexplained” indicates the proportion of the variation which was not explained by any of our parameters.