| Literature DB >> 35928147 |
Pengcheng Zhu1, Shuren Yang1, Yuxin Wu1, Yuning Ru1, Xiaona Yu1, Lushan Wang2, Weihua Guo1.
Abstract
Soil microorganisms play vital roles in regulating biogeochemical processes. The composition and function of soil microbial community have been well studied, but little is known about the responses of bacterial and fungal communities to different habitats of the same plant, especially the inter-kingdom co-occurrence pattern including bacteria and fungi. Herein, we used high-throughput sequencing to investigate the bacterial and fungal communities of five Phragmites australis habitats in the Yellow River Delta and constructed their inter-kingdom interaction network by network analysis. The results showed that richness did not differ significantly among habitats for either the bacterial or fungal communities. The distribution of soil bacterial community was significantly affected by soil physicochemical properties, whereas that of the fungal community was not. The main functions of the bacterial and fungal communities were to participate in the degradation of organic matter and element cycling, both of which were significantly affected by soil physicochemical properties. Network analysis revealed that bacteria and fungi participated in the formation of networks through positive interactions; the role of intra-kingdom interactions were more important than inter-kingdom interactions. In addition, rare species acted as keystones played a critical role in maintaining the network structure, while NO 3 - - N likely played an important role in maintaining the network topological properties. Our findings provided insights into the inter-kingdom microbial co-occurrence network and response of the soil microbial community composition and function to different P. australis habitats in coastal wetlands, which will deepen our insights into microbial community assembly in coastal wetlands.Entities:
Keywords: Phragmites australis; Yellow River Delta; bacteria; fungi; inter-kingdom microbial co-occurrence network; soil
Year: 2022 PMID: 35928147 PMCID: PMC9344067 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.858125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Sampling site locations in the Yellow River Delta.
Physicochemical properties of soil samples.
| Sample | pH | EC (mS/cm) | OM (mg/g) | TN (mg/kg) |
|
| TP (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 7.88 ± 0.11a | 3.09 ± 1.44b | 42.14 ± 4.35b | 70.00 ± 18.12c | 3.11 ± 0.10a | 5.41 ± 0.82a | 1.03 ± 0.05c |
| S2 | 7.99 ± 0.15a | 1.27 ± 0.82b | 58.99 ± 5.43a | 104.67 ± 21.07bc | 3.08 ± 0.61a | 1.30 ± 0.50b | 1.01 ± 0.05c |
| S3 | 7.65 ± 0.19b | 5.36 ± 1.89a | 27.58 ± 1.99c | 127.67 ± 6.17ab | 3.81 ± 0.60a | 1.18 ± 0.20b | 1.36 ± 0.01a |
| S4 | 8.04 ± 0.02a | 1.53 ± 0.90b | 22.41 ± 4.70 cd | 160.22 ± 41.94a | 3.31 ± 0.27a | 1.75 ± 0.67b | 1.09 ± 0.06bc |
| S5 | 8.07 ± 0.08a | 1.45 ± 0.27b | 17.24 ± 3.04 cd | 169.79 ± 36.99a | 3.25 ± 0.56a | 1.14 ± 0.40b | 1.20 ± 0.10b |
Data represent the average and standard deviation of three values. Data followed by the same letter are not significantly different ANOVA, p < 0.05.
Figure 2Characteristics of microbial community compositions. Shared bacterial (A) and fungal (B) operational taxonomic units (OTUs) across different samples. Principal components analysis (PCoA) of bacterial (C) and fungal (D) community composition calculated with Bray–Curtis distances. The results of Permutational multivariate analysis of variance analysis (PERMANOVA) show a significant association of bacterial community composition with different P. australis habitats (*p < 0.05).
α-diversity indices of the microbial communities.
| Bacterial index | Fungal index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observe species | Shannon | Chao1 | Observe species | Shannon | Chao1 | |
| S1 | 1182.3 ± 56.89a | 5.57 ± 0.06a | 1385.58 ± 35.34a | 201.00 ± 53.83a | 2.26 ± 0.94a | 241.70 ± 35.07a |
| S2 | 981.33 ± 278.68a | 5.14 ± 0.60a | 1109.25 ± 227.58a | 207.00 ± 37.99a | 2.98 ± 0.92a | 230.58 ± 50.23a |
| S3 | 845.33 ± 328.89a | 4.72 ± 1.12a | 988.70 ± 339.35a | 162.00 ± 58.64a | 3.13 ± 0.92a | 175.49 ± 62.60a |
| S4 | 1302.33 ± 134.92a | 5.68 ± 0.18a | 1532.15 ± 113.17a | 280.67 ± 99.01a | 3.57 ± 0.62a | 301.54 ± 104.53a |
| S5 | 1,085 ± 154.24a | 5.60 ± 0.17a | 1259.14 ± 190.13a | 150.33 ± 19.14a | 3.38 ± 0.37a | 165.72 ± 11.23a |
Data represent the average and standard deviation of three values. Data followed by the same letter are not significantly different ANOVA, p < 0.05.
Figure 3Relative abundances of microbial community compositions in each sample. (A) and (B) represent the relative abundances of bacterial and fungal phylum, respectively. (C) and (D) represent the relative abundances of the top 30 bacterial and fungal genera, respectively.
Figure 4Predicted function of microbial community. Discrepancy (A) and composition (C) of bacterial community function predicted based on PICRUSt2. Discrepancy (B) and composition (D) of fungal community function predicted based on FUNGuild.
Figure 5Soil microbial community affected by soil physicochemical properties. Procrustes analysis evaluating the relationships between soil physicochemical properties and bacterial (A) and fungal (B) communities. Redundancy analysis (RDA) of the bacterial (C) and fungal (D) communities with soil physicochemical properties in the five P. australis habitats.
Topological properties of the co-occurrence network of microbial community.
| Network indices | Microbial network | |
|---|---|---|
| Empirical network | Nodes | 745 |
| Edges | 1800 | |
| 0.954 | ||
| ACC | 0.352 | |
| APL | 8.16 | |
| Diameter | 29 | |
| Modularity | 0.745 | |
| Density | 0.006 | |
| Positive edges(%) | 95.17 | |
| Negative edges(%) | 4.83 | |
| Random network | APLr | 4.36 ± 0.02 |
| ACCr | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
ACC, Average Clustering Coefficient; APL, Average Path Length; Subscript r, property of the Erdos–Renyi random network. A total of 1,000 random runs were performed to obtain the standard deviations of the APLr and ACCr.
Figure 6Characteristics of the microbial community co-occurrence network. Network analysis reveals the relationships among fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and bacterial OTUs (A). CIRCOS plot showing the distribution of connections (B). Zi-Pi plot revealing the keystone OTU of thee microbial co-occurrence network (C). Each connection represents a strong correlation (r > 0.8, p < 0.05) between the connected OTUs. The colour of each node shows the module that the node belongs to. The size of nodes is proportional to their connections.
Figure 7Correlations between soil physicochemical properties and network level topological characteristics.