| Literature DB >> 36135652 |
Matteo Florio Furno1, Anna Poli1, Davide Ferrero1, Federica Tardelli2, Chiara Manzini2, Matteo Oliva2, Carlo Pretti2, Tommaso Campani3, Silvia Casini3, Maria Cristina Fossi3, Giovanna Cristina Varese1, Valeria Prigione1.
Abstract
Fungi are an essential component of marine ecosystems, although little is known about their global distribution and underwater diversity, especially in sediments. Microplastics (MPs) are widespread contaminants worldwide and threaten the organisms present in the oceans. In this study, we investigated the fungal abundance and diversity in sediments, as well as the MPs, of three sites with different anthropogenic impacts in the Mediterranean Sea: the harbor of Livorno, the marine protected area "Secche della Meloria"; and an intermediate point, respectively. A total of 1526 isolates were cultured and identified using a polyphasic approach. For many of the fungal species this is the first record in a marine environment. A comparison with the mycobiota associated with the sediments and MPs underlined a "substrate specificity", highlighting the complexity of MP-associated fungal assemblages, potentially leading to altered microbial activities and hence changes in ecosystem functions. A further driving force that acts on the fungal communities associated with sediments and MPs is sampling sites with different anthropogenic impacts.Entities:
Keywords: Mediterranean Sea; fungal community; marine fungi; microplastics; plastisphere; sediment
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135652 PMCID: PMC9501098 DOI: 10.3390/jof8090927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Figure 1Map of the sampling sites: Livorno Harbor, LH; Intermediate Point, IP; Marine Protected Area “Secche della Meloria”, MPA.
Biodiversity indexes of sampling sites from different matrices.
| Matrix | Site | Biodiversity Indexes * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S * | J’ | H’ | 1-Lambda | ||
| SS | LH | 88 | 0.74 | 3.32 | 0.91 |
| IP | 123 | 0.69 | 3.35 | 0.89 | |
| MPA | 74 | 0.90 | 3.89 | 0.97 | |
| WS | LH | 59 | 0.74 | 3.01 | 0.87 |
| IP | 74 | 0.69 | 2.95 | 0.89 | |
| MPA | 58 | 0.49 | 1.98 | 0.77 | |
| MPs | LH | 10 | 0.66 | 1.52 | 0.68 |
| IP | 5 | 0.97 | 1.56 | 0.78 | |
| MPA | 9 | 0.95 | 2.09 | 0.86 | |
* S = number of species; J’ = Pielou’s evenness; H’= Shannon index; 1-Lambda = Simpson index.
Figure 2Venn diagram showing the number of exclusive and shared taxa among matrices: solid sediment (SS), watery sediment (WS), and microplastics (MPs).
Figure 3Relative abundance (RA%) of SS fungal taxa for Livorno harbor (LH), intermediate point (IP), and marine protected area (MPA). Fungal taxa with RA% < 3% are grouped in “others”.
Figure 4Relative abundance (RA%) of WS fungal taxa in Livorno harbor (LH), intermediate point (IP), and marine protected area (MPA). Fungal taxa with RA% < 3% are grouped in “others”.
Fungal taxa isolated from MPs at Livorno harbor (LH), intermediate point (IP), and marine protected area (MPA), with different isolation methods: sonication or direct plating.
| Taxa | MPs Isolation Methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonication | Direct Plating | LH | IP | MPA | |
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | x | ||
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | x | ||
|
| x | x | x | x | x |
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | x | x | |
|
| x | x | |||
|
| x | x | |||
Figure 5Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) illustrating the diversity of fungal communities (a) in solid sediment (SS); (b) watery sediment (WS), and (c) microplastics (MPs). In (a,b) symbols indicate Livorno harbor (LH), intermediate point (IP), and marine protected area (MPA), while colors indicate the different matrices within them.
Dissimilarity of mycobiota among the three sites in different matrices. For each couple, the three taxa that mainly contributed to the dissimilarity are reported.
| Matrix | Site | Dissimilarity % | Taxa |
|---|---|---|---|
| SS | LH vs IP | 90.06 |
|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| LH vs MPA | 95.23 |
| |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| IP vs MPA | 93.55 |
| |
|
| |||
| WS | LH vs IP | 74.6 |
|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| LH vs MPA | 71.95 |
| |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| IP vs MPA | 81.92 |
| |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| MPs | LH vs IP | 97.18 |
|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| LH vs MPA | 98.17 |
| |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| IP vs MPA | 98.61 |
| |
|
| |||
|
|