Bacterial Communities in Floral Nectar
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228779871 Bacterial communities in floral nectar Article in Environmental Microbiology Reports · February 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00309.x CITATIONS READS 127 1,534 4 authors, including: Ido Izhaki Yoram Gerchman University of Haifa Oranim college and University of Haifa, Israel 358 PUBLICATIONS 5,587 CITATIONS 188 PUBLICATIONS 2,930 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Malka Halpern University of Haifa 187 PUBLICATIONS 2,694 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: “Understanding the ecology and virulence of Legionella spp. populations in freshwater systems in Germany, Palestine and Israel” View project The effects of habitat structure in managed forests on bird community composition and behavior View project All content following this page was uploaded by Ido Izhaki on 17 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Environmental Microbiology Reports (2012) 4(1), 97–104 doi:10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00309.x Bacterial communities in floral nectaremi4_309 97..104 Svetlana Fridman,1 Ido Izhaki,1 Yoram Gerchman2 the dominance of sugar (> 90% dry weight) in nectar, and Malka Halpern1,2* non-sugar compounds play an important role. These com- 1Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology, pounds (< 10% dry weight) include amino acids, organic Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount acids, lipids, essential oils, polysaccharides, vitamins, Carmel, 31905 Haifa, Israel. antioxidants, minerals and secondary metabolites (Baker 2Department of Biology and Environment, Faculty of and Baker, 1983; Dafni, 1992; Carter et al., 2006). Natural Sciences, University of Haifa, Oranim, 36006 Nectar consumers such as insects, birds and bats were Tivon, Israel. suggested to transfer microflora among flowers, and between flowers and other plant organs (Sandhu and Waraich, 1985). However, floral nectar was suggested to Summary be not suitable as bacterial habitat and was even demon- Floral nectar is regarded as the most important strated to have antimicrobial properties (Sasu et al., reward available to animal-pollinated plants to attract 2010). These properties could be due to several chemical pollinators. Despite the vast amount of publications components that were suggested to limit growths of on nectar properties, the role of nectar as a natural microflora in the nectar: (i) high sugar concentration in bacterial habitat is yet unexplored. To gain a better nectars may impose high osmotic pressure that con- understanding of bacterial communities inhabiting strains microbial growth (Pusey, 1999; Brysch-Herzberg, floral nectar, culture-dependent and -independent 2004); (ii) nectar-associated proteins were suggested to (454-pyrosequencing) methods were used. Our find- function as a defensive mechanism against microorgan- ings demonstrate that bacterial communities in ism infections by producing reactive oxygen molecules nectar are abundant and diverse. Using culture- (Carter and Thornburg, 2004a–c; González-Teuber et al., dependent method we showed that bacterial commu- 2009; Harper et al., 2010); and (iii) secondary metabolites nities of nectar displayed significant variation among such as phenolics have also been suggested to play an three plant species: Amygdalus communis, Citrus antimicrobial role in nectar (Hagler and Buchmann, 1993). paradisi and Nicotiana glauca. The dominant class in Based on these constraints (e.g. Minorsky, 2007), one the nectar bacterial communities was Gammaproteo- may expect that floral nectar is populated by only a few bacteria. About half of the isolates were novel species microbiota groups that are adapted to live in such extreme (< 97% similarities of the 16S rRNA gene with known environment. species). Using 454-pyrosequencing we demon- Although some publications have indicated the pres- strated that nectar microbial community are distinct ence of microorganisms in floral nectar, most of them for each of the plant species while there are no sig- described fungi and yeasts (Sandhu and Waraich, 1985; nificant differences between nectar microbial commu- Lachance et al., 2001; Brysch-Herzberg, 2004; Manson nities within nectars taken from different plants of the et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2008; 2009; Pozo et al., 2009; same species. Primary selection of the nectar bacte- 2011) and only one addressed the presence of bacteria ria is unclear; it may be affected by variations in the (Gilliam et al., 1983). A significant negative correlation chemical composition of the nectar in each plant. The was found between yeast density and sugar content, as role of the rich and diverse nectar microflora in the well as yeast density and nectar concentration in a Wat- attraction–repulsion relationships between the plant sonia species (de Vega et al., 2009). Herrera and Pozo and its nectar consumers has yet to be explored. (2010) described a phenomenon whereby the sugar catabolism of yeast populations inhabiting floral nectar can increase its temperature and thus modify the thermal Introduction microenvironment within the flower. However, despite Floral nectar is considered the most important reward the vast amount of publications on nectar properties, the animal-pollinated plants furnish to attract pollinators role of nectar as a natural habitat for microorganisms (Forcone et al., 1997; Bernardello et al., 1999). Despite and specifically for bacteria is yet unexplored. Microbial communities in nectar may affect the nectar’s chemical Received 22 July, 2011; accepted 27 October, 2011. *For correspon- dence. E-mail [email protected]; Tel. (+972) 4 9838727; profile, thus directly controlling nectar consumption by Fax (+972) 4 9838911. flower visitors such as pollinators and nectar thieves, and © 2011 Society for Applied Microbiology and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 98 S. Fridman, I. Izhaki, Y. Gerchman and M. Halpern consequently indirectly governing plant fitness (Herrera Culturable microbial communities structure in nectar of et al., 2008; 2009; Herrera and Pozo, 2010). different plant species The aim of the current study was to gain a better under- Nectar samples were collected aseptically from flowers of standing of floral nectar bacterial communities. To that A. communis, C. paradisi and N. glauca and were spread end, we studied the bacterial communities in flower nectar onto R2A agar (Himedia) and R2A agar supplemented of three plant species: Nicotiana glauca, Amygdalus com- with 20% sucrose. One hundred representative isolates munis and Citrus paradisi in Northern Israel. Here we were identified by amplifying and sequencing the 16S show that (i) bacteria are common inhabitants of floral rRNA gene (Appendix S1). nectar and (ii) each plant species floral nectar support a About 33%, 75% and 42% of A. communis, C. paradisi unique bacterial community. and N. glauca nectar isolates, respectively, were found to be novel species (< 97% similarities in the 16S rRNA gene Results and discussion sequences to known species) (Table 1). This demon- The presence of bacteria in floral nectar strates that indeed, the nectar is an unexplored bacterial niche. Representatives of the Gammaproteobacteria Yeasts have been shown to inhabit flower nectar (Manson class dominated all nectar samples, accounting for 59%, et al., 2007; Herrera et al., 2008; 2009; Manson, 2009). 82% and 45% of the nectar isolates in A. communis, However, as far as we know, nectar has not been consid- C. paradisi and N. glauca respectively (Table 1). Isolates ered a bacterial habitat. On the contrary, Minorsky (2007) belonging to the Bacilli class also occurred in the nectar raised the question why microbes do not grow in nectar, from all plant species. Actinobacteria was identified only and quoted Carter and colleagues (2007) who found that from A. communis and N. glauca. Representatives of the nectarins, proteins which accumulate in the nectar of Alphaproteobacteria and Flavobacteria classes were ornamental tobacco plants, produce very high levels of found only in the A. communis nectar. Interestingly, the hydrogen peroxide (up to 4 mM). This might be the case most abundant species in the nectar were a novel uniden- for some bacterial strains, but as we show here, many tified Enterobateriaceae species in A. communis and others thrive in floral nectar. C. paradisi and Acinetobacter sp. in C. paradisi and N. glauca (Table 1). Nectar sampling and bacterial counts Significant differences were found between nectar bac- terial communities from different plant species (Table 1 Flower nectar from three plant species: N. glauca (Tree and Fig. 1). Figure 1 displays the results from the canoni- Tobacco), A. communis (Almond) and C. paradisi (Grape- cal correspondence analysis using the CANOCO computer fruit) were collected from flowers of each sampled plant program. The distribution of the bacterial species along (five different plants for each plant species) between March the ordinates was not random according to the Monte and June 2009. All the sampled plants were located within Carlo test (F = 1.14, P < 0.05) and thus can be explained a radius distance of up to 10 kilometres in Northern Israel. by their different plant species source. Plant species These three plant species were chosen because their floral explained 42% of the variation in the bacterial community nectar is known to contain secondary metabolites which composition whereas the horizontal and the vertical axes are considered