DOCSLIB.ORG

Table S1. Effect of All Treatments on Final Gravimetric Soil Moisture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table S1. Effect of All Treatments on Final Gravimetric Soil Moisture SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES Table S1. Effect of all treatments on final gravimetric soil moisture. F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Factor F, p Precipitation 7.981,27, 0.008 Microbial treatment 0.542,27, 0.591 Life-stage 3.511,27, 0.072 Precip.* Soil.Treat. 0.292,27, 0.753 Precip.* Life-stage 0.011,27, 0.919 Mic.Treat.*Life-stage 0.172,27, 0.844 Precip.*Mic.Treat.*Life-stage 0.052,27, 0.954 Table S2. Full-model ANOVA results for the effect of precipitation and all microbial treatments (bulk, autoclaved, and rhizosphere) on germinant responses. Chi- square, F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Germination rate Germinant Germinant total Germinant final Germinant final Days to first (Number of survival biomass (g) Germinant bacterial Germinant final Factor bacterial Inverse germination seeds that (given (given root:shoot community bacterial richness Simpson germinated/ germination) germination) composition pot) 2 2 2 F, p χ , p χ , p F, p F, p R p F, p F, p Precipitation 3.541,50, 0.066 4.30, 0.038 0.06, 0.803 0.841,39, 0.365 8.341,37, 0.006 0.06 <0.001 1.591,14, 0.228 0.031,17, 0.864 Microbial treatment 4.632,51, 0.014 4.79, 0.091 7.06, 0.029 3.982,39, 0.027 0.942,38, 0.398 0.44 <0.001 355.682,15, <0.001 16.472,17, <0.001 Precip.* Microbial 0.682,51, 0.513 1.89, 0.388 2.36, 0.307 10.012,39, <0.001 2.592, 38, 0.088 0.05 0.006 0.702,15, 0.514 0.242,17, 0.789 treatment Ulbrich et al. SUPPLEMENTAL Page 1/15 Table S3. Full-model ANOVA results for the effect of precipitation and all microbial treatments (bulk, autoclaved, and rhizosphere) on seedling responses. Chi- square, F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Seedling final Seedling final Seedling specific Seedling Seedling final Seedling total Seedling Seedling bacterial bacterial Factor root length rhizosheath bacterial biomass (g) root:shoot survival community Inverse (cm g dry root-1) weight (g) richness composition Simpson 2 2 F, p F, p χ , p F, p F, p R p F, p F, p Precipitation 13.421,80, <0.001 1.441,74, 0.234 NA 5.571,18, 0.030 0.101,21, 0.753 0.06 0.011 5.001,18, 0.038 1.401,18, 0.253 Microbial treatment 4.892,80, 0.010 0.312,74, 0.738 15916,<0.001 0.772,17, 0.478 2.592,21, 0.098 0.59 0.004 67.982,18, <0.001 3.902,18, 0.039 Precip.* Microbial 3.342,80, 0.041 0.492,74, 0.617 NA 4.072, 17, 0.036 0.092,21, 0.912 0.07 0.060 2.342,18, 0.124 2.862,18, 0.084 treatment Ulbrich et al. SUPPLEMENTAL Page 2/15 Table S4. Full model results for all response variables measured on both life-stages; split by microbial presence (bulk vs. autoclaved) and inocula association history (rhizosphere vs. bulk). Chi-square, F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Survival just Final Bacterial Final Bacterial Bacterial Community Biomass Root:shoot in drought Richness Inv. Simpson Composition 2 2 Factor χ , p F, p F, p F, p F, p R P Precipitation NA 0.351,76 0.,557 6.441,113, <0.001 3.471,20, 0.077 0.101,23, 0.759 0.06 <0.001 Microbial Presence 5.06, 0.024 7.801,76, 0.007 0.462,113, 0.083 685.071,20, <0.001 12.631,23, 0.002 0.48 <0.001 Life-stage 0.68, 0.408 1.66 , 0.202 23.46 , <0.001 13.85 , 0.001 9.52 , 0.005 0.04 0.006 Microbial 1,78 1,113 1,20 1,23 Precip.* Mic.Pres. NA 1.011,78, 0.302 0.632,113, 0.014 1.301,20, 0.268 0.101,23, 0.757 0.03 0.021 Presence Precip.* Life-stage NA 10.191,76, 0.002 2.251,113, 0.007 0.111,20, 0.741 0.201,23, 0.656 0.02 0.148 Mic.Pres.*Life-stage 1.48, 0.223 0.131,76, 0.721 0.472,113, 0.043 0.011,20, 0.938 1.841,23, 0.189 0.05 0.004 Precip.* Mic.Pres.*Life-stage NA 12.811,78, 0.001 2.362,113, <0.001 0.011,20, 0.939 1.491,23, 0.234 0.02 0.174 Precipitation NA 7.191,87, 0.009 2.741,84, 0.102 3.331,24, 0.080 0.931,24, 0.345 0.021 0.001 Microbial Inocula 0.47, 0.494 0.011,85, 0.921 0.821,84, 0.368 4.061,24, 0.055 6.411,24, 0.018 0.08 0.021 Microbial Life-stage 0.34, 0.558 3.831,4, 0.116 16.491,84, <0.001 1.761,24, 0.197 0.301,24, 0.592 0.02 0.503 Association Precip.* Mic.Inoc. NA 0.271,84, 0.606 0.081,84, 0.777 1.191,24, 0.286 2.101,24, 0.160 0.03 0.245 History Precip.* Life-stage NA 0.251,87, 0.620 0.311,84, 0.578 2.451,24, 0.131 0.451,24, 0.510 0.02 0.343 Mic.Inoc.*Life-stage 0.09, 0.759 0.871,85, 0.354 0.031,84, 0.870 5.541,24, 0.027 3.011,24, 0.092 0.11 0.006 Precip.* Mic.Inoc.*Life-stage NA 0.001,84, 0.996 0.381,84, 0.540 1.631,24, 0.213 2.541,24, 0.124 0.05 0.062 Ulbrich et al. SUPPLEMENTAL Page 3/15 Table S5. Final bacterial community analyses for microbial presence treatments (autoclaved and bulk microbial treatments only). F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Bacterial Bacterial Inverse community composition Factor Bacterial richness Simpson (Weighted Unifrac) 2 F, p F, p R p Precipitation 0.271,8, 0.617 0.011,11, 0.934 0.11 0.007 Germinant Microbial presence 175.641,8, <0.001 1.731,11, 0.216 0.40 0.007 Precip.* Mic.Presence 0.0021,8, 0.970 0.291,11, 0.598 0.05 0.020 Precipitation 0.681,9, 0.432 2.281,9, 0.165 0.06 0.013 Seedling Microbial Presence 210.611,9, <0.001 25.111,9, <0.001 0.62 0.027 Precip.* Mic.Presence 0.071,9, 0.799 3.181,9, 0.108 0.06 0.023 Table S6. Soil properties for initial inocula (autoclaved bulk, live bulk, live rhizosphere) and final seedling-associated soils. Microbial biomass carbon and dissolved organic carbon were only assessed on the seedling ambient-exposed soils (n = 5 per microbial treatment). F-statistic and p-values provided; significant p-values (p < 0.05) are bolded. Final soil Final soil dissolved Final microbial Factor Initial nitrate Initial ammonium Final soil nitrate ammonium organic carbon biomass carbon F, p F, p F, p F, p F, p F, p Precipitation NA NA 15.221,17, 0.001 5.361,20, 0.031 NA NA Microbial treatment 0.792,11, 0.477 62.792,11, <0.001 9.122,17, 0.002 16.552,20, <0.001 2.6072,10, 0.123 0.912,10, 0.434 Precip.* Microbial NA NA 4.632,17, 0.025 3.432,20, 0.052 NA NA treatment Ulbrich et al. SUPPLEMENTAL Page 4/15 Table S7. SIMPER results for bacterial OTUS that differ between the seedling-associated live microbial inocula (rhizosphere and bulk) in drought versus ambient conditions with Weighted Unifrac distance metric. OTUs with significantly greater average percent relative abundance in the drought than ambient soils are presented (p < 0.05). Percent dissimilarity explained refers to the amount of community dissimilarity between the ambient- and drought-exposed bacterial communities that a particular OTU explains. Rows organized by taxonomy and unadjusted p-value presented. Percent Avg. % Avg. % dissimilarity rel.abund. rel.abund. Unadjusted OTU explained under drought under ambient Phylum Class Order Family Genus P-value OTU6729 3.75E-05 0.75 0 Acidobacteria Acidobacteria Subgroup_4 UNKONWN Blastocatella 0.023 OTU1520 0.000125 2.5 0 Actinobacteria Acidimicrobiia Acidimicrobiales UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0.025 OTU851 0.000356 9.5 3.125 Actinobacteria Acidimicrobiia Acidimicrobiales UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0.012 OTU13605 0.000109 2.375 0.25 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Corynebacteriales Mycobacteriaceae UNKNOWN 0.01 OTU1903 0.000303 7.5 2.25 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Corynebacteriales Nocardiaceae Smaragdicoccus 0.023 OTU494 0.000109 2.375 0.375 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Frankiales Acidothermaceae Acidothermus 0.012 OTU272 0.000264 6.75 2.125 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Frankiales Frankiaceae UNKNOWN 0.018 OTU6546 0.000481 10.875 1.25 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Frankiales UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0.002 OTU3122 0.000548 15.375 5.25 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Frankiales UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0.013 OTU13146 0.000306 9.75 4.25 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Kineosporiales Kineosporiaceae UNKNOWN 0.018 OTU768 0.000433 11.625 3.625 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Propionibacteriales Nocardioidaceae Aeromicrobium 0.007 OTU80 0.000853 36.375 23.375 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Pseudonocardiales Pseudonocardiaceae Pseudonocardia 0.048 OTU810 0.00035 10.125 3.625 Actinobacteria Actinobacteria Streptomycetales Streptomycetaceae Streptomyces 0.009 OTU478 0.000356 10 4.375 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Gaiellales Gaiellaceae Gaiella 0.035 OTU6042 9.38E-05 1.875 0 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Solirubrobacterales 0319-6M6 UNKNOWN 0.005 OTU1155 0.000767 20.875 5.625 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Solirubrobacterales 0319-6M6 UNKNOWN 0.002 OTU294 0.001058 32.875 15.75 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Solirubrobacterales 288-2 UNKNOWN 0.033 OTU2691 0.000177 4.125 1.375 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Solirubrobacterales 480-2 UNKNOWN 0.036 Ulbrich et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table S4. Phylogenetic Distribution of Bacterial and Archaea Genomes in Groups A, B, C, D, and X
    Table S4. Phylogenetic distribution of bacterial and archaea genomes in groups A, B, C, D, and X. Group A a: Total number of genomes in the taxon b: Number of group A genomes in the taxon c: Percentage of group A genomes in the taxon a b c cellular organisms 5007 2974 59.4 |__ Bacteria 4769 2935 61.5 | |__ Proteobacteria 1854 1570 84.7 | | |__ Gammaproteobacteria 711 631 88.7 | | | |__ Enterobacterales 112 97 86.6 | | | | |__ Enterobacteriaceae 41 32 78.0 | | | | | |__ unclassified Enterobacteriaceae 13 7 53.8 | | | | |__ Erwiniaceae 30 28 93.3 | | | | | |__ Erwinia 10 10 100.0 | | | | | |__ Buchnera 8 8 100.0 | | | | | | |__ Buchnera aphidicola 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pantoea 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Yersiniaceae 14 14 100.0 | | | | | |__ Serratia 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Morganellaceae 13 10 76.9 | | | | |__ Pectobacteriaceae 8 8 100.0 | | | |__ Alteromonadales 94 94 100.0 | | | | |__ Alteromonadaceae 34 34 100.0 | | | | | |__ Marinobacter 12 12 100.0 | | | | |__ Shewanellaceae 17 17 100.0 | | | | | |__ Shewanella 17 17 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonadaceae 16 16 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonas 15 15 100.0 | | | | |__ Idiomarinaceae 9 9 100.0 | | | | | |__ Idiomarina 9 9 100.0 | | | | |__ Colwelliaceae 6 6 100.0 | | | |__ Pseudomonadales 81 81 100.0 | | | | |__ Moraxellaceae 41 41 100.0 | | | | | |__ Acinetobacter 25 25 100.0 | | | | | |__ Psychrobacter 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Moraxella 6 6 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudomonadaceae 40 40 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudomonas 38 38 100.0 | | | |__ Oceanospirillales 73 72 98.6 | | | | |__ Oceanospirillaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Drylands Soil Bacterial Community Is Affected by Land Use Change and Different Irrigation Practices in the Mezquital Valley
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Drylands soil bacterial community is afected by land use change and diferent irrigation practices in the Received: 23 June 2017 Accepted: 3 January 2018 Mezquital Valley, Mexico Published: xx xx xxxx Kathia Lüneberg1, Dominik Schneider2, Christina Siebe1 & Rolf Daniel 2 Dryland agriculture nourishes one third of global population, although crop irrigation is often mandatory. As freshwater sources are scarce, treated and untreated wastewater is increasingly used for irrigation. Here, we investigated how the transformation of semiarid shrubland into rainfed farming or irrigated agriculture with freshwater, dam-stored or untreated wastewater afects the total (DNA-based) and active (RNA-based) soil bacterial community composition, diversity, and functionality. To do this we collected soil samples during the dry and rainy seasons and isolated DNA and RNA. Soil moisture, sodium content and pH were the strongest drivers of the bacterial community composition. We found lineage-specifc adaptations to drought and sodium content in specifc land use systems. Predicted functionality profles revealed gene abundances involved in nitrogen, carbon and phosphorous cycles difered among land use systems and season. Freshwater irrigated bacterial community is taxonomically and functionally susceptible to seasonal environmental changes, while wastewater irrigated ones are taxonomically susceptible but functionally resistant to them. Additionally, we identifed potentially harmful human and phytopathogens. The analyses of 16 S rRNA genes, its transcripts and deduced functional profles provided extensive understanding of the short- term and long-term responses of bacterial communities associated to land use, seasonality, and water quality used for irrigation in drylands. Drylands are defned as regions with arid, semi-arid, and dry sub humid climate with an annual precipitation/ evapotranspiration potential ratio (P/PET)1 ranging from 0.05 to 0.652.
    [Show full text]
  • Table S5. the Information of the Bacteria Annotated in the Soil Community at Species Level
    Table S5. The information of the bacteria annotated in the soil community at species level No. Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species The number of contigs Abundance(%) 1 Firmicutes Bacilli Bacillales Bacillaceae Bacillus Bacillus cereus 1749 5.145782459 2 Bacteroidetes Cytophagia Cytophagales Hymenobacteraceae Hymenobacter Hymenobacter sedentarius 1538 4.52499338 3 Gemmatimonadetes Gemmatimonadetes Gemmatimonadales Gemmatimonadaceae Gemmatirosa Gemmatirosa kalamazoonesis 1020 3.000970902 4 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sphingomonas indica 797 2.344876284 5 Firmicutes Bacilli Lactobacillales Streptococcaceae Lactococcus Lactococcus piscium 542 1.594633558 6 Actinobacteria Thermoleophilia Solirubrobacterales Conexibacteraceae Conexibacter Conexibacter woesei 471 1.385742446 7 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sphingomonas taxi 430 1.265115184 8 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sphingomonas wittichii 388 1.141545794 9 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sphingomonas sp. FARSPH 298 0.876754244 10 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sorangium cellulosum 260 0.764953367 11 Proteobacteria Deltaproteobacteria Myxococcales Polyangiaceae Sorangium Sphingomonas sp. Cra20 260 0.764953367 12 Proteobacteria Alphaproteobacteria Sphingomonadales Sphingomonadaceae Sphingomonas Sphingomonas panacis 252 0.741416341
    [Show full text]
  • Ice-Nucleating Particles Impact the Severity of Precipitations in West Texas
    Ice-nucleating particles impact the severity of precipitations in West Texas Hemanth S. K. Vepuri1,*, Cheyanne A. Rodriguez1, Dimitri G. Georgakopoulos4, Dustin Hume2, James Webb2, Greg D. Mayer3, and Naruki Hiranuma1,* 5 1Department of Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, USA 2Office of Information Technology, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, USA 3Department of Environmental Toxicology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA 4Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece 10 *Corresponding authors: [email protected] and [email protected] Supplemental Information 15 S1. Precipitation and Particulate Matter Properties S1.1 Precipitation Categorization In this study, we have segregated our precipitation samples into four different categories, such as (1) snows, (2) hails/thunderstorms, (3) long-lasted rains, and (4) weak rains. For this categorization, we have considered both our observation-based as well as the disdrometer-assigned National Weather Service (NWS) 20 code. Initially, the precipitation samples had been assigned one of the four categories based on our manual observation. In the next step, we have used each NWS code and its occurrence in each precipitation sample to finalize the precipitation category. During this step, a precipitation sample was categorized into snow, only when we identified a snow type NWS code (Snow: S-, S, S+ and/or Snow Grains: SG). Likewise, a precipitation sample was categorized into hail/thunderstorm, only when the cumulative sum of NWS codes for hail was 25 counted more than five times (i.e., A + SP ≥ 5; where A and SP are the codes for soft hail and hail, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Different Straw Biochar Combined with Microbial Inoculants on Soil Environment of Ginseng
    Effects of Different Straw Biochar Combined With Microbial Inoculants on Soil Environment of Ginseng Yuqi Qi Jilin Agricultural University Haolang Liu Jilin Agricultural University Jihong Wang ( [email protected] ) Jilin Agricultural University Yingping Wang Jilin Agricultural University Research Article Keywords: Microbial agent, Ginseng, Biochar, Soil remediation, Microbiota Posted Date: February 13th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-189319/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Version of Record: A version of this preprint was published at Scientic Reports on July 19th, 2021. See the published version at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94209-1. Page 1/23 Abstract Ginseng is an important cash crop. The long-term continuous cropping of ginseng causes the imbalance of soil environment and the exacerbation of soil-borne diseases, which affects the healthy development of ginseng industry. In this study, ginseng continuous cropping soil was treated with microbial inocula using broad-spectrum biocontrol microbial strain Frankia F1. Wheat straw, rice straw and corn straw were the best carrier materials for microbial inoculum. After treatment with microbial inoculum prepared with corn stalk biochar, the soil pH value, organic matter, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium were increased by 11.18%, 55.43%, 33.07%, 26.70%, 16.40%, and 9.10%, the activities of soil urease, catalase and sucrase increased by 52.73%, 16.80% and 43.80%, respectively. A Metagenomic showed that after the application of microbial inoculum prepared fromwith corn stalk biochar, soil microbial OTUs, Chao1 index, Shannon index, and Simpson index increased by 19.86%, 16.05%, 28.83%, and 3.16%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analyses of the Genus Hymenobacter and Description of Siccationidurans Gen
    etics & E en vo g lu t lo i y o h n a P r f y Journal of Phylogenetics & Sathyanarayana Reddy, J Phylogen Evolution Biol 2013, 1:4 o B l i a o n l r o DOI: 10.4172/2329-9002.1000122 u g o y J Evolutionary Biology ISSN: 2329-9002 Research Article Open Access Phylogenetic Analyses of the Genus Hymenobacter and Description of Siccationidurans gen. nov., and Parahymenobacter gen. nov Gundlapally Sathyanarayana Reddy* CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad-500 007, India Abstract Phylogenetic analyses of 26 species of the genus Hymenobacter based on the 16S rRNA gene sequences, resulted in polyphyletic clustering with three major groups, arbitrarily named as Clade1, Clade2 and Clade3. Delineation of Clade1 and Clade3 from Clade2 was supported by robust clustering and high bootstrap values of more than 90% and 100% in all the phylogenetic methods. 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity shared by Clade1 and Clade2 was 88 to 93%, Clade1 and Clade3 was 88 to 91% and Clade2 and Clade3 was 89 to 92%. Based on robust phylogenetic clustering, less than 93.0% sequence similarity, unique in silico restriction patterns, presence of distinct signature nucleotides and signature motifs in their 16S rRNA gene sequences, two more genera were carved to accommodate species of Clade1 and Clade3. The name Hymenobacter, sensu stricto, was retained to represent 17 species of Clade2. For members of Clade1 and Clade3, the names Siccationidurans gen. nov. and Parahymenobacter gen. nov. were proposed, respectively, and species belonging to Clade1 and Clade3 were transferred to their respective genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Ph Is the Primary Factor Driving the Distribution and Function of Microorganisms in Farmland Soils in Northeastern China
    Annals of Microbiology (2019) 69:1461–1473 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-019-01529-9 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Soil pH is the primary factor driving the distribution and function of microorganisms in farmland soils in northeastern China Cheng-yu Wang1 & Xue Zhou1 & Dan Guo1 & Jiang-hua Zhao1 & Li Yan1 & Guo-zhong Feng1 & Qiang Gao1 & Han Yu2 & Lan-po Zhao1 Received: 26 May 2019 /Accepted: 3 November 2019 /Published online: 19 December 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Purpose To understand which environmental factors influence the distribution and ecological functions of bacteria in agricultural soil. Method A broad range of farmland soils was sampled from 206 locations in Jilin province, China. We used 16S rRNA gene- based Illumina HiSeq sequencing to estimated soil bacterial community structure and functions. Result The dominant taxa in terms of abundance were found to be, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Chloroflexi, and Proteobacteria. Bacterial communities were dominantly affected by soil pH, whereas soil organic carbon did not have a significant influence on bacterial communities. Soil pH was significantly positively correlated with bacterial opera- tional taxonomic unit abundance and soil bacterial α-diversity (P<0.05) spatially rather than with soil nutrients. Bacterial functions were estimated using FAPROTAX, and the relative abundance of anaerobic and aerobic chemoheterotrophs, and nitrifying bacteria was 27.66%, 26.14%, and 6.87%, respectively, of the total bacterial community. Generally, the results indicate that soil pH is more important than nutrients in shaping bacterial communities in agricultural soils, including their ecological functions and biogeographic distribution. Keywords Agricultural soil . Soil bacterial community . Bacterial diversity . Bacterial biogeographic distribution .
    [Show full text]
  • Chemosynthetic and Photosynthetic Bacteria Contribute Differentially to Primary Production Across a Steep Desert Aridity Gradient
    The ISME Journal https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01001-0 ARTICLE Chemosynthetic and photosynthetic bacteria contribute differentially to primary production across a steep desert aridity gradient 1,2 3,4 5 6 2 Sean K. Bay ● David W. Waite ● Xiyang Dong ● Osnat Gillor ● Steven L. Chown ● 3 1,2 Philip Hugenholtz ● Chris Greening Received: 23 November 2020 / Revised: 16 April 2021 / Accepted: 28 April 2021 © The Author(s) 2021. This article is published with open access Abstract Desert soils harbour diverse communities of aerobic bacteria despite lacking substantial organic carbon inputs from vegetation. A major question is therefore how these communities maintain their biodiversity and biomass in these resource-limiting ecosystems. Here, we investigated desert topsoils and biological soil crusts collected along an aridity gradient traversing four climatic regions (sub-humid, semi-arid, arid, and hyper-arid). Metagenomic analysis indicated these communities vary in their capacity to use sunlight, organic compounds, and inorganic compounds as energy sources. Thermoleophilia, Actinobacteria, and Acidimicrobiia 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: were the most abundant and prevalent bacterial classes across the aridity gradient in both topsoils and biocrusts. Contrary to the classical view that these taxa are obligate organoheterotrophs, genome-resolved analysis suggested they are metabolically flexible, withthecapacitytoalsouseatmosphericH2 to support aerobic respiration and often carbon fixation. In contrast, Cyanobacteria were patchily distributed and only abundant in certain biocrusts. Activity measurements profiled how aerobic H2 oxidation, chemosynthetic CO2 fixation, and photosynthesis varied with aridity. Cell-specific rates of atmospheric H2 consumption increased 143-fold along the aridity gradient, correlating with increased abundance of high-affinity hydrogenases. Photosynthetic and chemosynthetic primary production co-occurred throughout the gradient, with photosynthesis dominant in biocrusts and chemosynthesis dominant in arid and hyper-arid soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Analysis of Uncultured Microbes in Marine Sediments
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-2017 Singled Out: Genomic analysis of uncultured microbes in marine sediments Jordan Toby Bird University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Bird, Jordan Toby, "Singled Out: Genomic analysis of uncultured microbes in marine sediments. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4829 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Jordan Toby Bird entitled "Singled Out: Genomic analysis of uncultured microbes in marine sediments." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Microbiology. Karen G. Lloyd, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Mircea Podar, Andrew D. Steen, Erik R. Zinser Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Singled Out: Genomic analysis of uncultured microbes in marine sediments A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jordan Toby Bird December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Jordan Bird All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Identify the Core Bacterial Microbiome of Hydrocarbon Degradation and A
    Identify the core bacterial microbiome of hydrocarbon degradation and a shift of dominant methanogenesis pathways in oil and aqueous phases of petroleum reservoirs with different temperatures from China Zhichao Zhou1, Bo Liang2, Li-Ying Wang2, Jin-Feng Liu2, Bo-Zhong Mu2, Hojae Shim3, and Ji-Dong Gu1,* 1 Laboratory of Environmental Microbiology and Toxicology, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China 2 State Key Laboratory of Bioreactor Engineering and Institute of Applied Chemistry, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, People’s Republic of China 3 Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Macau, Macau, People’s Republic of China *Correspondence to: Ji-Dong Gu ([email protected]) 1 Supplementary Data 1.1 Characterization of geographic properties of sampling reservoirs Petroleum fluids samples were collected from eight sampling sites across China covering oilfields of different geological properties. The reservoir and crude oil properties together with the aqueous phase chemical concentration characteristics were listed in Table 1. P1 represents the sample collected from Zhan3-26 well located in Shengli Oilfield. Zhan3 block region in Shengli Oilfield is located in the coastal area from the Yellow River Estuary to the Bohai Sea. It is a medium-high temperature reservoir of fluvial face, made of a thin layer of crossed sand-mudstones, pebbled sandstones and fine sandstones. P2 represents the sample collected from Ba-51 well, which is located in Bayindulan reservoir layer of Erlian Basin, east Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It is a reservoir with highly heterogeneous layers, high crude oil viscosity and low formation fluid temperature.
    [Show full text]
  • Heliorhodopsin Evolution Is Driven by Photosensory Promiscuity in Monoderms 2 Paul-Adrian Bulzu1, Vinicius Silva Kavagutti1,2, Maria-Cecilia Chiriac1, Charlotte 3 D
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.429150; this version posted February 2, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Heliorhodopsin evolution is driven by photosensory promiscuity in monoderms 2 Paul-Adrian Bulzu1, Vinicius Silva Kavagutti1,2, Maria-Cecilia Chiriac1, Charlotte 3 D. Vavourakis3, Keiichi Inoue4, Hideki Kandori5,6, Adrian-Stefan Andrei7, Rohit 4 Ghai1* 5 1Department of Aquatic Microbial Ecology, Institute of Hydrobiology, Biology Centre of 6 the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. 7 2Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, 8 Branišovská 1760, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. 9 3EUTOPS, Research Institute for Biomedical Aging Research, University of Innsbruck, 10 Austria. 11 4The Institute for Solid State Physics, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan. 12 5Department of Life Science and Applied Chemistry, Nagoya Institute of Technology, 13 Showa, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan. 14 6OptoBioTechnology Research Center, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Showa, Nagoya 15 466-8555, Japan 16 7Limnological Station, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, 17 Kilchberg, Switzerland. 18 *Corresponding author: Rohit Ghai 19 Department of Aquatic Microbial Ecology, Institute of Hydrobiology, Biology Centre of 20 the Academy 21 of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Na Sádkách 7, 370 05, České Budějovice, Czech 22 Republic. 23 Phone: +420 387 775 881 24 Fax: +420 385 310 248 25 E-mail: [email protected] 26 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.429150; this version posted February 2, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genome Compendium Reveals Diverse Metabolic Adaptations of Antarctic Soil Microorganisms
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.06.239558; this version posted August 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. August 3, 2020 A genome compendium reveals diverse metabolic adaptations of Antarctic soil microorganisms Maximiliano Ortiz1 #, Pok Man Leung2 # *, Guy Shelley3, Marc W. Van Goethem1,4, Sean K. Bay2, Karen Jordaan1,5, Surendra Vikram1, Ian D. Hogg1,7,8, Thulani P. Makhalanyane1, Steven L. Chown6, Rhys Grinter2, Don A. Cowan1 *, Chris Greening2,3 * 1 Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, Pretoria 0002, South Africa 2 Department of Microbiology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia 3 School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia 4 Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 5 Departamento de Genética Molecular y Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Alameda 340, Santiago 6 Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia 7 School of Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand 8 Polar Knowledge Canada, Canadian High Arctic Research Station, Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0, Canada # These authors contributed equally to this work. * Correspondence may be addressed to: A/Prof Chris Greening ([email protected]) Prof Don A. Cowan ([email protected]) Pok Man Leung ([email protected]) bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.06.239558; this version posted August 6, 2020.
    [Show full text]