Biotic and Environmental Drivers of Plant Microbiomes Across a Permafrost Thaw Gradient.

IsoGenie Project Stordalen Mire climate feedbacks keystone species microbial community assembly permafrost thaw plant–microbial interactions

Journal

Frontiers in microbiology
ISSN: 1664-302X
Titre abrégé: Front Microbiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101548977

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 15 11 2019
accepted: 03 04 2020
entrez: 6 6 2020
pubmed: 6 6 2020
medline: 6 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Plant-associated microbiomes are structured by environmental conditions and plant associates, both of which are being altered by climate change. The future structure of plant microbiomes will depend on the, largely unknown, relative importance of each. This uncertainty is particularly relevant for arctic peatlands, which are undergoing large shifts in plant communities and soil microbiomes as permafrost thaws, and are potentially appreciable sources of climate change feedbacks due to their soil carbon (C) storage. We characterized phyllosphere and rhizosphere microbiomes of six plant species, and bulk peat, across a permafrost thaw progression (from intact permafrost, to partially- and fully-thawed stages) via 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. We tested the hypothesis that the relative influence of biotic versus environmental filtering (the role of plant species versus thaw-defined habitat) in structuring microbial communities would differ among phyllosphere, rhizosphere, and bulk peat. Using both abundance- and phylogenetic-based approaches, we found that phyllosphere microbial composition was more strongly explained by plant associate, with little influence of habitat, whereas in the rhizosphere, plant and habitat had similar influence. Network-based community analyses showed that keystone taxa exhibited similar patterns with stronger responses to drivers. However, plant associates appeared to have a larger influence on organisms belonging to families associated with methane-cycling than the bulk community. Putative methanogens were more strongly influenced by plant than habitat in the rhizosphere, and in the phyllosphere putative methanotrophs were more strongly influenced by plant than was the community at large. We conclude that biotic effects can be stronger than environmental filtering, but their relative importance varies among microbial groups. For most microbes in this system, biotic filtering was stronger aboveground than belowground. However, for putative methane-cyclers, plant associations have a stronger influence on community composition than environment despite major hydrological changes with thaw. This suggests that plant successional dynamics may be as important as hydrological changes in determining microbial relevance to C-cycling climate feedbacks. By partitioning the degree that plant versus environmental filtering drives microbiome composition and function we can improve our ability to predict the consequences of warming for C-cycling in other arctic areas undergoing similar permafrost thaw transitions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32499761
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00796
pmc: PMC7243355
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

796

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Hough, McClure, Bolduc, Dorrepaal, Saleska, Klepac-Ceraj and Rich.

Références

Environ Microbiol. 2016 May;18(5):1403-14
pubmed: 26271760
ISME J. 2015 Nov;9(11):2349-59
pubmed: 25909975
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Jun;32(6):429-437
pubmed: 28363350
Environ Microbiol. 2016 Jun;18(6):1805-16
pubmed: 26184386
ISME J. 2012 Aug;6(8):1621-4
pubmed: 22402401
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018 Jul 09;8:236
pubmed: 30038903
ISME J. 2014 Apr;8(4):778-89
pubmed: 24152712
mBio. 2014 Jul 15;5(4):e01371-14
pubmed: 25028427
Ecology. 2009 Feb;90(2):441-51
pubmed: 19323228
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec;32(12):884-886
pubmed: 29102055
Methods. 2017 Jul 15;124:108-119
pubmed: 28602995
ISME J. 2013 Feb;7(2):299-311
pubmed: 22955232
ISME J. 2012 Apr;6(4):802-13
pubmed: 22094342
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013 Nov;11(11):789-99
pubmed: 24056930
Front Microbiol. 2014 May 20;5:219
pubmed: 24904535
Mol Ecol. 2014 Sep;23(18):4498-510
pubmed: 25113243
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016 Nov;92(11):
pubmed: 27543318
New Phytol. 2014 Jan;201(1):31-44
pubmed: 23952258
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(9):e1002687
pubmed: 23028285
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 22;106(38):16428-33
pubmed: 19805315
New Phytol. 2015 Jan;205(1):34-58
pubmed: 25209220
ISME J. 2019 Aug;13(8):2140-2142
pubmed: 31024154
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015 Apr;24:82-6
pubmed: 25710740
Nat Commun. 2015 Jun 30;6:7477
pubmed: 26123199
Environ Microbiol. 2017 Aug;19(8):3201-3218
pubmed: 28574203
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jul;72(7):5069-72
pubmed: 16820507
Front Microbiol. 2016 Feb 12;7:150
pubmed: 26904020
Nature. 2006 Jan 12;439(7073):187-91
pubmed: 16407949
J Appl Microbiol. 2013 Jan;114(1):71-83
pubmed: 22984892
Front Microbiol. 2015 Dec 15;6:1346
pubmed: 26696968
ISME J. 2012 Mar;6(3):610-8
pubmed: 22134646
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Nature. 2015 Apr 9;520(7546):171-9
pubmed: 25855454
ISME J. 2014 Feb;8(2):369-82
pubmed: 23985741
ISME J. 2012 Jul;6(7):1378-90
pubmed: 22189496
Nat Commun. 2014;5:3212
pubmed: 24526077
New Phytol. 2019 Aug;223(3):1328-1339
pubmed: 31074867
Front Microbiol. 2016 Aug 23;7:1297
pubmed: 27602022
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec;32(12):882-884
pubmed: 29054301
Front Microbiol. 2015 Jun 25;6:639
pubmed: 26161079
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Sep;5(9):e1000494
pubmed: 19730676
Mol Ecol. 2015 Sep;24(18):4795-807
pubmed: 26335913
ISME J. 2018 Oct;12(10):2544-2558
pubmed: 29955139
Environ Microbiol. 2010 Nov;12(11):2885-93
pubmed: 20545741
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008 Oct;6(10):763-75
pubmed: 18794914
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012 Nov;82(2):510-22
pubmed: 22861658
Nature. 2011 Nov 06;480(7377):368-71
pubmed: 22056985
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 03;10(2):e0116955
pubmed: 25647581
Nature. 2015 May 14;521(7551):208-12
pubmed: 25739499
Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2019;33:57-84
pubmed: 31166185
Genome Biol. 2011 Jun 24;12(6):R60
pubmed: 21702898
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8228-35
pubmed: 16332807
Environ Microbiol. 2018 Jul;20(7):2625-2638
pubmed: 29901277
Science. 2015 Nov 6;350(6261):aac9323
pubmed: 26542581
Nature. 2018 Aug;560(7716):49-54
pubmed: 30013118
Sci Data. 2019 Feb 05;6:190007
pubmed: 30720800
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019 Apr;17(4):219-232
pubmed: 30664670
Ecology. 2016 May;97(5):1307-18
pubmed: 27349106
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Front Microbiol. 2017 Jan 24;8:12
pubmed: 28174556
J Adv Res. 2019 Apr 30;19:39-48
pubmed: 31341668
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009 Apr;68(1):1-13
pubmed: 19243436
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017 Mar 1;41(2):109-130
pubmed: 27856492
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018 Sep;16(9):567-576
pubmed: 29789680
Nature. 2014 Oct 23;514(7523):478-81
pubmed: 25341787

Auteurs

Moira Hough (M)

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Amelia McClure (A)

Department of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, United States.

Benjamin Bolduc (B)

Department of Microbiology, College of Arts and Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

Ellen Dorrepaal (E)

Climate Impacts Research Centre, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Scott Saleska (S)

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Vanja Klepac-Ceraj (V)

Department of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, United States.

Virginia Rich (V)

Department of Microbiology, College of Arts and Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

Classifications MeSH