4.7 Article

Bacterial diversity and distribution in the holocene sediments of a northern temperate lake

Journal

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 252-263

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-006-9195-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sediments contain an abundance of microorganisms. However, the diversity and distribution of microorganisms associated with sediments are poorly understood, particularly in lacustrine environments. We used banding patterns from denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and 16S rDNA sequences to assess the structure of bacterial communities in the Holocene sediments of a meromictic lake in Minnesota. Cluster analysis of the DGGE banding patterns indicates that the early- and middle-Holocene samples group separately from the late-Holocene samples. About 79% of the recovered bacterial sequences cluster with the alpha-, beta-, delta-, epsilon-, and gamma- Proteobacteriaceae and Firmicutes. The remaining similar to 21% lack cultured representatives. The taxonomic lineages of bacteria differ statistically among the early-, middle-, and late-Holocene samples, although the difference is smallest between early- and middle-Holocene samples. Early- and middle-Holocene samples are dominated by epsilon-Proteobacteriaceae, and late-Holocene samples are dominated by sequences from uncultured subphyla. We only recovered delta-Proteobacteriaceae in late-Holocene sediments and alpha- and gamma- Proteobacteriaceae in late- and middle-Holocene sediments. Diversity estimates derived from early-, middle-, and late-Holocene clone libraries indicate that the youngest (late-Holocene) samples had significantly greater bacterial diversity than the oldest (early-Holocene) samples, and the middle-Holocene samples contained intermediate levels of diversity. The observed patterns of diversity may be caused by increased bacterial niche-partitioning in younger sediments that contain a greater abundance of labile organic matter than older sediments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available