4.6 Article

Persistence of bacterial and archaeal communities in sea ice through an Arctic winter

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages 1828-1841

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02179.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [OFF 0327244, 0220826]
  2. IGERT [DGE-980713]
  3. Washington Sea Grant Program
  4. NASA [NCC2-1273]
  5. Directorate For Geosciences
  6. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0220826] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The structure of bacterial communities in first-year spring and summer sea ice differs from that in source seawaters, suggesting selection during ice formation in autumn or taxon-specific mortality in the ice during winter. We tested these hypotheses by weekly sampling (January March 2004) of first-year winter sea ice (Franklin Bay, Western Arctic) that experienced temperatures from -9 degrees C to -26 degrees C, generating community fingerprints and clone libraries for Bacteria and Archaea. Despite severe conditions and significant decreases in microbial abundance, no significant changes in richness or community structure were detected in the ice. Communities of Bacteria and Archaea in the ice, as in under-ice seawater, were dominated by SAR11 clade Alphaproteobacteria and Marine Group I Crenarchaeota, neither of which is known from later season sea ice. The bacterial ice library contained clones of Gammaproteobacteria from oligotrophic seawater clades (e.g. OM60, OM182) but no clones from gammaproteobacterial genera commonly detected in later season sea ice by similar methods (e.g. Colwellia, Psychrobacter). The only common sea ice bacterial genus detected in winter ice was Polaribacter. Overall, selection during ice formation and mortality during winter appear to play minor roles in the process of microbial succession that leads to distinctive spring and summer sea ice communities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available