4.6 Article

Spatial variability of microbial assemblages associated with a dominant habitat-forming seaweed

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00230

关键词

seaweed-microbe interaction; biofilm; colonization; succession

资金

  1. Centre for Marine Bio-Innovation
  2. Evolution and Ecology Research Centre at the University of New South Wales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macroalgal surfaces support abundant and diverse microorganisms within biofilms, which are often involved in fundamental functions relating to the health and defense of their seaweed hosts, including algal development, facilitation of spore release, and chemical antifouling. Given these intimate and important interactions, environmental changes have the potential to negatively impact macroalgae by disrupting seaweed microbe interactions. We used the disappearance of the dominant canopy-forming fucoid Phyllospora cornosa from the metropolitan coast of Sydney, NSW, Australia as a model system to study these interactions. We transplanted Phyllospora individuals from nearby, extant populations back onto reefs in Sydney to test whether bacterial assemblages associated with seaweed surfaces would be influenced by (i) the host itself, independently of where it occurs, (ii) the type of habitat where the host occurs, or (iii) site-specific differences. Analyses of bacterial DNA fingerprints (terminal fragment length polymorphisms) indicated that assemblages of bacteria on Phyllospora were not habitat specific. Rather, they were primarily influenced by local, site specific conditions with some evidence for host-specificity in some cases. This could suggest a lottery model of host-surface colonization, by which hosts are colonized by 'suitable' bacteria available in the local species pool, resulting in high variability in assemblage structure across sites, but where some species in the community are specific to the host and possibly influenced by differences in host traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据