4.7 Article

Species sorting during biofilm assembly by artificial substrates deployed in a cold seep system

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep06647

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanya Institute of Deep Sea Science and Engineering
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences (SIDSSE, CAS) [SIDSSE-201206]
  3. COMRA program of China [COMRRDA12SC02]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB417304]
  5. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology [SA-C0040/UK-C0016]
  6. Strategic Priority Research Program of CAS [XDB06010100, XDB06010200]
  7. SIDSSE [SIDSSE-201305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies focusing on biofilm assembly in deep-sea environments are rarely conducted. To examine the effects of substrate type on microbial community assembly, biofilms were developed on different substrates for different durations at two locations in the Red Sea: in a brine pool and in nearby bottom water (NBW) adjacent to the Thuwal cold seep II. The composition of the microbial communities in 51 biofilms and water samples were revealed by classification of pyrosequenced 16S rRNA gene amplicons. Together with the microscopic characteristics of the biofilms, the results indicate a stronger selection effect by the substrates on the microbial assembly in the brine pool compared with the NBW. Moreover, the selection effect by substrate type was stronger in the early stages compared with the later stages of the biofilm development. These results are consistent with the hypotheses proposed in the framework of species sorting theory, which states that the power of species sorting during microbial community assembly is dictated by habitat conditions, duration and the structure of the source community. Therefore, the results of this study shed light on the control strategy underlying biofilm-associated marine fouling and provide supporting evidence for ecological theories important for understanding the formation of deep-sea biofilms.

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

4.7
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