4.7 Article

Microbial communities in hummingbird feeders are distinct from floral nectar and influenced by bird visitation

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2295

关键词

Calypte anna; floral nectar; hummingbird microbiome; community assembly; human-bird interactions; wildlife

资金

  1. UC Davis Programmatic Initiative
  2. Students Training in Advanced Research (STAR) Program, USDA Hatch award [NE1501]
  3. Merial Veterinary Scholars Program, USDA Hatch award [NE1501]
  4. Daniel and Susan Gottlieb Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human provisioning can shape resource availability for wildlife, but consequences for microbiota availability and exchange remain relatively unexplored. Here, we characterized microbial communities on bills and faecal material of hummingbirds and their food resources, including feeders and floral nectar. We experimentally manipulated bird visitation to feeders and examined effects on sucrose solution microbial communities. Birds, feeders and flowers hosted distinct bacterial and fungal communities. Proteobacteria comprised over 80% of nectar bacteria but feeder solutions contained a high relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. Hummingbirds hosted bacterial taxa commonly found in other birds and novel genera including Zymobacter [Proteobacteria] and Ascomycete fungi. For feeders, bird-visited and unvisited solutions both accumulated abundant microbial populations that changed solution pH, but microbial composition was largely determined by visitation treatment. Our results reveal that feeders host abundant microbial populations, including some bird-associated microbial taxa. Microbial taxa in feeders were primarily non-pathogenic bacteria and fungi but differed substantially from those in floral nectar. These results demonstrate that human provisioning influences microbial intake by free-ranging hummingbirds; however, it is unknown how these changes impact hummingbird gastrointestinal flora or health.

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