4.3 Article

Effects of copper on the composition and diversity of microbial communities in laboratory-scale swine manure composting

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 409-419

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cjm-2017-0622

关键词

bacterial community; composting; co-occurrence; copper; high throughput sequencing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671474, 41601531]
  2. 948 Project of Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China [2015-Z37]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of adding copper at 3 treatment levels (0 (control: CK), 200 (low: L), and 2000 (high: H) mg.kg(-1) treatments) on the bacterial communities during swine manure composting. The abundances of the bacteria were determined by quantitative PCR and their compositions were evaluated by high-throughput sequencing. The results showed that the abundance of bacteria was inhibited by the H treatment during days 7-35, and principal component analysis clearly separated the H treatment from the CK and L treatments. Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria were the dominant bacterial taxa, and a high copper concentration decreased the abundances of bacteria that degrade cellulose and lignin (e.g., class Bacilli and genus Truepera), especially in the mesophilic and thermophilic phases. Moreover, network analysis showed that copper might alter the co-occurrence patterns of bacterial communities by changing the properties of the networks and the keystone taxa, and increase the competition by increasing negative associations between bacteria during composting. Temperature, water-soluble carbohydrates, and copper significantly affected the variations in the bacterial community according to redundancy analysis. The copper content mainly contributed to the bacterial community in the thermophilic and cooling phases, where it had positive relationships with potentially pathogenic bacteria (e.g., Corynebacterium_1 and Acinetobacter).

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

4.3
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