4.8 Article

Bacterial community composition responds to changes in copepod abundance and alters ecosystem function in an Arctic mesocosm study

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 2694-2705

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41396-018-0217-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [225956/E10]
  2. European Commission [FP7-ENV-2013-6.1-1, 603773]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Combining a minimum food web model with Arctic microbial community dynamics, we have suggested that top-down control by copepods can affect the food web down to bacterial consumption of organic carbon. Pursuing this hypothesis further, we used the minimum model to design and analyse a mesocosm experiment, studying the effect of high (+Z) and low (-Z) copepod density on resource allocation, along an organic-C addition gradient. In the Arctic, both effects are plausible due to changes in advection patterns (affecting copepods) and meltwater inputs (affecting carbon). The model predicts a trophic cascade from copepods via ciliates to flagellates, which was confirmed experimentally. Auto-and heterotrophic flagellates affect bacterial growth rate and abundance via competition for mineral nutrients and predation, respectively. In +Z, the model predicts low bacterial abundance and activity, and little response to glucose; as opposed to clear glucose consumption effects in -Z. We observed a more resilient bacterial response to high copepods and demonstrate this was due to changes in bacterial community equitability. Species able to use glucose to improve their competitive and/or defensive properties, became predominant. The observed shift from a SAR11-to a Psychromonodaceae - dominated community suggests the latter was pivotal in this modification of ecosystem function. We argue that this group used glucose to improve its defensive or its competitive abilities (or both). Adding such flexibility in bacterial traits to the model, we show how it creates the observed resilience to top-down manipulations observed in our experiment.

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

4.8
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