4.5 Article

Intertidal epilithic bacteria diversity changes along a naturally occurring carbon dioxide and pH gradient

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 89, 期 3, 页码 670-678

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/1574-6941.12368

关键词

epilithic; biofilms; bacteria; diversity; pH; carbon dioxide

资金

  1. MBA Research Fellowship
  2. EU [265103]
  3. NERC UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme [NE/H02543X/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intertidal epilithic bacteria communities are important components of coastal ecosystems, yet few studies have assessed their diversity and how it may be affected by changing environmental parameters. Submarine CO2 seeps produce localised areas of CO2-enriched seawater with reduced pH levels. We utilised the seawater pH/CO2 gradient at Levante Bay (Italy) to test the hypothesis that epilithic bacteria communities are modified by exposure to seawater with the varying chemical parameters. Biofilms were sampled from three sites exposed to seawater with different pH/CO2 levels and diversity determined using high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Seawater pCO(2) concentrations were increased from ambient at site 1 to 621atm at site 2 and 1654atm site 3, similar to the predicated future oceans beyond 2050 and 2150, respectively. Alpha diversity of total bacteria communities and Cyanobacteria communities was significantly different between sites (anova P<0.05). Comparison between sites showed that bacteria communities and Cyanobacteria communities were significantly different (anosim P<0.01; permanova P<0.01). Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Cyanobacteria dominated all communities; however, there were differences between sites in the relative abundance of specific orders. This study provides the most detailed assessment of intertidal epilithic bacteria diversity and shows that diversity is significantly different along a seawater pH/CO2 gradient. This information supports the evaluation of the impacts of future ocean acidification on coastal marine ecosystems.

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

4.5
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