Advertisement

Microbial Ecology

, Volume 79, Issue 1, pp 50–63 | Cite as

Contrasting Water Quality Treatments Result in Structural and Functional Changes to Wetland Plant-Associated Microbial Communities in Lab-Scale Mesocosms

  • Lindsey K. ClairmontEmail author
  • Robin M. Slawson
Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

The impact of contrasting water quality treatments on wetland plant-associated microbial communities was investigated in this study using 12 lab-scale wetland mesocosms (subsurface flow design) planted with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) or water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica) over a 13-week period. Mesocosms received water collected from two sites along the Grand River (Ontario, Canada) designated as having either high or poor water quality according to Grand River Conservation Authority classifications. All mesocosms were established using sediment collected from the high water quality site and received water from this source pre-treatment. Resulting changes to microbial community structure were assessed using PCR-denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis (DGGE) on microbial 16S rDNA sequences extracted from rhizoplane, rhizosphere, and water samples before and after exposure to water quality treatments. Functional community changes were determined using Biolog™ EcoPlates which assess community-level carbon source utilization profiles. Wetland mesocosm removal of inorganic nutrients (N, P) and fecal coliforms was also determined, and compared among treatments. Treatment-specific effects were assessed using a repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood (REML) analysis. Structural and functional characteristics of rhizoplane microbial communities were significantly influenced by the interaction between plant species and water treatment (P = 0.04, P = 0.01). Plant species–specific effects were observed for rhizosphere structural diversity (P = 0.01) and wetland water community metabolic diversity (P = 0.03). The effect of water treatment alone was significant for structural diversity measurements in wetland water communities (P = 0.03). The effect of plant species, water quality treatment, and the interaction between the two is dependent on the microhabitat type (rhizoplane, rhizosphere, or water). Rhizoplane communities appear to be more sensitive to water quality–specific environmental changes and may be a good candidate for microbial community-based monitoring of wetland ecosystems.

Keywords

Wetland Rhizoplane Rhizosphere Water quality Microbial community 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Southern Ontario Water Consortium for infrastructure support.

Funding Information

The study was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in the form of a Discovery Grant (GR-RGPGP 2014-00060-R) to RMS and a Doctoral Postgraduate Scholarship to LKC (471103-2015).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

248_2019_1389_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1408 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 380:48–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang X, Lu Y, Han J, He G, Wang T (2007) Identification of anthropogenic influences on water quality of rivers in Taihu watershed. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 19:475–481Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamers LMP, Falla S-J, Samborska EM, van Dulken IAR, van Hengstum G, Roelofs JGM (2002) Factors controlling the extent of eutrophication and toxicity in sulfate-polluted freshwater wetlands. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47:585–593Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faulwetter JL, Gagnon V, Sundberg C, Chazarenc F, Burr MD, Brisson J, Camper AK, Stein OR (2009) Microbial processes influencing performance of treatment wetlands: a review. Ecol. Eng. 35:987–1004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabral JPS (2010) Water microbiology. Bacterial pathogens and water. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 7:3657–3703PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnston CA (1991) Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: effects on surface water quality. Crit. Rev. Environ. Control. 21:491–565Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stottmeister U, Wießner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kästner M, Bederski O, Müller RA, Moormann H (2003) Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol. Adv. 22:93–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonfante P, Anca IA (2009) Plants, mycorrhizal fungi, and bacteria: a network of interactions. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 63:363–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berendsen RL, Pieterse CM, Bakker PA (2012) The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17:478–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baudoin E, Benizri E, Guckert A (2003) Impact of artificial root exudates on the bacterial community structure in bulk soil and maize rhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35:1183–1192Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philippot L, Raaijmakers JM, Lemanceau P, van der Putten WH (2013) Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol. 11:789–799PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards J, Johnson C, Santos-Medellin C, Lurie E, Podishetty NK, Bhatnagar S, Eisen JA, Sundaresan V (2015) Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiome of rice. PNAS 112:E911–E920. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1414592112. Accessed 5 Feb 2018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muratova A, Hübner TH, Tischer S, Turkovskaya O, Möder M, Kuschk P (2003) Plant-rhizosphere-microflora association during phytoremediation of PAH-contaminated soil. Int J Phytorem 5:137–151Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haichar FEZ, Marol C, Berge O, Rangel-Castro JI, Prosser JI, Balesdent J, Heulin T, Achiuak W (2008) Plant host habitat and root exudates shape soil bacterial community structure. ISME J 2:1221–1230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hartmann A, Schmid M, van Tuinen D, Berg G (2009) Plant-driven selection of microbes. Plant Soil 321:235–257Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costa R, Götz M, Mrotzek N, Lottmann J, Berg G, Smalla K (2006) Effects of site and plant species on rhizosphere community structure as revealed by molecular analysis of microbial guilds. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 56:236–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhuang X, Chen J, Shim H, Bai Z (2007) New advances in growth promoting rhizobacteria for phytoremediation. Environ. Int. 33:406–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahn C, Gillevet PM, Sikaroodi M (2007) Molecular characterization of microbial communities in treatment microcosm wetlands as influenced by macrophytes and phosphorous loading. Ecol. Indic. 7:852–863Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao Y, Liu B, Zhang W, Hu C, Shuqing A (2010) Effects of plant and influent C:N:P ratio on microbial diversity in pilot-scale constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 36:441–449Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bowen JL, Ward BB, Morrison HG, Hobbie JE, Valiela I, Deegan L, Sogin LS (2011) Microbial community composition in sediments resists perturbation by nutrient enrichment. ISME J 5:1540–1548PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lansdown RV (2014) Phalaris arundinacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T164064A1021826.en. Accessed 06 March 2019.
  22. 22.
    Gupta AK, Lansdown RV (2013) Veronica anagallis-aquatica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T164036A1019922.en. Accessed 06 March 2019
  23. 23.
    Loomer HA, Cooke SE (2011) Water quality in the Grand River Watershed: current conditions and trends (2003–2008). Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON, CA. https://www.sourcewater.ca/en/source-protection-areas/resources/Documents/Grand/Grand_Reports_WaterQuality_2011.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2015
  24. 24.
    Grayston SJ, Wang S, Campbell CD, Edwards ED (1998) Selective influence of plant species on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:369–378Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miyasaka SC, Buta JG, Howell RK, Foy CD (1991) Mechanism of aluminum tolerance in snapbeans root exudation of citric acid. Plant Physiol. 96:737–743PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bulgarelli D, Rott M, Schlaeppi K, van Themaat EVL, Ahmadinejad N, Assenza F, Rauf P, Huettel B, Reinhardt R, Schmelzer E, Peplies J, Gloeckner FO, Amann R, Eickhorst T, Schulze-Lefert P (2012) Revealing structure and assembly cures for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota. Nature 488:91–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber KP, Mitzel MR, Slawson RM, Legge RL (2011) Effect of ciprofloxacin on microbiological development in wetland mesocosms. Water Res. 45:3185–3196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ogino A, Koshikawa H, Nakahara T, Uchiyama H (2001) Succession of microbial communities during a biostimulation process as evaluated by DGGE and clone library analysis. J. Appl. Microbiol. 91:625–635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:695–700PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Green SJ, Leigh MB, Neufeld JD (2010) Denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis (DGGE) for microbial community analysis. In: Timmins KN (ed) Microbiology of hydrocarbons, oils, lipids and derived compounds. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 4137–4158Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weber KP, Legge RL (2010) Community-level physiological profiling. In: Cummings SP (ed) Bioremediation, Methods in Molecular Biology. Humana Press, New York, pp 263–281Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aguirre de Cárcer D, Martín M, Mackova M, Macek T, Karlson U, Rivilla R (2007) The introduction of genetically modified microorganisms designed for rhizoremediation induces changes on native bacteria in the rhizosphere but not in the surrounding soil. ISME J 1:215–223Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mula-Michel HP, Williams MA (2013) Soil type modestly impacts bacterial community succession associated with decomposing grass detrituspheres. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77:133–144Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hufham JB (1974) Evaluating the membrane fecal coliform test by using Escherichia coli as the indicator organism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 27:771–776Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jamieson RC, Gordon RJ, Sharples KE, Stratton GW, Madani A (2002) Movement and persistence of fecal bacteria in agricultural soils and subsurface drainage water: a review. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 44:1.1–1.9Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harwood VJ, Levine AD, Scott TM, Chivukula V, Lukasik J, Farrah SR, Rose JB (2005) Validity of the indicator organism paradigm for pathogen reduction in reclaimed water and public health protection. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:3163–3170PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    American Public Health Association (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edn. American Water Work Association and Water Environment Federation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gafan GP, Lucas VS, Roberts GJ, Petrie A, Wilson M, Spratt DA (2005) Statistical analyses of complex denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:3971–3978PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zak JC, Willig MR, Moorhead DL, Wildman HG (1994) Functional diversity of microbial communities: a quantitative approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26:1101–1108Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garland JL (1997) Analysis and interpretation of community-level physiological profiles in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 4:289–300Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weber KP, Legge RL (2009) One-dimensional metric for tracking bacterial community divergence using sole carbon source utilization patterns. J Microb Methods 79:55–61Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Frąc M, Oszust K, Lipiec J (2012) Community level physiological profiles (CLPP), characterization and microbial activity of soil amended with dairy sewage sludge. Sensors (Basel) 12:3253–3268Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Choi KH, Dobbs FC (1999) Comparison of two kinds of Biolog microplates (GN and ECO) in their ability to distinguish among aquatic microbial communities. J. Microbiol. Methods 36:203–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Belanche A, Newbold CJ, Lin W, Stevens PR, Kingston-Smith AH (2017) A systems biology approach reveals differences in the dynamics of colonization and degradation of grass vs. hay by rumen microbes with minor effects of vitamin E supplementation. Front. Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01456
  46. 46.
    Srivastaval JK, Chandra H, Kalra SJS, Mishra P, Khan H, Yadav P (2017) Plant–microbe interaction in aquatic system and their role in the management of water quality: a review. Appl Water Sci 7:1079–1090Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weber KP (2016) Microbial community assessment in wetlands for water pollution control: past, present, and future outlook. Water 8:503Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smalla K, Wieland G, Buchner A, Zock A, Parzy J, Kaiser S, Roskot N, Heuer H, Berg G (2001) Bulk and rhizosphere soil bacterial communities studied by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis: plant-dependent enrichment and seasonal shifts revealed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:4742–4751PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wu L, Chen J, Xiao Z, Zhu X, Wang J, Wu H, Wu Y, Zhang Z, Lin W (2018) Barcoded pyrosequencing reveals a shift in the bacterial community in the rhizosphere and rhizoplane of Rehmannia glutinosa under consecutive monoculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19:850PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ahn C, Gillevet PM, Sikaroodi M (2007) Molecular characterization of microbial communities in treatment microcosm wetlands as influenced by macrophytes and phosphorus loading. Ecol. Indic. 7:852–863Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tlili A, Bérard A, Roulier J-L, Volat B, Montuelle B (2010) PO4 3− dependence of the tolerance of autotrophic and heterotrophic biofilm communities to copper and diuron. Aquat. Toxicol. 98(2):165–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van der Gucht K, Cottenie K, Muylaert K, Vloemans N, Cousin S, Declerck S, Jeppesen E, Conde-Porcuna J, Schwenk K, Zwart G, Degans H, Vyverman W, De Meester L (2007) The power of species sorting: local factors drive bacterial community composition over a wide range of spatial scales. PNAS 104:20404–20409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kirchman DL, Dittel AI, Findlay SE, Fischer D (2004) Changes in bacterial activity and community structure in response to dissolved organic matter in the Hudson River, New York. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 35:243–257Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stout LM, Nüsslein K (2005) Shifts in rhizoplane communities of aquatic plants after cadmium exposure. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71(5):2484–2492PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ravit B, Ehrenfeld JG, Haggblom MM (2003) A comparison of sediment microbial communities associated with Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in two brackish wetlands of New Jersey. Estuaries 26:465–474Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Broeckling CD, Broz AK, Bergelson J, Manter DK, Vivanco JM (2008) Root exudates regulate soil fungal community compsotition and diversity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74:738–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shi S, Richardson AE, O’Callaghan M, DeAngelis KM, Jones EE, Stewart A, Firestone MK, Condron LM (2011) Effects of selected root exudate components on soil bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 77(3):600–610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fierer N, Jackson RB (2006) The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103:626–631PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marschner H, Römheld V (1983) In vivo measurement of root-induced pH changes at the soil-root interface: effect of plant species and nitrogen source. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 111(3):241–251Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hissinger P, Plassard C, Tang C, Jaillard B (2003) Origins of root mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: a review. Plant Soil 248(1–2):43–59Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bardgett RD, Mawdsley JL, Edwards S, Hobbs PJ, Rodwell JS, Davies WJ (1999) Plant species and nitrogen effects on soil biological properties of temperate upland grasslands. Funct. Ecol. 13:650–660Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Berg G, Roskot N, Steidle A, Eber L, Zock A, Smalla K (2002) Plant-dependent genotypic and phenotypic diversity of antagonistic rhizobacteria isolated from different Verticillum host plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68:3328–3338PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ladygina N, Hedlund K (2010) Plant species influence microbial diversity and carbon allocation in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42:162–168Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hennion N, Durand M, Vriet C, Doidy J, Maurousset L, Lemoine R, Pourtau N (2019) Sugars en route to the roots. Transport, metabolism and storage within plant roots and towards microorganisms of the rhizosphere. Physiol. Plant. 165(1):44–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Grayston SJ, Vaughn D, Jones D (1996) Rhizosphere carbon flow in trees, in comparison with annual plants: the importance of root exudation and its impact on microbial activity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 5:29–56Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bossio DH, Scow KM (1995) Impact of carbon and flooding on the metabolic diversity of microbial communities in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61:4043–4050PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Grayston SJ, Griffith GS, Mawdsley JL, Campbell CD, Bardgett RD (2001) Accounting for variability in soil microbial communities of temperate upland grassland ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33:533–551Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Clairmont LK, Stevens KJ, Slawson RM (2019) Site-specific differences in microbial community structure and function within the rhizosphere and rhizoplane of wetland plants is plant species dependent. Rhizosphere 9:56–68Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sasse J, Martinoia E, Northen T (2018) Feed your friends: do plant exudates shape the root microbiome? Trends Plant Sci. 23(1):25–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol. 162:9–24Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Harder W, Dijkhuizen L (1983) Physiological responses to nutrient limitation. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 37:1–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schimel JP, Weintraub MN (2003) The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35:549–563Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Atlas RM, Bartha R (1992) Hydrocarbon biodegradation and oil spill bioremediation. Adv. Microb. Ecol. 12:287–338Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    MacNaughton SJ, Stephen JR, Venosa AD, Davis GA, Chang YJ, White DC (1999) Microbial population changes during bioremediation of an experimental oil spill. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:3566–3574PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Nyman JA (1999) Effect of crude oil and chemical additives on metabolic activity of mixed microbial populations in fresh marsh soils. Microb. Ecol. 37:152–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bachoon DS, Araujo R, Molina M, Hodson RE (2001) Microbial community dynamics and evaluation of bioremediation strategies in oil-impacted salt marsh sediment microcosms. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 27:72–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Logan MV, Reardon KF, Figueroa LA, McLain JET, Ahmann DM (2005) Microbial community activities during establishment, performance, and decline of bench-scale passive treatment systems for mine drainage. Water Res. 39:4537–4551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yergeau E, Lawrence JR, Sanschagrin S, Walser MJ, Korber DR et al (2012) Next-generation sequencing of microbial communities in the Athabasca River and its tributaries in relation to oil sands mining activities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78:7626–7637PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bartlett CK (2016) Sulfate-reducing bacteria community analysis: ISCO/ISB coupled remediation. Dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Monreal CM, Zhang J, Koziel S, Vidmar J, González M, Matus F, Baxi S, Wu S, DeRosa M, Etcheverria P (2018) Bacterial community structure associated with the addition of nitrogen and the dynamics of soluble carbon in the rhizosphere of canola (Brassica napus) grown in a Podzol. Rhizosphere 5:16–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations