Tracking Replicate Divergence in Microbial Community Composition and Function in Experimental Microcosms

  • Renee JohansenEmail author
  • Michaeline Albright
  • La Verne Gallegos-Graves
  • Deanna Lopez
  • Andreas Runde
  • Thomas Yoshida
  • John Dunbar


The study of microbial community functions necessitates replicating microbial communities. Variation in community development over time renders this an imperfect process. Thus, anticipating the likely degree of variation among replicate communities may aid in experimental design. We examined divergence in replicate community composition and function among 128 naturally assembled starting communities obtained from soils, each replicated three times, following a 30-day microcosm incubation period. Bacterial and fungal communities diverged in both composition and function among replicates, but remained much more similar to each other than to communities from different starting inocula. Variation in bacterial community composition among replicates was, however, correlated with variation in dissolved organic carbon production. A smaller-scale experiment testing nine starting communities showed that divergence was similar whether replicates were incubated on sterile or non-sterile pine litter, suggesting the impact of a pre-existing community on replicate divergence is minor. However, replicates in this experiment which were incubated for 114 days diverged more than those incubated for 30 days, suggesting experiments that run over long time periods will likely see greater variation among replicate community composition. These results suggest that while replicates diverge at a community level, such divergence is unlikely to severely impede the study of community function.


Community Microbial community composition Microcosm Community replication 



This work was supported by grant SFA 2015F260 from the US Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research.

Supplementary material

248_2019_1368_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM2_ESM.docx (5.8 mb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 5911 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM3_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 33 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (1.4 mb)
ESM 4 (XLSX 1436 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (524 kb)
ESM 5 (XLSX 524 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (1.4 mb)
ESM 6 (XLSX 1481 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM7_ESM.xlsx (688 kb)
ESM 7 (XLSX 688 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM8_ESM.xlsx (128 kb)
ESM 8 (XLSX 127 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM9_ESM.xlsx (44 kb)
ESM 9 (XLSX 44 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM10_ESM.xlsx (129 kb)
ESM 10 (XLSX 129 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM11_ESM.xlsx (46 kb)
ESM 11 (XLSX 46 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM12_ESM.xlsx (20 kb)
ESM 12 (XLSX 19 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM13_ESM.xlsx (27 kb)
ESM 13 (XLSX 26 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM14_ESM.csv (338 kb)
ESM 14 (CSV 337 kb)
248_2019_1368_MOESM15_ESM.rtf (16 kb)
ESM 15 (RTF 15 kb)


  1. 1.
    Blainey P, Krzywinski M, Altman N (2014) Replication. Nat. Methods 11:879–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prosser JI (2010) Replicate or lie. Env Microbiol 12:1806–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell T (2018) Next-generation experiments linking community structure and ecosystem functioning. Environ Microbiol Rep 11:20–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou J, Liu W, Deng Y, Jiang Y-H, Xue K, He Z, Van Nostrand JD, Wu L, Yang Y, Wang A (2013) Stochastic assembly leads to alternative communities with distinct functions in a bioreactor microbial community. mBio 4:e00584–e00512Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pagaling E, Vassileva K, Mills CG, Bush T, Blythe RA, Schwarz-Linek J, Strathdee F, Allen RJ, Free A (2017) Assembly of microbial communities in replicate nutrient-cycling model ecosystems follows divergent trajectories, leading to alternate stable states. Environ. Microbiol. 19:3374–3386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voriskova J, Baldrian P (2013) Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. ISME J 7:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tláskal V, Voříšková J, Baldrian P (2016) Bacterial succession on decomposing leaf litter exhibits a specific occurrence pattern of cellulolytic taxa and potential decomposers of fungal mycelia. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92:fiw177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haruta S, Yamamoto K (2018) Model microbial consortia as tools for understanding complex microbial communities. Curr Genomics 19:723–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lennon JT, Placella SA, Muscarella ME (2017) How, when and where relic DNA affects microbial diversity. mBio 9:e00637–e00618Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wutkowska M, Vader A, Mundra S, Cooper EJ, Eidesen PB (2019) Dead or alive; or does it really matter? Level of congruency between trophic modes in total and active fungal communities in high arctic soil. Front. Microbiol. 9:3243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Štursová M, Bárta J, Šantrůčková H, Baldrian P (2016) Small-scale spatial heterogeneity of ecosystem properties, microbial community composition and microbial activities in a temperate mountain forest soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 92:fiw185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janda JM, Abbott SL (2007) 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification in the diagnostic laboratory: pluses, perils, and pitfalls. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:2761–2764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nilsson RH, Anslan S, Bahram M, Wurzbacher C, Baldrian P, Tedersoo L (2019) Mycobiome diversity: high-throughput sequencing and identification of fungi. Nat Rev Microbiol 17: 95-109Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Powell JR, Karunaratne S, Campbell CD, Yao H, Robinson L, Singh BK (2015) Deterministic processes vary during community assembly for ecologically dissimilar taxa. Nat. Commun. 6:8444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang Y, Lei Y, Yang Y, Korpelainen H, Niinemets Ü, Li C (2018) Divergent assemblage patterns and driving forces for bacterial and fungal communities along a glacier forefield chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 118:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown SP, Jumpponen A (2014) Contrasting primary successional trajectories of fungi and bacteria in retreating glacier soils. Mol. Ecol. 23:481–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maynard DS, Bradford MA, Lindner DL, van Diepen LTA, Frey SD, Glaeser JA, Crowther TW (2017) Diversity begets diversity in competition for space. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schilling JS, Kaffenberger JT, Liew FJ, Song Z (2015) Signature wood modifications reveal decomposer community history. PLoS One 10:e0120679CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biosciences DivisionLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  2. 2.Chemical Diagnostics and EngineeringLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations