Biocrust morphology is linked to marked differences in microbial community composition
Background and aims
Biocrust morphology is often used to infer ecological function, but morphologies vary widely in pigmentation and thickness. Little is known about the links between biocrust morphology and the composition of constituent microbial community. This study aimed to examine these links using dryland crusts varying in stage and morphology.
We compared the microbial composition of three biocrust developmental stages (Early, Mid, Late) with bare soil (Bare) using high Miseq Illumina sequencing. We used standard diversity measures and network analysis to explore how microbe-microbe associations changed with biocrust stage.
Biocrust richness and diversity increased with increasing stage, and there were marked differences in the microbial signatures among stages. Bare and Late stages were dominated by Alphaproteobacteria, but Cyanobacteria was the dominant phylum in Early and Mid stages. The greatest differences in microbial taxa were between Bare and Late stages. Network analysis indicated highly-connected hubs indicative of small networks.
Our results indicate that readily discernible biocrust features may be good indicators of microbial composition and structure. These findings are important for land managers seeking to use biocrusts as indicators of ecosystem health and function. Treating biocrusts as a single unit without considering crust stage is likely to provide misleading information on their functional roles.
KeywordsCyanobacteria Network analysis Biological soil crust Semi-arid, microbial ecology Drylands Soil function
We thank Angela E. Chilton for assistance with sample collection, Jason Woodhouse for assistance with the network analysis and Samantha Travers for comments on the manuscript. Angela M. Chilton was supported by an Australian Post-Graduate Award.
- Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
- Eldridge DJ (1998a) Soil crust lichens and mosses on calcrete-dominant soils at Maralinga. J Adelaide Bot Gard 18:9–24Google Scholar
- Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2013) EcoSimR 1.00. http://www.uvm.edu/~ngotelli/EcoSim/EcoSim.html
- Nielsen S, Needham B, Leach ST et al (2016) Disrupted progression of the intestinal microbiota with age in children with cystic fibrosis. Sci Rep 6:24857Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Moreno D, Pascual M, Riolo R (2006) Exploring network space with genetic algorithms: modularity, resilience and reactivity. In: Pascual M, Dunne JA (eds) Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics In Food Webs. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 187–208Google Scholar
- Steven B, Gallegos-Graves LV, Belnap J, Kuske CR (2013) Dryland soil microbial communities display spatial biogeographic patterns associated with soil depth and soil parent material. FEMS Microbiological. Ecology 86:1–13Google Scholar
- Zhang Y (2005) The microstructure and formation of biological soil crusts in their early developmental stage. Chin Sci Bull 50:117–121Google Scholar