Abstract
Diverse communities of symbiotic microbes inhabit the digestive systems of vertebrates and play a crucial role in animal health, and host diet plays a major role in shaping the composition and diversity of these communities. Here, we characterized diet and gut microbiome of fire salamander populations from three Belgian forests. We carried out DNA metabarcoding on fecal samples, targeting eukaryotic 18S rRNA of potential dietary prey items, and bacterial 16S rRNA of the concomitant gut microbiome. Our results demonstrated an abundance of soft-bodied prey in the diet of fire salamanders, and a significant difference in the diet composition between males and females. This sex-dependent effect on diet was also reflected in the gut microbiome diversity, which is higher in males than female animals. Proximity to human activities was associated with increased intestinal pathogen loads. Collectively, the data supports a relationship between diet, environment and intestinal microbiome in fire salamanders, with potential health implications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The digestive system of vertebrates is home to a dynamic microbiome1,2, which forms a ubiquitous and complex symbiotic relationship with their host. This symbiosis has long been known to support the production of vitamins3, the chemical processing of indigestible chyme components by bacterial fermentation4, and degrading toxic substances5. Moreover, the gut microbiome was also found to play a role in the maturation of the immune system6 and even ecological adaptation7. The composition of the gut microbiome differs greatly among host taxa, as well as the primary factors determining it. For termites8 and non-human primates9, the gut microbiome is strongly associated with host physiology and phylogeny. For fish10,11, birds12,13, myrmecophagous mammals14, mice15 and amphibians16,17, host diet has been found to be one of the primary determinants in shaping microbial communities. Other factors, such as climate18, habitat19,20, and the host immune system21 also drive internal microbiome diversity of certain animal clades to some extent. Host diet not only serves as a source of potential gut colonists22, but also modulates gut microbiome dynamics23. Empirical studies on gut microbiomes and its relation to diet in additional species have the potential to further shed light on this delicate ecological balance.
Amphibians are among the world’s most vulnerable groups of animals, with 40% of species in danger of extinction24,25,26 due to habitat destruction, climate change and emerging diseases27,28,29,30,31,32. Across the globe, amphibians are a key part of many ecosystems33,34, making up a large proportion of vertebrate communities in forest, tropical and wetland ecosystems both in terms of individual abundance and overall biomass35,36,37. Frogs and salamanders influence leaf litter decomposition as well as nutrient cycling, by preying upon omnivore and detritivore invertebrate populations38,39,40,41. This also applies to fire salamanders (Salamandra salamandra), a species occurring throughout most of temperate deciduous forests in central and southern Europe42. They can occur in high densities and are deeply woven into local food webs, contributing to ecosystem stability40. Understanding such food web data is important for drafting conservation strategies and understanding community ecology and ecosystem functioning31,43,44.
In this study, we use DNA metabarcoding to profile both the diet and intestinal bacterial composition of fire salamander populations in Belgian forests. The aim is to provide detailed information on the diversity, relative abundance and prevalence of prey taxa found within fecal samples of fire salamanders, as well as the impact of diet, sex and geographical location on the gut microbiome.
Results
Diet analysis based on fecal DNA metabarcoding
A total of 20 prey taxa were identified, belonging to the phyla Mollusca, Annelida and Arthropoda.
Fire salamander ingested prey biomass was determined by the relative number of sub-OTU reads for each prey category. We used this as a proxy for the relative amount of ingested prey within all salamander fecal samples. More than 70% of the sub-OTU reads were identified as gastropods, followed by millipedes at 10.8%, centipedes at 5.8%, and soil mites at 4.4%. All other taxa were rare in fire salamander diet. Diet taxa prevalence (presence/absence) across all salamanders revealed gastropods to be the most prevalent taxonomic class at 40.6%. Both millipedes and annelids (earth worms) were found at 14.5%. Centipedes, true flies and crustaceans made up 5.8% of salamander diet. Relative abundance of prey sub-OTUs differed significantly between females (n = 12) and males (n = 21) (RDA F = 4.58, df = 2.28, p = 0.011). Prey ingested by females was made up largely of gastropods (73.3%), with millipedes making up most of the remaining prey (16.7%). Males, on the other hand, had a more balanced diet, with a large portion of their ingested prey being divided between gastropods (36.4%), millipedes (21.9%), soil mites (16.7%), and centipedes (11.6%) (Fig. 1a). Prevalence of prey taxa also differed significantly between both sexes (χ21,12 = 35.12, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1b).
Fire salamander diets were largely made up of the same general taxa, and the relative abundances of prey reads did not differ between the forests of HG (Heilig Geestgoed) (total n = 11, male n = 5, female n = 5, juvenile n = 1), M (Makegem) (total n = 17, male n = 9, female n = 5, juvenile n = 3) and S (Smetledebos) (total n = 9, male n = 7, female n = 2, juvenile n = 0) (RDA F = 0.50, df = 2.28, p = 0.738). Gastropods and earthworms were found to have a similar prevalence in salamander diets between forests (Supplementary Figure S1). Differences were seen in millipedes, where values fluctuated between locations, although not significantly (χ22,12 = 4.35, p = 0.113). Many of the Insecta taxa were not part of the salamander diet in all three forests (Supplementary Figure S1).
Alpha diversity of the salamander diet did not differ between locations (Chao2 H2 = 0.013, p = 0.994; sub-OTU richness H2 = 0.016, p = 0.992) or sexes (Chao2 W = 99, p = 0.246; OTU Richness W = 108, p = 0.407). Beta diversity of the salamander diet showed a large overlap between sexes, as well as forests (Fig. 2a,b) and there was no significant difference in diet composition between sexes (PERMANOVA Pseudo-F = 1.20, df = 2. 30, p = 0.26), as well as locations (PERMANOVA Pseudo-F = 1.03, df = 2. 30, p = 0.41). Moreover, we found that the salamander body condition (SMI) did not correlate to the diversity of diet (OTU richness rs = 0.074, p = 0.640; Chao2 rs = 0.067, p = 0.694).
Gut microbiome analysis and pathogen load based on fecal DNA metabarcoding
Within all fecal samples, we found 15 different bacterial phyla. Bacteroidetes made up the largest portion of bacteria at 47.8%, followed by Firmicutes at 32.1% and Proteobacteria at 15.3%. These three phyla made up 95.2% of all bacteria found in fecal samples. The remaining bacteria were identified as Verrucomicrobia (3.7%), Desulfobacterota (0.6%), Cyanobacteria (0.2%), Actinobacteriota (0.1%), Elusimicrobiota (0.1%), Deferribacterota (0.009%), Bdellovibrionota (0.006%), Patescibacteria (0.003%), Myxococcota (0.001%), Planctomycetota (0.001%), Fusobacteriota (0.001%), and others (0.001%). When comparing the fecal microbiome from salamanders captured in different forests, significantly more Proteobacteria and Elusimicrobia were observed in forest HG, as compared to forest M or S (Supplementary Table S1).
Looking at the family level, Bacteroidetes was represented by four main families: Bacteroidaceae (HG 24.0%/M 28.2%/S 25.4%), Tannerellaceae (HG 7.2%/M 6.3%/S 10.5%), Rikenellaceae (HG 5.7%/M 8.5%/S 6.7%) and Marinifilaceae (HG 5.7%/M 4.4%/S 4.4%). For Firmicutes the four main families were: Lachnospiraceae (HG 8.6%/M 10.7%/S 7.9%), Ruminococcaceae (HG 3.6%/M 7.3%/S 6.4%), Oscillospiraceae (HG 3.2%/M 3.1%/S 3.5%) and Oscillospirales_fa (HG 1.7%/M 2.9%/S 2.7%). Proteobacteria was represented by: Yersiniaceae (HG 9.3%/M 0.2%/S 0.1%), Enterobacteriaceae (HG 2.8%/M 6.8%/S 3.4%), Diplorickettsiaceae (HG 5.7%/M 1.1%/S 0.4%) and Pseudomonadaceae (HG 1.4%/M 0.5%/S 1.8%). Most of the remaining families within these phyla contain less than 1% of the relative abundance (Fig. 3a). In total, 138 families were found to be present in at least one location. Of those, only four families were identified to be significantly different in abundance between locations (Supplementary Table S1).
Based on redundancy analysis (RDA), the gut microbiome composition was significantly affected by location (RDA F2,36 = 4.07, p = 0.001) but not by sex (RDA F2,36 = 0.85, p = 0.720). Alpha diversity of the gut microbiome varies between locations (Fig. 3b), with significant differences for ASV richness (χ2 = 7.52, df = 2, p = 0.023), Chao1 (χ2 = 9.18, df = 2, p = 0.010) and Shannon Index (χ2 = 11.09, df = 2, p = 0.004). We found that forest HG has significant lower alpha diversity than the other two forests (Fig. 3b). When comparing between sexes, alpha diversity of the gut microbiome is significantly lower for females than males: ASV richness (W = 43, p = 0.013), Chao1 (W = 48, p = 0.021), Shannon Index (W = 38, p = 0.005). The dissimilarity in microbiome composition was analyzed with PERMANOVA on Bray–Curtis distance, where no difference could be seen comparing between sexes (Fig. 2c, Pseudo-F2,29 = 0.9, p = 0.556), but when comparing between locations, the three forests were significantly different from each other (Fig. 2d, Pseudo-F2,29 = 4.73, p < 0.001). Moreover, SMI (RDA F1,19 = 1.80, p = 0.340) was not correlated with gut microbiome composition.
We included pathogens of the genera Flavobacterium, Chryseobacterium, Sphingobacterium, Aeromonas, Citrobacter, Yersinia, Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas as a proxy for pathogen load, given their known involvement in amphibian pathology45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55. The presence of potential pathogenic amphibian bacteria in the fire salamander gut microbiome was analysed at genus level (Supplementary Figure S2). We focused on eight genera well known to contain pathogenic bacterial taxa (Table 1). The total relative abundance of the eight pathogenic bacterial genera makes up less than two percent of the fire salamander gut microbiomal communities in forest M (0.5%) and S (1.4%), but more than 13% in forest HG. The relative abundance of the pathogen load is significantly higher in forest HG, compared to forest M (p < 0.0001). Similarly, a tendency towards increased pathogen load was observed when comparing forests HG and S (p = 0.8649). Comparison of beta diversity of the pathogen load between forests was analysed with PERMANOVA on Bray–Curtis distance and revealed a significant difference between locations (Supplementary Figure S3, Pseudo-F = 4.69, df = 2. 80, p = 0.0001).
Diet and gut microbiome
A Mantel test revealed that dietary differences between individual salamanders are not similar to the microbiome differences (r = − 0.05, p = 0.747). Exploring the structure between diet and microbiome we found a co-inertia coefficient of 0.42, indicating that the two categories varied independently (p = 0.721). Furthermore, no correlation was observed between the alpha diversity (Chao1 index) of diet and gut microbiome (Supplementary Figure S4, Spearman’s rs = − 0.05, p = 0.748).
Discussion
To estimate the accuracy of the DNA barcoding technique, validation studies have been conducted using feeding experiments of captive animals, where exact diet inputs were compared to fecal DNA sequencing outputs56,57,58. Whilst the species of prey could be successfully identified in these studies, the proportion of detected DNA varied and was not completely on par with the dietary proportions. Amounts of DNA in the fecal matter need to be exactly proportionate to ingested prey biomass, which is not always the case, due to biological and technical biases, such as different speeds of digestion, size of ingested prey, possible presence of multicopy genes, DNA degradation in fecal samples and availability of DNA reference sequences of potential prey in public databases59,60,61. Nonetheless, DNA sequencing of fecal matter is a more viable technique to identify soft-tissued, easily digestible prey59, and able to provide higher resolution than conventional stomach content analysis62,63. This technique has been applied successfully in unravelling diets for many species, including birds44,56, mammals59,64,65, fish66,67 and reptiles68, but so far has not been used for amphibians.
In this study, we characterise the diet of fire salamanders by means of DNA metabarcoding of fecal samples. Our data identifies gastropods as the most prevalent prey of fire salamanders, and reveals the diet differences between sexes. As reported previously, fire salamanders are opportunistic and generalist predators that focus on slow-moving and soft prey items69,70,71,72. Our findings are in line with previous publications of fire salamander diet compositions, where Gastropoda was also found to be the most important prey71. Other amphibian species have significantly different diet compositions. Monte Albo cave salamander, for example, mostly consume Hymenoptera, Ambrosi's cave salamander feed mostly on Arachnida and Strinati's cave salamander mostly consume Diplopoda73,74,75. This likely explains why our results are in line only with previous studies on diet conducted specifically on fire salamanders. The sex-dependent change in diet has been thoroughly investigated in a number of amphibian species73,75,76,77,78, but no difference of diet composition has been found. Our study observed for the first time diet differences between sexes in amphibians, with female fire salamanders consuming more gastropods and millipeds. While in other vertebrates, such as reptiles, this is often linked to sexual dimorphism79,80,81 and/or the utilisation of different microhabitats82, we attribute the observed difference to different activity patterns. In North American plethodontid salamanders it has been found that females are less active than males83,84,85, resulting in them eating more slow-moving organisms, such as millipedes and gastropods86. Similarly, during the breeding season in autumn, female fire salamanders are less active outside the shelters than males82, which could explain the diet difference between sexes.
Interestingly, the alpha diversity of the gut microbiome was also found to be significantly different between sexes, with diversity of species being lower in female than in male animals. Looking at this lower diversity of the gut microbiome in female animals, especially with regards to the sex-dependent diet, these findings suggest that decreased prey variation results in lower gut microbiome diversity. Previous studies on gut microbiome compositions between sexes in amphibians have yielded mixed results. One study on Chinese concave-eared frogs observed a significant difference in gut microbiome composition at family and genus levels between sexes87. In cane toads a study elucidated that the difference in variation of gut microbiome communities is mostly due to the factor of sex, but did not statistically quantify the effect on microbiome diversity88. In rice field frogs, however, no statistical difference of gut microbiome composition could be found between sexes89. Therefore, differences of gut microbiome diversity between sexes depends on the respective species, and is most likely subject to individual behaviour, prey selection, biology and environmental factors.
The alpha diversity of the fecal micriobiome was also found to be significantly different between locations, with a lower diversity of species found at forest HG, which is located adjacent to farmland, unlike the other two forests in this study. Forest HG also stood out, in that it had a remarkably higher pathogen load, compared to the other forests. We assume that the higher pathogen load coincided with the close vicinity to farmland. This hypothesis is supported by the relatively high amount of Proteobacteria, and the presence of members of the phylum Elusimicrobia in these salamanders, which has been associated with exposure to fertilizers and pesticides in farmland frogs90. Generally, a substantial proportion of Proteobacteria is typical for amphibian gut microbiomes, but more so in larvae than adults17,91,92. An additional explanation is that, in contrast to the other two sites, the salamanders from this forest are exposed to raw sewage from the neighbouring houses, which may also explain increased numbers of Yersiniaceae, notably of the genus Yersinia, which has been previously reported as an indicator of fecal pollution in fish93. Yersinia has also been reported in amphibian species, such as Necturus maculosus94, Rana pipiens95 and Rana clamitans45. This, however, is the first time Yersinia has been found in gut microbiome of amphibians from a farmland adjacent habitat, which may prossibly be linked to sewage and fecal pollution. Therefore, the salamander gut microbiome is likely associated with land use and/or pollution, which may have consequences for salamander physiology and health.
Furthermore, we observed no correlation between diet alpha diversity and gut microbiome alpha diversity in fire salamanders. However, previous studies on the correlation between microbiome richness and dietary richness did not yield consistent results. A positive correlation between diet diversity and gut microbome diversity was found in humans96, black howler monkeys97, kudus98 and predatory insects99. In contrast, a negative correlation was observed in fish, where a study showed that feeding on mixed diets resulted in a lower gut microbiome diversity, compared to pure diets11. Moreover, no correlation between diet diversity and gut microbiome diversity was observed in numerous mammalian herbivore species, such as pika, elephant and camel98. Diet-microbiome correlation is thus difficult to distill into a general rule across the animal kingdom. A previous study looked specifically at the diet and gut microbiome correlation, where a positive correlation was found in tadpoles of Malagasy frogs17. We were unable to confirm this in our study. So for now it appears that variety of diet does not always correlate with the variety and biodiversity of the gut microbiome in amphibians.
Similar studies of the gut microbiome have been conducted in fire salamander larvae20, where they found Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes to be the most abundant phyla. This is in line with our findings, where we have found Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria to be the most abundant phyla. Exception is the phylum Actinobacteriota, which was found to be more abundant in both the pond larvae (3.9%) and stream larvae (6.6%), than in our adult fire salamanders (0.1%). Nonetheless, these findings could indicate that the most abundant phyla in the gut microbiome composition do not undergo major changes throughout the different life stages of fire salamanders. The aforementioned publication also found that gut microbiome composition changes depending on habitat-specific diet in ponds versus streams. We were unable to see such stark contrasts of habitat-dependent diet in our adult animals, since prey was similar across different forest habitats.
To conclude, this is the first study to investigate the correlation between the diversity of diet and gut microbiome of adult fire salamanders in Belgian forests, using high-throughput DNA metabarcoding techniques. We show that diet composition is driven by sex, and influences microbiome composition in the fire salamander intestine. However, no correlation was observed between diet diversity and gut microbiome diversity.
Methods
This study was carried out in compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines and all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Field sampling
All samples were collected from October to November 2016 at three forest locations in East Flanders, Belgium. Heilig Geestgoed (hereafter HG), a 29.77 ha public forest in the municipality of Merelbeke with 9 ponds (latitude 50.946881, longitude 3.726310). Makegem (hereafter M), a 54.24 ha private forest in Harentbeekbos with 10 ponds (latitude 50.945331, longitude 3.714886) approximately 1 km from HG and finally Smetledebos (hereafter S) with 45.75 ha, a public forest with 4 ponds (50.976308, longitude 3.906562), approximately 22 km from all other forests. All locations from which the salamanders were collected consisted predominantly of beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) with minimal undergrowth. Permits for sampling and experimental protocols of fire salamanders were granted by Agentschap voor Natuur en Bos of East Flanders in Belgium, license number ANB/BL/FF-V15-00015. According to the Belgian and EU legislation (EU directive 2010/63/EU), the collection of faeces obtained after spontaneous defecation is not considered an animal experiment and therefore does not require the approval of an ethical committee. Permission for collecting the samples in the forests (public and private) were obtained from the owners in the framework of the UGent GOA project Scaling up Functional Biodiversity Research: from Individuals to Landscapes and Back (TREEWEB).
Sample collection
Fire salamanders were collected from each of these three forests. They were kept individually without food in sterile boxes (16 × 11 × 5 cm) with moist towel, air holes and hiding places for 1 to 3 days at 15 °C at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ghent in Merelbeke and then returned to their exact same locality in the forest. All animals were weighed (to 0.1 g) and measured (to 0.1 cm). Scaled mass index (SMI) of body condition (\({\widehat{\mathrm{M}}}_{i}\)) was calculated for all salamanders: \({\widehat{\mathrm{M}}}_{i}={\mathrm{M}}_{i}[\frac{{L}_{0}}{{L}_{i}}{]}^{{b}_{SMA}}\)100. Animals were checked and the boxes were cleaned each day and any fecal samples were collected in Eppendorf tubes and frozen at − 20 °C until DNA extraction. In total, 60 fecal samples were collected from 49 individual fire salamanders. 13 individual fire salamanders were collected from forest HG (7 males, 5 females and 1 juvenile), 21 individuals from forest M (11 males, 6 females and 4 juveniles) and 15 individuals from forest S (9 males, 4 females and 2 juveniles).
Fecal sample DNA metabarcoding
DNA was extracted from all fecal samples with the MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio, Carlsbad, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol. Extracted DNA was stored at − 20 °C until further processing.
Diet
Sequencing methods were used as previously described101. The V9 regions of nuclear 18S rRNA gene were amplified using modified primers 1391F (5′-GTACACACCGCCCGTC-3′) and EukBr (5′-TGATCCTTCTGCAGGTTCACCTAC-3′)102. We performed index PCR with unique combinations of indexed forward and reverse primers for each sample using Phusion High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific). For quantification of amplicon DNA concentration, we roughly assessed intensity of their signal on agarose gels and then added 2 to 6 µl to a pooled library. This library was gel-purified by cutting out the band of the correct amplicon size, and subsequently cleaned with Qiagen MinElute Kit. DNA concentration of the purified library was determined with a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer. The library was sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq platform using MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 for 300 cycles in both directions, including 10% phiX. Sequences were processed with MacQIIME v1.9.1103, filtering the forward reads as previously described101. Quality filtered sequences were clustered into sub-operational taxonomic units (sub-OTUs) using the deblur workflow103,104; (https://github.com/biocore/deblur). Within this workflow, all sequences were trimmed to 150 bp and subsampled to 13,000 reads per sample. Sub-OTUs clusters with less than 10 reads were removed. Sequences of sub-OTUs were taxonomically identified through BLAST searches. Only potential salamander prey items were selected from the 18S data, discarding sub-OTU reads from taxa such as Bacteria, Fungi and Protists. Prey taxa were identified into the main taxa: Gastropoda, Diplopoda, Chilopoda, Arachnida (Acari and Opiliones), Crustacea, Annelida (Lumbricidae), and six insect clades: Hymenoptera, Hemiptera, Dipera, Coleoptera, Blattodea and Collembola (Supplementary Table S2).
Gut microbiome
The V3-V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using gene-specific primers S-D-Bact-0341-b-S-17 and S-D-Bact-0785-a-A-21105. The PCR amplification procedures were performed according to a previous study106. The final barcoded libraries were combined to an equimolar 10 nM pool and sequenced with 30% PhiX spike-in using the Illumina MiSeq v3 technology (2 × 300 bp, paired-end) at the Oklahoma Medical Research Centre (Oklahoma City, USA). Demultiplexing of the amplicon dataset and deletion of the barcodes was done by the sequencing provider. Quality of the raw sequence data was checked with the FastQC quality-control tool (Babraham Bioinformatics, Cambridge, United Kingdom; http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/), after which the sequences were trimmed, quality-filtered and dereplicated using the DADA2 algorithm (v1.14) within R107. An initial amplicon sequence variant (ASV) table was constructed before chimaeras were identified using the removeBimeraDenovo function. Finally, taxonomy was assigned using DADA2’s native naïve Bayesian classifier against the Silva database (v138)108.
To select the appropriate subsampling depth, alpha rarefaction curves were generated (Supplementary Figure S5). One sample (sample MF12) was unsufficiently sequenced, and was therefore excluded from the final ASV table. Amplicon sequence variants were subsampled (rarefied) by random sampling to a depth of 5047 ASVs per samples (depth of the least sequenced sample).
As our sequencing samples are high bacterial biomass faecal samples, negative controls (buffer control) were included in our sequencing runs, to guard against reagent contamination, as this is only a problem in low bacterial biomass samples. We rarefied to 1300 reads per sample for 18S and 5047 ASVs for 16S and eliminated all sub-OTUs with fewer than 10 reads overall. 43 fecal samples from 37 individuals were used for subsequent diet statistic analysis and 41 fecal samples from 35 individuals were used for gut microbiome analysis. The mean abundance of 16S and 18S data of multiple samples from same individuals was calculated.
Statistical analysis
Sequence reads per fecal DNA sub-OTU found in the samples of each salamander were used as approximate proxy for ingested biomass. We calculated the prevalence of each prey taxon in the salamander diet, determined by the number of samples in which a prey category was found present or absent.
To evaluate alpha diversity (in-samples diversity) of salamander diets, OTU richness and Chao2 were calculated from prey prevalence data, and for bacteria ASV richness, Chao1 (estimated ASV richness) and Shannon indexes (estimated community diversity) were calculated from relative abundance data using the fossil package v 3.2.5109. To compare alpha diversity between location and sexes, a Kruskal Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was performed between locations and a Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed between sexes (due to non-normal distribution in both cases). To evaluate the differences of the prey prevalence data between different locations and sexes, Pearson’s Chi squared was calculated. Differences in microbial relative abundance between locations were assessed at the phylum, family and genus level, and differences between sexes were assessed at the phylum and family level, using the DESeq2 algorithm from the phyloseq package (v 1.30)110. Differentiallly abundant taxa were identified through applying the negative binomial Wald test with p-values corrected for multiple hypothesis testing using the Benjamini–Hochberg method111. The fire salamander gut microbiomes contained at least eight potentially pathogenic genera (Flavobacterium, Chryseobacterium, Sphingobacterium, Aeromonas, Citrobacter, Yersinia, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas). The differences in relative abundances of pathogen load between locations were assessed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY, USA), with Kruskal–Wallis analysis followed by Dunn’s multiple comparison tests (significance values adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests).
Redundancy analyses (RDA) were performed to examine the effect of location and sex on the relative abundance of ingested biomass, as well as to further quantify the effect of location, sex, SMI and diet on gut bacteria. Spearman’s Rank correlation was used to test whether the alpha diversity of individual diet and gut bacteria was significantly related to salamander SMI. Additionally, correlations were used to examine the relationship of alpha diversity of diet on gut bacteria.
To explore the beta diversity, principal coordinates analysis was performed, based on the Jaccard distance112, to compare community dissimilarities with presence or absence of OTUs for diet. We performed the principal coordinates analysis based on Bray–Curtis distance, to compare the community dissimilarities of relative abundance of ASVs, for both gut microbiome and pathogen load. We used PERMANOVA to test if the divergent species composition differed significantly between locations and sexes. Analyses were done with the package vegan (v 2.4)113 and the functions vegdist and adonis 2 in R (v 3.4).
To measure the correlation between individual salamander diet and the fecal microbiome, Mantel tests were performed on the Jaccard and Bray–Curtis distance matrices using R. To further explore the inter-relationship between the diet and the bacterial community matrices, a co-inertia analysis was run using the ade4 package114 in R.
Data availability
The demultiplexed raw amplicon reads were submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (NCBI-SRA) under Bioproject accession PRJNA768724 (18S data) and PRJNA767645 (16S data).
References
Ley, R. et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 1647–1651 (2008).
Robinson, C. J., Bohannan, B. J. M. & Young, V. B. From structure to function: The ecology of host-associated microbial communities. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 74, 453–476 (2010).
Gill, S. R. et al. Metagenomic analysis of the human distal gut microbiome. Science 312, 1355–1359 (2006).
Pryor, G. & Bjorndal, K. Symbiotic fermentation, digesta passage, and gastrointestinal morphology in bullfrog tadpoles (Rana catesbeiana). Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 78, 201–215 (2005).
Claus, S. P., Guillou, H. & Ellero-Simatos, S. The gut microbiota: A major player in the toxicity of environmental pollutants?. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2, 16003 (2016).
Mazmanian, S. K., Liu, C. H., Tzianabos, A. O. & Kasper, D. L. An immunomodulatory molecule of symbiotic bacteria directs maturation of the host immune system. Cell 122, 107–118 (2005).
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Bohmann, K., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L. & Gilbert, M. T. P. Do vertebrate gut metagenomes confer rapid ecological adaptation?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 689–699 (2016).
Bourguignon, T. et al. Rampant host switching shaped the termite gut microbiome. Curr. Biol. 28, 649-654.e2 (2018).
Amato, K. et al. Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J. 13, 1 (2018).
Sullam, K. E. et al. Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: A meta-analysis. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3363–3378 (2012).
Bolnick, D. I. et al. Individuals’ diet diversity influences gut microbial diversity in two freshwater fish (threespine stickleback and Eurasian perch). Ecol. Lett. 17, 979–987 (2014).
Grond, K., Sandercock, B. K., Jumpponen, A. & Zeglin, L. H. The avian gut microbiota: Community, physiology and function in wild birds. J. Avian Biol. 49, e01788 (2018).
Michel, A. et al. The gut of the finch: Uniqueness of the gut microbiome of the Galápagos vampire finch. Microbiome 6, 1–14 (2018).
Delsuc, F. et al. Convergence of gut microbiomes in myrmecophagous mammals. Mol. Ecol. 23, 1301–1317 (2014).
Carmody, R. N. et al. Diet dominates host genotype in shaping the murine gut microbiota. Cell Host Microbe 17, 72–84 (2015).
Kohl, K., Amaya, J., Passement, C., Dearing, M. D. & Mccue, M. Unique and shared responses of the gut microbiota to prolonged fasting: A comparative study across five classes of vertebrate hosts. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 90, 883–894 (2014).
Vences, M. et al. Gut bacterial communities across tadpole ecomorphs in two diverse tropical anuran faunas. Sci. Nat. 103, 25 (2016).
Li, G. et al. Host-microbiota interaction helps to explain the bottom-up effects of climate change on a small rodent species. ISME J. 14, 1795–1808 (2020).
Rawls, J., Mahowald, M., Ley, R. & Gordon, J. Reciprocal gut microbiota transplants from zebrafish and mice to germ-free recipients reveal host habitat selection. Cell 127, 423–433 (2006).
Bletz, M. C. et al. Amphibian gut microbiota shifts differentially in community structure but converges on habitat-specific predicted functions. Nat. Commun. 7, 13699 (2016).
Woodhams, D. C. et al. Host-associated microbiomes are predicted by immune system complexity and climate. Genome Biol. 21, 23 (2020).
Adlerberth, I. & Wold, A. E. Establishment of the gut microbiota in Western infants. Acta Paediatr. Int. J. Paediatr. 98, 229–238 (2009).
Wu, G. D. et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science 334, 105–108 (2011).
Stuart, S. N. et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783 (2004).
Lips, K. R. et al. Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103, 3165 (2006).
Bishop, P. et al. The amphibian extinction crisis -what will it take to put the action into the amphibian conservation action plan?. Surv. Perspect. Integr. Environ. Soc. 5, 97–111 (2012).
Kats, L. & Ferrer, R. Alien predators and amphibian declines: Review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers. Distrib. 9, 99–110 (2003).
Chanson, J., Hoffman, M., Cox, N. & Stuart, S. The State of the World’s Amphibians. In Threatened Amphibians of the World 33–44 (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain, 2015)
Rollins-Smith, L. A. & Woodhams, D. C. Amphibian immunity: Staying in tune with the environment. In Ecoimmunology ( eds Demas, G. & Nelson, R.) 92–143 (Oxford University press, Oxford, UK, 2011).
Martel, A. et al. Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 346, 630 (2014).
Birnie-Gauvin, K., Peiman, K. S., Raubenheimer, D. & Cooke, S. J. Nutritional physiology and ecology of wildlife in a changing world. Conserv. Physiol. 5, cox030 (2017).
Scheele, B. C. et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363, 1459 (2019).
Whiles, M. R. et al. The effects of amphibian population declines on the structure and function of Neotropical stream ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 27–34 (2006).
Hocking, D. & Babbitt, K. Amphibian contributions to ecosystem services. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 9, 1–17 (2014).
Burton, T. M. & Likens, G. E. Energy flow and nutrient cycling in salamander populations in the Hubbard Brook experimental forest, New Hampshire. Ecology 56, 1068–1080 (1975).
Reagan, D. P. & Waide, R. B. The Food Web of a Tropical Rain Forest (University of Chicago Press, 1996).
Stebbins, R. C. & Cohen, N. W. A Natural History of Amphibians (Princeton University Press, 1997).
Flecker, A. S., Feifarek, B. P. & Taylor, B. W. Ecosystem engineering by a tropical tadpole: Density-dependent effects on habitat structure and larval growth rates. Copeia 1999, 495–500 (1999).
Beard, K., Vogt, K. & Kulmatiski, A. Top-down effects of a terrestrial frog on nutrient dynamics. Oecologia 133, 583–593 (2002).
Davic, R. & Welsh, H. On the ecological role of salamanders. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12, 405–434 (2004).
Reinhardt, T., Steinfartz, S., Paetzold, A. & Weitere, M. Linking the evolution of habitat choice to ecosystem functioning: Direct and indirect effects of pond-reproducing fire salamanders on aquatic-terrestrial subsidies. Oecologia 173, 281–291 (2013).
Buckley, D. & Alcobendas, M. Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758). (2002).
Fryxell, J. & Lundberg, P. Diet choice and predator—prey dynamics. Evol. Ecol. 8, 407–421 (1994).
Deagle, B. E. et al. Studying seabird diet through genetic analysis of faeces: A case study on macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus). PLoS ONE 2, e831 (2007).
Botzler, R. G., Wetzler, T. F. & Cowan, A. B. Yersinia enterocolitica and yersinia-like organisms isolated from frogs and snails. Bull. Wildl. Dis. Assoc. 4, 110–115 (1968).
Cooper, J. E., Needham, J. R. & Griffin, J. A bacterial disease of the Darwin’s frog (Rhinoderma darwini). Lab. Anim. 12, 91–93 (1978).
Hird, D. et al. Enterobacteriacae and Aeromonas hydrophila in Minnesota frogs and tadpoles (Rana papiens). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 46, 1423–1425 (1984).
Olson, M., Gard, S., Brown, M., Hampton, R. & Morck, D. Flavobacterium indologenes infection in leopard frogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 201, 1766–1770 (1992).
Pearson, M. D. Motile Aeromonas septicaemia of farmed Rana spp. (1998).
Green, S. et al. Identification and management of an outbreak of Flavobacterium meningosepticum infection in a colony of South African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214(1833–8), 1792–1793 (1999).
Bernardet, J.-F. et al. Polyphasic study of Chryseobacterium strains isolated from diseased aquatic animals. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 28, 640–660 (2005).
Pasteris, S., Guidoli, M., Otero, M., Bühler, M. & Nader-Macías, M. In vitro inhibition of Citrobacter freundii, a red-leg syndrome associated pathogen in raniculture, by indigenous Lactococcus lactis CRL 1584. Vet. Microbiol. 151, 336–344 (2011).
Kirk, K. et al. Chryseobacterium angstadtii sp. nov., isolated from a newt tank. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 63, 4777–4783 (2013).
Suzina, N. E. et al. Cytophysiological characteristics of the vegetative and dormant cells of Stenotrophomonas sp. strain FM3, a bacterium isolated from the skin of a Xenopus laevis frog. Microbiology 87, 339–349 (2018).
Hallinger, M., Taubert, A. & Hermosilla, C. Endoparasites infecting exotic captive amphibian pet and zoo animals (Anura, Caudata) in Germany. Parasitol. Res. 119, 3659–3673 (2020).
Deagle, B. E., Chiaradia, A., McInnes, J. & Jarman, S. N. Pyrosequencing faecal DNA to determine diet of little penguins: Is what goes in what comes out?. Conserv. Genet. 11, 2039–2048 (2010).
Deagle, B. E., Thomas, A. C., Shaffer, A. K., Trites, A. W. & Jarman, S. N. Quantifying sequence proportions in a DNA-based diet study using Ion Torrent amplicon sequencing: Which counts count?. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 620–633 (2013).
Nakahara, F. et al. The applicability of DNA barcoding for dietary analysis of sika deer. DNA Barcodes 3, 200–206 (2015).
Deagle, B., Kirkwood, R. & Jarman, S. Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Mol. Ecol. 18, 2022–2038 (2009).
Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: Diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950 (2012).
Thomas, A. C., Jarman, S. N., Haman, K. H., Trites, A. W. & Deagle, B. E. Improving accuracy of DNA diet estimates using food tissue control materials and an evaluation of proxies for digestion bias. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3706–3718 (2014).
Deagle, B. & Tollit, D. Quantitative analysis of prey DNA in pinniped faeces: Potential to estimate diet composition?. Conserv. Genet. 8, 743–747 (2007).
Ando, H. et al. Methodological trends and perspectives of animal dietary studies by noninvasive fecal DNA metabarcoding. Environ. DNA 2, 391–406 (2020).
Deagle, B. et al. Molecular scatology as a tool to study diet: Analysis of prey DNA in scats from captive Steller sea lions. Mol. Ecol. 14, 1831–1842 (2005).
Parsons, K., Piertney, S., Middlemas, S., Hammond, P. & Armstrong, J. DNA-based identification of salmonid prey species in seal faeces. J. Zool. 266, 275–281 (2005).
Meekan, M., Jarman, S., McLean, C. & Schultz, M. DNA evidence of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) feeding on red crab (Gecarcoidea natalis) larvae at Christmas Island, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 60, 607–609 (2009).
Guillerault, N., Bouletreau, S., Iribar, A., Valentini, A. & Santoul, F. Application of DNA metabarcoding on faeces to identify European catfish Silurus glanis diet. J. Fish Biol. 90, 2214–2219 (2017).
Brown, D. S., Jarman, S. N. & Symondson, W. O. C. Pyrosequencing of prey DNA in reptile faeces: Analysis of earthworm consumption by slow worms. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 259–266 (2012).
Ferenti, S., Cicort-Lucaciu, A. S., Dobre, F., Paina, C. & Covaci, R. The food of four Salamandra salamandra populations from Defileul Jiului National Park (Gorj County). Olten. Stud. Si Comun. Stiintele Nat. 2008, 153–160 (2008).
Ferenti, S., David, A. & Nagy, D. Feeding-behaviour responses to anthropogenic factors on Salamandra salamandra (Amphibia, Caudata). Biharean Biol. 4, 139–143 (2010).
Lezău, O. et al. The feeding of two Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758) populations from Jiului Gorge National Park (Romania), South West. J. Hortic. Biol. Environ. 1, 143–152 (2010).
Balogová, M., Maxinová, E., Orendáš, P. & Uhrin, M. Trophic spectrum of adult Salamandra salamandra in the Carpathians with the first note on food intake by the species during winter. Herpetol. Notes 8, 371–377 (2015).
Sebastiano, S., Antonio, R., Fabrizio, O., Dario, O. & Roberta, M. Different season, different strategies: Feeding ecology of two syntopic forest-dwelling salamanders. Acta Oecologica 43, 42–50 (2012).
Lunghi, E. et al. Field-recorded data on the diet of six species of European Hydromantes cave salamanders. Sci. Data 5, 1–7 (2018).
Lunghi, E. et al. What shapes the trophic niche of European plethodontid salamanders?. PLoS ONE 13, e0205672 (2018).
Measey, G. Diet of feral Xenopus laevis (Daudin) in South Wales, UK. J. Zool. 246, 287–298 (1998).
Le, D. T. T., Rowley, J. J., Tran, D. T. A. & Hoang, H. D. The diet of a forest-dependent frog species, Odorrana morafkai (Anura: Ranidae), in relation to habitat disturbance. Amphib. Reptil. 41, 29–41 (2020).
Pamintuan, P. E. & Starr, C. K. Diet of the giant toad, Bufo marinus (Amphibia: Salientia), in a coastal habitat of the Philippines. Trop. AgricTrinidad 93, 323–327 (2016).
Plummer, M. & Farrar, D. Sexual dietary differences in a population of Trionyx muticus. J. Herpetol. 15, 175–179 (1981).
Shetty, S. & Shine, R. Activity patterns of yellow-lipped sea Kraits (Laticauda colubrina) on a Fijian island. Copeia 2002, 77–85 (2002).
Vincent, S., Herrel, A. & Irschick, D. Sexual dimorphism in head shape and diet in the Cottonmouth Snake (Agkistrodon piscivorus). J. Zool. 264, 53–59 (2004).
Manenti, R., Conti, A. & Pennati, R. Fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) males’ activity during breeding season: Effects of microhabitat features and body size. Acta Herpetol. 12, 29–36 (2017).
Keen, W. H. Feeding and activity patterns in the salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus (Amphibia, Urodela, Plethodontidae). J. Herpetol. 13, 461–467 (1979).
Forester, D. C. Parental care in the salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus: Female activity pattern and trophic behavior. J. Herpetol. 15, 29–34 (1981).
Harris, W. E. Spermatophore deposition behaviour in an explosive breeder, the Small mouthed salamander, Ambystom texanum. Herpetologica 64, 149–155 (2008).
Anderson, T. & Mathis, A. Diets of two sympatric neotropical salamanders, bolitoglossa mexicana and B. rufescens, with notes on reproduction for B. rufescens. J. Herpetol. 33, 601 (1999).
Shu, Y. et al. Comparison of intestinal microbes in female and male Chinese concave-eared frogs (Odorrana tormota) and effect of nematode infection on gut bacterial communities. MicrobiologyOpen 8, e00749 (2019).
Zhou, J. et al. A comparison of nonlethal sampling methods for amphibian gut microbiome analyses. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 844–855 (2020).
Huang, C. & Liao, W. Seasonal variation in gut microbiota related to diet in Fejervarya limnocharis. Animals 11, 1393 (2021).
Chang, C.-W., Huang, B.-H., Lin, S.-M., Huang, C.-L. & Liao, P.-C. Changes of diet and dominant intestinal microbes in farmland frogs. BMC Microbiol. 16, 33 (2016).
Kohl, K. D., Cary, T. L., Karasov, W. H. & Dearing, M. D. Restructuring of the amphibian gut microbiota through metamorphosis. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 5, 899–903 (2013).
Colombo, B. M., Scalvenzi, T., Benlamara, S. & Pollet, N. Microbiota and mucosal immunity in amphibians. Front. Immunol. 6, 111–111 (2015).
Novoslavskij, A. et al. Major foodborne pathogens in fish and fish products: a review. Ann. Microbiol. 66, 1–15 (2015).
Standish, I. et al. Yersinia ruckeri isolated from common mudpuppy necturus maculosus. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 31, 71–74 (2019).
Hird, D. W. et al. Enterobacteriaceae and Aeromonas hydrophila in Minnesota frogs and tadpoles (Rana pipiens). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 46, 1423–1425 (1983).
Heiman, M. L. & Greenway, F. L. A healthy gastrointestinal microbiome is dependent on dietary diversity. Mol. Metab. 5, 317–320 (2016).
Amato, K. & Righini, N. The howler monkey as a model for exploring host-gut microbiota interactions in primates.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1957-4_9 (2015).
Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P. & Pringle, R. M. Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 23588 (2019).
Tiede, J., Scherber, C., Mutschler, J., McMahon, K. D. & Gratton, C. Gut microbiomes of mobile predators vary with landscape context and species identity. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8545–8557 (2017).
Peig, J. & Green, A. J. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: The scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118, 1883–1891 (2009).
Vences, M. et al. Freshwater vertebrate metabarcoding on Illumina platforms using double-indexed primers of the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 8, 323–327 (2016).
Amaral-Zettler, L. A., McCliment, E. A., Ducklow, H. W. & Huse, S. M. A method for studying protistan diversity using massively parallel sequencing of V9 hypervariable regions of small-subunit ribosomal RNA genes. PLoS ONE 4, e6372 (2009).
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010).
Amir, A. et al. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. mSystems 2, e00191-16 (2017).
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).
Aguirre, A. A. et al. The One Health Approach to toxoplasmosis: Epidemiology, control, and prevention strategies. EcoHealth 16, 378–390 (2019).
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2012).
Vavrek, M. J. Fossil: Palaeoecological and palaeogeographical analysis tools. Palaeontol. Electron. 14, 16 (2011).
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).
Jaccard, P. The distribution of the flora of the Alpine zone. New Phytol. 11, 37–50 (1912).
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-5. 2019 (2020).
Dray, S. & Dufour, A.-B. The ade4 package: Implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–20 (2007).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the UGent GOA project Scaling up Functional Biodiversity Research: from Individuals to Landscapes and Back (TREEWEB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.M., F.P. and M.V. conceived and designed the study. HK.S. conducted the experiments. E.G., H.K.S., Y.W., M.C.B. and L.H. performed statistical analysis and figure generation. Y.W., H.K.S., F.P., and A.M. prepared the original manuscript. D.B., K.V. and L.L. contributed key study material. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Y., Smith, H.K., Goossens, E. et al. Diet diversity and environment determine the intestinal microbiome and bacterial pathogen load of fire salamanders. Sci Rep 11, 20493 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98995-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98995-6
- Springer Nature Limited