Quantifying stream periphyton assemblage responses to nutrient amendments with a molecular approach.

James D Hagy Iii, Katelyn A Houghton, David L Beddick, Joseph B James, Stephanie D Friedman, Richard Devereux
Author Information
  1. James D Hagy Iii: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
  2. Katelyn A Houghton: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
  3. David L Beddick: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
  4. Joseph B James: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
  5. Stephanie D Friedman: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
  6. Richard Devereux: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.

Abstract

Nutrient (nitrogen [N] and phosphorus [P]) pollution is a pervasive water quality issue in the USA for small streams and rivers. The effect of nutrients on the biotic condition of streams is often evaluated with biological indicators such as macroinvertebrate assemblages or periphyton assemblages, particularly diatoms. Molecular approaches facilitate the use of periphyton assemblages as bioindicators because periphyton is diverse and its composition as a whole, rather than just diatoms, soft-bodied algae, or any single group, may convey additional information about responses to nutrients. To further develop the concept that a taxonomically-broad evaluation of periphyton assemblages could be useful for developing stream bioindicators, we examined microbial assemblage composition with both 16S and 18S rRNA genes, enabling us to evaluate composition in 3 domains. We measured otherwise unknown nutrient responses of different periphyton groups in situ with experiments that used glass fiber filters to allow diffusion of amended nutrients into a stream. We deployed these experimental setups in 2 streams that differ in the extent of agricultural land-use in their catchments in the southeastern USA. Experiments consisted of controls, N amendments, P amendments, and both N and P amendments. Periphyton assemblages that grew on the filters differed significantly by stream, date or season, and nutrient treatment. Assemblage differences across treatments were more consistent among Bacteria and Archaea than among eukaryotes. Effects of nutrient amendments were more pronounced in the stream with less agricultural land use and, therefore, lower nutrient loading than in the stream with more agricultural land use and higher nutrient loading. Combined N and P amendments decreased species richness and evenness for Bacteria and Archaea by ���36 and ���9%, respectively, compared with controls. Indicator species analysis revealed that specific clades varied in their response to treatments. Indicators based on the responses of these indicator clades were related to nutrient treatments across sites and seasons. Analyses that included all the taxa in a domain did not resolve differences in responses to N vs P. Instead, better resolution was achieved with an analysis focused on diatoms, which responded more strongly to P than N. Overall, our results showed that in situ nutrient-diffusing substrate experiments are a useful approach for describing assemblage responses to nutrients in streams. This type of molecular approach may be useful to environmental agencies and stakeholders responsible for assessing and managing stream water quality and biotic condition.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Microbiol. 2018 Apr 13;9:707 [PMID: 29755421]
  2. Environ Microbiol. 2019 Feb;21(2):750-758 [PMID: 30507058]
  3. Science. 2012 Jun 15;336(6087):1438-40 [PMID: 22700929]
  4. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6 [PMID: 23193283]
  5. PLoS One. 2014 May 23;9(5):e98542 [PMID: 24858562]
  6. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 22;9(4):e95525 [PMID: 24755838]
  7. Oecologia. 2017 Jun;184(2):555-568 [PMID: 28421326]
  8. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Dec;80(24):7659-66 [PMID: 25281372]
  9. Ecol Lett. 2007 Dec;10(12):1135-42 [PMID: 17922835]
  10. J Comput Biol. 2000 Feb-Apr;7(1-2):203-14 [PMID: 10890397]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 1;112(35):10967-72 [PMID: 26283343]
  12. Nature. 2000 Nov 30;408(6812):578-80 [PMID: 11117743]
  13. J Phycol. 2014 Jun;50(3):437-61 [PMID: 26988318]
  14. Ecology. 2007 Jun;88(6):1354-64 [PMID: 17601128]
  15. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Sep;79(17):5112-20 [PMID: 23793624]
  16. Bioinformatics. 2008 Aug 15;24(16):1757-64 [PMID: 18567917]
  17. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Aug 28;11(8):e1004472 [PMID: 26317871]
  18. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41 [PMID: 19801464]
  19. Mol Ecol. 2016 Sep;25(18):4674-88 [PMID: 27481285]
  20. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;103(16):6407-6421 [PMID: 31243501]
  21. ISME J. 2012 Aug;6(8):1621-4 [PMID: 22402401]
  22. Front Microbiol. 2017 Aug 02;8:1452 [PMID: 28824582]
  23. Trans Am Microsc Soc. 1973 Jan;92(1):1-13 [PMID: 4735832]
  24. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 May;15(3):526-42 [PMID: 25270047]
  25. ISME J. 2012 May;6(5):1007-17 [PMID: 22134642]
  26. Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Jun 07;30(6):513-20 [PMID: 22678395]
  27. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 27;4(7):e6372 [PMID: 19633714]
  28. Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Feb 15;36(4):729-35 [PMID: 11878390]
  29. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2011 Oct;47(5):991-1010 [PMID: 22457579]
  30. Ecology. 2009 Dec;90(12):3566-74 [PMID: 20120823]

Grants

  1. EPA999999/Intramural EPA

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0streamnutrientperiphytonresponsesamendmentsstreamsassemblagesNPnutrientsassemblagediatomsusecompositionusefulagriculturaltreatmentsspeciesanalysisapproachwaterqualityUSAbioticconditionindicatorsbioindicatorsmaymicrobialsituexperimentsfilterscontrolsdifferencesacrossamongBacteriaArchaealandloadingcladesindicatornutrient-diffusingmolecularNutrientnitrogen[N]phosphorus[P]pollutionpervasiveissuesmallriverseffectoftenevaluatedbiologicalmacroinvertebrateparticularlyMolecularapproachesfacilitatediversewholeratherjustsoft-bodiedalgaesinglegroupconveyadditionalinformationdevelopconcepttaxonomically-broadevaluationdevelopingexamined16S18SrRNAgenesenablingusevaluate3domainsmeasuredotherwiseunknowndifferentgroupsusedglassfiberallowdiffusionamendeddeployedexperimentalsetups2differextentland-usecatchmentssoutheasternExperimentsconsistedPeriphytongrewdifferedsignificantlydateseasontreatmentAssemblageconsistenteukaryotesEffectspronouncedlessthereforelowerhigherCombineddecreasedrichnessevenness���36���9%respectivelycomparedIndicatorrevealedspecificvariedresponseIndicatorsbasedrelatedsitesseasonsAnalysesincludedtaxadomainresolvevsInsteadbetterresolutionachievedfocusedrespondedstronglyOverallresultsshowedsubstratedescribingtypeenvironmentalagenciesstakeholdersresponsibleassessingmanagingQuantifyingDNAsubstrates

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.