1887

Abstract

Although biofilms represent one of the dominant forms of life in aqueous environments, our understanding of the assembly and development of their microbial communities remains relatively poor. In recent years, several studies have addressed this and have extended the concepts of succession theory in classical ecology into microbial systems. From these datasets, niche-based conceptual models have been developed explaining observed biodiversity patterns and their dynamics. These models have not, however, been formulated mathematically and so remain untested. Here, we further develop spatially resolved neutral community models and demonstrate that these can also explain these patterns and offer alternative explanations of microbial succession. The success of neutral models suggests that stochastic effects alone may have a much greater influence on microbial community succession than previously acknowledged. Furthermore, such models are much more readily parameterised and can be used as the foundation of more complex and realistic models of microbial community succession.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000472
2017-05-01
2020-01-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/163/5/664.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000472&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Cowles HC. The Ecological Relations of the Vegetation on the Sand Dunes of Lake Michigan Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press; 1899
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Shelford VE. Ecological succession: stream fishes and the method of physiographic analysis. Biological Bulletin 1911;21:9–35[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Odum EP. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 1969;164:262–270 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Wetzel RG. Limnology Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing; 1983
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jackson C, Churchill FP, Roden EE. Successional changes in bacterial assemblance structure during epilithic biofilm development. Ecology 2001;85:555–566[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Besemer K, Singer G, Limberger R, Chlup AK, Hochedlinger G et al. Biophysical controls on community succession in stream biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007;73:4966–4974 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fierer N, Nemergut D, Knight R, Craine JM. Changes through time: integrating microorganisms into the study of succession. Res Microbiol 2010;161:635–642 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Li S, Peng C, Wang C, Zheng J, Hu Y et al. Microbial succession and nitrogen cycling in cultured biofilms as affected by the inorganic nitrogen availability. Microb Ecol 2017;73:1–15 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, Attiya S, Bader JS et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature 2005;437:376–380 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lyautey E, Jackson CR, Cayrou J, Rols JL, Garabétian F et al. Bacterial community succession in natural river biofilm assemblages. Microb Ecol 2005;50:589–601 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Poltak SR, Cooper VS. Ecological succession in long-term experimentally evolved biofilms produces synergistic communities. ISME J 2011;5:369–378 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Rath K. Community composition of microbial biofilm and suspended stream water communities during biofilm succession Masters thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 2012
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Besemer K, Peter H, Logue JB, Langenheder S, Lindström ES et al. Unraveling assembly of stream biofilm communities. ISME J 2012;6:1459–1468 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lawrence JR. Behavioral strategies of surface-colonizing bacteria. In Jones JG. (editor) Advances in Microbial Ecology Springer US: Boston, MA; 1995; pp.1–75[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haack TK, Mcfeters GA. Nutritional relationships among microorganisms in an epilithic biofilm community. Microb Ecol 1982;8:115–126 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson CR. Changes in community properties during microbial succession. Oikos 2003;101:444–448 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jackson CR, Churchill PF, Roden EE. Successional changes in bacterial assemblage structure during epilithic biofilm development. Ecology 2001;82:555–566 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bell G. The distribution of Abundance in Neutral Communities. Am Nat 2000;155:606–617 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hubbell SP. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2001
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Curtis TP, Head IM, Lunn M, Woodcock S, Schloss PD et al. What is the extent of prokaryotic diversity?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2006;361:2023–2037 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rosindell J, Hubbell SP, Etienne RS. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. Trends Ecol Evol 2011;26:340–348 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harte J. Ecology: tail of death and resurrection. Nature 2003;424:1006–1007 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mcgill BJ, Maurer BA, Weiser MD. Empirical evaluation of neutral theory. Ecology 2006;87:1411–1423 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dumbrell AJ, Nelson M, Helgason T, Dytham C, Fitter AH et al. Relative roles of niche and neutral processes in structuring a soil microbial community. ISME J 2010;4:337–345 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Caruso T, Chan Y, Lacap DC, Lau MC, McKay CP et al. Stochastic and deterministic processes interact in the assembly of desert microbial communities on a global scale. ISME J 2011;5:1406–1413 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosindell J, Hubbell SP, He F, Harmon LJ, Etienne RS et al. The case for ecological neutral theory. Trends Ecol Evol 2012;27:203–208 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McGill BJ. A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 2003;422:881–885 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Woodcock S, van der Gast CJ, Bell T, Lunn M, Curtis TP et al. Neutral assembly of bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2007;62:171–180 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Volkov I, Banavar JR, Hubbell SP, Maritan A. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 2003;424:1035–1037 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Muneepeerakul R, Bertuzzo E, Lynch HJ, Fagan WF, Rinaldo A et al. Neutral metacommunity models predict fish diversity patterns in Mississippi-Missouri basin. Nature 2008;453:220–222 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sørensen T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter 1948;5:1–34
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Woodcock S, Curtis TP, Head IM, Lunn M, Sloan WT et al. Taxa-area relationships for microbes: the unsampled and the unseen. Ecol Lett 2006;9:805–812 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Woodcock S, Besemer K, Battin TJ, Curtis TP, Sloan WT et al. Modelling the effects of dispersal mechanisms and hydrodynamic regimes upon the structure of microbial communities within fluvial biofilms. Environ Microbiol 2013;15:1216–1225 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Battin TJ, Sloan WT, Kjelleberg S, Daims H, Head IM et al. Microbial landscapes: new paths to biofilm research. Nat Rev Microbiol 2007;5:76–81 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Houchmandzadeh B. Neutral clustering in a simple experimental ecological community. Phys Rev Lett 2008;101:078103 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000472
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000472
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error