dc.contributor.author |
Lebre, Pedro H.
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Bottos, Eric
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Makhalanyane, Thulani Peter
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Hogg, Ian D.
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Cowan, Don A.
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2021-04-13T12:42:39Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2021-01 |
|
dc.description |
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES : FIGURE S1. Moraine pavement sampling location at New Harbour, Lower Taylor Valley, East Antarctica. FIGURE S2. Barplot of mean relative abundance of the 10 most abundant genera the hypolith communities. FIGURE S3. Distribution of genera as a function of number of samples in which they are present. Red dots represent taxa that are present in more than 90% of samples and are therefore considered “generalist” taxa. FIGURE S4. Significant differences in relative abundances of phyla across hypolith communities. Community clusters are colored according to the color-coding used throughout this study: Red- Group A; Green – Group B; Blue – Group C; Purple – Group D. FIGURE S5. Decay of shared taxa between two or more samples as a function of physical distance (in metres). Points represent pair-wise comparisons between. Number of shared taxa is expressed as the zeta score. The trend line of the regression of points according to distance is represented by the solid red line, while the 95% confidence interval is represented by the dashed red lines. The trend line shows no significant decay in the number of shared taxa as distance increases between samples. FIGURE S6. Distribution of β-NTIs across all pair-wise comparisons between hypolith communities, expressed as percentage of total comparisons. Values expected if only stochastic processes drive phylogenetic turnover of communities are represented within the red trace lines (β-NTInull). |
en_ZA |
dc.description |
TABLE S1. GPS coordinated of the hypolith samples used in this study. |
en_ZA |
dc.description |
TABLE S2. Main topological features of the taxa used to generate the interaction network, together with their functional predictions according to the FAPROTAX database. |
en_ZA |
dc.description |
TABLE S3. RCbray values for pairwise comparisons with | β-NTI| <2, together with the significance of the results. The groups to which each sample in the comparison belong to are shown in the ‘Groups’ column, with letters in bold representing comparisons within the same group. |
en_ZA |
dc.description |
DATA AVAILABITY : The raw sequencing reads can be found in the NCBI Bioproject database (BioProject ID:PRJNA659625, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/study/?acc=PRJNA659625&o=acc_s%3Aa). In addition, the metadata of the sequencing output can be found in the github webpage https://github.com/PedroHLebre/Hypolith_script |
en_ZA |
dc.description.abstract |
Hypolithic microbial communities (hypolithons) are complex assemblages of phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms associated with the ventral surfaces of translucent minerals embedded in soil surfaces. Past studies on the assembly, structure and function of hypolithic communities have tended to use composite samples (i.e. bulked hypolithic biomass) with the underlying assumption that samples collected from within a ‘homogeneous’ locality are phylogenetically homogeneous. In this study, we question this assumption by analysing the prokaryote phylogenetic diversity of multiple individual hypolithons: i.e. asking the seemingly simple question of ‘Are all hypolithons the same’? Using 16S rRNA gene-based phylogenetic analysis of hypolithons recovered for a localized moraine region in the Taylor Valley, McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica, we demonstrate that these communities are heterogeneous at very small spatial scales (<5 m). Using null models of phylogenetic turnover, we showed that this heterogeneity between hypolithons is probably due to stochastic effects such as dispersal limitations, which is entirely consistent with the physically isolated nature of the hypolithic communities (‘islands in the sand’) and the almost complete absence of a liquid continuum as a mode of microbial transport between communities. |
en_ZA |
dc.description.department |
Biochemistry |
en_ZA |
dc.description.department |
Genetics |
en_ZA |
dc.description.department |
Microbiology and Plant Pathology |
en_ZA |
dc.description.embargo |
2021-10-17 |
|
dc.description.librarian |
hj2021 |
en_ZA |
dc.description.sponsorship |
The South African National Research Foundation and Antarctica New
Zealand. |
en_ZA |
dc.description.uri |
https://academic.oup.com/femsec |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.citation |
Lebre, P.H., Bottos, E., Makhalanyane, T.P., Hogg, I. & Cowan, D.A. Islands in the sand: are all hypolithic microbial communities the same? FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Volume 97, Issue 1, January 2021, fiaa216, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa216. |
en_ZA |
dc.identifier.issn |
0168-6496 (print) |
|
dc.identifier.issn |
1574-6941 (online) |
|
dc.identifier.other |
10.1093/femsec/fiaa216 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/79414 |
|
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_ZA |
dc.publisher |
Oxford University Press |
en_ZA |
dc.rights |
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of FEMS. This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in FEMS Microbiology Ecology following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is : Islands in the sand: are all hypolithic microbial communities the same? FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Volume 97, Issue 1, January 2021, fiaa216, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa216, is available online at : https://academic.oup.com/femsec. |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Core community |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Functional variability |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Dispersal limitation |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Phylogenetic turnover |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Small-scale heterogeneity |
en_ZA |
dc.subject |
Hypolithon |
en_ZA |
dc.title |
Islands in the sand : are all hypolithic microbial communities the same? |
en_ZA |
dc.type |
Postprint Article |
en_ZA |