Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 29;19(3):e0296622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296622

Ammonification by kelp associated microbes increases ammonium availability

Alex Hochroth 1,*, Catherine A Pfister 2,3
Editor: Frank Melzner4
PMCID: PMC10980195  PMID: 38551914

Abstract

Microbes contribute biologically available nitrogen to the ocean by fixing nitrogen gas from the atmosphere and by mineralizing organic nitrogen into bioavailable dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). Although the large concentration of plants and algae in marine coastal environments provides ample habitat and reliable resources for microbial communities, the role of the microbiome in host-microbe nitrogen cycling remains poorly understood. We tested whether ammonification by epiphytic microbes increased water column ammonium and improved host access to nitrogen resources by converting organic nitrogen into inorganic nitrogen that is available for assimilation by hosts. When bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) in the northeast Pacific was incubated with 15N labelled amino acid tracers, there was accumulation of 15N in kelp tissue, as well as accumulation of 15NH4 in seawater, all consistent with the conversion of dissolved organic nitrogen to ammonium. Metagenomic analysis of surface microbes from two populations of Nereocystis indicated relative similarity in the percentage of genes related to ammonification between the two locations, though the stressed kelp population that had lower tissue nitrogen and a sparser microbiome had greater ammonification rates. Microbial communities on coastal macrophytes may contribute to the nitrogen requirements of their hosts through metabolisms that make ammonium available.

Introduction

Nutrients, including nitrogen, can limit plant productivity across diverse ecosystems [1], including the coastal ocean [2]. Where nitrogen is limiting in the coastal ocean, there may be selection for macrophytes to have microbial associations that assist in acquiring nitrogen, such as the association of nitrogen-fixing bacteria [36]. In addition, microbial associations may also increase access to nitrogen through increased microbial transformation of organic nitrogen. Ammonification, the metabolism of amino acids into ammonium, is a ubiquitous microbial metabolism [7]. Enzymes such as hydrolases and lyases cleave the amide group of some amino acids to release dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) in the form of ammonium [8]. Amino acids and other forms of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), including urea, nucleic acids, proteins, and peptides, can be important sources of organic nitrogen. These DON components can have rapid turnover [9,10], and their concentrations are greatly affected by the metabolic activities of animals and macrophytes [11,12]. Nitrogen in the form of DON may be largely inaccessible to macrophytes until it is converted to DIN by microbial metabolisms. While phytoplankton have been shown to have extracellular enzymes that cleave amino acids [11,13], there is not yet a corresponding demonstration in algae or seagrass. Though previous studies suggest that macrophytes may be able to directly take up urea as a source of organic nitrogen [14,15], most of these studies do not control for or investigate the presence of host-associated bacteria that may facilitate that uptake. In fact, it was demonstrated that microbial amino acid ammonification provisioned a seagrass species with released ammonium when the bacterial community was investigated through imaging and stable isotope enrichments [16] and through in situ isotope incubations [17]. This suggests that epiphytic microbial communities may play a vital role in making DON available to the host.

Sources of DON can be abundant and reach concentrations that rival the total amount of DIN [18]. Though amino acid concentrations in the coastal oceans are not well studied, some estimates put them as high as 2 μmol/L in coastal areas, much greater than the 0.2 μmol/L concentrations estimated to exist in the open ocean [19]. This indicates that DON could represent a significant potential source of nitrogen for microbes in coastal environments and could select for specific host-microbe interactions. Macrophytes host diverse microbial taxa that can use dissolved organic matter [6,20,21], though little is known about any benefits those microbes provide. While amplicon-based and metagenomic studies increasingly capture the microbial diversity of marine macrophytes [2224], we know comparatively little about the functions of microbial diversity and how they relate to the condition of the host.

We quantified ammonification by microbes on host seaweeds and tested whether this ammonification increased nitrogen availability to their hosts. Nereocystis luetkeana (henceforth Nereocystis) blades have been shown to host microbes on their surfaces with enzymes for ammonification [6]. We quantified microbial transformation and host nitrogen uptake using stable isotope enrichments in the bull kelp Nereocystis across three locales in the northeast Pacific.

We quantified ammonification in Nereocystis samples collected from two disparate geographic areas that differ in microbial diversity, microbial abundance, and kelp bed growth and density. Microbial communities on Nereocystis exhibit strong geographic differences that correlate with the health of the host kelp population. CLASI-FISH imaging [25], and 16S gene sequencing [20] were used to quantify microbial diversity and abundance on Nereocystis in South Puget Sound and the outer coast of Washington State. Kelp-associated microbes in South Puget Sound, where kelp populations have been in decline [26], show decreased diversity and abundance compared to communities on the outer coast of Washington, where kelp flourish [27]. Further analysis of bacterial metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGS) from the persistent versus declining population of Nereocystis [21] allowed us to determine if ammonification genes were present in the microbiome of these hosts and whether the incidence and prevalence of these genes differed among the sites. Our results provide evidence that ammonifying microbes are present in association with hosts and in surrounding seawater; their activities may contribute to the nitrogen requirements for Nereocystis across several different geographic locations, broadening our understanding of the sources of nitrogen available to foundational coastal organisms.

Methods

Study sites

We studied Nereocystis across a large geographic gradient that encompassed a healthy and persistent population at Tatoosh Island (48.393689, -124.733820) [27] on the outer coast of Washington State, a declining population at Squaxin Island in Puget Sound (47.167282, -122.895984) [26], and a newly restored community in Puget Sound at Jefferson Head (47.742128, -122.488112) which was historically a kelp bed; now, Nereocystis are outplanted on line substrates. All sampling locations are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Sampling locations.

Fig 1

Locations of bull kelp incubations in Washington State. Tatoosh Island is in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, while Jefferson Head and Squaxin Island are in Puget Sound. Each set of incubations included n = 2 seawater-only chambers as a control, and n = 4 chambers containing kelp and seawater. Map made using data from Natural Earth.

Chambers and incubation

We quantified ammonification and ammonium uptake using short term (three hour) chamber incubations with 15N-enriched amino acids. Experimental incubation time was informed by Weigel and Pfister [28], such that the 15N signal had enough time to move through the system, but not long enough for nutrient depletion to occur. In total, there were three sets of incubations from July 2021 to August 2021. Kelp blade samples were placed in custom-made chambers as described in Weigel & Pfister [28]. Kelp chambers were 2.6L polycarbonate tubes capped at each end with a wing-nut expansion plug and a rubber seal, which ensured the tubes were watertight and easy to open for sampling.

Entire non-reproductive bull kelp blades were collected by boat or from the surface at low tide. Wet mass of macrophytes was measured with a PesolaTM (Forestry-Suppliers Inc., Jackson Mississippi, USA) spring scale; dry mass was measured after samples were dried for 48h at 50°C. Bull kelp blade dry mass averaged 3.12 ± 0.4g.

Kelp tissue was placed individually in each of 4 chambers and filled entirely with fresh seawater collected from the same location and depth as the samples; bottles or chambers filled with only seawater (n = 2) for each experiment served as a control for microbial activity in the water column. At time T0, we added 200μL of 0.025M 15N-labeled amino acid solution (Cambridge Isotope Labs, product# NLM-2161, Lot# PR-24163) to the kelp chambers. The enriched amino acid mix was composed of 16 amino acids, with leucine, glutamic acid, and alanine making up 37% of the total. The amino acids valine, phenylalanine, isoleucine, aspartic acid, glycine, threonine, proline, tyrosine, arginine, lysine, serine, methionine, and histadine all composed between 2% and 9% of the mix. Amino acid concentrations are rarely estimated in coastal areas, and we do not have measurements in the locales where our experiments were performed. Instead, we assumed a concentration of 1 μM amino acids in seawater, based on previous ocean studies [2931]. Our enrichment achieved 525,430‰ 15N, compared to the natural amount of 15N that we are assuming is present in seawater with a concentration of 1 μM amino acids. This high enrichment ensured the concentration of 15N that was added to the seawater served as an effective tracer, while only elevating amino acid concentrations to approximately 1.92 μM. The chambers were sealed and agitated by hand to mix the tracer evenly with the seawater. We suspended kelp chambers horizontally in a recreational float that kept them immersed in the water. This allowed temperatures in the chambers and bottles to remain close to ambient seawater temperature and permitted gentle water movement. Sampling occurred only at the beginning and end of the experiment to avoid contamination among chambers. The theorized movement of enriched 15N through the closed system is illustrated in S1 Fig.

Measuring nutrients and the fate of tracer 15N

We measured seawater nutrient concentrations and δ15NH4 at the beginning and end of the experiment by collecting two water samples from the source water we used before the addition of the tracer (T0), and then again from each individual container (Tf). We measured concentrations of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorous, silica, and δ15NH4. For both samples we filtered 25mL and 50mL of seawater, respectively, through a syringe filter (Whatman GF/F, 0.7 μm) into acid-washed HDPE (high density polyethylene) bottles. All seawater samples were frozen for later analysis. All nutrient concentrations were analyzed at the University of Washington Marine Chemistry Laboratory (methods from UNESCO [32]), while seawater isotope determinations were done at the University of California, Davis. To quantify the isotopes of nitrogen in ammonium, we needed higher concentrations of 15NH4 in seawater than were typical at the sites. We added 77.6μL of 0.05 M NH4Cl, effectively adding 1.4 mg/L of NH4 to all samples prior to analysis. The δ15NH4 value of the NH4Cl was known (-2.11‰) and was a consistent addition to all samples.

Tissue was sampled from paired bull kelp blades to quantify percent carbon and nitrogen analysis, as well as the δ15N of incubated tissues at T0 and at Tf. We collected the rapidly growing tissue at the basal meristem. Samples were weighed and analyzed on an elemental-analyzer–isotope-ratio mass spectrometer at Northwestern University Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry Laboratory (NUSIBL).

Quantifying microbial transformations and macrophyte uptake

We used stable isotope tracers to quantify the mineralization of amino acids into 15NH4 by following the transfer of the tracer from its source (the labeled amino acids) to its sink (the seawater), modeling the process according to Lipschultz [33]. This model estimates a single rate parameter from T0 to Tf using the following difference equation:

AmmonificationRate=R(t)sinkR(0)sink(RsourceR(0)sink)*Δt*[NH4¯] (1)

where R denotes the isotopic ratio of the sink or source in atom%, Δt represents the length of the incubation, and [NH4¯] represents the average concentration of ammonium over the course of the experiment. This equation quantifies the transfer of 15N from amino acids to ammonium in the water column. This version of the model approximates the rate of 15N transfer as the difference between the isotopic ratio at the beginning of the incubation and the isotopic ratio at the end of the incubation, when our two samples were collected. Multiplying by the average ammonium concentration yields the uptake rate of ammonium by seawater and accounts for the rapid flux of inorganic nitrogen [34]. We assumed that sources of 15N in the chambers were negligible compared to the tracer (10-6M vs. 0.025M) and anticipated that isotope dilution due to mineralization of unlabeled DON would not be an important factor with an incubation of this duration.

We estimated ammonium uptake rates in kelp from the 15N concentrations within the tissue, using the method for estimating nitrogen uptake from isotope enrichment described in Pather et al [35]. This method uses the following equation:

NH4+uptakerate=tissue15Natom%excess(R*t)*TN (2)

where tissue 15N atom% excess is the final 15N atom% minus the initial 15N atom%, R is the mean 15N atom% enrichment in the NH4+ pool, t is the duration of the incubation, and TN is the amount of nitrogen in the bull kelp tissues in μmoles.

All statistical tests, including ANOVA, ANCOVA, Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference, and t-tests, were performed in R (version 4.2.0), and figures were created in R and Microsoft Paint 3D.

Ammonification inferred from metagenomes

Published metagenomes from the microbial community on Tatoosh and Squaxin bull kelp blades [21] allowed us to compare the potential for ammonification among the microbes on bull kelp at each locale by quantifying enzymes that hydrolyze carbon-nitrogen bonds within metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs). We used the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology designation (https://iubmb.qmul.ac.uk/enzyme/), and searched for enzymes with the nomenclature ‘EC 1.4’, which act on the CH-NH2 group of donors, ‘EC 3.5’, which act on carbon-nitrogen bonds other than peptide bonds, and ‘EC 4.3’, carbon-nitrogen lyases within all 51 MAGs determined from Nereocystis blade surface samples collected at Squaxin (n = 13 MAGs) and Tatoosh (n = 38 MAGs) Nereocystis surfaces in July 2019 [20]. We only analyzed 2019 swab samples where host tissue contamination was minimized. We used the MAG database reported in Weigel et al. [21], which is available on the Figshare repository (https://figshare.com/s/84c036dc253a5dd1b1b9) and also archived at NCBI (PRJNA783443).

Ethics statement

Samples used in this study were collected with the permission of the Makah Tribal Nation and the Washington Department of Natural Resources.

Results

The carbon and nitrogen content of hosts varied by site

Tissue carbon and nitrogen content differed among locales (Fig 2). Tissue nitrogen in Nereocystis was greatest in areas with the highest nitrogen concentration in the seawater. The seawater DIN concentration (sum of NO3, NO2, and NH4 concentrations) was greatest at Tatoosh (Table 1), which had a mean concentration of 26.8 μM. Consequently, Tatoosh Nereocystis had the highest nitrogen tissue content, and the lowest C:N ratio. The seawater DIN concentration was lower at the Puget Sound sites, with 5.21 μM at Squaxin, and 1.31 μM at Jefferson Head on the days of the incubations, correlating with higher C:N ratios. The slope of carbon to nitrogen differed among the three locales (Fig 2A, ANCOVA, p = 0.011, F2,21 = 5.616), and nitrogen is greatest per unit carbon in Tatoosh kelp blades.

Fig 2. Percent carbon vs. percent nitrogen.

Fig 2

The % carbon to % nitrogen content for Nereocystis blade tissue from three locales (n = 12). Bands represent 95% confidence intervals. The relationship between carbon and nitrogen differed significantly among sites for Nereocystis (ANCOVA, p = 0.011, F2,21 = 5.616).

Table 1. Nereocystis incubations.

Location Average PAR (μmol*m-2*s-1) Seawater Temperature (°C) Tissue C:N Nutrient Concentration (μM) Ammonification (nmol N L-1 hr-1) Kelp N uptake (μmol N hr-1 g DW-1)
PO43- SI(OH)4 NO3- NO2- NH4+ Seawater Seawater w/ Kelp
Jefferson Head 946.3 ± 98.9 18.6 18.8 ± 1.0 0.47 3.75 0.74 0.00 0.57 0.02 ± 1x10-3 0.07 ± 0.01 3.0 ± 0.52
Tatoosh 1186 ± 190 11.7 9.34 ± 0.2 2.24 28.29 23.39 1.11 2.31 0.41 ± 2x10-3 0.41 ± 0.02 4.3 ± 0.27
Squaxin 959.4 ± 128 17.5 12.1 ± 0.3 1.60 39.56 3.13 0.15 2.08 0.19 ± 0.07 0.73 ± 0.07 5.2 ± 0.43

Incubations of Nereocystis from the coast of Washington State. Location names represent distinct bull kelp beds. We present data collected on tissue C:N ratio, seawater nutrient concentrations, ammonification rates, macrophyte N uptake rates, and conditions during the incubation. S1 Fig provides an illustration of the experimental chambers.

The nutrient concentrations of the seawater in incubation chambers with macrophytes decreased over the three-hour period while tissues increased in δ15N (Fig 3). PO43- decreased by 0.17 ± 0.06 μM/hr on average, Si(OH)4 decreased by 2.60 ± 0.88 μM/hr, NO3- decreased by 2.52 ± 0.78 μM/hr, NO2- decreased by 0.11 ± 0.04 μM/hr, and NH4+ decreased by 0.13 ± 0.06 μM/hr. Prior to enrichment, the natural abundance of δ15N in sample tissue averaged 7.6‰ ± 0.2 in kelp. Following incubation, δ15N signatures increased significantly to 18.6‰ ± 1.0 (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Tissue 15N enrichment.

Fig 3

Pre-incubation and post-incubation δ15N enrichment levels in Nereocystis tissue. Pre- and post- incubation means were compared with t-tests, which are shown at the top of each panel (n = 4 for each).

Ammonification and host nitrogen uptake

We used δ15NH4 values in chamber seawater to calculate ammonification using Eq (1). Initial δ15NH4 values of seawater in incubation chambers averaged -3.39‰ ± 0.32 before incubation. Following the incubations, δ15NH4 values were enriched to 85.6‰ ± 21 in seawater only chambers and 129‰ ± 19 in kelp chambers, indicating that ammonification occurred. Ammonification associated with bull kelp differed significantly between each locale; despite lower tissue nitrogen, Squaxin bull kelp had the highest ammonification rate (Fig 4A). Nitrogen uptake by bull kelp, quantified with Eq (2), was lowest at Jefferson Head (Fig 4B). One sample from Squaxin appeared to have been contaminated based on greatly elevated nutrient measurements compared to other samples and was removed, resulting in n = 5 chambers for Squaxin.

Fig 4. Ammonification and nitrogen uptake.

Fig 4

Ammonification and nitrogen uptake rates for Nereocystis. Differences between locations for levels of Nereocystis ammonification were significant (p < 0.001), and nitrogen uptake was also significant (p = 0.020). There are n = 4 samples for most categories, though Squaxin Island Nereocystis had n = 3 samples because one was determined to be an outlier.

Ammonification rates in control chambers with only seawater varied among sites and dates, with Tatoosh showing the greatest ammonification rates (Table 1). Macrophyte chambers displayed increased enrichment relative to control chambers for all bull kelp (Fig 5). The relationship between ammonium uptake and ammonification was positive for Nereocystis (S2 Fig).

Fig 5. Seawater 15N enrichment.

Fig 5

δ15NH4 enrichment of the seawater in incubation chambers following the experiment. Open circles denote seawater-only control chambers (n = 2 per incubation) while filled circles indicate chambers with macrophytes (n = 4 per incubation).

Metabolic function inferred from metagenomes

The number of genes detected in the Tatoosh bull kelp microbiome was higher than Squaxin by a factor of 2.6, with 80,633 genes at Tatoosh compared with 30,822 genes at Squaxin (Table 2). The overall number of ammonification genes, those with enzyme prefixes of EC1.4, EC3.5 and EC4.3, was lower at Squaxin, though it was proportional to the total functional gene discovery at 1.16% (Table 2). Every MAG at both Tatoosh and Squaxin contained ammonification genes in one of the 3 categories (Table 2), further indicating the likely high prevalence of this function.

Table 2. Microbial gene detection.

Genes Squaxin Island Tatoosh Island
EC1.4 90 (0.29%) 265 (0.33%)
EC3.5 184 (0.60%) 461 (0.57%)
EC4.3 82 (0.27%) 210 (0.26%)
All ammonification genes 356 (1.16%) 936 (1.16%)
Total gene tally 30,822 80,663

Microbial gene detection in both Squaxin Island and Tatoosh Island metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) reported in Weigel et al. [19]. Counts of KOfam genes and their overall percent representation are given. KOfam genes were counted as present at a cutoff of E-100.

Discussion

Bacterial contribution of DIN to seagrass and bull kelp hosts

Enrichment of δ15NH4 occurred both in chambers with macrophytes and chambers without, indicating microbial transformation of DON into DIN by both water column microbes and macrophyte-associated microbes. We observed δ15N uptake from our amino acid additions in all kelp samples (Fig 3), suggesting that ammonifying microbes contributed nitrogen to macrophytes through remineralization of DON. We further observed increased enrichment compared to control chambers in all chambers (Fig 5), suggesting that epiphytic microbes may also remineralize DON and further increase nitrogen availability for their hosts. This interpretation is supported by previous imaging of the microscale transfer of ammonium by nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS), which showed nitrogen isotopes passing from seawater into microbes, and from microbes into the surface layers of seagrass blades [16]. This phenomenon may be widespread in macrophyte-microbiome systems. For instance, the functional capacity for ammonification was enriched in the giant kelp Macrocystis compared with surrounding seawater [36], as well as in cultures with the green alga Ulva [37], and ammonification was enhanced over tropical seagrass systems [12].We note that in our study, and in many other host-microbe systems, elemental imaging would facilitate efforts to definitively trace nutrient exchanges between hosts and their microbiome.

Macrophyte nitrogen uptake was consistently 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than ammonification in the incubation chambers, ranging from 3.0–5.2 μmol N g DW-1 hr-1 (Table 1). Ammonium uptake rates by macrophytes were also large compared to ammonium pools in the seawater. However, despite the relatively low ammonification rates relative to nitrogen uptake, complete depletion of inorganic nitrogen did not occur in the chambers. One explanation is that algal uptake estimates were based on the enrichment in ammonium (Eq (2) above), while ammonification rates relied on our estimates of enrichment of amino acids. Amino acid concentrations are poorly estimated in these locales, and we assumed 1 μM based on previously published studies [29,30]. We note that if amino acid concentrations were greater than 1 μM, we would have overestimated enrichment (Rsource) and underestimated ammonification in Eq (1). DON estimates in the coastal northeast Pacific and at these sites can exceed 10 μM [38]. If we assume amino acid concentrations as high as 10 μM, then our estimates of ammonification would increase by an order of magnitude. Secondly, if spatially localized processes were important, such as immediate microbial production followed by host use of ammonium at the macrophyte surface biofilm, we would also underestimate ammonification in the water column. A third explanation may be the rapid uptake and production of inorganic nitrogen by the multitude of metabolisms in intertidal systems, which lead to quick turnover in nitrogen pools in seawater [10,20,34,39]. Because we only took measurements of seawater nutrients at the initiation and end of the incubations, the processing and recycling of nitrogen may have been underestimated.

One important alternative to consider is that kelp may directly take up DON, with enriched amino acids entering the host without microbial intermediaries. Phytoplankton have been shown to have amino acid oxidases on the cell surface that produce ammonium from amino acids [9]. Previous studies have also observed amino acid oxidases and amino acid uptake in seaweeds. For instance, amino acid uptake was demonstrated during rhizoid development in Fucus with enriched carbon in amino acids and enriched sulfur in methionine [40]. Other observations of amino acid oxidases have been attributed to the host seaweed [4145]. Further, there are several studies that also suggest uptake of DON by other seaweeds and seagrasses [14,4649]. In all of these studies, however, the role of bacterial metabolisms in nitrogen acquisition remains unclear because it is not reported whether axenic conditions were strictly maintained during incubations. Regardless, some studies do provide strong inference for direct uptake of amino acids. For instance, studies of Fucus embryos have shown evidence of normal development of Fucus embryos or zygotes when the amino acid methionine is the only source of sulfur [4042], and images show that embryos seem to be bacteria-free [42]. Furthermore, the use of stable isotope tracing indicated that urea can be taken up by the giant kelp Macrocystis [15], though not by the kelp Ecklonia [50]. Still, Tarquinio et al.’s [16] work with the seagrass Posidonia, where elemental imaging of isotopes of nitrogen was used in the presence and absence of bacteria, provides strong inference that microbial ammonification produced ammonium and that it was 15NH4 that was taken up by the host. Furthermore, metagenomic sampling demonstrated that genes with the capacity to cleave C-N bonds in amino acids were common in bacteria residing on Nereocystis. The lack of clear axenic conditions in previous studies and evidence from elemental imaging support the importance of microbial metabolisms in nitrogen uptake by Nereocystis. However, the possible diversity of amino acid metabolism routes suggested in the above referenced studies cannot be discounted, and needs further research efforts with imaging and isotope incubation, in combination with analysis of bacterial and seaweed genomes.

Comparing bull kelp from different locales

If microbes play an important role in nitrogen acquisition for macrophytes, then the presence or absence of these microbes may have implications for the fitness of the host. Bull kelp samples collected from Tatoosh, Jefferson Head, and Squaxin differed in fitness and microbial abundance. Tatoosh Island bull kelp are exposed to the open ocean and exhibit the greatest tissue nitrogen content and more diverse microbial communities [22,51]. Squaxin Island kelp represent the southernmost population in Puget Sound. They have been in sharp decline [26], have reduced microbial diversity [22], sparse microbial communities on their surfaces [25], and lower nitrogen content (Fig 2). The Jefferson Head kelp bed is a restored feature where kelp grows on line substrates, and we have no information on microbial abundances there, though we note that nitrogen content in Jefferson Head kelp is extremely low.

The greater health and nitrogen content of the Tatoosh Island kelp led us to hypothesize that their microbiome would have greater ammonification rates and increased access to dissolved organic nitrogen. Our results show otherwise, and indicate that the microbiome on the smaller, more poorly growing Squaxin Nereocystis had the greatest ability to ammonify and process amino acids. Notably, Tatoosh Island had high ammonification rates in the water column, which may indicate that ammonification is not as restricted to host-association as it is at the other sites. Thus, Tatoosh Island, with the highest concentration of dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the surrounding waters (Table 1), and the greatest tissue nitrogen levels (Fig 2), had the lowest rates of ammonification by Nereocystis-associated microbes. Our results suggest that the relatively nitrogen-poor Squaxin kelp samples opportunistically took up nitrogen when it became available, a result consistent with Weigel and Pfister [28].

Differences in seawater between sites

The composition of epiphytic communities on macrophytes may vary depending on the nutrient resources available to them [52]. Seawater nutrient conditions differed significantly between the three sampling locations. Tatoosh Island, which lies on the outer coast of Washington State, is supplied from deep areas offshore by upwelling, which occurs along much of the Pacific Northwestern coast [53]. Water from deep areas is cold and nutrient rich [54], likely supporting the robust local bull kelp and seagrass populations. Furthermore, inorganic sources of nitrogen, especially nitrate, are much higher in concentration at Tatoosh Island than locales in Puget Sound (Table 1) [55]. However, we currently know little about the concentration of DON components across these locales, the microbial taxa that can ammonify, and the ability of nitrogen-poor host species to select for different microbiomes. Our use of unfiltered seawater in our assays suggested that water column microbes in addition to host-associated microbes are quantitatively important here and may influence selection at the host-microbe interface. The noticeable increase in δ15NH4 enrichment observed even in chambers that did not contain macrophytes (Fig 5) indicates that some ammonifying microbes may not always be in intimate association with the host. Because this metabolism could also benefit microbes, ammonifying microbes might be both free-living and host-associated.

Metabolic patterns indicated by metagenomes

Metabolic information from genomics indicated the presence of approximately equivalent functional capacity across metagenomes from Squaxin and Tatoosh. Even though microbe density and diversity were much greater at Tatoosh [21,23], the proportional capacity for ammonification based on the presence of genes was equivalent and may account for the unexpectedly high rates of ammonification in Nereocystis from Squaxin. Although we do not have metagenomic samples in July 2021, when we did the experiments, repeated metagenomic sampling at Tatoosh, Weigel et al. 2022, [21] suggests similar metagenomes across years. There was no metagenomic information to test this for the Nereocystis from Jefferson Head.

Ammonification genes, those that cleave C-N bonds in amino acids and produce ammonium, were common in Nereocystis metagenomes analyzed here [6]. The giant kelp Macrocystis in the southern region of the California Current system also showed genes capable of ammonification in the surface microbiome [36].

Tatoosh Island bull kelp, which have been persistent and non-declining compared with the diminishing Squaxin Island population [26,27], exhibited microbial genes that were enriched with modules that might increase ammonification, including histidine regulation and proline metabolism. There is lower abundance and diversity of host-associated microbes at Squaxin Island [21,22,25], and ammonification genes are fewer. Yet, there was no indication from amino acid incubations that the functional capacity of Squaxin to use DON was compromised compared to ammonification measures for healthy Tatoosh populations. In sum, our study suggests that DON, a significant component of the free nitrogen in coastal seawater, may be accessible to seaweed via the activities of associated microbes and points to a need to better understand how the microbiome of primary producers contribute to their fitness.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Experimental chamber schematic.

A schematic of the hypothesized movement of enriched 15N in experimental chambers containing Nereocystis when added as 15N amino acids. Red arrows denote those we have quantified, including the microbially-mediated transfer of 15N from amino acids to ammonium via ammonification, a process that could have been done by host-associated or free-living microbes. Chambers without host kelp quantified water column ammonification only. The 15N measured in hosts was assumed to come from this ammonification. The dashed line shows bacterial uptake of ammonium that might have occurred but was not quantified.

(TIF)

pone.0296622.s001.tif (273.4KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Nitrogen uptake vs. ammonification.

Nitrogen uptake rate (in μmol) vs. ammonification rate (in nmol) for Nereocystis sampling locations. Linear regressions indicated a significant positive association between ammonification and nitrogen Uptake in bull kelp (p = 0.024, r2 = 0.389). The bands around the regression line represents the 95% confidence interval.

(TIF)

pone.0296622.s002.tif (366.7KB, tif)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Makah Tribal Nation for access to Tatoosh Island. We thank H. Berry of the WDNR and G. McKenna, H. Hayford, B. Allen, and J. Davis of the Puget Sound Restoration Fund for kelp collections and boat access to Puget Sound sites. Assistance in the field from A. Wootton, J. T. Wootton, E. Shaw, and T. Fonseca was greatly appreciated. A. Masterson at Northwestern provided expertise in tissue isotope samples, J. Herszage at UC Davis in seawater isotopes, and A. Morello at University of Washington in seawater nutrient analyses. S. Kuehn, J. Waldbauer, R. Weed, B. Weigel, D. Claar, E. Stanfield, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript; S. Weinstein helped with S1 Fig.

Data Availability

The metagenome data are published are available at NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, accession no. PRJNA783443. The minimal dataset underlying the results can be found at Figshare: https://figshare.com/projects/Plos_One_Nereocystis_Ammonification/180562. All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by an Ecology and Evolution Undergraduate Research Fellowship from UChicago (to AH) and Washington Department of Natural Resources #93100399 (to CAP). University of Chicago Ecology and Evolution: https://ecologyandevolution.uchicago.edu/ Washington Department of Natural Resources: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zubkov MV, Fuchs BM, Tarran GA, Burkill PH, Amann R. High rate of uptake of organic nitrogen compounds by Prochlorococcus cyanobacteria as a key to their dominance in oligotrophic oceanic waters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003. Feb;69(2):1299–1304. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Howarth RW, Marino R. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnol Oceanogr. 2006. Jan;51(1part2):364–76. doi: 10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0364 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Capone DG, Budin JM. Nitrogen fixation associated with rinsed roots and rhizomes of the eelgrass Zostera marina. Plant Physiol. 1982. Dec;70(6):1601–4. doi: 10.1104/pp.70.6.1601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Agawin N, Ferriol P, Cryer C, Alcon E, Busquets A, Sintes E, et al. Significant nitrogen fixation activity associated with the phyllosphere of Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica: first report. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2016. Jun 9;551:53–62. doi: 10.3354/meps11755 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cardini U, van Hoytema N, Bednarz VN, Al-Rshaidat MMD, Wild C. N2 fixation and primary productivity in a Red Sea Halophila stipulacea meadow exposed to seasonality. Limnol Oceanogr. 2018. Mar;63(2):786–98. doi: 10.1002/lno.10669 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Miranda K, Weigel BL, Fogarty EC, Veseli IA, Giblin AE, Eren AM, et al. The diversity and functional capacity of microbes associated with coastal macrophytes. Anderton CR, editor. mSystems. 2022. Oct 26;7(5):e00592–22. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00592-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gruber N. The marine nitrogen cycle: overview and challenges. In: Nitrogen in the marine environment [Internet]. Elsevier; 2008. P. 1–50. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zehr JP, Ward BB. Nitrogen cycling in the ocean: new perspectives on processes and paradigms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002. Mar;68(3):1015–24. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.3.1015-1024.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bronk DA, See JH, Bradley P, Killberg L. DON as a source of bioavailable nitrogen for phytoplankton. Biogeosciences. 2007. May 24;4(3):283–96. doi: 10.5194/bg-4-283-2007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hollibaugh JT, Carruthers AB, Fuhrman JA, Azam F. Cycling of organic nitrogen in marine plankton communities studied in enclosed water columns. Mar Biol. 1980;59(1):15–21. doi: 10.1007/BF00396978 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sipler RE, Bronk DA. Dynamics of dissolved organic nitrogen. In: Hansell DA, Carlson CA, editors. Biogeochemistry of marine dissolved organic matter. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2015. pp. 127–232. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Smith GW. Influence of microbial deamination on ammonium pools in marine waters. Sci Total Environ. 1988. Sep;75(2–3):319–24. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(88)90043-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Palenik B, Morel FMM. Amino acid utilization by marine phytoplankton: A novel mechanism. Limnol Oceanogr. 1990. Mar;35(2):260–9. doi: 10.4319/lo.1990.35.2.0260 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van Engeland T, Bouma T, Morris E, Brun F, Peralta G, Lara M, et al. Dissolved organic matter uptake in a temperate seagrass ecosystem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013. Mar 25;478: 87–100. doi: 10.3354/meps10183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Smith JM, Brzezinski MA, Melack JM, Miller RJ, Reed DC. Urea as a source of nitrogen to giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera). Limnol Oceanogr Letters. 2018. Aug;3(4):365–73. doi: 10.1002/lol2.10088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tarquinio F, Bourgoure J, Koenders A, Laverock B, Säwström C, Hyndes GA. Microorganisms facilitate uptake of dissolved organic nitrogen by seagrass leaves. ISME J. 2018. Nov;12(11):2796–800. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0218-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pfister CA, Cardini U, Mirasole A, Montilla LM, Veseli I, Gattuso JP, et al. Microbial associates of an endemic Mediterranean seagrass enhance the access of the host and the surrounding seawater to inorganic nitrogen under ocean acidification. Sci. Rep. 2023. Nov 15;13(1):19996. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-47126-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Osterholz H, Burmeister C, Busch S, Dierken M, Frazão HC, Hansen R, et al. Nearshore dissolved and particulate organic matter dynamics in the Southwestern Baltic Sea: environmental drivers and time series analysis (2010–2020). Front Mar Sci. 2021. Dec 24;8:795028. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.795028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Siezen RJ, Mague TH. Amino acids in suspended particulate matter from oceanic and coastal waters of the Pacific. Mar Chem. 1978. May;6(3):215–31. doi: 10.1016/0304-4203(78)90031-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pfister CA, Altabet MA, Pather S, Dwyer G. Tracer experiment and model evidence for macrofaunal shaping of microbial nitrogen functions along rocky shores. Biogeosciences. 2016. Jun 17;13(12): 3519–31. doi: 10.5194/bg-13-3519-2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Weigel BL, Miranda KK, Fogarty EC, Watson AR, Pfister CA. Functional insights into the kelp microbiome from metagenome-assembled genomes. Blanchard J, editor. mSystems. 2022. Jun 28;7(3):e01422–21. doi: 10.1128/msystems.01422-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Weigel BL, Pfister CA. Successional dynamics and seascape-level patterns of microbial communities on the canopy-forming kelps Nereocystis luetkeana and Macrocystis pyrifera. Front Microbiol. 2019. Feb 26;10:346. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lin JD, Lemay MA, Parfrey LW. Diverse bacteria utilize alginate within the microbiome of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Front Microbiol. 2018. Aug 20;9:1914. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Capistrant‐Fossa KA, Morrison HG, Engelen AH, Quigley CTC, Morozov A, Serrão EA, et al. The microbiome of the habitat‐forming brown alga Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) has similar cross‐Atlantic structure that reflects past and present drivers. De Oliveira MC, editor. J Phycol. 2021. Dec;57(6):1681–98. doi: 10.1111/jpy.13194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ramírez-Puebla ST, Weigel BL, Jack L, Schlundt C, Pfister CA, Mark Welch JL. Spatial organization of the kelp microbiome at micron scales. Microbiome. 2022. Dec;10(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s40168-022-01235-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berry HD, Mumford TF, Christiaen B, Dowty P, Calloway M, Ferrier L, et al. Long-term changes in kelp forests in an inner basin of the Salish Sea. Chapman M (Gee) G, editor. PLoS One. 2021. Feb 17;16(2):e0229703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pfister CA, Berry HD, Mumford T. The dynamics of kelp forests in the Northeast Pacific Ocean and the relationship with environmental drivers. Randall Hughes A, editor. J Ecol. 2018. Jul;106(4):1520–33. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12908 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weigel BL, Pfister CA. The dynamics and stoichiometry of dissolved organic carbon release by kelp. Ecology. 2021. Feb;102(2):e03221. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee C, Bada JL. Dissolved amino acids in the equatorial Pacific, the Sargasso Sea, and Biscayne Bay. Limnol Oceanogr. 1977. May;22(3):502–10. doi: 10.4319/lo.1977.22.3.0502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kuznetsova M, Lee C, Aller J, Frew N. Enrichment of amino acids in the sea surface microlayer at coastal and open ocean sites in the North Atlantic Ocean. Limnol Oceanogr. 2004. Sep;49(5):1605–19. doi: 10.4319/lo.2004.49.5.1605 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sacks JS, Heal KR, Boysen AK, Carlson LT, Ingalls AE. Quantification of dissolved metabolites in environmental samples through cation‐exchange solid‐phase extraction paired with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2022. Nov;20(11):683–700. doi: 10.1002/lom3.10513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Commission IO. Protocols for the joint global ocean flux study (JGOFS) core measurements. [Internet]. UNESCO-IOC for IODE; 1994. Available from: https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/220. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lipschultz F. Isotope tracer methods for studies of the marine nitrogen cycle. In: Capone DG, Bronk DA, Mulholland MR, Carpenter EJ (eds). Nitrogen in the marine environment (2nd Edition). 2008. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1345–1384. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pfister CA, Altabet MA. Enhanced microbial nitrogen transformations in association with macrobiota from the rocky intertidal. Biogeosciences. 2019. Jan 18;16(2):193–206. doi: 10.5194/bg-16-193-2019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pather S, Pfister CA, Post DM, Altabet MA. Ammonium cycling in the rocky intertidal: Remineralization, removal, and retention. Limnol Oceanogr. 2014. Mar;59(2):361–72. doi: 10.4319/lo.2014.59.2.0361 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Minich JJ, Morris MM, Brown M, Doane M, Edwards MS, Michael TP, et al. Elevated temperature drives kelp microbiome dysbiosis, while elevated carbon dioxide induces water microbiome disruption. Harder T, editor. PLoS One. 2018. Feb 23;13(2):e0192772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shpigel M, Guttman L, Ben-Ezra D, Yu J, Chen S. Is Ulva sp. able to be an efficient biofilter for mariculture effluents? J Appl Phycol. 2019. aug;31(4):2449–59. doi: 10.1007/s10811-019-1748-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Berman T, Bronk D. Dissolved organic nitrogen: a dynamic participant in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2003;31:279–305. doi: 10.3354/ame031279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Magalhäes CM, Wiebe WJ, Joye SB, Bordalo AA. Inorganic nitrogen dynamics in intertidal rocky biofilms and sediments of the Douro River estuary (Portugal). Estuaries. 2005. Aug;28(4):592–607. doi: 10.1007/BF02696070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Crayton MA, Wilson E, Quatrano RS. Sulfation of fucoidan in Fucus embryos: II. Separation from initiation of polar growth. Dev Biol. 1974. Jul;39(1):164–7. doi: 10.1016/S0012-1606(74)80018-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hogsett WE, Quatrano RS. Sulfation of fucoidin in Fucus embryos: III. Required for localization in the rhizoid wall. J Cell Biol. 1978. Sep 1;78(3):866–73. doi: 10.1083/jcb.78.3.866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Brawley SH, Quatrano RS. Sulfation of fucoidan in Fucus embryos: IV. Autoradiographic investigations of fucoidin sulfation and secretion during differentiation and the effect of cytochalasin treatment. Dev Biol. 1979. Dec;73(2):193–205. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(79)90063-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fujisawa S, Hori K, Miyazawa K. Occurrence of L-amino oxidase in the marine red alga Gymnogongrus flabelliformis. Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish. 1982;48(1):97–103. doi: 10.2331/suisan.48.97 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ito K, Hori K, Miyazawa K. Purification and some properties of L-amino acid oxidase from Amphiroa crassissima Yendo. Hydrobiologia. 1987;151: 563–569. doi: 10.1007/BF00046183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Weinberger F, Pohnert G, Berndt M, Bouarab K, Kloareg B, Potin P. Apoplastic oxidation of L-asparagine is involved in the control of the green algal endophyte Acrochaete operculata Correa & Nielsen by the red seaweed Chondrus crispus Stackhouse. J Exp Biol. 2005. May 1;56(415):1317–26. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eri132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Flynn KJ, Butler I. Nitrogen sources for the growth of marine microalgae: role of dissolved free amino acids. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1986;34:281–304. doi: 10.3354/meps034281 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vonk JA, Middelburg JJ, Stapel J, Bouma TJ. Dissolved organic nitrogen uptake by seagrasses. Limnol Oceanogr. 2008. Mar;53(2):542–8. doi: 10.4319/lo.2008.53.2.0542 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Viana IG, Saavedra‐Hortúa DA, Mtolera M, Teichberg M. Different strategies of nitrogen acquisition in two tropical seagrasses under nitrogen enrichment. New Phytol. 2019. Aug;223(3):1217–29. doi: 10.1111/nph.15885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schmitz K, Riffarth W. Carrier mediated uptake of L-leucine by the brown alga Giffordia mitchellae. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 1980. Feb;96(4):311–24. doi: 10.1016/S0044-328X(80)80170-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Probyn TA, McQuaid CD. In-situ measurements of nitrogenous nutrient uptake by kelp (Ecklonia maxima) and phytoplankton in a nitrate-rich upwelling environment. Mar Biol. 1985;88(2):149–54. doi: 10.1007/BF00397162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pfister CA, Altabet MA, Weigel BL. Kelp beds and their local effects on seawater chemistry, productivity, and microbial communities. Bulletin Ecologic Soc America. 2019. Oct;100(4):e02793. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Uku J, Björk M. The distribution of epiphytic algae on three Kenyan seagrass species. S Afr J Bot. 2001. Sep;67(3):475–82. doi: 10.1016/S0254-6299(15)31166-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hickey BM, Banas NS. Oceanography of the U.S. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ocean and estuaries with application to coastal ecology. Estuaries. 2003;26: 1010–1031. doi: 10.1007/BF02803360 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pfister CA, Wootton JT, Neufeld CJ. The relative roles of coastal and oceanic processes in determining physical and chemical characteristics of an intensively sampled nearshore system. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007. Sep;52(5):1767–75. doi: 10.4319/lo.2007.52.5.1767 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wootton JT, Pfister CA. Carbon system measurements and potential climatic drivers at a site of rapidly declining ocean pH. Chin WC, editor. PLoS One. 2012. Dec 28;7(12):e53396. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank Melzner

25 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-16300Ammonification by kelp associated microbes increases ammonium availabilityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hochroth,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Especially, please make sure to expand the method section with respect to amino acid concentrations within your treatments and consider to give more information on microbial composition of kelp-associated microbes. Also, please consider to incorporate older studies mentioned by the reviewers in your discussion and carefully edit the ms.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank Melzner

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4.  We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

    1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

   2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ 

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors!

Your manuscript describes a work that aimed to investigate the role of ammonifying bacteria associated with Nereocystis for nitrogen availability to the host alga. You have combined two different methodological approaches. On the one hand, you determined the uptake rate of 15N into the algae and the release of 15NH4 into the medium in incubation experiments with 15N-labeled amino acids and you observed, that nitrogen from amino acids accumulates within 3 h both in kelp tissue and seawater ammonium. On the other hand, you determined the relative abundance of bacterial genes that can contribute to ammonification in surface swabs of free-living algae and you observed presence such microbiota, but no clear correlation between ammonification and tissue nitrogen. You conclude that microbial ammonification may contribute to the availability of ammonium to kelps. In general, bacterial degradation of amino acids would be expected to contribute to the availability of ammonium to algae such as Nereocystis, but there is little actual evidence to date. Your study supports this expectation and is therefore relevant and should be published. However, I see two problems in your study or its presentation.

(1) The first problem is the fact that you do not provide clear information about the initial concentration of amino acids in your experiments. The experiments were performed with natural sea water, whose amino acid content you could not determine. You write that you assume a concentration of about 1 µmol, because this is the concentration that is mostly mentioned in the literature (which is correct). You then added a mixture of 15N-labeled amino acids to this seawater and this is where the problems start. In l. 120 you write you added 200 µL of a 0.25M stock solution into an incubation chamber containing 2.6 L sea water (l. 110). If I got this right this would mean the initial concentration of labeled amino acids was 19.23 µmol. Yet, in l. 171 you write your initial concentration in the chamber was 0.25M (!) and in line 128 you write the total initial amino acid concentration (labeled and unlabeled) may have been as high as 524.6 µM. These three informations obviously do not match. In addition I was unable to follow the argument you make to explain the last of the three values: You write your addition was 525.43 o/oo of the supposed natural background concentration of 1 µM, together this would be 1.52543 µM rather than 524.6 µM? Please clarify this. Ignoring the natural background if the initial added concentration was 250 mM would be no issue. Ignoring it if the addition was 525.43 nM would be one.

Also, you provide no information on the composition of your labeled amino acids, but this information is important, as not all amino acids are metabolized in the same way.

(2) In the discussion you mention briefly the possibility that Nereocystis itself could contribute to ammonification via amino acid oxidase, but then you dismiss this possibility with the argument that you are simply not aware of any reports of such mechanisms in seaweeds. However, they exist. Please see

Fujisawa et al 1982. Occurence of L-amino acid oxidase in the marine red alga Gymnogongrus flabelliformis. Bulletin of the Japanese Society for Scientific Fisheries 48, 97–103.

Ito et al. 1987. Purification and some properties of L-amino acid oxidase from Amphiroa crassissima Yendo. Hydrobiologia 151/152, 563–569.

Weinberger et al. 2005. Apoplastic oxidation of L-asparagine is involved in the control of the green algal endophyte Acrochaete

operculata Correa & Nielsen by the red seaweed Chondrus crispus Stackhouse. J. Exp. Bot. 56:1317-1326.

In particular the last study seems relevant in your context because the authors demonstrated not only the presence of a cell-wall-located amino acid oxidase that released NH4 from amino acids, but they also observed evidence of an algal uptake of 14C-labelled amino acids within very short time. Obviously such uptake could be another alternative explanation for increasing 15N-tissue concentrations in your study that should not be simply ignored.

If Nereocystis would be capable of amino acid oxidation then this might be tested via measurement of H2O2 medium concentrations after addition of amino acids to the medium. Perhaps something to consider!

Also:

l 388 what is meant with the comment in brackets?

Fig. 4: ANOVA probably in capitals?

Reviewer #2: The extent to which ammonification by kelp microbes increases ammonium availability is an important research question, and so is coastal amino acid concentration.

Line 46-47: I think this information from Hurd and the three refs below may have some information of interest to authors:

Hurd et al. (2nd ed Seaweed Ecology & Physiology, 2014) write (p. 258, 2nd Paragraph, “ There has been only one definitive study on the uptake kinetics of amino acids. Schmitz & Riffarth ..examined…17 amino acids (uptake) by Hincksia mitchelliae…(they) suggested that exogenous amino acids contribute <5% of the N demand by this alga”. But the refs below might suggest more uptake by host proper of amino acids that support development?

Contrast this with:

1. Hogsett & Quatrano. 1978. J. Cell Biol. 78, 866-873.

2. Crayton et al. 1974. Develop. Biol. 39, 164-167.

3. Brawley & Quatrano. 1979. Develop. Biol. 73, 193-205.

Line 93. Please give source of knowledge of previous natural bed at Jefferson Head.

Line 100-101: Why were the numbers of chambers between seawater only and seawater plus kelp not balanced? What effect has this had on your results?

Hasty preparation of ms (examples; there are more in ms so proof carefully!):

Line 122 ---missing comma in compound sentence

Line 123---µM is the correct unit (Not uM): this error is common in figure axes, legends and in text: correct throughout ms.

Line 264: italicize Nereocystis

Line 388: edit by senior author not removed

REFERENCE LIST: References often lack italics for species names OR are EITHER in caps or not etc. PLEASE proof and reformat references, uniformly, to PLoS preferences.

Lines 121-122: The ms would be much stronger if aqueous amino acid concentration had been measured at each site; it may be significantly different between Tatoosh and other sites, especially Jefferson Point?

Lines 129-133: Give seawater temperature at each site during incubations AND PAR levels (µmol m2/s): these all affect your experiments in quantitative ways!

Line 141: What was syringe pore-size? 0.2 µm?

Line 182: µmoles ?

Line 197: CLASI-FISH suggests that swabs are inadequate to sample the microbiome?

LINES 210-213: This sentence is poorly written (and not accurate?).

Line 203: What was DON variation by site?

LINE 222: Add temperature and irradiance levels.

LINE 257: Easier to be confident in “outlier” elimination if sample sizes were higher.

LINES 271-285: I find it unsatisfying to not have a better description of the composition of the microbiomes from the 3 sites. Perhaps this information is in an earlier (related), published paper? If so, please ensure it is transparent here; if not, please consider adding at a minimum a bar graph and full list of taxonomic assignments for ASVs.

LINE 272-276: IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER THE NUMBER OF BACTERIA DIFFERS BETWEEN SITES OR THE NUMBER OF GENES/ASV.

Line 311: Nereocystis is not a plant. It is a member of the Stramenopila supergroup.

Lines 328-335: See comments at beginning of this review, and read Hurd et al. (2nd ed) Chapter6, especially 6.5.1 (Nitrogen) and revise.

LINES 348-358: Differences in DON (not measured) across sites, and selection for different microbiomes, could contribute significantly, too.

LINES 368-371: Yes!

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 29;19(3):e0296622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296622.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Oct 2023

Dear Dr. Melzner:

We are grateful to receive two expert reviews and thank both reviewers for insightful comments on our manuscript, PONE-D-23-16300, “Ammonification by kelp associated microbes increases ammonium availability”. We have revised the manuscript based on these comments and are pleased to resubmit this improved version for your inspection. We detail our revisions below.

Editor Melzner:

Especially, please make sure to expand the method section with respect to amino acid concentrations within your treatments and consider to give more information on microbial composition of kelp-associated microbes. Also, please consider to incorporate older studies mentioned by the reviewers in your discussion and carefully edit the ms.

Our revisions are detailed below and address the overall concerns by the Editor.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Our Ethics Statement is now included at the end of the Methods (L207).

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

We have added the location of the minimal data set to the Data Availability Statement (L421). Data can be found in the Figshare repository at the following url: https://figshare.com/projects/Plos_One_Nereocystis_Ammonification/180562

There are no legal restrictions to making the data public.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

We have updated Figure 1 to use map data exclusively from Natural Earth, which is public domain. The map was created with QGIS 3.32.3, an open source mapping software. There should be no copyright concerns remaining. The data source has also been added to the caption of Figure 1 (L105).

______________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #1: Dear authors!

Your manuscript describes a work that aimed to investigate the role of ammonifying bacteria associated with Nereocystis for nitrogen availability to the host alga. You have combined two different methodological approaches. On the one hand, you determined the uptake rate of 15N into the algae and the release of 15NH4 into the medium in incubation experiments with 15N-labeled amino acids and you observed, that nitrogen from amino acids accumulates within 3 h both in kelp tissue and seawater ammonium. On the other hand, you determined the relative abundance of bacterial genes that can contribute to ammonification in surface swabs of free-living algae and you observed presence such microbiota, but no clear correlation between ammonification and tissue nitrogen. You conclude that microbial ammonification may contribute to the availability of ammonium to kelps. In general, bacterial degradation of amino acids would be expected to contribute to the availability of ammonium to algae such as Nereocystis, but there is little actual evidence to date. Your study supports this expectation and is therefore relevant and should be published. However, I see two problems in your study or its presentation.

(1) The first problem is the fact that you do not provide clear information about the initial concentration of amino acids in your experiments. The experiments were performed with natural sea water, whose amino acid content you could not determine. You write that you assume a concentration of about 1 µmol, because this is the concentration that is mostly mentioned in the literature (which is correct). You then added a mixture of 15N-labeled amino acids to this seawater and this is where the problems start. In l. 120 you write you added 200 µL of a 0.25M stock solution into an incubation chamber containing 2.6 L sea water (l. 110). If I got this right this would mean the initial concentration of labeled amino acids was 19.23 µmol. Yet, in l. 171 you write your initial concentration in the chamber was 0.25M (!) and in line 128 you write the total initial amino acid concentration (labeled and unlabeled) may have been as high as 524.6 µM. These three informations obviously do not match. In addition I was unable to follow the argument you make to explain the last of the three values: You write your addition was 525.43 o/oo of the supposed natural background concentration of 1 µM, together this would be 1.52543 µM rather than 524.6 µM? Please clarify this. Ignoring the natural background if the initial added concentration was 250 mM would be no issue. Ignoring it if the addition was 525.43 nM would be one.

Also, you provide no information on the composition of your labeled amino acids, but this information is important, as not all amino acids are metabolized in the same way.

We regret our confusing presentation on the concentration of amino acids and thank the reviewer for catching this. The amount added to the 2.6L chambers was 200µL of a 0.025M (we mistakenly wrote 0.25M in the original ms), so the concentration of 15N amino acids was 1.92 µM. We have corrected the text (L120), but this did not affect our original uptake calculations.

The amino acids that are present are important, although we do not know amino acid specific metabolisms. The mix that we used (cited in the paper as Cambridge Isotope Labs, product# NLM-2161, Lot# PR-24163) is a mix of 16 amino acids, with leucine, glutamic acid and alanine contributing the most and making up the greatest percentage 37% of the total. The amino acids valine, phenylalanine, isoleucine, aspartic acid, glycine, threonine, proline, tyrosine, arginine, lysine, serine, methionine, histadine all composed between 2 and 9%. We now include that information in the Methods (L124-128), though we recognize that how these amino acids were individually metabolized remains unknown.

(2) In the discussion you mention briefly the possibility that Nereocystis itself could contribute to ammonification via amino acid oxidase, but then you dismiss this possibility with the argument that you are simply not aware of any reports of such mechanisms in seaweeds. However, they exist. Please see

Fujisawa et al 1982. Occurence of L-amino acid oxidase in the marine red alga Gymnogongrus flabelliformis. Bulletin of the Japanese Society for Scientific Fisheries 48, 97–103.

Ito et al. 1987. Purification and some properties of L-amino acid oxidase from Amphiroa crassissima Yendo. Hydrobiologia 151/152, 563–569.

Weinberger et al. 2005. Apoplastic oxidation of L-asparagine is involved in the control of the green algal endophyte Acrochaete

operculata Correa & Nielsen by the red seaweed Chondrus crispus Stackhouse. J. Exp. Bot. 56:1317-1326.

In particular the last study seems relevant in your context because the authors demonstrated not only the presence of a cell-wall-located amino acid oxidase that released NH4 from amino acids, but they also observed evidence of an algal uptake of 14C-labelled amino acids within very short time. Obviously such uptake could be another alternative explanation for increasing 15N-tissue concentrations in your study that should not be simply ignored.

We note that these are interesting and relevant studies and have incorporated them into our manuscript. We agree that we cannot dispute the presence of amino acid oxidases in the host bull kelp and that their presence would increase d15N in the host or microbiome. We expanded our Discussion to incorporate this literature and the suggestion of amino acid uptake and amino acid oxidases (Discussion L331-333). However, the Fuijsawa et al. paper, as well as the Ito et al. paper - though interesting - do not consider nor provide proof that microbial enzymes were important. We emphasize that the strongest inference for host amino acid oxidases will continue to come from stable isotope analyses and detailed imaging in tandem with whole genome sequences of the host. We hope our reported results inspire more investigation in this area.

If Nereocystis would be capable of amino acid oxidation then this might be tested via measurement of H2O2 medium concentrations after addition of amino acids to the medium. Perhaps something to consider!

Indeed, it would be interesting to know if bacteria elicited the same response in the host that the endophytic green alga did, as in Weinberger 2005. Antibiotics would also be an interesting future manipulation in this system.

Also:

l 388 what is meant with the comment in brackets?

Apologies. It was a missed citation.

Fig. 4: ANOVA probably in capitals?

Yes, ANOVA is now capitalized on Figure 4.

______________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #2: The extent to which ammonification by kelp microbes increases ammonium availability is an important research question, and so is coastal amino acid concentration.

agreed.

Line 46-47: I think this information from Hurd and the three refs below may have some information of interest to authors:

Hurd et al. (2nd ed Seaweed Ecology & Physiology, 2014) write (p. 258, 2nd Paragraph, “ There has been only one definitive study on the uptake kinetics of amino acids. Schmitz & Riffarth ..examined…17 amino acids (uptake) by Hincksia mitchelliae…(they) suggested that exogenous amino acids contribute <5% of the N demand by this alga”. But the refs below might suggest more uptake by host proper of amino acids that support development?

The Schmitz and Riffarth paper, though interesting, did not specifically state they had axenic cultures nor did they assay or quantify bacteria, making it unclear whether the amino acid Leucine was taken up solely by the alga. The references below are more suggestive.

Contrast this with:

1. Hogsett & Quatrano. 1978. J. Cell Biol. 78, 866-873.

2. Crayton et al. 1974. Develop. Biol. 39, 164-167.

3. Brawley & Quatrano. 1979. Develop. Biol. 73, 193-205.

We thank Rev 2 for these highly relevant citations. As we state above, it is difficult to have strong inference for host uptake of amino acids or amino acid oxidases independent of associated microbes. However, we appreciate these developmental studies given their use of isotopes and microscopy and they do provide inference of amino acid uptake. We cite these on L333.

Line 93. Please give source of knowledge of previous natural bed at Jefferson Head.

The knowledge of a kelp bed at Jefferson Head is based on oral history from the Suquamish Tribe and is thus indigenous in origin. We cannot find a published account of this, but tribal elders recall bull kelp at this site and that was a dominant reason for the private group, Puget Sound Restoration Fund, situating the restoration there and the state of Washington approving it.

Line 100-101: Why were the numbers of chambers between seawater only and seawater plus kelp not balanced? What effect has this had on your results?

We had fewer controls because we know from previous work that seawater only is less dynamic in carbon and nitrogen fluctuations compared with chambers with kelp. We duplicated the chambers containing seawater only to estimate and subtract this change due only to seawater from what we quantified due to the presence of a kelp blade. The ‘unbalanced’ number of chambers was not used in a strict ANOVA design, for example. Instead, duplicate controls in the field allowed us to quantify and control for background seawater activity at each site.

Hasty preparation of ms (examples; there are more in ms so proof carefully!):

Line 122 ---missing comma in compound sentence

Corrected with comma inserted (L129).

Line 123---µM is the correct unit (Not uM): this error is common in figure axes, legends and in text: correct throughout ms.

We understand, though sometimes it is less error prone to insert symbol fonts when ‘u’ is understood to be ‘micro’ in some journals. We will insert the more precise µM.

Line 264: italicize Nereocystis

Corrected.

Line 388: edit by senior author not removed

Corrected.

REFERENCE LIST: References often lack italics for species names OR are EITHER in caps or not etc. PLEASE proof and reformat references, uniformly, to PLoS preferences.

Corrected.

Lines 121-122: The ms would be much stronger if aqueous amino acid concentration had been measured at each site; it may be significantly different between Tatoosh and other sites, especially Jefferson Point?

Agreed, though we simply do not have this information and quantifying amino acids is a complex and expensive undertaking, given the numerous amino acids and their presence as both total and free amino acid forms. We hope that by highlighting the potential importance of amino acids, there is increased funding and motivation to measure them accurately.

Lines 129-133: Give seawater temperature at each site during incubations AND PAR levels (µmol m2/s): these all affect your experiments in quantitative ways!

We have added the PAR and temperature values at the day and time of the incubation to Table 1 (L228). We incubated in natural light and with ambient temperatures.

Line 141: What was syringe pore-size? 0.2 µm?

Whatman gf/f are 0.7 µm and that is what we used. This has been added to the Methods section at L148.

Line 182: µmoles?

Yes, corrected

Line 197: CLASI-FISH suggests that swabs are inadequate to sample the microbiome?

CLASI-FISH does suggest that there are microbes that are under the surface kelp cells, though it is still unclear if they are different genera and/or strains compared to those in the biofilm.

LINES 210-213: This sentence is poorly written (and not accurate?).

The sentence has been corrected to the following:

“The slope of carbon to nitrogen differed among the three locales (Figure 2a, ANCOVA, p=0.011, F2,21= 5.616), and nitrogen is greatest per unit carbon in Tatoosh kelp blades.” (L219-221)

Line 203: What was DON variation by site?

We regret that we do not have this information, nor what percentage of the DON is amino acids.

LINE 222: Add temperature and irradiance levels.

Temperature and average irradiance levels were added in Table 1 (L228).

LINE 257: Easier to be confident in “outlier” elimination if sample sizes were higher.

Agreed.

LINES 271-285: I find it unsatisfying to not have a better description of the composition of the microbiomes from the 3 sites. Perhaps this information is in an earlier (related), published paper? If so, please ensure it is transparent here; if not, please consider adding at a minimum a bar graph and full list of taxonomic assignments for ASVs.

At the time this study was done, we did not have funding to simultaneously quantify the microbes at these sites. Hence, we use published information from our previous analyses.

LINE 272-276: IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER THE NUMBER OF BACTERIA DIFFERS BETWEEN SITES OR THE NUMBER OF GENES/ASV.

Bacteria were denser and more diverse at Tatoosh than Squaxin. However, the proportional representation of ammonifying genes was similar between sites.

Line 311: Nereocystis is not a plant. It is a member of the Stramenopila supergroup.

Indeed. Replaced with ‘algal’.

Lines 328-335: See comments at beginning of this review, and read Hurd et al. (2nd ed) Chapter6, especially 6.5.1 (Nitrogen) and revise.

We have revised this section of the Discussion, though we note that strong inference of direct amino acid uptake by macroalgae is rare. The Schmitz paper cited does not state whether the alga was in axenic culture, nor were bacteria assayed. Thus, it remains uncertain whether the bull kelp host has the ability to directly take up amino acids. We note this in the Discussion and include: “…more such studies with imaging and isotope incubation, in combination with analysis of seaweed genomes, are needed.” (L341-342).

LINES 348-358: Differences in DON (not measured) across sites, and selection for different microbiomes, could contribute significantly, too.

Agreed, and we note this with a revised statement on L377.

LINES 368-371: Yes!

Agreed.

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Hochroth&Pfister response to reviews_plosone_ammonification.docx

pone.0296622.s003.docx (26.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Frank Melzner

18 Dec 2023

Ammonification by kelp associated microbes increases ammonium availability

PONE-D-23-16300R1

Dear Dr. Hochroth,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Please make sure to incorporate the very helpful suggestions / explanations reviewer 2 supplied.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Frank Melzner

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Typo in l. 329: rhidoid, not rhizoil

#####################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################

Reviewer #2: See attachment (if this isn't present, please immediately write me for it). It did not copy/paste accurately in this space.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Frank Melzner

21 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-16300R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hochroth,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank Melzner

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Experimental chamber schematic.

    A schematic of the hypothesized movement of enriched 15N in experimental chambers containing Nereocystis when added as 15N amino acids. Red arrows denote those we have quantified, including the microbially-mediated transfer of 15N from amino acids to ammonium via ammonification, a process that could have been done by host-associated or free-living microbes. Chambers without host kelp quantified water column ammonification only. The 15N measured in hosts was assumed to come from this ammonification. The dashed line shows bacterial uptake of ammonium that might have occurred but was not quantified.

    (TIF)

    pone.0296622.s001.tif (273.4KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Nitrogen uptake vs. ammonification.

    Nitrogen uptake rate (in μmol) vs. ammonification rate (in nmol) for Nereocystis sampling locations. Linear regressions indicated a significant positive association between ammonification and nitrogen Uptake in bull kelp (p = 0.024, r2 = 0.389). The bands around the regression line represents the 95% confidence interval.

    (TIF)

    pone.0296622.s002.tif (366.7KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Hochroth&Pfister response to reviews_plosone_ammonification.docx

    pone.0296622.s003.docx (26.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The metagenome data are published are available at NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, accession no. PRJNA783443. The minimal dataset underlying the results can be found at Figshare: https://figshare.com/projects/Plos_One_Nereocystis_Ammonification/180562. All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES