Table 1.
Changes in phylum relative abundances with soil types and treatments, with Proteobacteria shown by Class and Actinobacteria by Order.
| “Phylum” | % on Harsh | Soil preference | % change +nutrients | Statistical change +nutrients | % change +precip | Statistical change +precip |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Euryarchaeota | 68.2 | Harsh | −71.8 | decrease | −30.2 | |
| FBP | 59.7 | Harsh | −25.9 | −13.7 | ||
| [Parvarchaeota] | 59.0 | Harsh | −47.0 | decrease | 41.2 | increase |
| Actinobacteria: 0319-7L14 | 56.9 | Harsh | −38.8 | decrease | 18.2 | |
| OD1 | 52.3 | Harsh | −18.3 | 68.6 | increase | |
| OP3 | 47.4 | Harsh | −27.8 | 28.5 | ||
| Nitrospirae | 45.3 | Harsh | 48.0 | increase | 20.2 | increase |
| Actinobacteria: Acidimicrobiales | 41.7 | Harsh | −24.8 | decrease | 0.8 | |
| Acidobacteria | 40.0 | Harsh | −5.2 | −3.3 | ||
| Chlamydiae | 39.9 | Harsh | 22.8 | 76.2 | increase | |
| Actinobacteria: Rubrobacterales | 40.9 | Harsh, Lush | −27.5 | decrease | 15.5 | |
| Chlorobi | 38.0 | Harsh, Lush | 10.4 | 24.5 | increase | |
| Bacteroidetes | 27.6 | Lush | 22.3 | increase | −7.8 | |
| Actinobacteria: Actinomycetales | 24.5 | Lush | 35.0 | increase | −19.7 | decrease |
| Fibrobacteres | 22.3 | Lush | 174.2 | increase | 22.9 | |
| Actinobacteria: Micrococcales | 21.3 | Lush | −11.3 | 67.2 | increase | |
| Betaproteobacteria | 25.8 | Lush, Non | 36.2 | increase | −21.4 | decrease |
| Deltaproteobacteria | 25.8 | Lush, Non | 18.6 | increase | 28.7 | increase |
| Gammaproteobacteria | 19.2 | Lush, Non | 60.1 | increase | 47.1 | increase |
| WS3 | 14.9 | Lush, Non | 15.1 | 47.5 | increase | |
| Verrucomicrobia | 29.2 | Non | −11.0 | decrease | −9.4 | decrease |
| Alphaproteobacteria | 28.7 | Non | 14.5 | increase | −11.9 | decrease |
| Firmicutes | 22.6 | Non | 5.7 | −38.8 | decrease | |
| Crenarchaeota | 44.3 | – | −9.7 | 61.1 | increase | |
| Cyanobacteria | 43.0 | – | −12.1 | 94.6 | increase | |
| Actinobacteria: Gaiellales | 41.9 | – | −19.5 | decrease | 26.2 | increase |
| Actinobacteria: Solirubrobacterales | 36.7 | – | −18.1 | decrease | −1.0 | |
| TM7 | 35.5 | – | −7.0 | 9.9 | ||
| Gemmatimonadetes | 35.3 | – | 7.6 | 17.5 | increase | |
| BRC1 | 34.0 | – | −5.3 | 5.0 | ||
| Armatimonadetes | 33.8 | – | −8.5 | −21.8 | decrease | |
| Elusimicrobia | 33.3 | – | 7.8 | 0.9 | ||
| Chloroflexi | 32.7 | – | −10.2 | decrease | 7.4 | |
| Planctomycetes | 32.0 | – | −7.5 | 2.9 | ||
| TM6 | 30.5 | – | 43.9 | 171.9 | increase | |
| Tenericutes | 26.7 | – | −29.1 | decrease | −36.9 | decrease |
Phyla are grouped by soil preference, then by descending % on harsh serpentine. “Harsh” refers to harsh serpentine, “Lush” to lush serpentine, and “Non” to non-serpentine. Statistical changes indicate p < 0.05 main effects from models analyzing effects of soil type, nutrient treatment, precipitation treatment, and all interactions on relative abundance of each phylum, controlling for false discovery rate per Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001). Significant decreases in relative abundance are highlighted in red and significant increases in relative abundance are highlighted in green. Phyla with ≤ 0.01% relative abundance are not shown.