Both space and time are key factors that regulate microbial community, but microbial temporal variation is often ignored at a large spatial scale. In this study, we compared spatial and seasonal effects on bacterial and fungal diversity variation across an 878-km transect and found direct evidence that space is far more important than season in regulating the soil microbial community. Partitioning the effect of season, space and environmental variables on microbial community, we further found that fast-changing environmental factors contributed to microbial temporal variation.
KEYWORDS: bacterial community, fungal community, space, season, spatiotemporal variation
ABSTRACT
The relative importance of spatial and temporal variability in shaping the distribution of soil microbial communities at a large spatial scale remains poorly understood. Here, we explored the relative importance of space versus time when predicting the distribution of soil bacterial and fungal communities across North China Plain in two contrasting seasons (summer versus winter). Although we found that microbial alpha (number of phylotypes) and beta (changes in community composition) diversities differed significantly between summer and winter, space rather than season explained more of the spatiotemporal variation of soil microbial alpha and beta diversities. Environmental covariates explained some of microbial spatiotemporal variation observed, with fast-changing environmental covariates—climate variables, soil moisture, and available nutrient—likely being the main factors that drove the seasonal variation found in bacterial and fungal beta diversities. Using random forest modeling, we further identified a group of microbial exact sequence variants (ESVs) as indicators of summer and winter seasons and for which relative abundance was associated with fast-changing environmental variables (e.g., soil moisture and dissolved organic nitrogen). Together, our empirical field study’s results suggest soil microbial seasonal variation could arise from the changes of fast-changing environmental variables, thus providing integral support to the large emerging body of snapshot studies related to microbial biogeography.
IMPORTANCE Both space and time are key factors that regulate microbial community, but microbial temporal variation is often ignored at a large spatial scale. In this study, we compared spatial and seasonal effects on bacterial and fungal diversity variation across an 878-km transect and found direct evidence that space is far more important than season in regulating the soil microbial community. Partitioning the effect of season, space and environmental variables on microbial community, we further found that fast-changing environmental factors contributed to microbial temporal variation.
INTRODUCTION
Microbial communities regulate vital soil processes, such as nutrient cycling, decomposition rates, and pathogenesis, all of which are fundamental for plant productivity in croplands and natural ecosystems (1, 2). The distribution and ecological drivers of bacteria and fungi are well studied (3) from local to global scales (4, 5). Much less is known, however, of the temporal variability of microbial communities at large spatial scales, as most previous large-scale studies have overlooked potential effects of time in their experimental design, often using samples collected at a single point in time (6–8). Consequently, the relative importance of spatial heterogeneity versus time for driving microbial community composition remains largely unexplored at large spatial scales.
Striking seasonal variation in the soil microbial community and processes at a single or several sampling locations has been well documented for decades, and patterns are commonly attributed to key regulatory factors, such as moisture, temperature, nutrient content, and plant carbon allocation (9–13). Previous studies have provided critical knowledge of major temporal patterns and ecological drivers of local microbial seasonality (14, 15). Yet, much less is known about the relative importance of seasonality and spatial heterogeneity in predicting the distribution of soil microbial communities. Recent meta-data surveys that synthesized spatial and temporal studies from different sites to better understand the biogeographic distribution of microbial communities have highlighted temporal variation as an implication of spatial variation, suggesting both are crucial aspects of microbial biogeography (16, 17). But those meta-analysis studies collected data sets in which either the effect of spatial variation or temporal variation was examined, which could cause site-specific confounding factors, thus obscuring the result interpretation. Hence, it is essential to focus on both spatial and temporal dynamics at the same study sites when trying to disentangle drivers of microbial distributions.
Here, we hypothesized that spatial heterogeneity would be much more important for controlling the alpha and beta diversities of soil microbes than the effect of contrasting seasons (i.e., winter versus summer). In other words, large differences in soil properties across plots are stronger predictors for the distribution of microbial communities than the changes in seasonality they experienced. The reasoning here is that soil microbial communities such as bacteria and fungi are well known to be driven by slow-changing soil properties, such as pH and total organic carbon across large spatial scales (3, 4, 18). These soil properties take from centuries to millions of years to change (19), making them very stable with respect to time. Of course, seasonality could still predict a reduced portion of the variation in microbial communities’ distributions that is closely associated with climate factors; in this way, fast-changing soil attributes, such as soil moisture, soil processes, and nutrient pools, which are known to change over days or weeks, are likely better able to predict changes in microbial communities over shorter time periods (days to months). For example, soil moisture is well known to influence the community composition and activity of microbial communities in drying and rewetting processes (20, 21).
To test our hypothesis, we collected soil samples across 45 locations along a ca. 878-km transect during two contrasting seasons (winter versus summer) and used amplicon sequencing to measure soil bacterial and fungal communities. In this way, a total of 90 topsoil samples were collected in wheat croplands across North China Plain. There are two good reasons for choosing wheat fields to investigate spatiotemporal distributions of soil-dwelling microbes. (i) Wheat is among the most economically and functionally important crops globally; therefore, more information on its associated microbial communities is of paramount importance. (ii) By focusing on single plant species (wheat), we could remove the noise derived from having different plant species, which are known to be important drivers of microbial communities at large spatial scales (22).
RESULTS
Spatiotemporal distribution of environmental variables.
Among the 12 measured environmental variables, slow-changing environmental factors such as pH, total phosphorus (TP), and total potassium (TK) were highly localized: 87% (P < 0.01), 62.6% (P < 0.01), and 64.5% (P < 0.01) of their respective variation was explained by sampling sites alone. In contrast, fast-changing environmental factors, such as soil moisture (SM; R2 = 0.237, P < 0.01), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON; R2 = 0.249, P < 0.01), average monthly temperature (Tem; R2 = 0.962, P < 0.01), and average monthly precipitation (Pre, R2 = 0.352, P < 0.01), were largely influenced by the seasons. In winter, SM and DON were significantly higher, yet Tem and Pre were significantly lower, than summer (see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). All the environmental variables were found to be significantly affected by the sampling sites, and environmental dissimilarity significantly increased with geographic distance in both winter and summer (see Fig. S3).
Spatiotemporal distribution of the soil microbial community.
For the Illumina MiSeq sequencing, 2,053,526 high-quality sequences with 12,381 exact sequence variants (ESVs) and 4,534,055 high-quality sequences with 3,308 ESVs were obtained for the 16S rRNA V4 region and ITS2 region, respectively. At a 99% taxonomy identity threshold, most sequences of 16S rRNA were mainly assigned to Actinobacteria (22.19%), Acidobacteria (14.07%), and Proteobacteria (39.44%) at the phylum level (see Fig. S4a), and ITS2 sequences were mainly assigned to Dothideomycetes (17.04%), Sordariomycetes (48.37%), and Agaricomycetes (7.85%) at the class level (Fig. S4b).
For microbial alpha diversity, season explained 25.2% and 17.2% of the variation, and site explained 38.4% and 23.1% of the variation in soil bacteria and fungi, respectively (Fig. 1a and b). Even though the alpha diversity (the number of ESVs) of bacteria at ZhaoXian (ZX) and PingDu (PD) sites were similar between winter and summer and that of fungi at ShangCai (SC) was significantly higher in winter than in summer, the overall trend in bacterial and fungal alpha diversities was one of being significantly lower in winter than in summer (see Fig. S5). When considering microbial beta diversity (changes in species composition between sites) based on the abundance-related Bray-Curtis distance, we found that site explained 39.6% of bacterial variance and 36.1% of fungal variance, while season only explained 6.1% of bacterial variance and 6.7% of fungal variance (Fig. 1c and d). For microbial beta diversity based on the presence/absence-related Jaccard distance, we also found a much greater site effect than season effect, in which 29.5% of bacterial variance and 27.5% of fungal variance were explained by site, while only 4.8% of bacterial variance and 4.9% of fungal variance were explained by season (see Fig. S6). Despite the soil microbial community showing separation by winter and summer at each site (see Fig. S7 and S8), these divergences were swamped by the impact of sampling sites. In all, we found a stronger geographic location effect than seasonal effect upon both microbial alpha and beta diversity estimates. Exploring the relationship between microbial community similarity and geographic distance, we detected significant distance-decay relationships for bacteria and fungi in both winter and summer. Surprisingly, both bacterial and fungal communities showed higher turnover rates in winter than in summer (Fig. 2a and c). The slight decline in microbial similarity with environmental distance (Euclidean distance between sites based on the measured environmental variables) (Fig. 2b and d) indicated that those environmental variables covarying with season and space could explain part of the observed microbial spatiotemporal variation along the large-scale transect.
Role of environmental variables in shaping microbial spatiotemporal distributions.
According to the stepwise multiple regression models, environmental variables were able to explain 57% and 31% of the variation in bacterial and fungal alpha diversities, respectively (see Table S1). The environmental variables pH, available potassium (AK), total nitrogen (TN), TK, and Tem were the main factors which induced the shift in bacterial alpha diversity, while DON, available phosphorus (AP), and Tem were those that most changed fungal alpha diversity. Linking microbial beta diversity with environmental variables, we found that pH, which is a highly localized variable, was the main factor involved in shaping both bacterial and fungal beta diversities (see Table S2).
Given that environmental variables changed across space and between seasons, using variation partitioning models let us tease apart the independent effects of season, spatial distance, and environmental variables upon the spatiotemporal dynamics of microbial beta diversity. For the bacterial community, we found that spatial distance, season, and environmental variables together explained 32% of its variations (Fig. 3). The effect of pure space explained 5% of bacterial spatiotemporal variation, whereas that of pure season did not influence the bacterial spatiotemporal distribution; when combined with fast-changing environmental factors, season did explain 5% of this variation. For the fungal community, 9% of its variation was explained by the effect of pure space, while that of pure season explained just 1% of fungal spatiotemporal dynamics. The fast-changing environmental factors were the main driver of fungal seasonal variation in that they explained 6% of it (Fig. 3).
Partial correlations via redundancy analysis (Table 1) showed that season explained 2.2% of bacterial variation (P = 0.001) and 2.8% of fungal variation (P = 0.001) when holding the space effect constant. However, when controlling the season effect, space accounted for 15.5% of the bacterial variation (P = 0.001) and 16.8% of the fungal variation (P = 0.001). Because environmental factors shift across space and over time, they are likely the drivers for the microbial spatial and temporal variation in this study’s data set. When controlling the effect of fast-changing environmental variables, season explained a negligible 0.6% of bacterial variation (P = 0.012) and 0.7% of fungal variation (P = 0.004), whereas space explained 11.6% of this bacterial variation (P = 0.001) and 12.8% of this fungal variation (P = 0.001). After controlling for the effect of slow-changing environmental attributes, season explained 2.2% of bacterial variation (P = 0.001) and 2.5% of fungal variation (P = 0.001), and space explained 11.1% of bacterial variation (P = 0.001) and 13.1% of fungal variation (P = 0.001). The sharply diminished seasonal effect on microbial spatiotemporal distribution when controlling the contribution of fast-changing environmental factors revealed that the fast-changing factors figure prominently in determining microbial seasonal variation.
TABLE 1.
Variable(s) | Bacteria |
Fungi |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variance | P value | Variance | P value | |
Control space | ||||
Season | 0.022 | 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.001 |
Season+fast | 0.075 | 0.001 | 0.075 | 0.001 |
Season+slow | 0.072 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.001 |
Season+fast+slow | 0.103 | 0.001 | 0.099 | 0.001 |
Control season | ||||
Space | 0.155 | 0.001 | 0.168 | 0.001 |
Space+fast | 0.209 | 0.001 | 0.215 | 0.001 |
Space+slow | 0.205 | 0.001 | 0.208 | 0.001 |
Space+fast+slow | 0.237 | 0.001 | 0.24 | 0.001 |
Control fast | ||||
Season | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Season+slow | 0.056 | 0.001 | 0.051 | 0.001 |
Space | 0.116 | 0.001 | 0.128 | 0.001 |
Space+slow | 0.145 | 0.001 | 0.153 | 0.001 |
Control slow | ||||
Season | 0.022 | 0.001 | 0.025 | 0.001 |
Season+fast | 0.069 | 0.001 | 0.079 | 0.001 |
Space | 0.111 | 0.001 | 0.131 | 0.001 |
Space+fast | 0.158 | 0.001 | 0.181 | 0.001 |
Permutation testing was used to assess the significance of the constraints. Fast, fast-changing environmental variables, namely, soil moisture, dissolved organic nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, dissolved organic carbon, average monthly temperature, and average monthly precipitation; Slow, slow-changing environmental variables, namely, pH, organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total potassium.
Finally, a random forest model was used to distinguish those microbial ESVs which could discriminate microbial community in the winter and summer. Ranked by their importance value, the top 20 bacterial ESVs mainly belonged to Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria (Fig. 4a), while the top 20 fungal ESVs mainly belonged to Sordariomycetes (Fig. 4b). The relative abundance of those ESVs was strongly correlated with the fast-changing environmental properties SM, DON, Tem, and Pre (Fig. 4). This result also implied that seasonal variations in soil bacterial and fungal communities were mainly induced by fast-changing environmental variables.
DISCUSSION
Many studies investigating soil microbial communities through time at the local scale have revealed large temporal variability in their structures (23, 24), while the unexplained variation of large-scale biogeographic studies sampled over months or years (4, 5, 7) can be attributed to temporal variance. However, few large-spatial-scale studies of soil microbial biogeography actually sample the same locations at multiple times. In this study, we investigated the spatiotemporal patterns of soil bacterial and fungal communities along ca. 878-km in two contrasting seasons, because doing so can help to evaluate the independent effects of time and space upon microbial community variations. Our results provide solid empirical evidence that spatial heterogeneity is, by far, more important than seasonality for predicting the spatiotemporal variation that characterizes the microbial alpha and beta diversity of the studied landscape. Crucially, our work showed that seasonal variation in microbial community composition was driven by fast-changing environmental factors.
Although a few studies did point out that sampling time is less important than sampling space on microbial community distributions over a large spatial scale (25, 26), since microbial communities can differ even on the scale of meters or even centimeters (27), no study to date provided the direct evidence required to compare the effects of temporal and spatial dynamics on soil microbial community distributions on a large spatial scale. Here, we provided field evidence that demonstrates spatial variability exceeded seasonal variability on both bacterial and fungal spatiotemporal distributions when assessed at a large spatial scale. However, the temporal signals could have been masked by the presence of relic DNA (DNA released from dead microbes) in our data. For example, in a study designed to disentangle the relationships of spatial, temporal, and relic DNA effects on soil microbial communities on opposite hillslopes in Colorado (USA), removing relic DNA from soil led to greater temporal variations (13). In our study, total bacterial and fungal DNA was investigated without considering the effect of relic DNA, which might underestimate the true extent of temporal variation in microbial community dynamics.
We also uncovered evidence indicating that fast-changing environmental factors underpin the mechanisms responsible for soil microbial seasonal variation in North China Plain. Many previous studies that focused on seasonal variation in microbial composition implicate that it is often induced by availability of nutrients, temperature, and moisture (28, 29). However, not all taxa within the microbial community are equally sensitive to temporal changes in the environment (30). In our study, we detected certain taxa that contributed to the discrimination of winter and summer microbial communities, most of them being Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Sordariomycetes, all of which had strong relationships to the fast-changing environmental variables of soil moisture, dissolved organic nitrogen, temperature, and precipitation. Those temporally sensitive microbial taxa also support the findings that microbial temporal variations were regulated by fast-changing environmental variables. According to their life strategies, the Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria have been assigned as copiotrophic bacteria (31). So, it is not surprising to find that those copiotrophic bacteria responded to altered soil moisture, temperature, and precipitation conditions, because their sensitivity to the first of these factors in particular has already been demonstrated (32, 33). Compared with microbial temporal variation, microbial spatial variation is often affected by pH, an endemic soil property, in both nature and agricultural ecosystems (34–36). Covariate environmental factors likely were not the main mechanisms shaping microbial spatial variation, as we found that controlling for their effects only marginally reduced the spatial effect. More than 60% of the variations in microbial composition were not explained by season, spatial distance, or environmental variables in our study. The possible reason for this result might be the existence of other unmeasured environmental factors that vary in space and time (16, 17), including biotic interactions such as competition, mutualism, and predation between microbial taxa (37, 38) and ecological processes such as dormancy and persistence traits of microbial communities and their members (8).
Nonetheless, the bacterial and fungal communities both attained higher species richness in the summer; they showed lower spatial turnover than in winter. Microbial taxonomic richness is known to reflect metabolic diversity (39). Thus, the greater species diversity in summer probably arose from high enzyme activity promoted by favorable temperatures and light conditions characteristic of that season (40). The higher similarity in community compositions across locations in summer versus winter suggests that despite the higher richness of soil microbes in this season, many of these microbes could be found across different locations, thereby reducing the beta diversity of these organisms at the regional scale. Even though fungi and bacteria displayed similar degrees of spatiotemporal variation in this study, the respective influence of environment and spatial distance upon bacterial and fungal alpha and beta diversities was distinct. Environmental variables were able to explain nearly twice the variation in bacterial than in fungal alpha diversity; this might suggest that fungal communities are less responsive to seasonal changes than bacteria. However, spatial distance exerted a larger effect on the beta diversity of fungi than on that of bacteria. The weaker environmental effect on fungal alpha diversity coupled to the stronger spatial effect on fungal beta diversity could be linked and tied to the fact that bacteria are more apt to be affected by local changes in soil properties (25), while the evolved life history of fungi (hyphae formations and viable durable spores) make them more tolerant of sudden environmental changes (41). Moreover, the generally greater individual body size of fungal than bacterial members of the community would entail more severe dispersal limitations (42, 43). This could result in larger spatial distance effect as well as the priority effect—those microorganisms first arriving at a site for colonization can significantly affect the establishment of later arriving species—which would have greater influence on the fungal community than on the bacterial community (41, 44), thus contributing to the larger spatial effect we found in China.
Although the soil microbial community showed clear seasonal variability within sampling sites, the effect of spatial heterogeneity was far more important than season in regulating the compositions of both bacteria and fungi at the large spatial scale. Fast-changing environmental factors affected by time were thus contributing to the mechanisms driving microbial temporal variation. These results indicate that, to some extent, microbial distribution patterns at a large spatial scale can be roughly predicted by using data obtained in snapshot studies, since the temporal variation may be explained by environmental factors. But caution should be taken when interpreting our results, given that only two time points, summer and winter, were included in our study. In the temperate zone, plant productivity peaks in the summer because of the favorable temperature and light conditions, whereas photosynthate inputs are considered negligible in winter when it is cold and there is too little light (15). Accordingly, examining only those two seasons would probably lead to the most pronounced environmental difference in natural ecosystems. However, crop management practice time points (e.g., fertilization, planting, and harvest of wheat) could also have induced significant changes in microbial temporal variation (45, 46) in the wheat field landscape studied here. The limited time points used in this study might thus underestimate true microbial temporal variation; hence, more time points should be included when designing future similar studies (including those of microbial biogeography). To conclude, investigations of soil microbial ecology in both space and time are those which are most likely to provide a richer comprehensive understanding of the key factors regulating the biodiversity of the soil ecosystems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soil sampling.
Our sampling sites were located in North China Plain, where winter wheat cultivation has been ongoing for more than 40 years (36). To explore microbial spatiotemporal distributions during the winter wheat growing season, 45 topsoil (0 to 15 cm) samples were collected from 9 sites at each time point—in November 2014 after irrigation and fertilization, and again in May 2015, nearly 3 weeks before harvest—for a total of 90 samples. The 9 sites located on North China Plain spanned ca. 878 km (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Since its soils are highly heterogeneous, 5 plots (4 in corners and 1 in center) were set up for collecting soil samples within a 100-km2 quadrat in each site, with any two plots at least 5 km apart. To collect representative soil samples per plot, a cost-effective and optimal heterogenous site sampling method compositing (47) was used. Specifically, 12 cores were collected by drill (3-cm diameter) in each plot and then mixed together to form a composite single sample (Fig. S1). All these samples were then delivered on ice to the lab within 3 days. There, they were sieved through a 2-mm mesh and divided into two subsamples: one stored at 4°C for the analysis of soil physical and chemical properties and the other stored at −20°C for the DNA extractions. Latitude and longitude information were collected by global positioning system (GPS) when sampling. Corresponding average monthly temperature (Tem) data in November 2014 and May 2015 were downloaded from MOD11C3 in Modis (https://terra.nasa.gov/about/terra-instruments/modis), and likewise, the average monthly precipitation (Pre) data for both times were acquired from the GPM_3IMERGM database (https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/GPM_3IMERGM_06/summary).
Soil physical and chemical property analyses.
Soil pH was measured with a pH meter (Thermo Orion-868; Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA) in a 1:5 soil-to-water ratio. Soil moisture (SM) was measured by the gravimetrical method. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) extracted by deionized water and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) extracted by 0.5 M K2SO4 were determined by an organic carbon-nitrogen analyzer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Available phosphorus (AP) extracted by 0.5 M NaHCO3 and total phosphorus (TP) were measured by the molybdenum blue method, while available potassium (AK) extracted by 1 M CH3COONH4 and total potassium (TK) were measured using the flame photometry method. Organic carbon (OC) was determined by applying a traditional dichromate oxidation titration. Total nitrogen (TN) was measured via combustion. All of these measurements were according to the instructions described in our previous study of the biogeographical distribution of bacterial communities in wheat fields (36).
Microbial community analysis.
Soil nucleic acids of all the samples (n = 90) were extracted using the FastDNA Spin kit for soil (MP Biomedicals, Santa Ana, CA) and purified by the Ultra Clean 15 DNA purification kit (MO BIO, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Next, the DNA concentration of each sample was quantified in a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, Germany), after which it was stored at −20°C for later sequencing.
The primer pair 515F (5′-GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3′) and 806R (5′-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′) was used to amplify the 16S V4 hypervariable region (48), and likewise, the ITS3 (5′-GCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGC-3′) and ITS4 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′) primer pair was used to amplify the fungal ITS2 region (49). Each sample was amplified in a 30-μl reaction mixture with 15 μl Phusion high-fidelity PCR master mix (New England BioLabs), 0.2 μl each of forward and reverse primers, and ca. 10 ng of template DNA. The reaction conditions for the 16S V4 region consisted of 30 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 s, annealing at 55°C for 30 s, and extension at 72°C for 30 s; those for the ITS2 region consisted of 30 cycles of denaturation at 98°C for 10 s, annealing at 50°C for 30 s, followed by extension at 72°C for 30 s. All the PCR products were purified by a QIAquick PCR purification kit (Germany Qiagen) and quantified in the NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer. These purified PCR products was amassed together for Illumina MiSeq sequencing.
The paired-end raw reads were merged by FLASH (50), and ensuing merged reads were then assigned to each sample based on unique barcodes. The QIIME2 2018.08 pipeline was used for sequence quality control and to estimate their diversity. The Deblur algorithm was used, at single-nucleotide resolution, to reduce the inherent noise in the PCR and DNA sequencing (51). According to the merged sequence quality, all sequences were trimmed to 280 bp for 16S and 180 bp for ITS, to avoid introducing study-specific biases. This resulted in exact sequences variants (ESVs) having a high resolution exceeding the 97% identity threshold for operational taxonomic units (OTUs). After Deblur denoising, a de novo chimera filtering method, applied with vsearch, was used to remove any chimeras. Taxonomic classification of the ESVs was carried out by applying the prefitted sklearn-based taxonomy classifier to the Silva database (132 release) for 16S, and likewise to the UNITE database (17-12 release) for ITS at a 99% shared identity. Singletons were filtered out, and 9,127 sequences for 16S and 14,313 sequences for ITS were randomly selected to rarify the data sets to the same sampling effort for alpha and beta diversity comparisons.
Statistical analysis.
The relative importance of the nine sites and two seasons for explaining the variation in environmental variables and the number of microbial (bacteria and fungi) ESVs were evaluated by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) in the R vegan package was used to test the variations in microbial community structure as explained by sites and seasons. Relationships between the environmental variables and the number of microbial ESVs were calculated by stepwise multiple regression models, while the contribution of environmental variables to microbial community structure based on Bray-Curtis (relative abundance) and Jaccard (presence/absence) distance matrices were assessed by PERMANOVA. Microbial distance-decay relationships were estimated between microbial Jaccard dissimilarity and geographic distance.
Variation partitioning (52) was used to quantify the relative importance of four groups of predictors, namely, fast-changing environmental properties (SM, DON, DOC, AP, AK, Tem, and Pre), slow-changing environmental factors (pH, OC, TN, TK, and TP), season, and space, on the variation observed in soil microbial community composition. Latitudinal and longitudinal site data of each site were transferred to rectangular data to represent spatial distance by function pcnm(), and variation partitioning analyses were conducted with function varpart() in the vegan package for R. All the environmental variables were standardized by transforming their values to Z-scores, so as to remove the unit difference of each variable. Visualization of the variation partitioning result was performed by function upset() in the UpSetR package for R. Environmental distance was calculated as the Euclidean distance between sites based on all the measured environmental variables. Partial correlations were performed by rda() in the R vegan package to estimate one factor’s influence upon microbial variation when controlling the other ones. To find the best discriminant microbial ESVs in the two seasons, classification random forest analysis was applied by using sklearn module in Python v3.6. Spearman correlations were used to estimate the relationships between those identity ESVs and the environmental variables. Plots were drawn by ggplot2 in R 3.4.3.
Data availability.
The raw sequencing data for bacterial and fungal communities have been submitted to the National Center of Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive under accession number PRJNA508409.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Yu Shi, Yuntao Li, Teng Yang, Xingjia Xiang, Congcong Shen, Ruibo Sun, Dan He, Yingying Ni, and Kunkun Fan for their assistance in soil sampling and laboratory analyses and also Liang Chen and Jie Liu for collecting the climate data.
This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB15010101) and the China Biodiversity Observation Networks (Sino BON). M.D-B. is supported by the Spanish Government under a Ramón y Cajal contract (RYC2018-025483-I) and by a large research grant from the British Ecological Society (grant agreement no. LRA17\1193, MUSGONET).
We have no conflict of interest to declare.
Footnotes
This article followed an open peer review process. The review history can be read here.
REFERENCE
- 1.van der Heijden MG, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM. 2008. The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bardgett RD, Van Der Putten WH. 2014. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515:505–511. doi: 10.1038/nature13855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fierer N. 2017. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 15:579–590. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S, Kõljalg U, Yorou NS, Wijesundera R, Villarreal Ruiz L, Vasco-Palacios AM, Thu PQ, Suija A, Smith ME, Sharp C, Saluveer E, Saitta A, Rosas M, Riit T, Ratkowsky D, Pritsch K, Põldmaa K, Piepenbring M, Phosri C, Peterson M, Parts K, Pärtel K, Otsing E, Nouhra E, Njouonkou AL, Nilsson RH, Morgado LN, Mayor J, May TW, Majuakim L, Lodge DJ, Lee SS, Larsson K-H, Kohout P, Hosaka K, Hiiesalu I, Henkel TW, Harend H, Guo L-d, Greslebin A, Grelet G, Geml J, Gates G, Dunstan W, Dunk C, Drenkhan R, Dearnaley J, De Kesel A, et al. . 2014. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688. doi: 10.1126/science.1256688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Delgado-Baquerizo M, Oliverio AM, Brewer TE, Benavent-González A, Eldridge DJ, Bardgett RD, Maestre FT, Singh BK, Fierer N. 2018. A global atlas of the dominant bacteria found in soil. Science 359:320–325. doi: 10.1126/science.aap9516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ranjard L, Dequiedt S, Prévost-Bouré NC, Thioulouse J, Saby N, Lelievre M, Maron PA, Morin FER, Bispo A, Jolivet C, Arrouays D, Lemanceau P. 2013. Turnover of soil bacterial diversity driven by wide-scale environmental heterogeneity. Nat Commun 4:1434. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J, Locey KJ, Prill RJ, Tripathi A, Gibbons SM, Ackermann G, Navas-Molina JA, Janssen S, Kopylova E, Vázquez-Baeza Y, González A, Morton JT, Mirarab S, Xu ZZ, Jiang L, Haroon MF, Kanbar J, Zhu Q, Song SJ, Kosciolek T, Bokulich NA, Lefler J, Brislawn CJ, Humphrey G, Owens SM, Hampton-Marcell J, Berg-Lyons D, McKenzie V, Fierer N, Fuhrman JA, Clauset A, Stevens RL, Shade A, Pollard KS, Goodwin KD, Jansson JK, Gilbert JA, Knight R, Earth Microbiome Project Consortium. 2017. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463. doi: 10.1038/nature24621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Averill C, Cates LL, Dietze MC, Bhatnagar JM. 2019. Spatial vs. temporal controls over soil fungal community similarity at continental and global scales. ISME J 13:2082–2093. doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0420-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Voříšková J, Brabcová V, Cajthaml T, Baldrian P. 2014. Seasonal dynamics of fungal communities in a temperate oak forest soil. New Phytol 201:269–278. doi: 10.1111/nph.12481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Smith AP, Marín‐Spiotta E, Balser T. 2015. Successional and seasonal variations in soil and litter microbial community structure and function during tropical postagricultural forest regeneration: a multiyear study. Glob Chang Biol 21:3532–3547. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Campisano A, Albanese D, Yousaf S, Pancher M, Donati C, Pertot I. 2017. Temperature drives the assembly of endophytic communities’ seasonal succession. Environ Microbiol 19:3353–3364. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Taketani RG, Lançoni MD, Kavamura VN, Durrer A, Andreote FD, Melo IS. 2017. Dry season constrains bacterial phylogenetic diversity in a semi-arid rhizosphere system. Microb Ecol 73:153–161. doi: 10.1007/s00248-016-0835-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Carini P, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Hinckley E-L, Holland-Moritz H, Brewer TE, Rue G, Vanderburgh C, McKnight D, Fierer N. 2020. Effects of spatial variability and relic DNA removal on the detection of temporal dynamics in soil microbial communities. mBio 11:e02776-19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02776-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yao H, Bowman D, Shi W. 2011. Seasonal variations of soil microbial biomass and activity in warm-and cool-season turfgrass systems. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1536–1543. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Žifčáková L, Větrovský T, Howe A, Baldrian P. 2016. Microbial activity in forest soil reflects the changes in ecosystem properties between summer and winter. Environ Microbiol 18:288–301. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hanson CA, Fuhrman JA, Horner-Devine MC, Martiny JB. 2012. Beyond biogeographic patterns: processes shaping the microbial landscape. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:497–506. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bahram M, Peay KG, Tedersoo L. 2015. Local‐scale biogeography and spatiotemporal variability in communities of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 205:1454–1463. doi: 10.1111/nph.13206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Liu J, Sui Y, Yu Z, Shi Y, Chu H, Jin J, Liu X, Wang G. 2015. Soil carbon content drives the biogeographical distribution of fungal communities in the black soil zone of northeast China. Soil Biol Biochem 83:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Delgado-Baquerizo M, Bardgett RD, Vitousek PM, Maestre FT, Williams MA, Eldridge DJ, Lambers H, Neuhauser S, Gallardo A, García-Velázquez L, Sala OE, Abades SR, Alfaro FD, Berhe AA, Bowker MA, Currier CM, Cutler NA, Hart SC, Hayes PE, Hseu Z-Y, Kirchmair M, Peña-Ramírez VM, Pérez CA, Reed SC, Santos F, Siebe C, Sullivan BW, Weber-Grullon L, Fierer N. 2019. Changes in belowground biodiversity during ecosystem development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:6891–6896. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1818400116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Manzoni S, Schimel JP, Porporato A. 2012. Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: results from a meta‐analysis. Ecology 93:930–938. doi: 10.1890/11-0026.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Evans SE, Wallenstein MD. 2014. Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol Lett 17:155–164. doi: 10.1111/ele.12206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Delgado‐Baquerizo M, Fry EL, Eldridge DJ, de Vries FT, Manning P, Hamonts K, Kattge J, Boenisch G, Singh BK, Bardgett RD. 2018. Plant attributes explain the distribution of soil microbial communities in two contrasting regions of the globe. New Phytol 219:574–587. doi: 10.1111/nph.15161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dini-Andreote F, e Silva M. d C P, Triado-Margarit X, Casamayor EO, Van Elsas JD, Salles JF. 2014. Dynamics of bacterial community succession in a salt marsh chronosequence: evidences for temporal niche partitioning. ISME J 8:1989–2001. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Faust K, Lahti L, Gonze D, de Vos WM, Raes J. 2015. Metagenomics meets time series analysis: unraveling microbial community dynamics. Curr Opin Microbiol 25:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2015.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fierer N, Jackson RB. 2006. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:626–631. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507535103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lauber CL, Ramirez KS, Aanderud Z, Lennon J, Fierer N. 2013. Temporal variability in soil microbial communities across land-use types. ISME J 7:1641–1650. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.O'Brien SL, Gibbons SM, Owens SM, Hampton-Marcell J, Johnston ER, Jastrow JD, Gilbert JA, Meyer F, Antonopoulos DA. 2016. Spatial scale drives patterns in soil bacterial diversity. Environ Microbiol 18:2039–2051. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Koranda M, Kaiser C, Fuchslueger L, Kitzler B, Sessitsch A, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Richter A. 2013. Seasonal variation in functional properties of microbial communities in beech forest soil. Soil Biol Biochem 60:95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Barboza ADM, Pylro VS, Jacques RJS, Gubiani PI, de Quadros FLF, da Trindade JK, Triplett EW, Roesch L. 2018. Seasonal dynamics alter taxonomical and functional microbial profiles in Pampa biome soils under natural grasslands. PeerJ 6:e4991. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Oliverio AM, Bradford MA, Fiere N. 2017. Identifying the microbial taxa that consistently respond to soil warming across time and space. Glob Chang Biol 23:2117–2129. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Adrian H, Lonardo D, Bodelier DP, Le P. 2017. Revisiting life strategy concepts in environmental microbial ecology. FEMS Microb Ecol 93:fix006. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fix006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Placella SA, Brodie EL, Firestone MK. 2012. Rainfall-induced carbon dioxide pulses results from sequential resuscitation of phylogenetically clustered microbial groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:10931–10936. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204306109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Evans SE, Wallenstein MD, Burke IC. 2014. Is bacterial moisture niche a good predictor of shifts in community composition under long-term drought? Ecology 95:110–122. doi: 10.1890/13-0500.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lauber CL, Hamady M, Knight R, Fierer N. 2009. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:5111–5120. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00335-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Rousk J, Bååth E, Brookes PC, Lauber CL, Lozupone C, Caporaso JG, Knight R, Fierer N. 2010. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J 4:1340–1351. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Shi Y, Li Y, Xiang X, Sun R, Yang T, He D, Zhang K, Ni Y, Zhu Y-G, Adams JM, Chu H. 2018. Spatial scale affects the relative role of stochasticity versus determinism in soil bacterial communities in wheat fields across the North China Plain. Microbiome 6:27. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0409-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK, Fukami T, O'Neill SP, Bilinski TM, Stanish LF, Knelman JE, Darcy JL, Lynch RC, Wickey P, Ferrenberg S. 2013. Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 77:342–356. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00051-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Zhou J, Ning D. 2017. Stochastic community assembly: does it matter in microbial ecology? Microb Mol Biol Rev 81:e00002-17. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00002-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fierer N, Lennon JT. 2011. The generation and maintenance of diversity in microbial communities. Am J Bot 98:439–448. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Žifčáková L, Větrovský T, Lombard V, Henrissat B, Howe A, Baldrian P. 2017. Feed in summer, rest in winter: microbial carbon utilization in forest topsoil. Microbiome 5:122. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0340-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Sun S, Li S, Avera BN, Strahm BD, Badgley BD. 2017. Soil bacterial and fungal communities show distinct recovery patterns during forest ecosystem restoration. Appl Environ Microbiol 83:e00966-17. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00966-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Young KD. 2006. The selective value of bacterial shape. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 70:660–703. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00001-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Schmidt S, Nemergut D, Darcy J, Lynch R. 2014. Do bacterial and fungal communities assemble differently during primary succession? Mol Ecol 23:254–258. doi: 10.1111/mec.12589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Peay KG, Belisle M, Fukami T. 2012. Phylogenetic relatedness predicts priority effects in nectar yeast communities. Proc Biol Sci 279:749–758. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Birgander J, Rousk J, Olsson PA. 2014. Comparison of fertility and seasonal effects on grassland microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 76:80–89. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.05.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Shi Y, Lalande R, Hamel C, Ziadi N, Gagnon B, Hu Z. 2013. Seasonal variation of microbial biomass, activity, and community structure in soil under different tillage and phosphorus management practices. Biol Fertil Soils 49:803–818. doi: 10.1007/s00374-013-0773-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Li J. 2019. Sampling soils in a heterogeneous research plot. J Vis Exp 143:e58519. doi: 10.3791/58519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, Fierer N, Knight R. 2011. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:4516–4522. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Gade L, Scheel CM, Pham CD, Lindsley MD, Iqbal N, Cleveland AA, Whitney AM, Lockhart SR, Brandt ME, Litvintseva AP. 2013. Detection of fungal DNA in human body fluids and tissues during a multistate outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections. Eukaryot Cell 12:677–683. doi: 10.1128/EC.00046-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Magoč T, Salzberg SL. 2011. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27:2957–2963. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Amir A, McDonald D, Navas-Molina JA, Kopylova E, Morton JT, Zech Xu Z, Kightley EP, Thompson LR, Hyde ER, Gonzalez A, Knight R. 2017. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. mSystems 2:e00191-17. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00191-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Legendre P. 2008. Studying beta diversity: ecological variation partitioning by multiple regression and canonical analysis. J Plant Ecol 1:3–8. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtm001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The raw sequencing data for bacterial and fungal communities have been submitted to the National Center of Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive under accession number PRJNA508409.