Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 29;15(6):e0235235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235235

Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)

Dini Adyasari 1,*, Christiane Hassenrück 1, Daniel Montiel 2,3, Natasha Dimova 2
Editor: John M Senko4
PMCID: PMC7323985  PMID: 32598345

Abstract

Mobile Bay, the fourth largest estuary in the USA located in the northern Gulf of Mexico, is known for extreme hypoxia in the water column during dry season caused by NH4+-rich and anoxic submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). Nutrient dynamics in the coastal ecosystem point to potentially elevated microbial activities; however, little is known about microbial community composition and their functional roles in this area. In this study, we investigated microbial community composition, distribution, and metabolic prediction along the coastal hydrological compartment of Mobile Bay using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected microbial samples from surface (river and bay water) and subsurface water (groundwater and coastal pore water from two SGD sites with peat and sandy lithology, respectively). Salinity was identified as the primary factor affecting the distribution of microbial communities across surface water samples, while DON and PO43- were the major predictor of community shift within subsurface water samples. Higher microbial diversity was found in coastal pore water in comparison to surface water samples. Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidia, and Oxyphotobacteria dominated the bacterial community. Among the archaea, methanogens were prevalent in the peat-dominated SGD site, while the sandy SGD site was characterized by a higher proportion of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. Cyanobium PCC-6307 and unclassified Thermodesulfovibrionia were identified as dominant taxa strongly associated with trends in environmental parameters in surface and subsurface samples, respectively. Microbial communities found in the groundwater and peat layer consisted of taxa known for denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA). This finding suggested that microbial communities might also play a significant role in mediating nitrogen transformation in the SGD flow path and in affecting the chemical composition of SGD discharging to the water column. Given the ecological importance of microorganisms, further studies at higher taxonomic and functional resolution are needed to accurately predict chemical biotransformation processes along the coastal hydrological continuum, which influence water quality and environmental condition in Mobile Bay.

Introduction

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) is defined as groundwater flow across the land-ocean interface to the coastal water. SGD is known to transport chemical and biological constituents, such as nutrients [13], trace metals [4, 5], and bacteria [6, 7]. In an environment with high primary productivity, SGD is reported to cause eutrophication and harmful algal blooms (HAB) [810]. In some cases, SGD influences the composition and abundance of marine biota in the receiving coastal water, e.g. fish [11, 12], bacteria [13, 14], macrophytes [15, 16], or phytoplankton [17, 18].

Subterranean estuaries (STEs), where SGD flows through before discharging to the coastal water, are active mixing zones and biogeochemical cycling hot spots [19]. They are subjected to both seasonal water table fluctuation and increased nutrient input from the groundwater coming from the land side, as well as changes in oxygen saturation, quick redox switches and organic matter inputs from tidal fluctuation and sea level fluctuation from the marine side [2022]. It has been found that STE could play a role as either a source [23] or sink of nutrient species [24, 25]. The attenuation or changes of speciation of nutrients is attributed to chemically and biologically mediated reactions. For examples, microbial communities are found to play a significant role in mediating nitrogen cycling in the STEs, such as nitrification and denitrification, and subsequently alter the chemical composition of SGD discharging to the overlying water [2628]. Alternative microbially mediated pathways for nitrate reduction, such as dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Annamox), were also observed in STEs [29, 30]. Archaea, while usually comprising a minor fraction of microbial communities in aquatic environments, have been shown to play an essential role in the carbon and nitrogen cycle, particularly related to nitrification as well as methane production and oxidation [31, 32]. The composition of microbial communities inhabiting the STE is governed by physicochemical factors, such as, but not limited to salinity [33], redox condition [34], temperature [35], or tidal fluctuation [36]. However, in comparison with surface estuaries, the understanding of the subsurface microbial community and their response to biotic and abiotic reactions is still limited.

Mobile Bay, a typical estuary in the northern Gulf of Mexico, is also the largest estuary east of the Mississippi Delta. Due to extreme hypoxia in the water column during dry seasons, large-scale fish and crustacean kills, locally known as Jubilees often occur in this part of northeast of the Gulf of Mexico [3739]. More recent studies indicate that both the Jubilees and HABs occur at specific locations of Mobile Bay and are associated with areas without direct surface water inputs [40, 41]. Ultimately, SGD was investigated as one of the main contributors to the hypoxia occurring in the bay. Indeed, Montiel, Lamore [24] indicated that anoxic SGD delivered nearly a quarter of the total nutrient inputs to Mobile Bay during the dry season in the form of NH4+ and DON. More importantly, the significant SGD-derived N fluxes that occur exclusively to the east shore of Mobile Bay, whose coastal lithology is dominated by an underlying peat layer. Montiel, Lamore [24] suggested that the identified organic-rich sedimentary layer alters the composition of NO3dominated groundwater observed further inland into NH4+ and DON-prevalent SGD discharging to Mobile Bay.

Microbial investigations have been conducted in Mobile Bay before; however these studies were mostly related to surface water characterization [4244], while studies on groundwater are still limited [30]. Given that Mobile Bay is one of the most developed estuaries in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and of the ecological importance of microbial communities for mediating coastal biogeochemical processes in areas with nutrient-rich groundwater, it is fundamental to better understand their distribution, diversity, and function. In this paper, we examined microbial community composition and distribution along the coastal hydrological continuum of Mobile Bay affected by SGD using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Microbial samples were collected (a) horizontally along the coastal hydrological continuum, from groundwater to the STE, river, and water column of the bay, and (b) along with vertical profiles at two SGD sites with contrasting hydrogeological properties and SGD regimes. In addition, functional profiles related to nitrogen cycling were predicted using Tax4Fun2 [45].

Materials and methods

Site description and sample collection

Mobile Bay has an area of 1.3 x 109 m2, an average depth of 3.5 m, and a total volume of 4.6 x 109 m3. During the dry season, when we conducted our sampling expedition, the average mean temperature and precipitation rate were 27°C and 1670 mm, respectively. Although there was no reported hypoxia during this specific sampling campaign, sample collection was conducted during a period when anoxic events occur more frequently. Recent hydrogeological studies in Mobile Bay have revealed two major points of groundwater discharge at the southeast shore (which will be further abbreviated as TS-SE) and the northeast shore (which will be further abbreviated as TS-NE) of Mobile Bay [24, 41] (Fig 1). Montiel, Lamore [24] reported that at the TS-SE site, SGD is on average 0.15–0.25 m d-1 annually, whereas the SGD-delivered NH4+, NO3-, DON, and PO43- for the four-year duration of their study were 11–35 mmol m-2 d-1, 1.2–5 mmol m-2 d-1, 9–32.5 mmol m-2 d-1, and 0–0.2 mmol m-2 d-1, respectively. Sediment cores recovered from the SGD hot spot consisted of a coarse beach sand layer of 0.5 m thickness and 3% organic matter content, underlain by a 1.5-m organic-rich black fine sand with an organic matter content of up to 36% (peat layer), which was in contact with the Miocene–Pliocene Aquifer with low organic matter content (Fig 1). For comparison, at TS-NE, SGD fluxes were 0.17–0.25 m d-1, and NH4+, NO3-, DON, and PO43- fluxes were 1–2 mmol m-2 d-1, 2.2–7.5 mmol m-2 d-1, 2.7–8 mmol m-2 d-1, and 0–0.1 mmol m-2 d-1, respectively. At this second site, the piezometer was placed through the local STE where shallow groundwater percolates through layers consisting exclusively of coarse sand without an indication of vertical structuring.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Study site (A) and sampling points (B) in Mobile Bay, USA, and vertical lithological section of sediment cores from TS-NE and TS-SE (C). The geological map is modified from a previous version prepared at the Geological Survey of Alabama [46], while groundwater flow and lithology profile are adapted from Montiel, Lamore (24). TS-NE-B and TS-SE-A were sampled from different piezometer but similar depth with TS-NE-A2 and TS-SE-B3, respectively.

We declare that the research team who carried the field work in Mobile Bay, Alabama, USA did not need permission for accessing the field site as described. The

groundwater wells sampled for this study were private properties and at the time of sampling

the owners were present and gave personally access for groundwater collection. In total, we collected 20 samples across the coastal hydrological land-aquifer-ocean continuum of Mobile Bay (Fig 1): one sample of inland groundwater (GW-1); one sample (TS-SE-A) from a 2 m-depth piezometer at the TS-SE site; five pore water samples from a vertical profile collected in 0.5 m intervals from a 2.5 m-deep piezometer that is located in 3 m distance from TS-SE-A (TS-SE-B1, TS-SE-B2, TS-SE-B3, TS-SE-B4, TS-SE-B5); two pore water samples in a vertical profile taken in 1.5 m intervals from a 3 m-depth piezometer at the TS-NE site (TS-NE-A1, TS-NE-A2); one sample (TS-NE-B) from a 2 m-deep piezometer located 15 m from TS-NE-A; three river samples from the three main tributaries entering the bay (Mobile, Apalachee, and Blakeley rivers, abbreviated as MR, AR, BR, respectively), and Mobile Bay water column samples (MB1-7). Pore water from SGD sites was collected from piezometers located in the intertidal areas, and all samples were taken during the low tide when the SGD signal is the most pronounced. Samples from the Mobile Bay water column were collected from different parts of the bay to cover a gradient of salinity and river influence: samples MB1-4 were collected in the southern part of Mobile Bay where the river influence is almost negligible, while MB6-7 were taken close to estuaries in the northern part of the bay. The water sample for GW-1 was collected after pumping the well with a submersible pump at a constant rate until conductivity, temperature, and DO values were stable. Water samples from Mobile Bay and its tributaries were collected during boat surveys with a submersible pump from a depth of 0.3 m. Inland groundwater (GW-1) and pore water from TS-SE and TS-NE are categorized as subsurface samples, while river and Mobile Bay water column samples are grouped as surface water samples.

For microbial analysis, 250 ml of water samples were collected, filtered through a 0.2 μm isopore membrane filter, and stored frozen in a sterile microcentrifuge tube until analysis. Physical water parameters (salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO)) and samples for nutrient analysis (NO3-, NH4+, DON and PO43-) were also collected and measured alongside the microbial samples. The physical parameters were recorded with a Pro2030 (YSI Inc.) handheld instrument with a Galvanic sensor. Nutrient samples were filtered in the field through sterile 0.45 μm cellulose acetate filters and stored in acid-cleaned 50 mL polypropylene vials. Samples were kept on ice for a maximum of 6 hours until they were frozen pending analysis. The analyses were performed at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab (DISL) using a Skalar San++ segmented flow autoanalyzer with automatic in-line sample digestion (Skalar Analytical B.V).

Microbial community analysis

The DNA extraction of the microbial samples was conducted at the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Germany, based on procedures described in Nercessian, Noyes [47]. The Primer set 515YF (5’-GTGYCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3’)/926R(5’-CCGYCAATTYMTTTRAGTTT-3’) [48] was used to obtain DNA sequences from the V4-V5 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene. Amplicon sequencing was implemented on the Illumina Miseq platform at LGC Genomics (Berlin). Bioinformatic sequence processing was conducted using the DADA2 package [49]. Forward and reverse reads were quality trimmed to 215 bp at a maximum expected error rate of 4. Error learning and denoising were conducted using all sequences of the data set and pooling sequences across all samples. Forward and reverse reads were merged using default parameters and chimeras were removed with the method ‘consensus’. Only amplicon sequence variants between 361 and 399 bp occurring at least twice in the data set were retained and will further be referred to as operational taxonomic units (OTUs). OTUs were taxonomically classified using the silvangs web service (https://www.arb-silva.de/ngs/, date accessed 23.08.2018) with version 132 of the SILVA reference database. Unwanted lineages (chloroplasts, mitochondria) and OTUs unclassified on the phylum level were removed from the dataset.

The prediction of functional genes based on 16S rRNA gene sequences was conducted using Tax4Fun2 [45], where OTUs were associated with specific KEGG orthologue functional genes (KO) and their subsequent empirical metabolic pathways. As SGD studies suggested NH4+-rich groundwater discharging from the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, KOs related to nitrogen metabolism (i.e. nitrification, denitrification, DNRA, assimilatory nitrate reduction, and nitrogen fixation) were chosen for further analysis and discussion. As methanotrophic and methanogenic communities were found in the study site, KOs related to the methane cycle were likewise investigated.

Primer-clipped sequences from this study have been submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with the project accession number PRJEB33004, using the data brokerage service of German Federation for Biological Data [50]. The OTU table and taxonomic classifications are available online (https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.912763).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were implemented in R version 3.5.2 [51] using the vegan package version 2.5–6 [52]. Number of OTUs, Shannon, and inverse Simpson indices were calculated to estimate the alpha diversity of samples with more than 10000 sequences, randomly subsampling the data set to this sequencing depth 100 times. Beta diversity was assessed based on Bray-Curtis (BC) dissimilarities of relative sequence proportions and visualized using complete linkage hierarchical clustering for all microbial samples.

Prior to any statistical analyses, samples were divided into surface and subsurface samples because the relationships between environmental parameter in surface and subsurface samples were fundamentally different. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to cluster sampling sites based on observed environmental parameters in surface and subsurface water samples. Missing data among the subsurface samples for the parameters salinity, temperature, and DO were estimated based on observations from a previous sampling expedition at the same sampling location. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was employed as ordination method for surface and subsurface microbial community composition. Environmental parameters were mapped to the NMDS plot using envfit, and the 3% most frequent and the 90% best fitted OTUs to environmental parameter were displayed in the NMDS ordination using the function ordiselect of the goeveg package version 0.4.2 [53]. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) using the function adonis2 was applied to relative OTU proportions of surface and subsurface microbial samples to determine the contribution of environmental parameters in explaining the variation in microbial community composition. The best model was determined by forward model selection based on a significant (p < 0.1) increase in explained variation (R²). Due to the unavailability of salinity, DO, and temperature data for some of TS-SE and TS-NE samples, these parameters were excluded from the selection of environmental predictors for the subsurface communities. Due to a high collinearity, PO43-, DON, and NO3- were used to approximate the effects of salinity, DO, and temperature, respectively (PO43- and salinity: Pearson r = 0.98, DON and DO: Pearson r = -0.74, NO3- and temperature: Pearson r = -0.63).

Results

Environmental characteristics

All measurements of environmental parameters of the collected water samples are listed in Table 1. In the vertical profile of TS-SE, salinity increased with depth in the STE, while the salinity profile in TS-NE was uniform. Salinity also varied laterally within the bay. The southern part of the bay that was the furthest from the river entries had higher salinity (3.9–5.5 at MB1-4), whereas the northern part at the mouth of the rivers had lower salinity in the same range as the river (0.1–0.4 at MB5-7). During this sampling campaign, all surface water samples were well-oxygenated (DO > 2 mg L-1), while groundwater and pore water samples were hypoxic (DO < 1 mg L-1). NO3- concentrations varied across all samples, ranging from 0–13.6 μM in surface water samples, and 0–155.9 μM in groundwater and pore water samples. The highest NO3- concentration (155 μM) was found in the inland well, which was located 2.5 km from the coastline. Low NH4+ concentration (0–1.4 μM) in surface water contrasted with high NH4+ concentration in pore water, whereas the highest NH4+ concentrations and the highest range of NH4+ concentration was found in the vertical profile of TS-SE-B (4–125 μM). PO43- concentrations ranged between of 0 and 2 μM across all samples. DON concentration displayed a higher range in the subsurface (4–98 μM) compared to surface water samples (27–45 μM). Between two SGD sites, TS-SE had a considerably elevated concentration of DON (32–98 μM) in comparison to TS-NE (4–13 μM).

Table 1. Physicochemical parameters at the study sites.

Sample Longitude Latitude Salinity DO (mg L-1) Temperature (°C) NO3- (μM) NH4+ (μM) PO43- (μM) DON (μM)
GW-1 -87.88392 30.4314 0.0 0.3 21.1 155.9 0.8 0.1 83.0
TS-SE-A -87.87815 30.39243 0.0 0.1 29.3 0.7 125.2 0.1 98.0
TS-SE-B1 -87.87825 30.39229 0.0 0.6 29.9 81.9 54.5 0.6 33.0
TS-SE-B2 -87.87825 30.39229 1.8 0.6* 29.4 63.9 4.5 2.7 32.0
TS-SE-B3 -87.87825 30.39229 1.8 0.0* 29.4* 3.3 119.3 2.3 57.0
TS-SE-B4 -87.87825 30.39229 1.8* 0.0* 29.4* 2.8 92.0 1.8 60.0
TS-SE-B5 -87.87825 30.39229 1.8* 0.0* 29.4* 2.3 51.8 0.6 92.0
TS-NE-A1 -87.90843 30.53017 0.1 1.3 25.5 78.0 0.5 0.2 10.0
TS-NE-A2 -87.90843 30.53017 0.1* 1.4* 25.5 145.0 3.9 0.5 4.0
TS-NE-B -87.90863 30.53016 0.0 0.4 26.4 3.1 16.9 0.1 13.0
MB1 -87.85198 30.24455 3.9 3.6 27.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 42.1
MB2 -87.79181 30.25622 4.4 3.8 29 0.7 0.0 0.1 33.3
MB3 -87.75262 30.28377 5.5 4.6 30.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 32.5
MB4 -87.77329 30.26144 4.9 3.2 29.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 27.7
MB5 -87.92827 30.62521 0.1 3.8 24.8 13.6 1.3 0.6 44.0
MB6 -87.90781 30.57037 0.4 2.1 25.1 4.8 0.3 0.6 36.9
MB7 -87.99113 30.53048 0.1 3.4 29.5 1.4 0.3 0.9 35.7
MR -88.01071 30.68467 0.1 2.6 29.4 9.3 1.2 0.5 33.5
BR -87.92734 30.66650 0.1 3.5 29.4 7.6 0.8 0.4 30.8
AR -88.00559 30.68133 0.0 3.5 27.5 11.5 1.5 0.6 32.7

Asterisks (*) indicate recalculated values obtained from Montiel, Lamore (24) based on patterns from a previous sampling campaign at the same sampling location as no observations were available during our expedition.

The PCA for environmental parameters in surface water showed that PC1, which accounted for 52.2% of the variation in the data, separated MB1-4 from the rest of the surface water samples and was mainly associated with DO, PO43-, DON, and NH4+ concentrations, while PC2 was mainly determined by temperature, salinity, and NO3- (Fig 2A). Different patterns of association between environmental variables were found in subsurface samples, where 55.6% of the variability of subsurface environmental parameters was explained by PC1, which separated TS-NE and the groundwater sample from the samples from TS-SE (Fig 2B). Among subsurface samples, DO and NO3- concentration were negatively associated with salinity, temperature, PO43-, DON, and NH4+.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for based on the environmental parameters for surface water (A) and subsurface water (B). Nitrate: NO3-; Dissolved organic nitrogen: DON; Ammonium: NH4+; Phosphate: PO43-; Dissolved oxygen: DO.

Microbial diversity and community ordination

In total, 565,793 sequences represented in 7827 OTUs were obtained for further analysis with an average of 28,289 sequences per sample. We identified 7687 bacterial OTUs contained in 558,435 sequences and 140 archaeal OTUs represented in 7358 sequences. There were three samples with less than 10,000 sequences (i.e. TS-SE-B4, TS-NE-A1, and MB6), which we excluded from the alpha diversity analysis due to insufficient sequencing depth. We observed trends among the three investigated alpha diversity indices (Fig 3), where TS-SE-B2 and TS-SE-B3 consistently had the highest number of OTUs, Shannon, and inverse Simpson indices compared to the other samples, while the lowest number of OTUs, Shannon and inverse Simpson indices was found in TS-SE-B5. This pattern was not visible in GW-1, which exhibited the second lowest number of OTUs, but average Shannon and inverse Simpson indices. The remaining subsurface samples, as well as bay and river water samples were within a similar richness and diversity range. The Spearman correlation analysis between subsurface taxonomic diversity and observed environmental parameters indicated that DON had the highest correlation to Shannon and inverse Simpson indices (Spearman ρ = -0.62), followed by PO43- concentration (Spearman ρ = 0.52) (S1 Table).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Alpha diversity of microbial communities across all samples assessed by number of OTUs (A), Shannon (B) and inverse Simpson indices (C). Samples TS-SE-B4, TS-NE-B1, and MB6 were not included in the calculation due to insufficient sequencing depth.

Bray-Curtis (BC) dissimilarities between samples ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 (Fig 4). Generally, each surface water sample from the river and the Mobile Bay water column was quite similar to each other in terms of microbial community composition (pairwise BC = 0.3–0.5). Microbial community composition in MB5-7 was more similar to river samples than MB1-4. All samples from the vertical SGD profiles were highly heterogeneous (pairwise BC > 0.6). Across the TS-SE samples, microbial communities among TS-SE-B1 and TS-SE-B2 were more similar to each other, while the deeper samples (TS-SE-B3, TS-SE-B4, TS-SE-A) displayed a higher heterogeneity. Within the TS-NE area, microbial communities of TS-NE-A2 and TS-NE-B were more similar to each other than to TS-NE-A1 due to similar depth. Overall, the average dissimilarity within subsurface samples (BC = 0.9) was higher than within surface samples (BC = 0.8).

Fig 4. Complete linkage hierarchical clustering based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities of relative OTU proportions.

Fig 4

Fitting environmental parameters onto the NMDS ordination for surface water samples showed that microbial community composition in river and northern Mobile Bay (MB5-7) water samples were associated with high nutrient concentration (Fig 5A), while the communities in the southern Mobile Bay (MB1-4) were positively associated with salinity. The patterns in microbial community composition of the subsurface samples and their association with environmental parameters were explored in separate NMDS ordination (Fig 5B), which showed that TS-NE microbial samples were positively associated with DO and NO3-. The majority of TS-SE microbial samples were associated with NH4+, PO43-, DON, salinity, and temperature, except for TS-SE-B5. TS-SE-B5 and GW1 were located the furthest from the other samples in the ordination, indicating their distinct microbial community composition.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot depicting the association between microbial community composition and environmental data for surface water samples (A) and subsurface water samples (B). The position and taxonomic affiliation of dominant OTUs most fitted to the observed environmental parameters are shown.

Salinity and NH4+ were identified as the strongest predictors of community shifts in surface samples, in total explaining 58.5% of the variation in community composition (Table 2). Salinity was determined as most significant parameter with a pure contribution of 26.9% to the change of microbial community composition across all surface samples. Due to some collinearity, there was a 17% overlap in explained variation between these two parameters. Among the subsurface samples, DON and PO43- were determined as best-suited parameters to explaining patterns in microbial community composition with a total contribution of 25.4%. Both parameters had equal pure contributions, and there was no overlap in explained variation. The selection of DON and PO43- as significant predictors implied a potentially similarly important role of DO and salinity, as any effect attributed to DON and PO43- could also be explained by DO and salinity due to their high correlation (DON and DO: Pearson r = -0.74, PO43- and salinity: Pearson r = 0.98).

Table 2. Contribution and significance of observed environmental factors shaping microbial community composition based on PERMANOVA.

Source of variation Adjusted R2 (%) Df F P-value
Surface samples
Final model 58.5 2 4.92 0.001***
Salinity 26.9 1 4.54 0.004**
NH4+ 12.9 1 2.18 0.072.
Subsurface samples
Final model 25.4 2 1.19 0.022*
DON 12.9 1 1.21 0.044*
PO43- 12.6 1 1.18 0.063.

Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.1 ‘.’ 0.1

Microbial community composition across horizontal and vertical scales

We found that Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidia, Oxyphotobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Alphaproteobacteria were the most dominant bacterial classes across all samples (Fig 6A). Gammaproteobacteria were present in high proportions in the inland groundwater (70%), river water, and TS-NE samples (average 20%). OTUs affiliated with the freshwater genera Vogesella and Polynucleobacter of the Gammaproteobacteria occurred in high proportions in the inland groundwater sample. OTUs related to Methylobacter (class Gammaproteobacteria) and unclassified Thermodesulfovibrionia were the most dominant OTUs from TS-NE and TS-SE, respectively. From subsurface to surface water samples, community composition shifted from Gammaproteobacteria-dominated to a community with increased proportions of Oxyphotobacteria, Bacteroidia, ActinobacteriaI and Alphaproteobacteria. Oxyphotobacteria dominated bay water samples and the upper two layers of the TS-SE vertical profile (TS-SE-B1, TS-SE-B2). The most dominant OTU of the Oxyphotobacteria was classified as Cyanobium PCC-6307. Within the surface samples, this OTU was identified as the most dominant and best fitted to salinity, NO3-, NH4+, and PO43- (Fig 5A). Bacteroidia were mainly represented by a Flavobacterium OTU with the highest proportions in river samples (Fig 6B). OTUs from Actinobacteria were almost exclusively detected in surface water samples, mostly affiliated with the hgcl clade. Alphaproteobacteria were detected in high proportions across surface water samples with an average of 15% and 8% in river and coastal samples, respectively. OTUs of the SAR11 clade comprised 50% of the Alphaproteobacteria in surface water samples with SAR11 clade II predominantly found in MB1-4 and SAR11 clade III occurring mainly in MB5-7 and river samples, respectively.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Relative sequence proportion of dominant microbial taxa at class (A) and genus level (B).

At TS-SE, the microbial community composition differed notably between the upper (TS-SE-B1 and TS-SE-B2), middle (TS-SE-B3, TS-SE-B4), and bottom sediment layers (TS-SE-B5). Cyanobium PCC-6307, which displayed high proportions in all bay water samples, dominated TS-SE-B1 (9%) and TS-SE-B2 (17%). The TS-SE-B2 sample originated from an intermediate layer between the oxic upper layer and anaerobic deeper layers, and was characterized by e.g. aerobic cyanobacteria and anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). The middle layers in TS-SE were dominated by a mixture of obligate anaerobic bacteria, fermentative bacteria, SRB, and methanogenic archaea, indicative of a highly reducing environment. Unclassified Thermodesulfovibrionia showed the highest proportion in TS-SE-A (13%), and also notably contributed to TS-SE-B3 and TS-SE-B4 (5–6%). This taxon also had the highest ordiselect score according to the ordination of the subsurface samples, indicating their dominance and association with changes in environmental parameters, particularly to DON, DO, and temperature. Another dominant genus comprising 2 to 25% in the peat layer was SCGC-AB-539-J10 of the Dehaloccoccoidia, which is one of the most widely distributed taxa in marine subsurface sediments samples. We also identified high proportions of SRB-related genera of the class Deltaproteobacteria: unclassified Syntrophobacteraceae, Desulfobacca, Desulfatiglans, Syntrophorhabdus, Syntrophus, and unclassified Desulfobulbaceae. Overall, the aforementioned genera accounted for 12%, 9%, 4% of the sequences in TS-SE-B3, TS-SE-B4, and TS-SE-B5 samples, respectively. Unclassified Anaerolineaceae of the class Anaerolinea, a taxon consisting of obligate anaerobic and fermentative bacteria, contributed between 1 and 9% in these layers. The dominant taxa in the deepest sediment layer (TS-SE-B5), were found to be distinctly different from the upper layers and comprised mainly of the following genera: unclassified Pirellulaceae (18%), unclassified Gaiellales (15%), Nocardiodes (14%), and Mesorizhobium (11%).

At the TS-NE site, Gammaproteobacteria was the most dominant bacterial class in all layers, followed by Deltaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria. At genus level, most of the Gammaproteobacteria in these samples were related to type I methanotrophs of the genera Methylobacter and Methylococcus. In total, methanotrophic genera accounted for 12% and 15% of the sequences in TS-NE-A2 and TS-NE-B, respectively. Overall, the TS-NE vertical profile shifted from a mixture of marine (e.g. unclassified env. OPS17 and Cyanobium PCC-6307) and facultative anaerobic bacteria (e.g. Geothrix) in the uppermost sediment layer to a more methanotroph-dominant community in the bottom layer.

Across all samples, archaea were identified in notable proportions at the anaerobic TS-SE site, i.e. 4%, 4%, 11%, and 6% in TS-SE-A, TS-SE-B3, TS-SE-B4, and TS-SE-B5, respectively. Methanomicrobia, Omnitrophicaeota, and Woesearchaeia were the dominant archaeal classes found in the samples. Methanomicrobia were mainly represented by the genera Methanolinea, Methanoregula and Candidatus Methanoperedens. Unclassified Bathyarchaeia were found in TS-SE-B3 and TS-SE-B4 together with Methanomicrobia. To a lesser extent, archaea were also found in TS-SE-A1, TS-NE-A2, and TS-NE-B with a sequence proportion of 1–2%. At these sites, Thaumarchaeota was the dominant class, mainly represented by nitrifying genera Candidatus Nitrosopumilus and unclassified Nitrosotaleaceae.

Metabolic prediction

To accompany the result of the physico-chemical and microbial community analysis, we used Tax4Fun2 to predict microbial metabolic functions in the subterranean estuary that may affect the composition of SGD. Tax4Fun2 was able to use on average 54% of the sequences represented in 44% of the OTUs for metabolic prediction. The highest unused fraction for the metabolic prediction was found in TS-SE-A. The highest proportions of KOs related to ammonia oxidation (nitrification) were predicted in TS-NE-A2 and TS-NE-B and the lowest in TS-SE-B5 and MB1-4 (Fig 7). Communities of inland groundwater and the deeper layers of TS-SE were characterized by nitrogen cycling pathways usually occurring in anoxic environments, such as denitrification, DNRA, or nitrogen fixation. Except for assimilatory nitrate reduction, enzymes related to the nitrogen cycle were predicted in lower proportions in surface waters compared to subsurface samples.

Fig 7. Heatmap of the proportion of predicted KEGG Orthologs (KO) related to nitrogen metabolism based on Tax4Fun2.

Fig 7

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium: DNRA.

Discussion

Changes in microbial community composition along the freshwater-marine water continuum

In this study, we observed significant variations in microbial community composition and diversity across a horizontal (e.g. groundwater-river-bay) and vertical (e.g. pore water depth profile) gradient in the STE of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Among the observed environmental parameters, salinity was identified as the primary factor affecting the variation of microbial community composition in the surface water samples. The importance of salinity in governing the distribution and diversity of microbial communities across the hydrological continuum is well studied [33, 35, 54]. Across the subsurface samples, DON and PO43- were identified as the parameters explaining the observed patterns in community composition with similar amount of contribution. DON is normally generated in TS-SE by peat mineralization where its concentration was considerably higher in comparison to TS-NE, and likely resulted in the different community composition between the two locations. The influence of DON in shaping microbial community composition is also found in other study conducted in peatlands [55], while PO43- is also identified as a limiting nutrient for subsurface microbial communities in peatlands as inorganic orthophosphate tends to bond to organic compound; therefore restricting its bioavailability [56]. Furthermore, in this case DON and PO43- may act as a proxy for DO and salinity due to their high correlation in subsurface samples. DO as a potential predictor of microbial community composition in subsurface samples is expected due to the steep gradient from aerobic to anaerobic conditions across these samples. Indeed, all of the TS-NE samples were considered more oxygenated due to the higher hydraulic conductivity and coarser lithology than TS-SE. DON and PO43- concentration affecting the diversity of the subsurface microbial communities was also supported by correlation analysis between alpha diversity and environmental parameters. Nevertheless, as only 25% of community variation could be attributed to DON and PO43-, it is assumed that other environmental variables play additional roles in this environment. Considering that we found high proportions of SRB, methanogenic and methanotrophic bacteria and archaea, it is likely that the concentrations of various electron acceptors strongly determine subsurface communities [34]. For example, in a subterranean environment inhabited by both SRB and methanogenic archaea, their abundance is controlled by available substrate concentration (e.g. acetate, hydrogen, methanol), organic loading [57, 58], and ion concentration [59], which were not measured in this study. In this case, further studies, including measuring more environmental parameters, are needed to characterize the drivers of community shifts with higher certainty.

In general, the overall proportion of explained variation in the subsurface samples was lower compared to surface samples due to the high heterogeneity of subsurface microbial communities. Pore water samples from the TS-SE consisted of a diverse mixture of fresh water and marine microbes, as well as aerobic, facultative anaerobic, and obligate anaerobic bacteria, thus increasing microbial alpha diversity, especially in TS-SE-B2 and TS-SE-B3. The higher diversity of the communities in the anaerobic layers is also supported by the higher proportion of archaea identified in these layers, which grow by fermentation or anaerobic respiration using various electron acceptors. TS-SE-B1 exhibited a high number of OTUs but average Shannon and inverse Simpson indices, indicating the presence of a large number of rare OTUs in this sample. Inversely, GW-1 had average Shannon and inverse Simpson indices but low number of OTUs, pointing to a more even community. The low diversity of OTUs in GW-1 may also arise from limited substrate availability (e.g. organic matter), lack of photosynthesis, or as a result of filtration processes through the aquifer material [60, 61].

In this study, the most notable difference between the inland groundwater microbial community and the rest of the samples is the high proportion of Gammaproteobacteria, particularly from the families Chromobacteriaceae, Burkholderiaceae, and Pseudomonadaceae, which are all common in fresh groundwater samples [62, 63]. The genus Pseudomonas, from the family Pseudomonadaceae, is known for its denitrifying capabilities in almost all of its species [64]. The occurrence of denitrification in the aquifer is also supported by metabolic prediction. Such a microbial contribution may be relevant considering that Montiel, Lamore (24) reported denitrification as one major pathway of NO3- removal in the coastal aquifer of Mobile Bay.

We observed a phylogenetic shift from subsurface to surface water communities, the latter resembling eutrophic planktonic communities presumably due to high primary productivity and frequent contact with anthropogenic activities and contamination [63]. The microbial communities in surface water in this study were dominated by cyanobacteria and other bacterioplankton taxa. In river samples, microbial community composition was characterized by a high proportion of Actinobacteria and Bacteroidia, which are common lineages in surface freshwater [65, 66]. In this study, they were represented by the hgcl clade and Flavobacterium, respectively. The hgcl clade is a ubiquitous taxon and associated with N-rich environments or organic compound utilization [67], while Flavobacterium is widely known to play an essential role in the degradation of complex biopolymers in marine and freshwater environment [68]. The most dominant surface water genus from Gammaproteobaceria, Polynucleobacter, is often found in surface water bodies impacted by urban activities [69, 70].

The microbial community composition of the river samples is indicative of a transition zone between fresh and saline surface water as well as an active tidal cycle. There is a combination of brackish-marine taxa (e.g. CL500-29 marine group, SAR11 clade III) with freshwater taxa that were not found in the more saline samples (e.g. Limnohabitans, Sediminibacterium, Pseudocarcicella). We found that the extent of the river plume into Mobile Bay was traceable by both salinity and microbial community composition. During the sampling campaign in July 2017, the salinity increased from 0.2 in the northern part of the bay and increased into 4.7 in the southern part. Furthermore, beta diversity analysis suggested that the microbial communities of the tributary rivers (BR, MR, AR) were similar to those from the northern part of Mobile Bay (i.e., MB5-7), indicating that the northern part of the bay was heavily influenced by river discharge which was also reported by Ortmann and Ortell [42].

Water samples from Mobile Bay were characterized by OTUs related to the SAR11 clade, Cyanobium PCC6307, and CL500-29 marine group. Cyanobium PCC-6307 is a freshwater cyanobacterium commonly found in warm water [71]. The distribution of SAR11 clade was distinctly associated with their salinity preference: while SAR11 clade II was dominant in the southern part of Mobile Bay and the clade itself is commonly associated with coastal water, the northern part of Mobile Bay had a higher proportion of SAR11 clade III known from brackish water communities [72]. The dominance of SAR11 in the lower end of estuaries and low salinity coastal water was also reported from other studies from Mobile Bay [42, 73, 74]. All of the above bacterial taxa are associated with active primary productivity and carbon cycling [67, 72, 75]. CL500-29 is also known from algal blooms and eutrophic waters [7678]. In an environment of high primary productivity, cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria may be involved in close interactions. The cyanobacteria release organic matter that attracts heterotrophic bacteria and inversely the heterotrophic bacteria may release inorganic nutrients which could be recycled and reused by cyanobacteria [79, 80]. The occurrence of high primary productivity suggested by microbial community composition in this study, in addition to vertical stratification of the water column due to natural wind and tide pattern of Mobile Bay [39, 81] and elevated SGD-derived DON and NH4+ [24], may promote the occurrence of hypoxia events during the dry seasons.

In general, we did not observe any occurrence of community coalescence between freshwater and marine bacteria except for the prevalence of marine taxa in river samples and the uppermost layer of the pore water vertical profiles. These marine taxa are most likely brought to the estuaries and the upper STE by the previous high tide, and their high proportion in a zero salinity environment suggests a tolerance to a wide range of salinities [82]. Inversely, freshwater bacteria are found only in low or even negligible proportions in the brackish and saline samples. In the bay water sample collected close to groundwater discharge points (i.e. MB6, which is located in the direction of flow discharge from TS-NE), we did not identify freshwater taxa or taxa that are dominant in the TS-NE pore water. This finding contradicts a study from Lee, Shin [36], which found subsurface bacteria in coastal water during ebb tide characterized by high SGD rate. The different findings could be caused by the location of our sampling point, which is too far from the land that freshwater taxa exported by SGD or surface water might already be lost due to environmental and biotic filtering, considering that these taxa have a lower resistance to salinity changes in comparison to marine taxa [82]. Nevertheless, this highlights the importance of implementing microbial studies over a more extended time period (i.e. covering different tidal cycle or seasons).

Vertical distribution of microbial community composition in SGD sites

To describe vertical patterns in microbial community composition, we sampled vertical pore water profiles from two SGD sites. A sediment core recovered from the TS-SE, that essentially reflects the STE in this site, showed a lithological stratification. The uppermost layer consists of medium sand, followed by organic-rich/peat layer, and medium sand at the bottom of the core. The upper layers were dominated by aerobic bacteria and marine cyanobacteria, which suggests the infiltration of surface bay water into the upper part of the intertidal zone. The peat layer had distinctive anaerobic environment with a high proportion of SRB, fermentative bacteria, and methanogenic archaea, indicating the prevalence of syntrophic hydrocarbon degradation. In a reducing environment, it is common to find syntrophic consortia of these three types of bacteria [34, 57, 8385]. Organic matter from the peat layer can be hydrolyzed and fermented by fermentative bacteria, whose end products serve as the primary substrates for sulfate reduction or methanogenesis [86]. Even though the SRB and methanogens compete with each other to utilize the organic substrates produced by the fermentative bacteria, their co-existence in peatlands is not uncommon [58, 87, 88]. The three most dominant archaeal classes in these reducing layers were Woesearchaeia, Bathyarchaeia, and Methanomicrobia. Woesearchaeia, commonly found in groundwater and sediment, are known for their symbiotic lifestyle and role in anaerobic carbon cycling [31]. The predominant genera from class Methanomicrobia, Methanolinea and Methanoregula, are commonly found in other reducing environments such as peat bogs or anaerobic wastewater sludge [89, 90]. The co-occurrence of Methanomicrobia with Bathyarchaeia in the anoxic layers is also reported from peatlands in China [85] as well as from engineered anaerobic sludge systems [91]. In peatlands, the symbiotic association of Methanomicrobia and Bathyarchaeia plays a critical ecological role in the production of acetate, an essential precursor of methanogenesis. The potential occurrence of the productive methane production in the reduced layer of TS-SE is supported by the result of methane-related metabolic prediction (S1 Fig). While methane concentration was not measured in this study, a previous study found methane fluxes were detected in some parts of the Mobile Bay coastline, with stronger fluxes identified in lower salinity coastal areas [92].

The bottom-most layer of the TS-SE vertical profile was characterized by typical soil or sediment bacteria (e.g. Mesorizhobium, Delgado, Casella [93]). The distinct change in microbial community composition as well as the predicted metabolic function suggests that the bottom sand layer is independent of the above peat layer.

At the TS-SE site, NO3rich groundwater percolates through an organic-rich/peat sediment layer and the bulk nitrogen is transformed into NH4+ before discharging to Mobile Bay. In addition to net NH4+ production by mineralization, the loss of NO3- in the peat layer may be related to biological uptake (assimilatory nitrate reduction), denitrification or DNRA, as supported by the metabolic prediction. NO3- losses through denitrification in peat soils have been observed elsewhere (e.g. Van Beek, Hummelink [94], Jörgensen and Richter [95]). Denitrification is regulated by the nirS/nirK subunits of the nitrite reductase gene in bacteria, which is widespread among various taxonomic groups of bacteria except for gram-positive bacteria and obligate anaerobes, with few exceptions [96, 97]. DNRA is mostly carried out by fermentative or chemolithotrophic bacteria recycling NO3- to NH4+ facilitated by the genes encoded as nrfA, nirD and nirB [98, 99]. These three genes work complementarily in reducing nitrate to ammonia depending on the condition of low/high nitrate input [100]. The occurrence of DNRA in Mobile Bay’s STE has been reported before in the adjacent smaller estuary Weeks Bay [30]. The prevalent taxa found in this site, i.e. Dehaloccoidia, Bathyarchaeia, Thermodesulfovibrionia, Anaerolinaceae, Syntrophaceae, and Syntrophorhabdus were reported to be associated with DNRA processes in other studies conducted in sediments with similar characteristics [101104]. Deltaproteobacteria-affiliated SRB, whose proportion reached up to 12% in the peat layer, have the secondary capacity to implement DNRA due to their ability to grow with nitrate as a terminal electron acceptor and reduce it to ammonium [105107]. In many cases, the coexistence of denitrification and DNRA processes is found in oxic-anoxic coastal interfaces [102, 108], where oxidation status and C/N ratio often determine which process dominates N cycling [96, 109, 110]. This finding also supports other microbial studies stating that STEs are a biogeochemical hotspot for nitrogen cycling and these complex processes may alter SGD quality discharging to coastal waters (e.g. Santoro, Francis [28], Adyasari, Hassenrück [35]).

At the TS-NE site, the lithology consists exclusively of coarse sand and is distinguished by a high hydraulic conductivity. The microbial community at this site consisted of a mixture of aerobic and facultative bacteria, with a high proportion of methanotrophic bacteria of the genus Methylobacter. The Methylobacter lineage consists of some of the most abundant methane oxidizers in soil communities, which commonly utilize methane or other C1-compounds [111, 112]. This was in accordance with the organic source analysis from the peat layer that was close to, but not in contact with, the piezometer, and composed of C1 and C2 compounds indicative of decaying plant material [24]. Methanotrophs usually contribute to biogeochemical cycling by oxidizing methane or ammonia using the enzymes methane monooxygenase (encoded by the gene mmo) and ammonia monooxygenase (amo), respectively. Both amo and mmo have similar homology and may interchangeably be used by the methanotrophs [112115]. Notably, the proportion of predicted ammonia oxidation pathways in TS-NE-A2 and TS-NE-B was among the highest across all of the samples.

Overall, the total sequence proportion of archaea across all of the samples only represents 1% of the microbial community. Archaea generally compose a minority fraction of the microbial community in groundwater, however they are known to play a notable role in shaping the biogeochemical cycle in their respective environment regardless of their low relative abundance [28, 116], which is supported by the result of metabolic prediction. For instance, the archaeal community seems to contribute to ammonia oxidation at TS-NE, indicated by the prevalence of Thaumarchaeota, a ubiquitously distributed archaeal class known for their ammonia-oxidizing capability [32, 117]. Furthermore, the methane cycling processes at TS-SE may likely be regulated by the methanogenic archaea. This finding is also consistent with other studies reporting rare taxa to contribute disproportionately and perform essential biogeochemical functions in the ecosystem [118, 119].

As a limitation of the metabolic prediction, it should be noted that the usage of short 16S rRNA gene sequences to predict metabolic functions is severely constraint by the limited information content of the amplicon, biasing the accurate assignment of functional genes to a specific 16S. Thus, we suggest using the results of this study as a primer for further metagenomic or metatranscriptomic investigations, as well as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays targeting, e.g., methanotrophic, methanogenic bacteria and archaea, which displayed notable sequence proportion in the coastal pore water samples. Methane is highly abundant in peatlands [120, 121] and one of the main contributors of aquatic greenhouse gases emissions [122, 123]. Thus, understanding its cycling may be valuable particularly in coastal areas with dynamic sea-level change and a fast-changing anthropogenic landscape such as Mobile Bay.

Conclusion

In this study, we assessed microbial community composition and distribution in terrestrial and coastal water of Mobile Bay, Alabama, where SGD-derived nutrient fluxes cause harmful algal blooms and large scale fish and crustacean kills (Jubilee events) each summer. Microbial community composition across the surface hydrological continuum was primarily governed by salinity, while DON and PO43- concentrations were the strongest predictors of community shift within the subsurface ecosystems. Samples originating from the estuary and water column of Mobile Bay were dominated by bacterioplankton, particularly cyanobacteria, which are typically found in environments with high primary productivity. We further observed that microbial communities displayed different compositions along the two vertical profiles at SGD sites due to contrasting sediment stratigraphy and presumed oxygen distribution. This study suggest that microbial communities in these two sites are essential contributors to the nitrogen and methane cycle, particularly related to denitrification and DNRA at the TS-SE site, and ammonia or methane oxidation at the TS-NE site. Considering that the microbially mediated elemental cycling in the STE influences the chemical composition of the submarine groundwater discharging to Mobile Bay’s water column, these findings may be used as an incentive for further studies involving a wide range of metabolic processes and their potential impact on the ecosystem in terms of climate-related hydrological change on a regional scale.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Heatmap of the proportion of predicted KEGG orthologs (KO) related to methane metabolism based on Tax4Fun2.

M00356: methanol to methane; M00357: acetate to methane; M00563: methylamine/dimethylamine/trimethylamine to methane; M00567: CO2 to methane.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Spearman correlation between alpha diversity and observed environmental parameters.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Yustian Alfiansyah for his help with microbial laboratory analysis. We also acknowledge Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Army Corp of Engineers in Mobile for providing technical support during the field campaign.

Data Availability

Primer-clipped sequences from this study have been submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with the project accession number PRJEB33004. Environmental data, OTU table, and its taxonomic affiliation are available in https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.912763.

Funding Statement

DA is funded by DAAD Sustainable Water Management Grant No 57156376 and DFG Bernd Rendel Prize 2019. DM and ND are funded by National Science Foundation (NSF OIA-1632825), the 2016 ExxonMobil Summer Fund, the 2015 Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Student Research Grant, the University of Alabama Graduate School Research and Travel Support Fund, the UA Department of Geological Sciences W. Gary Hooks, and the A. S. Johnson Travel Fund. Geosyntec Consultant provided support in the form of salaries for DM, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The other funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Slomp CP, Van Cappellen P. Nutrient inputs to the coastal ocean through submarine groundwater discharge: controls and potential impact. Journal of Hydrology. 2004;295(1):64–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adyasari D, Oehler T, Afiati N, Moosdorf N. Environmental impact of nutrient fluxes associated with submarine groundwater discharge at an urbanized tropical coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2019;221:30–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Oehler T, Bakti H, Lubis RF, Purwoarminta A, Delinom R, Moosdorf N. Nutrient dynamics in submarine groundwater discharge through a coral reef (western Lombok, Indonesia). Limnology and Oceanography. 2019;0(0). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rodellas V, Garcia-Orellana J, Tovar-Sánchez A, Basterretxea G, López-Garcia JM, Sánchez-Quiles D, et al. Submarine groundwater discharge as a source of nutrients and trace metals in a Mediterranean bay (Palma Beach, Balearic Islands). Marine Chemistry. 2014;160:56–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Black FJ, Paytan A, Knee KL, de Sieyes NR, Ganguli PM, Gray E, et al. Submarine Groundwater Discharge of Total Mercury and Monomethylmercury to Central California Coastal Waters. Environmental Science & Technology. 2009;43(15):5652–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Boehm AB, Shellenbarger GG, Paytan A. Groundwater discharge: potential association with fecal indicator bacteria in the surf zone. Environmental science & technology. 2004;38(13):3558–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Knee KL, Layton BA, Street JH, Boehm AB, Paytan A. Sources of nutrients and fecal indicator bacteria to nearshore waters on the north shore of Kauai (Hawaii, USA). Estuaries and Coasts. 2008;31(4):607–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lee Y-W, Kim G. Linking groundwater-borne nutrients and dinoflagellate red-tide outbreaks in the southern sea of Korea using a Ra tracer. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2007;71(1):309–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hwang DW, Lee YW, Kim G. Large submarine groundwater discharge and benthic eutrophication in Bangdu Bay on volcanic Jeju Island, Korea. Limnology and Oceanography. 2005;50(5):1393–403. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Paerl HW. Coastal eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: Importance of atmospheric deposition and groundwater as “new” nitrogen and other nutrient sources. Limnology and oceanography. 1997;42(5part2):1154–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Utsunomiya T, Hata M, Sugimoto R, Honda H, Kobayashi S, Miyata Y, et al. Higher species richness and abundance of fish and benthic invertebrates around submarine groundwater discharge in Obama Bay, Japan. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies. 2017;11:139–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lilkendey J, Pisternick T, Neumann SI, Dumur Neelayya D, Bröhl S, Neehaul Y, et al. Fresh Submarine Groundwater Discharge Augments Growth in a Reef Fish. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2019;6(613). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Garcés E, Basterretxea G, Tovar-Sánchez A. Changes in microbial communities in response to submarine groundwater input. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2011;438:47–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Adolf JE, Burns J, Walker JK, Gamiao S. Near shore distributions of phytoplankton and bacteria in relation to submarine groundwater discharge-fed fishponds, Kona coast, Hawai ‘i, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2019. 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.02.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Amato DW, Bishop JM, Glenn CR, Dulai H, Smith CM. Impact of Submarine Groundwater Discharge on Marine Water Quality and Reef Biota of Maui. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0165825 10.1371/journal.pone.0165825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kamermans P, Hemminga MA, Tack JF, Mateo MA, Marbà N, Mtolera M, et al. Groundwater effects on diversity and abundance of lagoonal seagrasses in Kenya and on Zanzibar Island (East Africa). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2002;231:75–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lecher AL, Mackey K, Kudela R, Ryan J, Fisher A, Murray J, et al. Nutrient Loading through Submarine Groundwater Discharge and Phytoplankton Growth in Monterey Bay, CA. Environmental Science & Technology. 2015;49(11):6665–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Waska H, Kim G. Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) as a main nutrient source for benthic and water-column primary production in a large intertidal environment of the Yellow Sea. Journal of Sea Research. 2011;65(1):103–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moore WS. The subterranean estuary: a reaction zone of ground water and sea water. Marine Chemistry. 1999;65(1):111–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abarca E, Karam H, Hemond HF, Harvey CF. Transient groundwater dynamics in a coastal aquifer: The effects of tides, the lunar cycle, and the beach profile. Water Resources Research. 2013;49(5):2473–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Heiss JW, Michael HA. Saltwater-freshwater mixing dynamics in a sandy beach aquifer over tidal, spring-neap, and seasonal cycles. Water Resources Research. 2014;50(8):6747–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Robinson C, Li L, Barry D. Effect of tidal forcing on a subterranean estuary. Advances in Water Resources. 2007;30(4):851–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Loveless AM, Oldham CE. Natural attenuation of nitrogen in groundwater discharging through a sandy beach. Biogeochemistry. 2010;98(1–3):75–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Montiel D, Lamore AF, Stewart J, Lambert WJ, Honeck J, Lu Y, et al. Natural groundwater nutrient fluxes exceed anthropogenic inputs in an ecologically impacted estuary: lessons learned from Mobile Bay, Alabama. Biogeochemistry. 2019;145(1–2):1–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Beck AJ, Cochran JK, Sañudo-Wilhelmy SA. The distribution and speciation of dissolved trace metals in a shallow subterranean estuary. Marine Chemistry. 2010;121(1–4):145–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rogers DR, Casciotti KL. Abundance and diversity of archaeal ammonia oxidizers in a coastal groundwater system. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2010;76(24):7938–48. 10.1128/AEM.02056-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Santoro AE, Boehm AB, Francis CA. Denitrifier community composition along a nitrate and salinity gradient in a coastal aquifer. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006;72(3):2102–9. 10.1128/AEM.72.3.2102-2109.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Santoro AE, Francis CA, De Sieyes NR, Boehm AB. Shifts in the relative abundance of ammonia‐oxidizing bacteria and archaea across physicochemical gradients in a subterranean estuary. Environmental microbiology. 2008;10(4):1068–79. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01547.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sáenz JP, Hopmans EC, Rogers D, Henderson PB, Charette MA, Schouten S, et al. Distribution of anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in a subterranean estuary. Marine Chemistry. 2012;136–137:7–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bernard RJ, Mortazavi B, Kleinhuizen AA. Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) seasonally dominates NO 3− reduction pathways in an anthropogenically impacted sub-tropical coastal lagoon. Biogeochemistry. 2015;125(1):47–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Castelle Cindy J, Wrighton Kelly C, Thomas Brian C, Hug Laura A, Brown Christopher T, Wilkins Michael J, et al. Genomic Expansion of Domain Archaea Highlights Roles for Organisms from New Phyla in Anaerobic Carbon Cycling. Current Biology. 2015;25(6):690–701. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brochier-Armanet C, Boussau B, Gribaldo S, Forterre P. Mesophilic crenarchaeota: proposal for a third archaeal phylum, the Thaumarchaeota. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2008;6(3):245–52. 10.1038/nrmicro1852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Santoro AE. Microbial nitrogen cycling at the saltwater–freshwater interface. Hydrogeology Journal. 2010;18(1):187–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hong Y, Wu J, Song B. Vertical stratification of sediment microbial communities along geochemical gradients of a subterranean estuary located at the Gloucester beach of Virginia, USA. Frontiers in microbiology. 2018;9:3343 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Adyasari D, Hassenrück C, Oehler T, Sabdaningsih A, Moosdorf N. Microbial community structure associated with submarine groundwater discharge in northern Java (Indonesia). Science of The Total Environment. 2019;689:590–601. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lee E, Shin D, Hyun SP, Ko KS, Moon HS, Koh DC, et al. Periodic change in coastal microbial community structure associated with submarine groundwater discharge and tidal fluctuation. Limnology and Oceanography. 2017;62(2):437–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Loesch H. Sporadic mass shoreward migrations of demersal fish and crustaceans in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Ecology. 1960;41(2):292–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.May EB. EXTENSIVE OXYGEN DEPLETION IN MOBILE BAY, ALABAMA 1. Limnology and Oceanography. 1973;18(3):353–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Park K, Kim C-K, Schroeder WW. Temporal variability in summertime bottom hypoxia in shallow areas of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Estuaries and Coasts. 2007;30(1):54–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liefer JD, MacIntyre HL, Novoveska L, Smith WL, Dorsey CP. Temporal and spatial variability in Pseudo-nitzschia spp. in Alabama coastal waters: a “hot spot” linked to submarine groundwater discharge? Harmful Algae. 2009;8(5):706–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Montiel D, Lamore A, Stewart J, Dimova N. Is Submarine Groundwater Discharge (SGD) Important for the Historical Fish Kills and Harmful Algal Bloom Events of Mobile Bay? Estuaries and Coasts. 2019;42(2):470–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ortmann AC, Ortell N. Changes in free-living bacterial community diversity reflect the magnitude of environmental variability. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2014;87(1):291–301. 10.1111/1574-6941.12225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ortmann AC, Metzger RC, Liefer JD, Novoveska L. Grazing and viral lysis vary for different components of the microbial community across an estuarine gradient. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 2011;65(2):143–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.McManus GB, Griffin PM, Pennock JR. Bacterioplankton abundance and growth in a river-dominated estuary: relationships with temperature and resources. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 2004;37(1):23–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wemheuer F, Taylor JA, Daniel R, Johnston E, Meinicke P, Thomas T, et al. Tax4Fun2: a R-based tool for the rapid prediction of habitat-specific functional profiles and functional redundancy based on 16S rRNA gene marker gene sequences. bioRxiv. 2018:490037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Geological Survey of Alabama. Assessment of Groundwater Resources in Alabama, 2010–16. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nercessian O, Noyes E, Kalyuzhnaya MG, Lidstrom ME, Chistoserdova L. Bacterial populations active in metabolism of C1 compounds in the sediment of Lake Washington, a freshwater lake. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2005;71(11):6885–99. 10.1128/AEM.71.11.6885-6899.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environmental microbiology. 2016;18(5):1403–14. 10.1111/1462-2920.13023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature Methods. 2016;13:581 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Diepenbroek M, Glöckner FO, Grobe P, Güntsch A, Huber R, König-Ries B, et al. Towards an integrated biodiversity and ecological research data management and archiving platform: the German federation for the curation of biological data (GFBio). Informatik 2014. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–6. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Friedemann G, Schellenberg J. Package 'goeveg'. Functions for Community Data and Ordination ver 042: CRAN; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bolhuis H, Fillinger L, Stal LJ. Coastal microbial mat diversity along a natural salinity gradient. PloS one. 2013;8(5):e63166 10.1371/journal.pone.0063166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lin X, Green S, Tfaily M, Prakash O, Konstantinidis K, Corbett J, et al. Microbial community structure and activity linked to contrasting biogeochemical gradients in bog and fen environments of the Glacial Lake Agassiz Peatland. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(19):7023–31. 10.1128/AEM.01750-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lin X, Tfaily MM, Green SJ, Steinweg JM, Chanton P, Imvittaya A, et al. Microbial Metabolic Potential for Carbon Degradation and Nutrient (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) Acquisition in an Ombrotrophic Peatland. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2014;80(11):3531 10.1128/AEM.00206-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sela-Adler M, Ronen Z, Herut B, Antler G, Vigderovich H, Eckert W, et al. Co-existence of methanogenesis and sulfate reduction with common substrates in sulfate-rich estuarine sediments. Frontiers in microbiology. 2017;8:766 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sinke AJ, Cornelese AA, Cappenberg TE, Zehnder AJ. Seasonal variation in sulfate reduction and methanogenesis in peaty sediments of eutrophic Lake Loosdrecht, The Netherlands. Biogeochemistry. 1992;16(1):43–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Espenberg M, Truu M, Mander Ü, Kasak K, Nõlvak H, Ligi T, et al. Differences in microbial community structure and nitrogen cycling in natural and drained tropical peatland soils. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):4742 10.1038/s41598-018-23032-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dash RR, Prakash EB, Kumar P, Mehrotra I, Sandhu C, Grischek T. River bank filtration in Haridwar, India: removal of turbidity, organics and bacteria. Hydrogeology Journal. 2010;18(4):973–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Gibert J, Danielopol D, Stanford JA. Groundwater ecology: Academic Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Korbel K, Chariton A, Stephenson S, Greenfield P, Hose GC. Wells provide a distorted view of life in the aquifer: implications for sampling, monitoring and assessment of groundwater ecosystems. Scientific reports. 2017;7:40702 10.1038/srep40702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Liu J, Fu B, Yang H, Zhao M, He B, Zhang X-H. Phylogenetic shifts of bacterioplankton community composition along the Pearl Estuary: the potential impact of hypoxia and nutrients. Frontiers in microbiology. 2015;6:64 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Carlson CA, Ingraham JL. Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1983;45(4):1247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Newton RJ, Jones SE, Eiler A, McMahon KD, Bertilsson S. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2011;75(1):14–49. 10.1128/MMBR.00028-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Zwart G, Crump BC, Kamst-van Agterveld MP, Hagen F, Han S-K. Typical freshwater bacteria: an analysis of available 16S rRNA gene sequences from plankton of lakes and rivers. Aquatic microbial ecology. 2002;28(2):141–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ghylin TW, Garcia SL, Moya F, Oyserman BO, Schwientek P, Forest KT, et al. Comparative single-cell genomics reveals potential ecological niches for the freshwater acI Actinobacteria lineage. The ISME journal. 2014;8(12):2503 10.1038/ismej.2014.135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kirchman DL. The ecology of Cytophaga–Flavobacteria in aquatic environments. FEMS microbiology ecology. 2002;39(2):91–100. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00910.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hosen JD, Febria CM, Crump BC, Palmer MA. Watershed urbanization linked to differences in stream bacterial community composition. Frontiers in microbiology. 2017;8:1452 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wu QL, Hahn MW. High predictability of the seasonal dynamics of a species-like Polynucleobacter population in a freshwater lake. Environmental Microbiology. 2006;8(9):1660–6. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01049.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Stanier R, Kunisawa R, Mandel M, Cohen-Bazire G. Purification and properties of unicellular blue-green algae (order Chroococcales). Bacteriological reviews. 1971;35(2):171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Giovannoni SJ. SAR11 Bacteria: The Most Abundant Plankton in the Oceans. Annual Review of Marine Science. 2017;9(1):231–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Kirchman DL, Dittel AI, Malmstrom RR, Cottrell MT. Biogeography of major bacterial groups in the Delaware Estuary. Limnology and oceanography. 2005;50(5):1697–706. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.King GM, Smith C, Tolar B, Hollibaugh JT. Analysis of composition and structure of coastal to mesopelagic bacterioplankton communities in the northern gulf of Mexico. Frontiers in microbiology. 2013;3:438 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.McIlroy SJ, Nielsen PH. The family saprospiraceae. The Prokaryotes: Other Major Lineages of Bacteria and The Archaea. 2014:863–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ghai R, Mizuno CM, Picazo A, Camacho A, Rodriguez‐Valera F. Key roles for freshwater A ctinobacteria revealed by deep metagenomic sequencing. Molecular ecology. 2014;23(24):6073–90. 10.1111/mec.12985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Yang C, Wang Q, Simon PN, Liu J, Liu L, Dai X, et al. Distinct Network Interactions in Particle-Associated and Free-Living Bacterial Communities during a Microcystis aeruginosa Bloom in a Plateau Lake. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8(1202). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Lindh MV, Lefébure R, Degerman R, Lundin D, Andersson A, Pinhassi J. Consequences of increased terrestrial dissolved organic matter and temperature on bacterioplankton community composition during a Baltic Sea mesocosm experiment. Ambio. 2015;44(3):402–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Cai H, Jiang H, Krumholz LR, Yang Z. Bacterial community composition of size-fractioned aggregates within the phycosphere of cyanobacterial blooms in a eutrophic freshwater lake. PloS one. 2014;9(8):e102879 10.1371/journal.pone.0102879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Xu Z, Te SH, He Y, Gin KY-H. The characteristics and dynamics of cyanobacteria-heterotrophic bacteria between two estuarine reservoirs-tropical versus sub-tropical regions. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9:2531 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Turner R, Schroeder W, Wiseman WJ. The role of stratification in the deoxygenation of Mobile Bay and adjacent shelf bottom waters. Estuaries. 1987;10(1):13–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wu QL, Zwart G, Schauer M, Kamst-van Agterveld MP, Hahn MW. Bacterioplankton community composition along a salinity gradient of sixteen high-mountain lakes located on the Tibetan Plateau, China. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(8):5478–85. 10.1128/AEM.00767-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Oremland RS, Polcin S. Methanogenesis and sulfate reduction: competitive and noncompetitive substrates in estuarine sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1982;44(6):1270–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Ozuolmez D, Na H, Lever MA, Kjeldsen KU, Jørgensen BB, Plugge CM. Methanogenic archaea and sulfate reducing bacteria co-cultured on acetate: teamwork or coexistence? Frontiers in microbiology. 2015;6:492 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Xiang X, Wang R, Wang H, Gong L, Man B, Xu Y. Distribution of Bathyarchaeota Communities Across Different Terrestrial Settings and Their Potential Ecological Functions. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:45028 10.1038/srep45028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Schink B, Stams AJ. Syntrophism among prokaryotes: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Westermann P, Ahring BK. Dynamics of methane production, sulfate reduction, and denitrification in a permanently waterlogged alder swamp. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1987;53(10):2554–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Takii S, Fukui M. Relative importance of methanogenesis, sulfate reduction and denitrification in sediments of the lower Tama river. Bulletin of Japanese Society of Microbial Ecology. 1991;6(1):9–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Imachi H, Sakai S, Sekiguchi Y, Hanada S, Kamagata Y, Ohashi A, et al. Methanolinea tarda gen. nov., sp. nov., a methane-producing archaeon isolated from a methanogenic digester sludge. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2008;58(1):294–301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Bräuer SL, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Ward RJ, Yavitt JB, Zinder SH. Methanoregula boonei gen. nov., sp. nov., an acidiphilic methanogen isolated from an acidic peat bog. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology. 2011;61(1):45–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Collins G, Connor L, Mahony T, Gieseke A, de Beer D, Flaherty V. Distribution, Localization, and Phylogeny of Abundant Populations of &lt;em&gt;Crenarchaeota&lt;/em&gt; in Anaerobic Granular Sludge. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71(11):7523 10.1128/AEM.71.11.7523-7527.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Wilson BJ, Mortazavi B, Kiene RP. Spatial and temporal variability in carbon dioxide and methane exchange at three coastal marshes along a salinity gradient in a northern Gulf of Mexico estuary. Biogeochemistry. 2015;123(3):329–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Delgado MJ, Casella S, Bedmar EJ. Denitrification in rhizobia-legume symbiosis Biology of the nitrogen cycle: Elsevier; 2007. p. 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Van Beek C, Hummelink E, Velthof G, Oenema O. Denitrification rates in relation to groundwater level in a peat soil under grassland. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2004;39(5):329–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Jörgensen R, Richter G. Composition of carbon fractions and potential denitrification in drained peat soils. Journal of soil science. 1992;43(2):347–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Tiedje JM. Ecology of denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium. Biology of anaerobic microorganisms. 1988;717:179–244. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Zumft WG. Cell biology and molecular basis of denitrification. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61(4):533–616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Einsle O, Messerschmidt A, Stach P, Bourenkov GP, Bartunik HD, Huber R, et al. Structure of cytochrome c nitrite reductase. Nature. 1999;400(6743):476 10.1038/22802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Simon J. Enzymology and bioenergetics of respiratory nitrite ammonification. FEMS microbiology reviews. 2002;26(3):285–309. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2002.tb00616.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Wang H, Gunsalus RP. The nrfA and nirB nitrite reductase operons in Escherichia coli are expressed differently in response to nitrate than to nitrite. Journal of bacteriology. 2000;182(20):5813–22. 10.1128/jb.182.20.5813-5822.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Welsh A, Chee-Sanford J, Connor L, Löffler F, Sanford R. Refined NrfA phylogeny improves PCR-based nrfA gene detection. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2014:AEM. 03443–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Palacin-Lizarbe C, Camarero L, Hallin S, Jones CM, Cáliz J, Casamayor EO, et al. The DNRA-denitrification dichotomy differentiates nitrogen transformation pathways in mountain lake benthic habitats. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Lazar CS, Baker BJ, Seitz K, Hyde AS, Dick GJ, Hinrichs KU, et al. Genomic evidence for distinct carbon substrate preferences and ecological niches of B athyarchaeota in estuarine sediments. Environmental Microbiology. 2016;18(4):1200–11. 10.1111/1462-2920.13142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Bhatnagar S, Badger JH, Madupu R, Khouri HM, O’Connor EM, Robb FT, et al. Genome sequence of the sulfate-reducing thermophilic bacterium Thermodesulfovibrio yellowstonii strain DSM 11347T (phylum Nitrospirae). Genome announcements. 2015;3(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Henry E, Devereux R, Maki J, Gilmour C, Woese C, Mandelco L, et al. Characterization of a new thermophilic sulfate-reducing bacterium. Archives of Microbiology. 1994;161(1):62–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Seitz H-J, Cypionka H. Chemolithotrophic growth ofDesulfovibrio desulfuricans with hydrogen coupled to ammonification of nitrate or nitrite. Archives of microbiology. 1986;146(1):63–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Moura I, Bursakov S, Costa C, Moura JJ. Nitrate and nitrite utilization in sulfate-reducing bacteria. Anaerobe. 1997;3(5):279–90. 10.1006/anae.1997.0093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Bonaglia S, Klawonn I, De Brabandere L, Deutsch B, Thamdrup B, Brüchert V. Denitrification and DNRA at the Baltic Sea oxic–anoxic interface: Substrate spectrum and kinetics. Limnology and Oceanography. 2016;61(5):1900–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Strohm TO, Griffin B, Zumft WG, Schink B. Growth yields in bacterial denitrification and nitrate ammonification. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(5):1420–4. 10.1128/AEM.02508-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Yin S, Shen Q, Tang Y, Cheng L. Reduction of nitrate to ammonium in selected paddy soils of China. Pedosphere. 1998;8(3):221–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Graham DW, Chaudhary JA, Hanson RS, Arnold RG. Factors affecting competition between type I and type II methanotrophs in two-organism, continuous-flow reactors. Microbial ecology. 1993;25(1):1–17. 10.1007/BF00182126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Hanson RS, Hanson TE. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiological reviews. 1996;60(2):439–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Nyerges G, Han S-K, Stein LY. Effects of ammonium and nitrite on growth and competitive fitness of cultivated methanotrophic bacteria. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2010;76(16):5648–51. 10.1128/AEM.00747-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Dalton H. Ammonia oxidation by the methane oxidising bacterium Methylococcus capsulatus strain Bath. Archives of Microbiology. 1977;114(3):273–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Stein LY, Klotz MG. Nitrifying and denitrifying pathways of methanotrophic bacteria. Portland Press Limited; 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Milucka J, Ferdelman TG, Polerecky L, Franzke D, Wegener G, Schmid M, et al. Zero-valent sulphur is a key intermediate in marine methane oxidation. Nature. 2012;491(7425):541–6. 10.1038/nature11656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Berg C, Listmann L, Vandieken V, Vogts A, Jürgens K. Chemoautotrophic growth of ammonia-oxidizing Thaumarchaeota enriched from a pelagic redox gradient in the Baltic Sea. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;5(786). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Bodelier PL, Meima-Franke M, Hordijk CA, Steenbergh AK, Hefting MM, Bodrossy L, et al. Microbial minorities modulate methane consumption through niche partitioning. The ISME journal. 2013;7(11):2214–28. 10.1038/ismej.2013.99 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Héry M, Volant A, Garing C, Luquot L, Elbaz Poulichet F, Gouze P. Diversity and geochemical structuring of bacterial communities along a salinity gradient in a carbonate aquifer subject to seawater intrusion. FEMS microbiology ecology. 2014;90(3):922–34. 10.1111/1574-6941.12445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Turetsky MR, Kotowska A, Bubier J, Dise NB, Crill P, Hornibrook ER, et al. A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Global change biology. 2014;20(7):2183–97. 10.1111/gcb.12580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Whiting GJ, Chanton J. Primary production control of methane emission from wetlands. Nature. 1993;364(6440):794–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Huttunen JT, Alm J, Liikanen A, Juutinen S, Larmola T, Hammar T, et al. Fluxes of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in boreal lakes and potential anthropogenic effects on the aquatic greenhouse gas emissions. Chemosphere. 2003;52(3):609–21. 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00243-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Bastviken D, Tranvik LJ, Downing JA, Crill PM, Enrich-Prast A. Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink. Science. 2011;331(6013):50-. 10.1126/science.1196808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

John M Senko

14 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-05547

Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adyasari,

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.

Two reviewers have provided excellent reviews. They have both concluded that the content of the paper is worthy of publication, but have suggested that the results could be explored more deeply (see comments from Reviewer 2) work should be presented more clearly and in a more organized fashion (see comments from Reviewer 1).  They make several suggestions that should help you achieve those goals.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John M. Senko

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your Competing interests statement to declare any competing interests, such as author commercial affiliations.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

5.  We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

 

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Geosyntec Consultants

1.     Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7.  We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains 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 2 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: Yes

**********

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: SGD has been recognized as a major pathway of inland-derived nutrients and chemical flux into ocean. Nitrogen transformation mediated by chemical and microbial reaction along its pathway from inland aquifer to subterranean estuary could serve as a major mechanism controlling the level and form of nutrient discharge into the ocean. This paper aims to investigate microbial composition and distribution along the coastal subsurface/surface water bodies influenced by nutrient-rich SGD. The manuscript presents interesting results (sharp shifts in microbial composition depending on location and environmental factors, different nitrogen transformation mechanisms at different SGD sites, possibly associated with different geology.) which could provide a contribution to the literature. A major limitation to the study is the number of samples analyzed. Authors obtained and analyzed one sample from each site during one sampling period although this study would clearly benefit from expanded sampling to make the conclusions from convincing. Given that analysis error and potential biases from sampling, for example, it is not sure whether the general characteristics of microbial composition, distribution and its function of each site can be reasonably represented. Most of chemical data presented does not include statistical information such as error range, mean, p-values, etc. The PCA analysis result revealed that salinity and nitrate are key environmental factors controlling microbial community. Unfortunately, however, authors did not get salinity data for some key samples (TS-4, 5), and referenced the data from previous studies. Given that the significant effect of salinity on the analysis results, this issues needs to be tested more carefully. First, authors needs to show that the hydrological condition between two sampling period were similar, thus there is limited seasonal (temporal) effect in the salinity profile. Second, the authors has to present the salinity data from TS 1-3 from pervious field campaign and confirm that the shallow porewater (TS1-3) presented low salinity (freshwater) values during both field campaign period.

Manuscript needs moderate revision for its structure. I found it is difficult to follow the manuscript in parts, which are common when many things were summed up in one paper.

(1) Line 97:

The SGD and nutrient fluxes better to be represented as m/day (mmol/m2/day) or m3/m/day (mmol/m/day). Considering the different shoreline length and size of two sites, SGD fluxes shown in m3/day does not provide adequate information here. Also, please try to add error range of estimated SGD (nutrient flux).

(2) Line 116: MB1-6 -> MB1-7??

(3) Please consider switching the order of Figure 1 and 2. Also, please mark the location of vertical profiles of Fig 1 into the Fig. 2. The sampling depth betters to be clearly shown in Fig 1, so that authors can compare the monitoring depth and its geological formation at the same time.

(4) Line 168: As explained above, provide more detailed and clear information concerning the previous sampling period. Additionally, please check show that the hydrological condition between two sampling period were similar and the salinity data from TS 1-3 from pervious field campaign showed similar values with current field survey.

(5) Table 1. Provide additional statistical information (error bar, mean, p-values) if possible. Additionally, kindly check data for NO3-, NH4+, PO4 and DON for TS-SE-4 and TS-SE-5 (All data are same each other).

(6) Line 254: Based on the Fig 7, the difference microbial community between TS-SE3/4 and TS-SE-5 seems to be associated with different geological layer. It would be better if authors can clarify the geological difference in each sampling point in the beginning so that authors can better understand the link between microbial composition and geologic layer.

(7) Figure resolution is too low. Some tests in figures are too small (e.g. coordinate information in fig 2). Please enhance the figure resolution and increase the text sizes.

Reviewer #2: Revision of the manuscript “Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)” by Adyasari et al.

The paper of Adyasari et al. explores the spatial dynamics of prokaryotic communities along a coastal hydrological gradient in the Mobile Bay, USA, which is influenced by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD), as well as its links to environmental conditions. To do so, they collect water samples from 20 sites, including fresh groundwater, two vertical profiles of porewater in the intertidal zones, river water and bay water. The bacterial community composition is characterized by sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and the physicochemical parameters measured include salinity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and concentration of inorganic nutrients. In addition, they estimate the functional diversity from the taxonomic data using the Tax4Fun2 method.

Their results show pronounced changes in the structure of the prokaryotic assemblages between the different habitats covered, and a high vertical heterogeneity within each piezometer. The environmental variables most strongly related to the observed variations in microbial communities are salinity and nitrate, and they find higher diversity in the intertidal pore waters than in the fresh groundwater and in surface river or seawater. The authors provide a detailed and complete description of the taxonomic groups detected. Based on the functional analysis, the authors suggest that subsurface microbial communities may play a large role in nitrogen cycling, thus affecting the nutrients delivered to the bay. The authors conclude that that their results support previous studies in the area showing that SGD supports productivity.

The research presented here is relevant because it provides information about the spatial variations in microbial communities in subterranean estuaries, largely undersampled for microbial studies in comparison to other surface aquatic habitats. The study is also of relevance since it compares the original groundwater, river water, bay water and pore waters located in a single area, which allows a comprehensive exploration of the microbial diversity in this groundwater-marine interface, which is also one of the least studied ecotones in terms of microbial ecology and biogeography. The study shows how complex and heterogeneous groundwater microbial assemblages are, even at such small spatial scales. Given that groundwater aquifers appear to hide a vast diversity of unknown taxa, any study providing insight on the subsurface microbial inhabitants is of interest. The manuscript is well written, the results are well presented and clearly explained, and the discussion is well contextualized.

In my opinion, however, the study needs to address some issues, and to acknowledge some of its limitations. For example, this type of intertidal systems may be extremely variable, not only depending on tidal fluctuations but also on hydrologic regimes. As this paper presents a single snap-shot of the system (one sampling day), the conclusions must be taken with caution and the existence of large temporal variations in the reported patterns at different scales must be acknowledged and discussed in the Discussion section. In my opinion, the manuscript should also better highlight the lack of studies targeting groundwater estuaries, and should put their results in the context of such previous knowledge; although to my knowledge very few studies have explored the microbiology in these type of systems, there are some that have not been included in the manuscript and thus should be cited (see below). Also, the authors find important proportions of Archaea, and to my knowledge not much is known about archaea in groundwaters. A better contextualization of these results in view of the existing literature would render the manuscript more interesting and novel, as there is truly a lack of studies focusing on these sites that appear to be important hotspots of biogeochemical activity.

Given the large spatial heterogeneity reported in the vertical pore water profiles, I think that it would be interesting to address the drivers of the studied communities including only the subsurface samples, as it is expectable that salinity will be one of the drivers explaining the majority of the variation when river and bay samples are included. However, based on the NMDS and the PCA, it does not seem that salinity is the main driver of the variations across/within the subsurface samples, is it? I suggest that the analysis is performed in parallel including all samples together but also considering only the subsurface ones.

Finally, as the sampling covers a nice groundwater-river-brackish gradient, I think it would be interesting to explore a little bit more whether the authors can find indicator taxa associated to a given habitat, or to which extent the different ground- and porewater samples are comprised of typical marine or typical freshwater taxa (see comments below).

Although I see that this manuscript provides interesting and detailed information of the studied assemblages, I recommend that these and other issues (see below) are addressed for this study to be published in PLOS ONE.

Major comments:

1. Overall, I see the relevance of the research and the interest of the sampling design, but in my opinion the manuscript would largely benefit from modifying partially the Introduction and the Discussion so that the relevance, novelty or need of conducting the present research is better contextualized and justified. The study of groundwater microbial ecology is gaining increasing attention, and there have been many recent papers on groundwater communities, including some targeting subterranean estuaries (e.g. Héry et al. 2014 FEMS, Chen et al. 2019 STOTEN, Sang et al 2018 Sci Reports). A comparison to such previous studies would highlight the similarities or differences with such previous investigations, thus underlying the specific contributions of this investigation.

2. As mentioned before, the authors have interesting information that is however not shown in the figures. For example, could they make a figure analogous to Figure 3 and Figure 6 but considering only the subsurface communities? This would help better identify the environmental gradients that drive the pronounced spatial heterogeneity found within and across these communities. Including the river and bay water is interesting to place subsurface communities within the whole hydrologic gradient, but it is well known that salinity drives bacterial communities in the surface fresh-marine transitions... at the subsurface, this may be less clear and assemblages be strongly influenced by other gradients such as dissolved oxygen, which will be more clearly visualized when only those samples are considered.

3. Similarly, the fact that the surface seawater and freshwater are also included allows for a deeper exploration of e.g. typical groundwater indicators (indval analysis), or to explore the percentage of 'river' or 'marine' taxa that comprise the studied subsurface communities. There is also a recent study (Rocca et al 2020 Ecology) that is relevant in this regard.

Specific comments:

-One of the main conclusions stated in the abstract is not easily derived from the results reported in the abstract: 'Overall, our study supported previous observations in the area highlighting the role of SGD in Mobile Bay's productivity'. This does not seem to be the main conclusion of the paper as nothing has been shown regarding the productivity in the Bay. I suggest that the end of the abstract is rewritten to deliver a more specific message that can be directly derived from the presented results.

-It is not clear why so many different bay water samples were taken. What was the purpose of this? Are they supposed to cover sites of different SGD influence? Based on temperature, for example, it seems that they are quite different in terms of salinity... something should be said about this in the methods section (to justify the choice of bay sites).

-Line 110: Please indicate how was GW1 collected. Is this groundwater sample supposed to be indicative of the groundwater in the area? Please indicate so.

-Line 127: How where the duplicate samples treated for the different analyses? Where they averaged? Please explain it. The duplicates are not shown in the figures, and I think it would be interesting to visually see whether the individual replicates cluster together in the ordination graphs

-Line 221-223: I find very interesting the large variations in taxonomic richness and diversity found within the TS-SE vertical profile. Something should be said about this. Where these changes in taxonomic diversity explained by any of the measured environmental parameters?

-Line 272: The figures should be explained in the order of appearance, so the authors should either redo the figures or reorganize the text. In my opinion, the general composition at the class level should be explained together with the explanation of Figure 5, focusing on the main differences between river, bay water and groundwater assemblages. Then, the current subsection (line 272) could focus exclusively on the vertical dimension, adding, as suggested above, the composition in terms of order, or family, besides genera. Both things could be later combined in the Discussion, but the results section needs to follow the figure order. Otherwise it is confusing for the reader.

-Table 1. Please check the nutrient values for TS-SE4 and 5, and TS-NE1 and 2, as they are exactly the same.

-Figure 3. As suggested above, I think it would be interesting to look at these patterns considering only the subsurface samples

-Lines 237-246: This figure includes the taxonomic composition but nothing is said about it, only the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity is mentioned. Please describe the compositional patterns shown in the figure. The description of the figures should follow the sequence of appearance.

-Figure 7: if I understand it correctly, the grey area lumps together all the taxa that were not classified at the genus level. However, as this area is so big, wouldn't it be possible to assign it to the smaller taxonomic level possible in those cases? e.g. family.... Alternatively, I think it would be useful to draw the same profile in parallel to this one, grouping taxa at the e.g. order level, in order to differentiate it from Figure 5 but to show more visually the vertical variations in composition (which are not as clearly shown in Figure 5 because sites are clustered based on similarity and not along the vertical profile).

In other words, I suggest that you add a similar graph to the left of figure 7 that shows the whole taxonomic composition at a higher taxonomic rank (something in between the class level shown in Figure 5 and the genus level shown in Figure 7). This will help visualizing more clearly the vertical changes in composition, and then you can go to the identified genera in more detail.

-Figure 7: Here and throughout the text, replace on genus/class level by 'at the genus/class level'

-Figure 8: The proportion is calculated relative to what? to the total identified KOs? Please specify in the legend.

-Line 272: Microbial community composition at the horizontal and vertical scales?

-Line 272: The figures should be explained in the order of appearance, so the authors should either redo the figures or reorganize the text. In my opinion, the general composition at the class level should be explained together with the explanation of Figure 5, focusing on the main differences between river, bay water and groundwater assemblages. Then, the current subsection (line 272) could focus exclusively on the vertical dimension, adding, as suggested above, the composition in terms of order, or family, besides genera. Both things could be later combined in the Discussion, but the results section needs to follow the figure order. Otherwise it is confusing for the reader.

DISCUSSION: As explained above, in my opinion the manuscript would also benefit from expanding the discussion in order to compare the reported data with what has been done in previous studies targeting comparable systems. Although (at least to my knowledge) there are very few investigations exploring groundwater aquifers in coastal sites, these should be acknowledged and the results should be compared with them, in order to highlight the differences or similarities in the reported patterns (e.g. Héry et al. 2014 FEMS, Chen et al. 2019 STOTEN, Sang et al 2018 Sci Reports).

- Line 354: Changes in microbial community structure along the freshwater-marine continuum?

-Lines 364-372: This statement could be nicely shown if exploring the contribution to each subsurface community of typical groundwater, river water or marine water taxa. I expect that this would nicely show what are the mixing zones, and which are those sites where totally different communities arise, that do not result from the passive mixing of marine and freshwater taxa. There is accumulating evidence that microbial communities are largely structured by hydrologic connectivity (e.g. Ruiz-González et al 2015 Ecol Lett shows that freshwater bacterial communities are dominated by rare taxa transported from soils, some of which appear to grow in water). Rocca et al (2020 Ecology) is also relevant here ('Rare microbial taxa emerge when communities collide: freshwater and marine microbiome responses to experimental mixing'). There are other papers showing that the resuscitation of rare taxa can impact ecosystem processes such as CO2 and methane production (Aanderud et al. 2015 Front. Microbiol, Stegen et al. 2015 Nature Communications), so that the rare taxa that appear in the studied pore water sites may play large roles in coastal biogeochemistry. The manuscript would benefit from an expansion of the discussion on this topic, on the role of hydrologic transport of microbial diversity and the selective growth of some of the transported taxa when encountering new environmental conditions.

-Lines 432-440: To my knowledge, not much is known about Archaea in subsurface ecosystems, and in particular in subterranean estuaries. The authors should highlight what is known or not about the topic, in order to better highlight the specific contributions of the presented research.

-Line 444-445. Please rewrite this sentence to specify more clearly that NO3 is transformed to NH4 during transit through this site, which is then delivered to the Bay

-Line 446, replace 'and it is likely generated' with ',which are likely generated'

-Line 450: was related

-Line 458: depending on

REFERENCES CITED HERE

Aanderud, Z.T., Jones, S.E., Fierer, N. & Lennon, J.F. (2015) Resuscitation of the rare biosphere contributes to pulses of ecosystem activity. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 24.

Héry, M., Volant, A., Garing, C., Luguot, L., Poulichet, F.E. & Gouze, P. (2014) Diversity and geochemical structuring of bacterial communities along a salinity gradient in a carbonate aquifer subject to seawater intrusion. Fems Microbiology Ecology, 90, 922–934.

Rocca, J.D., Simonin, M., Bernhardt, E.S., Washburne, A.D. & Wright, J.J. (2020) Rare microbial taxa emerge when communities collide: freshwater and marine microbiome responses to experimental mixing. Ecology, 101, e02956.

Ruiz-González, C., Niño-García, J.P. & del Giorgio, P.A. (2015) Terrestrial origin of bacterial communities in complex boreal freshwater networks. Ecology Letters, 18, 1198-1206.

Sang, S., Zhang, X., Dai, H., Hu, B.X., Ou, H. & Sun, L. (2018) Diversity and predictive metabolic pathways of the prokaryotic microbial community along a groundwater salinity gradient of the Pearl River Delta, China Scientific Reports, 8, 17317.

Stegen, J.C., Fredrickson, J.K., Wilkins, M.J., Konopka, A.E., Nelson, W.C., Arntzen, E.V., Chrisler, W.B., Chu, R.K., Danczak, R.E., Fansler, S.J., Kennedy, D.W., Resch, C.T. & Tfaily, M. (2016) Groundwater–surface water mixing shifts ecological assembly processes and stimulates organic carbon turnover. Nature Communications, 7, 11237.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RevisionPLOS ONE.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 29;15(6):e0235235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235235.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Jun 2020

We thank Reviewer 1 and 2 for their constructive feedbacks. We would also acknowledge that there have been three differences between this revised manuscript with the original submission:

a. There has been a mistake on DON concentration of pore water in the original submission. We have corrected this mistake in this revised submission.

b. There has been a mistake on coordinate of TS-NE-3 in the original submission, as this sampling point was a standalone piezometer and not a part of TS-NE vertical profile. We corrected this mistake in this revised submission.

c. Considering Reviewer 1 concern related to the unavailability of salinity, DO, and temperature data for some pore water samples, and suggestion from Reviewer 2 about separating subsurface microbial samples, we modified our hypothesis testing method from redundancy analysis (RDA) to permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) applied to surface and subsurface samples separately, instead of applying the test to all samples altogether. Following the suggestion of Reviewer 2, we explored the relationships between environmental parameters separately for subsurface samples, and noticed that the correlation between environmental parameter in surface and subsurface samples was fundamentally different. Therefore, we proceeded with separate analyses for surface and subsurface samples. PERMANOVA was chosen as a more robust alternative to RDA.

Reviewer 1

Reviewer #1: SGD has been recognized as a major pathway of inland-derived nutrients and chemical flux into ocean. Nitrogen transformation mediated by chemical and microbial reaction along its pathway from inland aquifer to subterranean estuary could serve as a major mechanism controlling the level and form of nutrient discharge into the ocean. This paper aims to investigate microbial composition and distribution along the coastal subsurface/surface water bodies influenced by nutrient-rich SGD. The manuscript presents interesting results (sharp shifts in microbial composition depending on location and environmental factors, different nitrogen transformation mechanisms at different SGD sites, possibly associated with different geology.) which could provide a contribution to the literature. A major limitation to the study is the number of samples analyzed. Authors obtained and analyzed one sample from each site during one sampling period although this study would clearly benefit from expanded sampling to make the conclusions from convincing. Given that analysis error and potential biases from sampling, for example, it is not sure whether the general characteristics of microbial composition, distribution and its function of each site can be reasonably represented.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and we try to answer their concerns in more detailed manners in the points below. To address Reviewer 1 concern about the one-time sampling period, we acknowledge this limitation and have stated in the manuscript that further studies are needed to characterize the microbial community composition and its environmental drivers in higher certainty, for instance by measuring more environmental parameters (line 444-445) or taking samples over longer period of time, i.e. covering different tidal cycle and seasons (line 526-528). This study provides first insight of subsurface microbial activities in Mobile Bay area. Considering that the result of this study points to active nitrogen and methane cycles in the STE, it may serve as a primer to more detailed microbial studies on nitrogen and methane in the future, particularly in view of their contributions to water quality and climate variability in Mobile Bay (i.e. ammonium flux as the main cause of Jubilees and methane as a major contributor of climate change) or northern Gulf of Mexico area with similar lithological settings.

Most of chemical data presented does not include statistical information such as error range, mean, p-values, etc. The PCA analysis result revealed that salinity and nitrate are key environmental factors controlling microbial community. Unfortunately, however, authors did not get salinity data for some key samples (TS-4, 5), and referenced the data from previous studies. Given that the significant effect of salinity on the analysis results, this issues needs to be tested more carefully. First, authors needs to show that the hydrological condition between two sampling period were similar, thus there is limited seasonal (temporal) effect in the salinity profile. Second, the authors has to present the salinity data from TS 1-3 from pervious field campaign and confirm that the shallow porewater (TS1-3) presented low salinity (freshwater) values during both field campaign period.

To address the concern related data availability for salinity, DO, and temperature, we present detailed hydrological data from the previous sampling expeditions in one of the answer point below. However, as the previous expeditions were not conducted as detailed as our sampling (i.e. taking samples in 0.5-1.5 m intervals along the vertical profiles), some assumptions were still made to fulfill the requirement for PCA and envfit analyses. Our basis of filling the empty columns is based on two-year observation from Montiel, Lamore (1), Montiel, Lamore (2). For example, from other TS-NE measurement where more than one sample was collected (July 2016), parameters such as temperature, salinity, and DO were almost uniform throughout the depth; thus, we also used this assumption to fill the empty July 2017 data. Thus, we used this assumption to fill the empty columns in this study. Nevertheless, we do not use these parameters (salinity, temperature, DO) anymore as environmental predictors of community shifts among the subsurface samples in the PERMANOVA, to avoid any bias associated with estimating the missing values.

Manuscript needs moderate revision for its structure. I found it is difficult to follow the manuscript in parts, which are common when many things were summed up in one paper.

We revised the structure of the paper to be more streamlined and easier to follow.

(1) Line 97: The SGD and nutrient fluxes better to be represented as m/day (mmol/m2/day) or m3/m/day (mmol/m/day). Considering the different shoreline length and size of two sites, SGD fluxes shown in m3/day does not provide adequate information here. Also, please try to add error range of estimated SGD (nutrient flux).

We changed SGD and nutrient fluxes unit into m d-1 and mmol m-2 d-1, respectively, and displayed these results as range instead of average number. The revised version of this information can be found in line 105-116.

(2) Line 116: MB1-6 -> MB1-7??

We corrected this sentence.

(3) Please consider switching the order of Figure 1 and 2. Also, please mark the location of vertical profiles of Fig 1 into the Fig. 2. The sampling depth betters to be clearly shown in Fig 1, so that authors can compare the monitoring depth and its geological formation at the same time.

We removed Figure 2 and incorporated vertical depth and lithological profile of TS-SE and TS-NE into Figure 1. Figure 1 now depicts overview of study site, sampling points, and vertical lithological profile from two SGD sites.

(4) Line 168: As explained above, provide more detailed and clear information concerning the previous sampling period. Additionally, please check show that the hydrological condition between two sampling period were similar and the salinity data from TS 1-3 from pervious field campaign showed similar values with current field survey.

We list the result of previous and the latest field campaigns in the table below, which can also be seen in Montiel, Lamore (1), Montiel, Lamore (2). Overall, our expedition in July 2017 covered more detailed sample collection and measurement than the previous campaigns, which did not take vertical profile into account. For example, from other TS-NE measurement where more than one sample was collected (July 2016), parameters such as temperature, salinity, and DO were almost uniform throughout the depth; thus, we also used this assumption to fill the empty July 2017 data. There is only one TS-SE measurement conducted in more than one layer aside of July 2017, i.e. December 2016, where temperature and salinity were similar, but DO concentration decreased with greater depth. We also applied this similar pattern into the empty data on July 2017.

Time/season Sample Temperature (oC) Salinity DO (mg L-1)

June 2016 (dry season) TS-SE-B (only one measurement) 25.6 5.3 0.8

December 2016 (wet season) TS-SE-B1 (upper) 20.8 14.4 1.6

TS-SE-B3 (mid) 20.7 14.5 1

March 2017 (dry season) TS-SE-B (only one measurement) 19.8 7.6 0.6

July 2017 (dry season, this manuscript) TS-SE-B1 29.9 0 0.6

TS-SE-B2 29.4 1.8 - (0.6)

TS-SE-B3 29.4 1.8 - (0.0)

TS-SE-B4 - (29.4) - (1.8) - (0.0)

TS-SE-B5 - (29.4) - (1.8) - (0.0)

April 2016 (dry season) TS-NE-A (only one measurement) 20.6 0.3 2.9

June 2016 (dry season) TS-NE-A1 27.9 0.1 1.3

TS-NE-A2 28.1 0.1 1.4

March 2017 (dry season) TS-NE-A (only one measurement) 20.6 0.1 1

July 2017 (dry, this manuscript) TS-NE-A1 28.4 0.1 0.3

TS-NE-A2 - (28.4) - (0.1) - (0.3)

Note: (-) represents empty data, while the number in brackets represents numbers that we use to fill the empty data

It has to be noted that we only used the estimated values in descriptive data visualizations, i.e. PCA (Figure 1) and envfit (Figure 5). For hypothesis testing, i.e. finding the strongest predictor for community shift in surface and subsurface samples, we did not use parameters with missing (and then estimated) values. Instead, we rely on the correlation between observed measurements of environmental parameters to interpret the results of the hypothesis test and infer the importance of the parameters with missing values. As mentioned before, PERMANOVA was used as a method more robust to violations of the assumptions of the parametric RDA.

(5) Table 1. Provide additional statistical information (error bar, mean, p-values) if possible. Additionally, kindly check data for NO3-, NH4+, PO4 and DON for TS-SE-4 and TS-SE-5 (All data are same each other).

We corrected the DON data in Table 1. The values reported in the table are for one sample per row. Therefore no means and error bars are provided. The measurements of the environmental parameters are mainly descriptive and were not designed for hypothesis testing.

(6) Line 254: Based on the Fig 7, the difference microbial community between TS-SE3/4 and TS-SE-5 seems to be associated with different geological layer. It would be better if authors can clarify the geological difference in each sampling point in the beginning so that authors can better understand the link between microbial composition and geologic layer.

We explained the lithological condition in the original manuscript (line 99-104) and additionally, we put more information about organic matter content in this revised version. The revised sentence related to lithological condition of both SGD sites can be found in line 108-112 and line 114-116, while its visualization can be found in Figure 1C.

(7) Figure resolution is too low. Some tests in figures are too small (e.g. coordinate information in fig 2). Please enhance the figure resolution and increase the text sizes.

We enhanced the figure resolution and increased the text sizes.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer #2: Revision of the manuscript “Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)” by Adyasari et al.

The paper of Adyasari et al. explores the spatial dynamics of prokaryotic communities along a coastal hydrological gradient in the Mobile Bay, USA, which is influenced by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD), as well as its links to environmental conditions. To do so, they collect water samples from 20 sites, including fresh groundwater, two vertical profiles of porewater in the intertidal zones, river water and bay water. The bacterial community composition is characterized by sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, and the physicochemical parameters measured include salinity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and concentration of inorganic nutrients. In addition, they estimate the functional diversity from the taxonomic data using the Tax4Fun2 method.

Their results show pronounced changes in the structure of the prokaryotic assemblages between the different habitats covered, and a high vertical heterogeneity within each piezometer. The environmental variables most strongly related to the observed variations in microbial communities are salinity and nitrate, and they find higher diversity in the intertidal pore waters than in the fresh groundwater and in surface river or seawater. The authors provide a detailed and complete description of the taxonomic groups detected. Based on the functional analysis, the authors suggest that subsurface microbial communities may play a large role in nitrogen cycling, thus affecting the nutrients delivered to the bay. The authors conclude that that their results support previous studies in the area showing that SGD supports productivity.

The research presented here is relevant because it provides information about the spatial variations in microbial communities in subterranean estuaries, largely undersampled for microbial studies in comparison to other surface aquatic habitats. The study is also of relevance since it compares the original groundwater, river water, bay water and pore waters located in a single area, which allows a comprehensive exploration of the microbial diversity in this groundwater-marine interface, which is also one of the least studied ecotones in terms of microbial ecology and biogeography. The study shows how complex and heterogeneous groundwater microbial assemblages are, even at such small spatial scales. Given that groundwater aquifers appear to hide a vast diversity of unknown taxa, any study providing insight on the subsurface microbial inhabitants is of interest. The manuscript is well written, the results are well presented and clearly explained, and the discussion is well contextualized.

In my opinion, however, the study needs to address some issues, and to acknowledge some of its limitations. For example, this type of intertidal systems may be extremely variable, not only depending on tidal fluctuations but also on hydrologic regimes. As this paper presents a single snap-shot of the system (one sampling day), the conclusions must be taken with caution and the existence of large temporal variations in the reported patterns at different scales must be acknowledged and discussed in the Discussion section.

We thank Reviewer 2 for their constructive comments and we try to answer their concerns in more detailed manners in the points below. We acknowledge the limitation of single sampling and state that further studies are needed to characterize the microbial community composition and its environmental driver in higher certainty by measuring more environmental parameters (line 444-445) or taking samples over a longer period of time, i.e. covering different tidal cycle and seasons (line 526-528). This study provides first insight into subsurface microbial communities, and considering that the result of this study points to active nitrogen and methane cycles in the STE, it may serve as a primer for more detailed microbial studies on nitrogen and methane in the future, particularly in view of their contributions to water quality and climate variability in Mobile Bay (i.e. ammonium flux as the main cause of Jubilees and methane as a major contributor of climate change) or northern Gulf of Mexico area with similar lithological settings.

In my opinion, the manuscript should also better highlight the lack of studies targeting groundwater estuaries, and should put their results in the context of such previous knowledge; although to my knowledge very few studies have explored the microbiology in these type of systems, there are some that have not been included in the manuscript and thus should be cited (see below).

We thank the reviewer for the references given to improve our manuscript. We explained the limited subsurface microbial studies relative to microbial studies conducted in surface water in the original manuscript (line 75-80). We did not discuss microbial communities of groundwater-to-estuaries in this manuscript because the majority of groundwater flows in the study site lead to coastal water instead of estuaries. Nevertheless, we added discussion about the comparison of result between our study and other previous studies in similar settings (line 415-445, line 512-528, line 584-587).

Also, the authors find important proportions of Archaea, and to my knowledge not much is known about archaea in groundwater. A better contextualization of these results in view of the existing literature would render the manuscript more interesting and novel, as there is truly a lack of studies focusing on these sites that appear to be important hotspots of biogeochemical activity.

We added archaea-related information in the abstract (line 29-31), introduction (line 62-65), result (line 386-395), and discussions (line 545-558, line 602-612). Generally, we found that the dominant archaeal taxa found in TS-SE were commonly found in other reducing environment and associated with methane cycle, which was also supported the result of metabolic prediction of methane in our study. We also found archaea in TS-NE, despite low relative proportion in comparison to TS-SE. Nevertheless, the archaeal taxa identified in TS-NE were potentially contributed to ammonia/methane oxidation in this site based on the metabolic prediction.

Given the large spatial heterogeneity reported in the vertical pore water profiles, I think that it would be interesting to address the drivers of the studied communities including only the subsurface samples, as it is expectable that salinity will be one of the drivers explaining the majority of the variation when river and bay samples are included. However, based on the NMDS and the PCA, it does not seem that salinity is the main driver of the variations across/within the subsurface samples, is it? I suggest that the analysis is performed in parallel including all samples together but also considering only the subsurface ones.

We thoroughly revised our approach for the statistical analyses, i.e. separating surface and subsurface samples, as well as better accounting for the missing values in the subsurface samples. In this revision, PCA, NMDS and PERMANOVA were conducted each for surface and subsurface samples. Of the observed parameters in this study, salinity was found as the strongest predictor of surface water community shift, while DON and PO43- were identified as the most determinant variable explaining pattern in subsurface microbial community composition (line 310-321, Table 2). While we did not use salinity, DO, and temperature as variables in PERMANOVA analysis, the selection of DON and PO43- as significant predictors implied a potentially similarly important role of DO and salinity, as any effect attributed to DON and PO43- could also be explained by DO and salinity due to their high correlation (DON and DO: Pearson r = -0.74, PO43- and salinity: Pearson r = 0.98).

Finally, as the sampling covers a nice groundwater-river-brackish gradient, I think it would be interesting to explore a little bit more whether the authors can find indicator taxa associated to a given habitat, or to which extent the different ground- and porewater samples are comprised of typical marine or typical freshwater taxa (see comments below).

We did not perform indicator taxa analysis (indval) as our sampling design was not suitable for such an analysis. Nevertheless, we conducted analysis on taxa with the highest proportion and best fitted to environmental parameter with function ordiselect from ‘goeveg’ R package in the original submission (line 281-331 in the original submission discusses the majority of taxa resulted from this analysis). Cyanobium PCC-6307 and unclassified Thermodesulfovibrionia were identified as dominant taxa strongly associated with trends in environmental parameters in surface and subsurface samples, respectively. The other taxa resulted from ordiselect analysis are displayed in Figure 5 relative to sampling location and environmental parameters.

Although I see that this manuscript provides interesting and detailed information of the studied assemblages, I recommend that these and other issues (see below) are addressed for this study to be published in PLOS ONE.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and appreciate the references given by the reviewer. We try to answer in details their concerns in the points below.

Major comments:

1. Overall, I see the relevance of the research and the interest of the sampling design, but in my opinion the manuscript would largely benefit from modifying partially the Introduction and the Discussion so that the relevance, novelty or need of conducting the present research is better contextualized and justified. The study of groundwater microbial ecology is gaining increasing attention, and there have been many recent papers on groundwater communities, including some targeting subterranean estuaries (e.g. Héry et al. 2014 FEMS, Chen et al. 2019 STOTEN, Sang et al 2018 Sci Reports). A comparison to such previous studies would highlight the similarities or differences with such previous investigations, thus underlying the specific contributions of this investigation.

We explained the research gaps related to the limited subsurface microbial studies in comparison to surface water studies in the original manuscript (line 75-77). In this revised manuscript, we added further information in Introduction and Discussion based on some references suggested by Reviewer 2. We discussed and compared our result related to significant predictor of community shift with other similar studies (line 415-445). We discussed the potential of community coalescence in fresh-,marine water as discussed by Rocca, Simonin (3) (line 512-528). We also added a discussion about low proportion taxa potentially driving the dominant elemental cycle in STE, as also discussed by Héry, Volant (4) (line 602-612).

2. As mentioned before, the authors have interesting information that is however not shown in the figures. For example, could they make a figure analogous to Figure 3 and Figure 6 but considering only the subsurface communities? This would help better identify the environmental gradients that drive the pronounced spatial heterogeneity found within and across these communities. Including the river and bay water is interesting to place subsurface communities within the whole hydrologic gradient, but it is well known that salinity drives bacterial communities in the surface fresh-marine transitions... at the subsurface, this may be less clear and assemblages be strongly influenced by other gradients such as dissolved oxygen, which will be more clearly visualized when only those samples are considered.

We revised some of the statistical analyses in this manuscript, i.e. separating surface and subsurface samples to accommodate the missing values in the subsurface samples. In this revision, PCA, NMDS and PERMANOVA were conducted each for surface and subsurface samples. PERMANOVA result indicates that out of observed parameters in this study, salinity was found as the strongest predictor of surface water community shift, while DON and PO43- were identified as the most determinant variable explaining pattern in subsurface microbial community composition (line 310-321, Table 2). Nevertheless, DON and PO43- only contributed 25% to total explainable variance, indicating there are other variables that are stronger predictors than our measured parameters. This could be the concentration of various electron acceptors (e.g. SO42- or CH4, as we identified many SRBs and methanogens in TS-SE), ion concentration, or tidal fluctuation. This explanation can be found in line 415-445.

3. Similarly, the fact that the surface seawater and freshwater are also included allows for a deeper exploration of e.g. typical groundwater indicators (indval analysis), or to explore the percentage of 'river' or 'marine' taxa that comprise the studied subsurface communities. There is also a recent study (Rocca et al 2020 Ecology) that is relevant in this regard.

We did not perform indval analysis as our sampling design was not suitable to reliably predict indicator OTUs. Instead we identified dominant taxa which were best fitted to the environmental parameters using ordiselect function, which shows that Cyanobium PCC-6307 and unclassified Thermodesulfovibrionia were identified as the “representative” OTUs for surface and subsurface samples, respectively. We describe the patterns in the contribution of these taxa to the microbial community composition in the different sample groups in line 339-343 and line 362-366.

In general, we did not observe any significant occurrence of community coalescence between freshwater and marine bacteria in samples, unlike the study done by Rocca, Simonin (3). For example, freshwater taxa were found in both groundwater and river, but not in Mobile Bay water column which was dominated by marine bacteria, at least not in distinguishable proportion. The only exception was the occurrence of marine taxa in samples from river and the top layer of pore water, which were most likely brought to estuaries and upper STE by the previous high tide. The prevalence of marine taxa in freshwater, but not the opposite, is attributable to the fact that marine taxa have a higher resistance to salinity changes in comparison to freshwater taxa (5). This discussion can be found in line 512-528.

Specific comments:

- One of the main conclusions stated in the abstract is not easily derived from the results reported in the abstract: 'Overall, our study supported previous observations in the area highlighting the role of SGD in Mobile Bay's productivity'. This does not seem to be the main conclusion of the paper as nothing has been shown regarding the productivity in the Bay. I suggest that the end of the abstract is rewritten to deliver a more specific message that can be directly derived from the presented results.

We corrected the abstract and conclusion related to this point.

- It is not clear why so many different bay water samples were taken. What was the purpose of this? Are they supposed to cover sites of different SGD influence? Based on temperature, for example, it seems that they are quite different in terms of salinity... something should be said about this in the methods section (to justify the choice of bay sites).

Samples from Mobile Bay water column were collected from different part of the bay to cover different salinity and potential influence of river to microbial community composition at the bay: samples MB1-4 were collected in the southern part of Mobile Bay where the influence of river was almost negligible, while MB6-7 were taken close to estuaries in the northern part of the bay. This added explanation can be found in line 140-143.

- Line 110: Please indicate how GW1 was collected. Is this groundwater sample supposed to be indicative of the groundwater in the area? Please indicate so.

The water sample for GW-1 was collected after pumping the well with a submersible pump at a constant rate until conductivity, temperature, and DO values were stable. We chose this sampling point is representative of the terrestrial groundwater based on result from Montiel, Lamore (2). This added explanation on sample collection from can be found in line 143-145.

- Line 127: How where the duplicate samples treated for the different analyses? Where they averaged? Please explain it. The duplicates are not shown in the figures, and I think it would be interesting to visually see whether the individual replicates cluster together in the ordination graphs.

This is our mistake as we took duplicate samples; however, only one set of sample was sequenced for 16S rRNA. We deleted the “duplicate” in the manuscript.

- Line 221-223: I find very interesting the large variations in taxonomic richness and diversity found within the TS-SE vertical profile. Something should be said about this. Where these changes in taxonomic diversity explained by any of the measured environmental parameters?

The result of alpha diversity of TS-SE vertical profile is shown in line 263-268 (Result) and line 448-455 (Discussion). Generally, the highest Shannon and inverse Simpson indices across all samples was found in TS-SE-B2 and TS-SE-B3, which could be attributable to diverse mixture of fresh water and marine microbes, as well as aerobic, facultative anaerobic, anaerobic bacteria and archaea in the reduced layer of TS-SE, thus increasing microbial alpha diversity in this site. A Spearman correlation analysis between Shannon and inverse Simpson indices with observed environmental parameters resulted in DON and PO43- as variables with the highest correlation with the diversity indices (line 269-272 (result) and S1 Table). This finding was similar with the result from PERMANOVA analysis which indicated DON and PO43- as the main predictors for subsurface microbial community shift.

- Line 272: The figures should be explained in the order of appearance, so the authors should either redo the figures or reorganize the text. In my opinion, the general composition at the class level should be explained together with the explanation of Figure 5, focusing on the main differences between river, bay water and groundwater assemblages. Then, the current subsection (line 272) could focus exclusively on the vertical dimension, adding, as suggested above, the composition in terms of order, or family, besides genera. Both things could be later combined in the Discussion, but the results section needs to follow the figure order. Otherwise it is confusing for the reader.

We re-organized the text and figures in the manuscript to be more streamlined and easier to follow. In this revised version, we chose to explain the result of the microbial diversity and statistical result first (line 243-321, Figure 2-5), then proceed to the description of microbial community composition in class and genus level (line 329-395), which we put together their bar plots in Figure 6.

- Table 1. Please check the nutrient values for TS-SE4 and 5, and TS-NE1 and 2, as they are exactly the same.

We corrected the mistype in Table 1.

- Figure 3. As suggested above, I think it would be interesting to look at these patterns considering only the subsurface samples

We modified PCA plot to show both surface and subsurface environmental parameters (now Figure 2).

- Lines 237-246: This figure includes the taxonomic composition but nothing is said about it, only the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity is mentioned. Please describe the compositional patterns shown in the figure. The description of the figures should follow the sequence of appearance.

We explained the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity in the original manuscript (line 237-246), now in line 279-289.

- Figure 7: if I understand it correctly, the grey area lumps together all the taxa that were not classified at the genus level. However, as this area is so big, wouldn't it be possible to assign it to the smaller taxonomic level possible in those cases? e.g. family.... Alternatively, I think it would be useful to draw the same profile in parallel to this one, grouping taxa at the e.g. order level, in order to differentiate it from Figure 5 but to show more visually the vertical variations in composition (which are not as clearly shown in Figure 5 because sites are clustered based on similarity and not along the vertical profile). In other words, I suggest that you add a similar graph to the left of figure 7 that shows the whole taxonomic composition at a higher taxonomic rank (something in between the class level shown in Figure 5 and the genus level shown in Figure 7). This will help visualizing more clearly the vertical changes in composition, and then you can go to the identified genera in more detail.

To avoid redundancy of information, we decided to present the data only at class and genus level to provide a more general and a detailed overview of the microbial community composition, respectively. To avoid an unnecessary complexity of the figures, we only show the most dominant taxa, which are also relevant for the discussion. After careful consideration, we decided that the added value of showing more taxonomic levels would be minimal and would rather result in a loss of focus and conciseness of the manuscript. Additionally, the full OTU table and associated taxonomic classification are available as part of the public archived data on Pangaea (https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.912763). We hope you understand our rationale for not changing the taxonomic resolution of the figures.

- Figure 7: Here and throughout the text, replace on genus/class level by 'at the genus/class level'

We replaced “on genus/class level” by “at the genus/class level” throughout the text and caption.

- Figure 8: The proportion is calculated relative to what? to the total identified KOs? Please specify in the legend.

We specified “Proportion of total identified KOs” in the legend.

- Line 272: Microbial community composition at the horizontal and vertical scales?

We revised this chapter sub-title into “Microbial community composition at the horizontal and vertical scales”.

- Line 272: The figures should be explained in the order of appearance, so the authors should either redo the figures or reorganize the text. In my opinion, the general composition at the class level should be explained together with the explanation of Figure 5, focusing on the main differences between river, bay water and groundwater assemblages. Then, the current subsection (line 272) could focus exclusively on the vertical dimension, adding, as suggested above, the composition in terms of order, or family, besides genera. Both things could be later combined in the Discussion, but the results section needs to follow the figure order. Otherwise it is confusing for the reader.

We re-organized the text and figures in the manuscript to be more streamlined and easier to follow. However, as explained previously we refrain from including a description at more taxonomic levels to avoid redundancy.

- DISCUSSION: As explained above, in my opinion the manuscript would also benefit from expanding the discussion in order to compare the reported data with what has been done in previous studies targeting comparable systems. Although (at least to my knowledge) there are very few investigations exploring groundwater aquifers in coastal sites, these should be acknowledged and the results should be compared with them, in order to highlight the differences or similarities in the reported patterns (e.g. Héry et al. 2014 FEMS, Chen et al. 2019 STOTEN, Sang et al 2018 Sci Reports).

We added more information in the Discussion, particularly the comparison of our result with other similar studies (line 415-445, line 512-528, line 584-587).

Line 354: Changes in microbial community structure along the freshwater-marine continuum?

We revised the chapter sub-title into “Changes in microbial community composition along the freshwater-marine water continuum”.

- Lines 364-372: This statement could be nicely shown if exploring the contribution to each subsurface community of typical groundwater, river water or marine water taxa. I expect that this would nicely show what are the mixing zones, and which are those sites where totally different communities arise, that do not result from the passive mixing of marine and freshwater taxa. There is accumulating evidence that microbial communities are largely structured by hydrologic connectivity (e.g. Ruiz-González et al 2015 Ecol Lett shows that freshwater bacterial communities are dominated by rare taxa transported from soils, some of which appear to grow in water). Rocca et al (2020 Ecology) is also relevant here ('Rare microbial taxa emerge when communities collide: freshwater and marine microbiome responses to experimental mixing'). There are other papers showing that the resuscitation of rare taxa can impact ecosystem processes such as CO2 and methane production (Aanderud et al. 2015 Front. Microbiol, Stegen et al. 2015 Nature Communications), so that the rare taxa that appear in the studied pore water sites may play large roles in coastal biogeochemistry. The manuscript would benefit from an expansion of the discussion on this topic, on the role of hydrologic transport of microbial diversity and the selective growth of some of the transported taxa when encountering new environmental conditions.

We did not sequence our samples deep enough to reliably assess rare taxa as the purpose of this study was assessing the dominant taxa; thus, our current data is insufficient to generate detailed discussion on rare taxa as shown by Ruiz‐González, Niño‐García (6) and Stegen, Fredrickson (7). Nevertheless, we found that TS-SE-B1 exhibited simultaneously high richness and low inverse Simpson index, which was indicative of highly uneven community and high proportion of rare taxa. Therefore, this finding could be used as starting point for further studies exploring rare taxa and their role in biogeochemical processes in peat layer of Mobile Bay. Furthermore, as suggested by Reviewer 2 via recommendation of paper from Rocca, Simonin (3), we added more discussion on the potential of community coalescence between freshwater and marine taxa, where we found a pattern where marine taxa were commonly found in freshwater sites, but not vice versa, due to their high tolerance of salinity range (line 512-528).

- Lines 432-440: To my knowledge, not much is known about Archaea in subsurface ecosystems, and in particular in subterranean estuaries. The authors should highlight what is known or not about the topic, in order to better highlight the specific contributions of the presented research.

As previously mentioned, we added archaea-related information in the abstract (line 29-31), introduction (line 62-65), result (line 386-395), and discussions (line 545-558, line 602-612). Generally, we found that the dominant archaeal taxa found in TS-SE were commonly found in other reducing environment and associated with methane cycle, which was also supported the result of metabolic prediction of methane in our study. We also found archaea in TS-NE, despite low relative proportion in comparison to TS-SE. Nevertheless, the archaeal taxa identified in TS-NE were potentially contributed to ammonia/methane oxidation in this site based on the metabolic prediction.

- Line 444-445. Please rewrite this sentence to specify more clearly that NO3 is transformed to NH4 during transit through this site, which is then delivered to the Bay

We revised the sentence into “At the TS-SE site, NO3--rich groundwater percolates through an organic-rich/peat sediment layer and is transformed into NH4+ before discharging to Mobile Bay” (line 563-564).

- Line 446, replace 'and it is likely generated' with ', which are likely generated'

We replaced “and it is likely generated” with “which are likely generated”.

- Line 450: was related

We revised this sentence.

- Line 458: depending on

We revised this sentence.

References

1. Montiel D, Lamore A, Stewart J, Dimova N. Is Submarine Groundwater Discharge (SGD) Important for the Historical Fish Kills and Harmful Algal Bloom Events of Mobile Bay? Estuaries and Coasts. 2019;42(2):470-93.

2. Montiel D, Lamore AF, Stewart J, Lambert WJ, Honeck J, Lu Y, et al. Natural groundwater nutrient fluxes exceed anthropogenic inputs in an ecologically impacted estuary: lessons learned from Mobile Bay, Alabama. Biogeochemistry. 2019;145(1-2):1-33.

3. Rocca JD, Simonin M, Bernhardt ES, Washburne AD, Wright JP. Rare microbial taxa emerge when communities collide: freshwater and marine microbiome responses to experimental mixing. Ecology. 2020;101(3):e02956.

4. Héry M, Volant A, Garing C, Luquot L, Elbaz Poulichet F, Gouze P. Diversity and geochemical structuring of bacterial communities along a salinity gradient in a carbonate aquifer subject to seawater intrusion. FEMS microbiology ecology. 2014;90(3):922-34.

5. Wu QL, Zwart G, Schauer M, Kamst-van Agterveld MP, Hahn MW. Bacterioplankton community composition along a salinity gradient of sixteen high-mountain lakes located on the Tibetan Plateau, China. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(8):5478-85.

6. Ruiz‐González C, Niño‐García JP, del Giorgio PA. Terrestrial origin of bacterial communities in complex boreal freshwater networks. Ecology letters. 2015;18(11):1198-206.

7. Stegen JC, Fredrickson JK, Wilkins MJ, Konopka AE, Nelson WC, Arntzen EV, et al. Groundwater–surface water mixing shifts ecological assembly processes and stimulates organic carbon turnover. Nature communications. 2016;7:11237.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

John M Senko

11 Jun 2020

Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)

PONE-D-20-05547R1

Dear Dr. Adyasari,

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.

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,

John M. Senko

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

John M Senko

17 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-05547R1

Microbial community composition across a coastal hydrological system affected by submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)

Dear Dr. Adyasari:

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

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 plosone@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. John M. Senko

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. Heatmap of the proportion of predicted KEGG orthologs (KO) related to methane metabolism based on Tax4Fun2.

    M00356: methanol to methane; M00357: acetate to methane; M00563: methylamine/dimethylamine/trimethylamine to methane; M00567: CO2 to methane.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Spearman correlation between alpha diversity and observed environmental parameters.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RevisionPLOS ONE.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    Primer-clipped sequences from this study have been submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with the project accession number PRJEB33004. Environmental data, OTU table, and its taxonomic affiliation are available in https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.912763.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES