Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33230267›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2021

Ecological drivers switch from bottom-up to top-down during model microbial community successions.

Sven P Tobias-Hünefeldt, Jess Wenley, Federico Baltar, Sergio E Morales

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Impacts of UV-C Irradiation on Marine Biofilm Community Succession.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sven P Tobias-HünefeldtDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-1624
Jess WenleyDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9921-3097
Federico BaltarDepartment of Functional & Evolutionary Ecology, Division of Bio-Oceanography, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8907-1494
Sergio E MoralesDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand. sergio.morales@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5862-0726

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bottom-up selection has an important role in microbial community assembly but is unable to account for all observed variance. Other processes like top-down selection (e.g., predation) may be partially responsible for the unexplained variance. However, top-down processes and their interaction with bottom-up selective pressures often remain unexplored. We utilised an in situ marine biofilm model system to test the effects of bottom-up (i.e., substrate properties) and top-down (i.e., large predator exclusion via 100 µm mesh) selective pressures on community assembly over time (56 days). Prokaryotic and eukaryotic community compositions were monitored using 16 S and 18 S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Higher compositional variance was explained by growth substrate in early successional stages, but as biofilms mature, top-down predation becomes progressively more important. Wooden substrates promoted heterotrophic growth, whereas inert substrates' (i.e., plastic, glass, tile) lack of degradable material selected for autotrophs. Early wood communities contained more mixotrophs and heterotrophs (e.g., the total abundance of Proteobacteria and Euglenozoa was 34% and 41% greater within wood compared to inert substrates). Inert substrates instead showed twice the autotrophic abundance (e.g., cyanobacteria and ochrophyta made up 37% and 10% more of the total abundance within inert substrates than in wood). Late native (non-enclosed) communities were mostly dominated by autotrophs across all substrates, whereas high heterotrophic abundance characterised enclosed communities. Late communities were primarily under top-down control, where large predators successively pruned heterotrophs. Integrating a top-down control increased explainable variance by 7-52%, leading to increased understanding of the underlying ecological processes guiding multitrophic community assembly and successional dynamics.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBiofilmsEukaryotaPredatory BehaviorWood

Identifiers

PMID33230267
PMCPMC8115227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.