Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35498625›Full record

ArticleFreshwater science (Print)2020

Quantifying stream periphyton assemblage responses to nutrient amendments with a molecular approach.

James D Hagy Iii, Katelyn A Houghton, David L Beddick, Joseph B James, Stephanie D Friedman, Richard Devereux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Freshwater science (Print), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

James D Hagy IiiUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
Katelyn A HoughtonUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
David L BeddickUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
Joseph B JamesUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
Stephanie D FriedmanUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.
Richard DevereuxUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Gulf Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutrient (nitrogen [N] and phosphorus [P]) pollution is a pervasive water quality issue in the USA for small streams and rivers. The effect of nutrients on the biotic condition of streams is often evaluated with biological indicators such as macroinvertebrate assemblages or periphyton assemblages, particularly diatoms. Molecular approaches facilitate the use of periphyton assemblages as bioindicators because periphyton is diverse and its composition as a whole, rather than just diatoms, soft-bodied algae, or any single group, may convey additional information about responses to nutrients. To further develop the concept that a taxonomically-broad evaluation of periphyton assemblages could be useful for developing stream bioindicators, we examined microbial assemblage composition with both 16S and 18S rRNA genes, enabling us to evaluate composition in 3 domains. We measured otherwise unknown nutrient responses of different periphyton groups in situ with experiments that used glass fiber filters to allow diffusion of amended nutrients into a stream. We deployed these experimental setups in 2 streams that differ in the extent of agricultural land-use in their catchments in the southeastern USA. Experiments consisted of controls, N amendments, P amendments, and both N and P amendments. Periphyton assemblages that grew on the filters differed significantly by stream, date or season, and nutrient treatment. Assemblage differences across treatments were more consistent among Bacteria and Archaea than among eukaryotes. Effects of nutrient amendments were more pronounced in the stream with less agricultural land use and, therefore, lower nutrient loading than in the stream with more agricultural land use and higher nutrient loading. Combined N and P amendments decreased species richness and evenness for Bacteria and Archaea by ∼36 and ∼9%, respectively, compared with controls. Indicator species analysis revealed that specific clades varied in their response to treatments. Indicators based on the responses of these indicator clades were related to nutrient treatments across sites and seasons. Analyses that included all the taxa in a domain did not resolve differences in responses to N vs P. Instead, better resolution was achieved with an analysis focused on diatoms, which responded more strongly to P than N. Overall, our results showed that in situ nutrient-diffusing substrate experiments are a useful approach for describing assemblage responses to nutrients in streams. This type of molecular approach may be useful to environmental agencies and stakeholders responsible for assessing and managing stream water quality and biotic condition.

Indexed as

DNAindicatorsindicator species analysismicrobial assemblagenutrient-diffusing substratesstreams

Identifiers

PMID35498625
PMCPMC9044509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.