Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorPin, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorEiler, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorFazi, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorFriberg, Nikolai
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-16T10:01:39Z
dc.date.available2021-07-16T10:01:39Z
dc.date.created2021-03-11T10:54:19Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationMolecular Ecology Resources. 2021, 21 (4), 1200-1215.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1755-098X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2764646
dc.description.abstractMicrobial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative techniques such as catalysed reported deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to analyse prokaryotic communities of epilithic biofilms in river ecosystems. We intended to investigate the efficacy of both techniques in detecting changes in microbial community structure associated with environmental drivers. We report a significant correlation between the prokaryotic community composition and pH in rivers from two different geographical areas in Norway. Both CARD‐FISH and metabarcoding data were following the pattern of the environmental variables, but the main feature distinguishing the community composition was the regional difference itself. Beta‐dispersion analyses on both CARD‐FISH abundance and metabarcoding data revealed higher accuracy of metabarcoding to differentiate regions and river systems. The CARD‐FISH results showed high variability, even for samples within the same river, probably due to some unmeasured microscale ecological variability which we could not resolve. We also present a statistical method, which uses variation coefficient and overall prevalence of taxonomic groups, to detect possible biological indicators among prokaryotes using metabarcoding data. The development of new prokaryotic bioindicators would benefit from both techniques used in this study, but metabarcoding seems to be faster and more reliable than CARD‐FISH for large scale bio‐assessment.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleTwo different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicatorsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2021 The Authors.en_US
dc.source.pagenumber1200-1215en_US
dc.source.volume21en_US
dc.source.journalMolecular Ecology Resourcesen_US
dc.source.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1755-0998.13341
dc.identifier.cristin1897236
dc.relation.projectEU/765553en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal