We’re sorry, but GBIF doesn’t work properly without JavaScript enabled.
Our website has detected that you are using an outdated insecure browser that will prevent you from using the site. We suggest you upgrade to a modern browser.
{{nav.loginGreeting}}
  • Get data
      • Occurrences
      • GBIF API
      • Species
      • Datasets
      • Occurrence snapshots
      • Hosted portals
      • Trends
  • How-to
    • Share data

      • Quick-start guide
      • Dataset classes
      • Data hosting
      • Standards
      • Become a publisher
      • Data quality
      • Data papers
    • Use data

      • Featured data use
      • Citation guidelines
      • GBIF citations
      • Citation widget
  • Tools
    • Publishing

      • IPT
      • Data validator
      • Scientific Collections
      • Suggest a dataset
      • New data model ⭐️
    • Data access and use

      • Hosted portals
      • Data processing
      • Derived datasets
      • rgbif
      • pygbif
      • MAXENT
      • Tools catalogue
    • GBIF labs

      • Species matching
      • Name parser
      • Sequence ID
      • Relative observation trends
      • GBIF data blog
  • Community
    • Network

      • Participant network
      • Nodes
      • Publishers
      • Network contacts
      • Community forum
      • alliance for biodiversity knowledge
    • Volunteers

      • Mentors
      • Ambassadors
      • Translators
      • Citizen scientists
    • Activities

      • Capacity enhancement
      • Programmes & projects
      • Training and learning resources
      • Data Use Club
      • Living Atlases
  • About
    • Inside GBIF

      • What is GBIF?
      • Become a member
      • Governance
      • Implementation plan
      • Work Programme
      • Funders
      • Partnerships
      • Release notes
      • Contacts
    • News & outreach

      • News
      • Newsletters and lists
      • Events
      • Ebbe Nielsen Challenge
      • Graduate Researchers Award
      • Science Review
      • Data use
  • User profile

Minor impact of ocean acidification to the structure of an Arctic sediment microbial community

Dataset homepage

Citation

MGnify (2019). Minor impact of ocean acidification to the structure of an Arctic sediment microbial community. Sampling event dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/e8k0hv accessed via GBIF.org on 2023-02-03.

Description

Effects of ocean acidification on the diversity and structure of Arctic surface sediment bacterial and archaeal community was analysed in detail using 16S rRNA 454 pyrosequencing. Intact sediment cores were collected and exposed to one of five different pCO2 concentrations (380 (present day), 540, 750, 1120 and 3000 µatm) and RNA extracted after a period of 14 days exposure. Measurements of diversity and multivariate similarity indicated very little difference between pCO2 treatments. Only when the highest and lowest pCO2 treatments were compared were significant differences evident, namely increases in the abundance of the Halobacteria and differences to the presence/absence structure of the Planctomycetes. Members of the Planctomycetia also increased with increasing pCO2 concentration, particularly the Planctomyces, Schlesneria, Pirellula, Blastopirellula, Rhodopirellula and the Pir4 lineage, indicating that these groups may be able to take advantage of changing pH or pCO2 conditions. The modest response of the microbial communities associated with these sediments may be due to the low pore-water pH already experienced by sediment microbes or be a result of the high buffering capacity of marine sediments.

Sampling Description

Sampling

Effects of ocean acidification on the diversity and structure of Arctic surface sediment bacterial and archaeal community was analysed in detail using 16S rRNA 454 pyrosequencing. Intact sediment cores were collected and exposed to one of five different pCO2 concentrations (380 (present day), 540, 750, 1120 and 3000 µatm) and RNA extracted after a period of 14 days exposure. Measurements of diversity and multivariate similarity indicated very little difference between pCO2 treatments. Only when the highest and lowest pCO2 treatments were compared were significant differences evident, namely increases in the abundance of the Halobacteria and differences to the presence/absence structure of the Planctomycetes. Members of the Planctomycetia also increased with increasing pCO2 concentration, particularly the Planctomyces, Schlesneria, Pirellula, Blastopirellula, Rhodopirellula and the Pir4 lineage, indicating that these groups may be able to take advantage of changing pH or pCO2 conditions. The modest response of the microbial communities associated with these sediments may be due to the low pore-water pH already experienced by sediment microbes or be a result of the high buffering capacity of marine sediments.

Method steps

  1. Pipeline used: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metagenomics/pipelines/4.1

Taxonomic Coverages

Geographic Coverages

Bibliographic Citations

Contacts

originator
PML
metadata author
PML
administrative point of contact
PML
What is GBIF? API FAQ Newsletter Privacy Terms and agreements Citation Code of Conduct Acknowledgements
Contact GBIF Secretariat Universitetsparken 15 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark