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

Structuring effect of environmental variables on protistan diversity patterns in two anoxic marine basins

Dataset homepage

Citation

MGnify (2019). Structuring effect of environmental variables on protistan diversity patterns in two anoxic marine basins. Sampling event dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/cyywud accessed via GBIF.org on 2023-02-01.

Description

The tenet that 'everything is everywhere, but the environment selects' has influenced microbiology for several decades, and is still debated controversially. However, the proof or disproof of the hypothesis still remains difficult. Scant data from prokaryotic studies suggest that at least over large distances historical separation may overwhelm environmental effects, challenging the above mentioned hypothesis. Though, at smaller spatial scales, environmental effects seem to dominate diversity patterns, while distance effects are of secondary importance. We tried to contribute to the ongoing discussion by investigating patterns of protistan diversity from two geographically separated marine anoxic basins (Cariaco Basin, Venezuela, Framvaren Fjord, Norway). To take distance and environmental effects into account, each basin was sampled at two different locations along an environmental gradient. Biodiversity patterns were analyzed by applying the 454 sequencing technique. Resulting data sets were used to examine overall diversity of samples under study and to compare recorded community patterns based on taxonomic composition and similarity indices. By combining our results with contextual data from both sampling sites we tested for distance effects in relation to contemporary environmental effects.

Sampling Description

Sampling

The tenet that 'everything is everywhere, but the environment selects' has influenced microbiology for several decades, and is still debated controversially. However, the proof or disproof of the hypothesis still remains difficult. Scant data from prokaryotic studies suggest that at least over large distances historical separation may overwhelm environmental effects, challenging the above mentioned hypothesis. Though, at smaller spatial scales, environmental effects seem to dominate diversity patterns, while distance effects are of secondary importance. We tried to contribute to the ongoing discussion by investigating patterns of protistan diversity from two geographically separated marine anoxic basins (Cariaco Basin, Venezuela, Framvaren Fjord, Norway). To take distance and environmental effects into account, each basin was sampled at two different locations along an environmental gradient. Biodiversity patterns were analyzed by applying the 454 sequencing technique. Resulting data sets were used to examine overall diversity of samples under study and to compare recorded community patterns based on taxonomic composition and similarity indices. By combining our results with contextual data from both sampling sites we tested for distance effects in relation to contemporary environmental effects.

Method steps

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

Taxonomic Coverages

Geographic Coverages

Bibliographic Citations

  1. Stoeck T, Behnke A, Christen R, Amaral-Zettler L, Rodriguez-Mora MJ, Chistoserdov A, Orsi W, Edgcomb VP. 2009. Massively parallel tag sequencing reveals the complexity of anaerobic marine protistan communities. null vol. 7 - DOI:10.1186/1741-7007-7-72

Contacts

originator
MBL
metadata author
MBL
administrative point of contact
MBL
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