4.7 Article

Seasonal Dynamics and Community Structure of Bacterioplankton in Upper Parana River Floodplain

Journal

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 4, Pages 773-783

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-013-0292-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Knowing the bacterial community, as well as understanding how it changes during a hydrological pulse, is very important to understand nutrient cycles in floodplain systems. The bacterial community structure was analyzed in the 12 sites of upper Parana River floodplain, and its changes during a flood pulse were described. In order to understand how high and low water phases change bacterial community by changing abiotical variables, the bacterial community distribution was determined in superficial water of 12 different sampling stations, every 3 months, from December 2010 to September 2011. The bacterial community structure and diversity was analyzed by fluorescent in situ hybridization, considering the main domains Bacteria and Archaea and the subdivisions of the phylum Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, and Gammaproteobacteria) and the Cytophaga-Flavobacterium cluster. Smaller densities were observed on ebb and low water periods and the highest density was observed in March 2011. The high water period caused a decrease in diversity because of the lost of equitability. The highest values of Shannon-Wiener index were found on December 2010 and September 2011. The nutrients runoff to the aquatic environments of the floodplain promoted an increase in the total bacterial density during the high water phase as well as changes in bacterial community composition. The bacterial community presented both spatial and temporal differences. Yet, temporal changes in limnological characteristics of the floodplain were the most important predictor of bacterial community and also influenced its diversity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available