4.3.1. The Microeukaryotic Community Structure and Seasonal Variation
Representative clones showing unique RFLP patterns were selected for sequencing, and a total of 100 qualified sequences (represent 352 clones) were obtained. Sequences with more than 97% similarity were classed together as 1 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) using the Mothur software package, and a total of 90 OTUs were identified. One representative sequence of each OTU was selected for phylogenetic analysis using MEGA 5.0. The percentage of each taxonomic group calculated based on phylogenetic analysis and OTUs richness was shown in
Figure 3. It could be seen that all the sequences were divided into 10 phyla: Annelida, Gastrotricha, Arthropoda, Nematoda, Cercozoa, Bacillariophyta, Chlorophyta, Alveolata, Amoebazoa, and Chytridiomycota, as well as a small number of unclassified sequences.
T0-1, C0, T3-1, C3, T6-1, C6 corresponding to the samples collected before introducing benthos, 3 months after introducing benthos and 6 months after introducing benthos. Sampling time was shown in each sample and the months interval after introducing benthos to the sediments were indicated in the parentheses.
The eukaryotic diversities of samples collected in June (C0 and T0-1), September (C3), and December (C6) tended to increase along with the sampling time, and the community structure was obviously different among the samples. In Summer (C0 and T0-1), the phylum Annelida were dominant, and accounted for 81.32% - 84.38%. Other phyla, such as Arthropoda, Nematoda, and Cercozoa, were subdominant and accounted for 3% - 11%. Alveolata and Chlorophyta were also present as minor phyla and both accounted for 1.6%. While in sample C3 collected in September 2013, Annelida decreased greatly to 10.8%, and Arthropoda and Gastrotricha, which were rare in June, increased greatly (accounted for 43% and 32% respectively). The percentage of Cercozoa also increased, and Bacillariophyta, which was absent in Summer, was present in September and accounted for 5.4%. In December (C6 clone library), the eukaryotic community structure changed greatly.
The phylum Annelida, which was dominant or abundant in June and September was not detected, while phyla Bacillariophyta, Nematoda, and Alveolata, which were minor before increased greatly, accounted for 10.6%, 19%, and 12.7%, respectively in December. The percentage of Gastrotricha (17%) in December (C6) decreased when compared with that in September (C3) and the proportion of Arthropoda in C6 was comparable with that of June (10% in C6 and 8% in C0), both of them were far lower than that in September (C3). However, the dominant group of Arthropoda in December was different from all of the other months. In addition, Amoebozoa and Chytridiomycota, which were absent before were detected in December and accounted 2.1% and 4%, respectively.
Different environments breed different microeukaryotes. In the coastal wetland sediments of the Jiulong River Estuary, Southeast of Fujian province of China (
23), the microeukaryotic communities were distributed within 6 major groups (i.e. Alveolata, Stramenopiles, Rhizaria, Viridiplantae, Fungi and Metazoa). However, the dominant group was Metazoa, mainly including Annelida, Nematoda, and Arthropoda, which were similar to our results. The microeukaryotic community was relatively stable and did not show a clear seasonal change in sediments of the Jiulong River estuarine wetland, probably because the sampling sites were located in the mangrove nature reserve and were not so greatly affected by the daily tides and temperature changes. However in our study, the sampling sites were in bare mudflat, and the periodically varied environments might lead to the seasonal changes of microeukaryotes.
4.3.2. Response to macrobenthos bioturbation
Although the calculated eukaryotic diversity indexes based on RFLP and OTUs decreased after introducing benthos to the intertidal mudflats (
Table 2), the sequence analysis indicated that the eukaryotic phyla increased. About 6 and 10 phyla of eukaryotes were detected in T3-1 (3 months after introducing benthos) and T6-1 (6 months after introducing benthos) respectively, while the numbers of phyla were 5 and 8, respectively in the corresponding control samples, suggesting that the macrobenthos bioturbation increased the microeukaryotic diversity. The microeukartotic community structure also changed obviously after introducing macrobenthos. As a whole, phyla Annelida (mainly
Tharyx sp.) and Arthropoda (mainly
Spinileberis quadriaculeata and
Acartia pacifica) increased after introducing macrobenthos, while phyla Gastrotricha (mainly
Halichaetonotus schromi and
Heterolepidoderma loricatum), Cercozoa, and Alveolata (mainly Spirotrichea of Ciliophora) decreased. Some groups, such as Chlorophyta, Amoebozoa, and Chytridiomycota were only detected in samples of December 2013 (T6-1 and C6), and phyla Chytridiomycota and Amoebozoa decreased whereas Chlorophyta increased after introducing benthos. The percentages of other phyla (Nematoda and Bacillariophyta) did not change much, however, 7 groups of Nematoda were detected in the benthos introduced sample, while only 4 groups were present in the control sample C6.
In this study, introducing macrobenthos into the intertidal sediments seemed to suppress the growth of Gastrotricha, Cercozoa, and Alveolate. A previous study (
24) also indicated that the activities of lugworm (
Arenicola marina) reduced the overall abundance of protists (mainly Cercozoa and Alveolate). The decrease of protists is probably due to the grazing/predation pressure of filter-feeding nereids, bivalves, and altered environmental conditions by macrobenthos bioturbation (
28). Although the macrobenthos bioturbation suppressed some microeukaryotes, it selected and stimulated the growth of specific and well-adapted taxa. This adds to the overall microeukaryotic diversity in intertidal sediments on larger spatial scales. However, the reasons and mechanisms for causing such variations during the bioturbation process as well as what functions such variations play in the macrobenthos bioremediation, need to be further studied. Future studies focusing on the varied microeukaryotes during bioturbation would be beneficial for revealing the bioremediation mechanism.