Carbonaceous Nanomaterials Have Higher Effects on Soybean

Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES

Ecotoxicology and Human Environmental Health

Carbonaceous Nanomaterials Have Higher Effects on Soybean Rhizosphere Prokaryotic Communities During the Reproductive Growth Phase than During Vegetative Growth Yuan Ge, Congcong Shen, Ying Wang, Yao-Qin Sun, Joshua P Schimel, Jorge L. Gardea-Torresdey, and Patricia A. Holden Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00937 • Publication Date (Web): 02 May 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on May 5, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 36

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Carbonaceous Nanomaterials Have Higher Effects

2

on Soybean Rhizosphere Prokaryotic Communities

3

During the Reproductive Growth Phase than During

4

Vegetative Growth

5

Yuan Ge1,2,3,4, Congcong Shen1, Ying Wang2,3,4, Yao-Qin Sun1, Joshua P. Schimel3,4,5, Jorge L.

6

Gardea-Torresdey4,6, Patricia A. Holden2,3,4,*

7

1

8

Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China

9

State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental

2

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa

10

Barbara, California 93106, United States

11

3

12

States

13 14 15 16

Earth Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United

4

University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC

CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, United States 5

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa

Barbara, California 93106, United States

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


17 18

6

Page 2 of 36

Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968, United States.

*

Corresponding Author: [email protected]; Tel: 805-893-3195; Fax: 805-893-7612


2

Page 3 of 36


19

Abstract: Carbonaceous nanomaterials (CNMs) can affect agricultural soil prokaryotic

20

communities, but how the effects vary with crop growth stage is unknown. To investigate this,

21

soybean plants were cultivated in soils amended with 0, 0.1, 100, or 1000 mg kg-1 of carbon

22

black, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), or graphene. Soil prokaryotic communities

23

were analyzed by Illumina sequencing at day 0 and at the soybean vegetative and reproductive

24

stages. The sequencing data were functionally annotated using the Functional Annotation of

25

Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX) database. The prokaryotic communities were unaffected at day

26

0, and were altered at the plant vegetative stage only by 0.1 mg kg-1 MWCNTs. However, at the

27

reproductive stage—when pods were filling—most treatments (except 1000 mg kg-1 MWCNTs)

28

altered prokaryotic community composition, including functional groups associated with C, N,

29

and S cycling. The lower doses of CNMs—which were previously shown to be less

30

agglomerated and thus more bioavailable in soil relative to the higher doses—were more

31

effective towards both overall communities and individual functional groups. Taken together,

32

prokaryotic communities in the soybean rhizosphere can be significantly phylogenetically and

33

functionally altered in response to bioavailable CNMs, especially when soybean plants are

34

actively directing resources to seed production.

35


3


36

Page 4 of 36

TOC/Abstract Art

37 38


4

Page 5 of 36


39

Introduction

40

Carbonaceous nanomaterials (CNMs), e.g., carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and graphene, are

41

used in diverse commercial applications such as pigments, automotive tires, composite bicycle

42

frames, antifouling coatings, solar cells, capacitors, and water filters.1-4 CNMs may be released

43

into soils with field application of CNM-containing biosolids,5 or through the intentional use of

44

CNM-containing agrochemicals (e.g., fertilizer products).6-8 The accumulation of CNMs in soils

45

raises concerns about CNM effects on soil microorganisms—the main catalysts of soil nutrient

46

cycling in terrestrial ecosystems.

47

Most studies addressing CNM effects on soil microorganisms have been conducted in

48

unplanted soil microcosms. Such studies have examined the effects of various CNMs including

49

fullerenes,9-12 single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs),11, 13-17 multi-walled carbon nanotubes

50

(MWCNTs),11, 17-21 graphene,21, 22 graphene oxide,23, 24 and carbon black.21 Results from these

51

studies have been mixed, indicating that CNM effects on soil bacterial communities might be

52

tempered by CNM properties, soil conditions, exposure times, exposure doses, and CNM types.

53

For example, Tong et al. (2007) reported limited effects of fullerenes on soil microbial biomass,

54

community structure, respiration, and enzymatic activities.10 In contrast, Johansen et al. (2008)

55

found 20–30% of the community changed in response to fullerenes, although soil respiration and

56

microbial biomass were unaffected.9 The magnitude of effects seems to vary with soil conditions;

57

for example, fresh, unmodified SWCNTs altered microbial communities and metabolic activity

58

in low, but not high, organic matter soils.13 CNM effects also change with exposure time as

59

evidenced by short-term (3-4 days)

60

CNM type may also relate to the magnitude of effects. Shan et al. (2015) found that biochar had

61

no effect on catechol mineralization; however, activated carbon at all amendment doses (0.2, 20,

22, 25

and long-term (1 year)

21

studies. Exposure dose and


5


Page 6 of 36

62

and 2000 mg kg-1) and SWCNTs at 2000 mg kg-1 significantly reduced mineralization, whereas

63

MWCNTs at 0.2 mg kg-1 significantly stimulated mineralization.17 Oyelami et al. (2015) found

64

higher glucose mineralization in fullerene amended soils, compared to MWCNT-, SWCNT-, or

65

fullerene soot-amended soils.11 In a 1-year exposure experiment where the effects of multiple

66

CNMs were compared, some treatments (e.g., biochar, carbon black, narrow MWCNTs, and

67

graphene) altered bacterial communities when compared to the no amendment control, but there

68

were no significant differences across the amendment treatments.21 CNMs differ in size,

69

morphology, surface chemistry and other physiochemical properties; thus, they may undergo

70

agglomeration, sorption, migration, and surface modification differently when they are released

71

into soils.26, 27 Such physicochemical changes to CNMs could alter their exposures to organisms

72

and thus observed effects including to soil microbial communities.

73

While multiple studies have examined CNM effects on microbial communities in unplanted

74

soils, little is known about CNM effects on microbial communities in planted soils.28 Yet

75

exposing soil microbial communities to CNMs in mesocosms with plant cultivation represents a

76

societally-relevant situation, where the interactions between crop plant roots and soils may

77

modify nanomaterial effects on soil microbial communities and their associated functions.29, 30

78

For example, plants exude into the soil 5−10% of their fixed carbon in the forms of sugars,

79

amino acids, organic acids, mucilage and organic chelators,31, 32 which may modify nanomaterial

80

bioavailability and toxicity.33, 34 Also, the quantity and composition of root exudates change with

81

plant growth,

82

CNMs on soil microbial communities during plant growth, including as a consequence of plant

83

growth stage, are mostly unknown.

35, 36

which may further temper nanomaterial effects. However, the effects of


6

Page 7 of 36


84

Here, we studied the effects of carbon black, MWCNTs, and graphene on soil prokaryotic

85

communities during the course of soybean plant growth. This work builds on a prior

86

publication37 from the same mesocosm study in which soybean plants were cultivated to maturity

87

in soils amended with 0, 0.1, 100, or 1000 mg kg-1 of either carbon black, MWCNTs, or

88

graphene. In the previous publication, Wang et al. (2017) reported that all three CNMs affected

89

soybean growth, nodulation, and dinitrogen fixation potential, with stronger effects more

90

frequently observed at lower CNM doses. Through separate studies on CNM concentration-

91

dependent agglomeration in soil water extracts, the authors demonstrated that the greater CNM

92

agglomeration at higher CNM concentrations likely decreased CNM dispersal and bioavailability

93

in the soil, and thereby decreased CNM effects on soybean plants and dinitrogen fixing

94

symbioses (Supporting Information).37 This preceding publication provides the foundation for

95

the present study. Here we asked: How did the same three CNMs affect rhizosphere prokaryotic

96

communities? How did the effects on bacterial communities change with time during the course

97

of soybean plant growth which itself was affected by CNM exposure?37 How did the effects on

98

bacterial communities vary with CNM concentration, including if—as observed for soybean

99

plants by Wang et al. (2017)37—there were stronger effects at lower CNM concentrations? To

100

answer these questions, soil prokaryotic communities were analyzed at day 0, and at the

101

vegetative (day 20), and reproductive (day 39) plant growth stages to compare the temporal

102

variation of treatment effects. Prokaryotic taxa were mapped to metabolic or other ecologically

103

relevant functional groups using the Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX)

104

database, which allows for comparing CNM effects on individual functional groups at different

105

soybean growth stages. The findings of this study newly show that CNMs have higher effects on

106

soybean rhizosphere prokaryotic communities with associated functional groups during the plant


7


Page 8 of 36

107

reproductive growth phase relative to vegetative growth. Among the effects are changes to taxa

108

associated with C, N, and S biogeochemical cycling. That such effects are more pronounced

109

when soybean plants are actively directing resources to seed production is suggestive of the

110

potential for ecosystem consequences of CNM exposure at late plant growth stages.

111 112

Materials and Methods

113

Soil. Surface soil (0-20 cm depth) was collected from the University of California Sedgwick

114

Reserve (34°40’32”N, 120°2’27”W), sieved (4 mm) and stored (4 oC) for less than two weeks

115

before the exposure experiment. Soil properties, including texture, pH, saturation, cation

116

exchange capacity, soluble salts, organic matter, total nutrients (C, Cu, Fe, Mn, N, Zn),

117

extractable nutrients (B, Ca, Cl, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Na, P, Zn, HCO3-, CO32-, NH4+, NO3-), and

118

exchangeable nutrients (Ca, K, Mg, Na), were characterized by the UC Davis Analytical

119

Laboratory (Davis, CA; http://anlab.ucdavis.edu/) and reported previously.37 The soil is a Pachic

120

Argiustoll in the Botella series, with a sandy clay loam texture (50% sand, 25% silt, and 20%

121

clay) containing 3.03% organic matter, 1.53% total C, and 0.15% total N; the pH was 7.38.37

122

Carbonaceous Nanomaterials (CNMs). The three CNMs used in this study had distinct

123

morphologies and sizes.37, 38 Carbon black (Printex 30, Orion Engineered Carbons, Kingwood,

124

TX) was spherical, 36.6 ± 8.3 nm diameter; MWCNTs (Cheap Tubes, Grafton, VT) had outer

125

diameters of 18.8 ± 4.1 nm; graphene (Cheap Tubes, Grafton, VT) was a two-dimensional sheet

126

with an average diameter of 350 ± 320 nm and a thickness of 8-12 nm.37, 38 The three CNMs had

127

high purities, as reflected by low non-carbon impurities (< 2.2% for all) and low metal contents

128

(< 0.1% for all metals measured, except 0.9% of nickel in the MWCNTs).37 The primary


8

Page 9 of 36


129

oxidation temperatures (an indicator of thermal stability) for CB, MWCNTs, and GNPs differed

130

and were approximately 620, 585, and 623 °C, respectively.37

131

Soybean Seedlings. As described before,37 to cultivate soybean seedlings, soybean seeds

132

(Glycine max, Midori Giant variety, Lot No. WA15060001, Park Seed Co., Hodges, SC) were

133

soaked in a Bradyrhizobium japonicum USDA 110 inoculum (1.0 optical density at 600 nm) for

134

10 min. Then, the inoculated seeds were sowed into rehydrated peat-filled seed starter pellets

135

(Park Seed Co., Hodges, SC), with an additional 100 µL of the B. japonicum inoculum dispensed

136

onto the sowed seeds. The pellets were watered daily and incubated on a heating mat (23 °C) for

137

ten days before seedling transplantation.37

138

Exposure Experiment. To homogenously distribute CNMs into soils, a previously reported 39

139

10-fold dilution method

140

mg kg-1 for either carbon black, MWCNTs, or graphene). The exposure doses were chosen,

141

based on the evaluation of exposure concentrations in previous publications, to represent a range

142

of possible environmental exposures: the predicted environmental concentration, the possible

143

presence of CNM hotspots in soil, and a relatively high exposure concentration to explore

144

potential toxicity.3, 40, 41 In brief, powder nanomaterials were initially added to soil in doses of

145

0.01, 10, and 100 g kg-1, and mechanically mixed for 10 min with handheld kitchen mixers. Then

146

each mixture was diluted 10-fold twice using unspiked soils, and mechanically mixed each time

147

as described above. Soil without CNMs was used as the control. After mixing, triplicate soil

148

samples of each treatment were immediately subsampled, denoted as 0-day samples, and frozen

149

at -80°C for later DNA-based analyses.

150 151

was used to achieve the targeted exposure doses (0.1, 100, and 1000

For each of the ten treatments (control, and three doses of each CNM), eight experimental pots were prepared following the procedures reported previously.37, 39 In each experimental pot (2.84


9


Page 10 of 36

152

L container with bottom perforations, high density polyethylene) there was a layer of

153

polyethylene WeedBlock fabric (Easy Gardener Products, Waco, TX) at the bottom, and then 0.4

154

kg of washed gravel on top to maintain drainage. Then, 2.3 kg of soil in a perforated

155

polyethylene bag (40 holes) was overlain on the gravel. One soybean seedling was transplanted

156

into each experimental pot. Each seedling was inoculated with B. japonicum (10 mL, prepared as

157

above) during transplantation to ensure effective inoculation.37

158

The planted pots were placed in a greenhouse for up to 39 days wherein the soybean plants had

159

grown to full maturity (before senescence). The greenhouse was under full sunlight, with daily

160

temperatures ranging from 15oC to 34oC, and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)

161

fluctuating between 21 and 930 µmol m-2 s-1. The soil water content averaged 0.25 m3 m-3 by

162

watering the experimental pots with tap water.37

163

Soil Sampling. During the exposure experiment, soil and plant samples were destructively

164

harvested twice based on soybean plant growth stages: vegetative (20 days post transplantation,

165

before flowering) or reproductive (39 days post transplantation, full seed production, before

166

senescence).37 For each of the ten treatments, three and five replicates were sacrificed at the

167

vegetative and reproductive stages, respectively. This sampling strategy minimized the

168

possibility of insufficient experimental replicates (i.e., less than 3) at the second sampling time,

169

in case of plant death. As reported previously, plant samples were examined for CNM effects.37

170

For this study, soil samples were preprocessed by manually removing most main roots and

171

sieving (2 mm) out any remaining fine roots. The sieved soils were stored at -80o C for later

172

DNA extraction to characterize soil prokaryotic communities. Because the plant roots extended

173

throughout the pots and were of similar masses at the intermediate and reproductive growth

174

stages,37 all soils were rhizospheric.


10

Page 11 of 36


175

Soil DNA Extraction and Illumina Sequencing. Total DNA was extracted from 0.3 g of

176

subsampled soil from each of the replicates, for each treatment and sampling time, using the

177

Powersoil DNA Isolation Kit (Mo Bio, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The sequencing library was

178

prepared by the UC Santa Barbara Biological NanoStructures Lab

179

(https://www.cnsi.ucsb.edu/resources/facilities/bnl/ngs-core) following a standard protocol. In

180

brief, prokaryotic primers 341F (CCT ACG GGN GGC WGC AG) and 805R (GAC TAC HVG

181

GGT ATC TAA TCC) were used to amplify the V3-V4 region of genes encoding 16S rRNA for

182

each DNA sample, with each primer set containing a unique barcode. The unique barcodes were

183

used to assign sequences to samples post-sequencing. After size and quality verification by

184

TapeStation (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA), PCR products from each sample were quantified using a

185

Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Eugene, OR) and equally pooled by mass. The pooled PCR

186

products were shipped to the UC Riverside IIGB Genomics Core facility

187

(http://illumina.ucr.edu/ht/) on dry ice for paired-end sequencing with 300 cycles (PE300) on a

188

MiSeq platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA). There were four sequencing outliers defined as

189

having a low sequencing depth (< 8500 sequence counts): two were from the medium and high

190

doses of the MWCNT treatment at day 0, and the other two were from the medium and high

191

doses of the carbon black treatment at the reproductive stage (day 39). These outliers were not

192

included in the statistical analyses (Table S1).

193

Sequence

Preprocessing.

Sequences

were

preprocessed

using

QIIME

software

194

(http://qiime.org/).42 Briefly, all sequences that passed the quality controls of the MiSeq platform

195

were assigned to samples by examining the unique barcodes, and the primers were trimmed.

196

Then, the forward and reverse sequences from the same sample were merged based on the

197

overlap between them (10 bp of minimum overlap). The merged sequences were further screened


11


Page 12 of 36

198

to remove low quality sequences that had an average quality score of < 20 and contained any

199

ambiguous characters. After initial trimming and screening, the PCR chimeras were removed,

200

and similar sequences were clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs, a cutoff

201

dissimilarity of 0.03) using the “usearch” method. Because the number of final qualified

202

sequences varied according to the sample, the sequence counts of all samples (i.e., 15000

203

sequence counts) were similarly rarefied through a random subsampling process to increase the

204

reliability of community comparisons across samples. The rarefied sample-OTU matrix was used

205

for the OTU-based community analysis. The OTU abundance was counted as the number of

206

sequences that clustered into a specific OTU. The community richness was estimated by the

207

number of observed OTUs per sample.

208

The OTUs were assigned to a set of hierarchical taxa (phylum, class, order, family, and genus)

209

using the Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) Classifier. Then the taxa were classified to

210

different functional groups using the Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX)

211

database (http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/louca/FAPROTAX/). The FAPROTAX is a software tool

212

designed to map prokaryotic taxa (e.g., genera or species) to established metabolic or other

213

ecologically relevant functions based on the functional descriptions of cultured strains in the

214

peer-reviewed literature.43 In FAPROTAX, functional groups may be nested since a taxon may

215

be affiliated with multiple functions; for example, all taxa associated with nitrate denitrification

216

are also associated with nitrate respiration and nitrate reduction. Currently, the FAPROTAX

217

includes 90 functional groups covering the main processes of C, N, and S cycling (e.g.,

218

cellulolysis, methanotrophy, methanogenesis, dinitrogen fixation, nitrification, denitrification,

219

sulfur oxidation and respiration; Table S2).


12

Page 13 of 36


220

Statistical Analysis. After testing the normality and variance homogeneity, one-way analysis

221

of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the global effect of exposure dose on measured

222

variables at each sampling time. Where the global ANOVA was significant (P < 0.05), a post-

223

hoc least significant difference (LSD) test was further conducted to test the significance (P
0.18 for all pairs, Figure 1a), by the

240

convergence of 0-day treatments in the PCoA graph (Figure 2a), and by the PERMANOVA test

241

of community shifts (P > 0.09, Table S3). These results corroborate other studies,21, 45 indicating


13


Page 14 of 36

242

the negligible effects of CNM exposure on DNA extraction and bacterial community analysis

243

methods.

244

The CNM effects became more substantial with soybean growth (exposure time). At the

245

vegetative stage (day 20), only the low dose of MWCNTs significantly changed soil prokaryotic

246

communities (P < 0.05, Figure 1b). At the reproductive stage (day 39), almost all CNM-amended

247

treatments significantly affected soil prokaryotic communities (P < 0.05 for all except the high

248

dose of MWCNTs, Figure 1c). This was also supported by the PCoA graphs (Figure 2) and the

249

associated PERMANOVA test (Table S3), showing the greater separation of CNM-amended

250

treatments from the control at the reproductive stage when compared to day 0 and the vegetative

251

stage.

252

A similar time-dependent trend was observed for community richness. The community

253

richness was not significantly affected by any of the CNM treatments at either day 0 (P > 0.39)

254

or the vegetative stage (20 days, P > 0.12), but the CNM effects tended to be more distinct after

255

39 days at the soybean reproductive stage (Figure 3). At that later sampling, community richness

256

was significantly reduced by the medium and high doses of carbon black (10.7% and 9.6%), as

257

well as the medium dose of MWCNTs (12.2%, P < 0.05, Figure 3c). These three treatments were

258

also the treatments that caused the most distinct community shifts (Figure 1c), indicating that the

259

CNM-induced richness reduction might explain the community shifts.

260

Exposure time has been found to be an important factor in modulating nanomaterial effects on

261

soil microbial communities in unplanted soil microcosms. For example, functionalized SWCNTs

262

and graphene have been found to cause more distinct effects on soil bacterial communities at the

263

early stages of exposure (3-4 days),14, 22 while another study reported the effects of carbon black,

264

narrow MWCNTs, and graphene on soil bacterial communities even after 1-year exposure.21


14

Page 15 of 36


265

Previous studies focusing on metal oxide nanoparticles also found that the effects on soil

266

bacterial communities increased with exposure time.45,

267

studies may be partially attributed to differences in nanomaterial types, soil properties, associated

268

communities, and experimental conditions. In this study, because soybean plants were cultivated

269

in the exposure experiment, it was also possible that the observed time-dependent CNM effects

270

on soil bacterial communities were due to soybean plant growth effects. Plants exude into the

271

soil 5−10% of their fixed carbon which may modify nanomaterial bioavailability and toxicity.33,

272

34

273

growth,35, 36 further altering nanomaterial effects. Besides the natural variations of root exudates

274

with plant growth, CNMs may have affected the quantity and composition of root exudates by

275

affecting plant growth,37 which in turn caused the time-dependent effects on soil prokaryotic

276

communities. In addition, the CNMs, e.g., carbon black, may be oxidized after deposition,47

277

which may also contribute to the effects. Although it is difficult to differentiate whether the

278

cause is purely time—independent of live plants—versus plant mediation, our results showed

279

that CNMs had higher effects on soybean rhizosphere prokaryotic communities during the

280

reproductive growth phase (day 39)—the most crucial stage of plant development in terms of

281

seed yield, when compared to the vegetative growth period (day 20).

46

The different time effects between

Also, the quantity and composition of root exudates may have been changed with soybean

282

CNM Effects Vary with CNM type. Besides the time-dependent CNM effects, we also found

283

that the three CNMs had different effects on soil prokaryotic communities. For example, only the

284

low dose of MWCNTs induced significant shifts of soil prokaryotic communities at the soybean

285

vegetative stage (day 20, P < 0.05, Figures 1b). At the soybean reproductive stage (day 39),

286

although almost all CNM treatments clearly affected soil prokaryotic communities (P < 0.05

287

except the high dose of MWCNTs), the effects differed in magnitude, as reflected by varied


15


Page 16 of 36

288

community dissimilarities induced by different CNM treatments (Figure 1c). For example, the

289

community dissimilarities between the control and carbon black or MWCNT treatments (except

290

the high dose of MWCNTs) were around 1.9 times of the within-control community dissimilarity,

291

while the community dissimilarities between the control and graphene treatments were around

292

1.2 times of the within-control community dissimilarity (Figure 1c). This was also illustrated by

293

the PCoA graphs: the samples exposed to carbon black or MWCNTs (except the high dose of

294

MWCNTs) separated from the control more clearly than those from the graphene treatments

295

(Figure 2c, d, e).

296

These results indicate that the effects of CNMs on soil microbial communities are driven by

297

the type of material. In monocultures, metal oxide nanomaterials have been demonstrated to be

298

different in their toxicity to cell lines and microorganisms, yet nano-ZnO and nano-CuO appear

299

to be more toxic than other metal oxide nanoparticles.48-50 Herein, the differences in CNM effects

300

among different types of CNMs could derive from differing toxicity mechanisms. The toxic

301

mechanisms include membrane disorganization, surface coating-related photocatalytic oxidation

302

and associated cell damage, toxic ion release, and cell-damaging reactive oxygen species (ROS)

303

accumulation.51, 52 The specific toxicity mechanisms could be related to CNM physicochemical

304

properties (e.g., size and shape), which could vary with CNM type. For example, MWCNTs

305

were more toxic to Bacillus subtilis than graphene,53 which is consistent with our observation

306

that MWCNTs were more effective on soil prokaryotic communities than graphene. Even when

307

comparing within each type of CNM, the differences in particle size have been shown to alter the

308

toxicity to microorganisms. For example, the antimicrobial activities of graphene oxide sheets

309

were reported to vary with sheet size.54 Meanwhile, the variation in CNM effects could also be

310

attributed to different CNM exposures due to differing CNM agglomeration behaviors in soil,


16

Page 17 of 36


37

311

and thus, differing bioavailabilities. In a prior publication

from the same mesocosm study,

312

Wang et al. (2017) examined the relationships between CNM concentrations and agglomeration

313

in soil extracts (Supporting Information). Graphene was found to be significantly less stable in

314

soil water extracts than carbon black at the same concentration (Table S4).37 Therefore, it is

315

possible that more extensive agglomeration of graphene significantly decreased its

316

bioavailability in soil and mitigated toxicity-related effects on soil prokaryotic communities.

317

Consequently, both the colloidal stability of CNMs in soil water and their differing toxicity

318

mechanisms (likely related to their physicochemical properties) are critical to the bioavailability

319

and effects of CNMs in soils.

320

CNM Effects Vary with Exposure Dose. We found that the low or medium doses of CNMs

321

tended to cause the most distinct effects on soil prokaryotic communities. For example, at the

322

vegetative stage, only the low dose of MWCNTs significantly altered soil prokaryotic

323

communities (P < 0.05, Figure 1b). At the reproductive stage, although all doses of carbon black

324

and graphene significantly affected soil prokaryotic communities (P < 0.05), the medium dose of

325

carbon black and low dose of graphene showed the highest effects (Figure 1c). In addition, with

326

MWCNTs, the lower doses significantly changed soil prokaryotic communities (P < 0.05), while

327

the high dose did not significantly affect soil prokaryotic communities (P = 0.79, Figure 1c).

328

These results indicate that the CNM effects on soil prokaryotic communities did not follow the

329

typical dose-response relationship in which the response increases with toxicant dose.

330

Previously, Wang et al. (2017) showed that the low dose of MWCNTs inhibited soybean

331

growth, as reflected by shorter plants, slower leaf cover expansion, and less final leaf area.37

332

Further, CNMs negatively affected nodulation and dinitrogen fixation potential, with stronger

333

effects at lower CNM doses.37 To explain the observed inverse dose-response relationships,


17


Page 18 of 36

334

Wang et al. (2017) conducted separate experiments to examine the effect of CNM concentration

335

on CNM dispersal in soil water, and thus on CNM bioavailability in soil.37 Specifically, they

336

studied CNM stability at two CNM concentrations (10 and 300 mg L-1) in water extracts of the

337

control soil (Supporting Information).37 The two CNM concentrations studied were relevant to

338

the CNM concentrations in the soil solution of the mesocosm experiment (Supporting

339

Information). By measuring CNM agglomeration and sedimentation dynamics, and imaging

340

CNMs using environmental scanning electron microscopy, Wang et al. (2017) found that CNM

341

agglomeration increased with increasing CNM concentration (Table S4).37 The strength of CNM

342

effects depends partly on CNM bioavailability (defined as “the accessibility of a chemical for

343

assimilation and possible toxicity” 55), which in turn is affected by CNM colloidal stability in soil

344

pore water.56 CNM stability in soil water could determine the amount (i.e., available dose) and

345

physicochemical characteristics (e.g., size and shape) of CNMs that would disperse in soil water

346

and directly interact with plant roots and soil microorganisms. At higher CNM concentrations,

347

greater CNM agglomeration resulted in increased average sizes of CNM agglomerates (shown as

348

the larger hydrodynamic diameters) and decreased CNM concentrations (reflected by the lower

349

derived count rates) remaining in soil water (Table S4).37 Therefore, CNM bioavailability and

350

observed effects were reduced at higher CNM concentrations.37

351

In the present study, focused on soil prokaryotic communities, we found that lower doses of

352

CNMs caused more distinct effects on soil prokaryotic communities. This result may be

353

explained by higher dispersion-mediated bioavailability of inherently toxic CNMs, similarly to

354

the effects on soybean plants as was concluded in the previous study.37 The trend was better

355

evidenced at the reproductive plant growth stage, i.e. after 39 days of plant growth (Figures 1c

356

and 3c). If this was an effect of growth stage, rather than merely time, then the effect could


18

Page 19 of 36


357

derive from plants exerting a differential influence on rhizosphere prokaryotic communities if

358

plants changed their root physiology while adjusting resource allocation during pod filling.

359

Functional Implications of Prokaryotic Community Shifts Responding to CNM Exposure.

360

We used Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX) to map prokaryotic clades

361

(e.g. genera or species) to metabolic or other ecologically-relevant functions. Among the 90

362

functional groups in the FAPROTAX database, 69 groups (76.7%) were present in at least one of

363

the samples (Table S2). These functional groups included taxa (Table S5) associated with

364

processes in the biogeochemical cycling of C (e.g., cellulolysis, ligninolysis, methanotrophy,

365

methanogenesis, hydrocarbon degradation), N (e.g., dinitrogen fixation, nitrification,

366

denitrification), S (e.g. the oxidation and reduction of sulfur, sulfite, and sulfate), and other

367

elements (e.g., the oxidation and reduction of iron, manganese, and arsenic, Table S2).

368

Pearson correlations between prokaryotic community dissimilarities, and the relative

369

abundance of each functional group for each CNM type at each sampling time, were examined.

370

This allowed determining the functional groups that significantly (adjusted P < 0.05) contributed

371

to the community shifts. We further examined how these functional groups were altered by CNM

372

exposure using ANOVA in conjunction with an LSD test. None of the 69 functional groups

373

represented in the samples was significantly correlated with bacterial community shifts for all

374

three CNM types at either day 0 or the vegetative stage (adjusted P > 0.05 for all, Table 1).

375

However, at the reproductive stage, 18, 25, and 5 functional groups, whose relative abundances

376

were significantly correlated to the community shifts (adjusted P < 0.05, Table S6), were also

377

significantly altered by carbon black, MWCNTs, and graphene, respectively (P < 0.05, Figures

378

4-6). Therefore, these functional groups were defined as sensitive functional groups (Table 1).

379

These results (i.e., more sensitive functional groups at the reproductive stage) mirrored the


19


Page 20 of 36

380

community analysis results, showing that key functional groups affected by CNMs were changed

381

more at the soybean reproductive stage (Table 1). Further, the significant correlations (Table S6)

382

suggested a linkage between community shifts induced by CNM exposure and functional shifts.

383

This result may appear intuitive, given that affected functional groups are determined from

384

analyzing the phylogenetic data using the FAPROTAX database. However, given that less than 1%

385

of all microbial community taxa have been studied in culture,57 the functional implications in the

386

prokaryotic community shifts herein could be larger than what can be currently inferred using the

387

FAPROTAX database.

388

In this study, sensitive functional groups were not related linearly to NM dose, differently from 29

389

previous studies of metal oxide ENM effects on bacterial communities in soils with

390

without 46 plants. Herein, the medium doses of carbon black and MWCNTs, and the low dose of

391

graphene, tended to cause the highest effects on soil prokaryotic communities at the soybean

392

reproductive stage (Figures 1 and 2). Consistently, almost all of the sensitive functional groups

393

were significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the medium dose of carbon black (100% of the

394

sensitive functional groups, Figure 4) and MWCNTs (96%, Figure 5), and the low dose of

395

graphene (100%, Figure 6), while fewer functional groups were significantly altered by other

396

treatments (Table 1).

and

397

Interestingly, some of the functional groups associated with C, N, and S cycling were

398

significantly changed at the reproductive stage with some groups increasing while others

399

decreasing. For example, with carbon black exposure, 9 of the 18 sensitive functional groups,

400

such as those associated with methanogenesis, chitinolysis, aerobic nitrite oxidation, and nitrate

401

reduction, were significantly decreased (by 27-74%, P < 0.05), while functional groups

402

associated with cellulolysis, xylanolysis and aerobic ammonia oxidation were significantly


20

Page 21 of 36


403

increased (P < 0.05, Figure 4). Of the 25 sensitive functional groups in the MWCNT treatments,

404

15 functional groups—including those associated with nitrification (aerobic nitrite oxidation),

405

denitrification (nitrate, nitrite, and nitrous oxide denitrification), nitrogen respiration (nitrate and

406

nitrite respiration), and anoxygenic photoautotrophic S oxidation—were significantly decreased

407

due to exposure to a certain dose (by 22-70%, P < 0.05, Figure S1), while the functional groups

408

associated with chitinolysis, xylanolysis and sulfur respiration were significantly increased (P

Carbonaceous Nanomaterials Have Higher Effects on Soybean

Recommend Documents