title: Living at the border: A community and single-cell assessment of lake bacterioneuston activity.
abstract: We assessed the physicochemical properties of the surface microlayer (SML: first 900 μm) and its underlying water (ULW: 0.2-0.5-m depth) and compared the composition and activity of their bacterial communities in six lakes located across an altitude gradient. Activity was assessed at both the community level, by measuring leucine bulk incorporation, and at the single-cell level, by using microautoradiography. Catalyzed reporter deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization was used to quantitatively assess the structure of the bacterial assemblage. Dissolved organic matter at the SML was significantly enriched in small-size molecules as compared to the ULW. Bacterial abundance in the SML ranged from 3.2 × 10(5) cells mL(-1) to 3.2 × 10(6) cells mL(-1) and was enriched in four out of six lakes when compared to the ULW. The SML and ULW showed lake-specific differences in bacterial community composition, although in most cases, both layers were dominated by Betaproteobacteria. This group also contributed the most to total activity in both layers in all lakes, followed by Actinobacteria. Despite large differences in environmental conditions among lakes, the fraction of active neustonic bacteria was very similar in most of them. Both bulk and single-cell activities are not necessarily lower in the SML than in the ULW, and well-adapted bacteria exist in the extreme conditions found in this habitat.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Aquatic Photobiology and Plankton Ecology, Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hörtnagl
authors.forename: María Teresa
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Pérez
authors.forename: Ruben
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Sommaruga
references.citation: Freshw Biol. 2009 May;55(5):994-1005
references.pmid: 20543908
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 Oct;44(4):945-53
references.pmid: 16346120
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Nov;64(11):4299-306
references.pmid: 9797280
references.citation: Can J Microbiol. 1976 Dec;22(12):1699-709
references.pmid: 1009500
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Sep;71(9):5551-9
references.pmid: 16151148
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 Feb;59(2):242-54
references.pmid: 17328765
references.citation: Environ Sci Technol. 2003 Oct 15;37(20):4702-8
references.pmid: 14594381
references.citation: Microb Ecol. 1983 Dec;9(4):317-28
references.pmid: 24221820
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009 Feb;67(2):219-28
references.pmid: 19049500
references.citation: ISME J. 2008 Jul;2(7):776-89
references.pmid: 18356822
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2007 Sep;9(9):2200-10
references.pmid: 17686018
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005 Oct 1;54(2):269-80
references.pmid: 16332325
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Jun;68(6):3094-101
references.pmid: 12039771
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Nov;63(11):4178-84
references.pmid: 16535724
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Feb;68(2):661-7
references.pmid: 11823205
references.citation: ISME J. 2009 Jan;3(1):13-30
references.pmid: 18784755
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2005 May;7(5):723-36
references.pmid: 15819854
references.citation: J Colloid Interface Sci. 1998 Dec 1;208(1):191-202
references.pmid: 9820764
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2008 Apr;10(4):1080-6
references.pmid: 18215160