# Response of bacterioplankton to a glucose gradient in the absence of lysis and grazing

Rui Zhang, Markus G Weinbauer, Yin Ki Tam, Pei-Yuan Qian

► To cite this version:

Rui Zhang, Markus G Weinbauer, Yin Ki Tam, Pei-Yuan Qian. Response of bacterioplankton to a glucose gradient in the absence of lysis and grazing. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2013, 85 (3), pp.443-451. 10.1111/1574-6941.12133. hal-03502624

HAL Id: hal-03502624

https://hal.science/hal-03502624v1

Submitted on 8 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Response of bacterioplankton to a glucose gradient in the absence of lysis and grazing

Rui Zhang<sup>1,2,3</sup>, Markus G. Weinbauer<sup>4,5</sup>, Yin Ki Tam<sup>3</sup> & Pei-Yuan Qian<sup>3</sup>

<sup>1</sup>State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; <sup>2</sup>Institute of Marine Microbes and Ecospheres, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; <sup>3</sup>Division of Life Science/Coastal Marine Laboratory, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China; <sup>4</sup>Microbial Ecology and Biogeochemistry Group, Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Villefranche-sur-Mer, France; and <sup>5</sup>CNRS, Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Villefranche-sur-Mer, France

**Correspondence:** Rui Zhang, State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. Tel.: (86) 592 2185752; fax: (86)592 2185375; e-mail: ruizhang@xmu.edu.cn

Received 22 June 2012; revised 5 March 2013; accepted 2 April 2013.
Final version published online 1 May 2013.

DOI: 10.1111/1574-6941.12133

Editor: Patricia Sobecky

**Keywords**

bacterioplankton; glucose gradient; lysis.

## Abstract

Bacterial utilization of dissolved organic matter plays an important role in marine carbon cycling. In this study, the response of bacterioplankton to a gradient of carbon (glucose) addition was investigated experimentally in a subtropical coastal environment in the absence of top-down control by viruses and flagellates. Bacterial abundance and production were stimulated by glucose addition corresponding to a gradient of glucose. Differences in the extent of stimulation suggested different bacterial life strategies under different nutrient conditions. Bacterial community diversity as revealed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) showed a unimodal productivity-diversity (number of DGGE bands) relationship after 3-day incubation. DNA fingerprinting profiling and cluster analysis showed clear and gradual changes in bacterial community structure along the gradient of glucose concentrations, reflecting the competition for carbon supply among bacterial groups. Sequencing analysis of the DGGE bands disclosed the relative abundance of seven bacterial genotypes in the *Alteromonadaceae* and *Roseovarius* that gradually decreased with the glucose enrichment while two *Vibrio* genotypes showed the reverse increasing trend. This suggested that *Vibrio* was a more successful opportunist at high carbon availability.

## Introduction

Due to their high abundance, great diversity, and fast growth rate, bacterioplankton are a key component in marine plankton food webs and biogeochemical cycles in the ocean (Azam et al., 1983). For example, the crucial role of bacteria in marine carbon cycling is demonstrated in numerous studies (see the reviews of Thingstad & Lignell, 1997; Williams, 2000), and the topic has recently drawn renewed interest during the consideration of the microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter (RDOM) as long-term carbon storage in the global ocean (Jiao et al., 2010). Two major types of controlling mechanisms of bacteria have been recognized: bottom-up and top-down mechanisms. Bottom-up controlling factors in the ocean include dissolved organic matter (DOM) and inorganic nutrients, while protist

grazing and viral lysis are the major top-down controlling factors. In the natural ecosystem, bacteria act as active competitors for DOM. There is competition between bacteria and phytoplankton and among different groups of bacteria for the limited DOM in most areas of the global ocean (e.g. Caron et al., 2000). Nutrient addition experiments reveal that DOM bioreactivity limits bacterial production and growth rate in various marine environments (e.g. Kirchman & Rich, 1997; Kirchman et al., 2000). Furthermore, inorganic nutrients and micronutrients (e.g. iron) affect microbial uptake of DOM (Kirchman et al., 2000; Skoog et al., 2002). Enhanced DOM utilization was observed after the addition of inorganic nutrient, although the effects also depended on the type and extent of nutrient limitation in different marine environments. On the other hand, predation and lysis affect bacterial abundance, production, diversity, and community
structure. Therefore, it is expected that predators and viruses will significantly influence the eventual bacterial DOM uptake.

Bacterial mortality due to viral lysis is an important controlling factor in marine environments (Fuhrman, 1999; Wommack & Colwell, 2000; Weinbauer, 2004). Several incubation studies on bacterial communities with and without viruses clearly show the effects of viruses on bacterial abundance, production, and community composition (Winter et al., 2004; Šimek et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007; Sandaa et al., 2009). Furthermore, enhanced viral production is reported in nutrient addition treatments in micro- and mesocosm incubation experiments performed in both marine and freshwater environments (Wilson et al., 1998; Weinbauer et al., 2003; Motegi & Nagata, 2007). Thus, viruses should have substantial influence on bacteria in nutrient addition experiments and should not be overlooked. However, viruses were not considered properly in most of the nutrient enrichment studies. For example, the bottom-up effects of nutrients are usually assessed by removing flagellates using filtration to obtain a predator-free treatment (e.g. Cherrier et al., 1996; Rivkin & Anderson, 1997; Carlson et al., 2002). Any viruses remaining in the filtrate could still affect the bacterial assemblage by acting as the top-down controller. Therefore, the results obtained from these studies represent combined the effects of bottom-up factors (e.g. nutrients) and top-down factors (e.g. viruses). Similarly, in most whole water bioassay experiments, virus-induced bacterial mortality is not considered (e.g. Lebaron et al., 1999; Agawin et al., 2004).

Although viruses exist in all kinds of marine environments and bacterial responses to natural or artificial nutrient changes will occur with viruses, it is essential to distinguish the responses of the bacterioplankton itself from those where viruses are present to have a better understanding of the ecological role of each component in marine food webs (e.g. Middelboe & Lyck, 2002). Such information is particularly necessary for modeling studies (e.g. Fuhrman, 1999). So far, little effort has been made to alleviate or eliminate the effects of viruses during incubation to obtain ‘pure’ bacterial responses to nutrient addition (Middelboe & Lyck, 2002). In our study, we developed a bioassay technique with predator-free and

virus-reduced bacterial communities using tangential flow filtration (TFF) and dilution and then supplied a gradient of additional dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to investigate the respective bacterial responses in terms of abundance, production, diversity, and community structure. Our study, for the first time, provided information on DOC utilization by bacterial communities in the absence of significant top-down pressure.

## Materials and methods

### Experimental setup

About 100 L of seawater was collected at Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong (22°17′N, 114°18′E) in an acid-rinsed plastic tank. Samples were prefiltered with 25 µm mesh to remove large zooplankton and particles and stored at 4 °C for < 1 h before the laboratory experiments were started. The seawater temperature and salinity were measured on site. The bacterial population without flagellates and viruses was produced following a protocol described by Zhang et al. (2007). Seawater was filtered with 1.0 µm polycarbonate membrane to remove the flagellate population. About 60 L of this filtrate was filtered through a 100 KDa cutoff polysulfone cartridge (Prep--Scale/TFF; Millipore) to obtain virus-free seawater. The remaining bacteria-containing filtrate was mixed with the virus-free seawater to obtain about a 10% diluted bacterial population compared to that in situ. Sufficient N (NH₄NO₃) and P (NaH₂PO₄) were added to give final concentrations in the mixture of 25 and 5 µM, respectively, so as to eliminate any limiting effects. Then, a gradient of carbon concentrations (0–1000 µM) was developed with glucose addition in two parallel experiments as shown in Table 1. In the first one (Batch 1), all glucose concentrates were added at the beginning of the incubation, while in the second one (Batch 2), glucose was added consecutively as 1/3 of the total on each day. The mixtures were incubated in 2-L polycarbonate bottles (Nalgene) at ambient seawater temperature in the dark for 3 days. Subsamples for the determination of bacterial and viral abundance, bacterial production, and nutrient factors were collected every day (for Batch 2, before nutrient addition). After 3 days of incubation, the seawa-

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Set-up of glucose concentration gradient for bacterioplankton in microcosms</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>C1</th><th>C2</th><th>G1</th><th>G2</th><th>G3</th><th>G4</th><th>G5</th><th>G6</th><th>G7</th><th>G8</th><th>G9</th><th>G10</th><th>G11</th><th>G12</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>N (µM)</td><td>0</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>P (µM)</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>C (µM)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>80</td><td>100</td><td>1000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Two batches of incubation were developed in which the N and P addition were same. In the first batch of experiments (Batch 1), glucose was added only at the beginning of the incubation, while in the second batch (Batch 2), glucose was added in equal amounts on Day 0, 1 and 2.
ter was filtered using 0.22 µm polycarbonate membranes to obtain the bacterioplankton in the microcosms for community structure analyses.

## Nutrient analysis

The nitrogen ($NH_4^+$ and $NO_3^- + NO_2^-$) and phosphorus ($PO_4^{3-}$) concentrations in the incubations were monitored using a Skalar San++ continuous-flow analyzer (Skalar Analytical B.V., Breda, The Netherlands) following the standard methods: ammonia (USEPA Method 349.0); nitrate and nitrite USEPA (Method 353.4); and orthophosphate (USEPA Method 365.5). During the 3 days of incubation, 50 mL of each of the mixtures was collected every 24 h and stored at 4 °C in darkness until analysis. No filtration was carried out to remove the bacteria as the analysis procedures targeted only the soluble nutrients in the seawater.

## Bacterial and viral abundance and bacterial production

Samples for the determination of bacterial abundance were fixed with glutaraldehyde (0.2 µm-pore-size filtered; 2% final concentration) and filtered through black polycarbonate membrane (0.2 µm-pore-size; 25 mm diameter; Millipore). The bacterial cells were stained with 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) in the dark for 10 min before being enumerated under an epifluorescence microscope (Olympus BX41) with blue excitation (485 nm). Viral particles were fixed, stained with SYBR Green I, collected on 0.02 µm-pore-size aluminum oxide filters (25 mm diameter; GE Healthcare), and enumerated following the protocol of Noble & Fuhrman (1998). Bacterial production was measured using [³H] Leucine (PerkinElmer P/N: NET460A005MC) incorporation (Kirchman et al., 1985). Triplicate water samples (1.5 mL) with 40 nM of [³H] Leucine were incubated in the dark for 2 h at ambient temperature. Trichloroacetic acid-killed samples were incubated as the control.

## Bacterial community structure

Bacterial genomic DNA was obtained from 0.22 µm polycarbonate membranes using phenol/chloroform extraction, following the protocol of Zhang *et al.* (2008). Bacterial 16S rRNA genes were amplified with the universal primer set 8F+1492R and then digested with AluI and HaeIII to carry out the terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis on a genetic analyzer (GE MegaBACE 500 DNA Analysis System) operated in genotyping mode. Bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplicons produced with universal primer set 341F-GC+907R were

separated on a gel with a denaturing gradient of 45–75% [100% denaturant = 7 M urea, 40% (v/v) formamide]. The denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis was performed on a Bio-Rad Protean II system for 18 h at a constant voltage of 125 V and a temperature of 60 °C. Nine selected DGGE bands were sequenced and deposited in the GenBank under the following accession numbers: JX206982–JX206990. Detailed protocols for PCR amplification of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and DNA fingerprinting analysis can be found in Zhang *et al.* (2008, 2009).

## Results

### Bacterial abundance and production

Over the three incubation days, the bacterial abundance in the two controls (C1 and C2), which had no glucose addition, increased slowly and showed the highest numbers on Day 3 (Fig. 1). In Batch 1 (all glucose added at the onset of incubation), bacterial abundance in most treatments

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Time course changes of bacterial abundance in a gradient glucose addition experiment during the 3-day incubation. Values are shown as mean ± SD of measurement from replicate sampling of each microcosm. Batch 1: glucose was added only at the beginning of the incubation; Batch 2: glucose was added in equal amounts on Day 0, 1 and 2. C1–2, G1–12: glucose additions (for concentrations see Table 1).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Variations of bacterial community parameters along a glucose concentration gradient. The maximum bacterial abundance and production indicate the highest bacterial biomass accumulation and carbon assimilation rates during the 3-day incubation with different carbon supply. Bacterial species richness is the number of DGGE bands (see Fig. 4 for DGGE patterns). C2, G1–12: glucose additions (for concentrations see Table 1).</figcaption></figure>

increased rapidly at the beginning of incubation, reaching the highest number in Day 1, followed by a general decrease in the following 2 days. However, possibly due to the pulse addition of glucose, the magnitude of abundance increase in Batch 2 was smaller than in Batch 1, and most microcosms showed sustainable or continual increase in bacterial abundance on Day 2 and 3. In both batches, higher glucose addition usually sustained higher numbers of bacterial cells (Fig. 1). During the incubation, microcosms with the four highest glucose additions always showed higher bacterial abundance than lower glucose addition microcosms (see red lines in Fig. 1). In addition, the maximum bacterial abundance which appeared in each microcosm gradually increased with glucose concentration (for C2, G1–G8: $y = 2.318x + 79.39$, $R^2 = 0.7666$) and remarkably peaked with the 60–100 µM glucose addition (Fig. 2). In the highest glucose treatment (1000 µM), however, the maximum bacterial abundance during incubation was reduced to a similar level as the 40 µM glucose treatment (Fig. 2).

Similar to the general pattern in bacterial abundance, the addition of glucose showed stimulating effect on maximum bacterial production in each microcosm during incubation (for C2, G1–G11: $y = 1.632x + 401.18$; $R^2 = 0.568$; Fig. 2). In addition, the maximum production rate showed a temporal difference between the treatments. Two controls, three low glucose additions (G1–G4), and the highest glucose addition (G12) in Batch 1 showed the highest production rate on Day 1 while other treatments showed a later peak on Day 2 or 3 (Fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Time course changes of bacterial production to gradient glucose addition during the 3-day incubation. Values are shown as mean ± SD of measurement from replicate sampling of each microcosm. Batch 1: glucose was added only at the beginning of the incubation; Batch 2: glucose was added in equal amounts on Day 0, 1 and 2. C1–2, G1–12: glucose additions (for concentrations see Table 1).</figcaption></figure>

For Batch 2 treatments, only the highest glucose addition significantly peaked on Day 1 while all others peaked on Day 2 or 3.

## Bacterial species richness and community structure

Bacterial community structure revealed by DGGE showed a gradual change along the concentration gradient of glucose in both batches (Fig. 4). Considering the relatively consistent community structures (as shown by the consistent patterns on both DGGE gels) between the two batches, only Batch 1 was selected for further molecular analysis. This gradual change of bacterial communities revealed by DGGE analysis was further verified using another DNA fingerprinting technique, T-RFLP, with a different PCR primer set (Supporting Information, Fig. S3). In the DGGE analysis, the number of bands varied between 5 and 15 (Figs 2 and 4). Samples of medium glucose (4–20 µM) addition treatments showed a higher number of bands than those with lower (0–2 µM) or
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** DGGE patterns of bacterioplankton in the two glucose gradient batches at Day 3. Batch 1: glucose was added only at the beginning of the incubation; Batch 2: glucose was added in equal amounts on Day 0, 1 and 3; C1–2, G1–12: glucose additions (for concentrations see Table 1). DGGE bands chosen for sequencing are indicated by arrows.</figcaption></figure>

higher (40–1000 µM) glucose treatments (Fig. 4). If we defined the term ‘productivity’ as the availability of glucose to a unit biomass of bacteria per unit area and time, our study revealed a unimodal (hump-like) curve in the productivity–diversity relationship for bacterioplankton. Cluster analysis based on the DGGE pattern of Batch 1 indicated a clear glucose-dependent clustering pattern (Fig. 5). The two controls and three low glucose addition (1–4 µM) treatments showed a similar bacterial community structure and formed a unique cluster. Similarly, samples from 6–40 µM glucose addition formed the other group while leaving the four highest concentration treatments in another separate cluster.

On the DGGE gel, seven major bands (Bands 1–7) clearly showed a gradual decrease in relative intensity, reflecting the decrease in relative abundance of particular

bacterial groups, while the other two (Bands 8 and 9) showed a gradual increase. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that five bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) repressed by nutrient addition were from the *Gammaproteobacteria* (mainly *Alteromonadaceae*) and two, from the *Alphaproteobacteria* (*Roseovarius* spp.). Both OTUs stimulated by the nutrient addition gradient were affiliated into *Vibrio* spp. (Table 2).

# Discussion

## Experimental setup and approach

Generally, bacterioplankton in the two batches of our incubation with different pulses (single pulse vs. three pulses) of glucose addition showed similar responses in terms of abundance, production, and community structure. Therefore, although this study was performed without experimental replicates, the consistency of data from the two batches suggested that our results were reliable (Figs 1, 3 and 4). In our experimental setup, the predators were removed using filtration with 1.0 µm polycarbonate membranes, and flagellates and ciliates were not observed in random inspections using epifluorescence microscopy. Viral abundance in the microcosms was reduced to about 10% of the ambient level and did not increase significantly during the 3-day incubation (Fig. S1). At this dilution, the contact rate between viruses and their hosts is significantly reduced (Murray & Jackson, 1992) and thus, the virus-induced predation pressure on bacteria was likely to be negligible (Weinbauer *et al.*, 2007; Zhang *et al.*, 2007). Therefore, our experimental approach successfully provided a bacterial community without grazing pressure by flagellates and strongly reduced the pressure of viral lysis.

The findings in our study were contradictory with those of previous studies concerning the response of

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Cluster analysis of bacterial community structure in Batch 1 microcosms revealed by DGGE analysis. C1–2, G1–12: glucose additions (for concentrations see Table 1).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Phylogenetic affiliation of sequenced DGGE bands and their best matches in the GenBank</caption><thead><tr><th>DGGE band</th><th>Phylogenetic affiliation</th><th>Isolation environments of best matches in the GenBank</th><th>Identity (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Repressed by nutrient addition</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (family Alteromonadaceae)</td><td>Environmental clones from ballast water or incubation enriched by coral mucus</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (family Alteromonadaceae)</td><td>Environmental clones from eutrophic Victoria Harbor or coral near fish farm effluent</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Alphaproteobacteria (genus Roseovarius)</td><td>Environmental clones from various coastal environments</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (family Alteromonadaceae)</td><td>Environmental clones from eutrophic Victoria Harbor or coral near fish farm effluent</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Alphaproteobacteria (genus Roseovarius)</td><td>Environmental clones from various coastal environments</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (unclassified)</td><td>Environmental clones from eutrophic Victoria Harbor or incubation enriched by DMS</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (unclassified)</td><td>Environmental clones from various coastal environments including eutrophic Victoria Harbor</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Stimulated by nutrient addition</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (genus Vibrio)</td><td>Symbiotic Vibrio clones from various marine organisms</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Gammaproteobacteria (genus Vibrio)</td><td>Symbiotic Vibrio clones from various marine organisms</td><td>99</td></tr></tbody></table>

Refer to Fig. 4 for the position of DGGE bands.

natural bacteria to nutrient addition, which reveal no significant influence of nutrient enrichment on bacterial abundance (Kirchman, 1990; Kirchman & Rich, 1997; Eilers et al., 2000; Kirchman et al., 2000). Although these experiments were performed in various environments with different types and concentrations of nutrients added, a common circumstance was the presence of viruses in their incubation systems. It was demonstrated that viral lysis releases organic and inorganic material and thus supports the growth of noninfected bacteria (Middelboe et al., 1996), a phenomenon which matches the ‘killing the winner’ theory (Thingstad & Lignell, 1997; Wommack & Colwell, 2000). Under this interference of viral lysis, the total bacterial abundance may remain constant or decreases rather than increases with nutrient enrichment. In our study with eliminated lysis effects, the bacterial abundance positively responded to a gradient of glucose addition (Fig. 1) and revealed a pattern that differed from those experiments which had no reduction in viruses (Kirchman, 1990; Kirchman & Rich, 1997; Eilers et al., 2000; Kirchman et al., 2000). Nevertheless, further investigation with both reduced and normal viral population is necessary to elucidate the effects of viruses on the response of bacterioplankton to nutrient manipulation. Furthermore, the presence and absence of viruses could also affect bacterial production. Middelboe & Lyck (2002) note elevated bacterial production in virus reduction treatments as compared with the control normal viral concentration. However, other studies show inconsistent effects of viruses on bacterial production (Middelboe et al., 1996; Noble & Fuhrman, 1999; Weinbauer et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007). Similar to the effects of viruses on bacterial abundance, on the one hand, viruses could

reduce bacterial production via the lysis of infected cells and, on the other hand, stimulate the other (both infected and noninfected) cells by releasing the nutrients and organic materials from the lysed cells. The balance between these two contributions could result in variable apparent effects of nutrient addition on bacterial production. In addition, it is generally accepted that viruses shape the bacterial community structure by host-specific infection (Wommack & Colwell, 2000; Zhang et al., 2007). Consequently, in an experimental setup with viruses present, changes in bacterial community structure would not be the pure response of the bacterial community to nutrient addition. Thus, using the approach of viral lysis reduction, as applied in our present study, the dynamics of bacterial community structure should reflect only the competition among the bacterial groups.

## Bacterial responses to glucose addition without lysis and predation

In our study, extra N and P were added to eliminate the limiting effect of their deficiencies during the 3-day incubation. Nutrient monitoring showed that they were not limited in most of the incubations during the study period (Fig. S2), however, except for two treatments with the highest glucose addition (G12 in both batches of microcosm). The deficiency in N might be a cause of the sharp decrease in the bacterial productions in both G12 microcosms after Day 2 (Fig. 3). Theoretically, the abundance and production in G12 of Batch 2 should be sustainable at a certain level on Day 2 and 3 because a new dose of glucose was added every day to replenish the carbon source. The decrease in production observed in
the later days, resembling the trend in G12 of Batch 1, indicated the presence of a limiting factor on growth but this case was due to N deficiency and not carbon. Nonetheless, disregarding these two microcosms, results in the other microcosms were still valid with respect to their sufficient N and P, and a positive response of bacterial abundance toward the carbon gradient was successfully revealed.

In our observations, a higher carbon source stimulated both the maximum [³H] leucine incorporation and the bacterial abundance (Fig. 2). However, the stimulatory effects were different for bacterial production and abundance. The increase in the maximum bacterial abundance in G9–G11 (60–100 µM glucose addition) was distinct, while the increase in maximum bacterial production in the same treatments was moderate (Fig. 2). This suggested that in the relatively carbon-rich situation, bacteria increase their population size (via fast cell dividing) rather than their biomass (via fast carbon incorporation). Bacterial volume in G9–G11 was similar to that in the treatments with low glucose addition (data not shown). However, in the G12 microcosm (1000 µM glucose addition), a contrasting pattern between the maximum bacterial production and abundance was observed (Fig. 2). In addition, bacterial cells in G12 showed the largest volume compared to other treatments (data not shown) and were regarded as bacterial populations with higher protein and DNA content (Lebaron *et al.*, 1999; Eilers *et al.*, 2000). This indicated that when the nutrient supply is far beyond their requirement, the bacterial growth strategy seems to shift to increase their cell size with a high carbon incorporation rate.

There is growing evidence showing that the ecological behaviur of microorganisms is similar to those of macro-organisms. Biogeographical patterns, species-area relationships, and diversity-productivity patterns are confirmed for microbial communities (Bell *et al.*, 2005; Martiny *et al.*, 2006; Smith, 2007). The typical microbial diversity-productivity relationship in aquatic ecosystems includes random/flat, positive, negative, humped, and U-shaped patterns. A meta-analysis study shows that humped diversity-productivity patterns, in which diversity peaked at intermediate productivity levels, account for 15% and 23% of the total diversity-productivity patterns which occurred in experimental and natural systems, respectively (Smith, 2007). It is hypothesized that the narrow range of productivity in available studies should be one of the reasons leading to an observation of a positive or negative diversity-productivity curve, which is only part of a complete unimodal curve (Horner-Devine *et al.*, 2003; Smith, 2007). In our study, the productivity, defined as the concentration of glucose availability, spanned three orders of magnitude, and a clear unimodal humped diversity-

productivity curve was observed. In addition, based on the above discussion, it is also possible that in those diversity-productivity investigations within natural environments, top-down effects from viruses disturb the apparent diversity-productivity pattern of the bacterioplankton (Horner-Devine *et al.*, 2003; Smith, 2007). Considering our incubation system with its single trophic level and without spatial scale difference, top-down controlling factor, community assembly history difference, or niche specialization, our observation suggested that species interactions among bacterioplankton generate and maintain a humped diversity-productivity pattern.

The bacterial community structure changed along the glucose gradient indicating that specific bacterial groups had a different efficiency for DOM utilization. Due to their capability of higher growth rate, faster response to nutrients, and better assimilation of carbon sources, some lineages of *Gammaproteobacteria* are regarded as opportunists and have been repeatedly observed in nutrient addition experiments using both culture-dependent and culture-independent techniques (e.g. Lebaron *et al.*, 1999; Eilers *et al.*, 2000; Massana *et al.*, 2001; Pinhassi & Berman, 2003). Among them, *Vibrio* and *Alteromonas* were the most frequently found lineages after incubation, and this was consistent with our results. However, our study further showed that different *Gammaproteobacteria* lineages responded differently to the glucose addition gradient. In our incubation experiment, *Vibrio* spp. might have had a stronger ability to use single carbohydrates than *Alteromonadaceae* spp. as shown by the gradual increase in their relative abundance along the gradient of glucose addition up to 1000 µM (Fig. 3). This could be a reason why they are the bacteria most often isolated in marine environments.

Several studies suggest that the fast growth of opportunists in micro- and mesocosm incubations might result from the experimental setup such as dilution, filtration, and confinement (Ferguson *et al.*, 1984; Eilers *et al.*, 2000; Fuchs *et al.*, 2000). However, our data indicated that these interferences might be negligible compared to those of glucose addition. There was clear difference in the presence and relative abundance of specific OTUs between the controls and the nutrient-added treatments, especially in high glucose additions (Fig. 3). This pattern should be the result of the gradient of nutrient addition rather than experimental confinement.

In summary, using a virus reduction assay, our study investigated the responses of marine bacterioplankton to a large range of DOC (glucose) manipulation. Without the disturbance of top-down factors, bacterioplankton displayed different life strategies under different DOC supply. A glucose concentration-dependent bacterial community change resulted in a clear humped diversity-
productivity relationship, which should be due to the
bacterial species competition for DOC. In addition, our
study highlighted the application of virus reduction tech-
nique in microbial ecology studies.

Acknowledgements

We thank Lisa SOO for her help during the experimental
setup and sampling. Rui Zhang was supported by NCET
project (09-0683) and the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities (2011121012). Prof. John
Hodgkiss of The University of Hong Kong is thanked for
his assistance with English.

Authors' contribution

R.Z. and M.G.W. contributed equally to this work.

References

Agawin NSR, Duarte CM, Agusti S & Vaque D (2004) Effect of N:P ratios on response of Mediterranean picophytoplankton to experimental nutrient inputs. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **34**: 57–67.

Azam F, Fenchel T, Field JG, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA &  
Thingstad F (1983) The ecological role of water-column  
microbes in the sea. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* **10**: 257–263.

Bell T, Ager D, Song JI, Newman JA, Thompson IP, Lilley AK & van der Gast CJ (2005) Larger islands house more bacterial taxa. *Science* **308**: 1884.

Carlson CA, Giovannoni SJ, Hansell DA, Goldberg SJ, Parsons R, Otero MP, Vergin K & Wheeler BR (2002) Effect of nutrient amendments on bacterioplankton production, community structure, and DOC utilization in the northwestern Sargasso Sea. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **30**: 19–36.

Caron DA, Lim EL, Sanders RW, Dennett MR & Berninger
UG (2000) Responses of bacterioplankton and
phytoplankton to organic carbon and inorganic nutrient
additions in contrasting oceanic ecosystems. *Aquat Microb
Ecol* **22**: 175–184.

Cherrier J, Bauer JE & Druffel ERM (1996) Utilization and turnover of labile dissolved organic matter by bacterial heterotrophs in eastern North Pacific surface waters. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* **139**: 267–279.

Eilers H, Pernthaler J & Amann R (2000) Succession of pelagic marine bacteria during enrichment: a close look at cultivation-induced shifts. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **66**: 4634–4640.

Ferguson RL, Buckley EN & Palumbo AV (1984) Response of marine bacterioplankton to differential filtration and confinement. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **47**: 49–55.

Fuchs BM, Zubkov MV, Sahm K, Burkill PH & Amann R (2000) Changes in community composition during dilution cultures of marine bacterioplankton as assessed by flow cytometric and molecular biological techniques. *Environ Microbiol* **2**: 191–201.

Fuhrman JA (1999) Marine viruses and their biogeochemical and ecological effects. *Nature* **399**: 541–548.

Horner-Devine MC, Leibold MA, Smith VH & Bohannan BJ (2003) Bacterial diversity patterns along a gradient of primary productivity. *Ecol Lett* **6**: 613–622.

Jiao N, Herndl GJ, Hansell DA *et al*. (2010) Microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter: long-term carbon storage in the global ocean. *Nat Rev Microbiol* **8**: 593–599.

Kirchman DL (1990) Limitation of bacterial growth by dissolved organic matter in the subarctic Pacific. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* **62**: 47–54.

Kirchman DL & Rich JH (1997) Regulation of bacterial growth rates by dissolved organic carbon and temperature in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. *Microb Ecol* **33**: 11–20.

Kirchman D, K'Nees E & Hodson R (1985) Leucine incorporation and its potential as a measure of protein synthesis by bacteria in natural aquatic systems. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **49**: 599–607.

Kirchman DL, Meon B, Cottrell MT, Hutchins DA, Weeks D & Bruland KW (2000) Carbon versus iron limitation of bacterial growth in the California upwelling regime. *Limnol Oceanogr* **45**: 1681–1688.

Lebaron P, Servais P, Troussellier M, Courties C, Vives-Rego J, Muyzer G, Bernard L, Guindulain T, Schäfer H & Stackebrandt E (1999) Changes in bacterial community structure in seawater mesocosms differing in their nutrient status. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **19**: 255–267.

Martiny JBH, Bohannan BJM, Brown JH, Colwell RK, Fuhrman JA, Green JL, Horner-Devine MC, Kane M, Krumins JA & Kuske CR (2006) Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map. *Nat Rev Microbiol* **4**: 102–112.

Massana R, Pedros-Alio C, Casamayor EO & Gasol JM (2001) Changes in marine bacterioplankton phylogenetic composition during incubations designed to measure biogeochemically significant parameters. *Limnol Oceanogr* **46**: 1181–1188.

Middelboe M & Lyck PG (2002) Regeneration of dissolved organic matter by viral lysis in marine microbial communities. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **27**: 187–194.

Middelboe M, Jorgensen N & Kroer N (1996) Effects of viruses on nutrient turnover and growth efficiency of noninfected marine bacterioplankton. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **62**: 1991–1997.

Motegi C & Nagata T (2007) Enhancement of viral production by addition of nitrogen or nitrogen plus carbon in subtropical surface waters of the South Pacific. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **48**: 27.

Murray AG & Jackson GA (1992) Viral dynamics: a model of the effects of size, shape, motion and abundance of single-celled planktonic organisms and other particles. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* **89**: 103–116.

Noble RT & Fuhrman JA (1998) Use of SYBR Green I for rapid epifluorescence counts of marine viruses and bacteria. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **14**: 113–118.
Noble RT & Fuhrman JA (1999) Breakdown and microbial
uptake of marine viruses and other lysis products. *Aquat
Microb Ecol* **20**: 1–11.

Pinhassi J & Berman T (2003) Differential growth response of colony-forming α- and γ-Proteobacteria in dilution culture and nutrient addition experiments from Lake Kinneret (Israel), the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, and the Gulf of Eilat. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **69**: 199.

Rivkin RB & Anderson MR (1997) Inorganic nutrient limitation of oceanic bacterioplankton. *Limnol Oceanogr* **42**: 730–740.

Sandaa RA, Gómez-Consarnau L, Pinhassi J, Riemann L, Malits A, Weinbauer MG, Gasol JM & Thingstad TF (2009) Viral control of bacterial biodiversity-evidence from a nutrient-enriched marine mesocosm experiment. *Environ Microbiol* **11**: 2585–2597.

Šimek K, Weinbauer MG, Hornák K, Jezbera J, Nedoma J & Dolan JR (2007) Grazer and virus-induced mortality of bacterioplankton accelerates development of *Flectobacillus* populations in a freshwater community. *Environ Microbiol* **9**: 789–800.

Skoog A, Whitehead K, Sperling F & Junge K (2002) Microbial glucose uptake and growth along a horizontal nutrient gradient in the North Pacific. *Limnol Oceanogr* **47**: 1676–1683.

Smith VH (2007) Microbial diversity–productivity relationships in aquatic ecosystems. *FEMS Microbiol Ecol* **62**: 181–186.

Thingstad TF & Lignell R (1997) Theoretical models for the control of bacterial growth rate, abundance, diversity and carbon demand. *Aquat Microb Ecol* **13**: 19–27.

Weinbauer MG (2004) Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. *FEMS Microbiol Rev* **28**: 127–181.

Weinbauer MG, Christaki U, Nedoma J & Simek K (2003)
Comparing the effects of resource enrichment and grazing
on viral production in a meso-eutrophic reservoir. *Aquat
Microb Ecol* **31**: 137–144.

Weinbauer MG, Hornak K, Jezbera J, Nedoma J, Dolan JR & Simek K (2007) Synergistic and antagonistic effects of viral lysis and protistan grazing on bacterial biomass, production and diversity. *Environ Microbiol* **9**: 777–788.

Williams PJB (2000) Heterotrophic bacteria and the dynamics of dissolved organic material. *Microbial Ecology of the Oceans* (Kirchman DL, ed), pp. 153–200. Wiley-Liss, New York.

Wilson WH, Turner S & Mann NH (1998) Population dynamics of phytoplankton and viruses in a phosphate-limited mesocosm and their effect on DMSP and DMS production. *Estuar Coast Shelf Sci* **46**: 49–59.

Winter C, Smit A, Herndl GJ & Weinbauer MG (2004) Impact of virioplankton on archaeal and bacterial community richness as assessed in seawater batch cultures. *Appl Environ Microbiol* **70**: 804–813.

Wommack KE & Colwell RR (2000) Virioplankton: viruses in aquatic ecosystems. *Microbiol Mol Biol Rev* **64**: 69–114.

Zhang R, Weinbauer MG & Qian PY (2007) Viruses and flagellates sustain apparent richness and reduce biomass accumulation of bacterioplankton in coastal marine waters. *Environ Microbiol* **9**: 3008–3018.

Zhang R, Thiyagarajan V & Qian P-Y (2008) Evaluation of terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis in contrasting marine environments. *FEMS Microbiol Ecol* **65**: 169–178.

Zhang R, Lau SC, Ki JS, Thiyagarajan V & Qian PY (2009) Response of bacterioplankton community structures to hydrological conditions and anthropogenic pollution in contrasting subtropical environments. *FEMS Microbiol Ecol* **69**: 449–460.

**Supporting Information**

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:

Fig. S1. Time course changes of viral abundance to gradi-
ent glucose addition during the 3-day incubation.

Fig. S2. Time course changes of nutrient concentration during 3-day incubation.

Fig. S3. T-RFLP pattern of bacterial community structure in Batch 1 microcosms after 3 day’s incubation.